Did anyone ring Jars?

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#51
HEre is my take on Clarke. He is playing good enough footy (possibly the best footy he has ever played for AFC) to go on for another year. The issue with Clarke will not be to milk out the $$$ of the AFC, the issue will be what exactly does Matthew Clarke want to do. It is no secret that he wants to return to brisbane and start working as a vet full time. This is probably the worst kept secret in football. He is playing good enough footy to play on but it is most likely that he will hang up the boots.


On French, I really don't want him at the club. Don't really rate him and he will only keep a youngster from getting a go. I know that Dennis Pagan is a bit of a Robert Shirley fan so how would you feel about that trade??????


Personally, I would be willing to trade Burton and 2nd round pick for Ottens. Getting Ottens would give us more versatility and will allow us to have a bit of "buffer" with the need for a younger ruckman. If Clarke retires and we don't get a ruckman in trade period we would have to draft one this year but if we do get Ottens who still has 5-6 years of footy ahead of him, we are not in great need to draft a ruckman this year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mong

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
3,596
Likes
175
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Crows
#52
After putting such a huge focus on improving our draft stocks last year in the draft are we any closer to alleviating our problematic ruck stocks? In my opinion we are worse off than we've ever been.

Clarke is on the verge of retirement and Hudson has shown nothing other than he is not a long term option and will be delisted after 2 years of AFL.

I know there are hundreds of Hudson fans on this board that will take offense to this but if we are going to be realistic he is a tryer but just doesn't cut it at AFL level and in all liklihood never will. Marsh was better.


****
 

jc67

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Posts
2,438
Likes
9
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Crows
#53
Originally posted by ****
After putting such a huge focus on improving our draft stocks last year in the draft are we any closer to alleviating our problematic ruck stocks? In my opinion we are worse off than we've ever been.

Clarke is on the verge of retirement and Hudson has shown nothing other than he is not a long term option and will be delisted after 2 years of AFL.

I know there are hundreds of Hudson fans on this board that will take offense to this but if we are going to be realistic he is a tryer but just doesn't cut it at AFL level and in all liklihood never will. Marsh was better.


****
bookmarked!
your statement will make you look stupid within 2 years.
 

ant

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
4,296
Likes
11
Location
O.T.H. near Sophia's Bush
AFL Club
Adelaide
#54
Originally posted by ****
Marsh was better.


I was with you until this last bit.

Huddo was always going to be a stop gap measure, to provide a bit of insurance in case one of our two ruckmen went down or was unavailable. I think Huddo has done a serviceable job, certainly the equal and probably better than Marsh (which is great considering his inexperience).

The real problem is Biglands hasn't really come on as a ruckman as we'd all have hoped.
 

macca23

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
19,404
Likes
6,166
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#55
Originally posted by ****

Marsh was better.


****
****, please tell me that you were really getting stuck into the turps when you typed that!! ;)

I've seen point posts play better games than Marsh!! :p
 

macca23

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
19,404
Likes
6,166
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#56
Originally posted by Stiffy_18

On French, I really don't want him at the club. Don't really rate him and he will only keep a youngster from getting a go. I know that Dennis Pagan is a bit of a Robert Shirley fan so how would you feel about that trade??????
I don't want him either but that's reasonable. A small dud for a tall dud.


Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Personally, I would be willing to trade Burton and 2nd round pick for Ottens. Getting Ottens would give us more versatility and will allow us to have a bit of "buffer" with the need for a younger ruckman. If Clarke retires and we don't get a ruckman in trade period we would have to draft one this year but if we do get Ottens who still has 5-6 years of footy ahead of him, we are not in great need to draft a ruckman this year.

Now we're talking. Ottens is one year younger and fits our needs for the medium plus term.
 

Mong

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
3,596
Likes
175
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Crows
#58
Originally posted by jc67
bookmarked!
your statement will make you look stupid within 2 years.
You really think so?

I am happy for you to bring this back up in 2 years. Maybe I'll be wrong, maybe I'll be right.

Do you really think Hudson has a long term future at the AFC? Like Ant said, he is, and always was intended to be, a stop gap measure. Two years is about the lifespan of that type of player unless they look like developing into something more. You'd be very ambitious to suggest that Hudson will develop into something much more.

He is not up to being a first or second string ruckman at AFL level. Therefore his only value is as a third string or backup ruckman. Generally these days the backup ruck position will go to a young player. So, when we actually get a young capable ruckman on our list Hudson will no longer be worth anything to us. I give him two years.


****
 

DaveW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
16,285
Likes
65
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
QPR
#59
I say we beg Clarke to stay on another year.

