#12 Matt Scharenberg
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dalyc 
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Proud Pies wrote: | Josh Thomas is an example. We recruited him and his first season he didn't play VFL til about June as he had surgery on both his shins. It was something we knew would need to be done and we recruited him anyway.
I for one am glad we did. |
We didn't use pick 6 on josh.
And if we have to wait 3 years to see shazza then i think we'd all conclude using 6 was a mistake.
That said, let's hope we see him this year
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money. |
And this is a wonderful policy when you have pick 65 because there is no down side (the regular 65th pick is unlikely to make it wo a lfawed genius that you might turn around is a good strategy). Sometimes simply picking the sixth best player in the country (and minimizing injury downside) is the best use of the 6th pick. I will never forgive Judkins for trying to outsmart the country by passing on the chance to take a known quanitity like Haselby or Pavlich (which is who we would have been choosing between had we kept the three pick - Freo took Haselby at 2 and left Pavlich for 4 because they knew Richmond were looking for a midfielder - if we were there at 2 i suspect they would have taken Pavlich).
With that said, i agree that it is simply not even worth debating the merits of taking a player at number 6 becasue he is not a star in round 1. I wonder how well the other top 10 draft picks went this weekend????? Its a silly exercise and only worth debating two years in.
I actually remember us all being very upset in the first few weeks of Pendlebury's time as a magpie because he didn't show much early.....
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money. |
I think Hine watches Moneyball every morning before breakfast. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money. |
And this is a wonderful policy when you have pick 65 because there is no down side (the regular 65th pick is unlikely to make it so a flawed or injured genius that you might turn around or might come good is well worth the downside risk).
However, the 6th pick is different. In that case, i believe that simply picking the sixth best player in the country (and minimizing injury downside) is the best use of the 6th pick. I will never forgive Judkins for trying to outsmart the country by passing on the chance to take a known quanitity like Haselby or Pavlich (which is who we would have been choosing between had we kept the three pick - Freo took Haselby at 2 and left Pavlich for 4 because they knew Richmond were looking for a midfielder - if we were there at 3 i suspect they would have taken Pavlich).
With that said, i agree that it is simply not even worth debating the merits of taking a player at number 6 becasue he is not a star in round 1. I wonder how well the other top 10 draft picks went this weekend????? Its a silly exercise and only worth debating two years in.
I actually remember us all being very upset in the first few weeks of Pendlebury's time as a magpie because he didn't show much early..... |
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
MOTR
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Proud Pies wrote: | Josh Thomas is an example. We recruited him and his first season he didn't play VFL til about June as he had surgery on both his shins. It was something we knew would need to be done and we recruited him anyway.
I for one am glad we did. |
I can't stand Josh Thomas, one of the most unfunny comedians I've ever seen. "Look at me, I'm gay" isn't a $£$%^%%$ JOKE you douchebag.
oh... the other Josh Thomas, carry on.  |
Just because the joke didn't work for you, Wokko, don't take it out on Josh Thomas. It might have been your delivery.
_________________
Be Staunch, Be Proud, Be Collingwood |
|
|
|
|
MOTR
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: Re: Scharenberg - regrets? | |
|
The article doesn't make it clear where the concerns are coming from. Perhaps it's the clubs who baulked that are having regrets they weren't better informed on the day.
_________________
Be Staunch, Be Proud, Be Collingwood |
|
|
|
|
MJ23
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Location: Sydney
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Proud Pies wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | | Proud Pies wrote: | Josh Thomas is an example. We recruited him and his first season he didn't play VFL til about June as he had surgery on both his shins. It was something we knew would need to be done and we recruited him anyway.
I for one am glad we did. |
I can't stand Josh Thomas, one of the most unfunny comedians I've ever seen. "Look at me, I'm gay" isn't a $£$%^%%$ JOKE you douchebag.
oh... the other Josh Thomas, carry on. |
ooooooooo I did snicker |
Thankyou, first chuckle for the day
_________________
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan |
|
|
|
|
dalyc
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Post subject: Re: Scharenberg - regrets? | |
|
| MOTR wrote: |
The article doesn't make it clear where the concerns are coming from. Perhaps it's the clubs who baulked that are having regrets they weren't better informed on the day. |
Yes, that's a possibility too
_________________
Four legged animals good, two legged animals better |
|
|
|
|
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money. |
And this is a wonderful policy when you have pick 65 because there is no down side (the regular 65th pick is unlikely to make it wo a lfawed genius that you might turn around is a good strategy). Sometimes simply picking the sixth best player in the country (and minimizing injury downside) is the best use of the 6th pick. I will never forgive Judkins for trying to outsmart the country by passing on the chance to take a known quanitity like Haselby or Pavlich (which is who we would have been choosing between had we kept the three pick - Freo took Haselby at 2 and left Pavlich for 4 because they knew Richmond were looking for a midfielder - if we were there at 2 i suspect they would have taken Pavlich).
