Player Watch Adam Oxley (Delisted 2018)

Remove this Banner Ad

76woodenspooners said:
It's difficult to get a sense of how that will play out.

What you've described was largely the case up until 2011. Since then, our vacancies have generally come from retiring players (Maxwell, Ball, Jolly, Didak, Krak, Clarke, Lynch, etc).

So our list turnover (ignoring trades) effectively looks like this ...

Out: Maxwell, In: Moore
Out: Ball, In: Maynard
Out: Lynch, In: Goodyear

... So by the time we get to a player like Ramsay or Oxley, he'll be replaced by an 18 year old late draft pick ... May as well hang onto what we have.

It'll be interesting to see our list management strategy end of 2015. With very few natural retirements coming up, will out strategy be to have a low list turnover? Or will Buckley cut deeply into the non-performing youngsters?
Click to expand...

Is it the next draft that we have been earmarking for a while as deep and strong? If so, we may cut deeper to free up space or even try to trade into upper round selections.
 
popin said:
THE OX STRIDING IN THE MIDDLE DOING LOW INTENSITY RUN THROUGHS WITH THE BOYS
1501693_706865489410926_3313495025955490283_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Is it me or does Frost look a bit bigger?
 
jackcass said:
It's actually been closer to 10-11 over the last few years which probably means we're getting to a point where the minimum 3 occurs. From memory 29 of the 45 on our list have played less than 50 games so at some time you just have to take a breath and see if they can develop. Can't imagine the club will impose arbitrary cut off deadlines so don't see why we should.
Click to expand...
Would be very unlikely to be a minimum of 3. Some like Gault, Frost and Armstrong off the rookie list will need either upgrade or delisting. Some trades are likey to occur. If we can land a big FA spots need to be freed up on our list. Then we need to go to the draft.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gone Critical said:
Would be very unlikely to be a minimum of 3. Some like Gault, Frost and Armstrong off the rookie list will need either upgrade or delisting. Some trades are likey to occur. If we can land a big FA spots need to be freed up on our list. Then we need to go to the draft.
Click to expand...

Realise a specific of 3 is unlikely given potential rookie upgrades and trade-draft selections, just suggesting we may be closer to the 3 than the 10-11 (including rookies) list turnover we've seen over the last few years, since 2010 really.
 
Reykjavik said:
Is it the next draft that we have been earmarking for a while as deep and strong? If so, we may cut deeper to free up space or even try to trade into upper round selections.
Click to expand...
I think 2016 is meant to be the next deep/strong draft from memory. This year has quite a few decent talls available again I think.
 
jackcass said:
Realise a specific of 3 is unlikely given potential rookie upgrades and trade-draft selections, just suggesting we may be closer to the 3 than the 10-11 (including rookies) list turnover we've seen over the last few years, since 2010 really.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Still there are likely to be a few tough decisions needed and that may involve an Oxley, Karnezis , Sinclair etc who may have displayed good VFL form in 2015 but just unable to crack an AFL spot maybe because a DeGoey, Freeman or Maynard has come on more and denied them that chance. Spots are up for grabs and some are going to be unlucky.
 
Kappa said:
Don't see Oxley being on the list in 2016, way at the back of the queue behind a bunch of young guys.

We got highly talanted medium defenders coming out our ears with the recruitment of guys like Maynard Scharenberg Ramsay Langdon Williams Manteit ect. He is behind about 10-11 guys for a spot in the team
Click to expand...

Too early to make this call. You cannot have him behind Maynard, Mantiet or even Scharenberg at this point in time. He has had a few years in the system and has played a game of AFL. That puts him in front of the others at this point of time. Yes they are highly rated but until we see them all on the park we have no real idea.
 
ClaytonM said:
You must be high. In what universe has Swan demonstrated that he is a defender.
Click to expand...
Like Buckley did in his playing days I see him going back to conserve himself and unlike Bucks not be hampered by soft tissue injuries. Valuable asset that could keep him alive all season.
 
THATSGOLD said:
Like Buckley did in his playing days I see him going back to conserve himself and unlike Bucks not be hampered by soft tissue injuries. Valuable asset that could keep him alive all season.
Click to expand...
Whatever drug you're taking, I'll have some.

1) Swan is most certainly not the type of player that is suited to a role in defence.