Failing that, will Rowan Andrews be good enough to step up to AFL by next year?
 

jc67

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Posts
2,438
Likes
9
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Crows
#60
Originally posted by ****
You really think so?

I am happy for you to bring this back up in 2 years. Maybe I'll be wrong, maybe I'll be right.

Do you really think Hudson has a long term future at the AFC? Like Ant said, he is, and always was intended to be, a stop gap measure. Two years is about the lifespan of that type of player unless they look like developing into something more. You'd be very ambitious to suggest that Hudson will develop into something much more.

He is not up to being a first or second string ruckman at AFL level. Therefore his only value is as a third string or backup ruckman. Generally these days the backup ruck position will go to a young player. So, when we actually get a young capable ruckman on our list Hudson will no longer be worth anything to us. I give him two years.


****
The thing ppl don't like about him has bugger all to with if he can play or not!
That is that he wasn't drafted by someone else before and that he's 25 years old! Also that he didn't play footy at all until he was 20 or something like that.
I've seen this bloke play a few times now (I believe that ruck is one of those positions that just don't come through on TV) and he HAS got the goods.
He was brought in as a stop gap but he's taking his opportunity seriously, if he goes on with the way he plays and not get hurt he will stay on our first 22 for 5 years.
i hope he get more than 30 minutes game time soon, as it must be denting his confidence.
And **** as for your statement you said "marsh was better" I recon that's making you look pretty stupid already:)
 

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#61
Originally posted by DaveW
Failing that, will Rowan Andrews be good enough to step up to AFL by next year?
Now thats what I call ambitious.

DaveW, Rowan is showing some good signs but I reckon he is at least another 2 years away from being ready for AFL footy. He is a stick figure and step one would be to put some muscle on a wirery frame.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#62
Originally posted by jc67
The thing ppl don't like about him has bugger all to with if he can play or not!
That is that he wasn't drafted by someone else before and that he's 25 years old! Also that he didn't play footy at all until he was 20 or something like that.
I've seen this bloke play a few times now (I believe that ruck is one of those positions that just don't come through on TV) and he HAS got the goods.
He was brought in as a stop gap but he's taking his opportunity seriously, if he goes on with the way he plays and not get hurt he will stay on our first 22 for 5 years.
i hope he get more than 30 minutes game time soon, as it must be denting his confidence.
And **** as for your statement you said "marsh was better" I recon that's making you look pretty stupid already:)
Spot on.

The problem people have with Hudson is that at the age of 25 they expected a player who will come in and play like a "normal" 25 year old ruckman who has played 100 odd AFL games. If they didn't know Huddo's age and thought of him to be a 19 or 20 year old they would be saying what a bright future he has.

He is really a pup in footy terms. He will take a year or 2 to find his feet but I reckon he will be in the best 22 as early as next year. His tapwork needs work but people don't appreciate other things he brings to the table. He is #1 at the club in hard ball gets per game average. When he improves his tapwork he will be a very good ruckman for us. People also say that he is not getting enough possesions in field play and the reason for that is that players ignore him out there. So many times I have seen Huddo run to the right position to recieve a kick or a handball but he is ignored by his team mates.

He is getting bugger all game time and his averages of possesions or marks per minutes played is pretty good.
 

Mong

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
3,596
Likes
175
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Crows
#63
Originally posted by jc67
And **** as for your statement you said "marsh was better" I recon that's making you look pretty stupid already:)
Well that's a personal opinion, but to suggest that it's so clear cut that I look stupid for thinking Marsh is better is grossly overrating Hudson. Marsh is in his seventh year of AFL football. I will commend Hudson if he achieves half of that.

As for Hudson being in our best 22 for the next 5 years, well I'd be interested to hear if there is anyone at all who would agree with you.

And when you bring my comment up in 2 years time, I hope you are going to bring that one back up too.


****
 

macca23

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
19,404
Likes
6,166
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#64
Originally posted by ****

Marsh is in his seventh year of AFL football. I will commend Hudson if he achieves half of that.

****
Yes, 7 painful years of non achievement

The grand total of 49 games, averaging 6 disposals per game.

Hudson has only played 6 games and averages 7 disposals for his 40 to 50 minutes on the ground per game. That's while he's learning the game as well.

I will defend the right of Ben Marsh to be called an absolute dud with the last breath that I draw. ;)
 

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#65
Originally posted by ****
Well that's a personal opinion, but to suggest that it's so clear cut that I look stupid for thinking Marsh is better is grossly overrating Hudson. Marsh is in his seventh year of AFL football. I will commend Hudson if he achieves half of that.

****
How quickly do people forget. Since we are discussing this, can you please tell me WHY did Marsh stay on AFL list for 7 years?????? And if he was better why did it take him 7 years to play a mammoth number of 49 games?????

