Are we ready to replace our veterans?

[Carbine Chaos]

Got dropped mid year didn't he?

Appears more capable of bulking up than Staker going by the training pics. The idea of him playing in the middle is genuinely exciting, I really hope we try it.

Yep got dropped after playing down back, did well in the reserves and came back in as a permanent forward and led the goalkicking for the rest of the season.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Mitch Brown will be gone at the end of the year so not only do you have to find a replacement for Glass, but Brown also

 

[Marlin01]

Is he capable to even play as a mid? where did people get the idea who could do that.

I seem to recall this talk started because he finished top 5 in the preseason time trials. When you add to that the fact we have some promising KPF's and no real big units in the midfield it seems worth considering.

 

[the harry]

Mitch Brown will be gone at the end of the year so not only do you have to find a replacement for Glass, but Brown also

You mean we have to find a first round pick to play in the WAFL for 6 years? Where are we going find that?

Jokes aside, if Glass does leave and we offer a reasonable amount, why wouldn't he stay? We are better positioned than most teams.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Mitch Brown will be gone at the end of the year so not only do you have to find a replacement for Glass, but Brown also

Give me a go on that crystal ball when you're done with it mate.

 

[Big Tones]

You mean we have to find a first round pick to play in the WAFL for 6 years? Where are we going find that?

Jokes aside, if Glass does leave and we offer a reasonable amount, why wouldn't he stay? We are better positioned than most teams.

because he wants to go back to Melbourne if he can get good $ to do so. Watters is on record as saying they will make a big offer and get him. If he's not getting games early (ahead of Glassy) or if WCE stuff up in the first half of this year (meaning no top 2 finish), his focus may be more on not getting injured than busting a gut for the team.

IMO we will go well and have a good shot at the flag, Browny will play most games, and he will bust a gut for the team. Then he will go to St K for big $ (with his medal). (big thanks to B_C for loan of crystal ball).

 

[paran]

I voted Kerr. The tall defender issue only comes up against Hawthorn (now Adelaide have lost Tippett) - they're the only team with two good tall forwards; every other team seems to only have 1 good tall KPF. Therefore, if Brown is out, Schoey should be able to cover fine. With Kerr, the gap is major in performance against the top 4 sides between him and the rest of the midfield.

 

[fryzie]

because he wants to go back to Melbourne if he can get good $ to do so. Watters is on record as saying they will make a big offer and get him. If he's not getting games early (ahead of Glassy) or if WCE stuff up in the first half of this year (meaning no top 2 finish), his focus may be more on not getting injured than busting a gut for the team.

Oh well if the Poison Dwarf has said it'll happen, I guess the West Coast are powerless to stop him.

 

[flipper]

hopefully McGovern comes on a bit this year, he is a pretty big rig and could slot into kpd

also a bit of a left field idea, id like to see kennedy as the back up ruck (if cox wasnt there). he has the size, mobility, running tank, marking strength and goal kicking to roam around and dominate. just an idea with the way the game is changing and the typical big log ruckman not really around anymore.

also would allow mcinness to come into the forward line, or would open it up to let darling, le cras and others work into space forward of centre

 

[matt_bas]

Great write up. For me I think browns to one dimensional. I would love to pick up Harry Taylor to replace glass, as he's out of contract this year.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Great write up. For me I think browns to one dimensional. I would love to pick up Harry Taylor to replace glass, as he's out of contract this year.

How do you think Brown is one dimensional, out of interest?

 

[flamingEMBERS]

hopefully McGovern comes on a bit this year, he is a pretty big rig and could slot into kpd

also a bit of a left field idea, id like to see kennedy as the back up ruck (if cox wasnt there). he has the size, mobility, running tank, marking strength and goal kicking to roam around and dominate. just an idea with the way the game is changing and the typical big log ruckman not really around anymore.

also would allow mcinness to come into the forward line, or would open it up to let darling, le cras and others work into space forward of centre

I'm sorry, but this McGovern guy you all talk about wont play a game for our club. He is so far down the pecking order it isn't funny. Don't get me wrong if he plays I hope he does well but seriously.

This Kennedy idea is stupid too.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I legitimately think thank Emac is a better FB than CHB due to his skillset.

Mackenzie remains a liability with ball in hand. I wouldn't have thought we'd want him rebounding from the last line.

i would have him playing on the closest big forward to the goals.

So you would have Mackenzie play on Gunston rather than Franklin and Lynch rather than Cloke?

I would have thought that, once Glass goes, Mackenzie will be required, more than ever, to take the best opposing forwards. And, in the modern game, they are increasingly mobile CHFs, rather than stay-at-home FFs. If you want Mackenzie to replace Glass, playing on the last line, then it means Schofield ends up on those CHFs, essentially starting from scratch, when we already have Mackenzie developed in that role. I don't see how that is preferable to leaving Mackenzie where he is and developing someone else, Schofield in this case, as a direct replacement for Glass.

