Rumour Hugh Greenwood waiting to re-sign!

[ABAB]

No, he's just a limited possession player. CEY does mostly similar things and I don't see people calling him x factor.

CEY used to have limited possession and little impact so he was dropped last year (similarly Poholke/Knights this year), CEY has been very consistent this year and also tags. Totally different, if you have limited possession and little impact (no X-factor) and aren't tagging an opposition player, you will be dropped. That's why Gallucci hasn't been dropped.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Do you believe what you write ??

Well it's only a thought bubble

But you're watching us play.

What do you see? How does it compare to 2017?

 

[Golumless]

CEY used to have limited possession and little impact so he was dropped last year (similarly Poholke/Knights this year), CEY has been very consistent this year and also tags. Totally different, if you have limited possession and little impact (no X-factor) and aren't tagging an opposition player, you will be dropped. That's why Gallucci hasn't been dropped.

I wouldn't argue Gallucci has been tagging. More we tend to use half forward as a blooding position. One that we're willing to carry underperforming players if we believe they'll be long term contributors.

Gallucci, McGovern, Milera etc have all got this treatment in recent times. Jones is to a degree as well, McHenry will soon etc.

 

[hey shorty]

Well it's only a thought bubble

But you're watching us play.

What do you see? How does it compare to 2017?

We've changed the gameplan to suit what we have, and we didn't wanna lose Charlie.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We've changed the gameplan to suit what we have, and we didn't wanna lose Charlie.

Stengle would be playing if we truly valued the role.

We also could have matched or raised what Brisbane were offering which we didn't.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

They got offered pay rises. We chose to let them go.

We saw them as more valuable as trade chips rather than forcing them to see out their contracts or raising their contracts to what the market was offering.


.... that's right.

Which is what I'm saying.

Do we believe that players like McGovern are overvalued by the competition?

Yes.

If we e matched all the player contracts of those who have left, it would have consequences for us losing other players.

Gov is not worth what Carlton are paying him at the moment

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Why did we 'fall out' with those particular type of players?

Money was a major factor for both.

 

[hey shorty]

Stengle would be playing if we truly valued the role.

We also could have matched or raised what Brisbane were offering which we didn't.

Stengle isn't Charlie though, his defensive pressure makes DMacs look amazing.

We need a combination of he and Murphy.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yes.

If we e matched all the player contracts of those who have left, it would have consequences for us losing other players.

Gov is not worth what Carlton are paying him at the moment

Money was a major factor for both.

True which aligns with the theory that we believe that those type of players are overvalued by the market

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Stengle isn't Charlie though, his defensive pressure makes DMacs look amazing.

We need a combination of he and Murphy.

Charlie is Charlie

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Well it's only a thought bubble

But you're watching us play.

What do you see? How does it compare to 2017?

Game style has changed across the competition though & we have adjusted accordingly.

If the AFL was serious about having more attractive games, they wouldn't have free kicked the defensive teams to flags. ,)

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Stengle would be playing if we truly valued the role.

We also could have matched or raised what Brisbane were offering which we didn't.

Think both McAdam & Stengle will eventually come in once their fitness is up to AFL level.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

True which aligns with the theory that we believe that those type of players are overvalued by the market

Lower ranked teams usually have the cap space to raid players for extra money if that is a motivating factor.

 

[Bearded Clam]

can't find a spot for this bloke? **** me we have a pretty high opinion of ourselves.

All depends on how much coin he wants though doesn’t it..

Maybe its hugh that has an even higher opinion of himself and has made noise already that he wants a juicy big contract.. maybe the cap wont allow it..

Im sure the club would have a high opinion of hugh.. I havent heard anyone from the club state Greenwoods stats arent great or that he isnt a great player.. have you?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Game style has changed across the competition though & we have adjusted accordingly.

If the AFL was serious about having more attractive games, they wouldn't have free kicked the defensive teams to flags. ,)

Lower ranked teams usually have the cap space to raid players for extra money if that is a motivating factor.

Yet Richmond still spent squillions on Tom Lynch

The coveted power forward role

Which I wonder is something that 'our numbers' say is overvalued

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

All depends on how much coin he wants though doesn’t it..

Maybe its hugh that has an even higher opinion of himself and has made noise already that he wants a juicy big contract.. maybe the cap wont allow it..

Im sure the club would have a high opinion of hugh.. I havent heard anyone from the club state Greenwoods stats arent great or that he isnt a great player.. have you?

Well he just got dropped from a must win game. That typically doesn't occur for guys at the top of your most important player list. And you'd think the contract we end up offering (if we ever do) will be along those lines too.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yet Richmond still spent squillions on Tom Lynch

The coveted power forward role

Which I wonder is something that 'our numbers' say is overvalued

How is Lynch turning out for Richmond & how much did they spend on him? He left to play in finals not so much for money, so different motivation. Would have got more money remaining at GC.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Stengle isn't Charlie though, his defensive pressure makes DMacs look amazing.

