Which up & coming Victorian club will be next to win a flag?

[carn tigez]

I would just about agree with that except I think you've overated our backline, I'm certainly not sold on what we've got going down there at the moment.

And underrated Richmond's midfield!!

 

[Tiger Titus]

The first paragraph I completely disagree with, King is a crucial member of our team and not because we're rubbish. That just isn't true. Two years ago I'd agree with you, when he turned the ball over regularly and didn't add much to the side. If you knew anything about the sport you would realise as a Richmond fan that Jake King is NOT the cause of the problem, but part of the solution.

The 2nd paragraph is exactly what I was saying, it is too early to tell whether or not our club is going places, the optimist in me says we are, the realist says it's too early to tell. What I do know is that, as lamaros said, it is definitely too early to write us off as having a lack of depth. It depends how the bolded players come on, and no one can possibly know that yet.

Basically I'm saying yes we do have a lack of depth, but Jake King and Rance getting games is not a symptom of this lack of depth.

Mate, I'm a big fan of Rance - I think he's already shown he belongs and would fit in to most teams.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about King. Last year was his best year but it still wasn't that great. Jake King is 98% heart and effort, 2% skill. For a player to get to AFL level and have no left foot is inexcusable. I appreciate that most Tiger fans love him because of the passion he displays but that doesn't cover the fact that he has some major deficiancies in his football ability. If Dan Connors had Kingy's attitude we'd have already sent King back to Coburg. Only in an ordinary team do the rubbish players whose main positive attribute is a willingness to get their hands dirty get picked week in week out. If you think King would get a game in any of the top 8 teams you're dreaming.

 

[theflea]

Mate, I'm a big fan of Rance - I think he's already shown he belongs and would fit in to most teams.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about King. Last year was his best year but it still wasn't that great. Jake King is 98% heart and effort, 2% skill. For a player to get to AFL level and have no left foot is inexcusable. I appreciate that most Tiger fans love him because of the passion he displays but that doesn't cover the fact that he has some major deficiancies in his football ability. If Dan Connors had Kingy's attitude we'd have already sent King back to Coburg. Only in an ordinary team do the rubbish players whose main positive attribute is a willingness to get their hands dirty get picked week in week out. If you think King would get a game in any of the top 8 teams you're dreaming.

king has flaws in his game but a nonleft foot is not 1 of them. can remember numerous times he's kicked well of the left, pin pointing a pass to a teammate. but there is plenty of players that are 1 sided in the afl more than ever now when coaches actually want their players to steady then kick on the preferred foot. i can barely remember newman for eg kicking on the right.

 

[lamaros]

Jake King has got the best out of himself, but when you look at other sides it's pretty clear that he's not a premiership player.

Collingwood have Blair and Fasolo.
Geelong have Stokes, Byrnes and Christensen.
St. Kilda have Milne and Schneider.
West Coast have Lecras and Nicoski.
Hawks have Rioli and Breust.
Carlton have Betts and Garlett.
Sydney have McGlynn.
Essendon have Monfries, Reimers, Jetta, Davey.

Jake wouldn't be beating out any of those players for a spot.

 

[eth-dog]

King is better than Davey…

 

[Slattery_20]

King vs Reimers. Bit like the current political situation, giant douche v **** sandwich...

I would just about agree with that except I think you've overated our backline, I'm certainly not sold on what we've got going down there at the moment.

Maybe, I really do think one skilful, quick rebounder in there with a bit of licence to play everywhere would make a whole lot of guys look a whole lot better.
They're all good enough defenders IMHO, just too flat-footed as a group.

 

[TigerTime88]

Jake King has got the best out of himself, but when you look at other sides it's pretty clear that he's not a premiership player.

Collingwood have Blair and Fasolo.
Geelong have Stokes, Byrnes and Christensen.
St. Kilda have Milne and Schneider.
West Coast have Lecras and Nicoski.
Hawks have Rioli and Breust.
Carlton have Betts and Garlett.
Sydney have McGlynn.
Essendon have Monfries, Reimers, Jetta, Davey.

Jake wouldn't be beating out any of those players for a spot.

Lol Davey??? please turn it up!

King does his job which is kick goals and put on pressure.

 

[lamaros]

Lol Davey??? please turn it up!

King does his job which is kick goals and put on pressure.

Yet davey kicks as many goals, gets as many touches, and put on more tackles. Not to mention his pace and implied pressure is greater.

 

[00Stinger]

Jake King has got the best out of himself, but when you look at other sides it's pretty clear that he's not a premiership player.

