St Kilda draft picks [Archive]

brilliant_bally

24 Nov 2007, 09:57

no.9
NAME BEN MCEVOY
CLUB ST KILDA
ORIGINAL CLUB MURRAY BUSHRANGERS
DOB 11/07/1989
HEIGHT 200.2 CM
WEIGHT 94.6 KG

Ruckman

Strong marking ruckman/key forward who kicks goals. Averaged seven marks a game in NAB AFL U18 Championships, winning All-Australian honours. Agile with great endurance. AIS/AFL Academy graduate. The winner of the Murray Bushrangers Best and Fairest Award for 2007.From Dederang/Mt Beauty F.C.
STATS
Kicks: 10, Handballs: 7, Disposals: 17, Marks: 8, Goals: 0 (Averages from NAB U18 Championships)

no.42
NAME JACK STEVEN
CLUB ST KILDA
ORIGINAL CLUB GEELONG FALCONS
DOB 28/03/1990
HEIGHT 180 CM
WEIGHT 76.4 KG

Awarded the Geelong Falcons Best and Fairest Award for season 2007.

no.57
FRASER GEHRIG
CLUB ST KILDA
ORIGINAL CLUB ST KILDA
DOB 3/03/1976
HEIGHT 194 CM
WEIGHT 106 KG

no.70 ( the bedverage smokey)
NAME ELJAY CONNORS
CLUB ST KILDA
ORIGINAL CLUB BENDIGO PIONEERS
DOB 1/01/1990
HEIGHT --
WEIGHT --

__Ron_

24 Nov 2007, 10:17

Very happy with that.

Picked up a future ruckmen which obviously we need. Getting King to the club looks an even better decision now so he can teach the new kid. Also has Gardiner to help him along.

I take it Jack Stevens is a nuggety in an under midfielder? Another good pickup!! Does anyone know if he is built? Skinny midfielders dont cut it!!

Recruiting Fraser again? Wanted to see Kosi play FF. Not very happy with that. Would of rathered we take another well muscled midfielder.

Whats the stats on Eljay?

Overall pretty good with the first 2 picks. Happy we didn't go after any of those 190cm KPP players as we have enough. Got the ruckman and midfielder we so desperately need.

:)

Mizza

24 Nov 2007, 10:26

Im surprised Ashley Arrowsmith didnt get drafted by any1.

Checkers

24 Nov 2007, 10:29

Eljay Connors he is Daniel Connors little brother. I have only seen him play once ad think he only played a few TAC games. He needs a fair bit of weight.

brilliant_bally

24 Nov 2007, 11:07

well i think ur right arrowsmith was stiff i think he will be top 5 in rookie draft good player so i hope he gets a go i hope we get a cahnce to rookie him but u never know. i happy with our draft picks and stevens doesn't sound too bad geelong had a good team adn he won the b&f so i think we have done well and and as always we have a bevo roughie so i am curious to see how he goes i am excited. they decribe mcevoy as an ottens/lade type good ruckman who can kick goals i am excited got the MIGHTY SAINTERS

brilliant_bally

24 Nov 2007, 11:14

yo ron found something u will like http://saints.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/5315/Default.aspx?newsId=53670

off saints website and it has his profile adn stats on a link

that is jack stevens

Ripper_G

24 Nov 2007, 11:23

IT's just great to see we've picked up a possible future ruckman as well as having our beloved one back(the gtrain).
saints fans can sleep easy. lets just thank the footy gods the g train stop at the right station.

Rippa G

Jesbo

24 Nov 2007, 11:26

Eljay is about 6 foot skinny but bulking up as a midfielder. Was out most of this season becuase of collapsed lungs similur to the melbourne player this year. He is a quality quick outside player fairly different to his brother Daniel of Richmond.

King Richard

24 Nov 2007, 12:20

Im surprised Ashley Arrowsmith didnt get drafted by any1.

Yes I agree with you on Arrowsmith..very disappointing:confused::thumbsd:

mick13

24 Nov 2007, 12:50

No Gaertner. :(

Lol, when I heard Myke Cooks name I was like. Where do I know that kid from, and me mates like 'dude he was a beda boy'. And I was like ah yeah, good on him. Chat about Gaertner overshadowed him this year I guess.

Pretty happy with McEvoy. Was really just a toss of the coin between Rance and him I reckon. Twas the first pick were there was actually a small pause lol. Knew they were thnkin hard.

BOPPER

24 Nov 2007, 14:00

been told by his home club officials that jack steven is a gun and will be a very good midfielder for the saints. Harvey and Baker will finish up soon and he is apparently a mix of the two. Good get:thumbsu:

Kildonan

24 Nov 2007, 14:35

Copy of my post from Draft and Trades board (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=398117):

I think that the Saints have taken a completely different strategy here. These are all genuine long term players who all require patience in their development. This may indicate that the club is happy (after the recruitment of Big Frase) with the squad that they've got. The three youngsters (and the two rookies to come) are genuine investments in our future.

Look at what the Kangaroos are doing - their picks reflect a need to get results now - they are desperately filling holes for their immediate needs.

Ours is a much more long term program.

Our current squad has been topped up by trades - addressing all our needs.

Now we look to the future - what long term prospects are there out there - two of our selections are bottom aged and all three will need time. There may be a bit of truth to the assertion of where these draft picks might have gone next year.

I am happy without being overwhelmed.

All is good.

BrianSpeaking

24 Nov 2007, 19:48

Also add Schneider, Dempster, King and C Gardiner to todays draft and it tells a very good story.
McEvoy, Stevens, Gehrig, Connors, Schneider, Dempster, King, C Gardiner.
As I stated several tiomes before, Rance was nowhere near a top 10 and never in the picture. Henderson was also strong on our radar but the Lions were never going to let him slip through.

ChrisFooty

24 Nov 2007, 20:08

Very happy with our selections. Very happy fraser did not end up eslewhere, as that would be heart breaking.

DanA

25 Nov 2007, 11:40

saintmont

25 Nov 2007, 19:00

Jack Steven sounds really good. Will he get a run this year?
I am surprised we didn't look for a spare tall backman.

