Can he do it?

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Originally posted by sir_dan
Robran? Do any job asked of him? I'm sorry, but Robran would not rate as a proven KPP in my books. He did 50 things wrong for every 1 thing he did right.
I thought it was quite impressive to see a team win a flag without a CHF that impacted on the game as the crows did in 97, 98. Especially with Loewe and Carey up the other end doin the opposite for their teams.

Agree entirely with you Sir Dan.

k
xx

 

[Leaping Lindner]

Originally posted by sir_dan
Robran? Do any job asked of him? I'm sorry, but Robran would not rate as a proven KPP in my books. He did 50 things wrong for every 1 thing he did right.
I thought it was quite impressive to see a team win a flag without a CHF that impacted on the game as the crows did in 97, 98. Especially with Loewe and Carey up the other end doin the opposite for their teams.

I don't think Loewe and Carey have those grand finals on their highlights reels somehow!

 

[Leaping Lindner]

Originally posted by Punchy Bassett

Originally posted by Leaping Lindner
??????

2nd in 1993, 4th in 1994 and 3rd in 1995.


Well... I havent looked it up and so I may be wrong but there was definitely at least one year Craigy didn't get us to the finals.....

Again withough researching I could be way wrong.....

Yeah Norwood missed the finals in 91 and 92. But the way you worded it it sounded like Craig hadn't taken Norwood to the finals at all.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Jerome
We had proven KPP's who could do any job asked of them - Caven, Pittman, Rehn, Robran, Jarman.

Matthew Robran was as usefull as t|ts on a bull in both grand finals. Give me Mark Stevens any day of the week and twice on sunday.

Caven was a legend. He had the ability to shut down his opponent and more importantly provide a hell of a lot of run from defence. He had a bit of speed as well. Caven p|sses all over McGregor.

Pittman played CHB in 97 and did a fantastic job on Lowe (sp???) In 98 he played mainly as a ruckman and FF.

Rehn was just Rehn. Guts and determination.

Jarman was a magician.

In 98 Ben Hart played as FB and did a fantastic job.

I agree we are a bit thin with key defenders and even more so in the ruck.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

I agree we are a bit thin with key defenders and even more so in the ruck.

Stiffy our ruck situation is no worse now than in previous years, where we have always had only 2 AFL standard ruckman.
In fact it was common for most AFL teams to have only one recognised ruckman in the team.
If Clarke retires, Biglands could flourish as the sole ruckman, with backup support (watts, stevens, Krueger).

As for backman, still a bit early in the season to make too many rash decisions, but have to like our KP defensive options with Krueger, Mcgregor, S.Stevens, M.Stevens, Bassett, and Parker.

Its the midfield that needs attention.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Stiffy our ruck situation is no worse now than in previous years, where we have always had only 2 AFL standard ruckman.
In fact it was common for most AFL teams to have only one recognised ruckman in the team.
If Clarke retires, Biglands could flourish as the sole ruckman, with backup support (watts, stevens, Krueger).

As for backman, still a bit early in the season to make too many rash decisions, but have to like our KP defensive options with Krueger, Mcgregor, S.Stevens, M.Stevens, Bassett, and Parker.

Its the midfield that needs attention.

I was comparing our key defenders and ruckman of today to those of our premiership years

When it comes to actual ruckwork we have the best combo in the competition. Key defenders are a bit of a worry. McGregor is good so is Bassett BUT we don't have anyone who can play on a gorilla forwards such as Lynch. I still think we could do with a small defender that specialises in negating small forwards. Andrew Crowell was very valuable to our side for his ability to shut down small forwards. In time hopefully Jericho can play that role.

Scott Stevens is not strong enough for a KP just yet. Parker and Krueger also need to beef up and are still inexperienced. Mark Stevens is the one who could tur out to be the X factor. While I am sure he will play as a forward we might be tempted to play him as a defender when we come up against big forwards and let Carey and Perrie play as key forwards.

We are not useless by a long strech but I think we were stronger in key defensive positions and in ruck back in our premiership years.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I was looking through our list and I must say our potential spine in the future looks a lot better than a few months ago.

FF: Joshua Krueger. I see Krueger as the sort of a big forward who can pinch hit in the ruck. His overhead contested marking, thumping kick, good skills below knees and his athletic ability would make him difficult to match up on.

