Opinion Final list spot

[TradeDraft]

Just on the topic of the thread.....There is absolutely no way we would use #82.
It would make absolutely no sense to trade #42 & #48 away for #39 if we intended to use 5 picks.
We will be out by #39.... That you can count on.

Can someone confirm for me how many spots on our list are vacant now? 4, 5 or 6?

So the Final Pick will be DFA or PSD for Daniel Currie?

 

[76woodenspooners]

Just on the topic of the thread.....There is absolutely no way we would use #82.
It would make absolutely no sense to trade #42 & #48 away for #39 if we intended to use 5 picks.

It could make total sense.

Maybe the type of player we have in mind is expected to be around at 82? Why waste pick #48 on them when we can upgrade our pick #42 to pick #39?

 

[wicksy]

It could make total sense.

Maybe the type of player we have in mind is expected to be around at 82? Why waste pick #48 on them when we can upgrade our pick #42 to pick #39?

That's a stretch.
If we're so set on a player at 82, why risk him going at 75?
Why wouldn't we keep 42 and 48 and pick him up at 48?

You could say that maybe we know he'll slide to 82 and that we wanted a player at 39 that we didn't think would last to 42 but that's some seriously prophetic shit right there!!!

 

[76woodenspooners]

That's a stretch.
If we're so set on a player at 82, why risk him going at 75?
Why wouldn't we keep 42 and 48 and pick him up at 48?

You could say that maybe we know he'll slide to 82 and that we wanted a player at 39 that we didn't think would last to 42 but that's some seriously prophetic shit right there!!!

That's why I said "type of player".

 

[wicksy]

That's why I said "type of player".

But what does that actually mean?
Surely #48 provides you a better chance to get the "type of player" that we're after than #82 does?

 

[Thommo 42]

why would we want to recruit a mature ruckman that has failed elsewhere, and not back our 19 year old 209cm behemoth?

I'd rather draft a ruckman than recruit some dud that was delisted.

 

[Copeland]

why would we want to recruit a mature ruckman that has failed elsewhere, and not back our 19 year old 209cm behemoth?

I'd rather draft a ruckman than recruit some dud that was delisted.

Unfortunately, some say he's not ready, too risky to go with Jolly alone imo.

 

[Thommo 42]

I think the people best credentialed to assess his readiness probably work at the club, and it would appear they believe he is ready.

They wanted to debut him ithis season, but injuries at inopportune times struck.

 

[Copeland]

Well they should know

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

why would we want to recruit a mature ruckman that has failed elsewhere, and not back our 19 year old 209cm behemoth?

I'd rather draft a ruckman than recruit some dud that was delisted.

Leigh Brown says hi.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

At the end of the day it doesnt make any difference whether we use pick 82, the delisted FA route, or the PSD to pick up our last player. As long as its a recycled ruckman I'm happy. Or even if we rookie one and spend our last pick on another youngster.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's no given that we pick up a ruckman though. Sometimes the club does things we don't expect; drafting Leigh Brown was one of them.

The way we use our last spot gives us some indication as to what type of player it will be. The other pointer was from Walshy saying we wouldn't be chasing a mature ruckman to back up Jolly and Witts. Granted some will take that with several grains of salt... but as mature rucks go, the obvious avenue would have been DFA for Stephenson or Seaby. I don't see why we would look to take those guys in ND or PSD.

That makes me wonder whether Currie is the target, or some other state league ruckman, or some other non-ruck who we haven't even considered.

 

[wicksy]

Leigh Brown says hi.

Leigh Brown was never drafted as 1st ruck though.
I don't believe anyone is questioning Lynchs' ability to play "The Anvil" role.
But if Jolly goes down and Witts doesn't come on, we will be very undersized.

I personally do not see the ruck position as particularly vital.... Never have.... However I would not like to have seen Leigh Brown taking the opening bounce.... *shudders*

 

[BEEG]

Just pick Seaby up 1 year deal until we sign a free agent top quality ruck next year

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Leigh Brown was never drafted as 1st ruck though.