Squizzy1970

26 Nov 2007, 10:18

Goose, Goddard, Gilbert, Max, Sam Fisher, Raph Clarke - enough tall backmen.

Unless McEvoy proves the Gehrig replacement in the forward line, I think we should have picked a speedy midfielder. King is only 29, Gardiner 27, and Kosi 25.

Now we have two development ruckmen (McEvoy and Van Rheenan), 3 main ruckmen (above), and two back ups (Rix and Blake). I think there was a TV show called "Eight is Enough" and I think "Seven is too much".

huggy_b

26 Nov 2007, 11:07

Rix is servicable in the ruck with some room for improvement and Blake is just not a ruckman but filled a gaping hole we had.

King and Gardi are filling a short term hole for 1 - 3 years and Kosi IMO is being wasted in the ruck and should be used in our forward line.

McEvoy was the obvious choice to fill the ruck positions, in tandem with Van Rheenan in the next 2 - 3 years. If they both hit their stride around the same time or thereabouts, it will be a great duo.

Qsaint

26 Nov 2007, 11:45

Fehring

26 Nov 2007, 12:08

McEvoy was the obvious choice to fill the ruck positions, in tandem with Van Rheenan in the next 2 - 3 years. If they both hit their stride around the same time or thereabouts, it will be a great duo.

Can someone tell me whether Van Rheenan can actually play?

Cat_Lady19

27 Nov 2007, 12:50

One thing about McEvoy is he trained very little this year and really got by on talent. Don't think his body is ready for a heavy preseason so don't expect much from 2008, good chance he'll get some sort of stress injury trying to keep up. However once he adjusts to the city lifestyle and gets used to the training load of AFL football I think the is a good chance you will have the best ruckmen from this years draft.

Ben is a mate of my brothers and he says: His been training all year and has played vic country, his mum is a marathon runner and his dad is a cyclist, Ben can also get in the high 14's of the beep test. So if he wasnt up for the training St.Kilda are the one's who have made a mistake getting him. Obviousley he is up for the challege of AFL other wise he wouldn't have made it this far.

St DAC

27 Nov 2007, 14:28

Can we still delist Rix and Blake or are they under contract? There AFL Career might end next year

I still think Kosi is a FF

Wasn't Blakey top 10 in the B&F in 2007? Why on earth delist him; he's a great spare parts player, fills in for a number of roles. Maybe not the greatest skill set, but all heart.

Rixy would be more likely to go when his contract expires ...

saintmont

27 Nov 2007, 18:22

I agree with saintdac Blake is a useful player he fills holes, and progressed under Ross Lyon. I think he gets unfair treatment sometimes. :thumbsu:

mad-saint-guy

27 Nov 2007, 18:50

Can someone tell me whether Van Rheenan can actually play?

At the moment he wouldn't be a safe bet to make it. He is a good size, is athletic and has a great attitude, but skills are poor and he struggles to get into the game. Ruckwork is just ok. Not a natural footballer.

It is hard to make a judgement on any ruckman at age 20, but if I had to guess I would say he will only ever be at the Rix level.

Is a bit of a worrying sign that he wasn't named in the best once at any level in 2007, when he mostly played for the Casey reserves.

Fehring

27 Nov 2007, 18:51

At the moment he wouldn't be a safe bet to make it. He is a good size, is athletic and has a great attitude, but skills are poor and he struggles to get into the game. Ruckwork is just ok. Not a natural footballer.

It is hard to make a judgement on any ruckman at age 20, but if I had to guess I would say he will only ever be at the Rix level.

Is a bit of a worrying sign that he wasn't named in the best once at any level in 2007, when he mostly played for the Casey reserves.

Thanks.

ChrisFooty

27 Nov 2007, 21:00

Unless McEvoy proves the Gehrig replacement in the forward line, I think we should have picked a speedy midfielder. King is only 29, Gardiner 27, and Kosi 25.

Now we have two development ruckmen (McEvoy and Van Rheenan), 3 main ruckmen (above), and two back ups (Rix and Blake). I think there was a TV show called "Eight is Enough" and I think "Seven is too much".

I disagree very strongly. Very doubtful if either King or Gardiner can play half a season, let alone a full season. McEvoy was desperatley needed (he will take a few years to develop, when was the last time a 18 year old ruck became an instant hit?)

Blake is not a ruck choice (well shouldn't be) Rix is needed as a back up, as he remains injury free ussually. Ideally, we want Kosi playing forward a bit, rather than a full time ruckmen.

So i feel there was a bigger need to get a long term ruck option, rather than a long term KP Back option. St.kilda have been a joke in the ruck for the last few years, so any recruit that can be a long term option (and good) would be very handy.

Van Reehan (if he makes it) is a few years away. So our seven is not really seven full time ruckmen.

pasta

27 Nov 2007, 21:23

THANKS SAINTS FOR NOT SELECTING

ALEX RANCE.

BIG MISTAKE.

MCEVOY IS RUBBISH.

TOO SLOW AND SOFT.

WALLACE SAYS THANKS.

:thumbsu:

sainter35

27 Nov 2007, 22:30

THANKS SAINTS FOR NOT SELECTING

ALEX RANCE.

BIG MISTAKE.

MCEVOY IS RUBBISH.

TOO SLOW AND SOFT.

WALLACE SAYS THANKS.

:thumbsu:

Well he'll come in handy when the Tigers officially "come on line" (Terry tan speak) in 2011...or was that 2012??????:confused::eek:

huggy_b

27 Nov 2007, 22:42

THANKS SAINTS FOR NOT SELECTING

ALEX RANCE.

BIG MISTAKE.

MCEVOY IS RUBBISH.

TOO SLOW AND SOFT.

WALLACE SAYS THANKS.

:thumbsu:

You been sipping his tanning oil as well?

You've made judgement on two players who haven't even played 1 AFL game yet. Well done.

DanA

27 Nov 2007, 23:33

Ben is a mate of my brothers and he says: His been training all year and has played vic country, his mum is a marathon runner and his dad is a cyclist, Ben can also get in the high 14's of the beep test. So if he wasnt up for the training St.Kilda are the one's who have made a mistake getting him. Obviousley he is up for the challege of AFL other wise he wouldn't have made it this far.

