Discussion 2019 General AFL Discussion

(Log in to remove this ad.)

VDS66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Posts
17,878
Likes
44,793
AFL Club
St Kilda
I think Acres getting a full time run in the middle is dependent on him showing a bit more fire and desperation.

To me, Blake comes across as one of those guys that finds football fairly easy. Almost like Pendlebury or Dal Santo. He 'floats' through the contest and feels like he has alot of time and space to work. James Hird (for all his faults) was a master at this.

Richo wants an on ball brigade of junkyard dogs. He wants players who are ruthless at the contest and who will smash in at every opportunity. If they can break away into space ala Steven or Ross then that's a bonus, but you aren't getting midfield minutes unless you are frothing at the mouth to lay 10 tackles a week.

So Acres gets left in this 'no man's land' positionally. Too talented to be left out of the side, but doesn't play in the style the coach wants for his starting midfield. As a result he gets shoe horned in as this 3rd tall forward who pinch hits in the ruck in order to get some on ball time when, in a perfect world, he would be starting on ball and resting forward in a rotation with guys like Billings, Gresham and Lonie.
You kinda lost me when you likened him.to Pendles and Dal.



But anyway, if the game plan requires the types who crack in and tackle as you say, then Blake needs to be deployed elsewhere if he's not goingvto play to team rules.

Either an outside wing or utility.

He's not a Fyfe. If he was capable of being a Cripps, hed get more time on there IMO.

Your post is probably spot on.
 

VDS66

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Posts
17,878
Likes
44,793
AFL Club
St Kilda
Again, I think plenty think that's best for him. Should be a star at another club. We should be able to turn that pick into a HBF who lasts 2 years before delisting.
Should be, won't be.

No one came knocking for him last trade period... Clubs are scared he will be too good for them.
 

Premium

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Posts
4,465
Likes
8,755
AFL Club
St Kilda
Not all of it, injury has held him back too, but I think another club probably would have had him as a much much better player. In a different system he would have been loved for the things Richo probably hates about him. Even Ross Lyon has said he liked his systems but you need a few creative drivers to break open games.
Dunstan's problem is disposal and speed , he has to fix the only one he can which is disposal - Diesel Williams was slow , but was able to get possessions and use them well.
Dunstan will never be able to get Williams stats but if gets enough contested possessions use them to open up play , these 2m handballs kill me , if he could clear the ball for our outside runners everyone a winner - Billings will look like a superstar.
 

Premium

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Posts
4,465
Likes
8,755
AFL Club
St Kilda
Again, I think plenty think that's best for him. Should be a star at another club. We should be able to turn that pick into a HBF who lasts 2 years before delisting.
Acres will turn 24 this year and is contracted next year , I would just let him play out the season and see how he goes before casting him off , we have 15 games , enough time to show us he is a required player.
If he does play well we may have more than 15 games left.
 

gringo2011

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Posts
22,598
Likes
47,706
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
TBF if you consider, Hanners has to come in for rotation eventually, and in perfect world, Stuv as well, so say that's primarily Billings, Ross, Steele, Hanners, Stuv with Gresh, Sincs, Acres, Newnes wanting in and guys like Paton, Hind, Clark, Coff needing to add to bows to also be included in conversations as a minimum.

Acres is teasing, Sincs is teasing, Newnes is being queried as "has he reached a ceiling?", Dunstan is viewed as limited, if this is the case you ship them since they have currency and you rotate through to upgrade since you have to give to get in most cases and if someone thinks they can see a guy like Acres getting 30's consistently elsewhere, you sell that idea if you have a better one, and an "on" Gresh is better, Hanners best is better.

Anywho.. too much red tonight, both sides doing their best to lose this game.

I would say none of the guy you mentioned have very much value. Acres might appeal to sides who have seen his best games. Dunstan would be lucky to play in another side so probably delisted free agent or 4th rounder at best, Sincs similar, Newnes is a restricted free agent and would get a third rounder at best as compo even f the AFL tried to get us overs and Acres maybe a third rounder. The way we turned Dal, Goddard, Mc Evoy, Stanley etc in to worse players than we started with should be a big warning that we just aren't good enough at drafting to make that a worth while proposition. Would rather wait and see on them to be honest. All contribute, just aren't stars. Acres is one of the few that has some elite traits. That said he'll probably get traded next year, they want to look busy these days and haven't got second round picks again and have academy players to pick up. We need some currency so need to hock something.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yawkey way

Club Legend
Joined
May 8, 2017
Posts
2,993
Likes
6,590
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Red sox
I would say none of the guy you mentioned have very much value. Acres might appeal to sides who have seen his best games. Dunstan would be lucky to play in another side so probably delisted free agent or 4th rounder at best, Sincs similar, Newnes is a restricted free agent and would get a third rounder at best as compo even f the AFL tried to get us overs and Acres maybe a third rounder. The way we turned Dal, Goddard, Mc Evoy, Stanley etc in to worse players than we started with should be a big warning that we just aren't good enough at drafting to make that a worth while proposition. Would rather wait and see on them to be honest. All contribute, just aren't stars. Acres is one of the few that has some elite traits. That said he'll probably get traded next year, they want to look busy these days and haven't got second round picks again and have academy players to pick up. We need some currency so need to hock something.
Imo that’s harsh, but if someone is traded it has to be a player of value and as part of a player trade.
 

triggering bro

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Posts
8,071
Likes
32,457
AFL Club
St Kilda
Essendon autopsy reads quite similarly to a few of ours this year. “Mindless bombing inside 50”, “refuse to change”, “same **** different week” etc. Guess we’re not the only ones who apparently see merit in high balls going inside 50!
The difference is their list looks top 4 & are seriously underperforming. Woosha surely doesn’t keep his job if they don’t make finals?
 

gringo2011

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Posts
22,598
Likes
47,706
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Imo that’s harsh, but if someone is traded it has to be a player of value and as part of a player trade.

I never claimed to be reasonable. That's probably fair, just can't see any of them as anything but steak knives still. If you have a very good player you would want something like Acres and first just as a sweetener instead of a later pick upgrade or something. You aren't going to swap any of them for an elite player. It would really just to keep points.

Nick Riewoldt was on Whateley the other morning and said our drafting was terrible until recently and made a special mention of wasting the picks that we traded gun players for. To me if you trade out players of quality you almost live and die by the sword, it's like mortgaging the house to hit the casino, comes off you look genius, **** it up and you are probably divorced and living in a car. Unforgivable mismanagement.
 

triggering bro

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Posts
8,071
Likes
32,457
AFL Club
St Kilda
I never claimed to be reasonable. That's probably fair, just can't see any of them as anything but steak knives still. If you have a very good player you would want something like Acres and first just as a sweetener instead of a later pick upgrade or something. You aren't going to swap any of them for an elite player. It would really just to keep points.

Nick Riewoldt was on Whateley the other morning and said our drafting was terrible until recently and made a special mention of wasting the picks that we traded gun players for. To me if you trade out players of quality you almost live and die by the sword, it's like mortgaging the house to hit the casino, comes off you look genius, **** it up and you are probably divorced and living in a car. Unforgivable mismanagement.
The trading/letting go of Dal Santo, Goddard & McEvoy was seriously stupid. It netted us guys like Hickey, Lee & Wright who are all gone from our list. Dunstan is fringe & Savage hasn’t done a lot when you look at his whole career with us.

2016 draft was a debacle considering we had two decent picks. At least we seemed to nail the McKenzie & Lonie later picks.

The other drafts since 2013 have been okay given the picks we’ve had but the issue is we haven’t found an elite gun despite having good picks. Gresham & Billings aren’t there yet but look the most likely. We’ve had pick 1, 18, 7, 8 & 4. You would hope to find a top 20 player in comp from one of those picks. At the moment we don’t have a top 50 player.

We have done quite well with trading in players though. Roberton, Bruce, Membrey & Steele were decent trades. Very unlucky with Robbo & Koby.

Funnily enough I reckon the rookie selection of Marshall could be our best drafted player since nailing Goddard at 1 when you way up the pick he was taken with. I would have him in our top 5 most important players going forward. Maybe top 3 with the unknown how Steven & Carlisle bounce back from their injury/health issues.
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Posts
36,244
Likes
21,737
Location
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
The trading/letting go of Dal Santo, Goddard & McEvoy was seriously stupid. It netted us guys like Hickey, Lee & Wright who are all gone from our list. Dunstan is fringe & Savage hasn’t done a lot when you look at his whole career with us.

2016 draft was a debacle considering we had two decent picks. At least we seemed to nail the McKenzie & Lonie later picks.

The other drafts since 2013 have been okay given the picks we’ve had but the issue is we haven’t found an elite gun despite having good picks. Gresham & Billings aren’t there yet but look the most likely. We’ve had pick 1, 18, 7, 8 & 4. You would hope to find a top 20 player in comp from one of those picks. At the moment we don’t have a top 50 player.

We have done quite well with trading in players though. Roberton, Bruce, Membrey & Steele were decent trades. Very unlucky with Robbo & Koby.

Funnily enough I reckon the rookie selection of Marshall could be our best drafted player since nailing Goddard at 1 when you way up the pick he was taken with. I would have him in our top 5 most important players going forward. Maybe top 3 with the unknown how Steven & Carlisle bounce back from their injury/health issues.
The strategy was sound, but they backed our recruiters, and or recruiters were rubbish.
The other thing was , that in hindsight , the drafts in those years were rubbish.