Collingwood have Blair and Fasolo.
Geelong have Stokes, Byrnes and Christensen.
St. Kilda have Milne and Schneider.
West Coast have Lecras and Nicoski.
Hawks have Rioli and Breust.
Carlton have Betts and Garlett.
Sydney have McGlynn.
Essendon have Monfries, Reimers, Jetta, Davey.

Jake wouldn't be beating out any of those players for a spot.

Highlighted the players I would take King in front off

 

[lamaros]

Jake King: DOB 1984, 75 games, 46 goals.

Angus Monfries: DOB 1987, 132 games, 147 goals.
Leroy Jetta: DOB 1988, 62 games, 51 goals.
Alywn Davey: DOB 1984, 69 games, 72 goals.
Shannon Byrnes: DOB 1984, 104 games, 99 goals.
Matthew Stokes: DOB 1984, 111 games, 166 goals.

Of course you'd take King first. For his excellent disposal around the ground, right? Byrnes and Stokes just managed to get games in one of the greatest sides we've seen based on luck.

 

[Slattery_20]

I honestly don't know who I'd take, King had a better year last year, Davey's been better before that. Neither are that great, nor are Stokes, Schneider Blair or Nicoski IMHO.

 

[lamaros]

King had a career best year and he was about even with the rest of them. The others have comfortably outperformed him over time.

I'm not a huge fan of Byrnes, Stokes, Nicoski, Reimers, Davey or Fasolo (most absurd BigFooty hype going around IMO). But I'd take them all before King.

I rate Blair pretty high. I'd love him at Essendon.

 

[Tiger Titus]

Highlighted the players I would take King in front off

Lol, I hate Monfries with the burning fire of 1,000 suns, but he's certainly a much better player than King.

Rating King ahead of Monfries sounds like something I'd do down at the pub just to arc up all the Bombers.

I'd love to see Monfries and King in a fight....

 

[Slattery_20]

Would be a short fight, Gus shows very little inclination to get involved in fighting.
He'd probably have incited it though and would prolly get the free/50!

 

[TigerTime88]

Jake King: DOB 1984, 75 games, 46 goals.

Angus Monfries: DOB 1987, 132 games, 147 goals.
Leroy Jetta: DOB 1988, 62 games, 51 goals.
Alywn Davey: DOB 1984, 69 games, 72 goals.
Shannon Byrnes: DOB 1984, 104 games, 99 goals.
Matthew Stokes: DOB 1984, 111 games, 166 goals.

Of course you'd take King first. For his excellent disposal around the ground, right? Byrnes and Stokes just managed to get games in one of the greatest sides we've seen based on luck.

King hasn't played his whole career as a forward so it's pointless in comparing career stats. He kicked over 20 goals last year as a small and had a good first half but didn't do much in the second half.

The difference between king and davey imo is king can win alot of one on one contests and is hard at the footy unlike Davey who is soft.

Not saying King is a star, far from it, but I would certainly take him before Davey.

 

[00Stinger]

Jake King: DOB 1984, 75 games, 46 goals.

Angus Monfries: DOB 1987, 132 games, 147 goals.
Leroy Jetta: DOB 1988, 62 games, 51 goals.
Alywn Davey: DOB 1984, 69 games, 72 goals.
Shannon Byrnes: DOB 1984, 104 games, 99 goals.
Matthew Stokes: DOB 1984, 111 games, 166 goals.

Of course you'd take King first. For his excellent disposal around the ground, right? Byrnes and Stokes just managed to get games in one of the greatest sides we've seen based on luck.

Games and goals stats mean s**t. i always find it funny when someone reals off stats to back an arguement up. Whats next supercoach average

 

[lamaros]

Yeah, because there is no correlation between stats, super coach averages and the better players in the league.

 

[Big_Luch]

Yet davey kicks as many goals, gets as many touches, and put on more tackles. Not to mention his pace and implied pressure is greater.

Im sorry but he does not tackle that well these days and his pressure is not that good. You are totally judging that off a few good pressure acts season and dotted moments through his career. Just becaue he has the ability to do it and has great speed doesnt mean he does it in games.

He often goes missing games, has a poor work rate and his use of the ball is not that good. Push up isnt the greatest player running around in the AFL but i would certainly take him over davey.

 

[lamaros]

Im sorry but he does not tackle that well these days and his pressure is not that good. You are totally judging that off a few good pressure acts season and dotted moments through his career. Just becaue he has the ability to do it and has great speed doesnt mean he does it in games.