--------Draft Camp---------Preseason
Height: 200.2---------------200.0
Weight: 94.6---------------91.7
5 M: 1.23 -----------------1.16
20 M: 3.28----------------3.28
Agility:9.31----------------9.31
Shuttle:13.9---------------13.1
V-Leap:54-----------------56
Repeat:26.20-------------- ?

I never said St Kilda made a mistake, the kid has a hell of a lot of raw talent and I wasn't suggesting it was anything to do with attitude. From what I have heard he lives on a farm and between that, school, fighting bush fires and stuff he doesn't get the same amount opportunities others get. I wouldn't expect him to have a good 2008 but that he is very talented and you can expect more once he adjusts and lifts a weight for the first time.

The above figures put him as one of the slowest and least agile players in the draft, even for a ruckmen. I reckon that will change significantly in a years time.

I would have loved him at the cats but there was no chance of that ever happening.

Squizzy1970

28 Nov 2007, 08:00

I disagree very strongly. Very doubtful if either King or Gardiner can play half a season, let alone a full season. McEvoy was desperatley needed (he will take a few years to develop, when was the last time a 18 year old ruck became an instant hit?)

Blake is not a ruck choice (well shouldn't be) Rix is needed as a back up, as he remains injury free ussually. Ideally, we want Kosi playing forward a bit, rather than a full time ruckmen.

So i feel there was a bigger need to get a long term ruck option, rather than a long term KP Back option. St.kilda have been a joke in the ruck for the last few years, so any recruit that can be a long term option (and good) would be very handy.

Van Reehan (if he makes it) is a few years away. So our seven is not really seven full time ruckmen.

If you think Kosi will play forward, why would we be wetting our daks to get Gehrig back? Allen surely has to be given some senior footy now, and Goddard may also play forward.

Why keep Van Rheenan then if he's years away? Why not see if you get a ruckman in the draft and (if not) re-rookie him? I think the process has been a bit bizarre.

Cat_Lady19

1 Dec 2007, 19:22

--------Draft Camp---------Preseason
Height: 200.2---------------200.0
Weight: 94.6---------------91.7
5 M: 1.23 -----------------1.16
20 M: 3.28----------------3.28
Agility:9.31----------------9.31
Shuttle:13.9---------------13.1
V-Leap:54-----------------56
Repeat:26.20-------------- ?

I never said St Kilda made a mistake, the kid has a hell of a lot of raw talent and I wasn't suggesting it was anything to do with attitude. From what I have heard he lives on a farm and between that, school, fighting bush fires and stuff he doesn't get the same amount opportunities others get. I wouldn't expect him to have a good 2008 but that he is very talented and you can expect more once he adjusts and lifts a weight for the first time.

The above figures put him as one of the slowest and least agile players in the draft, even for a ruckmen. I reckon that will change significantly in a years time.

I would have loved him at the cats but there was no chance of that ever happening.

Well thats ur oppinion and that was my brothers who knows him personally and talks to him all the time, i dont know him so i wrote that on behalf of my brother. It really does annoy me when ppl who actually know these guys and yet u lot (not u danA and not the saint supporters) say the total opposite and don't even know them wheres the sence in that? Check out the thread i started danA on Dawson (who i know) and u'll see what i mean :mad:

Gilbo19

6 Dec 2007, 15:05

If you think Kosi will play forward, why would we be wetting our daks to get Gehrig back? Allen surely has to be given some senior footy now, and Goddard may also play forward.

Why keep Van Rheenan then if he's years away? Why not see if you get a ruckman in the draft and (if not) re-rookie him? I think the process has been a bit bizarre.

Are you inbred?
what the hell are you talking about?
Get rid of Van Rheenan because he is a year away, you don't expect rookies to dominate right away, they are long term prospects...
What has Allen done to prove he deserves some game time, if he is the superstar he is made out to be then why did he get taken so late in the draft?
As for Goddard he should be playing on the back flank and wing, rotating with Gram.
Kosi WILL be our full time FF, with Gehrig in the pocket, why were we so happy about getting him back? because he is a 60 goal a year forward and he wont be our main target next year, he will just be a bonus...

A forward line of:
Schneider Riewoldt Xavier
Milne Kosi Gehrig
would absolutely dominate, they've got 3 of the best tall forwards in the league as well as two quality crummers... Xavier can get in the midfield a bit while going up front and then we have a whole lot of defensive pressure in there too...

Cat_Lady19

6 Dec 2007, 15:29

Gilbo19 i totally agree with u with ur comments back to squizzy1970

I go for the cats and its quite obvious to me that Brendan Goddard will play in the backline, him in the forward line i think would be stupid where would u put him for one, theres no romm for him there.

And good on u for working out exactley what the hell his comment ment coz i have no idea LOL.:thumbsu:

Squizzy1970

6 Dec 2007, 15:32

Squizzy1970

6 Dec 2007, 15:35

Oh, I see the "Cat Lady" sings. Egan sees you coming sister - no wonder he runs so fast.

Cat_Lady19

6 Dec 2007, 15:47

Oh, I see the "Cat Lady" sings. Egan sees you coming sister - no wonder he runs so fast.

Yeah right he runs so fast to me fool!!! Ur so weird.:thumbsd:

Gilbo19

8 Dec 2007, 16:25

Have you got more of that gear you are obviously taking?

Out of the 59 goals Gehrig kicked, 36 were against the 7 teams who did not make the 8. This includes the 0 and 1 he kicked against the Dogs in two games. He was absolutely no value on the road which is where the Saints need to improve to challenge the 8.

Now you want to stick him in a pocket, and expect 60 goals. Michael Caton asked me to pass a message on "Tell 'im he's dreamin".

You're also got Van Rheenan only a year away, when others have him a long way off. You missed my point on this one - if we waited for the draft and there was no ruckmen there (which there was) then we could re-rookie him. Who else would pick him up?

