Analysis 2016 List Management Discussion

[Soapy V]

Not a long list but Birchall isn't a great defender and doesn't win his own ball. Suckling much the same. Malceski. Would like to see him get an opportunity...may do better with AFL zoning, VFL is still like under 9s with 20 odd on ballers.

thats really chalk & cheese. those guys can win their own ball and at afl level. he cant at vfl level

 

[Old navy]

In a lot of Fraser's weekly comments, he has said DVR has had clean disposal, why not throw I'm in the guts for a decent spell, doesn't seem to be they way he disposes it ,it's just the amount of ball he gets?

Did see IIRC DVR had 14 possessions not last week but the week before.
The incrouaging part was all his touches were kicks.
May be with the northern blues starting to play better it will give DVR a better chance at showing what he can do.
Have seen flashes of talent with him and wouldn't give up on him just yet.

 

[Dramoth]

Did see IIRC DVR had 14 possessions not last week but the week before.
The incrouaging part was all his touches were kicks.
May be with the northern blues starting to play better it will give DVR a better chance at showing what he can do.
Have seen flashes of talent with him and wouldn't give up on him just yet.

Thats the thing... both teams have been, in the past couple of years, decidedly below average with a shit game plan. Both teams are starting to up the level of intensity and guys like White are actually starting to look like footballers.

I am pretty certain that if we don't have a use for DVR, there is going to be another club out there that will.

 

[Kramer1]

thats really chalk & cheese. those guys can win their own ball and at afl level. he cant at vfl level

Not really. Suckling only has an AFL career because of his amazing left hoof. Birchall offers a little more as a mobile tall and Malceski run and carry. None are noted ball winners.

Odds are against DVR but Bolton does come from a system that values disposal by foot like no other.

 

[thylacine60]

Enjoying the intelligent stuff here on both sides of the DVR - will he won't he? debate.

 

[Old navy]

Not really. Suckling only has an AFL career because of his amazing left hoof. Birchall offers a little more as a mobile tall and Malceski run and carry. None are noted ball winners.

Odds are against DVR but Bolton does come from a system that values disposal by foot like no other.

That's the thing I'm thinking that DVR could be one of those rare players who's game translates better to AFL footy then VFL footy.
Bolton certainly hasn't been about gifting games to young players but would love to see DVR get a chance later on in the year to see how he handles it.
Thing we need to remember is DVR is not a high draft pick and has only been on a AFL list for a year and half.
These later draft picks can take time.

 

[Big Sim is Back]

Interesting comments from James Sicily after receiving the Rising Star for last round.

Said that his lengthy VFL apprenticeship steeled him for the AFL.

“You definitely have to bide your time (at Hawthorn) but once you’ve done that you come in and you’re actually ready to play,” Sicily said. “You’re just ready. You’re ready mentally and you’re ready physically.”

Kristian Jaksch is just three months older than Sicily, and 10cm taller, a KP rather than a small-medium half forward like the latter, so could be expected to take a little longer to develop.

I guess the point here is that KJ is serving a Hawthorn-like VFL apprenticeship, and hopefully will all the better for it when he is ready to play AFL.

And as for Nick Graham, he is still younger than Michael Barlow was when Barlow debuted for Freo. VFL apprenticeships can be good for mids too. Dont write him off just yet.

 

[Jimmae]

And as for Nick Graham, he is still younger than Michael Barlow was when Barlow debuted for Freo. VFL apprenticeships can be good for mids too. Dont write him off just yet.

Barlow was 21 when drafted, and 22 by the time his first season started, and had a VFL apprenticeship of less than 18 months.

 

[Big Sim is Back]

Barlow was 21 when drafted, and 22 by the time his first season started, and had a VFL apprenticeship of less than 18 months.

Graham has turned 22 this month. So younger right now than Barlow was when he debuted for Freo.

 

[F_therest]

Interesting comments from James Sicily after receiving the Rising Star for last round.

Said that his lengthy VFL apprenticeship steeled him for the AFL.

“You definitely have to bide your time (at Hawthorn) but once you’ve done that you come in and you’re actually ready to play,” Sicily said. “You’re just ready. You’re ready mentally and you’re ready physically.”

