Strategy Ruck Issues

[Vdubs]

I didn't think we were a premiership chance (personal opinion) and the biggest hole in our list was in the ruck. Half back flankers are a dime a dozen. Decent ruckman are as rare as hens teeth. There are not 18 good rucks going around.

I'm not saying thurlow will be bad, he's a bit soft but a quality kick, I like him, however we could've drafted 10 thurlows by now. IMO if you don't have a decent big man and one pops up in your soup, you take him. You take him even you do have one because they just dont come around.

The ruck was a massive hole in our list and has proved to be so. Thats why I consider it a massive mistake. Big men are always a risk, dury is still out on Grundy but it was just nonsensical not to take him. If I was building a list from scratch id be picking up big men first, plenty of half back flankers to grab one when you need one.

On principle it was a massive decision making error. This isnt hindsight, I was filthy at the time.

Thurlow is not your common every day HBF. Maybe that is the difference.
He will be the Boris replacement.
He has impeccable disposal.
He can leap and has a great mark.
He has speed.
A bit soft?? He returned to play and missed zero games after a serious kidney laceration. Takes some players a lot longer to even want to return.
And maybe , just maybe, it's about quality of the person too that was a massive consideration IF, I repeat IF, it was a Thurlow v Grundy decision.

 

[Vdubs]

I agree Goldstein is very athletic, and his super endurance gives him a point of difference under the current rules. Still though he can only play one position though and can't play anywhere else except ruck-I still think it's the one position in the modern game where you can be a one position player, with the game getting more congested good quality durable rucks are worth their weight.

He could play deep forward every day of the week and kick goals, which he does when resting. He could be FF. He helps in defence. But he is not going to be wasted in those spots when he is that good as a mobile follower. He is the reason HMc looked elsewhere, he is the key to their premiership chances.
I always rate your opinions PO , but on this issue, probably off the mark. Goldy is superversatile, and when you say only one position, what do you really mean? In the centre up for a hitout? And then what? Where do you see him causing us problems? He goes fwd, kicks goals, he blocks our fwd entries. Certainly more than "one position"

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Rather than being incorrect, that's just your opinion.

I would say us having Simpson, Vardy and Blicavs had more to do with us overlooking Grundy than McIntosh. On paper he we were stacked for developing ruckmen it was unfortunate that two of them went on to suffer significant injury set backs. List management wise we delisted Stephenson before we brought in McIntosh in search of a short term number 1 ruckmen. Regardless on how much Grundy was perceived as being ready to go he was never going to be our number 1 ruckmen from day 1 which is why IMO it's silly to suggest that bringing in McIntosh in any way effected our drafting of Grundy.

Regardless of the above, considering how large list sizes are and how many Ruckmen size players we've been carrying in recent years there was nothing stopping them from carrying another as their is no rule saying you must carry x ruckmen etc, it's the same with every position on the ground. If they ranked Grundy higher than Thurlow at the time he'd be a Geelong player.

Though I do admit that while I was watching the draft I was hoping we'd draft Grundy especially when he sild to our pick.

Fair point it's definitely opinion.

I get your point about developing rucks vs experienced rucks but I look more at the spots in the side and on the list that you can afford to spend on the spot. Hmac was clearly brought in to be the no1 ruck, in 2012 West was mostly our no1 ruck and had a significant offer to go to GWS which we fended off and re-signed him. Realistically we didn't do that for him to play 2's so he was the likely plan as the 2nd ruck (a role he was good at in 2011). Vardy was highly thought of as shown by them rushing him back for the 2012 finals off not much vfl, Simpson was about to enter his 6th year and Blitz played 20 odd games that year.

Grundy was known to be the most physically ready ruck (whether he was thought of as good enough is another matter) out of u18's in years so realistically by his 2nd year would have been capable of playing afl. The club was not going to spend a first round pick on him to do that until Hamish retired so realistically taking him would have been an admission that they got it wrong with some of the other rucks and were going to trade one or more 12 months later.

Or to be fair it may be that they simply never thought Grundy would slide that far (I didnt think he would) and by the time it was clear he was we had already done our trades and finalised our list lodgement so we were locked in (I doubt we would have put a 6th ruck on the list).