To recruit a rookie, you need to have some confidence that they could make the senior list after their 2 years (e.g. Geary). No point hanging on with false hope (you have this in spades Gilbo - including your "ladies").
I never said that he was a year away, personally I have him 2 or 3 years away, if you think that you should drop a player because he is a long term prospect your clearly know SFA...
As for Gehrig only dominating against shit teams who cares?!?, atleast he gets us those 4 points, he wont be our number 1 or even 2 target next year and that will improve his efforts, what team have a defense capable of beating Roo, Kosi, Gehrig, Schneider and Milne!?!?!

Mate you are obviously talking shit.... Why don't yiu go take a long walk off the shortest pier you can find...

Modra93

9 Dec 2007, 23:39

To recruit a rookie, you need to have some confidence that they could make the senior list after their 2 years (e.g. Geary). No point hanging on with false hope (you have this in spades Gilbo - including your "ladies").

And he has had 1 year so far and your callin for his head. Your an idiot, get off this board

Gilbo19

9 Dec 2007, 23:41

And he has had 1 year so far and your callin for his head. Your an idiot, get off this board

:thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu::thumb su:

Squizzy1970

11 Dec 2007, 10:53

You lot sound like you're about 12 years old, so maybe spin it over on saintsational. Or at least stop writing at midnight when your parents aren't watching.

Modra93

11 Dec 2007, 21:36

Out of the 59 goals Gehrig kicked, 36 were against the 7 teams who did not make the 8. This includes the 0 and 1 he kicked against the Dogs in two games. He was absolutely no value on the road which is where the Saints need to improve to challenge the 8.

Now you want to stick him in a pocket, and expect 60 goals. Michael Caton asked me to pass a message on "Tell 'im he's dreamin".

Given 22 games Fraser Gehrig will kick 50 goals this season. He had niggling injurys all year and had terrible delivery at times. There were games when our delivery was piss poor, yet Gehrig was getting blamed for not getting much of it and not kicking goals. Yeah we didnt have our A-grade midfield in at the time, but if the midfield cant get it down there often enough to give good opportunities then being a forward is rough. He has also realised he wants to play football again and will be doing his best as always to get stkilda over the line.

If you think Kosi will play forward, why would we be wetting our daks to get Gehrig back? Allen surely has to be given some senior footy now, and Goddard may also play forward.

Goddard is much more suited to playing off half back where he can utilize his thumping kick to push us into attack.

Surely Allen has to play now? No not surely. He is 19 years old and was injured half of last year. There are big wraps on him but he doesnt have to play now. I'm sure he will get a few games this year but he doesnt have to be pushed in the lineup just yet, make sure he earns his spot.

You're also got Van Rheenan only a year away, when others have him a long way off. You missed my point on this one - if we waited for the draft and there was no ruckmen there (which there was) then we could re-rookie him. Who else would pick him up?

To recruit a rookie, you need to have some confidence that they could make the senior list after their 2 years (e.g. Geary). No point hanging on with false hope (you have this in spades Gilbo - including your "ladies").

Ruckmen dont just grow on tree's squizzy. If you havent noticed so far in your 37 years ruckmen take a while to develop. Once again you are critising a 19 year old for not being a ready made player within the next year. Obviously the coaching staff have faith in Van Rheenan to be a future ruckman, hence he was retained. Who else would pick him up you ask. Anyone could. Opposition scouts would have seen him play and would know his talents, if they think he is the best ruck available, which is likely if he is a year older and has had a year in the afl system then they would take him. It isnt rocket science.

To recruit a rookie you don't have to have confidence they will make the senior list within 2 years. Of course they hope they will, but you can always try and rerookie list them if need be. As i said before they might need more time to develop.

And Squizzy, You will find that Geary was rookie listed last year and has hence been put on the senior list within 1 year of being drafted. This can not be expected from all rookies as the entire reason is to have a second dip at young talent to see how they develop at a low cost.

Why keep Van Rheenan then if he's years away? Why not see if you get a ruckman in the draft and (if not) re-rookie him? I think the process has been a bit bizarre.

If you think the process is bizarre you mustn't be very familiar with AFL list management.

...Squizzy 1940 think you belong on saintsational with your aged theories of list management and gameday strategies because they are not logical, wanted or respected here.

Squizzy1970

12 Dec 2007, 07:55

Well, at least you've put a bit more effort in this time rather than pathetic slander. It's also good to see you getting tucked up into bed a little earlier too.

There was nothing wrong with the delivery to Gehrig last year.

Goddard would be expected to play back, but it would depend on his fitness. If there is a query, he may play forward as he has done before.

Well, now that Gehrig is back I agree it's harder for Allen. But he is a talent.

Wood is ready made and was available. We've taken a player who will need time. The ruckmen are there if you are prepared - Simmonds, Jolly, Hudson etc. Jeff White and Dean Cox were nearly saints in years gone by.

And I think it's you that doesn't understand the system. We have re-rookied McQualter at the last second if he is the best available, and could have done the same with Van Rheenan.

Nighty night - sweet dreams.

Modra93

12 Dec 2007, 10:09

I disagree with you statement about the delivery. From memory the Port Adelaide game we kickd forward very poorly and Gehrig was still heavily criticised.

If GOddard isn fit, he shouldnt play, Simple as that. I dont want to see 85% fit players runnin g around for stkilda.

Allen may well be talent but by no means can you expect him to hold down a key position all year at 19 years old. He will still get games but you cant expect him to be a 22 game player.

Yes Wood was available, but maybe the coaching staff believe McEvoy is a much greater prospect, not to mention we have 2 veteren ruckmen who we got for nothing and Koschitzke to rotate between forward and ruck.

IMO it isnt worth trading for ruckmen because there good there value is much higher just because of the limited ruckmen there are. Simmonds is about 32 this year and the club did offer Fremantle Heath Black for Simmonds, in which all partys agreed to accept Simmonds himself. Jolly isnt worth a high pick nor Hudson a second round pick. Dont you think its better to recruit your own kids and develop them from 18 and 19 years old to play the way stkilda want them to play instead of poaching high cost players? Obviously the staff believe it is as this is the way they have gone.

Well we were obviously not willing to risk Van Rheenan to other clubs, unlike McQualter. We re-rookied McQualter because he has had 3 years in the system. He was a highly rated junior and the coaching staff have decided to give him one more chance over anyone else. It is really pretty simple.

