Remove this Banner Ad

Laycock

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Longy413 said:
We also have Chartres and Dick on the list.

Much better options than McKinnon.
Click to expand...

Hi Longy413,

Respect your opinion and insights. On MckInnon, what don't we like about him ? Do you think he simply doesn't have the talent. How many games has he played this year? He does seems injured all the time, but as we know these big types take time to develop, and would have thought the club is giving him this opportunity.
 
I think he's soft, he can't jump, he can't run and he has poor skills.

Harsh, but fair.

He just doesn't have any talent.
I'd hazard a guess at him having played 8 or so games this year.
 
Longy413 said:
I think he's soft, he can't jump, he can't run and he has poor skills.

Harsh, but fair.

He just doesn't have any talent.
I'd hazard a guess at him having played 8 or so games this year.
Click to expand...

I'd reckon, no talent is a bit harsh. But I can't see him making the jump to AFL standard either. Then again, Simon Taylor from Hawthorn was the worst player I've ever seen and he's now playing reasonable footy.
 
Jex said:
I'd reckon, no talent is a bit harsh. But I can't see him making the jump to AFL standard either. Then again, Simon Taylor from Hawthorn was the worst player I've ever seen and he's now playing reasonable footy.
Click to expand...

Yeah fair enough.

Taylor would at least use his body though. McKinnon doesn't do that.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Longy413 said:
yada yada splitting hares and being pedantic

Because it makes our list better, because improving your list isn't just about improving your best 22. It's adding depth, it's creating competition for spots.

yada yada self-bloody explanatory padding

DEPTH, FUTURE.

You don't just draft/trade/recruit to add to your best 22, you don't draft/trade/recruit just for the following year.

We have two ruckmen on our list, that isn't enough. We need another one.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously telling me Ryder isn't a ruckman? Or Laycock? Or are you merely stating that our #1 ruckman isn't? Either that or I'm never having you as a 500 partner

I agree there's a spot for another one - the point being it'd be:
a) Stupid to get rid of Cartledge last season
and
b) Hard to get someone who - if all goes as planned (ie Ryder being a genuine ruckman in 2009-10) will get the a**e without ever being considered a first-team player? ESPECIALLY if that player is at a club where they're getting a game

Joel Reynolds???????
Click to expand...
Well picked up, this is called a topical joke.

How has McPhee gone as a KP in defence? Copped a reaming from Buddy last time, and did not look interested
Neagle - I've only seen this kid once in the flesh, and he got beaten by a VFL full-forward who I know. As I posted, would be a DEBUTANTE
Johns - apparently from what I've read his form is decent as a VFL backman, so I'll give you that one. That said, he should be, with his physical attributes at that level, and I'd be very interested to see how he goes at the top level.
Lee has done some nice things, so I'll give you that one too. Well done you. But he's coming off a nasty injury and is struggling for fitness, no?
Lucas, Bradley, Gumbleton, Bolton
Taking Luas out of the forward line destroys us. You could do it, but you have to admit there is a massive trade-off in losing one of the competition's best targets
Bolton's not a KPP's shoelace. You know this, you just chucked his name in there to pad out your list. And we all saw what happened with Keps as KP in defence. We won 3.5 games for a season

Seriously. If we lost either Mal - one of the biggest, and among the craftier full backs in the competition, or our most important player, Fletch, we're fked, no matter who comes in. The stability, assuredness and drive from the backline (Fletch still leads the AFL for kicks) is absolutely irreplacable in the short term.


Which player/s had you in mind to be targetted? Because I believe if we were to bring someone into the club who has some ability as an AFL ruckman, and isn't over the hill, we'd have to give away more (from somewhere) than we'd gain as a 3rd - or 4th-string ruckman. That's all dude. Untie your knickers now.
 
You seriously aren't getting the point...

It wasn't stupid to get rid of Cartledge, he wasn't good enough.

Ryder shouldn't be pigeonholed as a ruckman, he's too damn good. He should be allowed to play in the manner Goodes does.

