Review Cats drown Hawks by 36 points in Tommas 350

[dazbroncos]

Re Mullin..

His best game to date?.....Yes...I thought so too...

He is VERY quick....

And dense… solid bloke that one.

Go Catters

 

[Footy Smarts]

Yeah, exactly. People are seeing that he is 5'7 and immediately writing him off as a small goalsneak at best.

I know size is a massive advantage in footy (speaking as someone who is the same height as Watson), but the kid has already shown that he can win the footy and he's creative with it.

I think his lack of creativity and explosiveness is one of the really surprising aspects and makes me wonder why he was picked so early.

You look at guys like Rankine and Pickett who were early picked small forwards and from day 1 they looked incredibly athletically explosive and did freakish things that you rarely see. Bobby Hill was similar in that he didn't rack up big numbers early but did the odd unbelievable thing.

In comparison Watson is pretty straight lines and vanilla so far. He gets to nice places but he doesn't have a step on him like Rankine, Pickett, Cameron, etc. His kicking technique also looks only ok rather than elite like a Stengle.

To me he looks like a type you take at pick 20 once you're really stretching to find anyone who could be elite. Cause I don't think he can be. The absolute best player of his type I think is Papley but he could easily be a Jack Higgins or Dylan Moore type. Handy players but they don't move the needle on a team.

 

[dazbroncos]

Let’s keep the Betts discussion out of this thread.. don’t need it

Go Catters

 

[Hinkley29]

Easily

Out of the top 7 in that draft, Deledio, Buddy, Roughead, griffen and Lewis all had better careers than Eddie. Tom Williams would have if not for injuries and Tambling just went to the wrong team. Tambling is a great example of what happens to prospects who are drafted into the wrong environment and it kills their career. Tambling likely would have had a better career than Eddie if he was drafted to Hawthorn and not Richmond. Richmond were a rabble, he had no chance.

 

[Hinkley29]

Yeah, exactly. People are seeing that he is 5'7 and immediately writing him off as a small goalsneak at best.

I know size is a massive advantage in footy (speaking as someone who is the same height as Watson), but the kid has already shown that he can win the footy and he's creative with it.

At his height he can only play small forward (or link player, think the miers role) or back half distributor who doesn’t have to defend.

That is it, there are no other options.

I can’t think of a single precedent of a player his height doing anything else. If he plays mid he will get monstered around the stoppages, if he plays in defence (as a defender) he has no chance in aerial contests and will get exposed by any well coached team.

He will need to be a once in a lifetime player to be able to justify his draft position. His margin for error is tiny, and is just too risky for me.

5 years ago he might have struggled to even get drafted.

 

[Hinkley29]

Let’s keep the Betts discussion out of this thread.. don’t need it

Go Catters

Gday Daz - not trying to be disrespectful, you know that I am super appreciate of the job our mods do - but I need to ask why we can’t discuss betts here? The discussion about the hawthorn game is pretty much done and in my opinion the Betts tangent is an interesting rabbit hole to go down.

One of the best things about bigfooty is the weird places that threads end up, I really like the organic way these things develop.

Completely understand that this might create a bit of chaos and you guys are trying to herd cats at times. I guess it is a catch 22 situation - you maybe lose some interesting discussions, but if you let the inmates run the asylum or it would be anarchy.

Just my 2c, cheers.

 

[cats_09]

Out of the top 7 in that draft, Deledio, Buddy, Roughead, griffen and Lewis all had better careers than Eddie. Tom Williams would have if not for injuries and Tambling just went to the wrong team. Tambling is a great example of what happens to prospects who are drafted into the wrong environment and it kills their career. Tambling likely would have had a better career than Eddie if he was drafted to Hawthorn and not Richmond. Richmond were a rabble, he had no chance.

Trying to not take this off topic too much more, but these were rookie picks in 2004 - upon reflection how many would instead be picked up in the ND:

• pick 7, Josh Gibson (225 games)
• pick 16, Danyle Pearce (256)
• pick 19, Dale Morris (253)
• pick 20, Heritier Lumumba (223)
• pick 39, Ryan Crowley (196)
• pick 42, Heath Grundy (256)

Or let's look at a later ND pick, Mark Lecras was taken pick 37 - he had a pretty good career and if he played out east rather than for WCE, I think he'd be rates higher than he is

I know he didn't have the longevity of Betts, but he's career averages stacks up pretty well against him

 

[iameviljez]

At his height he can only play small forward (or link player, think the miers role) or back half distributor who doesn’t have to defend.

That is it, there are no other options.

Yes, and no - Shai Bolton and Michael Walters are only 5cm taller. Gulden, Zorko and Prestia are only 4cm taller.

They are all absolute matchwinners and all of the above players are worth p5.

Yes, most of them play slightly forward of the ball, but Prestia and Gulden both show that it's not impossible for them to win the contested footy.

Watson wasn't exactly a draft bolter, either - he was slated for that pick five for ages, so I'd suggest that he clearly has something special.

