View Full Version : The Spine Conundrum
Effectively at this time, we have the following players presenting for positions in the standard spine positions.
Michael Hurley, Tayte Pears, Cale Hooker, Patrick Ryder, David Hille, Jason Laycock, Scott Gumbleton, Jay Neagle. (For the sake of argument I'm leaving Dustin out of this)
I consider this to be something of an embarrassment of riches, but the real issue is how do you fit 8 names into 5 positions?
How do you see the spine forming up for 2010?
FB: Pears
CHB: Hooker
R: Ryder
CHF: Hurley
FF: Hille
Gumby, Laycock, Neagle play for Bendigo
Conundrum solved
Lance Uppercut
8 Mar 2010, 13:28
good problem to have
cAsEy_18
8 Mar 2010, 13:33
Well, it definately is a good problem to have, but i have certainly thought the same thing. In the future, not neccesarily talking about this year, i see it as:
FB: Pears
CHB: Hurley
CHF: Gumbleton
FF: Neagle
Ruck: Ryder
*Note: Have Hooker as the 3rd big backman
I want to see Laycock have a good year so he keeps his spot for a while yet, the boy has talent. But what i'm intriguied about is the fact that we will give Gumbleton, Neagle, these guys every opportunity, but if they finally establish themselves, where is the chance for Still and Carlisle and Daniher to do the same?
Having said that, considering all of Pears, Hurley, Hooker, Gumbleton, Neagle, Still, Carlisle and Daniher is reasonably highly rated, and most have shown something so far, you'd hope we could get at least 4 pretty good players out of those. Certainly our strength of the future.
Skeeta Olly
8 Mar 2010, 13:36
FB: Hurley
HB: Pears
HF: Ryder
FF: <Neagle, Gumby, Williams>
Ruck: Hille
Yep, similar conversations were had last year about how on earth to fit Gumby, Lloyd, Lucas, Neagle in one side, but it never happened due to injuries. I hope I am wrong but I cannot see many games where all those players are fit, especially with Laycock, Gumby, Neagle.
Would love to see high competiveness for spots though, make Neagle, Gumby, and Laycock deserve games, not just receive them.
Duckworth
8 Mar 2010, 13:41
FB: Pears
CHB: Hooker
R: Hille
CHF: Ryder
FF: Hurley
Vote #1 Hurley to Full Forward! :D
Read signature.
Alternatively:
Hurley
Pears
Ryder
Gumbleton
Neagle
Jonesy1987
8 Mar 2010, 13:56
I think we can fit 7 of them in the side
FB: Pears
CHB: Hooker
R: Ryder
CHF: Hurley
HF: Gumbleton
FF: Neagle
Inter: Hille
morebeer
8 Mar 2010, 14:04
It may seem at this point as though we have an 'embarrasment of riches' but lets see a few of these guys perform before we get all excited.
Non of the players mentioned have kicked 30 goals in a year as yet and the backs are just getting started.
Really any club could roll out this many names and claim depth but its not really too much to ask for some actual performances to get all excited.
Also, are we calling ruck a spine position? Because surely you cant just name all our ruckman as kpp or is that what we are hoping for?
I think we can fit 7 of them in the side
FB: Pears
CHB: Hooker
R: Ryder
CHF: Hurley
HF: Gumbleton
FF: Neagle
Inter: Hille
Exactly how I'd shape it atm.
Hooker must be given first preference at CHB for an extended period, if his form drops to a point of omittance then Daniher would be next in line IMO as it was for the first month of last year.
It may seem at this point as though we have an 'embarrasment of riches' but lets see a few of these guys perform before we get all excited.
Non of the players mentioned have kicked 30 goals in a year as yet and the backs are just getting started.
Really any club could roll out this many names and claim depth but its not really too much to ask for some actual performances to get all excited.
Also, are we calling ruck a spine position? Because surely you cant just name all our ruckman as kpp or is that what we are hoping for?
I had included the Ruck spot in the spine, moreso for the sake of the debate than anything else.
This is the first season without Lloyd and Lucas, we will learn so much more in 22 rounds or so.
I dont think the OP separated them clearly enough.