Laycock and Hille are fine, we need another option to ensure they are pushed to compete for their spot.

McPhee has been more than handy on Tarrant, Reiwoldt, Fisher, Robertson in the past. He's a better option to play that role than Bradley is to play in the ruck.

Yes, we'd be in trouble if both Mal and Fletcher were out.
But we'd be in even more trouble if both Hille and Laycock were out.

Right now we are in a better position to cover Mal and Fletcher than we are to cover Hille and Laycock.

Take Geelong this week for example -

Would you rather have -
McPhee v N Ablett
Ryder v Ottens
Lee v Mooney

Or -
Ryder/Bradley v Ottens/King/Blake


We have more back and forward depth than ruck depth. That's a fact.

I'd be going after Maric. Another option to develop along with our other young talls would really set us up for the future.

If we had Ryder, Gumby, Neagle, Lee, Johns, Bradley, Laycock, Hille, Chartres and another young ruckman, we'd have a great mix of young talls.

Not all our going to make it, that's why depth is even more important.

We need another ruckman on our list and given the draft is light on, looking for a young one at another club that has more than enough (IE Adelaide) is a good start.
 
Longy413 said:
You seriously aren't getting the point...

It wasn't stupid to get rid of Cartledge, he wasn't good enough.

Ryder shouldn't be pigeonholed as a ruckman, he's too damn good. He should be allowed to play in the manner Goodes does.

Laycock and Hille are fine, we need another option to ensure they are pushed to compete for their spot.

McPhee has been more than handy on Tarrant, Reiwoldt, Fisher, Robertson in the past. He's a better option to play that role than Bradley is to play in the ruck.

Yes, we'd be in trouble if both Mal and Fletcher were out.
But we'd be in even more trouble if both Hille and Laycock were out.

Right now we are in a better position to cover Mal and Fletcher than we are to cover Hille and Laycock.

Take Geelong this week for example -

Would you rather have -
McPhee v N Ablett
Ryder v Ottens
Lee v Mooney

Or -
Ryder/Bradley v Ottens/King/Blake


We have more back and forward depth than ruck depth. That's a fact.

I'd be going after Maric. Another option to develop along with our other young talls would really set us up for the future.

If we had Ryder, Gumby, Neagle, Lee, Johns, Bradley, Laycock, Hille, Chartres and another young ruckman, we'd have a great mix of young talls.

Not all our going to make it, that's why depth is even more important.

We need another ruckman on our list and given the draft is light on, looking for a young one at another club that has more than enough (IE Adelaide) is a good start.
Click to expand...

Bradley will play up forward.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I wouldn't want Minson. Gives away to many frees. Man i'm not doing any more posts. This is my 85th post today
 
Longy413 said:
Take Geelong this week for example -

Would you rather have -
McPhee v N Ablett
Ryder v Ottens
Lee v Mooney

Or -
Ryder/Bradley v Ottens/King/Blake


We have more back and forward depth than ruck depth. That's a fact.

I'd be going after Maric. Another option to develop along with our other young talls would really set us up for the future.

If we had Ryder, Gumby, Neagle, Lee, Johns, Bradley, Laycock, Hille, Chartres and another young ruckman, we'd have a great mix of young talls.

Not all our going to make it, that's why depth is even more important.

We need another ruckman on our list and given the draft is light on, looking for a young one at another club that has more than enough (IE Adelaide) is a good start.
Click to expand...
Well I must admit that I was wrong about Jobe in the forward line, although I still would say he does not play well as a marking target, and certainly not anywhere near as effectively as he is on the ball. His good work forwrads is still mainly finding space to dish out a handball, rather than leading/marking and kicking goals. Very creative though, not a bad option to rotate through there
Re your little comparison - I couldn't see any Essendon player getting near the Tommahawk (in lieu of NAblett), so I'd truly hate to see how mcPhee would go. I'm imagining Fevola vs Reynolds multiplied by McPhee on Buddy. Messy in other words. Ryder's ability to read the play wouldn't matter one iota if he were playing on their go-to man. I'm sorry, he's fantastic, but I don't think he's a "real" kpp just yet. Struggles in the tight body-on-body stuff, thrives when he has more space to get round and run off his opponent. Neither Mooney nor Ottens are (were?) likely to give him that.