It really doesnt make a lot of difference to my point

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I personally do not see the ruck position as particularly vital.... Never have.... However I would not like to have seen Leigh Brown taking the opening bounce.... *shudders*

This thread is contradiction city!!

 

[rand corp]

I think the issue of whether we draft a journeyman ruck discard will come down to how the inner sanctum rate the progress and potential of Witts and Gault along with perhaps the capacity of Keefe to develop as a relief ruckman.
If they think any of these kids are close to ready or that another plodder would only hinder their development, then we might pass and look to the draft.

 

[wicksy]

This thread is contradiction city!!

It's a post, not a thread and no, it is not.
I don't see the Number one ruck vital but I see it important enough NOT to have someone like Leigh Brown being the only one playing that role. Does that make more sense or do I need to get out my crayons?

Oh and also, what was your point?? All you said was that Leigh Brown said Hi.

 

[Scodog10]

This thread is contradiction city!!

If that's your opinion why have you made 7 posts in the thread in the past 24 hrs? If you don't rate the discussion make your point and move on rather than being high and mighty with everyone....

It makes sense to use it in the PSD or on a DFA after we traded out 42 and 48 for 39 and considering all of the DFA's are rubbish I'd hope we go through the PSD.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It's a post, not a thread and no, it is not..

That post is one of a few contradictory posts made in this thread

1. we dont want any rejects (Leigh Brown's success nothwithstanding)
2. I dont rate ruckmen (but shudder if we have a crap one)

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It's a post, not a thread and no, it is not.
I don't see the Number one ruck vital but I see it important enough NOT to have someone like Leigh Brown being the only one playing that role. Does that make more sense or do I need to get out my crayons?

Oh and also, what was your point?? All you said was that Leigh Brown said Hi.

My point is two fold

1. We need a backup ruckman, one with some level of experience
2. You cant simply "write off" players you may need on the fimsy excuse that they were delisted and they might be crap

And I will add to that
3. Even if they are crap we still need the depth option.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think the issue of whether we draft a journeyman ruck discard will come down to how the inner sanctum rate the progress and potential of Witts and Gault along with perhaps the capacity of Keefe to develop as a relief ruckman.
If they think any of these kids are close to ready or that another plodder would only hinder their development, then we might pass and look to the draft.

I would hope the "inner sanctum" would see Gault as a kpp who is at best a backup second ruck who hasnt played a game, Witts a genuine first ruck who hasnt played a game, and Keeffe as a very tall key defender with very limited ruck skills and who is coming off a serious knee injury.

Hence they will determine a plodder will aid their development, rather than hinder it.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I personally do not see the ruck position as particularly vital.... Never have.... However I would not like to have seen Leigh Brown taking the opening bounce.... *shudders*

Mick, get off the Collingwood board, you're at Carltoon now.

 

[Gone Critical]

I would hope the "inner sanctum" would see Gault as a kpp who is at best a backup second ruck who hasnt played a game, Witts a genuine first ruck who hasnt played a game, and Keeffe as a very tall key defender with very limited ruck skills and who is coming off a serious knee injury.

Hence they will determine a plodder will aid their development, rather than hinder it.

I can't help but agree with you Timmy. Last place on the list really need to go to a ruckman of some sort. An experienced one who can step into the breach as a last resort. If Jolly went down late season when we were contending and Witts hasn't adapted to senior footy I would hate to see our flag hopes wrecked because we went to finals with a ruck combo of Lynch/Gault, Lynch/Keefe or Lynch/Maxwell.

Even in the VFL we need someone to share duties with Witts and takeover if he is elevated. Only 2 guenuine ruckmen on the list , one who has no games to his credit seems very thin to me.

 

[wicksy]

Mick, get of the Collingwood board, you're at Carltoon now.

LOL What an insult that is!!!!???? Low blow sir, low blow....