Player Watch Pick #18 (2016) - Sam Powell-Pepper

[chiwigi]

How many players are there?



I think that’s a very narrow definition of “A-grader”. That’s might be the issue.

He’s mixing ‘elite’ with A grade.
A grade is any first 22 player imo, and SPP is definitely that.

 

[MALTSY]

Plenty of people, it seems.

Yup

 

[Enviable Tradition]

He’s mixing ‘elite’ with A grade.
A grade is any first 22 player imo, and SPP is definitely that.

Yeah there is actually an A grade (the Power) and a B grade (the Magpies).

That is literally where the terms come from in sport.

People are way over thinking it.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Willsy10]

Spp is arguably not even in the top 20% of players at port

And I love SPP

Would ports top 20% not also be in the top 20% of the league? Our ladder positions would suggest that our squad is better than average so most likely more than 20% of our squad would be in the leagues top 20%.

Your comment has implied the opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Willsy10]

What is an A grader? The answer is completely subjective, making it a pointless debate.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[GoPorts]

It's all irrelevant when any news article is going to label anyone who has even trained with an AFL team as a 'star'

 

[chiwigi]

What is an A grader? The answer is completely subjective, making it a pointless debate.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

It’s someone who plays for the A grade team on a majority basis.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

 

[manureid]

It’s someone who plays for the A grade team on a majority basis.

Exactly. Did not think this was subjective at all. When you play sport at any club if they say, can all the A graders stay back after training, that is your first team. Seems simple yet somehow in here many seem confused?

 

[RangaInTeal]

Exactly. Did not think this was subjective at all. When you play sport at any club if they say, can all the A graders stay back after training, that is your first team. Seems simple yet somehow in here many seem confused?

Yeah, I get that. I always thought A Grade footballer being the top 6ish footballers in your team, especially when the lists are 38 or whatever, means 23 A Graders and 15 B Grade footballers on each list, doesn’t really make A Grade footballer all that note worthy.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Please tell me more about this A/B grade thing

 

[Gravel]

Yeah, I get that. I always thought A Grade footballer being the top 6ish footballers in your team, especially when the lists are 38 or whatever, means 23 A Graders and 15 B Grade footballers on each list, doesn’t really make A Grade footballer all that note worthy.

I split the players who play every week into A graders and B graders. The B graders are good honest foot soldiers who play their role, but the A graders are the match winners. I have SPP on my A graders list

 

[dirty2]

Please tell me more about this A/B grade thing

From what I read before... McEntee is an A grader and SPP isn't.

 

[Scodges]

From what I read before... McEntee is an A grader and SPP isn't.

An A grade potato.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Peninsula Boy]

The way I grade the players on the team are:

generational - consistent, high impact
elite - AA - high impact
excellent - AA squad and around that area - good impact
good players - some impact
role players - neutral impact
bad players - net negatives, negative impact
young players - yet to get a game

backups - not good enough for the 23
list cloggers - not good enough to be in the 23 and should be delisted

 

[jac147]

list cloggers - not good enough to be in the 23 and should be delisted

To be replaced by other list cloggers. The talent pool out there in footy land is limited

 

[Peninsula Boy]

list cloggers - not good enough to be in the 23 and should be delisted

To be replaced by other list cloggers. The talent pool out there in footy land is limited

List cloggers are the worst on lists.

I would always pretty much go with youth.

With list cloggers, you have an average player at best whose ceiling has been found. I would prefer a young, developing player because you never know what they could be.

 

[TeeKray]

List cloggers are the worst on lists.

I would always pretty much go with youth.

With list cloggers, you have an average player at best whose ceiling has been found. I would prefer a young, developing player because you never know what they could be.