Is Andy Lee even back into any sort of form in the magoos yet? I know he started fairly late this year and was struggling in the first four or five weeks

I'm sorry man, I just can't see your argument on how much ruck injuries vs defence injuries could ever swing your way. We have one ruckman who is a very servicable and dependable type, but who is less than talented - Hilley - and one who (although I believe he has a big future) plays one good game in every two or three. Hardly A+ material. The backline is structured around Dustin Fletcher and Mal Michael - both great full-backs by anyone's measure. You know exactly who is the more valuable to our team's chances of winning any one match. Hille at best will break even, Fletcher at best will dominate an opponent, pull off a few go-go-gadget spoils, lead the counter-attacks, launch every kick-in deep onto the wing, kick a goal from 80 out...

It would be nice to have an extra ruckman, but only if it's going to be a player who might one day become a valuable part of the Essendon line-up, not a Matthew Allan style top up player. There's no point to that long-term. If there's somebody who has either been dropped off a list, or would be available for an easily-done trade (Bolton? ;) ), or say a 20 or 21 yo who didn't get picked up in the first place - then fine. (i just doubt there's that many options who some other club wouldn't be more interested in) But if we're going for someone who lacks the size or ability to ever be a genuine #1 ruck option - then we're selling our future.
 
Slattery_20 said:
Well I must admit that I was wrong about Jobe in the forward line, although I still would say he does not play well as a marking target, and certainly not anywhere near as effectively as he is on the ball. His good work forwrads is still mainly finding space to dish out a handball, rather than leading/marking and kicking goals. Very creative though, not a bad option to rotate through there
Click to expand...

Could have sworn I saw him take two marks in the forward line.

My mistake.

Slattery_20 said:
Re your little comparison - I couldn't see any Essendon player getting near the Tommahawk (in lieu of NAblett), so I'd truly hate to see how mcPhee would go. I'm imagining Fevola vs Reynolds multiplied by McPhee on Buddy. Messy in other words. Ryder's ability to read the play wouldn't matter one iota if he were playing on their go-to man. I'm sorry, he's fantastic, but I don't think he's a "real" kpp just yet. Struggles in the tight body-on-body stuff, thrives when he has more space to get round and run off his opponent. Neither Mooney nor Ottens are (were?) likely to give him that.
Click to expand...

Hang on, didn't Ryder beat "Tommahawk" the bloke no one else would be able to get near?

Isn't "Tommahawk" playing as a real KPP.

And you're completely missing my point. Again.

Slattery_20 said:
Is Andy Lee even back into any sort of form in the magoos yet? I know he started fairly late this year and was struggling in the first four or five weeks
Click to expand...

Yes.

Slattery_20 said:
You know exactly who is the more valuable to our team's chances of winning any one match.
Click to expand...

It isn't about who is more valuable.

Matthew Lloyd is more valuable than Brent Stanton, but we still have more depth at FF than we do in the midfield.

Slattery_20 said:
It would be nice to have an extra ruckman, but only if it's going to be a player who might one day become a valuable part of the Essendon line-up, not a Matthew Allan style top up player. There's no point to that long-term. If there's somebody who has either been dropped off a list, or would be available for an easily-done trade (Bolton? ;) ), or say a 20 or 21 yo who didn't get picked up in the first place - then fine. (i just doubt there's that many options who some other club wouldn't be more interested in) But if we're going for someone who lacks the size or ability to ever be a genuine #1 ruck option - then we're selling our future.
Click to expand...

Have I anywhere advocated getting a mature aged ruckman?

I think you're only reading what you want to read.