Kristian Jaksch is just three months older than Sicily, and 10cm taller, a KP rather than a small-medium half forward like the latter, so could be expected to take a little longer to develop.

I guess the point here is that KJ is serving a Hawthorn-like VFL apprenticeship, and hopefully will all the better for it when he is ready to play AFL.

And as for Nick Graham, he is still younger than Michael Barlow was when Barlow debuted for Freo. VFL apprenticeships can be good for mids too. Dont write him off just yet.

I see your point and definitely still hope for them but may I just add that Sicily had absolute stars like Roughead and gunston keeping him out of the team...jaksch has been kept out for casboult, Everitt, white and Jones.

 

[Malifice]

I still dont get this preoccupation with mids for this draft.

Assuming GWS4(2) and we draft Battle, then weve gotten the core of our backline (Weitering, Docherty, Marchbank, Plowman, Byrne, JGM) and forward line (McKay, Curnow, Silvagni, Battle, Thomlinson, Jacksh) set for the next ten+ years.

Anyone that doesnt make it, we can look to F/A in three years time to plug those gaps.

Over the next 3-4 years, we have Cripps, Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas, Steele, (Whiley, Graham, Boekhoest, Cunningham) rotating through the guts. Meaning we're set for the next three years at least. We then use those three years (while the KP forwards and KP backs develop -they take more time) to pick up mids to replace (Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas).

 

[HARKER]

I still dont get this preoccupation with mids for this draft.

Assuming GWS4(2) and we draft Battle, then weve gotten the core of our backline (Weitering, Docherty, Marchbank, Plowman, Byrne, JGM) and forward line (McKay, Curnow, Silvagni, Battle, Thomlinson, Jacksh) set for the next ten+ years.

Anyone that doesnt make it, we can look to F/A in three years time to plug those gaps.

Over the next 3-4 years, we have Cripps, Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas, Steele, (Whiley, Graham, Boekhoest, Cunningham) rotating through the guts. Meaning we're set for the next three years at least. We then use those three years (while the KP forwards and KP backs develop -they take more time) to pick up mids to replace (Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas).

Pretty much. We all know and want further support for Cripps and if SOS deems Steele to be that guy, isn't that a starting point as opposed to an 18 year old from the draft? It may not be, but I don't think we'd do it unless we felt very confident about it.

We're still a little unsure of where CCurnow will settle but from what I briefly saw 5 months ago, he does seem to know his away around the ball.

It's just too difficult from this side of the fence to know the strategy SOS and the crew have for this year, let alone for the next 2. Impossible, actually.

 

[Coona Blues]

I still dont get this preoccupation with mids for this draft.

Assuming GWS4(2) and we draft Battle, then weve gotten the core of our backline (Weitering, Docherty, Marchbank, Plowman, Byrne, JGM) and forward line (McKay, Curnow, Silvagni, Battle, Thomlinson, Jacksh) set for the next ten+ years.

Anyone that doesnt make it, we can look to F/A in three years time to plug those gaps.

Over the next 3-4 years, we have Cripps, Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas, Steele, (Whiley, Graham, Boekhoest, Cunningham) rotating through the guts. Meaning we're set for the next three years at least. We then use those three years (while the KP forwards and KP backs develop -they take more time) to pick up mids to replace (Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas).

So over the absolute delusion from some posters on here re our potential acquisitions.

Battle will not happen, we may trade for more mature key position players, but we have drafted our quota of (potentially) slow maturing
keys. A ruckman with a later pick is a distinct possibility and maybe a later "project" (slider) tall if we don't get multiple talls at trade.

While open to correction, the post by Fronkalicious stated as fact that approval had been given at board level to trade our top 2 picks,
logically a "super trade" would involve GWS.

Sensible extension from our previous attempt involves Tomlinson. Marchbank is/was highly rated by our previous recruiters and by SOS,
and is believed to be a homesick defector and the subject of repeat separate rumours. Our dearth of young midfielders and the likely
squeeze of Steele has him on the list.