KP Backs:
Pears, Hooker and Hurley and a lesser extent Daniher (two of which to play with Fletcher until he retires). I can see Daniher playing a more medium forward or back role though, not necessarily KP in its true sense.
KP Forwards:
Neagle, Gumbleton, Hurley and before we know it serious consideration will need to be given to the likes of Still and Carlsile - and where it gets murky as we have 3 rucks who can genuinely play KP forward, with Ryder probably any position on the ground if he really wanted to.
Ruck:
Ryder, Hille, Laycock, Bellchambers with Bock left to grow a few pre-seasons.
I see it as I have the most confidence in the back KP's making it, Rucks are good IMO if they stay on the park, with the most potential, yet least amount achieved at this point in the forward line KP.
If they all develop, great and if we have too many, they will have great trade currency.
But, life doesn't always work that way. I am very confident we can build a premiership spine with what we have in production. We have to build our midfield into the similar caliber.
I am extremely confident in the Rucks, with Pears/Hooker the key backs, and Hurley plus ????? the key forwards. There may only be one or two spots up for grabs.
Lets see how it pans out.
I am not sure how anyone can seriously argue against Hooker being CHB or FB.
Pears has only been marginally better than Hooker to date and Hooker is gaining rapidly.
Skeeta Olly
8 Mar 2010, 15:41
I am not sure how anyone can seriously argue against Hooker being CHB or FB.
Pears has only been marginally better than Hooker to date and Hooker is gaining rapidly.
Third Tall for me. Pushing up the ground more.
Ludwig van Bertstare
8 Mar 2010, 15:41
I think we can fit 7 of them in the side
FB: Pears
CHB: Hooker
R: Ryder
CHF: Hurley
HF: Gumbleton
FF: Neagle
Inter: Hille
I
Just
Jizzed
My
Pants
Ben the Gooner
8 Mar 2010, 16:40
I think Hooker, Laycock and Neagle are fighting for 1-2 spots.
The rest are certainties if fit.
I think Hooker, Laycock and Neagle are fighting for 1-2 spots.
The rest are certainties if fit.
IMO Hooker is a certainty
Jonesy1987
8 Mar 2010, 16:49
I think Hooker, Laycock and Neagle are fighting for 1-2 spots.
The rest are certainties if fit.
Based on preseason form Neagle is our most likely forward so far.
Frothies Mcveigh
8 Mar 2010, 18:19
As already said, good problem to have.
Would play best IMO.
FB: Pears
HB: Hooker
R:Hille
CHF:Ryder
FF: Hurley
bipolarbeaR
8 Mar 2010, 18:58
good problem to have
Spine problems are no joke! Ask Gumby.
Zahasouvlakis
8 Mar 2010, 19:05
Third Tall for me. Pushing up the ground more.
Our own Sam Gilbert? :)
Skeeta Olly
8 Mar 2010, 19:08
Maybe not at 100kg.
Ben the Gooner
8 Mar 2010, 19:23
The problem with Hooker is that Pears, Hurley and Fletcher are better than him. That's no slight on Hooker, because they're better than a lot of people. Do we really want to go in with 4 key defenders?
If Hurley plays forward, I think everything will be a bit smoother tbh. That squeezes 2 of Laycock, Neagle and Gumby out though.
If Gumby becomes a winger or something, we could fit them in, maybe...
Maybe we should set up a volleyball team as well.
Darealrath
8 Mar 2010, 19:25
I like the Jonesy 7.
I could see Hurley moving back eventually to take the 3rd tall role in defense when Fletch moves on (though I'm in no hurry for that!), to be the general of defence, if Neagle/Gumby and one of Still or Carlisle work out.
Re Hooker vs Hurley: Hooker has a greater potential as a defensive player than Hurley does. Hurley is not as mobile and they both read the play very well. Hurley did do some great things as a stopper against Reiwoldt but nothing more spectacular than what Hooker himself did to Riewoldt and Franklin.
Hurley would be my choice as the third tall because he is a great contested mark and massive accurate kick. Being a third tall would free him to be more damaging offensively and take over the Fletcher role.