I've said over and over again that we should look at getting a 20-22 y/o from elsewhere, or a ruckman from a state level comp because we aren't likely to get a good 17-18 y/o from the draft.
 
Longy413 said:
Could have sworn I saw him take two marks in the forward line.

My mistake.



Hang on, didn't Ryder beat "Tommahawk" the bloke no one else would be able to get near?

Isn't "Tommahawk" playing as a real KPP.

And you're completely missing my point. Again.



Yes.



It isn't about who is more valuable.

Matthew Lloyd is more valuable than Brent Stanton, but we still have more depth at FF than we do in the midfield.



Have I anywhere advocated getting a mature aged ruckman?

I think you're only reading what you want to read.

I've said over and over again that we should look at getting a 20-22 y/o from elsewhere, or a ruckman from a state level comp because we aren't likely to get a good 17-18 y/o from the draft.
Click to expand...

A 20-22 yo from the VFL, WAFL or SANFL could be useful but he must have size (204+) and preferably mobility.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Geez you really are a tight arse. I'm not bothering to quote, this thread is getting ridiculously long to scroll down anyway
You can't even accept an apology without being pedantic. i say Watson played well, you still pick pick pick. Glad I don't have to meet you, can imagine you're a real Terry.
Welsh also took marks in the forward line, doesn't mean he's a marking target in the forward line. We've all seen short people take marks and ruckmen make clearances, doesn't mean this is their strength. Jobe can play as a marking "target" in the forward line, I just think he's really more of a Chapman type - strong body, gets the hard ball, plenty of dishes off, not a marking player but yes he can mark. Well done Mr Statistico.

I'm not assuming you're saying what you said about mature aged ruckmen, I'm merely pointing out there's a VERY VERY VERY SMALL POOL OF PEOPLE WHO YOU WOULD DEEM WORTHWHILE, who aren't either too young or too old. You've named one name - Maric - and I agree, he might be worthwhile (Northern Knights boy? Probably same/similar age group to Stants, so I'd assume they know each other).
But MY POINT IS and I'm writing in CAPITALS so you don't keep dragging me off into SIDE ARGUMENTS is that ADELAIDE are likely to be very aware that they have something that somebody else might want - a ruckman who might be only a season's development away from being an AFL player. Hence they might want to bump his value up. I'm suggesting that it would be easier to forfeit those few years that Maric (or whoever) has of development and grab a ruckman at the draft. Hille's not turned out too badly, considering his background and AFL "pedigree" - or lack thereof. So what's to stop us repeating the dose? I can see Laycock/Ryder developing into a very damaging combo in a few years, and clearly the match committee are intent on getting as many games into them as possible - so it looks like they agree. If we grab an 18yo, he will outlast those two and take the mantle at some time afterwards (hopefully). If however we grab a 20-22 year old, IMHO we'd only be sacking home-grown talent to get someone else's discard a game. (don't quote me)
Why bother?
Ryder's 18, Laycock 23. So a 20-22 year old would be behind Hille, and between the other two chronologically. It wouldn't make sense, unless we're assuming that
a) the guy we get isn't going to be good enough at any stage - hence he will be a career depth player

or

b) the guys we've got aren't going to be good enough - why bother keeping them at all in that case

I mean sure your point has some merit, I just don't think the pros outweigh the cons
 
Adelaide might also have a ruckman who is out of contract and wants to leave for greater opportunities. And I've mentioned more than one ruckman and I didn't restrict that purely to the AFL.

I've discussed the reasons for getting another ruckman several time in this thread, but again, I'm thinking you're only reading what you want to read. You've asked a question I've already answered.

And there are no cons, we're going to draft a ruckman anyway. I just think we should look further than the U18 talent pool.
 
Slattery_20 said:
very very small pool anyhow... I'd be surprised if we took anyone over 18 unless we trade a decent player
Click to expand...
I think alot of clubs this year will be drafting players over 18. The talent isn't very deep so with later picks i can certainly see clubs drafting quite a few players from the VFL, WAFL and SANFL.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom