Opinion Pick your Round 1 side

[you pick one]

It's worth pointing out that in round 1 Hawthorn will probably play all of Lake, Frawley, Gibson and Stratton in the same back 6 so we wouldn't necessarily be overly tall if we had 3 KPF's against that. The biggest reason not to do it is that we haven't trialled it in pre season so we are not sure how well it could work, and theoretically the extra big player might get in Clark's way and affect the form he's been building.

That's right and on top of that as I pointed out earlier they will want the +1 as well,we won't dominate the air inside forward 50 with just 2 tall forwards against this mob these days.

 

[vinum coupe]

I've seen this argument go round and round in circles before,I can't help but think 21 was to high a price to pay for a maybe he will be something.Happy for you to have the last word and even happier if your right and I'm wrong.Over and out on the subject for me in this thread at least.

So what do you pay for him?
35?

We didn't effing have 35
And Brissie didn't have 12 for Bundy.

That's the draft / trade period. Get over it.

 

[you pick one]

So what do you pay for him?
35?

We didn't effing have 35
And Brissie didn't have 12 for Bundy.

That's the draft / trade period. Get over it.

You will have to try harder than that.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

So what do you pay for him?
35?

We didn't effing have 35
And Brissie didn't have 12 for Bundy.

That's the draft / trade period. Get over it.

Actually we did have 35 because we only did the pick swap with Adelaide in the last 10 minutes of the trade period.

But it's irrelevant as St Kilda wouldnt have accepted less than 21, they had a stated policy of trading players to get extra first round picks, and they would only have traded Stanley for a first rounder (albeit an end of first rounder)

 

[Stan The Caddy]

That's right and on top of that as I pointed out earlier they will want the +1 as well,we won't dominate the air inside forward 50 with just 2 tall forwards against this mob these days.

Unless Clarkson is happy to have Taylor free in our D50 (which he won't allow) I definitely wouldn't be allowing Hawthorn to have a +1 in defence. Engage and isolate!

And on the issue of 3 talls up forward, I think that the 2015 version of Hawthorn will be more susceptible to quality crumbers rather than quality talls, when you look at the make up of their backline.

The key to kicking enough goals in round 1 won't be marking everything in sight, because we won't, even if we do play 3 talls. The key will be providing sufficent pressure in our forward half once the ball hits the deck. That's the best way to go in trying to beat Hawthorn IMO.

 

[catempire]

Unless Clarkson is happy to have Taylor free in our D50 (which he won't allow) I definitely wouldn't be allowing Hawthorn to have a +1 in defence. Engage and isolate!

And on the issue of 3 talls up forward, I think that the 2015 version of Hawthorn will be more susceptible to quality crumbers rather than quality talls, when you look at the make up of their backline.

The key to kicking enough goals in round 1 won't be marking everything in sight, because we won't, even if we do play 3 talls. The key will be providing sufficent pressure in our forward half once the ball hits the deck. That's the best way to go in trying to beat Hawthorn IMO.

Unfortunately, we don't have singular let alone plural.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Unfortunately, we don't have singular let alone plural.

True. But I wouldn't be calling Walker a quality KPF yet either. So the decision needs to be made, do we take Walker in or do we play an extra small such as Lang or whoever it may be. I'd go small myself but I can see both sides of the argument.

 

[catempire]

True. But I wouldn't be calling Walker a quality KPF yet either. So the decision needs to be made, do we take Walker in or do we play an extra small such as Lang or whoever it may be. I'd go small myself but I can see both sides of the argument.

It's not about the "quality" label for me. It's which combination is more likely to kick a winning score. And for that reason I'd go tall.

If we had a Wingard or Breust or even Betts I'd go small but you can only play the hand you're dealt.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

It's not about the "quality" label for me. It's which combination is more likely to kick a winning score. And for that reason I'd go tall.

If we had a Wingard or Breust or even Betts I'd go small but you can only play the hand you're dealt.