 

[Hinkley29]

Trying to not take this off topic too much more, but these were rookie picks in 2004 - upon reflection how many would instead be picked up in the ND:

• pick 7, Josh Gibson (225 games)
• pick 16, Danyle Pearce (256)
• pick 19, Dale Morris (253)
• pick 20, Heritier Lumumba (223)
• pick 39, Ryan Crowley (196)
• pick 42, Heath Grundy (256)

Or let's look at a later ND pick, Mark Lecras was taken pick 37 - he had a pretty good career and if he played out east rather than for WCE, I think he'd be rates higher than he is

I know he didn't have the longevity of Betts, but he's career averages stacks up pretty well against him

View attachment 1949229

I don’t think it is controversial at all to say that Lecras was a better player than Betts. Eddie’s highlight reel was better, and I would pay more to watch him play, but if you are trying to win a flag then Lecras is the obvious choice.

 

[iameviljez]

Out of the top 7 in that draft, Deledio, Buddy, Roughead, griffen and Lewis all had better careers than Eddie.

I disagree on Deledio and Lewis. They were good ball users and played their part well, but weren't unique and special like Eddie Betts.

There are two extremely rare and valuable skills in football - contested marking, and kicking goals. Players who can kick bags are absolutely irreplaceable.

The guy kicked 75 goals in a season (including finals) in the 2010s, a notoriously difficult era for big bags. That puts him in extremely rarefied air - it's probably equivalent to Daicos kicking 97 goals in 1990. As good as Lewis and Deledio were, they could not do that.

 

[iameviljez]

I don’t think it is controversial at all to say that Lecras was a better player than Betts. Eddie’s highlight reel was better, and I would pay more to watch him play, but if you are trying to win a flag then Lecras is the obvious choice.

I disagree overall. However, it's difficult to compare their careers in a couple of ways -

• LeCras faced a number of injuries, Eddie was durable
• Eddie probably played on a few seasons too many
• With the exception of that 2009 side, LeCras played in strong teams. Eddie, barring that period of 2015-17, played in crap-to-ordinary teams for most of his career.
• LeCras was very good from the start. Eddie, being a rookie pick in a shocking Carlton side, took a few years to get going.

 

[Hinkley29]

Yes, and no - Shai Bolton and Michael Walters are only 5cm taller. Gulden, Zorko and Prestia are only 4cm taller.

They are all absolute matchwinners and all of the above players are worth p5.

Yes, most of them play slightly forward of the ball, but Prestia and Gulden both show that it's not impossible for them to win the contested footy.

Watson wasn't exactly a draft bolter, either - he was slated for that pick five for ages, so I'd suggest that he clearly has something special.

I know it sounds pedantic, but 5cm is actually a big difference. It is the difference between having a fighting chance at stoppages or winning contested ball inside 50 and being monstered by a normal sized opponent.

Here’s how I look at it: if you are picking 5th, you want to draft a player that you build a successful team around. A foundation type player. A 200 game centre bounce mid, a 150-200 game key position player, or a top-level utility player. These are foundation players for successful teams.

Small forwards, backline distributors (and to a less extent wingers) are complementary players. And history shows that you can strategically acquire these secondary players when needed. Think Isaac Smith, Charlie Cameron, Bobby Hill, etc.

 

[Vivy]

If you're going to be short in the AFL you need strength and/or pace in abundance. I've only seen him once in person but Watson was extremely small and didn't look to have either of those traits above and beyond average.

I'd want my pick 5 forward to be able to consistently win 1v1 contests in the forward 50. I personally don't see it (yet)

 

[Hinkley29]

I disagree on Deledio and Lewis. They were good ball users and played their part well, but weren't unique and special like Eddie Betts.

There are two extremely rare and valuable skills in football - contested marking, and kicking goals. Players who can kick bags are absolutely irreplaceable.

The guy kicked 75 goals in a season (including finals) in the 2010s, a notoriously difficult era for big bags. That puts him in extremely rarefied air - it's probably equivalent to Daicos kicking 97 goals in 1990. As good as Lewis and Deledio were, they could not do that.

I think you are looking at Betts career through rose coloured glasses. His goal numbers are very good, but this is largely a function of his longevity.

his greatest strength really was his durability. He played 350 games and averaged almost 21 games per season - that is remarkable. I really value durability as a highly underrated skill. The most important ability is availability.

Having said all that, Betts was a complementary player who was available to Adelaide for free when they decided they were ready to contend.

 

[Hinkley29]

I disagree on Deledio and Lewis. They were good ball users and played their part well, but weren't unique and special like Eddie Betts.

There are two extremely rare and valuable skills in football - contested marking, and kicking goals. Players who can kick bags are absolutely irreplaceable.

The guy kicked 75 goals in a season (including finals) in the 2010s, a notoriously difficult era for big bags. That puts him in extremely rarefied air - it's probably equivalent to Daicos kicking 97 goals in 1990. As good as Lewis and Deledio were, they could not do that.

You can paint the picture in many different ways. Betts averaged 1.83 goals per game (admittedly over many, many games) which is good for a small forward. But he also averaged less than 7.5 kicks per game and right on 12 disposals per game which is poor for any player under 200cm tall.

He did have a great highlight reel though and I am a sucker for the entertainers.

 

[Willo_]

Look i don't know enough about him other than he kicked a mountain of goals in the under 18s, but as he is a Hawthorn I hope he is an absolute bust for them

 

[iameviljez]

You can paint the picture in many different ways. Betts averaged 1.83 goals per game (admittedly over many, many games) which is good for a small forward. But he also averaged less than 7.5 kicks per game and right on 12 disposals per game which is poor for any player under 200cm tall.

He did have a great highlight reel though and I am a sucker for the entertainers.

I think the averages don’t do him justice, he took a while to get going in a shocking team, and then played three years too long.

 

[Hinkley29]

I think the averages don’t do him justice, he took a while to get going in a shocking team, and then played three years too long.

But his longevity and total goals are one of the most impressive parts of his record. You can’t just disregard the 130ish games at the start and end of his career and say “if you just look at the prime of his career he was great”. You could argue that for every player who has a 10 year career and make them look great.

 

[year of the cat]

I think his lack of creativity and explosiveness is one of the really surprising aspects and makes me wonder why he was picked so early.

You look at guys like Rankine and Pickett who were early picked small forwards and from day 1 they looked incredibly athletically explosive and did freakish things that you rarely see. Bobby Hill was similar in that he didn't rack up big numbers early but did the odd unbelievable thing.

In comparison Watson is pretty straight lines and vanilla so far. He gets to nice places but he doesn't have a step on him like Rankine, Pickett, Cameron, etc. His kicking technique also looks only ok rather than elite like a Stengle.

To me he looks like a type you take at pick 20 once you're really stretching to find anyone who could be elite. Cause I don't think he can be. The absolute best player of his type I think is Papley but he could easily be a Jack Higgins or Dylan Moore type. Handy players but they don't move the needle on a team.

Did you see him play any junior footy? Vanilla should be the last adjective to describe him.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

It's a passive-aggressive gesture motioned by a player after they've kicked a goal, to a crowd that has been particularly vocal, either towards that individual player, or simply directed to their team in general.

Its usage is intended to convey directly to the crowd that it has been silenced. It would be most appropriately used to legitimise a tangible shift of momentum in the game.

What makes this particular incident comical is that the Hawks were still five-goals down, and despite getting close at stages throughout the game, in general the Hawks just never looked like threatening.

Thank you for explaining
I thought it was ridiculous

 

[Footy Smarts]

Did you see him play any junior footy? Vanilla should be the last adjective to describe him.

No I don't watch junior footy. My comment is that at the moment he looks vanilla for a small forward at AFL level which is the least vanilla position on the ground.

I just thought a top 5 small forward would have some epic wow factor as soon as I watched him. Rankine had that. Pickett had that. Watson I don't see it. Everything about him looks decent but not exceptional. Nothing has wowed me yet. Which would be fine except that at his size he needs some exceptional talents to be more than just an ok player at the level.

 

[kickazz]

What’s the shoosh meant to mean? Baffles me + looks dumb.

Usually done by soccer players who score a goal the equalises or gets the lead in an away game - as in "that shut you up" to the crowd. So made little sense in this context.

 

[Mr Meow]

Yeah, exactly. People are seeing that he is 5'7 and immediately writing him off as a small goalsneak at best.

I know size is a massive advantage in footy (speaking as someone who is the same height as Watson), but the kid has already shown that he can win the footy and he's creative with it.

He's certainly hungry for goals so far but is spraying a lot of efforts.

Yet to really see a lot of useful link up play with his teammates yet. He needs to take a leaf out of Dempsey's book.

 

[year of the cat]

No I don't watch junior footy. My comment is that at the moment he looks vanilla for a small forward at AFL level which is the least vanilla position on the ground.

I just thought a top 5 small forward would have some epic wow factor as soon as I watched him. Rankine had that. Pickett had that. Watson I don't see it. Everything about him looks decent but not exceptional. Nothing has wowed me yet. Which would be fine except that at his size he needs some exceptional talents to be more than just an ok player at the level.

Give him more than 3 games. I've seen a fair bot of him live over the past 2 years and he has x factor in spades. But even I'm wondering whether his physical limitations may hinder his ability to make it at AFL level. I think that in a better team he'd likely stand out more than perhaps he has so far.

 

[BORIS332]

I think his lack of creativity and explosiveness is one of the really surprising aspects and makes me wonder why he was picked so early.

You look at guys like Rankine and Pickett who were early picked small forwards and from day 1 they looked incredibly athletically explosive and did freakish things that you rarely see. Bobby Hill was similar in that he didn't rack up big numbers early but did the odd unbelievable thing.

In comparison Watson is pretty straight lines and vanilla so far. He gets to nice places but he doesn't have a step on him like Rankine, Pickett, Cameron, etc. His kicking technique also looks only ok rather than elite like a Stengle.

To me he looks like a type you take at pick 20 once you're really stretching to find anyone who could be elite. Cause I don't think he can be. The absolute best player of his type I think is Papley but he could easily be a Jack Higgins or Dylan Moore type. Handy players but they don't move the needle on a team.

Lack of creativity!! Terrible call.