As a CHB i legitimately think schofield can be better due to his skillset. Not only can he nullify the opposition but he can hurt them the other way. Something Emac could never do and something you would expect more out of a CHB than a FB.

It's true that we will lose something of Schofield's creativity by turning him into a key defender. But's that true of playing him at CHB as well. It's one of the cons of playing Schofield as a key defender. It's an imperfect solution.

We've spent four years developing Mackenzie at CHB. I don't see how it is a good idea to move him out of that role and start again with someone else. Surely it makes more sense to leave Mackenzie at CHB, playing on the likes of Franklin and Cloke, as he does currently, while grooming someone else as a direct replacement for Glass on the last line.

Why should we re-organise our defence more than we have to? If we're replacing Glass, I'd much prefer to have the security of having a CHB who knows his role, rather than turning it all on its head with a new FB and a new CHB at the same time.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Mitch Brown will be gone at the end of the year so not only do you have to find a replacement for Glass, but Brown also

That's still only one player.

If Glass retires and Brown leaves, we still only have to replace Glass.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I think so because clubs will be willing to pay them alot because there are so few and therefore they have a high replacement cost. The only good key defenders who will be better than Brown and be around for the same length of time at Frawley, Phil Davis, Talia and Ben Reid. No side has a couple of extra you can poach on the cheap and if you went for one of those guys you would have to pay huge money to entice them away which I dont think is ideal.

It's a bit hard to say who will or won't be better than Brown, though, isn't it?

It's a bizarre situation because, although he's been on our list for six years and would be our starting FB if Glass wasn't there, none of us can say with any real certainty how he'd go in that position full-time.

Either way, if Glass retires and Brown leaves, we may be in a position where we need to fill that position with someone who isn't better than Brown and, in that case, I don't think it's impossible to get someone who doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

For example, Troy Chaplin went from Port to Richmond as a free agent. Do you reckon Richmond are paying him "a huge amount"? I doubt it. More likely, they offered him a long-term deal which Port didn't want to match. If, at the end of this year, we find ourselves without Glass or Brown as an option, a player like Troy Chaplin would be ideal – a 26-year-old free agent with 140 games under his belt.

Even someone like Tom Gillies, who went from Geelong to Melbourne. Or Stephen Gilham, who went from Hawthorn to GWS. These guys definitely aren't top-liners – and therefore wouldn't be on "a huge amount" – but they are guys who have been in the system for a few years, developing as tall defenders.

Look at Cale Hooker. Had he agreed to be traded to us in November, would he have been on a "huge amount"? Hardly. But he would have been a neat replacement for Glass.

If, at the end of the year, we're left without Glass or Brown, we could well be in the market for a player like the guys listed above.

Ben Rutten, Daniel Merrett, Michael Johnson and Alipate Carlile could be free agents at the end of this season.

Like I said, I'm not sure about the contract status of these guys - some may of course be contracted beyond 2013 or re-sign some time this year. But if we find ourselves without Glass and Brown at year's end, but still very much in a premiership window, why wouldn't we have a crack at one of these guys?

Someone like Merrett, at 28-29, has no chance of playing in a Lions premiership. Assuming he's out of contract, he'll be an unrestricted free agent – you offer him a three-year deal and see what happens. In the meantime, we use whatever we get for Brown to draft the best available key defender and give them 3-4 years to develop.

 

[Ian Dargie]

IMO we will go well and have a good shot at the flag, Browny will play most games, and he will bust a gut for the team.

Barring injury to Glass, Mackenzie or Schofield, how does Brown play "most games"?

Are we going to pick all four of them?

In another thread, you insist Hutchings will play R1 and now you're saying Brown will play "most games".

I'd be fascinated to hear your version of our best 22. Presumably it contains Brown and Hutchings? If not, your confidence in their prospects seems misplaced.

 

[LordHaart]

That's still only one player.

If Glass retires and Brown leaves, we still only have to replace Glass.

Except that we would also want some depth as backup in case our Glass replacement didn't pan out or got injured.

Imperfect solution, I know.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Except that we would also want some depth as backup in case our Glass replacement didn't pan out or got injured.

Imperfect solution, I know.

Imagine if Glass retires and Brown leaves at the end of this year, which is pretty damn possible if you ask me.

I don't really see us bringing in two key defenders at the same time so one of them can play in the WAFL. I guess it's possible but I reckon we'd be more likely to push through with Mackenzie, Schofield and that one replacement, with McInnes as the back-up if shit hits the fan.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

I think there will be plenty of times this year that Glass and Brown can both play in the same team. Glass can and does play on small/medium lead-up marking forwards in the ilk of Mayne/Edwards/Gunston etc. That then allows him to stay inside 50 and be the interceptor which he does so well.