Typing this out I see the massive flaw and it is the suggestion that a player of Hurley's quality would be used as a third defensive tall. If this is too foolish, he could end up forward because I don't see any reason that Ryder cannot play as a third man up ruck rover type, especially when Hille is up and running. Ryder's work at the clearences would not be lost and he would be virtually unstoppable contesting 30 - 40% of the time (limit it to avoid predictability).
Ryder roaming then allows Gumbleton, Hurley and Neagle to play forward. Gumbleton and Ryder don't need to be seen as talls in the sense that their mobility means that their are not liabilities (like Neagle and Laycock) to our game plan. Both are quite capable of being links in the chain of ball streaming forward.
This all stems from Hooker's performances, to me he is crucial in the sense that he can free up Pears and Hurley to be more attacking when playing back. What else does a young KPP need to do in a first full season to justify an automatic selection?
Frothies Mcveigh
8 Mar 2010, 21:16
I dont think there is any reason why Gumby couldnt be used as a utility type player, pinch hit in the ruck, go forward or play a Richo type role on the wing. And IMO Hurey has more potential as a backmen than Hooker.
Jonesy1987
8 Mar 2010, 22:06
I like the Jonesy 7.
The Jonesy 7, I like that, its like the Bali 9 but good. :D:thumbsu:
Jonesy1987
8 Mar 2010, 22:09
The problem with Hooker is that Pears, Hurley and Fletcher are better than him. That's no slight on Hooker, because they're better than a lot of people. Do we really want to go in with 4 key defenders?
If Hurley plays forward, I think everything will be a bit smoother tbh. That squeezes 2 of Laycock, Neagle and Gumby out though.
If Gumby becomes a winger or something, we could fit them in, maybe...
Maybe we should set up a volleyball team as well.
I think we would be unstoppable if we could get a working forward structure out of Gumby, Hurley, and Neagle. No side in the league would be able to contain them if they meet anywhere near their collective potential. Gumby playing a really high half forward role, as link on the wing, Hurley the traditional CHF role 40-70 out, and Neagle out of the square. :thumbsu:
That is because Hurley has as much potential as anyone on our list. That said as a 195cm player who is very quick and agile, Hooker does not lack any potential.
That said Hurleys potential is in a role where he can make use of his kicking and contested ability to the maximum but also avoid the situation where he is placed in a pure footrace. Therefore I believe forward is his best positions and that we should work our other talls around that.
Hooker is a different case. He loves to run and carry and set up by hand which is far more suited to being behind the play especially with our gameplan he is also the sort of player that benefits from having the game in front of him. I also feel that he is a perfect match for Pears given his risk taking as opposed to Pears professional percentage play. Other things such as their different sizes and flexibility also adds to the appeal as a pairing. He should be a lock for CHB.
hopefully we can keep them all, and i think laycock is definately the one who will get least game time, just hope we can hang onto him otherwise we are going to have a big hole when hille is gone! or on the other hand get up and win a flag with hille!!
I think we would be unstoppable if we could get a working forward structure out of Gumby, Hurley, and Neagle. No side in the league would be able to contain them if they meet anywhere near their collective potential. Gumby playing a really high half forward role, as link on the wing, Hurley the traditional CHF role 40-70 out, and Neagle out of the square. :thumbsu:Hate to dust off an old chest nut, but..
http://i36.tinypic.com/dw5fsh.jpg
bombermick
9 Mar 2010, 07:49
Hurley should play forward, as CHF allows him to take advantage of his football smarts and anticipation. If he plays back some players will take advantage of a slight lack of athleticism. He is also our most talented young KPP, so we want to play him in the most dangerous position on the ground.
This allows us to play Gumby on a HFF position, roaming the wings (ala Roo) and then sending the ball in long to Hurley, Neagle and Williams. By the time Fletcher retires hopefully Carlisle and/or Still are developed and allow such flexibility to continue.
Re Hooker vs Hurley: Hooker has a greater potential as a defensive player than Hurley does.
Hmmm, I let it slide when you said Hooker has been as good as Pears thus far, but after seeing you suggest Hooker has greater potential than Hurley... I have stopped reading.
Slattery_20
10 Mar 2010, 12:55
The problem with Hooker is that Pears, Hurley and Fletcher are better than him. That's no slight on Hooker, because they're better than a lot of people. Do we really want to go in with 4 key defenders?
