Collingwood must recruit hard tough players

[Stifler's mom]

No we shouldn't. We should recruit soft, weak players.

I agree. Lockyer needs company now that Lonie retired.

 

[mdc]

Yeah but thats what makes the idea so appealing

You're right though. I think he'd be worth a 2nd round pick, somewhere between 20-30 you'd think.

Lockyer's value is < Rhyce Shaw's. I'd be surprised if any team would offer anything inside the top 40 picks for him.

As for the the pick 11 + Didak for pick 4 + Boak that I've seen in a couple of threads now, it's even less realistic.

There's no way Port would take Didak for Boak straight up, given they're not competing for a flag right now. Adding the swap of 1st rounders makes the trade laughable.

 

[well left]

I think the midfield battle was pretty good on the weekend and by no means think Hawthorn killed Geelong through the middle (don't judge me on this as I was fairly well pickled). Geelong actually had 60+ inside 50's which they would have taken at the start of the game.

There was nothing in my mind that changed after Saturday's game. I don't think we necessarily need tough hard players - what we need is players that get there own ball and dispose of it well. There is nothing new here.

Kevind and FlyingDucks are both on the mark IMO. Hawthorn has great foot skills and kicked a lot of goals from Geelong turnovers due to their pressure followed by good footskills.

We are a bit younger in midfield terms than these two teams but I reckon in Thomas, Wellingham and McCarthy we have players that will win their own ball and dispose of it well enough. We need to add to that with a few more but we are on the right track.

 

[Quicky]

Lockyer's value is < Rhyce Shaw's. I'd be surprised if any team would offer anything inside the top 40 picks for him.

As for the the pick 11 + Didak for pick 4 + Boak that I've seen in a couple of threads now, it's even less realistic.

There's no way Port would take Didak for Boak straight up, given they're not competing for a flag right now. Adding the swap of 1st rounders makes the trade laughable.

Gotta say I disagree with you here. I think that Lockyer would be alot more appealing to other clubs than R Shaw - hence a higher trade value. The only thing that weighs against Lockyer is that he had an average year by his standards. If you took Lockyer and Shaws last three years Lockyer would win hands down. But I guess its all a matter of perspective. I can see a club like Freo for instance give up a second round pick for a player like Lockyer after losing so much experience this year. I guess need (more than ability) really determines a players trade value anyway.

 

[PieLebo87]

I agree. Lockyer needs company now that Lonie retired.

Don't unleash the beast in me!

Lockyer isn't soft or weak. He doesn't shriek a contest.

 

[mdc]

Gotta say I disagree with you here. I think that Lockyer would be alot more appealing to other clubs than R Shaw - hence a higher trade value.

Why is Lockyer more appealing? He's older, he's shorter, he's slower.

He's a good bit parts player, but I can't see a team saying "We need a solid, average player!".

I can see some team saying "We need pace". Thus Rhyce is more likely to attract a decent offer (i.e. early third-rounder). Ditto for Lovett.

The only thing that weighs against Lockyer is that he had an average year by his standards. If you took Lockyer and Shaws last three years Lockyer would win hands down.

This isn't right.

He had a spectacular 2007 by his standards, 2008 was actually an above average year when looking at Lockyer's career. I know he had the knee reconstruction, but it is what it is.

Rhyce on the other hand had a very good 2008 (last 1/3 of the season aside), and had been pretty mediocre beforehand.

So basically, both of them have had one good year, and a lot of average years. Lockyer's been better than Shaw in general, but he's also older, and doesn't have the pace of Rhyce.

I can see a club like Freo for instance give up a second round pick for a player like Lockyer after losing so much experience this year. I guess need (more than ability) really determines a players trade value anyway.

Freo's 2nd round pick is 21...no chance in hell they'd give it up for Lockyer.

Consider that Collingwood has lost a fair bit of experience too. Would you suggest the club trade an early pick for a 28 y.o. fringer player from another club, just to inject experience?

Our first-rounder for Jude Bolton maybe? Our 2nd rounder for Nathan Eagleton?

 

[Quicky]

Why is Lockyer more appealing? He's older, he's shorter, he's slower.

He's a good bit parts player, but I can't see a team saying "We need a solid, average player!".

I can see some team saying "We need pace". Thus Rhyce is more likely to attract a decent offer (i.e. early third-rounder). Ditto for Lovett.



This isn't right.

He had a spectacular 2007 by his standards, 2008 was actually an above average year when looking at Lockyer's career. I know he had the knee reconstruction, but it is what it is.

Rhyce on the other hand had a very good 2008 (last 1/3 of the season aside), and had been pretty mediocre beforehand.

So basically, both of them have had one good year, and a lot of average years. Lockyer's been better than Shaw in general, but he's also older, and doesn't have the pace of Rhyce.



Freo's 2nd round pick is 21...no chance in hell they'd give it up for Lockyer.

Consider that Collingwood has lost a fair bit of experience too. Would you suggest the club trade an early pick for a 28 y.o. fringer player from another club, just to inject experience?

Our first-rounder for Jude Bolton maybe? Our 2nd rounder for Nathan Eagleton?

I can definately see your point of view but I still disagree with you. You say R Shaw had a good year but it was still very inconsistent and this is the best that he has shown. His best is very good and his worst is terrible.

Lockyer did have a poor year by his standards but it was the worst I can remember seeing him play. His previous 4-5 years have been outstanding. Lockyer has leadership, experience, is efficient, can play a variety of positions and still has some good footy ahead of him. These qualities count for alot when considering his trade value.

As good as R Shaw is with his endurance, speed, run and carry, his poor disposal and decision making counteract these positives. He also has his off-field issues. The only thing that Shaw has on Lockyer is a two year age difference. I may well overrate Lockyers trade value but I still think it is more than Shaws.

 

[Brahma Bull]

Collingwood is lacking leadership and experience right now so there is no way they will trade Lockyer, unless an amazing deal pops up which is very unlikely.

 

[Teh_Nub]

Collingwood is lacking leadership and experience right now so there is no way they will trade Lockyer, unless an amazing deal pops up which is very unlikely.

idk hes missed a lot of time with injury and doesn't seem to be much of a leader.

I think the young players can lead aswell, Dane Swan leads by example but imo we need a general on ground to tell people what to do. I dont imagine Frasher, Pendles, Swan doing that. Maxwell can though, who else?