Zac Clarke on the table

[Andre the Giant]

Jonathan Giles for Zac Clarke straight swap??

Dockers need a tall who can take a clunk and kick some goals. We need a bloke who is a good tap ruckman to take pressure off Mummy and his knees.

 

[Wizard]

Jonathan Giles for Zac Clarke straight swap??

Dockers need a tall who can take a clunk and kick some goals. We need a bloke who is a good tap ruckman to take pressure off Mummy and his knees.

No thanks.
Rather Mccarthy or Cognilio.

 

[Andre the Giant]

No thanks.
Rather Mccarthy or Cognilio.

Well we'd rather Fyfe but that's not going to happen either. Trying to think of more plausible trades

Forget McCarthy and Coniglio, they're both well settled and required.

 

[Quokka]

To be honest I wouldn't hate a Giles trade, 26yr old for a 24 so potentially still plenty of games in both.

Clarke maybe has the more potential but they're a better fit at the other teams. Although I'd still prefer to back Sandi and Griffin and improve another area.

 

[raffrox]

Nah, you misunderstood my proposal. Won't happen anyway, but:

St Kilda: give 22 and Montagna, get 14
Geelong: give 14, get Montagna and Clarke
Fremantle: give Clarke, get 22

No thanks.

 

[Slax]

If this is for real willing to bet GWS will show far more interest in Clarke than Ryder.

 

[Wizard]

Well we'd rather Fyfe but that's not going to happen either. Trying to think of more plausible trades

Forget McCarthy and Coniglio, they're both well settled and required.

Still not interested.
Would take a fair chunk more then Giles to move Zac.

 

[Bender571]

Jonathan Giles for Zac Clarke straight swap??

Dockers need a tall who can take a clunk and kick some goals. We need a bloke who is a good tap ruckman to take pressure off Mummy and his knees.

If Giles couldn't get a game would Clarke get one (assuming Mumford stays fit)? You guys seemed to prefer to go without a relief ruckman for most of this year.

 

[Midnite65]

If we got rid of Clarke you would think it would be to give more chances to Griffin and Hannath so there would be no point to getting another ruckman like Giles. We would be looking for a forward first, then defender, than midfield depth. Only chance in getting another ruckman is if we also are moving on Griffin

 

[Andre the Giant]

If Giles couldn't get a game would Clarke get one (assuming Mumford stays fit)? You guys seemed to prefer to go without a relief ruckman for most of this year.

The problem with Giles is that his tap work is only average it's really the part of his game that lets him down in my opinion. However when we put him forward he was a serious player. In year one and two whilst our other talls were either injured or still developing he was our 2nd option forward behind Jezza.

Giles is a tremendous mark either contested or uncontested and is a deadly accurate kick. In your team where he would be getting fed with opportunities all the time I could see him kicking 25-35 goals and taking pressure off Pav and Ballantyne.

 

[00Stinger]

Nah, you misunderstood my proposal. Won't happen anyway, but:

St Kilda: give 22 and Montagna, get 14
Geelong: give 14, get Montagna and Clarke
Fremantle: give Clarke, get 22

******* lol

 

[King Corey]

******* lol

Cats trade themselves out of the 1st round for an aging free agent and bloke who may not be in their best 22. Brilliant.

 

[The 747]

Would Cats supporters take Z Clarke and Suban for Mitch Duncan and something else?

No from me. But I am not GFC, just a supporter. Mitch Duncan is in the critical age bracket we need more of and is coming along nicely.

 

[peppy la pew]

Grand final hasn't even been played, and people are feeding off SEN rumours to kick off the silly season.

It's gonna be a long off season again.

 

[Tulip]

Pick 20 for Clarke?

 

[Wizard]

Pick 20 for Clarke?

Nope, not enough.

Zac & 12 for Hogan.

 

[Tulip]

Nope, not enough.

Zac & 12 for Hogan.

What?

 

[Kram]

Maybe we should do another deal with Carlton, they gave us pick 24 for that hack Warnock imagine what we would get for a ruckman that actually has some talent.

 

[Bender571]

The problem with Giles is that his tap work is only average it's really the part of his game that lets him down in my opinion. However when we put him forward he was a serious player. In year one and two whilst our other talls were either injured or still developing he was our 2nd option forward behind Jezza.

Giles is a tremendous mark either contested or uncontested and is a deadly accurate kick. In your team where he would be getting fed with opportunities all the time I could see him kicking 25-35 goals and taking pressure off Pav and Ballantyne.

I wasn't questioning how Giles would fit for us, I was asking how would Clarke fit for you. Neither will be the number ruck ahead of Mumford so they'd have to play relief ruckman, which is usually 20% ruck 80% forward. If Giles can't get a game even though he's good for 80%, how will Clarke get a game being only good for 20%? Clarke needs to go somewhere where he'll be the number ruck soon, Mumford should still have another 5 years left in him.

Pick 20 for Clarke?

That's probably around his value, if we've really put Clarke on the table we might do it, but personally I think that trade takes our list backwards.

 

[Kram]

There is no guarantee that Griifin will return to his good 2013 pre knee injury form at 29, like Hannath but he's a project player, with Sandi near the end of his career we need Clarke so I can't see him going unless we have a replacement coming in.

 

[Son_Of_God29]

No.
Mitch Duncan overrated front runner & a dick to boot.

Are you describing Ballantyne ?

 

[Andre the Giant]

I wasn't questioning how Giles would fit for us, I was asking how would Clarke fit for you. Neither will be the number ruck ahead of Mumford so they'd have to play relief ruckman, which is usually 20% ruck 80% forward. If Giles can't get a game even though he's good for 80%, how will Clarke get a game being only good for 20%? Clarke needs to go somewhere where he'll be the number ruck soon, Mumford should still have another 5 years left in him.



That's probably around his value, if we've really put Clarke on the table we might do it, but personally I think that trade takes our list backwards.

Well as I'm trying to explain Giles and Clarke are very different. The reason Giles can't get a game is that he is not effective at tap therefore he offers no real assistance to Mummy.

Mummy is a gun at all elements of ruck work but he is also a physical beast and prone to getting injured as he did this year and in the last couple. If we can bring in a strong senior bloke who can help out with tap work than Mummy will probably be more durable for us, his knees aren't the best and we have to look after him as along with Ward and Treloar he's our MVP.

Personally I think Clarke could be a sensation for us once the mids read his play. He's an enormous talent and his best is ahead of him IMHO

 

[Quokka]

Are you describing Ballantyne ?

Nah cause then he would've said All-Australian

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Straight swap for Hampson?

With Giles, Ryder and Mitch Clark potentiall all being on the market, could make for an interesting trade period (given there are alternatives floating around if a player/club ask for too much).

 

[jesterwester]

Nah, you misunderstood my proposal. Won't happen anyway, but:

St Kilda: give 22 and Montagna, get 14
Geelong: give 14, get Montagna and Clarke
Fremantle: give Clarke, get 22

Works in theory , but I don't think Geelong are the best fit for montagna, from an age perspective.