List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread - Part II

[The_Steadier]

I agree there is a good chance Brown will come in this week. A move I am perfectly happy with. I take your point that Battle and Carlisle are both not suited to naturally taking the number one power forward however this has us in a good position in having Brown at our disposal.

Your definition of what a CHB/FB/HBF has to be is too rigid. It comes with the assumption that you cannot have more than three defenders with height. Richmond won a flag with the model of four tall defenders in Rance/Astbury/Grimes/Broad.

Adelaide played off in a grannie with 5 x defenders above 190 in Hartigan/Kelly/Talia/Lever/Otten. Geelong play Blicavs/Kolo/Taylor/Henry.

Added to this is the bonus that Wilkie is highly capable of playing on tall, medium or small forwards.

Battle playing on a wing against the crows is not evidence that we have too many talls. It is evidence that they see him as a versatile talent who has plenty to offer.

I think those examples of tall backlines are good- but those talls were/are far better at ground level than brown, carlisle, battle and wilkie.

Brown, jake and battle are all great- but all have turning circles like a barge and offer nowhere near the legspeed or ground ball contest that guys like lever/kelly/talia or kolo/taylor/blitz offer.

I don't see any possibility that 4 of our back 6 spots can be taken by brown, battle, jake and wilkie.
Too slow and top heavy I think.

As you agree with me that battle and jake aren't suited to taking the number 1 tall fwd- simply removing brown from this mix and replacing him with someone more agile doesn't fix this.
FB needs to be a tall- whether its brown or someone else.
So you would need to look at swapping out 1 of battle, jake or wilkie from the back 6 to redress this too slow and top heavy imbalance.

 

[plugger66]

I think those examples of tall backlines are good- but those talls were/are far better at ground level than brown, carlisle, battle and wilkie.

Brown, jake and battle are all great- but all having turning circles like a barge and offer nowhere near the legspeed or ground ball contest that guys like lever/kelly/talia or kolo/taylor/blitz offer.

I don't see any possibility that 4 of our back 6 spots can be taken by brown, battle, jake and wilkie.
Too slow and top heavy.

Simple then. Drop brown. Might happen this week with all 4. Underrating battle and Wilkie ability to play onsmaller players

 

[VDS66]

Caught me off guard.

Tickled the funny bone

Bonza!

 

[The_Steadier]

Who did the tigers let go or wce especially young and up and coming players.

Chris judd got them josh kennedy.
That worked out alright for them.

Sure that was a change forced upon them- but just goes to show you that losing young guns isn't instantly and always a bad thing if you gain bigtime in other areas of need in return.

 

[Ducky Tie]

I think those examples of tall backlines are good- but those talls were/are far better at ground level than brown, carlisle, battle and wilkie.

Brown, jake and battle are all great- but all having turning circles like a barge and offer nowhere near the legspeed or ground ball contest that guys like lever/kelly/talia or kolo/taylor/blitz offer.

I don't see any possibility that 4 of our back 6 spots can be taken by brown, battle, jake and wilkie.
Too slow and top heavy.

I would argue that Jake, Battle and Wilkie are all very good at ground level and I don’t agree that Battle’s turning circle is poor. Also, without getting out 20m sprint times, Wilkie was fast/smart enough to go one out with Dusty regularly against the Tigers.

It’s more of a back seven really so it’s not 4/6. Hartigan and Lever are slowish defenders and Kelly is no speedster. I think you are looking for reasons for why we can’t play them together.

 

[VDS66]

I honestly would just like to see us trade out JC for a first if we can find any suitors.

I get that he is a good player and people will be upset and say “but if he is fully fit he is one of our best” etc.

And this is true.

However, from my point of view, he has a terrible demeanour when we lose games. Drops his head and throws the toys out of the cot. At times seems as though he stops trying. Is 28 and had a pretty serious back issue, which will be with him for the rest of his career.

Finally, and probably most importantly... Our bunch of guys all seem super tight. Always celebrating eachother on social media, in photos together etc... Jake is never in any of them. He just doesn’t seem super tight with anyone in particular and I can’t help but wonder if he is good for the culture long term.

Sorry but that is just nonsense.

Would you rather him all smiles when we lose?

As for the second part, maybe take a closer look at footage after Sunday's win.

 

[The_Steadier]

Simple then. Drop brown. Might happen this week with all 4. Underrating battle and Wilkie ability to play onsmaller players

Tommysimpkin agrees with me that battle and jake aren't suited to taking the oppositions number 1 tall- so that doesn't work.
If it's not brown- it's another tall.

 

[plugger66]

Chris judd got them josh kennedy.
That worked out alright for them.

