List Mgmt. 2015 Trade, Free agency and draft rumours

[Bumps"N"Grins]

I still don't understand the suckling hate.

I do.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

I do.

Fair enough. But the only thing that matters is the coaching staff value him and so do I.

 

[WWSD]

I still don't understand the suckling hate.

I don't hate Suckling at all, he's a good player in fact. I was just saying that out of all the Premiership players on our list he's the one who may be squeezed out of the side. That doesn't mean that I don't rate him or that he will leave our club.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

I don't hate Suckling at all, he's a good player in fact. I was just saying that out of all the Premiership players on our list he's the one who may be squeezed out of the side. That doesn't mean that I don't rate him or that he will leave our club.

I understand that, but he is worth more to us than what we would get in return. That's why I don't get why he is always criticised. No player is perfect, but he offers us an extra option out of the backline. If coaches choose to tag Birchall we turn to Suckling. I think we are a better team with him in than out. Not saying he's irreplaceable but still a very worthy contributor.

 

[Blaze Storm]

I understand that, but he is worth more to us than what we would get in return. That's why I don't get why he is always criticised. No player is perfect, but he offers us an extra option out of the backline. If coaches choose to tag Birchall we turn to Suckling. I think we are a better team with him in than out. Not saying he's irreplaceable but still a very worthy contributor.

I agree with this. If one of the star mids goes down, we have a very inferior, but serviceable replacement for them. If Suckling/Birch go down, we can't really replace them without pulling multiple players out of their preferred positions (i.e. cycling through Burgers/Hodge/Mitch), Maybe Gus steps in, but in a few years when the older guys are retiring, we lose that flexibility without him.

 

[Brishawk]

Suckling is not just a good kick. He is quick and willing to take the game on with his speed. I think only behind Smith (and maybe Hill) for running bounces. That should not be underestimated. He breaks lines both through his speed/running and his long accurate kicking. Through him we transition from defence to attack very quickly, especially when he hits Smith and Hill in space. I agree with Rushed_Behind that we are better with him than without and we won't get what he is worth to us in Compo.

 

[savagelunchbox]

The teams covers Suckling's weaknesses and utilises his strengths to make him appear better than he is. The teams covers his lack of defensive side and defensive accountability by having the best team orientated defense in the league. They use quick ball movement and quick and agile players around the ball to cover for Suckling's lack of natural speed and agility. The team has the best spread of any team to make his kicking even more dangerous and allowing him to have multiple options to go to as well as covering for his sometimes lack of composure when under a lot of pressure.

If Suckling played for, say, the Crows, he would look a very average player. His weaknesses would be exploited as his teammates aren't as drilled and aren't as good at covering for his weaknesses like Hawthorn are.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

The teams covers Suckling's weaknesses and utilises his strengths to make him appear better than he is. The teams covers his lack of defensive side and defensive accountability by having the best team orientated defense in the league. They use quick ball movement and quick and agile players around the ball to cover for Suckling's lack of natural speed and agility. The team has the best spread of any team to make his kicking even more dangerous and allowing him to have multiple options to go to as well as covering for his sometimes lack of composure when under a lot of pressure.

If Suckling played for, say, the Crows, he would look a very average player. His weaknesses would be exploited as his teammates aren't as drilled and aren't as good at covering for his weaknesses like Hawthorn are.

By that reasoning our game plan is only designed to play suckling.

Team defence is important because with the chopping the arms rule one on one is harder to negate. Team defence helps all defenders including the likes of lake, gibbo and stratton who people laud as our best defenders.

One bit of play that hasn't come up which I thought was pretty average was when buddy beat those guys 2 on 1 in the goal square. Yet suckling gets lambasted for Goodes beating him in the last. Goodes is taller and stronger than him and is still a dangerous player.

 

[Brishawk]

The teams covers Suckling's weaknesses and utilises his strengths to make him appear better than he is. The teams covers his lack of defensive side and defensive accountability by having the best team orientated defense in the league. They use quick ball movement and quick and agile players around the ball to cover for Suckling's lack of natural speed and agility. The team has the best spread of any team to make his kicking even more dangerous and allowing him to have multiple options to go to as well as covering for his sometimes lack of composure when under a lot of pressure.

If Suckling played for, say, the Crows, he would look a very average player. His weaknesses would be exploited as his teammates aren't as drilled and aren't as good at covering for his weaknesses like Hawthorn are.

