Strategy How tall can we go?

[bigtexan]

Agreed, Lynch is a hard working flanker in the Chris Knights mould, his success comes from his ability to run his opposition of their feet. He is not a strong contested grab and does not do well playing a structural type role. He's one who has lost a kg or two over the preseason which will hopefully afford him an extra yard of pace. He's the kind of player who could also move up onto a wing as an extra outside midfielder if need be, or fill a whole in defense.

For mine, Lynch doesn't really figure into the too tall argument.

I'd actually really love to see us trial Walker, Pods and Jenkins together. Both Pods and Jenkins look like they're in pretty good form and Walker will need extra support when he comes back, we don't want opposition teams having the luxury of being able to double team him.

I was thinking along the same lines as you regarding moving lynch possibly up to the wing and playing the other tall timber closer to goal.
Still think we are missing a link type player so that the kick out the back lines doesn t have to go to pods or jenkins. Lynch or sauce taking a grab with smith or matty j running past looking up to see pods or jenkins streaming up at him with tex, betts and danger the next step closer to goal.
Have to be a dry weather tatic though

 

[spenze]

oh definitely, the back line is a completely different story.

maybe we'll see Pods and Otten competing for a spot seeing as they are both good swing-man options?

This is what I think also, when Tex comes back and he is doing alright, I reckon Pods will get a chance down back as he reads the play very well and can pinch hit. It would be a tough call for as much as I am not a big fan of Otten, last year he did very well up forward and obviously isn't too bad at the back.

 

[Elite Crow]

This thread does contain a lot of crap but it does raise an interesting dilemma. With Laird playing up forward we played 4 smalls up there. Sando made note of it and it worked well. But can we really have Laird and Pets in the forward line who are natural goal kickers?

A forward line of Tex, JJ, Pods and Lynch is too top heavy.

Tex when fit is a given.
JJ because of his rucking is in.
So it's Pods or Lynch. Id go Lynch.

 

[Mattrox]

Don't know if I would call 1 per game regular, sorry Mrs Jenkins

Fair dinkum.

I was arguing the other day that that he can lead. In that dicussion Jenkins was being talked up for his contested work in packs. And he struggled on the lead.

In fact he does both. It depends on the role at the time. When around the ground he plays plenty of contested ball including marking. In the froward line he contests when the ball is banged in on his head and when he needs to lead he does. There are plenty of replays of contested marks where he judges the ball and works the contest well, too many to call it a fluke. And too many contested scenarios as well.

A change in roles up froward last year saw him lead up far more. There was one game last year, Richmond I think, where he beat his opponent into space twice in a row (missed the shots dammit). Equally there was a game in 2012 on the wing where he took two ripper pack marks. There is also a Porps mark where JJ out muscled his direct opponent ready to mark and this allowed Porps to fly in from the side to grab.

No doubt his leading is good, but he can contest too. 2013, different role different stats.




At 0:33, 1:31, 1:41 & how about that aerial contested work at 2:02 from a throw in?


This clip has a good lead from JJ though.



Ps not all UMs are on leads.

Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

 

[Tex200]

Fair dinkum.

I was arguing the other day that that he can lead. In that dicussion Jenkins was being talked up for his contested work in packs. And he struggled on the lead.

In fact he does both. It depends on the role at the time. When around the ground he plays plenty of contested ball including marking. In the froward line he contests when the ball is banged in on his head and when he needs to lead he does. There are plenty of replays of contested marks where he judges the ball and works the contest well, too many to call it a fluke. And too many contested scenarios as well.

A change in roles up froward last year saw him lead up far more. There was one game last year, Richmond I think, where he beat his opponent into space twice in a row (missed the shots dammit). Equally there was a game in 2012 on the wing where he took two ripper pack marks. There is also a Porps mark where JJ out muscled his direct opponent ready to mark and this allowed Porps to fly in from the side to grab.

No doubt his leading is good, but he can contest too. 2013, different role different stats.




At 0:33, 1:31, 1:41 & how about that aerial contested work at 2:02 from a throw in?


This clip has a good lead from JJ though.



Ps not all UMs are on leads.

Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

In the period you quote he took 128 marks. Taking your info as gospel it means 100 of those were uncontested.

If you paid attention instead of lifting you're skirt you would realise that I was complimenting his strength and in no way was I denigrating his ability - nor did I say anywhere he was not capable of taking a contested mark.

The reality is though that, despite being able to haul in the odd contested mark, his value lies in his ability to lead up - which he is very good at

 

[DD#23]

Don't know if I would call 1 per game regular, sorry Mrs Jenkins

are you familiar with the contested mark stat? what you or I may call contested is rarely awarded as such.

Sandilands, Schultz and Westhoff currently lead the league in contested marks with a whopping 2.2 per game. At the height of their powers Cloke and Tippett averaged about the same.

 

[Tex200]

are you familiar with the contested mark stat? what you or I may call contested is rarely awarded as such.

Sandilands, Schultz and Westhoff currently lead the league in contested marks with a whopping 2.2 per game. At the height of their powers Cloke and Tippett averaged about the same.

See my post above 100 uncontested v 28 contested - I see your and raise you a

 

[Allefgib]

Leeroy has a huge future for mine.
If he can add some more blocking and use of his huge body he will be an outstanding player for us.

Love those highlights from last year where he wills himself to win the ball and get it forward for the game winner vs the Roos.

 

[Bailey01]

Round 9:
HF: Lynch Jenkins Douglas
F: Betts Walker Podsiadly

 

[SellarStardom]

My view appears different to most. I actually see Lynch and Jerka as high half forwards and even able to play as wingman, so they are slightly different to the other boys. Walker can also play up the ground and we can then afford a McKernan, Pods or Johnston in the forward square. So I see no issue with 4 talls, 5 no.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SellarStardom]

For some reason I also like the concept of a fit and firing McKernan and Jenkins.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Damp Squarie]

Over the coming couple of months our tall forward stocks are going to grow significantly with Tex, Lynchy and even Otto coming back from injury.
My question to you all is how tall can we go? Obviously a fit Tex is automatic first 22, but after Tex how many talls can we have.
Personally I think we can have Tex, JJ/McKernan (looks like JJ at this stage) and Lynchy. At a stretch we could probably even fit Pods in there against certain sides.

Rotten will be gifted his 200th by then so I would love to see Pods replace him

 

[Bailey01]

Rotten will be gifted his 200th by then so I would love to see Pods replace him

Whos Rotten