If Hurley plays forward, I think everything will be a bit smoother tbh. That squeezes 2 of Laycock, Neagle and Gumby out though.
Laycock has to be in before he gets squeezed out. He's got a lot to do.
Pears & Hooker down back with Fletch 3rd man up, Hurley and Gumbie forward with Willo the 3rd target. That's my ideal plan A "best 22".
Laycock has to be in before he gets squeezed out. He's got a lot to do.
Pears & Hooker down back with Fletch 3rd man up, Hurley and Gumbie forward with Willo the 3rd target. That's my ideal plan A "best 22".No room for Neagle?
Slattery_20
10 Mar 2010, 13:19
He's not that far away but would not mind the pressure being put on him.
IMHO he and Laycock have suffered in the long term from being gifted games early. Need to earn it.
eth-dog
10 Mar 2010, 14:39
the logic of Gumbleton before Neagle baffles me.
Gumby: 5 games 2 goals
Jay: 20 games 30 goals
from that perspective, Neagle is light years ahead of Gumby
Hmmm, I let it slide when you said Hooker has been as good as Pears thus far, but after seeing you suggest Hooker has greater potential than Hurley... I have stopped reading.
Great way to quote me out of context. It was purely as a "defensive player", meaning that he could be a superior stopper and the kind of player that can go to any key forward in the league and match up well. As for the Pears comparison I have seen Hooker keep up with Riewoldt and Franklin and only get flogged once.
Bombers36
10 Mar 2010, 19:15
For me has to be:
Pears
Hooker
Hille
Ryder
Williams
Pears a lock at full back for me, Hooker CHB with Fletch providing support down there as required. Hille a great ruckman - play him there, Laycock off the bench to provide support to Hille which frees up Ryder to play CHF. No reason Ryder cant be a great CHF. Give Gumby some time to find his feet at Bendigo before penciling him for CHF.
Hurlery roaming around the forward line on a HFF- dont see him as a true CHF- more like Jimmy Hird - lets hope hes half the player Jimmy was.
Williams as our leading full forward hopefully can kick 40+ & Neagle in a pocket next to him to play deep and use his ability to take a strong contested mark or lead the other way.
It will be interseting to see how Kinghts manages this but great to have so many options
machina
10 Mar 2010, 19:34
BP: Fletcher
FB: Pears
CHB: Hooker
HBF: Daniher
Wing: Gumbleton
R: Hille
HFF: Ryder
CHF: Hurley
FF: Laycock
FP: Neagle
B: Still, Carlisle, Laycock
Frothies Mcveigh
10 Mar 2010, 19:59
Hope your taking the piss.
machina
10 Mar 2010, 20:19
Yes... yes I am.
For serious, the forward line is completely up in the air at the moment and it's all about who can step up and make a position theirs over the next year or two.
Frothies Mcveigh
10 Mar 2010, 20:34
Good :thumbsu:
Spot on bout forward line too.
Slattery_20
11 Mar 2010, 08:26
the logic of Gumbleton before Neagle baffles me.
Gumby: 5 games 2 goals
Jay: 20 games 30 goals
from that perspective, Neagle is light years ahead of Gumby
I'm not going to argue Gumbie has done anything to prove he's in the "best 22" but the coaches will want to give him a crack sooner rather than later.
rhysman
11 Mar 2010, 08:30
FB:Pears
CHB:Hooker
Ruck:Paddy/Hille
CHF:Hurley
FF:Neagle
Hooker's good pre season form has to give him first crack at CHB even though Knights' plan A was for Hurley to play there. Hurley can now be released forward which I think is a godsend.
Knights has already said that Paddy and Hille will share ruck duty resting forward and this is obvious anyway. Laycock is the back up if either of these fall over.
Neagle is the first choice for FF but the big question mark is Gumby's fitness. If he actually comes up then he could fill the FF spot.