Gilbo19

12 Dec 2007, 10:54

You lot sound like you're about 12 years old, so maybe spin it over on saintsational. Or at least stop writing at midnight when your parents aren't watching.

Atleast the majority of people on Saintsational know a little something about footy...

There was nothing wrong with the delivery to Gehrig last year.

Goddard would be expected to play back, but it would depend on his fitness. If there is a query, he may play forward as he has done before.

Well, now that Gehrig is back I agree it's harder for Allen. But he is a talent.

Wood is ready made and was available. We've taken a player who will need time. The ruckmen are there if you are prepared - Simmonds, Jolly, Hudson etc. Jeff White and Dean Cox were nearly saints in years gone by.

And I think it's you that doesn't understand the system. We have re-rookied McQualter at the last second if he is the best available, and could have done the same with Van Rheenan.

Nighty night - sweet dreams.
If you think that the delivery into our forward line was anywhere near acceptable you are crazy, the only players who could ever hit a target were Dal, Harvey and occasional Joey... The rest were deplorable...

Goddard has spent less time in the forward line then he has in the midfield, bench or backline and he is unlikely to spend any substantial amounts of time up there this year...

As for Gehrig making it harder for Allen that is not a problem, you want competition for positions in the starting 22, it should make a better player out of Allen, players shouldn't be given a run just because they're young, they should have to earn their spot...

Wood was ready made?!?!, the guy has done nothing so far, sure he is good and will get better but he is not going to win us any flags, we are in a better position having topped up with Gardiner and King for nothing to give time for our younger ruckmen to develop...

Your point on dropping Van Rheenan makes no sense, why would we drop him just to pick him up again?, he has done nothing wrong, he is on the rookie list so we don't even have to pay him, he's 19 years old!!, how many 19 year old ruckmen do you see dominating?

Mate you really are talking sh*t, stop wasting everyone's time...

Squizzy1970

12 Dec 2007, 14:05

Gilbo19

12 Dec 2007, 15:04

Ah, the deluded one re-appears from "his ladies".

"the only players who could ever hit a target were Dal, Harvey and occasional Joey... The rest were deplorable" Nice work - Lenny will be most pleased with how you rate him.

You would have no idea where Goddard will play this year.

Armitage and Howard did not earn their spots - if they are talented you give them a taste when you can.

Wood will play from round 1 - ready made in any language.

My point on Van Rheenan makes perfect sense - given we got King, Gardiner, Kosi etc we don't need a player who will take years and may never come up to standard. He will probably play 2s at Casey if our talls are fit. Rix and McEvoy will be in front of him at Casey.

You've got no idea with rookies do you - they get paid, don't worry about that. Why do you think the saints didn't use them until recently - no $$$'s!!!

Don't call people who you don't know mate - it's usually done by very irritating people (oh - now I understand).

Well if you had any common sense you would have realised that I used mate in the most patronizing way possible... but you also can't tell sarcasim by your references to my location, you obviously don't know alot about the recent history of St.Kilda the suburb...

As for Lenny, I rate him as much as any other non bias St.Kilda supporter, he is one of the elite midfielders in the competition for his hardness, tackling and ball winning, not his ball use. He was far from brilliant this year, especially early in the season, this is completely understandable though because he was returning from an ACL and a broken collarbone... However the fact remains his ball use was nowhere near as good as it has been in recent years, don't believe me watch our first game against Fremantle again...

You're right I don't know for a fact where Goddard will play this year but I would assume it would be the position he has spent all of his career so far, his best position, off half back. Goddard coming off half back with Gram on the wing is far better than Gram coming off half back with Goddard in the forward line because we would then have too many talls...

Armitage and Howard did not earn their spots I agree, but they did not get a game to give them a taste, they got a game because we had 24 players to choose from, the only 2 that missed out were Watts and Raymond....

Wow Wood will play round 1 for the team with arguabley the worst ruck stocks in the league, by your logic we should have picked up Guy Richards because he played most games this year...

Your point on Van Rheenan makes no sense, rookies payments dont come under the salary cap so who cares, St.Kilda are doing fine with money.... Because we have 2 old ordinary ruckman, a hack ruckman and a couple of tall forwards we should tell one of our only two developing ruckmen to bugger off... you need to learn that quality ruckman are grown not recruited... Jeez why do you think West Coast didn't delist Cox when he was on their rookie list?!?!

Jeez mate, you are quite dense...

Modra93

12 Dec 2007, 15:21

Ah, the deluded one re-appears from "his ladies".

"the only players who could ever hit a target were Dal, Harvey and occasional Joey... The rest were deplorable" Nice work - Lenny will be most pleased with how you rate him.

You would have no idea where Goddard will play this year.

Armitage and Howard did not earn their spots - if they are talented you give them a taste when you can.

Wood will play from round 1 - ready made in any language.

My point on Van Rheenan makes perfect sense - given we got King, Gardiner, Kosi etc we don't need a player who will take years and may never come up to standard. He will probably play 2s at Casey if our talls are fit. Rix and McEvoy will be in front of him at Casey.

You've got no idea with rookies do you - they get paid, don't worry about that. Why do you think the saints didn't use them until recently - no $$$'s!!!

Don't call people who you don't know mate - it's usually done by very irritating people (oh - now I understand).

Lenny missed 3 games and went missing in some during the first half of the season. With Ball not at full strength as well this means our midfield is rather week as depth is not our strong point. Just admit it Squizzy1920... OUR DELIVERY WAS SHITHOUSE at times during th year and Fraser got the blame not the midfield.

Goddard may well play anywhere. But I dont see why we would need another key position forward (because he would be playing that role as he is not quik enough to be a small forward.)

No shit Armitage and Howard didnt earn there spot, cos we had like 25 players to pick from you moron. You have to make young players earn there spot, if you dont how is the team going to develop and how is the hard working 23-24 year old who is a better player that gets dropped gonna feel like?

Wood is good IMO. I prefer McEvoy.. Gardiner nd King can play round 1 for us.