Fronkalicious threw up Stewart, the idea is not without some merit, but while he has not stated, logically it is pure conjecture. Logic, in
my opinion suggests GWS would not part with Tomlinson, McCarthy and Stewart in one trade period. They have other young talls who
are years away from "ready", however parting with the 3 mentioned would leave them with Cameron, Patton and Lobb, with no back up
at a time they are contenders. Will not happen.

With other clubs looking to add to their young talent, we will not get the four talked about for #6 and #24 (ish).

Re Steele, he is well regarded but will remain fringe. The latest intake of Hopper and Kennedy are bankable upgrades to go with Ward,
Griffen, Shiel, Coniglio, Kelly, Scully, Whitfield etc.

I see it unlikely that GWS will take up options on all of Setterfield, Perryman, Mutch and other mids like Byrne, it makes no sense, they will
cherry pick. They may accumulate points/picks which will be assumed as being for them Macreadie and Sproule, but expect some dalliance
in to the open draft. (bigger bodied mid or a Rotham type if Tomlinson and Marchbank are leaving).

Patience is a virtue and I see us taking a mid with a high pick. Most likely our first and second for two players and a later first rounder back
is a more feasible trade.

As for picking up mids, (with ease) at will in a year or 2, you are kidding, they take time to develop to an optimum standard, or
come at a high price at the trade table.

 

[Malifice]

Pretty much. We all know and want further support for Cripps and if SOS deems Steele to be that guy, isn't that a starting point as opposed to an 18 year old from the draft? It may not be, but I don't think we'd do it unless we felt very confident about it.

We're still a little unsure of where CCurnow will settle but from what I briefly saw 5 months ago, he does seem to know his away around the ball.

It's just too difficult from this side of the fence to know the strategy SOS and the crew have for this year, let alone for the next 2. Impossible, actually.

I get that we need mids, but the way I see it, we dont need need them for at least another few years. I'd rather get our bookends and talls sorted with the first few drafts of the rebuild, and then look to mids with the last few. Talls take longer and all that. Unless there is a standout mid available this draft, all else being equal, I would take a forward.

Worst case scenario, recent history shows that there are always a few mids available each year on the market. This year some of the names bandied about include Prestia, Gaff, Omeara, Neale. Last year Treloar, Dangerfield, Bennell. Key forwards are a different story (unless youre Sydney). The top 10-20 of every draft is dominated by mids; you can generally be pretty confident of getting a good one if you have a first round selection. Key forwards are a different story.

If we cant hold down the fort for 3-4 years with Cripps, Gibbs, Murphy, Thomas and Kruezer, we're probably not doing it right.

 

[HARKER]

I get that we need mids, but the way I see it, we dont need need them for at least another few years. I'd rather get our bookends and talls sorted with the first few drafts of the rebuild, and then look to mids with the last few. Talls take longer and all that. Unless there is a standout mid available this draft, all else being equal, I would take a forward.

Worst case scenario, recent history shows that there are always a few mids available each year on the market. This year some of the names bandied about include Prestia, Gaff, Omeara, Neale. Last year Treloar, Dangerfield, Bennell. Key forwards are a different story (unless youre Sydney). The top 10-20 of every draft is dominated by mids; you can generally be pretty confident of getting a good one if you have a first round selection. Key forwards are a different story.

If we cant hold down the fort for 3-4 years with Cripps, Gibbs, Murphy, Thomas and Kruezer, we're probably not doing it right.

I can see an argument for both points of view. Those that want mids and those that want the talls.
The trick though is to get the right mids and/or the right talls.

Rogers said this a couple of years ago, "We'll get the best players for Carlton" and more than any time before, this really means something.
Don't wish to repeat it all again but certain attributes will add a lot more weight in terms of who comes into the CFC, than ability alone.

Don't need to look past our back-line to see just how well the right young group of players can function.

 

[Malifice]

Fronkalicious threw up Stewart, the idea is not without some merit, but while he has not stated, logically it is pure conjecture. Logic, in my opinion suggests GWS would not part with Tomlinson, McCarthy and Stewart in one trade period. They have other young talls who are years away from "ready", however parting with the 3 mentioned would leave them with Cameron, Patton and Lobb, with no back up at a time they are contenders. Will not happen.