You think Suckling is slow??

Take a look at his 2014 season review. Plenty of times he burns off defenders.

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/2014-11-05/2014-review-matthew-suckling

 

[Furn2]

Suckling is the type of player that has great value in the right team, but you need very good inside ball winners and good defenders for him to be fully effective.

Thats why when we got injuries mid year to Mitch,Gibbo,Lake,Stratton,Lewis etc etc he came under fire because he had to get into more contests and defend more and came up short.

Once we got those players back in the finals for example he went back to playing his role and was very good.

So while teams will be interested, Im not sure we'll see a huge offer for him (500k) because hes not a guy thats going to lift a bottom/mid table club. Hes very much the icing on a cake and a bit of a luxury.

On the other hand, while hes an important player I dont think we can afford to get in a real bidding war with anyone for him. He'll have to take unders if he stays like everyone else.

 

[Great 2008]

Suckling is not just a good kick. He is quick and willing to take the game on with his speed. I think only behind Smith (and maybe Hill) for running bounces. That should not be underestimated. He breaks lines both through his speed/running and his long accurate kicking. Through him we transition from defence to attack very quickly, especially when he hits Smith and Hill in space. I agree with Rushed_Behind that we are better with him than without and we won't get what he is worth to us in Compo.

Hey Brishawk visit the HawthornFC Official Website (link below) and check out Cameron Bruce's play of the day (in the St Kilda NAB game) and you will see the three of them going coast to coast together. (Or did that inspire your post?)

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/video/2015-03-25/play-of-the-day-with-cameron-bruce-

 

[Brishawk]

Hey Brishawk visit the HawthornFC Official Website (link below) and check out Cameron Bruce's play of the day (in the St Kilda NAB game) and you will see the three of them going coast to coast together. (Or did that inspire your post?)

http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/video/2015-03-25/play-of-the-day-with-cameron-bruce-

Was an incredible bit of play that one! Suckling had four saints chasing at one point and none could catch him!

People think of defenders as Gibbo and hodge types that can sit on a forward and beat them in contests in our backline. That just isn't our game and slowly it is becoming a thing of the past for the whole comp. Defenders are players who play behind the footy. Yes you need the hodges and the Gibbo's but you also need your Sucklings. When Suckling runs his opponent chases him and suddenly their forward is not in position should a turnover occur. Look at that video again and watch where Hill's man is - behind him the whole way and at no point does he even consider looking at the ball. Even if Suckling had of turned the ball over Hill's opponent would not have been in position to receive it. Offence is defence.

IT is no coincidence that Suckling regularly finds himself on his own through the middle of the ground either. He picks his moment and uses his pace to get a gap on his opponent. In the passage of play in which poppy receives the ball from suckling to kick our first of the GF Suckling starts that play in defence.

 

[savagelunchbox]

By that reasoning our game plan is only designed to play suckling.

Team defence is important because with the chopping the arms rule one on one is harder to negate. Team defence helps all defenders including the likes of lake, gibbo and stratton who people laud as our best defenders.

One bit of play that hasn't come up which I thought was pretty average was when buddy beat those guys 2 on 1 in the goal square. Yet suckling gets lambasted for Goodes beating him in the last. Goodes is taller and stronger than him and is still a dangerous player.

No, I wrote it like that because the topic was Suckling. The game plan is loosely based around being a team and utilizing a players strengths whilst also helping to cover their weaknesses.

e.g. In 2010-11, Schoenmakers was horrible at defending one on one, so Gibson would leave his man to go in third up to help him out.
Clinton Young, whilst a long kick, was horribly inaccurate. When he was running down the wing and likely to kick inside 50, the forwards rarely lead anywhere other than to the pockets/boundary line so when Young kicked it in and missed the target, the ball either went out of bounds, allowing the Hawks to setup a stoppage attack, or it went to the opposition in a bad spot for them. Had the forwards led up the middle and Young missed his target, the turnover fast break was a likely outcome and the Hawks would have been left vulnerable.

and so on...

 

[Procrastinator35]

I love Suckers and think most supporters underrate him amd is easy best 22 but there is no way he is worth 500k on the open market. If a club pays that then I would really question that clubs sanity.

We would never get Band 1 for Suckling.