Seriously your last point about Van Rheenan is the worst argument you've come up with. PLease give it a rest Squizza, your getting worse. Why would we have a developing ruckman on our list when we have two guys over 30 as our #1 and #2 rucks? If you cant figure this out I dont think your going to be figuring much out.. heres a hint they are getting older

Squizzy1970

12 Dec 2007, 15:45

Well if you had any common sense you would have realised that I used mate in the most patronizing way possible... OH DUR!!! but you also can't tell sarcasim by your references to my location, you obviously don't know alot about the recent history of St.Kilda the suburb... DOUBLE DUR!!! IT'S STILL A STUPID REFERENCE SYPHILIS BOY

As for Lenny, I rate him as much as any other non bias St.Kilda supporter, he is one of the elite midfielders in the competition for his hardness, tackling and ball winning, not his ball use. He was far from brilliant this year, especially early in the season, this is completely understandable though because he was returning from an ACL and a broken collarbone... However the fact remains his ball use was nowhere near as good as it has been in recent years, don't believe me watch our first game against Fremantle again... HANG ON, YOU WERE SAYING THEY WERE ALL DEPLORABLE - NOW NOT AS GOOD AS IT HAS BEEN?

You're right I don't know for a fact where Goddard will play this year but I would assume it would be the position he has spent all of his career so far, his best position, off half back. Goddard coming off half back with Gram on the wing is far better than Gram coming off half back with Goddard in the forward line because we would then have too many talls... BUT WHERE IS HE PLAYING IF THERE'S A FITNESS ISSUE - IN THE 2'S OR IN THE FORWARD LINE?

Armitage and Howard did not earn their spots I agree, but they did not get a game to give them a taste, they got a game because we had 24 players to choose from, the only 2 that missed out were Watts and Raymond.... SWEENEY GOT DROPPED AFTER AN OK GAME AGAINST HAWTHORN - ARMITAGE GOT ANOTHER TWO AND HAD NO CONFIDENCE. HOWARD GOT ANOTHER GAME THREE ROUNDS LATER WHEN WE HAD A REASONABLE TEAM.

Wow Wood will play round 1 for the team with arguabley the worst ruck stocks in the league, by your logic we should have picked up Guy Richards because he played most games this year... WOOD WILL PLAY MANY GAMES FOR A TEAM WHO WILL PROBABLY MAKE THE FINALS AGAIN

Your point on Van Rheenan makes no sense, rookies payments dont come under the salary cap so who cares, NOT GOOD LOGIC St.Kilda are doing fine with money.... Because we have 2 old ordinary ruckman, a hack ruckman and a couple of tall forwards we should tell one of our only two developing ruckmen to bugger off... you need to learn that quality ruckman are grown not recruited... Jeez why do you think West Coast didn't delist Cox when he was on their rookie list?!?! I'VE ALREADY SAID THE SAINTS CHASED COX WELL BEFORE HE BECAME A STAR - BIG DIFFERENCE TO VAN RHEENAN

Jeez mate, you are quite dense...

LOL - BRING IT ON

Squizzy1970

12 Dec 2007, 15:53

Lenny missed 3 games and went missing in some during the first half of the season. With Ball not at full strength as well this means our midfield is rather week as depth is not our strong point. Just admit it Squizzy1920... OUR DELIVERY WAS SHITHOUSE at times during th year and Fraser got the blame not the midfield. IF YOU COULDN'T SEE THAT THERE WERE GAMES WHERE GEHRIG REFUSED TO LEAD (HAD A WRESTLE INSTEAD AND THEN LET THE BALL BOUNCE 5M IN FRONT OF HIM) THEN YOU WEREN'T WATCHING. THIS WAS NOT A DISPOSAL ISSUE FROM THE MIDFIELD.

Goddard may well play anywhere. But I dont see why we would need another key position forward (because he would be playing that role as he is not quik enough to be a small forward.)

No shit Armitage and Howard didnt earn there spot, cos we had like 25 players to pick from you moron. You have to make young players earn there spot, if you dont how is the team going to develop and how is the hard working 23-24 year old who is a better player that gets dropped gonna feel like? HOW IS THE TEAM GOING TO DEVELOP? YEP - THAT'S MY LOGIC EXACTLY. YOU SEEM TO ASSUME THAT THE BEST 22 WON'T GET INJURED OR LOSE FORM.

Wood is good IMO. I prefer McEvoy.. Gardiner nd King can play round 1 for us.

Seriously your last point about Van Rheenan is the worst argument you've come up with. PLease give it a rest Squizza, your getting worse. Why would we have a developing ruckman on our list (MCEVOY) when we have two guys over 30 as our #1 and #2 rucks? THEY ARE UNDER 30 If you cant figure this out I dont think your going to be figuring much out.. heres a hint they are getting older

WE HAVE TOO MANY RUCKMEN ON OUR LIST, AND VAN RHEENAN IS SO FAR DOWN THE PECKING ORDER I'M THINKING YOU'RE A RELATIVE.

Gilbo19

12 Dec 2007, 15:57

GoGrammyGo is a better reference is it? there is really no need to get personal though, who cares about our locations it's really irrelevant and nobody seems to care but you...

As a whole the entry into the forward line was deplorable, Hayes' entries were not as good as they have been...

If Goddard is not fit enough to be playing the the backline then chances are he will be playing with the twos...
HF: Goddard (inj.) Roo Schneider
FF: Milne Kosi Gehrig
I hate to break it to you but that is shit, too many stationary talls...

Sweeny's ok game wasn't that ok, 8 touches, 2 marks and a behind don't seem that great to me....

Wood will play many games I agree, he is an ordinary young ruckman in a terrible team for rucks, Guy Richards also played in a prelim final this year, you still wouldn't want to see him in a st.kilda jumper... Collingwood gave up pick 14 for him, we would have had to have given up pick 9!! would you have been willing to give that up for an ordinary ruckman?!?!?

Do you honestly believe that we could have gotten anything better than Van Rheenan with the last pick in the rookie draft?, we were going to have 7 rookies this year either way so don't worry about money, it's irrelevant...

What the hell are you talking about St.Kilda chasing Cox?!?!, you completely missed the point as usual, He didn't come good over night, he just showed something so West Coast showed faith in him and that paid off, that is what we need to do with Van Rheenan and hope that he could become a servicable ruckman...