With other clubs looking to add to their young talent, we will not get the four talked about for #6 and #24 (ish).

If we dont get the GWS4(2) then fine. That doesnt alter my preferred strategy of going for talls and key forwards.

Patience is a virtue and I see us taking a mid with a high pick. Most likely our first and second for two players and a later first rounder back
is a more feasible trade.

Lets wait and see. But again, we should be going for a tall lead up forward if available, like Battle.

Get the talls first, then the mids. At present we dont have enough talls (looking forward 5-10 years). We have the mids to cover the next four full years of a rebuild (A core of Cripps and 3 number 1 picks in Gibbs, Murphy and Kruezer), and the backline is looking OK.

Of future concern in the backline is a replacement for Touhy in a few years (and Byrne is looking to have that covered) but crucially we need replacements for Simpson and Rowe. Of the other three defenders, Weitering, Plowman and Docherty have shown enough that theyre gonna make it (and be very very good). This leaves us with Simspson and Rowe as needing replacement. For Rowe we need a key defender to play on the bigger bodies, and for Simpson we need a rebounding sweeping defender. Hopefully JGM fills the first requirement, and we can find a sweeper to fill the second (an ageing midfielder or half forward tends to work a charm in the absence of a designated person - in the past we've used Lappin, Scotland, Walker and now Simmo).

We're still one defender short for mine though. A younger and better version of Rowe. Talia would be a godsend right about now.

When I look at the forward line in 5 years time, it is the biggest concern. Loading up on mids over the next few drafts and hoping that [McKay, Silvagni, Jacksh and Curnow] 'make it' means we will hit 2020 with too many variables (Everitt, Walker and Casboult gone and no-one else in the wings, and all our eggs in the 'one basket' of those four players). Its highly doubltfull that all four players 'make it', and even if they all do, we're still at least one leading Key forward short for mine (probably two). Which is why (all else being equal) I would add Battle (and another key forward if possible) to those four (which not only covers us, it also gives us a level of redundancy - heck if all six make it we also have the option of trading one at a premium) and then once the forward line is sorted, I would look to find replacements for Murphy, Gibbs, Curnow and Thomas in the following years.

Those latter four or five mids have 3-5 years left in them (alongside Cripps), and can hold down the fort while we recruit tall and leading forwards this year, and one more defender and then mids in the three to four years from 2017/18-2020. Retaning an experienced midfield means we buy some time for those talls to develop.

For mine, Marchbank is the defender we need. If we can get him and Battle, I would consider this drafting period a win, with anything else we pick up being cream on top. We then look to Mids from 2017 onwards.

Adding mids this year is adressing a need we currently haveonly if you look at our current lack of contested footy (barring Cripps). Its short term thinking. We need to look at the list in 2020 and going forwards.

Stock up on talls first. Then get the mids. We can afford to do this at present due to our midfield being OK for a few years yet.

As for picking up mids, (with ease) at will in a year or 2, you are kidding, they take time to develop to an optimum standard, or come at a high price at the trade table.

And Talls take even longer (at least 3-4 years is the expectation), have an even higher price, and are even more scarce at the trade table. They're rarely available, whereas around 3-5 quality mids become available via trade and F/A every year. We're early days into a rebuild, and time we have. I say get the forwards and backline sorted and then focus on mids.

If we get too many key talls that all turn out, then we can always trade one (at a massive premium) for a midfielder.

 

[LordLucifer]

Over the next 3-4 years, we have Cripps, Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas, Steele, (Whiley, Graham, Boekhoest, Cunningham) rotating through the guts.

Really ?????

EDIT : Whiley & Graham more than likely won't be at the club next year, Boekhorst still has to display some consistency, Steele plays for another club whilst Cunningham hasn't played a senior game yet. Suggesting we would have any of those highlighted rotating through the guts is sheer folly right now.

 

[Aphrodite]

Really ?????

Is it ok for others to have an opinion or is yours the only one that counts Sheik!

 

[Malifice]

Really ?????

Yeah, really. Look at any other team in the comp. Take the best 4-5 mids out (Cripps, Murphy, Gibbs, Thomas, Curnow for us) and see whats left. No team (Cats, Hawks, North, Sydney current top 4) bats 8 gun mids deep.