CHF: Fergus Watts . His ability to play CHF is fantastic. He is a cross between Jonathan Brown and Drew Petrie. With Watts and Krueger we can potentially have the best key forward combo in the AFL as far as marking goes. Flexibility that these 2 should provide to the team is invaluable.

C: Graham Johncock. While he has some ground to make up aerobically, I have no doubt that eventually he will become a premier midfielder in the comp. In time I think Jacob Schuback will also be a valuable member of midfield rotation.

CHB: Ken McGregor. Already a solid player at CHB and still only 23. Should improve in the coming years. What I would like to see him do is be a bit more attacking. If he can average some 16 odd possesions a game along with 5 odd marks, while providing run off half back line he would be even more usefull to the side. I have a sneaky suspicion that In time Trent Hentschel could challenge him for the CHB position. Both are good marks but Hentschel provides more run out of defence and has better skills. Time will tell.

FB: Aidan Parker. He is our white hope for a key defensive spot. He needs to do a bit more work on his running style as he runs like a bloody duck. I must say he is improving in this area. It would appear that he has beefed up a bit over the pre-season. His recovery can do with a bit of work as well but there are plenty of good signs. His rate of improvement lasrt year has been nothing short of tremendous. Started off as the spoiling FB and developed into a running defender capable of playing on bigs and smalls. Regularly racks up 20 odd possesions and provides a lot of run out of defence. Even managed to be named a player of the week on a couple of occasions late in the season. If he continues to improve at a similar rate he will be a regular by 2005.

Ruckman: I have no idea. I am hoping that Andrews is a late developer and comes good otherwise we need to draft a quality youngster to bolster up our stocks for the future.

Overall our spine appears to be developing nicely. I reckon we are lacking quality young midfielders and we should address this in the drafting/trading period at the end of the year. I also think we need a quality young ruckman to develop for the future.

Overall the future looks good

 

[tinman]

Originally posted by Leaping Lindner
??????

As for Ayres. Like mentioned in above posts his inability to outcoach Williams, Matthews, Malthouse worries me. And (as mentioned)his stubborness in making moves. How could anyone forget Mattner on Woewodin? That still haunts me that one.

.................and Perrie on Lynch, Basset on McKernan, bad Gallagher on Yze.....there have been some good ones.......

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
[
Overall the future looks good [/B]

Yes I would have to agree. Bit early in the season to get accurate appraisal of list but the feedback from Macca has been ectremely encouraging.

We'll get a better idea at the end of the season, whether we need a ruckman or whether Andrews and Hudson have futures.
Hopefully Andrews is a longterm prospect and Hudson a more immediate solution.

If they turn out OK, we can concentrate recruiting on midfielders.

It's a bit speculative, like everything at this time of the year.
But the signs are good.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Yes I would have to agree. Bit early in the season to get accurate appraisal of list but the feedback from Macca has been ectremely encouraging.

We'll get a better idea at the end of the season, whether we need a ruckman or whether Andrews and Hudson have futures.
Hopefully Andrews is a longterm prospect and Hudson a more immediate solution.

If they turn out OK, we can concentrate recruiting on midfielders.

It's a bit speculative, like everything at this time of the year.
But the signs are good.

I've just done a review of the Port squad as I see it, and due to great pressure and popular demand (Stiffy asked me) , I'll have a go at our list in the next week or so.

You've summed the 2 ruckmen up correctly.

Andrews is a very tall lanky all legs young lad who couldn't possibly see AFL action IMO until at least 2006.

Hudson is obviously physically there already. He had a very good year in the VFL last year, but this is a big jump up in class, and we can only hope he's up to it - time will tell. He should be played in all of the pre-season games to find this out.

I'd like to see the club pick up at least one if not two promising mid-fielders next year.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
I've just done a review of the Port squad as I see it, and due to great pressure and popular demand (Stiffy asked me) , I'll have a go at our list in the next week or so.

Looking forward to it

 

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
...
Mark Stevens is the one who could tur out to be the X factor. While I am sure he will play as a forward we might be tempted to play him as a defender when we come up against big forwards and let Carey and Perrie play as key forwards.
...

When was the last time M.Stevens played primarily as a defender? He's hardly played any footy at all in the last 12 months, and the 2 years prior to that he has been CHF.