Glass Brown Waters

Hurn Emac Schofield

It would push Selwood or Butler out of the team. Selwood tends to play on the small quick fwds so that might leave us a little exposed with Waters/Butler having to do the job. But his kicking is poor and we already have Emac/Brown/Glass who offer us nothing on the way out by foot.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I think there will be plenty of times this year that Glass and Brown can both play in the same team. Glass can and does play on small/medium lead-up marking forwards in the ilk of Mayne/Edwards/Gunston etc. That then allows him to stay inside 50 and be the interceptor which he does so well.

Glass Brown Waters
Hurn Emac Schofield

Do you think this is our best back six?

It's clearly not our preferred option to squeeze these four talls into the same team. Has that changed? Does our best back six now suddenly include all of them? Or should we play all four, even if it weakens the team?

Should we play Brown to persuade him to stay, even if he's not best 22?

It would push Selwood or Butler out of the team.

In other words, it would leave our back six far too top-heavy, slower and without an obvious match-up for smaller or mid-sized forwards. Is that a good idea?

 

[Double the Fist]

just for mine, are people overrating Brown? I don't want him to go but crikey!

 

[Ian Dargie]

just for mine, are people overrating Brown? I don't want him to go but crikey!

Hard to know, isn't it?

That's the weird part of the situation. We can sit here and talk about what he's worth in a trade or whether he'll be up to playing FB once Glass retires. But to a significant extent, Brown is an unknown. He's played 51 games in six seasons.

So is he a readymade FB of serious quality? Buggered if I can say with any real certainty.

In his favour is that he is physically mature enough to handle that aspect of the role. And the club clearly rates him enough to have driven a hard bargain during the trade period.

 

[eagles_4_life]

Dargie you are trying to define mckenzies role by old terms he plays on the opposition best key forward whether that be fullback or centre half back he plays on both. So we are essentially looking for someone to play on the second or third best tall defender.

For brown to play more this year I would assume we will be resting glassy at times as it was last year he would have played more if he didn't get injured every time he came in.

 

[Marlin01]

I rate Brown, I understand others don't, but if nothing else, he's physically ready and the right age. The club obviously rate him, because they've been committed to him since we delisted Wilkes and Spangher and have only used rookie picks to gain potential replacements/back ups, if you exclude McInnes who has only trained and played as a forward thus far.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Dargie you are trying to define mckenzies role by old terms.

Not at all. I define it by preferred match-ups, his strengths and his shortcomings.

Once Glass retires, Mackenzie will take the best forward almost every week, I'd imagine. Although I hope we have a decent enough second key defender that we have some flexibility.

If it can be helped, I'd prefer we didn't rely on Mackenzie to provide rebound from the last line of defence because he's still dodgy with ball in hand. I don't think that's "an old term".

Also, I don't see why we should unsettle our defence more than we have to. If we can leave Mackenzie where he has played for the last four years and just replace Glass on the last line, isn't that preferable to switching Mackenzie to a deeper, less suitable role and bringing in a new CHB at the same time?

He plays on the opposition best key forward whether that be fullback or centre half back he plays on both. So we are essentially looking for someone to play on the second or third best tall defender.

So you agree that Mackenzie's role doesn't actually need to change significantly? That's what I'm saying.

Some others are insisting Mackenzie should become the new FB, replacing Glass on the last line. I disagree.

If Mackenzie is to take the best forward, as we agree, it will mean him playing more or less as he does currently, at CHB, more often than not. If he takes Franklin and Cloke, for example – these guys aren't stay-at-home FFs.

If people think Mackenzie should replace Glass on the last line, then who will be chasing Franklin up to the wing? The FB? I don't think so. That's not what Glass does currently. That's Mackenzie's gig. So which one is it? Does he take Franklin or does he replace Glass deeper?

If people want Mackenzie playing on the best forwards, that role will have more in common with his current role, at CHB, than him becoming a direct replacement for Glass on the last line.

You can bridle at the use of "old terms" but there's still a difference between a FB and a CHB. Surely, we can agree, for example, that Glass is currently the FB and Mackenzie the CHB. So that distinction is not yet obsolete, is it? That doesn't mean they set up in the centre corridor 50m apart and never move from those spots, obviously, but the "old terms" clearly still have some application. There is a difference in the opponents the FB and the CHB match up against and the way they have to defend varies, dependent on their proximity to the opposition goal.

For brown to play more this year I would assume we will be resting glassy at times as it was last year he would have played more if he didn't get injured every time he came in.

Righto.

So how many games do you expect us to 'rest' Glass? Brown played eight games last year – if he is relying on us to rest our captain to get a game, how many do you reckon he'll play this year?