Opinion How do we keep all of our KPPs?

[Rack Watts]

In a Maths lecture and am bored out of my brains, thought I'd write up a quick few thoughts.

So, we've got Gumbleton, Daniher, Hurley and Crameri as forwards, we also use a resting ruck as a KPF in games.
Back line consists of Carlisle, Hooker, Pears and Fletcher.

So that's 9 KPP's we can possibly have in a best 22 side.

What's the solution?
Can Pears play on any size like Fletch?

My idea is this:

Backline:

FB: Baguley, Carlisle, Fletcher
HB: Hibberd, Hurley, Pears (Can he play on smalls? we know he can rebound)

Moving Dempsey to the wing, then we have Hardingham as a back up if any of Baguley, Pears, Dempsey or Hibberd go down.

Alternatively, kick Pears out if there's no favourable match up and throw Dempsey back.

HF: Zaharakis, Ryder, Crameri
FF: Winderlich, Gumbleton, Davey

Obviously Bellchambers/Hille come forward when they need a rest, then release
Jetta and Kommer also have the capacity to come in as HF if we want to release Zaharakis into the midfield, these two could even rotate with Winderlich throughout the game if they need a rest. The new bench rule makes this a more likely strategy.

I think we should let Daniher develop in the VFL and have a close mentor to guide him through being the best he can be once he starts, let him put on muscle and nurse him into becoming a great KPF in 3 years time, as opposed to rushing him into the hard stuff. Don't want Gumbleton version two. Obviously bring him in if we're short of stocks.

Starting to think that Hardingham and NLM could become very good Sub options too, seeing as we have so many mediums sized players in our back and forward line who have the capacity to go into the midfield.

Also, do we have some serious trade options? I think we're screaming out for a young Indigenous small forward. Let's keep our proud small forward history going once Davey goes. We've not recruited a young Aboriginal whipper snapper for a while. I'd put my hand up, but am getting a bit old, the joints aren't what they were once

My two cents.

Thoughts?
I'm probably mostly wrong, if I am, at least I've made a thread about how exciting our depth is

 

[lamaros]

1. Crameri and Pears aren't talls.
2. Fletcher will eventually retire.

Next question?

 

[Rack Watts]

1. Crameri and Pears aren't talls.
2. Fletcher will eventually retire.

Next question?

So Crameri and Pears aren't key position players?
I know they're mediums, I guess Crameri is our Stevie J sort and Pears is a 3rd man up.
Where do we put Pears in order to keep him?
Fletch may not go anywhere for years!

 

[DapperDon]

Crameri plays HHF
Pears plays 3rd man up

B: Pears Carlisle Baugley
Dempsey Hooker Hibberd

F: Winderlich Gumby Crameri
Hurley Joe D Davey

This is basing the hope Gumby stays fit, the forward line does looks a bit top heavy though.

 

[Hencho]

I honestly think the end of the year will go like this:

Retired: Hille, Fletcher
Traded: one of Gumby, Hooker, Pears

It's tough but I really think our next premiership tilt spine will be:

FB: Hurley
CHB: Carlisle
R: Ryder
CHF: Gumby
FF: Daniher

IF Gumby's body fails him again this year then Hurley forward and keep one of Pears/Hooker.

I don't really see a need to keep them ALL, I think we could trade one of them for a quality draft pick.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Assuming everyone "makes it":

Pears may not be huge, but I think if he's in it's at the expense of the third tall, or even the second, rather than the third medium/small. I don't know if he could fill Baguley's lockdown role, which is essential for freeing up Hibberd. Anyhow, Fletcher will retire sooner or later and the third tall position will be vacant.

The problem comes up forward - yes, Crameri can play as more of a flanker, but with a resting ruck there is only room for two more talls. Either Hurley goes back, squeezing out Hooker or Pears, or one of Gumbleton and Daniher doesn't make the team. Essentially, unless Pears can demonstrate he can play as a properly-small lockdown defender, someone is going to be depth. All that said, I can think of far worse situations to be in.

