Opinion Changes vs Geelong

[Coobk001]

Saw Houston up forward in 2 games earlier this season too. Apparently DBJ was doing a Monfries style forward tagging role yesterday?

No DBJ went forward because we took Howard out of the ruck and put him back. As such we had 8 defenders in the side, so one of them needed to be moved elsewhere, they obviously decided the best option would be DBJ up there to apply forward pressure.

I would've liked to have seen them move Houston forward as he at least has some experience up there, plus he was having another 'mare down back

If Howard doesn't ruck again this week then it's 100% certain that a defender will be dropped.

 

[Power Raid]

Saw Houston up forward in 2 games earlier this season too. Apparently DBJ was doing a Monfries style forward tagging role yesterday?

but worryingly, we have rgray, wingard and motlop up forward and rotating through the midfield. We should be getting these guys familiar with defensive effort in the forward 50, so they aren't allergic to it when they rotate through the middle.

Losing is always hard but losing through work effort is embarrassing.

 

[Gryllis]

Lade's comments make it sound like we won't make many changes and that Marshall is the only possible injury concern with Rockliff likely to be fine to play and doesn't sound like dropping him is even being considered.

Don't see how we can make less than 2 or 3 though. Pittard will come in and if the penny has finally dropped that Dixon needs to lead the ruck, we need to lose another defender for a small forward if Robbie and Chad are playing more midfield. If SPP is straight back in, there's the third change but he should go through the SANFL and prove his mind is on the job.

If Marshall is out he'll be replaced by a small and we'll have gone from surprisingly tall in round 1 to too small 2017 style by round 5.

 

[Nemisis]

but worryingly, we have rgray, wingard and motlop up forward and rotating through the midfield. We should be getting these guys familiar with defensive effort in the forward 50, so they aren't allergic to it when they rotate through the middle.

Losing is always hard but losing through work effort is embarrassing.

Interesting point. Normally a specialist small forward is relatively fresh and has the energy to tackle and scrag but having to run through the middle will slow them down over four quarters.

 

[simmo_bc]

If Frampton isn’t ready for AFL after 4 seasons on the list, wow.

Atleast give him a crack to see whether there is even a speck of AFL potential.

Here is a question for Ken, if we delisted him now would another club pick him up?

 

[port_adelaide_1870]

If Frampton isn’t ready for AFL after 4 seasons on the list, wow.

Atleast give him a crack to see whether there is even a speck of AFL potential.

Here is a question for Ken, if we delisted him now would another club pick him up?

After seeing Billy this weekend I would agree he is no where near ready, he is very average

 

[bringbackbucky]

People calling for Frampton to come in haven't been out to a Maggies game.

 

[SureBuddy]

Just because Frampton has been on the list for 4 years, doesn’t mean he is ready. Maybe he is just a bust and will never make it? He has looked horrible at SANFL level.

 

[RossFC]

I was under the impression that we were trading Trengove and Lobbe because Frampton was going to be ready in 2018.

Trading Lobbe was the right decision but Trengove would have been handy right now.

 

[Doctor Feel]

I was under the impression that we were trading Trengove and Lobbe because Frampton was going to be ready in 2018.

Trading Lobbe was the right decision but Trengove would have been handy right now.

Considering we could probably have foregone Rockliff to keep Trengove - as things currently stand. HOWEVER:

What we did was absolutely the right decision, there is no way in hell you wouldn't take Rockliff over Trengove. I'm still not at all worried about Rocky. He'll come good but it won't be immediate and it may not even be this season.

 

[Rigs]

My opinion on changes for this week are;

In: SPP, Atley
Out: Rocky (if he does not pull through the calf tightness), Marshall (if he fails concussion tests)

 

[RossFC]

Considering we could probably have foregone Rockliff to keep Trengove - as things currently stand. HOWEVER:

What we did was absolutely the right decision, there is no way in hell you wouldn't take Rockliff over Trengove. I'm still not at all worried about Rocky. He'll come good but it won't be immediate and it may not even be this season.

I understand Trengove was on big money (700k or something stupid) but if there was a way that we could have cut that salary in half for him to stay on the list we'd be way more balanced right now. Obviously I'm talking hypothetically and in hindsight so it's wishful thinking.

 

[Adz2332]

marshall has delayed concussion and wingard and dixon both have broken noses

 

[Doctor Feel]

marshall has delayed concussion and wingard and dixon both have broken noses

Wouldn't think a broken nose would keep either Dixon or Wingard out. Delayed concussions are a bit dodgy from what i'm told so I would think Marshall would be atleast a reasonable chance to miss.

 

[Powerstufff]

If Frampton isn’t ready for AFL after 4 seasons on the list, wow.

Atleast give him a crack to see whether there is even a speck of AFL potential .....

Geez people!

Hinkley: We haven't got a ruck ready to play
KEN HINKLEY has a strong message for the football world – stop asking about replacements for injured Port Adelaide ruckman Paddy Ryder. There simply isn't one ready.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

Weren’t DBJ and AJ playing average footy in the SANFL, and upon getting a call up showed potential. Maybe Ken just needs to throw Frampton in the deep end and see what he can offer. **** this he isn’t ready shit.

* guess he may not be ready TOG wise..

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[charcolechaddy]

Polec, like he did in round one. It forced him to have to cut back into the centre corridor to use his left. It actually worked beautifully and straightened us up.

O.k who on the other sidr then.

 

[Pedro59]

Pretty simple to me...

Dixon is our next best Ruckman and gives us a chance of winning.

Dixon had ankle issues which is now good but this rucking could bring on an injury

Dixon is a crash and bash forward twisting and changing directions so half a dozen of one , 6 of the other ie either position could cause him an injury I consider to those ankles ...

Richmond and other teams are playing a smaller more mobile forward line ( Betcha the Crows wish they had too last week)

We have some great small forwards

THE ANSWER LOOKING AT THE ABOVE FACTS:

Take away the doubt ...put Dixon full time in the ruck only ...minimize his chance of an injury by allowing him pure ruck training , repetitions , strengthening , stretching , Ladey advice and conditioning . Mentally players are at their best if their role is predefined and practiced...that is they know and can concentrate on their one role.

Now we have a settled line out as far as the Hoff and Howard and the best aggressive no2 Ruck on our list ( Dix)

Now we can win again with our wealth of mobile small forwards ..Gray , SGray, Chad, Mots, Neade and that fellow from North Melbourne!

Dixon full time no more mucking around and bringing him in when damage is done...

This will give certainty and structure to the whole side..



PS why isn't Rockcliff in the guts so we can win it more...

 

[OneGreatClub]

People calling for Frampton to come in haven't been out to a Maggies game.

Kane Cornes?

 

[Chachi]

So RossFC, bringbackbucky and the other regulars to Maggies games it's sounds like the consensus is that Frampton shouldn't get a call up.

1. Do you (and others) believe playing Dixon, Westy and Dougs out of position is hurting us?
2. If yes to Q1 who would you select from the 3 other rucks from the Maggies?

As best as I can tell Frampton isn't in form and not adhering to team rules, Ladhams hasn't shown anywhere near enough and Hayes is doing well but they don't trust his fitness levels are up to scratch yet. Is that about right?

Isn't it better to lose the ruck and keep Dougs down back, Westy roaming and Charlie forward?
I think Dougs is defensively brilliant, on par with TJ and benefits the side the most in defence. He'll take Hawkings this week.
Westy benefits the side most when he can roam from a wing. Drifting back in defence as needed and be dangerous in attack and through the middle.
Charlie providing a marking target and excellent forward pressure.

As soon as we take one of these guys out of these positions for lengthy periods it's to our detriment. I don't disagree that our young rucks aren't playing well enough to warrant a game but the structure of side warrants that they do.

The real question is; which is the lesser of the 2 evils that is more likely to assist us winning?

For me it's playing an 'unready ruck' to maintain structure elsewhere.

 

[RossFC]

So RossFC, bringbackbucky and the other regulars to Maggies games it's sounds the consensus that Frampton shouldn't get a call up.

1. Do you (and others) believe playing Dixon, Westy and Dougs out of position is hurting us?
2. If yes to Q1 who would you select from the 3 other rucks from the Maggies?