He filled in a few times last year (e.g Kangaroos at home R21?) and showed you can't just "turn it on".

He wouldn't be any better than Perrie on the big fellas.
Smart or McGregor should be the first options.

 

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by Jerome
...
As for possible new coaches for the Crows...



Peter Jonas is the man.

Amen brother
Preach it!

I would also talk to T. Wallace and Alan Stewart if they are interested.

Give Craig as much money as a head coach if required, just leave him where he is

I just hope they break with tradition and forget Bomber Thompson!

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
Andrews is a very tall lanky all legs young lad who couldn't possibly see AFL action IMO until at least 2006.

I hope we persist with him for a couple of years on our rookie list before making up our mind. He will need at least 2-3 years in the gym before he gets his body to acceptable size for an AFL debut. He is one lanky bugger

I'd like to see the club pick up at least one if not two promising mid-fielders next year.

I agree completely. We need a couple of quality young midfielders. I would trade for Faulkner and draft another quality onballer.

Would anyone know if anything is coming up in the father-son picks?????? I know James Fantasia said that there are a couple of youngsters in the 14-15 year old category who are showing good signs. But he didn't want to say names. Anyone have any idea who the lads are?????

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

Would anyone know if anything is coming up in the father-son picks?????? I know James Fantasia said that there are a couple of youngsters in the 14-15 year old category who are showing good signs. But he didn't want to say names. Anyone have any idea who the lads are?????

Speaking of Crows father/sons, what are the rules as they apply to the Crows?
200 SANFL games and from which sanfl clubs?
Wouldn't the Cornes boys have qualified under father/son?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Speaking of Crows father/sons, what are the rules as they apply to the Crows?
200 SANFL games and from which sanfl clubs?
Wouldn't the Cornes boys have qualified under father/son?

Yes both Cornes boys would have qualified under that AFC are hot about this especially James Fantasia. Hopefully Graham's new baby due in a few months is a boy who turns out to be a gun footballer

The criteria is 200 SANFL games or 100 AFL games and we have 4 clubs aligned to us Glenelg, Sturt, Norwood and South.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Yes both Cornes boys would have qualified under that AFC are hot about this especially James Fantasia. Hopefully Graham's new baby due in a few months is a boy who turns out to be a gun footballer

Of course, the Crows are just as likely not to draft him and leave him for Port to pick up.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Porthos
Of course, the Crows are just as likely not to draft him and leave him for Port to pick up.

If it's a girl, you'll be right.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Porthos
Of course, the Crows are just as likely not to draft him and leave him for Port to pick up.

Here we go again.

If the kid is any good we would pick him up. If the current rules were in place when Cornes boys came through the system we would have picked them up. The current rules were introduced after both of the lads were on AFL list.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
If it's a girl, you'll be right.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Here we go again.

If the kid is any good we would pick him up. If the current rules were in place when Cornes boys came through the system we would have picked them up. The current rules were introduced after both of the lads were on AFL list.

So what were the rules at the time of theie drafting?

 

[Leaping Lindner]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Yes both Cornes boys would have qualified under that AFC are hot about this especially James Fantasia. Hopefully Graham's new baby due in a few months is a boy who turns out to be a gun footballer

The criteria is 200 SANFL games or 100 AFL games and we have 4 clubs aligned to us Glenelg, Sturt, Norwood and South.

I thought we had one more club aligned to us (West?). As The Eagles are effectively 2 clubs when you are talking father/son so that would leave Port with 6 and us 4.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
So what were the rules at the time of theie drafting?

At the time they would have been eligible if Graham had held a position with the club for at least 5 years, he came in at about 4.5 years as coach.

I don't think they recognised sanfl games at the time.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Leaping Lindner
I thought we had one more club aligned to us (West?). As The Eagles are effectively 2 clubs when you are talking father/son so that would leave Port with 6 and us 4.

Well, you only get 3 really because you can't count on Sturt producing a footballer.

Yes, that is apparently how the clubs have been aligned. Its a bit weird, but there you go.

As for the rule at the time of Cornes drafting, I believe it was 100 SANFL & 50 AFL games.

 

[troy_sibbick]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can he do it?

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I reckon he might be a premiership coach with Norwood. I am not 100% on this one.

He took us to the 1993 grand final where we lost to Eagles