He often goes missing games, has a poor work rate and his use of the ball is not that good. Push up isnt the greatest player running around in the AFL but i would certainly take him over davey.

If all that is true, why did Davey have 50% more tackles a game than King in 2011 then?

I don't think Davey is in Essendon's best 22 either, FWIW.

 

[Tulip]

implied pressure is greater.

Pressure is implied! Always!

 

[Stan Darsh]

Lindsay Thomas >>>

 

[catstorm]

I don't see any of these teams coming closer then a Prelim and then only once if they are lucky. Richmond in my opinion is the team with the most potential but I doubt they will win a flag.

My view is that the next dominant team/s will come from GC, GWS, Freo, West Coast. They will be the teams going for the Flag/s in 5 to 6 years time.

 

[camiam]

I have seen many different Essendon involved polls in my time at BF but never have I seen such bias.

You do not have the best forward-line.
You do not have the best midfield.
You do not have the best back-line.
You do not have the best ruckmen.

If I was to actually rank these separately, you wouldn't be very high.

In my opinion, Melbourne have the most upside out of all times, but that is all they have, potential. Whether they can harness that potential into physical output is unknown. Watts and Trengove will be out and out superstars.

North Melbourne have the best all-round team of the lot, the only concern with them is that some of their top-end players are getting old. Their midfield is probably equal first with Richmond's.

Essendon have a mix of both. They have a decent all-round list and a lot of potential. They also lack star power. Hurley is clearly headed for stardom but we have yet to see such heavy output from him to call him a star. I really like the look of Zaharakis, I think he will be a very good player.

I think Richmond is headed in the right direction, there are a few more obstacles. I don't think that anybody could rightfully say that after our best 5, our list drops off, because that is definitely not the case. After Martin, Cotchin, Riewoldt, Deledio and Vickery, follows Conca, Tuck, Houli, Rance, Batchelor, Jackson, Foley, Newman and Grimes. Those players would all get games in any of those other 3 squads. I. Maric looked the goods in the NAB cup, destroying both McIntosh and Goldstein in ruck contests but I will reserve my opinion for later. I honestly think that we are best suited of the lot.

If I was to rank the teams by position, I would do it as such.
Backs: Melbourne, Ess (With Hurley), Rich, North.
Mid: Rich = North, Melb, Ess.
Fwd: Rich, Melb, Ess (Without Hurley), North.
Rucks: North, Melb, Ess, Rich.

If I tally up those results we come to...

Melb > Rich > North > Ess.



P.S: Teeko, you do not have Caddy.

fukn thank you dude for spotting this out to these blinded people who dont really pay attention to our list. richmond and north are the closest, melb over rated by a lot and essendon im not going to grade until the end of this season or at least half way through!

 

[mufassa]

Stanton's vastly under-rated. Still.
He's Essendon's 2nd or 3rd best; would be Melbourne's best, North's 2nd best and Richmond's 3rd best midfielder. Year in, year out.
Cue "oh but X, Y, Z will all be better, in year 2XYZ... elite yabber yabber Boooed blah blah".
How he gets constantly over-looked baffles me, but generally tells you who is and who isn't worth listening to - and who is merely going off 2nd hand opinions.

Very good player is very good; and very much closer to "elite" than 95% of the league.

Stanton is now better than Wells and Swallow?

Stanton is not a player I would want at the Roos - watch our game last year - with a couple of minutes to go and the Roos leading by less than a kick - the ball was kicked to Stanton - who with minimal contact went to ground at Half Foward and we rebounded and kick the game winnig goal. Just a weak player when pressure is applied.

 

[camiam]

For me Essendon has the most 'complete' team. They have the potential to be very good in every area of the ground. They don't get much media hype (apart from Heppel and Hurley) and many of their 2nd tier players are under rated. Which is strange because they are the second biggest team in a part of the world where Andrew Walker's hat counts as worthwhile footy news.

In terms of rating Midfield, backline, forwards etc, I would have Essendon a close second in every category. They finished in the 8 and have plenty of upside.

I feel that all the other teams just have a weak area that could stop them from contending. North have less of a problem but I don't see their forwardline or backline as 'Premiership quality.' You can usually get away with it if it's just your forward line or defence but when both are good but not great, it rarely clicks.

Melbourne are too raw to judge for me. Potential in spades but not at that stage.

Richmond have a good top end with the potential to have a top 4 top 4 in the future but just way too many holes right now. Very little depth inside the 22.

thats funny i think i just saw the tigers little depth defeat your mob recently? hmmmm