Sure that was a change forced upon them- but just goes to show you that losing young guns isn't instantly and always a bad thing if you gain bigtime in other areas of need in return.

That was forced. Totally different. I’m not sure I’m buying that.

 

[plugger66]

Tommysimpkin agrees with me that battle and jake aren't suited to taking the oppositions number 1 tall- so that doesn't work.

Ok. Which of you normally pick the side? Looks like rats thinks he can play on the number one defender. You need more say in selection.

 

[Ducky Tie]

Tommysimpkin agrees with me that battle and jake aren't suited to taking the oppositions number 1 tall- so that doesn't work.
If it's not brown- it's another tall.

Ok. Which of you normally pick the side? Looks like rats thinks he can play on the number one defender. You need more say in selection.

I said they aren't naturally suited to playing on number one talls, implying that they are ideally suited to taking the second tall. I didn't say that they are incapable of doing it though. I have said from the outset of this that Battle/Carlisle/Wilkie is the preferred set up and it is one that I think works.

It is about getting the best result for the team and if that means Carlisle takes the number one forward then so be it.

 

[The_Steadier]

I would argue that Jake, Battle and Wilkie are all very good at ground level and I don’t agree that Battle’s turning circle is poor. Also, without getting out 20m sprint times, Wilkie was fast/smart enough to go one out with Dusty regularly against the Tigers.

It’s more of a back seven really so it’s not 4/6. Hartigan and Lever are slowish defenders and Kelly is no speedster. I think you are looking for reasons for why we can’t play them together.

Jake is fantastic but offers very very very little by way of pressure, tackling or winning the ball himself when the ball is in contest on the ground.

As a group, we would get carved up by pace most weeks playing 4 talls (brown or another tall at FB, and wilkie, battle, jake)
and 2 smalls.

I suspect ratts agrees with me which is why he tried battle on the wing v the crows and played 3 talls down back.

I think we are likely to see the same again this week- 3 talls down back, not 4.

 

[The_Steadier]

Ok. Which of you normally pick the side? Looks like rats thinks he can play on the number one defender. You need more say in selection.

Yes when the number 1 tall is a spud like darcy, with the next tallest bloke being michael walters- yes ratts trusts jake to hold the fort.

Lets see if he trusts jake to take the number 1 tall this week shall we?

By the way- I seem to be the only one offering up predictions to either prove or disprove my opinions- anyone else willing to do the same or is everyone happy to be safe in the comfort of hindsight, offering up opinions after the fact?

If im so far wrong pluggs why not make predictions of your own?

 

[plugger66]

Jake is fantastic but offers very very very little by way of pressure, tackling or winning the ball himself when the ball is in contest on the ground.

As a group, we would get carved up by pace most weeks playing 4 talls (brown or another tall at FB, and wilkie, battle jake)
and 2 smalls.

I suspect ratts agrees with me which is why he tried battle on the wing v the crows and played 3 talls down back.

I think we are likely to see the same again this week- 3 talls down back, not 4.

He has disagreed with you more than once by playing Carlisle on the number one tall.

 

[plugger66]

Yes when the number 1 tall is a spud like darcy, with the next tallest bloke being michael walters- yes ratts trusts jake to hold the fort.

Lets see if he trusts jake to take the number 1 tall this week shall we?

I still don’t get it. If brown is best on the number one tall why not just play him.

 

[MOLTEN GANGLANDS]

snake is great 1v1, an absolute asset, the weak of mind get caught into the trap of thinking because he can intercept mark he can't defend well. It's painful. Im in pain. fully.

 

[Impatient Saint]

Jake is fantastic but offers very very very little by way of pressure, tackling or winning the ball himself when the ball is in contest on the ground.

As a group, we would get carved up by pace most weeks playing 4 talls (brown or another tall at FB, and wilkie, battle, jake)
and 2 smalls.

I suspect ratts agrees with me which is why he tried battle on the wing v the crows and played 3 talls down back.

I think we are likely to see the same again this week- 3 talls down back, not 4.

Dont forget he had back surgery with no pre season - he will improve his mobility significantly after a preseason.

 

[The_Steadier]

snake is great 1v1, an absolute asset, the weak of mind get caught into the trap of thinking because he can intercept mark he can't defend well. It's painful. Im in pain. fully.

He gets moved off the ball so easily its painful.
Happens every week- he folds like a deck of cards when a tall forward stands their ground and bumps him.

Some say this is because of his back surgery but it has happened with regularity for years.

For a guy his size he is moved very easily.
Half decent tall forwards take full advantage 1 on 1.

Jake's ability to read the play and intercept mark- ie not letting it GET to a 1 on 1 test of strength in the first place is what makes him good down back.