Great problem to have. I feel as though there will be a couple that will get squeezed out or sent to one of the new sides.
in order of importance, Ryder, Hurley, Pears, Hille, Fletcher, Still, Neagle, Hooker and Daniher.
half time raffle
11 Mar 2010, 12:41
Yeah i think Daniher is a bit of a forgotten man and unfortunately for him i think his fate, ie which end of the ground he is going to play, depends on what they want to do with Hurley. If Hurley plays forward he will be groomed for a defensive post and vice versa. But lets not forget Darcy also has a fair bit of talent and has been one of our most consistent performers at VFL level
Ben the Gooner
12 Mar 2010, 07:50
The fact that the most maligned one (Daniher) has pretty decent form at VFL level is pretty bloody encouraging.
Slattery_20
12 Mar 2010, 08:18
Great problem to have. I feel as though there will be a couple that will get squeezed out or sent to one of the new sides.
in order of importance, Ryder, Hurley, Pears, Hille, Fletcher, Still, Neagle, Hooker and Daniher.
Hooker behind Neagle? Yet alone Still?
Hmm.
I think they've got to give Ryder a decent go at CHF. With the pace and leap the guy's got, plus his ability in the centre square tapouts, he could turn into an elite lead up target, as well as being able to take pack marks in the forward line. If you've got a guy who can do that, and a relatively inexperienced/unproven forward line, I think you've got to do it, and I think it's what they're planning, especially with the 3 ruckmen scenario.
The House
12 Mar 2010, 11:00
I think we can fit 7 of them in the side
FB: Pears
CHB: Hooker
R: Ryder
CHF: Hurley
HF: Gumbleton
FF: Neagle
Inter: Hille
I agree with Jonesy here....i'd have Gumby as a high CHF for a while and see how he goes, and have Hurley true CHF with Neagle and Williiams coming out of the square.
Pears and Hooker key backs with Fletch the third attacking, to be replaced by by one of the aforementioned surplus KP's when retired.:thumbsu:
...
Hooker's good pre season form has to give him first crack at CHB even though Knights' plan A was for Hurley to play there. Hurley can now be released forward which I think is a godsend.
...
Agree about Hooker. Looked a bit shakier than I would have liked towards the end of last season, but this pre-season has been great.
Hooker behind Neagle? Yet alone Still?
Hmm.
I wrote that it was in order of importance, not what they have shown on the field.
We need one of those boys (Neagle or Still) to come through. I believe that our backline is quite safe for the time being (Pears/Fletch/Hurley - if he plays there)
Frothies Mcveigh
12 Mar 2010, 14:41
Not to mention the emergence of Carlisle, hes played really well duing the Nab Challenge.
BomberTime
15 Mar 2010, 16:22
We really are blessed with kpp's i would have for season 2010:
Pears, hooker and fletcher back
Hille and ryder rucking and rotating forward (really expect ryder to explode this year with the luxury of having a break during games unlike 09'.
Gumby playing chf and running hard up the ground to be that link man
Neagle playing full foward but would want to kick some goals before hurley is back in round 4 and i would play hurley forward when he returns from suspension.
A spine of pears hooker ryder gumby hurley sounds like a premiership winning spine.
Would also like to see how michael still goes at bendigo this year he looks a real find good hands and good kick for goal, could be a handy 3rd tall in a couple of years.
Slattery_20
15 Mar 2010, 22:11
I wrote that it was in order of importance, not what they have shown on the field.
We need one of those boys (Neagle or Still) to come through. I believe that our backline is quite safe for the time being (Pears/Fletch/Hurley - if he plays there)
Call me short-sighted but I'd say our 1st pick CHB is more important than our 3rd, 4th, or 5th in-line tall forward.
Towno78
16 Mar 2010, 16:44
Great way to quote me out of context. It was purely as a "defensive player", meaning that he could be a superior stopper and the kind of player that can go to any key forward in the league and match up well. As for the Pears comparison I have seen Hooker keep up with Riewoldt and Franklin and only get flogged once.
Actually if you have another look in my quote box, I clearly quoted you correctly inclusive of the context.
But it matters not for the purposes of my argument. Hurley has greater potential than Hooker forward or back. He may not be as athletic, but the man is a footballer, and understands it better than Hooker ever will.
As for Pears, he was extremely consistent last year, amazingly so for a second year player. On the other hand, Hooker did show a lot of potential and has me excited, but no doubt he was up and down. There is a reason Pears came 3rd in the Rising Star and Hooker was never in contention... Simple as that.