One of the many quirks of the pissant sport known as AFL is that players are judged to have reached the limit or close to the limit of their potential by the age of about 21. These players are replaced by 'young' players with 'more upside', as though 21 isn't actually extremely young in the scheme of things. If a 21 year old is drafted they're considered a 'mature age pick'. Players develop at different rates - physically, mental maturity, skill development - and the one size fits all approach of giving them 2-3 years to show they can be a first team player or kicking them out the door never to be seen again is totally not best practice.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

List cloggers are the worst on lists.

I would always pretty much go with youth.

With list cloggers, you have an average player at best whose ceiling has been found. I would prefer a young, developing player because you never know what they could be.

It needs to be balanced with some depth though. Ideally depth players can either play multiple roles, or the rarest ones (like ruck or utility) so you can have less of them.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

One of the many quirks of the pissant sport known as AFL is that players are judged to have reached the limit or close to the limit of their potential by the age of about 21. These players are replaced by 'young' players with 'more upside', as though 21 isn't actually extremely young in the scheme of things. If a 21 year old is drafted they're considered a 'mature age pick'. Players develop at different rates - physically, mental maturity, skill development - and the one size fits all approach of giving them 2-3 years to show they can be a first team player or kicking them out the door never to be seen again is totally not best practice.

I personally would generally give a bloke four years and even an extra year or two for talls and was shocked to see all of the guys from the 2022 draft get delisted. Sometimes it is plainly obvious that guys don't want to work hard though.

Late last year when Narkle and Fevans were playing, I would've at least given Anastasopoulous a look in as both were destined to be chopped liver by the end of the year. You know what you are getting with Narkle and Fevans but Anasta could've bolted like Logan Evans.

Sometimes there is a bit of good luck and sometimes some bad luck. Hugh Jackson, who is touted on this board, might get the axe without playing a game this year.

I'm not a big fan of list cloggers. Back up, I can handle. Finlayson is good backup.

You have to really be good at knowing if a player has that calibre of playing and winning a grand final. It is one of the things that Hinkley is not good at. He prefers to play spuds and duds and we usually draft in areas he struggles to develop.

In the end, I am a bit ruthless with my ideas of list development.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

It needs to be balanced with some depth though. Ideally depth players can either play multiple roles, or the rarest ones (like ruck or utility) so you can have less of them.

Yeah, that's why I also have back up players and don't really like list cloggers.

Finlayson and Ratugolea are good backup.
Soldo is really good backup.

But yeah, a bit of balance is needed.

 

[RangaInTeal]

I personally would generally give a bloke four years and even an extra year or two for talls and was shocked to see all of the guys from the 2022 draft get delisted. Sometimes it is plainly obvious that guys don't want to work hard though.

Late last year when Narkle and Fevans were playing, I would've at least given Anastasopoulous a look in as both were destined to be chopped liver by the end of the year. You know what you are getting with Narkle and Fevans but Anasta could've bolted like Logan Evans.

Sometimes there is a bit of good luck and sometimes some bad luck. Hugh Jackson, who is touted on this board, might get the axe without playing a game this year.

I'm not a big fan of list cloggers. Back up, I can handle. Finlayson is good backup.

You have to really be good at knowing if a player has that calibre of playing and winning a grand final. It is one of the things that Hinkley is not good at. He prefers to play spuds and duds and we usually draft in areas he struggles to develop.

In the end, I am a bit ruthless with my ideas of list development.

Jackson is at the crossroads this year, hopefully he can stay fit. Could be another Magpies B&F winner delisting within 24 months.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

Jackson is at the crossroads this year, hopefully he can stay fit. Could be another Magpies B&F winner delisting within 24 months.

It might be a similar story to Jake Pasini. Close to a gig with the A's but a few things didn't fall in place and then goneski.

I've always liked Hugh Jackson so I hope he gets to show us what he can do.

 

[Manhattan Bronx]

Just popped to the open training session. Couldn't stay long as the little guy was due for a nap.

SPP looked huge! And I was up in the stands. Can't wait to see him this year.

 

[Peninsula Boy]

I'm excited to see what a hungry Sam can do up forward.