Please I am interested in your reasoning for this.
 

jc67

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Posts
2,438
Likes
9
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Crows
#66
Originally posted by ****
And when you bring my comment up in 2 years time, I hope you are going to bring that one back up too.


****
the whole thread;)
Btw i usually like what you say and my remarks are not (ever) meant to be personal.
 

Mong

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
3,596
Likes
175
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Crows
#67
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
How quickly do people forget. Since we are discussing this, can you please tell me WHY did Marsh stay on AFL list for 7 years?????? And if he was better why did it take him 7 years to play a mammoth number of 49 games?????

Please I am interested in your reasoning for this.
WHY did Marsh stay on AFL list for 7 years?????? -

Marsh started his career with the Crows well, had a few long injuries in the middle and then at the end simply wasn't good enough to get a game ahead of Biglands or Clarke. He became stale and for the last two years of his career with us and wasn't getting the most out of himself. He was probably kept on our list one extra year simply because of a lack of any other decent young ruckman ready to play (which is also the same reason Hudson was picked up).

And if he was better why did it take him 7 years to play a mammoth number of 49 games????? -

Several reasons, as I've mentioned, a couple of injuries and then later just wasn't good enough to displace Clarke or Biglands. But then neither is Hudson. We all know why Hudson is in the team. If Biglands was there Hudson would have been lucky to play 1 game so far. That's not a critisism - that's his role in the team. But it was also Marsh's role over the last few years.

Marsh was a third string ruckman. And he was no longer going to become anything more, he'd had his chances and not taken them so we got rid of him.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Hudson is giving us at the moment and we need someone to play his role but I just don't think he is going to have a long career, similar to Aaron Keating in a way. An experienced stopgap who will play a role for a couple of years until we can unearth a better, younger ruckman.

And I'm not really adding anything new into this argument that I haven't already said so I think I'll leave it at that.

We just disagree on how good he'll be in future.


****
 
Joined
May 21, 2001
Posts
49,537
Likes
38,519
Location
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#68
Compared to last year, we are in a better position for rucks stocks, as we have replaced Marsh with Hudson, who has shown more value than Marsh did last year. Also, have Andrews developing OK (had no one last year), though he is obviously a few years off.

The problem comes next year if Clarke retires, particularly given Biglands has gone backwards this year. Probably get by with Biglands / Hudson combination, but we will need a 3rd ready-made player in case either gets injured.

What we would do for an Ottens, Darcy, ...
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Posts
1,099
Likes
1
Location
in a tree
Other Teams
Glenelg
#69
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Compared to last year, we are in a better position for rucks stocks, as we have replaced Marsh with Hudson, who has shown more value than Marsh did last year. Also, have Andrews developing OK (had no one last year), though he is obviously a few years off.

The problem comes next year if Clarke retires, particularly given Biglands has gone backwards this year. Probably get by with Biglands / Hudson combination, but we will need a 3rd ready-made player in case either gets injured.

What we would do for an Ottens, Darcy, ...
That means we are worse off Kane, imo. Agreed that we have more potential in our reserve ruckman now than we've had for a few years. But at the end of the day, it's all about your top two. And for 2005 we're in trouble. Biglands needs to do a mountain of work and Hudson is nothing more than honest.

Andrews is 3 to 4 years away at least. Look at how long it took ruckmen such as Gardiner, Fraser, Hille to be significant contributors to their teams as ruckman. It's a very long lead time.
 

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#70
Originally posted by ****
WHY did Marsh stay on AFL list for 7 years?????? -

Marsh started his career with the Crows well, had a few long injuries in the middle and then at the end simply wasn't good enough to get a game ahead of Biglands or Clarke. He became stale and for the last two years of his career with us and wasn't getting the most out of himself. He was probably kept on our list one extra year simply because of a lack of any other decent young ruckman ready to play (which is also the same reason Hudson was picked up).

And if he was better why did it take him 7 years to play a mammoth number of 49 games????? -

Several reasons, as I've mentioned, a couple of injuries and then later just wasn't good enough to displace Clarke or Biglands. But then neither is Hudson. We all know why Hudson is in the team. If Biglands was there Hudson would have been lucky to play 1 game so far. That's not a critisism - that's his role in the team. But it was also Marsh's role over the last few years.

Marsh was a third string ruckman. And he was no longer going to become anything more, he'd had his chances and not taken them so we got rid of him.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Hudson is giving us at the moment and we need someone to play his role but I just don't think he is going to have a long career, similar to Aaron Keating in a way. An experienced stopgap who will play a role for a couple of years until we can unearth a better, younger ruckman.

And I'm not really adding anything new into this argument that I haven't already said so I think I'll leave it at that.