Yep fair enough. I'm just not sure that playing an extra tall will worry Hawthorn this year with the KPD's that they now have. I do however, believe that our pressure can worry them as it has done in the past, particularly without the run of Birchall off half back (I think he's unlikely to play) for this game.

 

[vinum coupe]

Yep fair enough. I'm just not sure that playing an extra tall will worry Hawthorn this year with the KPD's that they now have. I do however, believe that our pressure can worry them as it has done in the past, particularly without the run of Birchall off half back (I think he's unlikely to play) for this game.

I've always said an extra tall hurts us down back, to a degree.

But it does allow one to roll off. Or more importantly not have all talls led up to the wing.
But I wouldn't play 3 tall forwards against hawthorn.

 

[you pick one]

It's not about the "quality" label for me. It's which combination is more likely to kick a winning score. And for that reason I'd go tall.

If we had a Wingard or Breust or even Betts I'd go small but you can only play the hand you're dealt.

I figure 9 goals between your 3 tall forwards with another 9 between the likes of Selwood,Johnson,Motlop,Bartel,Duncan will be the minimum to give you a chance of getting the 4 points.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Perhaps we'll pull a surprise and start Taylor up forward?

*ducks for cover*

 

[vinum coupe]

Perhaps we'll pull a surprise and start Taylor up forward?

*ducks for cover*

They are going to play that card this year.
Maybe that's where blitz comes into it.

Covers Harry as Harry cheats a bit by slipping forward.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

They are going to play that card this year.
Maybe that's where blitz comes into it.

Covers Harry as Harry cheats a bit by slipping forward.

Yep I reckon you're right.

 

[you pick one]

Jesus I hope at least Chris Scott want's to win this game.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Jesus I hope at least Chris Scott want's to win this game.

Yep and that's why he won't play Walker.

 

[you pick one]

Yep and that's why he won't play Walker.

I don't think he will play Walker either that's why I tipped the Hawks to win by plenty.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

I don't think he will play Walker either that's why I tipped the Hawks to win by plenty.

Nah have some faith mate. I don't think there will be much in it either way.

TBH I reckon we're pretty well prepared for this game so we should be able to at least give them a good contest.

 

[you pick one]

This is what worries the Hawks,Pods had them shiting bricks and this bloke will have that effect on them as well.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I get the youth angle and the salary angle but the "more pressing area of need"? Really? This is only in hindsight now that we've got Clark who is fit and firing.

Look at how our list looked when we recruited Stanley. Our forward and ruck options were:

Hawkins - question marks over his back.
Clark - Hadn't played in years.
Vardy - Hadn't played in ages and coming off an ACL.
Simpson - Going in for another round of back surgery.
McIntosh - Aging and had broken down in the lead up to finals once again.
Kersten - Lots of niggling injuries and gone down again before finals.
Blicavs - Durable and improving.
Walker - Durable and showed a bit in finals but still very much unproven.

Questions on Hawkins are a stretch. He played the whole season last year and was the most dominant power forward in the game. All he needed/needs is more support than he got in 2014. I would also argue that Walker did well every time he played last year. What would have been wrong with taking the training wheels off this year, as he's going on 23? Got to find out if these guys can actually play at some stage and Walker stood up very well in pressure games. Vardy should not have been retained if the club wasn't confident in his body; I don't really see what he provides that Stanley can't (and vice versa, for that matter). It seems like - once again - the club is having a bit each way with too many not-so-young players and it's going to end up that some will be kept for a couple of years longer than they should have.

Considering we basically have to play 4 of those 8 that's a pretty thin list. It gets especially thin once you think that all of Vardy, McIntosh, Simpson and Clark were outsiders to be fit for round 1 at that stage.

Were they??

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...nd-1-next-season/story-fni5f6yf-1227093049159
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...igade-of-big-men/story-fnjuhrxq-1227127036471

Of course that's not considering that we're relying on Rivers (dicky knee) and Lonergan (almost 31) in the backline as well. The reality is that at the moment we're doing very well in terms of the fitness of our talls. But it could easily have been the other way.