 

[The Fact]

1. Crameri and Pears aren't talls.
2. Fletcher will eventually retire.

Next question?

I agree with 1 but IMO pears is more of a tall that can play small where Crameri is a small we make play tall if u now what I mean. It really does annoy me how many keep calling Crameri a kkp he isn't he has just had to play there. Nothing in his game would change if he had Hurley, Ryder, gumby and him up forward. He is quick and good at ground level and if people do say but he goes down the pecking order no he doesn't because there is pently of times when davey is leading out of the goal square

 

[silk]

Gumbleton hasn't yet proven he has overcome his injuries. Hopefully Hille can accept being a back-up ruckman and willingly spend most of his time playing VFL, with maybe TRB rotating him in every now and then. I think one of the reasons WCE eagles have been good is they have two good ruckmen, who can go forward. I don't having a pinch hitting back ruck works as well as two flexible ruck. It also means that even if one of the ruckman is having a bad game, the other can step. Much like pyke in the grand final last year.

 

[gO_bOmBeRz]

1. Crameri and Pears aren't talls.
2. Fletcher will eventually retire.

Next question?

Blasphemy.

 

[Phat Toni]

pretty simple really it's been two years since any of our bigs have played all the games(Paddy in '11), so deepth is criticle, particually if the AFL move to 24 gmes per season.

by my count from '14 onward we need 176(8 players*22) games coverage which may move to 192( with a 24 games season) with;
Buckets, Hurley, Street Worker as key backs
Paddy Wacker and Buckets II as Rucks/20% of time forward
Gumby & JD as forwards
Toyota as high half forward/wing

let's assume they all play an average of 20 games that leaves 16 games for the Fossel which is about right for him which only leaves Apples as deepth and as i've said we dont have a history of all our bigs being fit for a full year (at a quick glance the last time more than one KPP/Ruck played a full year was Lucus and Hille in 2003) so he is more than likely to be needed.

 

[The Fact]

pretty simple really it's been two years since any of our bigs have played all the games(Paddy in '11), so deepth is criticle, particually if the AFL move to 24 gmes per season.

by my count from '14 onward we need 176(8 players*22) games coverage which may move to 192( with a 24 games season) with;
Buckets, Hurley, Street Worker as key backs
Paddy Wacker and Buckets II as Rucks/20% of time forward
Gumby & JD as forwards
Toyota as high half forward/wing

let's assume they all play an average of 20 games that leaves 16 games for the Fossel which is about right for him which only leaves Apples as deepth and as i've said we dont have a history of all our bigs being fit for a full year (at a quick glance the last time more than one KPP/Ruck played a full year was Lucus and Hille in 2003) so he is more than likely to be needed.

This is one of the shitest posts ever

 

[fishardansin]

In a Maths lecture and am bored out of my brains,

You lost me there.

I've been thinking about the talls situation. Obviously Fletch isn't long term anymore, though I'm loathe to say this is his last season. However, after that on pure talent Daniher and Crameri will play forward and Carlisle and Pears will play back.

The rest comes down to one of Hooker or Gumby and Hurley playing at the end that there is a hole!

However, Pears game on Saad last week was very interesting. I never knew he had the toe to go with a guy like that. Also Baguley played a great game and that combination stops me from whinging about Hardingham being out of the side, and question his future at the club!

The thing is that Hurley's hard work and all round toughness/awesomeness across half forward in the last few weeks is irreplaceable. There is no way that we'd ever play a forward line with Daniher, Gumby, Hurley and Crameri when there is a resting ruck going through there. To be honest probably two of them miss out.

Of course if Crameri and Pears play as genuine mediums going forward then

Baguely Carlise Pears
HIbberd Hooker Dempsey
..........mids .....
Crameri Hurley Winderlich
Davey/Tippa Daniher/Gumby Ryder

is possible .... IF TBell improves his effectiveness around the ball and Ryder's pace up forward means there's no lack of pressure and Crameri and Pears can continue to improve their running to a point that they'll probably have to sacrifice a little strength.