As best as I can tell Frampton isn't in form and not adhering to team rules, Ladhams hasn't shown anywhere near enough and Hayes is doing well but they don't trust his fitness levels are up to scratch yet. Is that about right?

Isn't it better to lose the ruck and keep Dougs down back, Westy roaming and Charlie forward?
I think Dougs is defensively brilliant, on par with TJ and benefits the side the most in defence. He'll take Hawkings this week.
Westy benefits the side most when he can roam from a wing. Drifting back in defence as needed and be dangerous in attack and through the middle.
Charlie providing a marking target and excellent forward pressure.

As soon as we take one of these guys out of these positions for lengthy periods it's to our detriment. I don't disagree that our young rucks aren't playing well enough to warrant a game but the structure of side warrants that they do.

The real question is; which is the lesser of the 2 evils that is more likely to assist us winning?

For me it's playing an 'unready ruck' to maintain structure elsewhere.

All I can tell you is if we play any of Frampton/Hayes/Ladhams or ruck any of Dixon/Hoff/Howard. Our whole side will be at a massive disadvantage.

If there was ever a question of who our most important player was, it's clearly Ryder. Especially with no decent backup ruck like Trengove around.

 

[Chachi]

All I can tell you is if we play any of Frampton/Hayes/Ladhams or ruck any of Dixon/Hoff/Howard. Our whole side will be at a massive disadvantage.

If there was ever a question of who our most important player was, it's clearly Ryder. Especially with no decent backup ruck like Trengove around.

Yep absolutely.
I'm sure you love a hypothetical but Ken calls you;
KH: Ross, what do reckon mate, bring in one of snafl rucks or persevere with what I'm doing and if you reckon a ruck then which one?
RFC: (PAFC Bigfooty holds it's breath)

 

[Pedro59]

So RossFC, bringbackbucky and the other regulars to Maggies games it's sounds like the consensus is that Frampton shouldn't get a call up.

1. Do you (and others) believe playing Dixon, Westy and Dougs out of position is hurting us?
2. If yes to Q1 who would you select from the 3 other rucks from the Maggies?

As best as I can tell Frampton isn't in form and not adhering to team rules, Ladhams hasn't shown anywhere near enough and Hayes is doing well but they don't trust his fitness levels are up to scratch yet. Is that about right?

Isn't it better to lose the ruck and keep Dougs down back, Westy roaming and Charlie forward?
I think Dougs is defensively brilliant, on par with TJ and benefits the side the most in defence. He'll take Hawkings this week.
Westy benefits the side most when he can roam from a wing. Drifting back in defence as needed and be dangerous in attack and through the middle.
Charlie providing a marking target and excellent forward pressure.

As soon as we take one of these guys out of these positions for lengthy periods it's to our detriment. I don't disagree that our young rucks aren't playing well enough to warrant a game but the structure of side warrants that they do.

The real question is; which is the lesser of the 2 evils that is more likely to assist us winning?

For me it's playing an 'unready ruck' to maintain structure elsewhere.

As I just posted ...Playing Dixon fulltime in the ruck is the lesser of the 2 evils..

I would rather lose a tall forward ( I know I know) than the ruck esp with our ( Better than Richmond, Bulldogs and Collingwood recent winning mosquito fleets) wealth of small forwards and the addition of Marshall .

 

[jac147]

Have always been bit of a Dan the Man fan, but the poor lad is now running scared. Perhaps he’s been reading Big Footy. Such a shame!

 

[RossFC]

Yep absolutely.
I'm sure you love a hypothetical but Ken calls you;
KH: Ross, what do reckon mate, bring in one of snafl rucks or persevere with what I'm doing and if you reckon a ruck then which one?
RFC: (PAFC Bigfooty holds it's breath)

Depends on the fitness levels of Frampton or Hayes. Frampton could come in and play the Renouf role and clobber the other ruck for most of the game.

If not, Dixon should be our ruck because I trust Marshall, Watts and the smalls up forward. The problem is though Marshall might be out for a week with a concussion so we are really screwed.