Once it IS a 1 on 1 contest though- he is easily beaten by half decent tall fwds.

 

[Moral Decay]

Assuming jake re-signs I wonder if the club has the stones to do as the hawks did last year, and trade a young gun where they had a surplus- in order to bring in a gun to fill a gap elsewhere.

Last year the hawks looked at their list and saw they had 2 guys in sicily and burton who play their best football in a similar manner and position- attacking off half back.
They obviously identified that you can't play 2 loose attacking backmen in the same side no matter how good they are- you will lose games of football with that structure.

Rather than keeping both and playing 1 out of their best position (lessening their effectiveness)- they used that surplus to fix an area they were deficient in post cyril (small fwd/mid= wingard).

It took plenty of risk and guts to trade a guy like burton- especially as he was basically the only home grown elite kid they have had in a decade.
But they were prepared to make a big call- because it's about winning premierships, not collecting stars without regard to how they all fit together.

Having heard years of (often warranted) moaning on here about richo playing guys out of position (goat etc), I would have thought the prospect of moving battle on for a gun mid could garner support- given he could well be staring down the barrel of playing away from chb for the next ~4 years.
(Plus the option of him playing fwd greatly reduces too with king to come into the team).

I'm assuming it will be howled down though through the invoking of a thoughless rule of thumb about 'you don't trade out good players'... without mention of the fact that premiership winning clubs sometimes do exactly that.

People on here act like mob wives sometimes in their attitude to player trades- they want all of the benefits without taking on any of the risk.

Anyone else see a similarity emerging between battle now and burton 12 months ago?

Don' t disagree with the logic, but would prefer to see Sinclair or Webster in that scenario, question being who is more valuable to us the guy coming in or the guy going out, just feel we have more to fill a Webster sized hole than a Battle sized hole.

 

[Saintsman33]

He gets moved off the ball so easily its painful.
Happens every week- he folds like a deck of cards when a tall forward stands their ground and bumps him.

Some say this is because of his back surgery but it has happened with regularity for years.

For a guy his size he is moved very easily.
Half decent tall forwards take full advantage 1 on 1.

Jake's ability to read the play and intercept mark- ie not letting it GET to a 1 on 1 test of strength in the first place is what makes him good down back.

Once it IS a 1 on 1 contest though- he is easily beaten by half decent tall fwds.

Tend to agree. Carlisle 1v1 is average at best. Much better loose and zoning off.

 

[The_Steadier]

Don' t disagree with the logic, but would prefer to see Sinclair or Webster in that scenario, question being who is more valuable to us the guy coming in or the guy going out, just feel we have more to fill a Webster sized hole than a Battle sized hole.

Yep agree, unfortunately I can't see a webster or sincs trade netting us anything that does much beyond a B grade mid.
Hence the suggestion of battle- he potentially could bring in a true gun mid.

 

[Armoooo]

FFS, this steadier bloke has been spamming the thread like crazy today. Assuming he's arguing with someone I have on ignore because he just keeps popping up with the same crap.

Battle, Carlisle and Wilkie can all play together. Brown is depth... Pretty simple stuff.

 

[#gosaintas]

Yes when the number 1 tall is a spud like darcy, with the next tallest bloke being michael walters- yes ratts trusts jake to hold the fort.

Lets see if he trusts jake to take the number 1 tall this week shall we?

By the way- I seem to be the only one offering up predictions to either prove or disprove my opinions- anyone else willing to do the same or is everyone happy to be safe in the comfort of hindsight, offering up opinions after the fact?

If im so far wrong pluggs why not make predictions of your own?

I don't see how the 4 talls can play together in the backline without making us hopelessly immobile. Rather than play Battle on the wing when Brown plays, we should play him forward. Otherwise I suppose you could just rotate the 4 of them through the bench so there's only ever 3 of them back there at once. Seeing Battle nail that goal last week made me want him playing forward though.

 

[plugger66]

FFS, this steadier bloke has been spamming the thread like crazy today. Assuming he's arguing with someone I have on ignore because he just keeps popping up with the same crap.

Battle, Carlisle and Wilkie can all play together. Brown is depth... Pretty simple stuff.

That’s why ignore is crap. Join in. Grow some.

 

[plugger66]

I don't see how the 4 talls can play together in the backline without making us hopelessly immobile. Rather than play Battle on the wing when Brown plays, we should play him forward. Otherwise I suppose you could just rotate the 4 of them through the bench so there's only ever 3 of them back there at once. Seeing Battle nail that goal last week made me want him playing forward though.

Maybe just don’t play brown. Fixes everything.

 

[#gosaintas]

Maybe just don’t play brown. Fixes everything.

There is that option too but Brown does suit some forwards better than anybody else we have.