My point which I made at the time was even though that was the case our ruck hole was that significant that we should have taken Grundy anyway and just admitted that it meant we would have had to trade out other rucks the next year (which we ended up doing anyway). The fact that we have had two failed finals campaigns in 2013/2014 in which rucks really hurt us, and we have had to trade out picks and $ the last 2 years to try and solve our ruck issues, vindicates this. I really like Thurlow and I think he will be a 250 gamer but realistically you can find running defenders/winger of his quality in the first round of most drafts, whereas finding a good u18 ruckman is very hit and miss (which is why a lot of clubs prefer to trade in) as shown by the last 3 years being very thin for rucks in the draft. When you can get a good young ruck in the first round I think you should do it regardless of list balance, because they are very hard to get.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

He could play deep forward every day of the week and kick goals, which he does when resting. He could be FF. He helps in defence. But he is not going to be wasted in those spots when he is that good as a mobile follower. He is the reason HMc looked elsewhere, he is the key to their premiership chances.
I always rate your opinions PO , but on this issue, probably off the mark. Goldy is superversatile, and when you say only one position, what do you really mean? In the centre up for a hitout? And then what? Where do you see him causing us problems? He goes fwd, kicks goals, he blocks our fwd entries. Certainly more than "one position"

Goldy works when resting forward because his endurance means that he loses his opposite ruck in transition and gets on the end of things. If he played forward full time his lack of speed off the mark would be too much of an issue. His marking around the ground and his ball handling below his knees for a guy that size are top shelf, hence why roving ruck suits him much better. I am saying I can't see him being anywhere near as good in any other position. Which is ok. I think a lot of coaches now have a focus on wanting their rucks to be able to play multiple positions, but the reality is if you are a very good ruck who has endurance and durability, there is a role for you.

 

[dangerwood]

Thurlow is not your common every day HBF. Maybe that is the difference.
He will be the Boris replacement.
He has impeccable disposal.
He can leap and has a great mark.
He has speed.
A bit soft?? He returned to play and missed zero games after a serious kidney laceration. Takes some players a lot longer to even want to return.
And maybe , just maybe, it's about quality of the person too that was a massive consideration IF, I repeat IF, it was a Thurlow v Grundy decision.

His not Boris' shoelace but thats beside the point. HBF just isn't that important and many a player can perform the role. Most midfielders go alright on a back flank. IMO you do not draft specifically for a HBF, you just draft quality players and eventually someone will fill that role. Theres the odd exception but you can fill the role with a lot of players. We have rotated many through there over the years.

You can not rotate anyone through the ruck and only a handful of players across several drafts have been able to perform the role.

Its just my opinion but if you were picking a team from scratch you grab a ruck asap and then back yourself to fill roles like HBF later.

Im never going to use hindsight on not drafting grundy because you never know for sure how players will end up. Its too easy to say, well thurlow turned out better so no mistake there, I couldn't justify not taking a ruckman at that time and if a similar situation arose in the future I think most would be saying we should take the ruckman before hindsight kicks in.

 

[dangerwood]

Absolute tragedy not not taking Grundy when he fell to our pick,you can make up all the excuses under the sun but it was a dead set FU, no question in my mind..

And thats why I said it was wells biggest mistake. Regardless of how the players turn out, because noone knows that for sure, it was just a poor decision and poor reasoning.

If the situation arises again I hope we take 'the grundy' of the situation. It doesnt gaurantee it will work out but it will some of the time and if it does you can build a side around it. North are ordinary IMO but Goldstein just doninates. Not many sides just relying on a quality flanker.

 

[catempire]

My point, which I think is being lost, is the mistake which WAS made was trading for McIntosh. I said so at the time and history has proven it so. It was a mistake not only on the measure that he gave us nothing but also on the, perhaps bigger, one that it meant we could not take Grundy when he fell to us. It was just not going to happen given our ruck stocks at the time.

Again though, this is not to be confused with me not liking Thurlow. He is a jet and I'm very happy we have him for the next decade.

 

[you pick one]

And thats why I said it was wells biggest mistake. Regardless of how the players turn out, because noone knows that for sure, it was just a poor decision and poor reasoning.

If the situation arises again I hope we take 'the grundy' of the situation. It doesnt gaurantee it will work out but it will some of the time and if it does you can build a side around it. North are ordinary IMO but Goldstein just doninates. Not many sides just relying on a quality flanker.

It wasn't the greatest moment in the clubs history,I can only think they hadn't had the discussion on Grundy expecting he would be well gone by their selection and were taken by supprise and stuck with plan A.

 

[dangerwood]

My point, which I think is being lost, is the mistake which WAS made was trading for McIntosh. I said so at the time and history has proven it so. It was a mistake not only on the measure that he gave us nothing but also on the, perhaps bigger, one that it meant we could not take Grundy when he fell to us. It was just not going to happen given our ruck stocks at the time.