Gilbo19

12 Dec 2007, 16:02

WE HAVE TOO MANY RUCKMEN ON OUR LIST, AND VAN RHEENAN IS SO FAR DOWN THE PECKING ORDER I'M THINKING YOU'RE A RELATIVE.
They are like 1 or 2 years under 30, like it makes a difference...
As for our list of ruckman...
Gardiner - Let's be serious he has 2 years left MAXIMUM!!
King - Same as Gardiner, just isn't going to be around for long enough
Rix - Lucky to still be on the list, wont play a single game in '08
McEvoy - Young with potential a few years away yet
Van Rheenan - Same as McEvoy

Others you may have been considering...
Koschitzke - Not a ruckman, not at all, he is a below average ruckman, but a far above average forward, where would you rather him?!?!
Blake - Will be lucky to see any game time in '08 is a backup ruckman at best, is also getting older.
Maguire - Played junior footy in the ruck, spent some time in '07 in the ruck but he clearly isn't a ruckman.

It's fine to have a lot of ruckman but if they're all crap you are still going to want to go and get a good one...

Squizzy1970

12 Dec 2007, 16:09

Modra93

12 Dec 2007, 16:14

Squiz, your arguments are weak. Not to mention you didnt have a comment back for 2 of my comments.

Its obvious you have issues with Gehrig. Get over it.

We have to many rucks if you consider Blake to be one. IMO this should be our rucks in order of preference..

King
Gardiner
Koschitzke
Rix
McEvoy
Van Rheenan

2 of which are near the end of there career. 1 which is suited more as a forward, 1 backup at best and 2 developing. This is a good setup.

What other issues do you ahve with the club Squizzy? Im sure a picky person like you has quite a few more.

Squizzy1970

12 Dec 2007, 16:18

If you read BigFooty, you'll see plenty of positive comments from me. Just unfortunately not when you two (and the two Geelong supporters) make comments.

I think one of your comments was "Wood is good"? Didn't think that needed a response. Only reading the rest very very quickly.

Modra93

12 Dec 2007, 16:19

Ah, there's the difference - Kosi. Good ruckman who can go forward and kick goals in purple patches. Hasn't really played many consecutive games at FF but you've locked him in ahead of time (but you won't let me get Allen into the team at all!!!).

Good forward who can play ruck as well I think you mean

And with your last point that's what I'm saying - Van Rheenan isn't showing enough to suggest he'll make it, so why not move on?

That will be decided at the end of next year. If he has shown enough, which I'm sure every Stkilda supporter will be hoping he will either get promoted or rerookied. This is how the rookie system works Squizzy. If you need more explaination PM me.. I can go into basic steps just for you as you are obviously having a lot of difficulty with it.

Gilbo19

12 Dec 2007, 16:37

Ah, there's the difference - Kosi. Good ruckman who can go forward and kick goals in purple patches. Hasn't really played many consecutive games at FF but you've locked him in ahead of time (but you won't let me get Allen into the team at all!!!).

And with your last point that's what I'm saying - Van Rheenan isn't showing enough to suggest he'll make it, so why not move on?

And don't cry about personal references - you give it and don't take it?

Van Rheenan isn't showing anything time to move on?!?! :eek::eek: He is like 19 years old!!, jeez, what on earth were the kangaroos thinking keeping McIntosh for so long?!?!

And I did take your personal references, I just don't care what you think so I thought that we should get back to footy...

As for Kosi he played most of his footy this year in the forward line....

Squizzy1970

12 Dec 2007, 16:44

Gilbo19

12 Dec 2007, 16:51

McIntosh wasn't playing in the VFL reserves for weeks on end.

Geez Kosi got alot of hitouts in the forward line! I don't think so - he was in the ruck the bulk of the year going forward. Who was in the ruck then if he wasn't (surely not just the much maligned Rix)?

McIntosh was a first round draft pick not a rookie, you have to remember rookies arne't expected to come good, if they do it is a bonus, nobody will build their teams around rookies.

Have you already forgotten Matthew Clarke?
There was him, Rix, Blake....

Rank Name Games Average 1 Matthew Clarke (http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--matthew-clarke) 10 14.10 2 Michael Rix (http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--michael-rix) 17 12.12 3 Justin Koschitzke (http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--justin-koschitzke) 19 8.16
Compare that to Ottens' year average of 19
Kosi is wasted in the ruck, absolutely wasted...
Where else would you suggest we play him, send him back to CHB?!?

Squizzy1970

13 Dec 2007, 07:40

McIntosh was a first round draft pick not a rookie, you have to remember rookies arne't expected to come good, if they do it is a bonus, nobody will build their teams around rookies.

Have you already forgotten Matthew Clarke?
There was him, Rix, Blake....

Rank Name Games Average 1 Matthew Clarke (http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--matthew-clarke) 10 14.10 2 Michael Rix (http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--michael-rix) 17 12.12 3 Justin Koschitzke (http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--justin-koschitzke) 19 8.16
Compare that to Ottens' year average of 19
Kosi is wasted in the ruck, absolutely wasted...
Where else would you suggest we play him, send him back to CHB?!?

Thanks a lot - I was trying to forget Matthew Clarke. I'm amazed he played 10 games. 18 marks for the season, no goals (or scores), and less hit outs than Koschitszke.

Agree with Grant Thomas on this one - Kosi can be a very good ruckman.

Ice-Wolf

13 Dec 2007, 09:13

Agree with Grant Thomas on this one - Kosi can be a very good ruckman.

Grant Thomas had no idea when it came to ruckman and rucking in general, being tall a good kick and good mark a ruckman does not make, (makes for a good Full Forward though).

Rucking requires a variety of different skills that don't come naturally to Kosi, Kosi will be a great Full Forward but will only every be a average at best ruckman.

MilneyLoves2Snap

13 Dec 2007, 09:46

Yes I agree with you on Arrowsmith..very disappointing:confused::thumbsd:

he got rookied...

Kildonan

18 Dec 2007, 23:42

Grant Thomas had no idea when it came to ruckman and rucking in general, being tall a good kick and good mark a ruckman does not make, (makes for a good Full Forward though).