2) He has been playing forward more to conserve himself for the last 18 months. Do you even watch Collingwood games???
 
Apex36 said:
Whatever drug you're taking, I'll have some.

1) Swan is most certainly not the type of player that is suited to a role in defence.

2) He has been playing forward more to conserve himself for the last 18 months. Do you even watch Collingwood games???
Click to expand...
Started his senior career in defence. Just saying.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

THATSGOLD said:
Like Buckley did in his playing days I see him going back to conserve himself and unlike Bucks not be hampered by soft tissue injuries. Valuable asset that could keep him alive all season.
Click to expand...

Buckley went back early in his career under Shaw, when Shaw wanted his best ball winners to run from half back (one of the first coaches to see the need for attacking HB). I remember games where he had three of Buckley, Williams, Russell, and Burns all playing out of the backline. It certainly wasn't something Buckley did to preserve himself.

Later in his career, Buckley went forward more (which resulted in more goals kicked - kicked a couple of bags if I recall against Brisbane and Essendon) to preserve himself, but certainly not back.
 
ClaytonM said:
You must be high. In what universe has Swan demonstrated that he is a defender.
Click to expand...

Swan broke into the 22 as a high possession winning defender for a year before moving into the midfield as a super high possession winning mid. So he certainly can play back there - the question is whether you would move him back again. And I for one would not.
 
Jelly Bean said:
Yeah, I wouldn't have thought so either, but he actually smashed it in defence a few years ago. I think it was around 2006 maybe.
Click to expand...
I could see him playing as a loose man in defence possibly but not as part of the regular structure. He kicks goals and if not playing in the midfield better suited up forward (IMO)
 
ClaytonM said:
Too early to make this call. You cannot have him behind Maynard, Mantiet or even Scharenberg at this point in time. He has had a few years in the system and has played a game of AFL. That puts him in front of the others at this point of time. Yes they are highly rated but until we see them all on the park we have no real idea.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. At the end of the year if we had a choice of delisting Scharenberg or Oxley its going to be Oxley.
 
Jelly Bean said:
Swan broke into the 22 as a high possession winning defender for a year before moving into the midfield as a super high possession winning mid. So he certainly can play back there - the question is whether you would move him back again. And I for one would not.
Click to expand...

i remember him being used on the wing.
 
Jelly Bean said:
Buckley went back early in his career under Shaw, when Shaw wanted his best ball winners to run from half back (one of the first coaches to see the need for attacking HB). I remember games where he had three of Buckley, Williams, Russell, and Burns all playing out of the backline. It certainly wasn't something Buckley did to preserve himself.

Later in his career, Buckley went forward more (which resulted in more goals kicked - kicked a couple of bags if I recall against Brisbane and Essendon) to preserve himself, but certainly not back.
Click to expand...

Memory is failing but didn't Bucks even play on Carey 1 game.
 
THATSGOLD said:
Like Buckley did in his playing days I see him going back to conserve himself and unlike Bucks not be hampered by soft tissue injuries. Valuable asset that could keep him alive all season.
Click to expand...

I get the theory, but is Swan good enough one on one to be a defender? Is he accountable enough for that matter?

If they could free him up as the loose man in defense then yes, I could see him doing damage.
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
I get the theory, but is Swan good enough one on one to be a defender? Is he accountable enough for that matter?

If they could free him up as the loose man in defense then yes, I could see him doing damage.
Click to expand...

One on one Swan is really good but accountable I wouldn't think so and he's not the best kick.
 
When Swan is one of the strongest one-on-one marks going around why wouldn't you have him resting forward. Absolute no brainer.
 
Old Spice said:
When Swan is one of the strongest one-on-one marks going around why wouldn't you have him resting forward. Absolute no brainer.
Click to expand...
Depends how often the ball is getting down there. From the back he'd get much more of it and be able to get the run going through the middle which might just make us slightly more attacking in 2015.

Imo Harrys loss will be bigger than we think. Watched the Dogs loss at Eithad again on Foxfooty this weeka and he was enormous off half back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Maggie5
List Mgmt. Teams Delistings and Retirements
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
pablo disco bar
pablo disco bar
Carringbush2010
Sliding doors, what if we won in 2018, and kept Buckley and the same FD? Where would we be now?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Bianconeri
Bianconeri

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top