Again though, this is not to be confused with me not liking Thurlow. He is a jet and I'm very happy we have him for the next decade.

I personally can see justification in taking mcintosh in the hope we could win another one. I think our mistake was rating/keeping all of simpson west and vardy. Thats why i wanted grundy, i didnt rate any of them as ruckman. Thats the only justification I can think of why we didnt take him, someone thought simpson or west were going to suffice for the next 5-10 years.

 

[Vdubs]

His not Boris' shoelace but thats beside the point. HBF just isn't that important and many a player can perform the role. Most midfielders go alright on a back flank. IMO you do not draft specifically for a HBF, you just draft quality players and eventually someone will fill that role. Theres the odd exception but you can fill the role with a lot of players. We have rotated many through there over the years.

You can not rotate anyone through the ruck and only a handful of players across several drafts have been able to perform the role.

Its just my opinion but if you were picking a team from scratch you grab a ruck asap and then back yourself to fill roles like HBF later.

Im never going to use hindsight on not drafting grundy because you never know for sure how players will end up. Its too easy to say, well thurlow turned out better so no mistake there, I couldn't justify not taking a ruckman at that time and if a similar situation arose in the future I think most would be saying we should take the ruckman before hindsight kicks in.

Interesting that in our recent competition of picking players over our history to form a team, apart from Polly and Sam, rucks were not selected as a priority. (Just an afterthought to this discussion, and I know we are not selectors.)
BUT, In fact, Boris was selected ahead of Polly Farmer! That may have reflected the age of the selector and not knowing about Polly, but, you have your opinion, and there are others. Great HBFers are critical in premierships, rucks are not necessarily greater.

 

[Vdubs]

I personally can see justification in taking mcintosh in the hope we could win another one. I think our mistake was rating/keeping all of simpson west and vardy. Thats why i wanted grundy, i didnt rate any of them as ruckman. Thats the only justification I can think of why we didnt take him, someone thought simpson or west were going to suffice for the next 5-10 years.

DS was always the big project player, Glimpses in 2013 whetted our appetites, but who could foresee 3 back ops?
HMc could have come good in a 3 year contract, but he didn't. Not a lack of talent.

 

[Vdubs]

And thats why I said it was wells biggest mistake. Regardless of how the players turn out, because noone knows that for sure, it was just a poor decision and poor reasoning.

If the situation arises again I hope we take 'the grundy' of the situation. It doesnt gaurantee it will work out but it will some of the time and if it does you can build a side around it. North are ordinary IMO but Goldstein just doninates. Not many sides just relying on a quality flanker.

Your points make sense, and most prob agree.
NM is great due to Goldy, I do agree there too, BUT they also have EXCELLENT quality mids, Cunnington, Swallow, Ziebell- these guys would die for the cause. The fact that their HBFers are not top shelf may reflect their lack of success? Seriously, consider the notion.
Luke Hodge- great HBF for Hawks, 2 NS medals, supplemented by Mitchell, Burgoyne, Gibson, Birchall, Lake- that is why they win flags.
Great defences with the best attacking classiest HBFers.
Our 09 flag had very little to do with a dominant ruckman, ditto all of Hawks recent 4.

 

[dangerwood]

Interesting that in our recent competition of picking players over our history to form a team, apart from Polly and Sam, rucks were not selected as a priority. (Just an afterthought to this discussion, and I know we are not selectors.)
BUT, In fact, Boris was selected ahead of Polly Farmer! That may have reflected the age of the selector and not knowing about Polly, but, you have your opinion, and there are others. Great HBFers are critical in premierships, rucks are not necessarily greater.

Yeah its definitely a personal opinion about the value of big men and hence I would take polly over enright. I love enright, one of my all time faves but I do believe polly could impact a game more.

I really saw the value ottens brought to our team and whilst blake was ordinary he wasn't a bad tap ruckman, our side was just so good it didn't matter as much.

Have a team for the ages, then yeah you can probably get away without a ruck but I remain steadfast that if your not a team full of stars Id rather a dominant ruck than a dominant hbf.

 

[dangerwood]

Your points make sense, and most prob agree.
NM is great due to Goldy, I do agree there too, BUT they also have EXCELLENT quality mids, Cunnington, Swallow, Ziebell- these guys would die for the cause. The fact that their HBFers are not top shelf may reflect their lack of success? Seriously, consider the notion.
Luke Hodge- great HBF for Hawks, 2 NS medals, supplemented by Mitchell, Burgoyne, Gibson, Birchall, Lake- that is why they win flags.
Great defences with the best attacking classiest HBFers.
Our 09 flag had very little to do with a dominant ruckman, ditto all of Hawks recent 4.