If he has a better season this year than last, then that will change soon enuf!....Given he is 12 months further advanced since his knee reco & coming off a full pre-season, then there's no reason to expect that not to be the case. His pre-season form has been impressive thus far.... He is also turning 27 this year (July), meaning that he is just now coming into the peak of his powers & entering his prime as an AFL footballer

It was pretty clear from the boys reaction to the goal he kicked in the GF that they all love the bloke.

Anyhow, if he does re-sign with us, then all this debate will be rendered moot!

 

[Rushed_Behind]

No, I wrote it like that because the topic was Suckling. The game plan is loosely based around being a team and utilizing a players strengths whilst also helping to cover their weaknesses.

e.g. In 2010-11, Schoenmakers was horrible at defending one on one, so Gibson would leave his man to go in third up to help him out.
Clinton Young, whilst a long kick, was horribly inaccurate. When he was running down the wing and likely to kick inside 50, the forwards rarely lead anywhere other than to the pockets/boundary line so when Young kicked it in and missed the target, the ball either went out of bounds, allowing the Hawks to setup a stoppage attack, or it went to the opposition in a bad spot for them. Had the forwards led up the middle and Young missed his target, the turnover fast break was a likely outcome and the Hawks would have been left vulnerable.

and so on...

Fair enough. I just think that the coaches have come up with a game plan that they believe will give us the best shot at winning flags and Suckling is able to preform his role in that team better than anyone else on the list.

With Schoey and Young I just think that they have been replaced by more able players rather than a massive overhaul of the game plan. May be some tweaks.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

By that reasoning our game plan is only designed to play suckling.

Team defence is important because with the chopping the arms rule one on one is harder to negate. Team defence helps all defenders including the likes of lake, gibbo and stratton who people laud as our best defenders.

One bit of play that hasn't come up which I thought was pretty average was when buddy beat those guys 2 on 1 in the goal square. Yet suckling gets lambasted for Goodes beating him in the last. Goodes is taller and stronger than him and is still a dangerous player.

So using the size as a defense for not having a crack at Goodes in the air, then a smaller less agile and infinitely under strength Hodge should never have spoiled Franklin one on one in a similar position earlier on in the GF.
Kicks, runs and links up well in a very good team, would he do the same for a bottom six side? Would you have him play off halfback in a team under siege? lack of effort when the chips are down or the game isn't on his terms goes part of the way to explain some of my dislike. But hey he wears the brown and gold so I can't hate.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

So using the size as a defense for not having a crack at Goodes in the air, then a smaller less agile and infinitely under strength Hodge should never have spoiled Franklin one on one in a similar position earlier on in the GF.
Kicks, runs and links up well in a very good team, would he do the same for a bottom six side? Would you have him play off halfback in a team under siege? lack of effort when the chips are down or the game isn't on his terms goes part of the way to explain some of my dislike. But hey he wears the brown and gold so I can't hate.

I'm not saying he is perfect but he supposedly spudded 1 contest, yet Franklin beat our 2 premier defenders yet no one bats an eyelid.

You're entitled to your opinion but he gets marked harshly IMO, and I still believe he does enough when the chips are down. We are talking about a player in our bottom 10 not top 5. You can't have 22 elite players. IMO his good far outweighs his shortcomings but again my opinion is not really worth a pinch of sh1t.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Suckling is the type of player that has great value in the right team, but you need very good inside ball winners and good defenders for him to be fully effective.

Thats why when we got injuries mid year to Mitch,Gibbo,Lake,Stratton,Lewis etc etc he came under fire because he had to get into more contests and defend more and came up short.

Once we got those players back in the finals for example he went back to playing his role and was very good.

So while teams will be interested, Im not sure we'll see a huge offer for him (500k) because hes not a guy thats going to lift a bottom/mid table club. Hes very much the icing on a cake and a bit of a luxury.

On the other hand, while hes an important player I dont think we can afford to get in a real bidding war with anyone for him. He'll have to take unders if he stays like everyone else.

When we were at our lowest EBB last year against Port Adelaide with the most players missing guess who was amongst the best players on the ground. Scroll down the list after Lewis.

 

[Brishawk]

When we were at our lowest EBB last year against Port Adelaide with the most players missing guess who was amongst the best players on the ground. Scroll down the list after Lewis.

Sorry, what list are you referring to?

 

[TheFourPillars]

Sorry, what list are you referring to?