But gee the post-Fletcher era's looking rosey having those 3 in the same defensive 50!
Valve Bounce
16 Mar 2010, 19:02
Effectively at this time, we have the following players presenting for positions in the standard spine positions.
Michael Hurley, Tayte Pears, Cale Hooker, Patrick Ryder, David Hille, Jason Laycock, Scott Gumbleton, Jay Neagle. (For the sake of argument I'm leaving Dustin out of this)
I consider this to be something of an embarrassment of riches, but the real issue is how do you fit 8 names into 5 positions?
How do you see the spine forming up for 2010?
You lost me when I got down to Chook! If he's what you are relying for a spine, then you've got arthritis real bad!
Jonesy1987
16 Mar 2010, 20:29
Hooker was never in contention... Simple as that.
Because he is too old.
bipolarbeaR
16 Mar 2010, 23:58
I have a feeling at the end of the year we will trade a young KPP for a middle-aged decent mid.
I have a feeling at the end of the year we will trade a young KPP for a middle-aged decent mid.
who do you think will be the clubs in need will be and what players do they have?
it probably comes down to the teams in our position by the end of the year, west coast and carlton come to mind that may want a KPP at the end of the year, carlton obviously has a lot of midfield depth that they wont want to part with...and west coast doesnt really have a lot of topline midfield yet....
Slattery_20
17 Mar 2010, 06:47
I have a feeling at the end of the year we will trade a young KPP for a middle-aged decent mid.
That'd be a very, very, very optimistic scenario.
Giggidy Giggidy
17 Mar 2010, 08:11
Hooker was never in contention... Simple as that.
Because he is too old.
DOB: 13/10/1988
Was only 20 at the start of 2009.... eligible due to being under 21 on January 1.
Jonesy1987
17 Mar 2010, 09:26
DOB: 13/10/1988
Was only 20 at the start of 2009.... eligible due to being under 21 on January 1.
Sweet, thought he is was 20 when we drafted him.
bombermick
17 Mar 2010, 09:40
I have a feeling at the end of the year we will trade a young KPP for a middle-aged decent mid.
Probably the smart thing to do, but not sure if Carlton (who really need KPP talent) would want to sacrifice any of their glut of midfield talent. It's hard to know which KPP are going to make it for us. Will Carlisle? Still? Will Hurley stay? :(
Faz 2000
17 Mar 2010, 09:53
A middle-aged mid? So, like... 40-50 years old? :p
I reckon the Blues could send a worthwhile midfielder for another big body, but I dunno if Carlton and Essendon would actually trade with one another, given the rivalry, etc.
Slattery_20
17 Mar 2010, 09:58
Carlton will probably try and trade us a tall for another midfielder.
Jonesy1987
17 Mar 2010, 10:04
A middle-aged mid? So, like... 40-50 years old? :p
I reckon the Blues could send a worthwhile midfielder for another big body, but I dunno if Carlton and Essendon would actually trade with one another, given the rivalry, etc.
Don't think there could be a deal anyway. No one at Carlton worth getting that would be within our price range.
Faz 2000
17 Mar 2010, 10:13
Don't think there could be a deal anyway. No one at Carlton worth getting that would be within our price range.
Probably true. Our best is not for sale and our available stuff is woeful.
Maybe a guy at the Blues gets starved of opportunities though... a Grigg or Carrazzo or something. Not saying they're world-beaters, but I could imagine the Blues making a move on one of those guys.
Carlton will probably try and trade us a tall for another midfielder.Haha.
Valve Bounce
17 Mar 2010, 11:44
I think we have enough youngsters for them to be brought along to perform at the top grade. That's what Essendon does, rather than keep trading.
bipolarbeaR
17 Mar 2010, 13:35
Probably the smart thing to do, but not sure if Carlton (who really need KPP talent) would want to sacrifice any of their glut of midfield talent. It's hard to know which KPP are going to make it for us. Will Carlisle? Still? Will Hurley stay? :(
Think of a team that needs to get rid of some expensive midfield talent that have just finished a good premiership tilt, I don't want any of Carlton's second hand stuff. I am thinking Western Bulldogs or Geelong, maybe the realization of the fact that having a big forward (Barry Hall) is a must and go for a young gun?