Id argue norths mids look better because of goldy. Dont get me wrong they are all good players but they have their limitations. Cunnington is just a hard nosed midfielder, lacks class. Swallow cant kick. Ziebell is hard and all class but slow.

Im not convinced its necessarily that much better than (pre danger) selwood, duncan, caddy but we have been slaughtered by most midfields out of the middle.

Definitely want a strong backline but burgoyne, mitchell, hodge were all midfielders originally. My argument is that most good players can play at hbf, so just draft quality medium players which are quite common and you can fill those roles in your team. As I said earlier there is only a handful of players that come along and can play ruck, so if the opportunity arises to take one you should cause chances are you can grab yourself a quality hbf at another time.

 

[dangerwood]

Your points make sense, and most prob agree.
NM is great due to Goldy, I do agree there too, BUT they also have EXCELLENT quality mids, Cunnington, Swallow, Ziebell- these guys would die for the cause. The fact that their HBFers are not top shelf may reflect their lack of success? Seriously, consider the notion.
Luke Hodge- great HBF for Hawks, 2 NS medals, supplemented by Mitchell, Burgoyne, Gibson, Birchall, Lake- that is why they win flags.
Great defences with the best attacking classiest HBFers.
Our 09 flag had very little to do with a dominant ruckman, ditto all of Hawks recent 4.

Also hawthorn specifically traded for ruckman twice, first with hale, then mcevoy. They understood the need for a ruckman and grabbed the best they could of what was available. I would say that demonstrates the importance of even a mediocre ruck. They weren't stars but they were serviceable. I think even a serviceable ruckman is valuable and we havent even had that for a while.

 

[Vdubs]

Also hawthorn specifically traded for ruckman twice, first with hale, then mcevoy. They understood the need for a ruckman and grabbed the best they could of what was available. I would say that demonstrates the importance of even a mediocre ruck. They weren't stars but they were serviceable. I think even a serviceable ruckman is valuable and we havent even had that for a while.

I'm all for a good ruckman, and Hawks did it well.
We didn't as it turns out. No arguments.
Do you think Grundy would have altered our fate in 2013 v 211 at Geelong? And subsequently?
Interesting points.

 

[Vdubs]

Id argue norths mids look better because of goldy. Dont get me wrong they are all good players but they have their limitations. Cunnington is just a hard nosed midfielder, lacks class. Swallow cant kick. Ziebell is hard and all class but slow.

Im not convinced its necessarily that much better than (pre danger) selwood, duncan, caddy but we have been slaughtered by most midfields out of the middle.

Definitely want a strong backline but burgoyne, mitchell, hodge were all midfielders originally. My argument is that most good players can play at hbf, so just draft quality medium players which are quite common and you can fill those roles in your team. As I said earlier there is only a handful of players that come along and can play ruck, so if the opportunity arises to take one you should cause chances are you can grab yourself a quality hbf at another time.

The MC clearly thought we had the basis for viable ruck options, and the fact that Blic was our man in recent years reflects our severe injury list. DS is the main loss in that area. HMc would have been great if come off, but the future was pinned on DS coming good.

 

[Vdubs]

His not Boris' shoelace but thats beside the point. HBF just isn't that important and many a player can perform the role. Most midfielders go alright on a back flank. IMO you do not draft specifically for a HBF, you just draft quality players and eventually someone will fill that role. Theres the odd exception but you can fill the role with a lot of players. We have rotated many through there over the years.

You can not rotate anyone through the ruck and only a handful of players across several drafts have been able to perform the role.

Its just my opinion but if you were picking a team from scratch you grab a ruck asap and then back yourself to fill roles like HBF later.

Im never going to use hindsight on not drafting grundy because you never know for sure how players will end up. Its too easy to say, well thurlow turned out better so no mistake there, I couldn't justify not taking a ruckman at that time and if a similar situation arose in the future I think most would be saying we should take the ruckman before hindsight kicks in.

Good points, but for your first one.
Boris early on had several deficiencies, disposal particularly, and he was far from the finished product we had from 07 to now. And he got some injuries. Thurlow right now would be the equal of Boris at the same stage of development, I think.