I'm not doubting that we need more mids, or that our midfield rotation at present isnt the best. My argument is that we need one more key defender, and two more key/ leading forward as a higher priority going forward. KPP take longer to develop for starters, and secondly come 2020 at present we only have the four (Jacksh, McKay, Silvagni and Curnow). We need to increase that number by two (and even then 4 of that 6 better make it and at least one better become a gun, or we'll face some problems).

Drafting in one more key/ tall forward (Cameron/ Casboult/ Cloke type) and one more leading forward (Darling/ Stringer type) would be the best at present (along with one more young key tall defender to replace Rowe, and lock our back six away for a decade).

In 2017, 18, 19 and 20 we can load up on mids to replace (Murphy, Gibbs, Thomas, Curnow) and work with Cripps. Those four wont be going anywhere over the next 3-4 years. They're abundant in the draft, and in trades and F/A.

For mine we need two more forwards and one more defender, then we can focus exclusively on mids (unless a standout mid is available - we dont want to reach too far and mess it up).

We dont want to fix problems now. We want to have the best possible side, at the same age profile circa 2020.

 

[Malifice]

Is it ok for others to have an opinion or is yours the only one that counts Sheik!

Weirdly I was advocating drafting key (talls) forwards and defenders over (medium sized) mids.

I woulda thought he would've been all over that suggestion in a good way.

 

[Jimmae]

I still dont get this preoccupation with mids for this draft.

Assuming GWS4(2) and we draft Battle, then weve gotten the core of our backline (Weitering, Docherty, Marchbank, Plowman, Byrne, JGM) and forward line (McKay, Curnow, Silvagni, Battle, Thomlinson, Jacksh) set for the next ten+ years.

Anyone that doesnt make it, we can look to F/A in three years time to plug those gaps.

Over the next 3-4 years, we have Cripps, Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas, Steele, (Whiley, Graham, Boekhoest, Cunningham) rotating through the guts. Meaning we're set for the next three years at least. We then use those three years (while the KP forwards and KP backs develop -they take more time) to pick up mids to replace (Gibbs, Murphy, Curnow, Thomas).

4 talls in defence and 6 up front? What?!

Super confused how we're getting this next GWS4 for a pick in the 20s as well, and then there's the idea that having the tallest team in the AFL supersedes having genuine midfield depth.

Oh and what are we doing with the 12 talls on our list that you haven't named? Only 5 of them are out of contract. Our list balance is already madness in terms of pushing for finals, and you seem to think we're playing with GWS' listing rules.

 

[Malifice]

4 talls in defence and 6 up front? What?!

Based on the list as it stands at present, circa 2020 we have two key intercept defenders (Plowman and Weitering) and two rebounding defenders (Docherty and Byrne). All four will make it, and be very good. Im assuming Touhy, Rowe and Simpson are long gone come 2020, and Byrne has stepped into Touhys shoes.

Coming through we have JGM (developing rookie) to maybe step into Rowes shoes (body on body key defender) and can slot an elder statesman mid into the sweeper role currently filled by Simpson. We then have three sweeping defenders and two key defenders (three if JGM makes it). For mine, we need one more key defender (as either redundancy, or for 4 taller defenders + 2 sweepers on the list).

Marchbank (or someone like Talia) fill that need for an extra defender.

Up forward we will have four on the list (circa 2020) with no guarantee any will make it (McKay, Curnow, Jacksh, SOSOS). Casboult, Everitt and Walker will all be long gone by 2020. Among that four we could use another tall key forward (think Cloke/ Casboult/ Reiwoldt/ Walker) and another leadup forward (think Stringer/ Darling).

I doubt all four young forwards make it. Even adding two to that list of four gives us six key forwards in total developing, of which most likely only 3-4 make it. Around those three to fouor we can slot a small forward, ruckman or resting mid up there to fill the gap.

Going forward with just those four as our forwards is untenable. Key forwards take longer than mids (3+ years), and the odds of all four making it are small. Accordingly we need key forwards going forwards, and we need them now.