2014. Not sure why picking Paddy was a debacle, at the time it was pretty much expected that if he didn't go number 1 , it would be 2 or3.
Go back and look at the threads if you don't believe me, and the only other choice apparently was Petracca.
McKenzie was the pick right after Goddard. ( Goddard was considered a slider at the time, we were all very happy to get him ).
Sinclair has done OK for a Rookie.
 

triggering bro

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Posts
8,071
Likes
32,457
AFL Club
St Kilda
The strategy was sound, but they backed our recruiters, and or recruiters were rubbish.
The other thing was , that in hindsight , the drafts in those years were rubbish.

2014. Not sure why picking Paddy was a debacle, at the time it was pretty much expected that if he didn't go number 1 , it would be 2 or3.
Go back and look at the threads if you don't believe me, and the only other choice apparently was Petracca.
McKenzie was the pick right after Goddard. ( Goddard was considered a slider at the time, we were all very happy to get him ).
Sinclair has done OK for a Rookie.
Whatever the excuses & what “we” thought at the time, the professionals employed by the club botched recruiting. For the good of the forum I’m not going to go over the Paddy vs Petracca debate.
 

StFly

Space to Rent
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Posts
14,157
Likes
6,046
Location
Sunbury
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Sunbury Lions
Essendon supporters blaming the non call on Rampe climbing the post for them losing is classic. They didn't even know about the rule until Hamish mentioned it well after the game and the ball fell 20m short of the goal anyway.
There is a modicum of a point though, in a game where the margin was 5 points, if the ball had of been on target and a game of inches instead; no one would have given a damn and nothing would happen.

What's the overall point of rules if when they then need to be applied, they are not and never are?
 

triggering bro

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Posts
8,071
Likes
32,457
AFL Club
St Kilda
Essendon supporters blaming the non call on Rampe climbing the post for them losing is classic. They didn't even know about the rule until Hamish mentioned it well after the game and the ball fell 20m short of the goal anyway.
There is a modicum of a point though, in a game where the margin was 5 points, if the ball had of been on target and a game of inches instead; no one would have given a damn and nothing would happen.

What's the overall point of rules if when they then need to be applied, they are not and never are?
And they haven’t read the rule correctly. The rule states the player must “intentionally” shake the goal post. Whilst what Rampe was doing was stupid his intention wasn’t to shake the post, it was to climb the bloody thing. Essendon supporters need to blame the rule book & ask it be changed to include “climbing the goal post” or “negligently” shake the goal post. The umpires interpreted the rule correctly.
 

BrutThough

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Posts
3,848
Likes
13,029
AFL Club
St Kilda
Essendon supporters blaming the non call on Rampe climbing the post for them losing is classic. They didn't even know about the rule until Hamish mentioned it well after the game and the ball fell 20m short of the goal anyway.
Regardless, they should have been paid a free kick in the goal square.
 

BrutThough

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Posts
3,848
Likes
13,029
AFL Club
St Kilda
And they haven’t read the rule correctly. The rule states the player must “intentionally” shake the goal post. Whilst what Rampe was doing was stupid his intention wasn’t to shake the post, it was to climb the bloody thing. Essendon supporters need to blame the rule book & ask it be changed to include “climbing the goal post” or “negligently” shake the goal post. The umpires interpreted the rule correctly.
Climbing the goal post causes it to shake. It doesn't take a genius to know that.
Rampe intentionally chose to do something which causes the post to shake, which is against the rules of the game.
Free kick should have been paid.
 

triggering bro

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Posts
8,071
Likes
32,457
AFL Club
St Kilda
I’m just going to leave this here for those who think Essendon should’ve received a free kick on the goal line:

Under AFL rule 17.11, a free kick shall be awarded against a player or official who intentionally shakes a goal or behind post (either before or after a player has disposed of the football).
 

StFly

Space to Rent
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Posts
14,157
Likes
6,046
Location
Sunbury
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Sunbury Lions
And they haven’t read the rule correctly. The rule states the player must “intentionally” shake the goal post. Whilst what Rampe was doing was stupid his intention wasn’t to shake the post, it was to climb the bloody thing. Essendon supporters need to blame the rule book & ask it be changed to include “climbing the goal post” or “negligently” shake the goal post. The umpires interpreted the rule correctly.
Technically the umpire has correct interpretation in many instances due to their opinion changing the actual law so the argument would be had either way, it's applied correctly in this place since as you stated, intention is to climb and shaking is an obvious byproduct of.

But it further highlights that the rules are rather **** and nonsensical in application when it comes to direct score involvements. There is seemingly an effort to dismissively highlight and lessen that in application, game results would be flipped after the fact in review.
 
Top Bottom