 

[dangerwood]

Saints

I'm all for a good ruckman, and Hawks did it well.
We didn't as it turns out. No arguments.
Do you think Grundy would have altered our fate in 2013 v 211 at Geelong? And subsequently?
Interesting points.

I only think grundy wouldve started coming good now. We have stanley and smith now and i hope they go well but we didnt know we were going to get them 4 years ago.

At the time I strongly believed we should have taken Grundy. I never thought simpson was any good. Hawkins sel and taylor were young enough to still be here when grundy hopefully started hitting his straps. Makes a good spine. Couldve used pick 21 that we traded for stanley for goddard or any other fill in position.

I accept others have a different pov but for me, passing on a decent big man is sinful and thats how im always going to feel regardless of how things pan out, they just dont come around and we did not have a ruck for the future at the time.

Wells has been great but I didnt rate any of our rucks, so in this situation it appeared black and white to me, I was so filthy when we passed on grundy. I just thought it was nonsensical. It really annoyed me, hence why Ive harped on a bit

 

[dangerwood]

Good points, but for your first one.
Boris early on had several deficiencies, disposal particularly, and he was far from the finished product we had from 07 to now. And he got some injuries. Thurlow right now would be the equal of Boris at the same stage of development, I think.

I guess its a matter of opinion, I rated enright pretty highly from day dot. Agreed his disposal was questionable and he looked slow but he always won the ball when he shouldn't of, he always had that natural ability to win contests and come away on top.

Thurlow is different, far better ball user but he isnt the smart footballer enright was. I like him but I only think he will be a good player not a great.

 

[Vdubs]

100% should've taken Grundy over Thurlow. Was filthy at the time and it's Wells' biggest mistake.

Could Hawthorn have recruited Grundy ahead of us?
If yes, why not, I wonder.

 

[dangerwood]

Could Hawthorn have recruited Grundy ahead of us?
If yes, why not, I wonder.

Dont think so. But id hope we don't make decisions based on others, I feel this happens sometimes where a club doesnt take a player as expected so then the next team wonders "well why didnt they take him" so they go the safe option until the player reaches such a late pick that its not longer a risk. Then the player turns out great and everyone goes "how did he slide so far down the draft" and the club who takes him says "we always rated him, we couldn't believe our luck".

 

[Vdubs]

Dont think so. But id hope we don't make decisions based on others, I feel this happens sometimes where a club doesnt take a player as expected so then the next team wonders "well why didnt they take him" so they go the safe option until the player reaches such a late pick that its not longer a risk. Then the player turns out great and everyone goes "how did he slide so far down the draft" and the club who takes him says "we always rated him, we couldn't believe our luck".

Just checked, Hawks were several after us.
I still think we looked at Grundy a lot, but were there factors that dissuaded them?
They know our deficiencies, and for him to be there to grab, they must have had reasons to pass him by; I have to accept that. They truly also could have rated the player Thurlow worthy of nabbing, and clearly did.

OR, as you trying to say, it was an error of judgement.
Being so obvious and talked about predraft, I would be surprised if the latter is the case.

 

[dangerwood]

Just checked, Hawks were several after us.
I still think we looked at Grundy a lot, but were there factors that dissuaded them?
They know our deficiencies, and for him to be there to grab, they must have had reasons to pass him by; I have to accept that. They truly also could have rated the player Thurlow worthy of nabbing, and clearly did.

OR, as you trying to say, it was an error of judgement.
Being so obvious and talked about predraft, I would be surprised if the latter is the case.

Yeah it is just my opinion and i may very well be wrong. I thought it was bad decision. Weve been better than most in the draft but this was a mistake that shouldn't have happened. I couldve lived with taking someone else if we rated them more but a big man.......when we needed one.....argh...anyway im ranting again.

 

[Vdubs]

It wasn't the greatest moment in the clubs history,I can only think they hadn't had the discussion on Grundy expecting he would be well gone by their selection and were taken by supprise and stuck with plan A.

Dont think so. But id hope we don't make decisions based on others, I feel this happens sometimes where a club doesnt take a player as expected so then the next team wonders "well why didnt they take him" so they go the safe option until the player reaches such a late pick that its not longer a risk. Then the player turns out great and everyone goes "how did he slide so far down the draft" and the club who takes him says "we always rated him, we couldn't believe our luck".

Just did some "research"
Interesting writeup by Knightmare- sums up all you said- admittedly in June, he had not seen much of Thurlow, but not even top 50 at that stage...
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightmares-2012-mock-draft.956129/