We need a combination of he and Murphy.

A combo of murph and stengle would be a bloody machine!..

But I think thats underrating Stengle’s defensive effort slightly.. ive watched every single Sanfl game this year, some games ive watched twice, and can definately recall many occasions where Stengle has chased down opponents or atleast made a huge effort to get to them.. and I’ve always thought, when doing so, he is deceptively quick too..

He maybe still slightly underdone for AFL but i dont think hes that far off.. and his defensive work will improve further with every game he plays.

Hes not CC speed no.. but not many are... And hes not a little bull terrior like murph who just never gives up on trying to get to an opponent and lay a tackle. but hes nowhere near as slow or defensively poor as some here make out and i think hes got far better skills than both of them..

I only wish i knew how to cut short clips out of game replays so i could provide some examples..

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How is Lynch turning out for Richmond & how much did they spend on him? He left to play in finals not so much for money, so different motivation. Would have got more money remaining at GC.

Sheesh

Not very well.

THAT'S RIGHT

That's what I'M saying

I'm wondering if WE (the Adelaide Football Club) through this analytic stuff we are doing are placing different values on players than other clubs. Particularly in some of the historically sought after roles (x factor, power forward, game breaker) whose impact perhaps does not stack up to deeper analysis.

Whereas the unfashionable but consistent players are the ones you can build into a successful team. And they're cheaper. And they have no trade value.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Sheesh

Not very well.

THAT'S RIGHT

That's what I'M saying

I'm wondering if WE (the Adelaide Football Club) through this analytic stuff we are doing are placing different values on players than other clubs. Particularly in some of the historically sought after roles (x factor, power forward, game breaker) whose impact perhaps does not stack up to deeper analysis.

Whereas the unfashionable but consistent players are the ones you can build into a successful team. And they're cheaper. And they have no trade value.

We brought in X-factor players in McAdam & Stengle last trade period as we knew we had to replace both CC & Betts going forward. The problem is they are underdone for this season as they would be handy!

Would like to see us debut Davis this week, assuming Lynch doesn't pull up as he has X-factor.

We were not going to recruit a power forward given we have Tex, JJ, Fog & EH... so we should have that area covered for now.

 

[Golumless]

Stengle would be playing if we truly valued the role.

We also could have matched or raised what Brisbane were offering which we didn't.

Actually the inverse is true there. Stengle wouldn't be playing if we valued the role. Most of Cameron's value wasn't in offense, it was defensive presence. The fact he could run fast and had the capability to do the freakish was a bonus.

Betts was always the piece we valued offensively. Cameron was the defensive juggernaut which supplemented it.

 

[Golumless]

Sheesh

Not very well.

THAT'S RIGHT

That's what I'M saying

I'm wondering if WE (the Adelaide Football Club) through this analytic stuff we are doing are placing different values on players than other clubs. Particularly in some of the historically sought after roles (x factor, power forward, game breaker) whose impact perhaps does not stack up to deeper analysis.

Whereas the unfashionable but consistent players are the ones you can build into a successful team. And they're cheaper. And they have no trade value.

I actually reckon you are on to something here because analytics would favour those unfashionable but constistant players.

It's something I'd like to see us focus on trade wise, because finding a Seedsman, a Lynch on the cheap is ridiculously valuable to a premiership side despite not being sexy players.

 

[MRB37]

A combo of murph and stengle would be a bloody machine!..

But I think thats underrating Stengle’s defensive effort slightly.. ive watched every single Sanfl game this year, some games ive watched twice, and can definately recall many occasions where Stengle has chased down opponents or atleast made a huge effort to get to them.. and I’ve always thought, when doing so, he is deceptively quick too..

It's not his first efforts i've ever been worried about. It's when he needs to follow up that 2nd or 3rd time that it shows. The ball could be handpassed within a 10 metre radius between 4 players and he doesn't have it in him yet to make those repeated defensive efforts.

 

[Grenville]

We brought in X-factor players in McAdam & Stengle last trade period as we knew we had to replace both CC & Betts going forward. The problem is they are underdone for this season as they would be handy!

Would like to see us debut Davis this week, assuming Lynch doesn't pull up as he has X-factor.

We were not going to recruit a power forward given we have Tex, JJ, Fog & EH... so we should have that area covered for now.

Paid nothing for them though.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Actually the inverse is true there. Stengle wouldn't be playing if we valued the role. Most of Cameron's value wasn't in offense, it was defensive presence. The fact he could run fast and had the capability to do the freakish was a bonus.

Betts was always the piece we valued offensively. Cameron was the defensive juggernaut which supplemented it.

I might have stumbled over what I meant

Stengle can do the freakish offensive things Cameron did. We have no interest in that.

Murphy can do the boring defensive things. We value that.

And it was Cameron's ability to do the freakish that meant we got good trade value for him.