Traded #27: Jonathan Giles - Traded to The West Coast with pick 62 for pick 57

[Cristiano Ronaldo]

Happy with what he showed

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Knows where the sticks are for a big bloke which i like the most.

 

[JohnnyDrama1]

Didn't watch the game, but apparently he played quite well, but apparently Goddard also said on commentary he thinks TBC will be #1 ruck. Assuming Giles plays, it's going to be very hard to see how Giles, Daniher and Carlisle fit into the same forward line.

 

[MightyDons4]

Didn't watch the game, but apparently he played quite well, but apparently Goddard also said on commentary he thinks TBC will be #1 ruck. Assuming Giles plays, it's going to be very hard to see how Giles, Daniher and Carlisle fit into the same forward line.

Yeah, he said it with some confidence too! Hopefully this means TBC is fit and ready to recapture some of his past form.

 

[Kakkle]

Think this is going to be a really good value trade for us. We essentially got him for nothing.

 

[eth-dog]

Giles and Bellchambers is close to the perfect ruck combination. Bellchambers better at the stoppage, Giles better around the ground, both good forward.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

The more I think about Joffa, the more I think Essendon did good in snagging him last year.

Joins the ranga/pasty brigade alongside Cooney, Laverde and McKenna.

If both Giles and Bellcho play in the same team, bearing in mind Carlisle, Daniher, Hurley and Hooker are regulars, would that be a group of cohesive 6 or is that a bit too tall?

 

[mmm beaut]

The more I think about Joffa, the more I think Essendon did good in snagging him last year.

Joins the ranga/pasty brigade alongside Cooney, Laverde and McKenna.

If both Giles and Bellcho play in the same team, bearing in mind Carlisle, Daniher, Hurley and Hooker are regulars, would that be a group of cohesive 6 or is that a bit too tall?

Looks like a good spine to me. They don't to be cohesive as such if at opposite ends of the ground. Especially with the flexibly of hurley/carlisle.
Look every side challenging needs at least 2 capable rucks, if injury hits Giles gives us that without losing daniher/carlisle where we need them.
Lets be honest, t-bell had a shocker last year (obviously injured etc) but he's no garuntee to get back to 2013 form, and giles is very close to#1 as it stands imo.

Love the brigade

 

[eth-dog]

The more I think about Joffa, the more I think Essendon did good in snagging him last year.

Joins the ranga/pasty brigade alongside Cooney, Laverde and McKenna.

If both Giles and Bellcho play in the same team, bearing in mind Carlisle, Daniher, Hurley and Hooker are regulars, would that be a group of cohesive 6 or is that a bit too tall?

Sydney play Richards, Grundy, Franklin, Reid, Tippett and Pyke. Hawthorn will play Lake, Frawley, Roughead, Gunston, Hale and McEvoy this season. Port will play Ryder, Lobbe, Schulz, Westhoff, Carlile and Trengove. It's not too tall.

 

[BrunoV]

Giles and Bellchambers is close to the perfect ruck combination. Bellchambers better at the stoppage, Giles better around the ground, both good forward.

They compliment eachothers' weaknesses in the ruck but it's still the old 2 x no 1 ruck problem.

I much rather the 70-30ish split with the 30 coming from a guy who is a genuine and mobile forward but still able to ruck a whole game (i.e. Ryder, unfortunately) and the 70 from a guy who is good around the ground.

While I don't accept the calculations that had people making comments like "Goldstein by himself was better than Goldstein + McIntosh" (it seemed to me that McIntosh's output was routinely excluded from the calculation), playing two "number 1s" means you're not necessarily getting the best value for the two positions.

The ruck is fine but it's what happens with the third tall forward forward position that is important and why you want a key forward there for as much of the game as possible (more than a ruck who is dangerous when forward). This is heightened by the make up of our forwardline which tends towards being slow and Carlisle and Daniher both being better close to goal which is where you want to plonk the 'resting' ruck.

Not sure how this will play out. On paper it looks like the forwardline will be too top heavy but it's hard to know not having seen what Daniher and Carlisle look like at the moment.

 

[84859300]

They compliment eachothers' weaknesses in the ruck but it's still the old 2 x no 1 ruck problem.

I much rather the 70-30ish split with the 30 coming from a guy who is a genuine and mobile forward but still able to ruck a whole game (i.e. Ryder, unfortunately) and the 70 from a guy who is good around the ground.

While I don't accept the calculations that had people making comments like "Goldstein by himself was better than Goldstein + McIntosh" (it seemed to me that McIntosh's output was routinely excluded from the calculation), playing two "number 1s" means you're not necessarily getting the best value for the two positions.

The ruck is fine but it's what happens with the third tall forward forward position that is important and why you want a key forward there for as much of the game as possible (more than a ruck who is dangerous when forward). This is heightened by the make up of our forwardline which tends towards being slow and Carlisle and Daniher both being better close to goal which is where you want to plonk the 'resting' ruck.

Not sure how this will play out. On paper it looks like the forwardline will be too top heavy but it's hard to know not having seen what Daniher and Carlisle look like at the moment.

Could this be the time to transition playing our second ruck as the sub?

if we have a call to cover an injury, Carlisle or Joey can jump in for a chop out.

 

[eth-dog]

They compliment eachothers' weaknesses in the ruck but it's still the old 2 x no 1 ruck problem.

