The Blair "Which?" Project

[Disco08]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Based on stats or actually watching Crows games? Since Bickley took over he's played as a midfielder before that it was predominantly forward.

Both. If he played predominantly forward tell me why they used him as a target between 5-10 times in some games and only 0-2 in others (the ones where he curiously wins as many first uses/clearances as guys like Judd and Pendlebury). Are you going to try and tell me that he's so good at stoppages that he manages to put up elite numbers while played predominantly forward? Please.

 

[tigs2010]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Not sure how Martin is a fair comparison. Wouldn't it be fairer to compare Martin after his 2nd season to Dangerfield's after his second? In his 2nd season Dangerfield's best possession return was 20 and he averaged 13. His best return was 3 goals in a 130-13 win against Fremantle. Martin is basically breaking records as a 2nd year player, Dangerfield is trying to find consistency as a 4th year player. I would take Martin at 14 in a heartbeat, he's turning out to possibly be the best draft pick of that year.

Regardless all I was commenting on was the comment that Dangerfield is capable of 30+ possessions and 6 goals? As I said most players are capable of that, whether they can actually do it consistently is another matter. I know Martin is capable of doing it, I am not sure Dangerfield is based on their careers thus far.

Dangerfield missed his entire first year except 2 games. Also, didnt move to Adelaide so he didnt train at an AFL club either. Like i said Martin is a better player comfortably but Dangerfield is also going to be a gun. Which non-gun players are capable of those stats by the way?

 

[Disco08]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Yep.

Pretty much. Would've played 70% forward at least and 30% midfield under Craig. Even in games he's not getting involved he was rarely moved. This is from watching him in games not from pulling random stats trying to make assertions. His clearance numbers, etc are still relatively okay because he's pretty good in there when he gets a go not because he's played there a lot.

It's pretty tough to win centre bounce clearancs starting in the forward 50. They're not random stats at all (love you to tel me why you think they are), they're figures which specifically point to actions in certain area on the ground.

 

[tigs2010]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Both. If he played predominantly forward tell me why they used him as a target between 5-10 times in some games and only 0-2 in others (the ones where he curiously wins as many first uses/clearances as guys like Judd and Pendlebury). Are you going to try and tell me that he's so good at stoppages that he manages to put up elite numbers while played predominantly forward? Please.

Predominantly forward doesn't mean he hasn't gone to the midfield last time i checked. Does every single player get identical stats every game and play the same position on the field on an identical ground on the exact same opponent each week. A lot of variables in those stats. Again, having lived in Adelaide ive seen majority of Crows games. Emphasise the word seen the games. So i can see where he is playing. As Barnzy said he would still spend 30% of the game in the midfield.

 

[tigs2010]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

It's pretty tough to win centre bounce clearancs starting in the forward 50. They're not random stats at all (love you to tel me why you think they are), they're figures which specifically point to actions in certain area on the ground.

Again, where has either myself or Barnzy said he spends 100% of time in the forward line?

 

[GoodOne]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Dangerfield missed his entire first year except 2 games. Also, didnt move to Adelaide so he didnt train at an AFL club either. Like i said Martin is a better player comfortably but Dangerfield is also going to be a gun.

Well from what I've seen Dangerfield hasn't really progressed too much this year over 2010. I would have expected to see some major improvement but it's been pretty much more of the same, a few excellent performances mixed in with a few too many ordinary ones. Will he be a gun? Arguable at the moment. Needs to get much greater consistency into his game.

Which non-gun players are capable of those stats by the way?

Not many could do it but you could make an theoretical argument for many youngsters that they could. You brought up those particular figures we're discussing. All I am pointing out is that this is the risk with Dangerfield, can he turn his promise into reality. I have my doubts but don't doubt he could still be a good player. I just personally wouldn't pay Pick 14 for him.

 

[Disco08]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Again, where has either myself or Barnzy said he spends 100% of time in the forward line?

Where did I say that? You said he spent 70% of his time playing forward under Craig. In some of those games he got enough centre bounce clearances and 1st possessions (typically won by stoppage players, not forwards) to be right up there with Judd and Pendlebury. Are you going to tell me he did that spending only 30% of his time playing on the ball?

 

[tigs2010]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Well from what I've seen Dangerfield hasn't really progressed too much this year over 2010. I would have expected to see some major improvement but it's been pretty much more of the same, a few excellent performances mixed in with a few too many ordinary ones. Will he be a gun? Arguable at the moment. Needs to get much greater consistency into his game.

Not many could do it but you could make an theoretical argument for many youngsters that they could. You brought up those particular figures we're discussing. All I am pointing out is that this is the risk with Dangerfield, can he turn his promise into reality. I have my doubts but don't doubt he could still be a good player. I just personally wouldn't pay Pick 14 for him.

I brought the figures up because he has done it. IMO has been poorly managed as a forward. However, its my opinion and have no idea why they did it. He was a pick 10 who arguably is a fair way ahead of many others in that draft. You were the one who said just about any player could get those stats. IMO that's not true unless they are a very good player.

I'm not that fussed whether we go for him or not. Comes down to what FJ etc. think of pick 14 or whatever it would take to get the deal done. Pick 14 in this draft is far from assuring us a good footballer. We could end up with a huge dud or an average plodder.

FJ rated Dangerfield very highly in 2007. If he feels he is better than Greene, McKenzie, Docherty etc then do the trade. If the others are potentially better than keep the pick. End of the day its about upgrading the list with the best players.

 

[Barnzy]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Where did I say that? You said he spent 70% of his time playing forward under Craig. In some of those games he got enough centre bounce clearances and 1st possessions (typically won by stoppage players, not forwards) to be right up there with Judd and Pendlebury. Are you going to tell me he did that spending only 30% of his time playing on the ball?