Maybe Sydney seek to find a replacement for Bolton or want Neagle as his dad played for them too, and are willing to part with a McVeigh? (although not likely)
bipolarbeaR
17 Mar 2010, 13:37
I dunno if Carlton and Essendon would actually trade with one another, given the rivalry, etc.
Two words, "Paul Salmon"
bombermick
17 Mar 2010, 13:48
Think of a team that needs to get rid of some expensive midfield talent that have just finished a good premiership tilt, I don't want any of Carlton's second hand stuff. I am thinking Western Bulldogs or Geelong, maybe the realization of the fact that having a big forward (Barry Hall) is a must and go for a young gun?
Maybe Sydney seek to find a replacement for Bolton or want Neagle as his dad played for them too, and are willing to part with a McVeigh? (although not likely)
The problem is that of our KPPs, those that have currency are the ones we would never trade, at least willingly. Conversely, those we would be willing to let go probably have little worth. If the right deal came along, you would probably trade Daniher or Still. But would you get much for them? Sydney will never trade McVeigh. The only way to trade in established midfield talent is if we trade any of the three KPP we just can't lose ... Hurley, Pears and Hooker.
bipolarbeaR
17 Mar 2010, 13:58
Everybody knows we are the team that are overflowing with decent KPP's, I believe we are the ones that will be approached by knowledgeable recruiters, we aren't the ones doing the searching and that puts our KPP's currency up.
mark1881
17 Mar 2010, 14:00
Hypothetically speaking, would Essendon accept any of the following?
Hurley for B.Gibbs?
Pears for M.Murphy?
Neagle and Hooker for J.McVeigh?
Hurley or Pears for J.Selwood?
Slattery_20
17 Mar 2010, 14:02
Wouldn't mind another Prismall, mick! Lots of things can happen to make players more likely to be available. Change of coach, team failing in the a*se, team succeeding and the cap squeeze, new guys pushing players out. gc & gws will make a lot of stuff happen, yes they will target us but may also bring opportunity.
Slattery_20
17 Mar 2010, 14:05
Hypothetically speaking, would Essendon accept any of the following?
Hurley for B.Gibbs?
Pears for M.Murphy?
Neagle and Hooker for J.McVeigh?
Hurley or Pears for J.Selwood?
We've very, very rarely traded good players.
Jacobs and Ted Richards are probably the ones who've hurt us the most. Guess Ted's of a similar level to Hooker but Hooker doesn't have a coach who wants to pick Henno in front of him.
Wouldn't do any of the above.
bombermick
17 Mar 2010, 14:10
Wouldn't mind another Prismall, mick! Lots of things can happen to make players more likely to be available. Change of coach, team failing in the a*se, team succeeding and the cap squeeze, new guys pushing players out. gc & gws will make a lot of stuff happen, yes they will target us but may also bring opportunity.
Prismall is a great example. We shouldn't be targeting the known guns of the comp. We should be going for guys like Prismall, whose abilities were obvious but where opportunities were limited. Maybe someone like Wellingham who is on the fringes.
Slattery_20
17 Mar 2010, 14:13
Prismall is a great example. We shouldn't be targeting the known guns of the comp. We should be going for guys like Prismall, whose abilities were obvious but where opportunities were limited. Maybe someone like Wellingham who is on the fringes.
Agree with that in principle. We're still on the younger side, we shouldn't be throwing the kitchen sink at anyone who comes up, but there will be guys who are up who could be handy.
i know everyone is loving hooker at the moment,, but if neagle and gumbleton come good, and we decide that we need 1 more top midfielder to have a real tilt at a flag surely hooker would be tradeable.... obviosuly we cant talk about it middle of march and it would almost be a discussion in 2.5years time after hopefully a top 5 finish in 2011... we would then be able to have still and carlisle as backups!
but if melksham and zaka turn into great midfielders we wont really need anymore, and it will be a case of KPP's wanting to leave for more game time elsewhere, which will most likely be neagle, still or carlisle. then they will get undervalued as they want out...