The best player list from the game

 

[Prudster]

I'm not saying he is perfect but he supposedly spudded 1 contest, yet Franklin beat our 2 premier defenders yet no one bats an eyelid.

You're entitled to your opinion but he gets marked harshly IMO, and I still believe he does enough when the chips are down. We are talking about a player in our bottom 10 not top 5. You can't have 22 elite players. IMO his good far outweighs his shortcomings but again my opinion is not really worth a pinch of sh1t.

I think people seem to be mistaking pointing out Suckling's weaknesses (and the reasons why he won't get a 500k+ contract and get us band 1 compo) as bashing Suckling. I think we all know he is a valuable player to the team, and that he is certainly best 22, but there is no way we will ever get a first round pick for him under free agency.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I think people seem to be mistaking pointing out Suckling's weaknesses (and the reasons why he won't get a 500k+ contract and get us band 1 compo) as bashing Suckling. I think we all know he is a valuable player to the team, and that he is certainly best 22, but there is no way we will ever get a first round pick for him under free agency.

Yet you say this with such conviction & certainty although the season has not yet even begun, nor a football kicked in anger!....Who'd of thought that all we'd get for Buddy from a 9 year $10 million deal would be pick 19?....Despite the stipulation that special consideration would be offered to contracts that far outweigh all the usual parameters?....Well, apart from VLAD, of course!

I know who to come to for my tips this year then I see!....A deal over 5K would be the only carrot that could possibly see him leave, I'd of thought!

Apologies to Rushed_Behind

 

[Prudster]

Yet you say this with such conviction & certainty although the season has not yet even begun, nor a football kicked in anger!....Who'd of thought that all we'd get for Buddy from a 9 year $10 million deal would be pick 19?....Despite the stipulation that special consideration would be offered to contracts that far outweigh all the usual parameters?....Well, apart from VLAD, of course!

I know who to come to for my tips this year then I see!....A deal over 5K would be the only carrot that could possibly see him leave, I'd of thought!

View attachment 119194 Apologies to Rushed_Behind

What are you talking about, the only way we weren't getting pick 19 for Franklin is if the AFL decided to use their brains. That's obviously very unlikely to happen, meaning pick 19 was almost always what we were getting.

But you're right, i was perhaps a bit too strong with that. But to get a first rounder for him, he would need to get an offer of more than 500k for three years (Given Malceski only got Sydney a second rounder), probably closer to 600-650k+. What are the chances someone will offer him that? Possible, but unlikely for a player like Suckling.

 

[Blaze Storm]

Was an incredible bit of play that one! Suckling had four saints chasing at one point and none could catch him!

People think of defenders as Gibbo and hodge types that can sit on a forward and beat them in contests in our backline. That just isn't our game and slowly it is becoming a thing of the past for the whole comp. Defenders are players who play behind the footy. Yes you need the hodges and the Gibbo's but you also need your Sucklings. When Suckling runs his opponent chases him and suddenly their forward is not in position should a turnover occur. Look at that video again and watch where Hill's man is - behind him the whole way and at no point does he even consider looking at the ball. Even if Suckling had of turned the ball over Hill's opponent would not have been in position to receive it. Offence is defence.

IT is no coincidence that Suckling regularly finds himself on his own through the middle of the ground either. He picks his moment and uses his pace to get a gap on his opponent. In the passage of play in which poppy receives the ball from suckling to kick our first of the GF Suckling starts that play in defence.

This is a great analysis.

What are you talking about, the only way we weren't getting pick 19 for Franklin is if the AFL decided to use their brains. That's obviously very unlikely to happen, meaning pick 19 was almost always what we were getting.

But you're right, i was perhaps a bit too strong with that. But to get a first rounder for him, he would need to get an offer of more than 500k for three years (Given Malceski only got Sydney a second rounder), probably closer to 600-650k+. What are the chances someone will offer him that? Possible, but unlikely for a player like Suckling.

Malceski is also 30 years old, so his future worth is a lot less than Suckers

 

[Prudster]

Malceski is also 30 years old, so his future worth is a lot less than Suckers

Malceski was AA in 2014. For a three year deal, he is worth more than Suckling, even though he is older. Can people actually see teams offering Suckling 600-650k+? Like be realistic, Suckling is good, but that is elite level money. There is almost no chance we get a first round pick for Suckling, and quite frankly, i have no issue with that.