Pretty simple answer. In those games he probably spent more time in the middle but obvious from watching him that overall his time has been spent the majority forward. I'd guess 70% forward, 30% midfield as I said give or take 5-10% here or there. That doesn't mean that happens every game exactly as that but overall roughly.

 

[tigs2010]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Where did I say that? You said he spent 70% of his time playing forward under Craig. In some of those games he got enough centre bounce clearances and 1st possessions (typically won by stoppage players, not forwards) to be right up there with Judd and Pendlebury. Are you going to tell me he did that spending only 30% of his time playing on the ball?

Some games he would have spent more time on-ball others more time in forward line. TBH im not that interested in him that we should go out of our way to get him at all costs but we should definitely be looking into it/asking the question as to his worth. My philosophy would be just to draft our midfield and trade for some bigs but if an offer comes up too good to refuse then we should take it.

 

[Disco08]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

I brought the figures up because he has done it. IMO has been poorly managed as a forward. However, its my opinion and have no idea why they did it. He was a pick 10 who arguably is a fair way ahead of many others in that draft. You were the one who said just about any player could get those stats. IMO that's not true unless they are a very good player.

Tambling had 29 touches and kicked 4 goals during matches in his first 4 years. He also spent plenty of time playng forward and averaged similar touches year for year as Paddy. Would you put him in roughly the same class as Dangerfield?

Pretty simple answer. In those games he probably spent more time in the middle but obvious from watching him that overall his time has been spent the majority forward. I'd guess 70% forward, 30% midfield as I said give or take 5-10% here or there. That doesn't mean that happens every game exactly as that but overall roughly.

So in the games where he put up those numbers how much of his time was spent on the ball do you reckon?

 

[tigs2010]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Tambling had 29 touches and kicked 4 goals during matches in his first 4 years. He also spent plenty of time playng forward and averaged similar touches year for year as Paddy. Would you put him in roughly the same class as Dangerfield?

So in the games where he put up those numbers how much of his time was spent on the ball do you reckon?

No i wouldn't put him in the same category as Tambling. You even said yourself in some games he gets clearance numbers up with Pendles/Judd yet you don't want him? Someone has to get the hard ball in close. WHy not have Dangerfield playing Tuck's role while also being able to kick goals?

 

[Disco08]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Because I'd prefer well rounded players, not glass half full (OK maybe glass 3/4 full) types.

 

[tigs2010]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Because I'd prefer well rounded players, not glass half full (OK maybe glass 3/4 full) types.

Again, if we can find one at pick 14 then keep the pick. If not, trade for him. Not fussed either way. But to say he's not a good player is wrong IMO.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

IMO has been poorly managed as a forward.

This is the crux of it.

 

[Disco08]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Not really. Looks to me they gave him a few games playing mainly on ball early in the year (and a fair few last year) then decided to play him more forward. Perhaps he just wasn't coping with playing on ball because of the fitness issues you detailed earlier Leysy.

Again, if we can find one at pick 14 then keep the pick. If not, trade for him. Not fussed either way. But to say he's not a good player is wrong IMO.

I didn't say that.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Not really. Looks to me they gave him a few games playing mainly on ball early in the year (and a fair few last year) then decided to play him more forward. Perhaps he just wasn't coping with playing on ball because of the fitness issues you detailed earlier Leysy.

Yeah maybe.

 

[Tigerfan]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

Comes down to what FJ etc. think of pick 14 or whatever it would take to get the deal done. Pick 14 in this draft is far from assuring us a good footballer. We could end up with a huge dud or an average plodder.

FJ rated Dangerfield very highly in 2007. If he feels he is better than Greene, McKenzie, Docherty etc then do the trade. If the others are potentially better than keep the pick. End of the day its about upgrading the list with the best players.

I don't think FJ gets involved in trade targets or deals. He looks for draftees.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

I brought the figures up because he has done it. IMO has been poorly managed as a forward. However, its my opinion and have no idea why they did it. He was a pick 10 who arguably is a fair way ahead of many others in that draft. You were the one who said just about any player could get those stats. IMO that's not true unless they are a very good player.

Yes I said you could argue that any young player who has not reached their potential could be potentially a very good player and reach those heady stats on occassion. History is littered with examples of one game wonders. I don't class one 30+ possession game in 60 odd (against Richmond at that) as indicative of the player's consistent ability. I also don't consider a 6 goal haul against Gold Coast to be an indication of his ability to kick bags of goals. As for being Pick 10, so what? Lounder was Pick 1, Tambling was Pick 4, JON was Pick 8, again there are many many examples of players picked high who didn't make it to any great level.

I'm not that fussed whether we go for him or not. Comes down to what FJ etc. think of pick 14 or whatever it would take to get the deal done. Pick 14 in this draft is far from assuring us a good footballer. We could end up with a huge dud or an average plodder.

Sure we could but based on our selection choices of the last couple of years or so I'd say it's probably unlikely that we will pick a huge did or an average plodder. I don't think personally that Dangerfield has performed at Pick #14 quality at this stage of his career. As I said that's the risk, will he take his game to the next level from here?

FJ rated Dangerfield very highly in 2007. If he feels he is better than Greene, McKenzie, Docherty etc then do the trade. If the others are potentially better than keep the pick. End of the day its about upgrading the list with the best players.

And 2007 is a long time in footy. We now know alot more about Dangerfield than we did in 2007. Other than that agree with you totally on your last paragraph.

 

[Disco08]

Re: The Blair Hartley Project

On that rate your list thingy on the AFL site, 70% of NM voters want Hansen traded. If he's that far out of favour maybe there's a chance of trading one of our non-untouchables for him.