Best case scenario is that all six forwards (the current four of SOSOS, Jacksh, McKay and Curnow plus the two more I propose we draft) all make it. Highly unlikely and would be a massive win if so. Opens up depth, and trading opportunities if so (key forwards go for a premium). More likely around four make it, and thats the baseline we should be aiming for.

For mids, we have a good core of Cripps, the 3 number 1's plus Thomas and Curnow. Those six should be around for the better part of the next 4 years (while any drafted key forwards develop). An experienced core of mids (and a young gun) to prop the mid field up while we first get in more key forwards, and then spend 3-4 years drafting in their replacements.

In short, for mine we're two 18-20 year old key forwards and one key back short. We need to draft them now, and get a few years into them during the rebuild while our experienced mids are still up and running.

Starting next year we can focus on mids over the drafts 2017 onwards to replace an ageing Gibbs, Murph, Thomas and Curnow.

We should be hitting season 2020 with a list all around the 19-25 age bracket, and three - four years experience, development and playing together in the forwards and defenders. Our midfield will be led by a 24 year old 100 gamer in Cripps leading a midfield of young 1st rounders taken in the 17, 18 and 19 drafts (maybe with a 32 year old Murph and Gibbs still floating around) plus any F/A or trades we pick up.

We can add more mids in drafts 20, 21, 22, etc going forwards. Our forwards and defenders will all be around 27 by the end of this process and we can start to look to shore them up (and draft more in) starting in 2023 and onwards.

Super confused how we're getting this next GWS4 for a pick in the 20s as well, and then there's the idea that having the tallest team in the AFL supersedes having genuine midfield depth.

We need both. I dont see the point of putting all our eggs in the [Jacksh, McKay, SOSOS and Curnow] basket, focussing on mids over the next 4 years and then hitting 2020 with a non existent forward line and the lack of a powerful key defender to play on the bigger boys.

I'd rather get half a dozen forwards, and half a dozen defenders now (all in the 18-22 age bracket) and then concentrate on mids starting next year, so the whole side (mids, forwards, defenders) is hitting 2020 with an age bracket of 18-26 and the forwards and defenders have three plus years of development in them already as opposed to having a gun midfield in 2020 and no-one to kick to (or having to draft key forwards in 2020 and wasting three to four years of having a gun midfield with them developing).

The forwards and backs need to be slightly older (and have more development) than the mids as opposed to the other way around.

Oh and what are we doing with the 12 talls on our list that you haven't named? Only 5 of them are out of contract. Our list balance is already madness in terms of pushing for finals, and you seem to think we're playing with GWS' listing rules.

Im advocating drafting two players this year. A key defender in Marchbank or similar (locking our back six away for a decade) and a key forward like Battle (to add to our forward stocks). Thats a far cry from applying 'GWS listing rules'.

Assuming we can secure those two this year (another key forward and another key defender), then from 2017, 18, 19, 20 onwards I advocate focussing on mids to replace Murph, Gibbs etc as they retire (with one additional key forward if one becomes available). Thats four first and second round draft picks (and 4 years of F/A and trades) to find 5 mids (to add to Cripps) and a key forward.

 

[Coona Blues]

Yeah, really. Look at any other team in the comp. Take the best 4-5 mids out (Cripps, Murphy, Gibbs, Thomas, Curnow for us) and see whats left. No team (Cats, Hawks, North, Sydney current top 4) bats 8 gun mids deep.

I'm not doubting that we need more mids, or that our midfield rotation at present isnt the best. My argument is that we need one more key defender, and two more key/ leading forward as a higher priority going forward. KPP take longer to develop for starters, and secondly come 2020 at present we only have the four (Jacksh, McKay, Silvagni and Curnow). We need to increase that number by two (and even then 4 of that 6 better make it and at least one better become a gun, or we'll face some problems).

Drafting in one more key/ tall forward (Cameron/ Casboult/ Cloke type) and one more leading forward (Darling/ Stringer type) would be the best at present (along with one more young key tall defender to replace Rowe, and lock our back six away for a decade).

In 2017, 18, 19 and 20 we can load up on mids to replace (Murphy, Gibbs, Thomas, Curnow) and work with Cripps. Those four wont be going anywhere over the next 3-4 years. They're abundant in the draft, and in trades and F/A.