 

[BrunoV]

My post Fletcher, and post development of Daniher, master plan is for the side to be built around:

Back:
......... Carlisle Pears (small/mid defender)
......... Hurley Hooker

1st Ruck: Bellchambers

Forward:
........ Gumbleton Crameri (flanker)
........ Daniher Ryder (second ruck)

My view, and I am a broken record on all of this, is that the starting point is the strengths, and potential strengths, of our list. One of the biggest mistakes we can make is to look at sides without strong key position stocks and then concern ourselves with the game plans and player selections they have come up with to, generally, over come these deficiencies. We need to develop our own plan.

Even looking at the good sides of the last three or four years (say Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Sydney and maybe West Coast), there is no sign of any trend away from 3 key backs, 3 key defenders and 1 ruck. It is really only Collingwood that plays a key position player or two short and we can be almost certain that they have grander plans which have been thwarted by injury and the current immaturity of certain players. Hawthorn, previously held out as a model, has this year added a ruckman to its best 22 (Bailey) and would have had another key defender (Lake) if Schoenmakers didn't suffer a season ending injury.

So based on our strengths, being a stock of very talented and very mobile key position players, and long held football lore that is not even close to being proven incorrect, a team built around 3 key forward (one of whom is also the second ruck) and 3 key backs is not negotiable.

Some of this discussion gets unnecessarily controversial when derailed by absolutes (e.g. Crameri is not a key forward) and concerns about being too tall and slow. For a start none of the "talls" are slow. Rather than looking at the best position that guys like Crameri and Pears can play I'd pay more attention to the position which will provide maximum value to the team. It is much the same as the debate about Hurley, back or forward, and even the need to replace limited goers like Lonergan (with Myers).

For all of the damage Crameri can do I've not really seen him play as a key forward in the traditional sense, the benefit of which is providing a more solid forward structure (or "straightening" us up). He isn't the type to start deep and draw the ball and opponents to him the way both Gumby and Hurley were doing against the Saints. As far as I'm concerned this alone opens the debate about changing our structural reliance on him.

Crameri is an elite runner and extremely good mark on long, searching leads who is at his most dangerous running opponents off their legs back toward our goal. While the inclusion of Gumby in a side with Crameri and Hurley may take some of Crameri's opportunities from him it won't really ask him to do much that he isn't already doing. He should benefit from an even weaker opponent and be freed up to focus on ground level pressure and the other responsibilities of flankers in modern football. I'd consider he would be a very similar player to guys like O'Keefe, when he was forward, Steve Johnson and even someone like Lewis or Hodge when they play forward.

If we are looking at the start of the year being the "best 22" I'd say that he could replace Kommer which would be a direct improvement in mobility, offensive ability and hopefully defensive too, and there would not be any loss as far as his replacement is concerned given that Gumby can cover about the same ground Crameri does as key forward (Goddard confirmed on Game Day on Sunday morning that Gumby, after all the bullshit, still runs an elite 3km).

At the other end of the ground, Pears showed against the Saints that he is capable of playing on small forwards. I can certainly concede that the super fast and agile players like Yarran, Gartlett and Rioli may be a stretch too far for Pears but then I'd don't think there is an EFC senior listed player who is capable of a better job.

Of the current defenders, not including Dempsey as he doesn't play purely negating roles all that often, Pears increasingly looks as suited to stopping small forwards as Hibberd, Baguley and Hardingham. The major difference is that Pears uses the ball, and will make better decisions, than any of the other three players. On paper, I'd have to see more than one game, our defence would then have the flexibility, and luxury, of the additional "tall" as well as someone we can rotate with Hibberd without compromising the quality of his rebounding play.

That's how I'd justify it anyway.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

My feeling is that Hibberd might be better at locking down on the zippy smalls, but that's no drama - Pears has the smarts and disposal to swap into that rebounding role if necessary.