Rucking requires a variety of different skills that don't come naturally to Kosi, Kosi will be a great Full Forward but will only every be a average at best ruckman.

I don't want to perpetuate this argument, but GT did actually hold good ruckmen in high esteem. He simply had no truck for a specialist ruckman that wasn't able to contribute after the actual rucking contest was over.

His philosophy was based on the recognition that a team with 18 players will have an advantage over a team with 17 players and a ruckman who is just taking up space.
This philosophy may well have been formulated when we had Trent Knobel playing for us. He was a competent ruckman but a gumbie on the field - a liability who rarely did more than get in the way of other players once the ruck contest was over.

GT did not have a good ruckman available to him (although he did chase a few) so was prepared to use a player or players (not recognised ruckmen) who could compete on the field rather than give the opposition a numerical advantage.

This was a practical compromise based on the non-availablity of a good ruckman.

St DAC

19 Dec 2007, 07:32

Isn't it amazing that no matter how many times this explanation of GT's ruck mantra is said (and GT himself explains it this way) the myth that he "doesn't rate ruckmen" perpetuates?

If you asked any footy follower (other that a Saint, and not even all of us) they would tell you it's "common knowledge" GT doesn't rate ruckmen.

But the press have repeated that phrase ad nauseum and like many things, if repeated often enough tend to become accepted truth no matter their merit. :rolleyes:

Squizzy1970

19 Dec 2007, 09:45

Someone might need to refute that Grant Thomas said to Rix (on getting drafted) something like "Don't get too excited - you won't get a game".

I understand that Rix doesn't get nearly enough around the ground (getting better IMO), and that Thomas might have believed that it was better for Kosi to be 40/60 at the centre bounce but then be damaging around the ground.

Having said this, Brooks, Ackland and Rix were all recruits under his watch.

Unfortunately, teams could get a run on against us by having a dominant tap ruckman or good set plays. Gardi and King in the ruck (with support from Kosi) go a long way towards addressing this.

Sorry for the perpetuation StKildonan - couldn't help it.

sammm

19 Dec 2007, 12:39

I don't want to perpetuate this argument, but GT did actually hold good ruckmen in high esteem. He simply had no truck for a specialist ruckman that wasn't able to contribute after the actual rucking contest was over.

His philosophy was based on the recognition that a team with 18 players will have an advantage over a team with 17 players and a ruckman who is just taking up space.
This philosophy may well have been formulated when we had Trent Knobel playing for us. He was a competent ruckman but a gumbie on the field - a liability who rarely did more than get in the way of other players once the ruck contest was over.

GT did not have a good ruckman available to him (although he did chase a few) so was prepared to use a player or players (not recognised ruckmen) who could compete on the field rather than give the opposition a numerical advantage.

This was a practical compromise based on the non-availablity of a good ruckman.

i don't want to continue the arguement either. youre right on one thing,

GT stated that he held ruckmen in high esteem but only for ones that gcould do something else besides ruck eg Cox.

However, the problem GT had was he wanted a Cox type person and when he couldn't get him, he got very little. didn't try and develop his own ruckmen, just tried to pinch others. did not have a ruck coach except rendell who also was assistant coach and operations manager.

so now that he has left, we have 2 developing ruckmen, and a ruck coach in simon maddon! much better than GT's way. of trying to reach for the sky and get bombed out left with knoble or ackland.

oh yeah we got rix in GT's last year, that becuase a) GT was losing the battle of no ruckmen, rix didnot get a game until half way through the year, when everone was pleading for him to have a go.

DanA

23 Dec 2007, 12:16

I don't want to perpetuate this argument, but GT did actually hold good ruckmen in high esteem. He simply had no truck for a specialist ruckman that wasn't able to contribute after the actual rucking contest was over.

His philosophy was based on the recognition that a team with 18 players will have an advantage over a team with 17 players and a ruckman who is just taking up space.
This philosophy may well have been formulated when we had Trent Knobel playing for us. He was a competent ruckman but a gumbie on the field - a liability who rarely did more than get in the way of other players once the ruck contest was over.

GT did not have a good ruckman available to him (although he did chase a few) so was prepared to use a player or players (not recognised ruckmen) who could compete on the field rather than give the opposition a numerical advantage.

This was a practical compromise based on the non-availablity of a good ruckman.

I don't really consider that rating a ruckmen though. He only rates ruckmen if they are good players so really he only rates good players. Gee that is not really insightful when you look at it.

The even bigger problem though is if he doesn't rate ruckmen then he is undervalue the importance of stoppages and in particular goals from stoppages.

In 2007 Geelong was easily the best team for goals from stoppages
In 2006 Sydney was easily the best team for goals from stoppages
In 2005 Sydney was the best closely followed by Westcoast

Every Geelong supporter remembers Nick Davis' goal from a stoppage in the finals. Fact of the matter that was created by the ruckmen who was up against Cam Mooney!

I think Grant Thomas did underate the importance of ruckwork and their work at stoppages. Sure every team would love Dean Cox but I still think the media have picked up on Thomas having a veiw of that is flawed. I think his practical comprimises were a mistake.

Modra93

23 Dec 2007, 12:25

I don't really consider that rating a ruckmen though. He only rates ruckmen if they are good players so really he only rates good players. Gee that is not really insightful when you look at it.

The even bigger problem though is if he doesn't rate ruckmen then he is undervalue the importance of stoppages and in particular goals from stoppages.

In 2007 Geelong was easily the best team for goals from stoppages
In 2006 Sydney was easily the best team for goals from stoppages
In 2005 Sydney was the best closely followed by Westcoast

Every Geelong supporter remembers Nick Davis' goal from a stoppage in the finals. Fact of the matter that was created by the ruckmen who was up against Cam Mooney!

I think Grant Thomas did underate the importance of ruckwork and their work at stoppages. Sure every team would love Dean Cox but I still think the media have picked up on Thomas having a veiw of that is flawed. I think his practical comprimises were a mistake.

Is there some stats to back this up or not?

Because the way I see it, it would be hard for Sydney to lead the league in goals from stoppages when they kick so limited goals in total.