For mine we need two more forwards and one more defender, then we can focus exclusively on mids (unless a standout mid is available - we dont want to reach too far and mess it up).

We dont want to fix problems now. We want to have the best possible side, at the same age profile circa 2020.

We agree to a degree with what is required.
DEFENDERS
Agree one key defender short, that being an "upgrade" on Rowe. I regard Marchbank very, very highly, but he would potentially upset the
mix. Weitering's best value is as that intercept type he has played in his draft year and this season. Apart from Rowe, he is our tallest best 22
defender, but would be wasted in a lock down role. We need a big lock down type, we are all hoping JGM will fit the role (for what it is worth
I am very confident).
Assuming Rowe has 2-3 years left while JGM develops, I see Weitering, Marchbank and Plowman as too similar (broadly speaking) to coexist
in the modern game. (other roles could be found for Weitering if Marchbank is taken, could be a ready made key forward)

You rightly point out that Tuohy will need replacing soonish. If Simmo were to retire in the next couple of years, it would be expected Byrne would
assume his "loose" role in a year or two. Sheehan and Gowers have credentials to move in to the defensive half. Gowers still L plates but excellent
disposal on top of his emergence at half back recently. Sheehan just needs to stay sound to slot in to the back 6, while Thomas could ably take
Simmo's sweeper role in his twilight.

MIDFIELD
I believe your opinion here is dismissive of the issues. We do not have enough depth and do not have enough emerging "class". Blokes like Keridge
can play inside, but are seemingly more outside/half forward. I highly regard the ability of Boekhorst, but am not as bullish as many that he is
fit to step in to a winger role. Has had some flaws regarding combat willingness which are to be hoped is immaturity rather than reluctance.
Cuningham a work in progress with the jury not even having heard opening statements yet. Steele may add something, but is at least number
10 at GWS which makes me wonder if we can draft better. (ideally enter Mexican girl)

FORWARDS
We addressed this last draft. We have enigmatic Levi, Jaksch will be at least solid (better if we can illuminate the light bulb), then we have Jack SOS
who will be a player (3rd tall) Charlie Curnow has already shown enough, just the role is in question, and big Harry has not yet shown his wares.
We have enough invested in the tall forward stakes. Can also see Weitering "swinging" if we get Marchbank.

RUCKMEN
Kreuze is Kreuze, Phillips is promising, but still "slight" for a frontline ruck. Korcheck potential hit out machine, but remains to be seen what
he can provide around the ground. Gorringe not really a ruck and Wood gone (sorry Cam) Sauce and Paycheck both already mid 20's. We need a developing kid (English, Ladhams, Goddard and Sweet make up the best group of prospects for years, with a couple of others possible rookies)

As I said above, I would love two of Marchbank, Steele and Tomlinson for out first and second, with a later first coming back for a decent mid.
GWS4(2) is a pipedream. There will be too much demand for GWS to do 4 of that quality in the proposed deal.

 

[Malifice]

We agree to a degree with what is required.
DEFENDERS
Agree one key defender short, that being an "upgrade" on Rowe. I regard Marchbank very, very highly, but he would potentially upset the mix. Weitering's best value is as that intercept type he has played in his draft year and this season. Apart from Rowe, he is our tallest best 22 defender, but would be wasted in a lock down role. We need a big lock down type, we are all hoping JGM will fit the role (for what it is worth I am very confident).

On this we agree. Rowe is our most pressing need down back. I can see Docherty and Byrne being rebounding defenders, and Plowman and Weitering being taller intercept types. Going forward we need a third tall 'body on body' type (a job Rowe is doing well at present, but is a placeholder only).

Assuming Rowe has 2-3 years left while JGM develops, I see Weitering, Marchbank and Plowman as too similar (broadly speaking) to coexist in the modern game. (other roles could be found for Weitering if Marchbank is taken, could be a ready made key forward)

I dont like placing all my eggs in the JGM basket. He's a developing rookie. Plus; even if he does and we trade in Marchbank having 4 talented key tall defenders on the list is better than having three, even if JGM does make it. We have the option then of going taller with 4 taller defenders, and have a little depth should one go down (again - this assumes that JGM makes it).