With that said, i agree that it is simply not even worth debating the merits of taking a player at number 6 becasue he is not a star in round 1. I wonder how well the other top 10 draft picks went this weekend????? Its a silly exercise and only worth debating two years in.
I actually remember us all being very upset in the first few weeks of Pendlebury's time as a magpie because he didn't show much early..... |
1/ Boyd - 4 goals in GWS reserves
2/ Kelly - GWS reserves
3/ Billings - Saints sub, missed a goal with first kick from 10m out
4/ Bontompelli - WB reserves
5/ KK - GCS reserves, but picked up 52 touches a week prior in reserves
6/ Scharenberg
On the back of one round of AFL football, I think we are clearly ahead….with pick 65 Tom Langdon's senior debut with 24 possessions!
_________________
One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Albert Parker wrote: |
1/ Boyd - 4 goals in GWS reserves
2/ Kelly - GWS reserves
3/ Billings - Saints sub, missed a goal with first kick from 10m out
4/ Bontompelli - WB reserves
5/ KK - GCS reserves, but picked up 52 touches a week prior in reserves
6/ Scharenberg
On the back of one round of AFL football, I think we are clearly ahead….with pick 65 Tom Langdon's senior debut with 24 possessions! |
Happy to be quoted in the future. I'm 100% confident and KNOW that Shazza will be an absolute bloody gun for the pies... |
|
|
|
|
Stinger
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Albert Parker wrote: | | E wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | We consistently pick players with a flaw. It's Hine trademark: he has picked a lot of high-quality midgets; young Reid who looked promising but had to stand up twice to cast a shadow; Grundy under an injury cloud; Brown with a dud knee; Scarenberg with dodgy feet; Thomas with shin troubles, and so on. This is a deliberate policy, by the look of things. Hine takes the long-term view, he doesn't care what a player in the 2014 draft will do in 2015, he cares about what he will do in 2017 and 2020. He also knows that every other list manager has looked at every other player in the top 60 or 80, so to get value from his picks he goes looking for mistakes, especially looking for players they have under-valued because of some visible flaw that, in the longer-term, Hine reckons might not matter too much.
So, really, this is just more of the same policy we have been seeing for years. Which is better? (a) A potential good player in good shape? Or (b) potential great player with an injury? Player (a) is the sort who will get you into the final eight if all goes well. Player (b) is the sort who, if it works out, will win you premierships. There is some risk. Yep. No risk, no gain - and Hine is a master at calculating the risks and betting with the smart money. |
And this is a wonderful policy when you have pick 65 because there is no down side (the regular 65th pick is unlikely to make it wo a lfawed genius that you might turn around is a good strategy). Sometimes simply picking the sixth best player in the country (and minimizing injury downside) is the best use of the 6th pick. I will never forgive Judkins for trying to outsmart the country by passing on the chance to take a known quanitity like Haselby or Pavlich (which is who we would have been choosing between had we kept the three pick - Freo took Haselby at 2 and left Pavlich for 4 because they knew Richmond were looking for a midfielder - if we were there at 2 i suspect they would have taken Pavlich).
With that said, i agree that it is simply not even worth debating the merits of taking a player at number 6 becasue he is not a star in round 1. I wonder how well the other top 10 draft picks went this weekend????? Its a silly exercise and only worth debating two years in.
I actually remember us all being very upset in the first few weeks of Pendlebury's time as a magpie because he didn't show much early..... |
1/ Boyd - 4 goals in GWS reserves
2/ Kelly - GWS reserves
3/ Billings - Saints sub, missed a goal with first kick from 10m out
4/ Bontompelli - WB reserves
5/ KK - GCS reserves, but picked up 52 touches a week prior in reserves
6/ Scharenberg
On the back of one round of AFL football, I think we are clearly ahead….with pick 65 Tom Langdon's senior debut with 24 possessions! |
You can throw Jack Martin into that list too - Screwed AC Joint
Luke Dunstan StK (1 looked pretty good |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| A young up and coming Ruckman by the name of Brodie Grundy missed a huge whack of football as well. Cemented the number 1 ruck spot by the end of the year. I wouldn't be worried about Scharenberg just yet. You don't often draft a ready to go player that high in the draft. |
|
|
|
|
woftam 
I used to be undecided, but now I'm not so sure.
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Carum Downs, Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Not worried about him at all. Our guys knew his feet issues before drafting him & said they were extremely confident that he would be able to get on top of it. They tried just rest first & after he resumed with some pain still there, they bit the bullet & performed a similar operation to that of Josh Thomas. Thomas's feet have been fine since. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | A young up and coming Ruckman by the name of Brodie Grundy missed a huge whack of football as well. Cemented the number 1 ruck spot by the end of the year. I wouldn't be worried about Scharenberg just yet. You don't often draft a ready to go player that high in the draft. |
A few years ago, a young magpie named Dawes missed a fair bit of his first season and ended up being a premiership player....  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