We just disagree on how good he'll be in future.


****
Marsh was not good enough and its as simple as that. He was kept on thelist because we couldn't find anyone better. Now we have.

I would disagree that Hudson would have been lucky to play 1 game this year. We played 3 ruckman against Freo and its also a well known fact that Ayres wanted to play Biglands in defence where he is now playing Perrie. Even if Biglands was available my belief is that Hudson would still be backing up Clarke and Biglands would have played KP in defence. This has been a plan by the AFC for a long while now. There are 2 reasons for this.

1. AFC believe that Biglands can become a good defender and as such would give us someone strong enought and quick enough to play on someone like Lynch. even Neil Craig a few week back said on the club website in the ask a coach section that they were keen to play Biglands in defence as it would give tham someone who can stand big forwards like Richo

2. Its well known that Clarke is in his final year and as such AFC want to plan for the future. Which means giving Hudson games this year so he is more experienced and established to step up further next year.

Personally, i believe Huddo will be a better player than Biglands.
 

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#71
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Compared to last year, we are in a better position for rucks stocks, as we have replaced Marsh with Hudson, who has shown more value than Marsh did last year. Also, have Andrews developing OK (had no one last year), though he is obviously a few years off.

The problem comes next year if Clarke retires, particularly given Biglands has gone backwards this year. Probably get by with Biglands / Hudson combination, but we will need a 3rd ready-made player in case either gets injured.

What we would do for an Ottens, Darcy, ...
And that why I think we should go after Ottens. Ottens would be 25 next year and as such would have some 5-6 years of footy left in him. This not only strengthens our ruck socks for next few years but it also gives us a bit of a buffer when it comes to recruiting young ruckman to develop. If we don't get a ready made AFL ruckman during trade period I would suspect that we then MUST draft a ruckman in the draft. If we do get someone like Ottens then it would give us a 1-2 year buffer. This would mean that we can concentrate on recruting midfielders in this draft as they would be of far greater need than another ruckman.
 

Crow-mosone

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Posts
7,598
Likes
4
Location
on the turps
Other Teams
Adelaide
#72
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
How quickly do people forget. Since we are discussing this, can you please tell me WHY did Marsh stay on AFL list for 7 years?????? And if he was better why did it take him 7 years to play a mammoth number of 49 games?????

Please I am interested in your reasoning for this.
why did Marsh stay on an AFL list for 7 years, before being picked up by someone else?
surely you guys know the answer to this? there is only one reason, and I hate to tell you it's not because he's a dud. The same goes for Gallagher, Eccles, Smith, Mattner, Skipworth or any of the other favoured whipping boys - it's because he has talent.

Ben Marsh is a very talented player, I can't imagine why people don't bring that up more. yes, he soft, and hasn't developed, and eventually stagnated. I thought he would be a star towards the end of 1998, but it didn't happen. Perhaps he doesn't work hard enough, maybe he just doesn't care enough, who knows, but he has talent. that's why he's still around.

few players without talent make an AFL list, NO players without make 2 or more.

FWIW I like the look of Hudson, but he's a work horse. A real country style footballer, he needs to improve considerably over teh next 2 years otherwise he will be passed by the next young thing.
 

Crow-mosone

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Posts
7,598
Likes
4
Location
on the turps
Other Teams
Adelaide
#73
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Compared to last year, we are in a better position for rucks stocks, as we have replaced Marsh with Hudson, who has shown more value than Marsh did last year. Also, have Andrews developing OK (had no one last year), though he is obviously a few years off.

The problem comes next year if Clarke retires, particularly given Biglands has gone backwards this year. Probably get by with Biglands / Hudson combination, but we will need a 3rd ready-made player in case either gets injured.

What we would do for an Ottens, Darcy, ...
Spot on, we will need a ready made ruckman, and for the right price we will probably go after French. Without Clarke we need a ruckman now, and a derisory offer for Ottens isn't going to get it done.
 

PAfolwr

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Posts
6,342
Likes
5
Other Teams
PA
#74
If I had to choose between Hudson, French and Marsh, then I would go for
Hudson


French























Marsh

If I had to choose a ruckman for the Crows I'd go the other way around. :p

Forget Marsh. The other two are both triers, and French has more experience in the ruck and around the ground at this stage, but we know what French's maximum potential is. It will not get any higher than that.
Hudson's we don't, and he could easily go one better than him.
 

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#75
Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Spot on, we will need a ready made ruckman, and for the right price we will probably go after French.
No offence but I would rather take a punt on someone like Mark Jamar who also comes out of the contract at the end of the year than I would on someone like French. Its better to play Hudson than it is to bring in French.
 
Top Bottom