Slattery_20
17 Mar 2010, 14:17
i know everyone is loving hooker at the moment,, but if neagle and gumbleton come good, and we decide that we need 1 more top midfielder to have a real tilt at a flag surely hooker would be tradeable.... obviosuly we cant talk about it middle of march and it would almost be a discussion in 2.5years time after hopefully a top 5 finish in 2011... we would then be able to have still and carlisle as backups!
but if melksham and zaka turn into great midfielders we wont really need anymore, and it will be a case of KPP's wanting to leave for more game time elsewhere, which will most likely be neagle, still or carlisle. then they will get undervalued as they want out...
If, if, if.
Personally doubt Neagle, long term, and on balance you'd have to say a guy who's missed 3/3 seasons is a fair shot to miss a bit more.
Hooker is a far better bet to have a long term career than Neagle and Gumbie. Purely because he's got on the park.
We've very, very rarely traded good players.
Jacobs and Ted Richards are probably the ones who've hurt us the most. Guess Ted's of a similar level to Hooker but Hooker doesn't have a coach who wants to pick Henno in front of him.
Wouldn't do any of the above.
Paul Salmon ?? might have got us an extra 2points in 96 and 99 pre-lims.. :)
If, if, if.
Personally doubt Neagle, long term, and on balance you'd have to say a guy who's missed 3/3 seasons is a fair shot to miss a bit more.
Hooker is a far better bet to have a long term career than Neagle and Gumbie. Purely because he's got on the park.
yup, this is why its a disussion for the end of 2011, if neagle and gumby are no good obviously we will need still carlisle hurley hooker and pears,
The House
17 Mar 2010, 15:18
I have a feeling at the end of the year we will trade a young KPP for a middle-aged decent mid.
Is it too late to trade for Courtney John's?
To be slightly more serious, the dogs might be well advised to get a forward that will be ready to replace BBBBH probably in 2012...could be a win win in there somewhere.:cool:
Two words, "Paul Salmon"What's he got to do with Carlton?
What's he got to do with Carlton?
i read it as being about trading with rivals....
i read it as being about trading with rivals....Ah, it would certainly make more sense.
Towno78
18 Mar 2010, 13:23
We've very, very rarely traded good players.
Jacobs and Ted Richards are probably the ones who've hurt us the most. Guess Ted's of a similar level to Hooker but Hooker doesn't have a coach who wants to pick Henno in front of him.
Wouldn't do any of the above.
I don't see how the Ted Richards trade hurt us terribly. He's hardly a world beater.
What did we get in return for Teddy... Dempsey and Lonergan. I know which side of that trade I'm happy to be on.
Slattery_20
18 Mar 2010, 13:27
Took us 3 years to replace him, Towno.
Remember Henno down back? Bolton taking a kpp? Joel Reynolds on Fev? Kepler Bradley's essendon career?
Lance Uppercut
18 Mar 2010, 13:30
Took us 3 years to replace him, Towno.
Remember Henno down back? Bolton taking a kpp? Joel Reynolds on Fev? Kepler Bradley's essendon career?
oh god make it stop! :(
Giggidy Giggidy
18 Mar 2010, 13:33
Took us 3 years to replace him, Towno.
Remember Henno down back? Bolton taking a kpp? Joel Reynolds on Fev? Kepler Bradley's essendon career?
I was annoyed about our treatment of Teddy at the time (had #20 on my back:()... but we had many other issues over those 3 years, and probably would have had those 3 years of pain with or without Teddy.
Now we have Dempsey and Lonergan forming part of a young nucleus as we push into, hopefully, our next successful era.
Slattery_20
18 Mar 2010, 13:37
I was annoyed about our treatment of Teddy at the time (had #20 on my back:()... but we had many other issues over those 3 years, and probably would have had those 3 years of pain with or without Teddy.
Now we have Dempsey and Lonergan forming part of a young nucleus as we push into, hopefully, our next successful era.
I'm a huge wrap for Dempsey. Very, very important for us.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't have shafted Ted. The only time he got a run was to get his trade value up.
Ben the Gooner
18 Mar 2010, 15:12
oh god make it stop! :(
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/1/19/The_Goggles,_they_do_nothing%21.gif/180px-The_Goggles,_they_do_nothing%21.gif