I reckon this could work
Ryder for pick 16 butcher and third pick
Butcher goes to carlton from garlett
Third pick gives us Lowden/Giles
You cannot on-trade players.
Butcher goes straight to the scum then
Do you draft up all of your posts in MS Word 97?
In the event that we have more suitable trade ideas knocked back, I think we could do worse than consider players that are not even close to stars but can play a valuable role in our team. There are 2 candidates that I think coupled with Ports first pick could prove of some use. Today I will write about the first.
Candidate #1 Jasper Pittard
You wouldn't have thought it unless you have watched a lot of Port Adelaide this year but Pittard is number 1 in the AFL in one glaring dimension of his game.
And no, I am not talking about clangers.
Pittard is the number 1 running bounce player in the competition by the length of the straight. His huge 79 bounces for the year is some 12 more than the next best (Chris Yarren). To put that into perspective, that 12 bounce gap between him and the next best is the sum total of the following so called "running players" put together (Glesson, JMerrett, Winderlich and ZMerrett). Our best running bouncer is Colyer with a respectable 21 bounces (ranked 47 in the competition), with our next best Paul Chapman with just 12 (ranked 89).
Pittard is also number 1 for average bounces per game. Colyer is 19th from memory.
Bounces? So what? There is more to the game than bounces? Who gets picked up because they like to bounce?
In my view, people equate a player's speed to his 20 metre sprint time. I would argue that being fast doesn't necessarily mean you play fast.
The fastest team in the competition in my view when it comes to ball movement is Port. It should be of no surprise that they are ranked number 1 for bounces (averaging 15 per game). We rank second last for bounces (9). Only the insipidly slow Demons who have modeled their whole game around chip kicks and slow plays have used less running bounces.
But that was our game plan? Bomber wanted us to keep things simple, find the first target?
That game plan was in my view put in to play to match the limitations of our list. If we had more players that can naturally run and carry (without forgetting about their defensive side in doing so) they would have been encouraged to bounce more often. Colyer is a good example. He was our best x-factor player towards the back end of the year because he could move the ball so much more swiftly than any other player. I would argue that he desperately needs company.
So he can run and carry. Anything else?
Pittard is ranked 11th for rebound 50's which suggests that he can both read the ball off the oppositions foot to create a turnover and also demands the ball through handball receives. Even though we already rank highly for being able to create attack from defense, Pittard could have us even stronger in that department.
But personally I see him more as a wingman than a half-back. Whilst it isn't so easy to break into Port's midfield (especially when you offer the team so much down back), I think our midfield is easier to break into considering the lack of mature, proven running players it has going through it. The players we have been playing on the wing like Stanton are good types but they lack the explosive pace that this position demands or Gleeson who would perhaps be best suited to a half back role until his body fills out.
What about his suspect kicking and poor decision making?
Pittard does have a habit of the odd disgusting turnover and "what were you thinking" moment. But his kicking efficiency this year was a very respectable 73.7%. When you consider, on average, he bounces the ball 1 time for every 4 kicks (it is much harder to be efficient at full pace than a chip kick behind the mark) that is more than respectable. Again, as a wingman his turnovers wouldn't hurt nearly as much.
In summary, Pittard isn't a star and may never be one, but he has a dimension to his game that I would argue is elite and very much required at Essendon. Losing Pittard would be fixable without denting Port's premiership hopes but it would still be a loss because he plays the Port way so effectively.
Do you draft up all of your posts in MS Word 97?
Just the really long ones.
Notepad, bro
Or at least right click and go "Paste as plain text"
Sounds a lot like Colyer, before he learned how to kick. You remember, the Colyer that wasn't getting a game and would almost certainly have been the first guy delisted at the end of the season?
If Port don't want to give up a good player they can get a third club involved, or try again next year.
with jones wanting out i'd be asking what the dogs will part with for butcher
I reckon this could work
Ryder for pick 16 butcher and third pick
Butcher goes to carlton from garlett
Third pick gives us Lowden/Giles
You cannot on-trade players.
yes you can in effect it is called a 3 way trade
Was I the only one expecting this to be about Butcher?
Well it's about a butcher so you were sort of right.
yes you can in effect it is called a 3 way trade
I reckon this could work
Ryder for pick 16 butcher and third pick
Butcher goes to carlton from garlett
Third pick gives us Lowden/Giles
You cannot on-trade players.
Not in the way he suggested.
Once a player has theoretically gone to a club they cannot be on-traded.
For instance as 11kgm suggested, Butcher cannot come to us and then be on-traded.
yes you can in effect it is called a 3 way trade
I reckon this could work
Ryder for pick 16 butcher and third pick
Butcher goes to carlton from garlett
Third pick gives us Lowden/Giles
You cannot on-trade players.
Not in the way he suggested.
Once a player has theoretically gone to a club they cannot be on-traded.
For instance as 11kgm suggested, Butcher cannot come to us and then be on-traded.
yeah i get that but he can go straight to carlton who gives us garlett (which won't happen because he nominated the dees) and it is all tied to ryder.
He gives up it up too much. He is a great role player for Port and their designated player out of the defensive 50 and he does it well. I don’t think he is strong one on one compared to Hibberd and we also have Dempsey to do this role. I would prefer say O’Shea or Newton who would fill in more of our needs if a dal was to be done only with Port and not a 3rd club.
Interesting option, probably haven't seen enough of Port and Pittard this year to really comment. But nice write up.
I was a fan in his draft year really bolted up the rankings and seems to be getting games at Port so he can't be all that bad.
I do think that run and carry is something we are missing on the wings.
Not one I'd necessarily jump out at and not even sold on the idea. Is he a better option than Moore, Newton, Butcher or O'Shea?
They are all steak knives and therefore worthy of discussing.
I would go yes (convincingly), yes, yes (convincingly) and roughly even split on O'Shea.
If we're not getting at least a somewhat regular senior player I think I'd rather chase a tall prospect - Shaw, Clurey, Redden, Harvey.
They've offered us O'Shea.
Why not. Deal gets done and he's decent.
Notepad, bro
Or at least right click and go "Paste as plain text"
Command + Option + Shift + V on a Mac.
I would definitely accept Pittard as a deal sweetener, love what I saw from him this year. He is a star of the future.
I wouldn't mind O'Shea along with pick 16, he is certainly a decent player with lots of potential, but we really don't need him.
They've offered us O'Shea.
Why not. Deal gets done and he's decent.
is he a birchall 193 cm types or a steinberg 192 cm type?
They've offered us O'Shea.
Why not. Deal gets done and he's decent.
For Van Unen? Sure.
For Ryder? GTFO.
They've offered us O'Shea.
Why not. Deal gets done and he's decent.
is he a birchall 193 cm types or a steinberg 192 cm type?
He is my second cadidate. A very unique player.
They've offered us O'Shea.
Why not. Deal gets done and he's decent.
is he a birchall 193 cm types or a steinberg 192 cm type?
He is my second cadidate. A very unique player.
I'd say he is a mixture. Finds the pill more than Steinberg but more defensive and accountable compared to Birchall. A very meh player to be honest.
BIG JOHN PLZ