I much rather the 70-30ish split with the 30 coming from a guy who is a genuine and mobile forward but still able to ruck a whole game (i.e. Ryder, unfortunately) and the 70 from a guy who is good around the ground.

While I don't accept the calculations that had people making comments like "Goldstein by himself was better than Goldstein + McIntosh" (it seemed to me that McIntosh's output was routinely excluded from the calculation), playing two "number 1s" means you're not necessarily getting the best value for the two positions.

The ruck is fine but it's what happens with the third tall forward forward position that is important and why you want a key forward there for as much of the game as possible (more than a ruck who is dangerous when forward). This is heightened by the make up of our forwardline which tends towards being slow and Carlisle and Daniher both being better close to goal which is where you want to plonk the 'resting' ruck.

Not sure how this will play out. On paper it looks like the forwardline will be too top heavy but it's hard to know not having seen what Daniher and Carlisle look like at the moment.

Giles has always played better as a #2 ruckman at GWS though. He plays better as a 40% ruck-60% forward. I don't buy into that argument at all.

 

[BrunoV]

And yet he could not fit into a side with Mumford?

 

[eth-dog]

And yet he could not fit into a side with Mumford?

Let's be honest, Mumford only plays well when he's playing 90% ruck, much like Todd Goldstein.

 

[Yoda_]

Dominated by a 22 year old Phillips. Disappointed tonight.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[efcboy]

Extremely underwhelmed by Giles tonight. Was poor in the ruck and didn't cover enough ground leading to the coaches making him run post match to get more work into him.

 

[Keystone agony]

Let's be honest, Mumford only plays well when he's playing 90% ruck, much like Todd Goldstein.

Every ruck plays their best when they are playing as a sole ruck. They get more time in the ruck/midfield get more time and that attributes to more possessions ect ect

Its why sole rucks like Minson, Jacobs and Goldsetin stats look so good.

Giles easily had his best year as the sole ruck in 2012 for GWS, easily. Giles then had his worst 9 games /season when Mumford came on board.

Goddard in the commentary of the saints game seemed to state Bellchmabers will be the sole ruck and has had a great preseason. IMO that's the way it should be especially with JoeD and Carlisle also capable in the ruck and can get them into games when they are struggling up forward.

I think having 3 x 200cm giants of JoeD, Carlisle and Giles who are all not very nimble or agile is way too tall especially when we have so much outstanding talent in the small/medium department and we should play to our strengths with this.

The debate should really be whos going to play that 3rd tall forward role between Ambrose and Langford in the appropriate thread.

Bellchambers, Carlisle, Daniher, Hooker, Hurley, Fletcher and either Langford/Ambrose is plenty of height and size.

 

[Big Fresh]

Every ruck plays their best when they are playing as a sole ruck. They get more time in the ruck/midfield get more time and that attributes to more possessions ect ect

Its why sole rucks like Minson, Jacobs and Goldsetin stats look so good.

Giles easily had his best year as the sole ruck in 2012 for GWS, easily. Giles then had his worst 9 games /season when Mumford came on board.

Goddard in the commentary of the saints game seemed to state Bellchmabers will be the sole ruck and has had a great preseason. IMO that's the way it should be especially with JoeD and Carlisle also capable in the ruck and can get them into games when they are struggling up forward.

I think having 3 x 200cm giants of JoeD, Carlisle and Giles who are all not very nimble or agile is way too tall especially when we have so much outstanding talent in the small/medium department and we should play to our strengths with this.

The debate should really be whos going to play that 3rd tall forward role between Ambrose and Langford in the appropriate thread.

Bellchambers, Carlisle, Daniher, Hooker, Hurley, Fletcher and either Langford/Ambrose is plenty of height and size.

Goddard said Bellchambers was number one but also that they wanted him and Giles to work in tandem. I agree that it wouldn't work though.

 

[Keystone agony]

Goddard said Bellchambers was number one but also that they wanted him and Giles to work in tandem. I agree that it wouldn't work though.

Mustve missed that part. Everyone gets talked up for round 1 Langford certain starter and Giles working with TBC just isn't going to fit.

Pyke - TBC
Tippett - Joe Daniher
Franklin - Carlisle

Richards and Grundy - Hooker and Hurley
Not sure who the 3rd tall defender for the swans will be whether Reid plays forward or back but we have Fletcher and or Ambrose/Langford forward.

Against Sydney we will only need TBC

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Giles needs to play second ruck he didn't come to Essendon to only play when he's needed.

 

[Zach Package]

Langford shouldn't even be in the tall conversation, he's f***ing brilliant in the air, but he's just a skinny flanker

 

[Keystone agony]

Giles needs to play second ruck he didn't come to Essendon to only play when he's needed.

He came for more opportunity and depth its the exact same he was at GWS just behind a far superior ruck in Mumford. He sees more opportunity here where he can potentially challenge TBC but certainly wasn't going ahead of Mumford at GWS.

 

[Keystone agony]

Langford shouldn't even be in the tall conversation, he's f***ing brilliant in the air, but he's just a skinny flanker

His role will be 3rd tall forward would it not? Hed be challenging Ambrose for his spot surely he doesn't remove another quality small/medium like Cooney, Colyer types?

 

[Kakkle]

Don't see how Giles and Bellchambers will play in the same side.

 

[blitzer]

Don't see how Giles and Bellchambers will play in the same side.

Agreed except if one of Carlisle/Daniher is missing.