Tarrant as a key forward?

[lockheed]

With regard to our on-field issues, our inability to kick a winning score is critical.

I realise that it's robbing Peter, and I'm sure that it will never happen, but I feel that we need to move Robbie into attack. Ben needs a second genuine marking threat to become potent again, and I don't believe that Jack (maybe a good third forward if he was accurate) or Mason can play that role.

We can't have all four players as forwards, so I'd keep Mason whilst he's showing enough endeavour and desire, reverting to a third marking forward role. Jack would have to find another role, or be dropped; as I said, it will never happen. BMac would come into the side when he's fit, and given a good run of games to hopefully find his feet.

It's not the only change needed. We need a game plan that can't be picked apart by a five year old, we need our midfield to consistently at least break even, (almost) all the players need to work harder than they're doing now, we need to play the pressure game, that we had against Adelaide, for every minute of every quarter, and we somehow need to be able to hit a target going forward.

I expect massive disagreement for a multitude of reasons. But also tell me if you think that our attack can consistently kick a winning score, and if you don't think it can, what things you would do to address the issues. It's all fantasy of course, because there cannot be any alternative to Brad's Plan A.

 

[Tas]

Larkey?

 

[The acurate one]

With regard to our on-field issues, our inability to kick a winning score is critical.

I realise that it's robbing Peter, and I'm sure that it will never happen, but I feel that we need to move Robbie into attack. Ben needs a second genuine marking threat to become potent again, and I don't believe that Jack (maybe a good third forward if he was accurate) or Mason can play that role.

We can't have all four players as forwards, so I'd keep Mason whilst he's showing enough endeavour and desire, reverting to a third marking forward role. Jack would have to find another role, or be dropped; as I said, it will never happen. BMac would come into the side when he's fit, and given a good run of games to hopefully find his feet.

It's not the only change needed. We need a game plan that can't be picked apart by a five year old, we need our midfield to consistently at least break even, (almost) all the players need to work harder than they're doing now, we need to play the pressure game, that we had against Adelaide, for every minute of every quarter, and we somehow need to be able to hit a target going forward.

I expect massive disagreement for a multitude of reasons. But also tell me if you think that our attack can consistently kick a winning score, and if you don't think it can, what things you would do to address the issues. It's all fantasy of course, because there cannot be any alternative to Brad's Plan A.

 

[Only Forwards]

Would definitely straighten us up.

We're screaming out for a second tall forward and not a makeshift ruck forward or one of the 5 blokes were trying to make play tall.

Not sure Taz would be it though.

Maybe we play Larkey and push Brown a bit further up the ground.

 

[lockheed]

Larkey?

When the powers think that he's ready, yes. Tarrant is obviously a stop gap, but coaches and defenders would obviously pay him a lot more respect that Larkey at this stage.

Nonetheless, if we get to the point where we're not going to make finals, then let's get as many games into Nick as we can. We'll hopefully then get a better picture of whether he's part of our long-term future.

 

[sbdan]

Good subject change, but no. I'd be trying other talls (larkey, mckay, xerri) before Tarrant.

Preuss would have been perfect.

 

[DesertRoo]

at the start of the season I would’ve said hell yeah.
Larkey not being physically ready and we’re planning to go deep in the finals.
Tarrant would’ve been perfect stop gap for a year or two.

Now, unless we can win a few games on quick succession, i think we should give Larkey as many games in the ones as possible.

Although I’m not sure Ben Brown and Larkey would compliment each other like Tarrant and Brown.

 

[Val Keating]

Why? Because our coaches don’t have the smarts or the balls to change the game plan to suit a smaller forward line? Makes it even more frustrating when smaller forward lines have been winning flags lately.

 

[DesertRoo]

Why? Because our coaches don’t have the smarts or the balls to change the game plan to suit a smaller forward line? Makes it even more frustrating when smaller forward lines have been winning flags lately.

Problem is we don’t have the cattle, we’d need to draft a whole heap of quick small forwards.

 

[Val Keating]

Problem is we don’t have the cattle, we’d need to draft a whole heap of quick small forwards.

We do have the cattle. We don’t have the cattle to play like we’re still rolling with 3 talls

 

[Themanbun]

If we're not playing Larkey, then yes. I think Taz up forward - especially now he knows he's a genuinely good AFL player - would be better for us as a team IMO.

 

[Grogg]

McKay deep, Brown 55/60 out.

Job's done.

 

[DesertRoo]

We do have the cattle. We don’t have the cattle to play like we’re still rolling with 3 talls

I like your optimism but I can’t see Turner and co being the small forwards capable of being dangerous enough with ball in hand.

 

[Val Keating]

I like your optimism but I can’t see Turner and co being the small forwards capable of being dangerous enough with ball in hand.

They would be if the team was capable of locking the ball in our forward 50. The way teams waltz the ball out of our forward line is as much a concern as our lack of defensive spread when our mids don’t win the ball.

The effort isn’t there.

 

[Horizons_00]

Nah

Our defence is already awful this year

 

[big_e]

When the powers think that he's ready, yes. Tarrant is obviously a stop gap, but coaches and defenders would obviously pay him a lot more respect that Larkey at this stage.

Nonetheless, if we get to the point where we're not going to make finals, then let's get as many games into Nick as we can. We'll hopefully then get a better picture of whether he's part of our long-term future.

He won't get ready to play AFL by not playing AFL.

And seeing that we're definitely not going to play finals, may as well stick the kid in for the rest of the year and let him develop there.

 

[Gasometer]

Wat so he can get the Bronx cheer again?

As Bill Clinton once said “Its the midfield stoopid”

 

[lockheed]

He won't get ready to play AFL by not playing AFL.

And seeing that we're definitely not going to play finals, may as well stick the kid in for the rest of the year and let him develop there.

I saw the issue in terms of getting games into either McKay or Larkey, and playing Tarrant forward would let us do that for Ben. Ideally, I'd like to get games into both players, but I can't see a clear way to do that.

 

[dus]

He’s been horrendous down back.

It wouldn’t hurt.

It’s not the Bard way though.

He preferred putting Tom ****ing Campbell up there.

 

[Roo182]

 

[The Nostradamus]

Could always trial it for a quarter late and see if effective

 

[ferball]

Good subject change, but no. I'd be trying other talls (larkey, mckay, xerri) before Tarrant.

Preuss would have been perfect.

For a quarter a game.

 

[deano28]

GAMEPLAN , GAMEPLAN , GAMEPLAN !!!

 

[ferball]

Wat so he can get the Bronx cheer again?

As Bill Clinton once said “Its the midfield stoopid”

Dunno if Taz should play midfield.

 

[ferball]

But I guess some seppo ex president wouldn't have a clue about footy so its an understandable mistake.