If Hurley goes back, I'm more interested in Hooker's capacity to play as third tall I think. Does he have the smarts to know when to zone off his man, or is he better locking down on someone for the game? It would work against teams with two talls and a resting ruck, but otherwise I'm not so sure.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I think we will off-load one. Ideally we could keep them, but as we get better as a team, contracts get bigger and the cap gets tighter. We cannot afford to have 2-3 AFL quality KP's running around in the two's. These guys will get decent offers from other clubs. Freo would be mad not to chase Gumby should his body hold up. Saints will have another nibble at a back.

 

[BrunoV]

My feeling is that Hibberd might be better at locking down on the zippy smalls, but that's no drama - Pears has the smarts and disposal to swap into that rebounding role if necessary.

If Hurley goes back, I'm more interested in Hooker's capacity to play as third tall I think. Does he have the smarts to know when to zone off his man, or is he better locking down on someone for the game? It would work against teams with two talls and a resting ruck, but otherwise I'm not so sure.

Hooker would continue as he currently is. Just have him stop the second most dangerous player and rotate Carlisle and Hurley in the third role as required. There is an element to all of this that is a slight waste of Hurley but it does make for awesome reading.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Trade Gumby to Freo for a late first round pick, problem solved.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Trade Gumby to Freo for a late first round pick, problem solved.

This. Don't want to see Gumby go. But it will probably be the best scenario for all 3 parties.

 

[Old Campaigner]

He really deserves to be more than depth for next time Hurley falls from a great height or something. Unless Hurley moves to a permanent defender.

 

[rines]

I tend to agree that we will look to trade one of our talls at the end of the season.. and we shouldn't be scared of that.. use it to get a top 10 pick or good (very) quality midfielder...

Sometimes you have to give to get.. and I'm sure the club is already looking at options.

I could see melbourne giving us Picks 2 and 20 for a guy like Gumby or Hooker

 

[jesselift]

hurley will not move back as a defender lol

 

[Yoda_]

If it is all to work, Crameri needs to impact around the stoppages more and possibly become a (midfield) rotation. Be far to 'top heavy' in a sense that we (could) have 4 forwards with limited capability.

Ideally, Daniher will be groomed into a Drew Petrie/Quentin Lynch/David Hale type with the 'second ruck' not realistically needed (in 3 years time when Joe is hitting his peak years).

For what it's worth, Pears makes way, he is at the bottom of the pile in terms of runs on the board at AFL level this year and Joe Daniher having played his what, 6th senior VFL match?

Still a lot of water to go under the bridge with the only winner being the Essendon Football Club

 

[B-Bomber]

I really think that with Hurley being almost just as valuable as a key forward as he could be as a key back* We really can evaluate how we see all our KPPs on pure quality and take a "best available" approach with Hurley playing either forward or back depending on what you decide is the pecking order. For mine this would put Hurley in the backline with Carlisle and Fletcher/Pears/Hooker. Forwards would be Crameri, Gumby and resting ruck.

However, ultimately all these guys will know, particularly the defenders, that Fletch won't be around forever which means more opportunity is around the corner. The other thing, is that Crameri was originally a midfielder and now with more AFL experience there's no reason he couldn't make the transition to part time flanker part time midfielder just adding further to our midfield depth and options. This could pave the way in the next few years for a Daniher/Gumbleton forward line with the resting ruck.


*(I do think this, let alone his stopping ability, give him a run of games and watch his right or left feet tear apart clubs on the way out of defense)

 

[bombermick]

I'd hate to see Gumby go, as he's the only mature natural tall forward on our list. However, if Daniher was knocking down the door, I don't think any of us would begrudge him chasing better opportunities - but only if it's a crazy Melbourne/Saints offer of last year, and not the type of offer Freo would give.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Trade Gumby to Freo for a late first round pick, problem solved.

Would want a pick 8 range sort of pick though, we saw how good the bloke could be last week! Either that or I want a type of player that is the equivalent and Freo won't do it. Honestly would rather trade with West Coast as they have more players that would interest us.