You rightly point out that Tuohy will need replacing soonish. If Simmo were to retire in the next couple of years, it would be expected Byrne would assume his "loose" role in a year or two. Sheehan and Gowers have credentials to move in to the defensive half. Gowers still L plates but excellent disposal on top of his emergence at half back recently. Sheehan just needs to stay sound to slot in to the back 6, while Thomas could ably take Simmo's sweeper role in his twilight.

I'm not overly worried about an extra sweeper. Docherty and Byrne have that locked up at present, andmost teams are content to place a skilled mid down back to fill an extra sweeper role (Hodge, us with Simpson, Lappin, Scotland etc).

With 4 talls (whould we draft another, and JGM make it) and 2 sweepers, we can play a taller backline when needed, or take a tall out and replace him with a rebounding defender/ sweeper (bearing in mind the two sweepers at present will be a virtual all Australian in Docherty and Byrne). We have some flexibity and depth in addition to talent and youth.

We need a Rowe replacement. Like for like, just younger. Marchbank fills this need for mine.

MIDFIELD
I believe your opinion here is dismissive of the issues. We do not have enough depth and do not have enough emerging "class". Blokes like Keridge can play inside, but are seemingly more outside/half forward. I highly regard the ability of Boekhorst, but am not as bullish as many that he is fit to step in to a winger role. Has had some flaws regarding combat willingness which are to be hoped is immaturity rather than reluctance. Cuningham a work in progress with the jury not even having heard opening statements yet. Steele may add something, but is at least number 10 at GWS which makes me wonder if we can draft better. (ideally enter Mexican girl)

I agree the midfield is worrying, but at present its 3 x number 1's (Gibbs, Murphy, Kruezer) Thomas, Curnow and young gun Cripps. That core will carry us just fine for another 3-4 years.

Im not advocating ignoring mids for the next 3-4 years - just advocating getting one more key defender (to replace Rowe) and two more key forwards (another tall KPP type, and a lead up full forward type) before we stock up on more mids with an eye to the list circa 2020. KPPs take longer to develop and benefit from playing together for a few years. Mids can contribute straight away, and dont take as long as the KPPs. Plus there is every chance that one of Gibbs or Murphy could still be running around next to a 24 year old Cripps and a handfull of 20 year old 1st round draft pick Mids circa 2020.

FORWARDS
We addressed this last draft.

No we didnt. We're not even close to be putting the cue in the rack for forwards for mine. Circa 2020 we have four forwards - McKay, Curnow, SOSOS and Jacksh. It is highly unlikely that all four make it, and even if they do, four is not enough.

We have enigmatic Levi, Jaksch will be at least solid (better if we can illuminate the light bulb), then we have Jack SOS who will be a player (3rd tall) Charlie Curnow has already shown enough, just the role is in question, and big Harry has not yet shown his wares. We have enough invested in the tall forward stakes. Can also see Weitering "swinging" if we get Marchbank.

See what you're doing? You're adding Levi (who wont be around come 2020, and is still a massive question mark now) and two key defenders (Weitering and Marchbank) to our forward line (leaving two big holes in defence). This is in addition to assuming that all four forwards we currently have all make it (odds are that they wont).

You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, assuming players who struggle to contribute meaningfully now will be able to contribue at 31 years of age, and also assuming that all four of the forwards we drafted last year and they year before all make it (odds are almost certain they wont).

How about instead we leave the key defenders in key defensive positions, draft two key forwards instead (to bring the 2020 stocks of both up to six) and develop those key forwards and key backs over the next three to four years we wont be challenging? With six key forwards, odds are that around 3-4 make it, leaving room for a small forward and a resting ruckman or mid - plus we dont have to gut the defence of two players likely to be our two best defenders in 2020.

Get the forwards and backs sorted now, and lets give them 3-4 years to play together, develop together and gel.

We then use those three-four years to aquire replacements for Murph, Gibbs, Kruezer, Thomas and E Curnow.

 

[CarltonFan]

Ahmed Saad is only 24 and the type of experience and speed we need in the forward line to replace Walker.