Also what happens when at least 2 of Rivers, McIntosh, Lonergan, Simpson, Vardy and Clark retire either during or after this year? Personally I think Stanley will become a much better player than just depth and will command a spot. But even at his current output it's likely that he'll be a starting player at some point this year and definitely in future as injuries and retirements bite.

What makes you think at least two of those players will retire? Maybe they should have thought about that before they dumped Joel Hamling and Mitch Brown (two players that looked very good in defence during the preseason at their new clubs).

As far as I'm concerned, Stanley's best long-term avenue into the team will be as a defender. But St Kilda supporters are pretty underwhelmed by what he displayed at the end of the ground in his time with the Saints. So I don't know where that leaves us, exactly.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Were they??

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...nd-1-next-season/story-fni5f6yf-1227093049159
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...igade-of-big-men/story-fnjuhrxq-1227127036471

Yes a guy who was unable to get on the park for 2 years with injury and then gave up the game from depression was an outside chance to be playing round 1. The fact that a newspaper thinks it's newsworthy that he could play round 1 suggests there were massive question marks over him.

What makes you think at least two of those players will retire? Maybe they should have thought about that before they dumped Joel Hamling and Mitch Brown (two players that looked very good in defence during the preseason at their new clubs).

I thought it was widely acknowledged that both Rivers and McIntosh were very likely to retire. That's 2 already and any of the other 4 would be a realistic chance depending on how the season goes.

Hamling and Brown were dumped because we didn't think they were good enough. No injury curse or group of retirements makes a substandard AFL player a good AFL player. Clearly the MC thought that Stanley would offer significantly more than those 2. Time will tell.

 

[steady2]

Questions on Hawkins are a stretch. He played the whole season last year and was the most dominant power forward in the game. All he needed/needs is more support than he got in 2014. I would also argue that Walker did well every time he played last year. What would have been wrong with taking the training wheels off this year, as he's going on 23? Got to find out if these guys can actually play at some stage and Walker stood up very well in pressure games. Vardy should not have been retained if the club wasn't confident in his body; I don't really see what he provides that Stanley can't (and vice versa, for that matter). It seems like - once again - the club is having a bit each way with too many not-so-young players and it's going to end up that some will be kept for a couple of years longer than they should have.
.

I am a big Walker fan and have been annoyed that for two years he has had to come into the team and play ruck when he is a KPF not a ruck. However when he was picked for a bunch of games midway through last season, playing ruck/kpf he played poorly, the game against the Suns was a total stinker one of the worst games I have seen by a player in a long time. I felt sorry for him as I thought he could do better if he was allowed to play his natural position, but he was dropped. After the Kersten experiment (playing a flanker in a key position not the best idea I thought) Walker was finally given a chance to play as a KPF, no rucking. I thought his games at the end of the season were good, he showed he could leap, take a pack mark and kick a goal, still needed to do more, but finally he was showing his potential.

He has been unlucky with illness and not had a chance yet this year. At the moment Mitch Clarke has the second KPF wrapped up and I am looking forward to seeing he and Hawk together on Easter Monday and hoping it will be as successful as in the NAB. I do not think a third KPF is good idea and I do not think the MC will go that way either, but I hope Walker gets a chance later. In fact from what I can ascertain Clarke seems to be the best ruckman in the team and I hope a little later he can play first ruck which would allow Walker (or Vardy/Stanley) to grab that other spot.

 

[Partridge]

This is what worries the Hawks,Pods had them shiting bricks and this bloke will have that effect on them as well.

If Pods had that effect on them, it was because he kicked goals against them. Regularly. In 9 games against Hawthorn he averaged 12.5 touches, 6 marks, and 2.4 goals. Very useful stats for a second key forward. Perhaps not coincidentally, the only time Pods was held goalless against Hawthorn was the only time he played in a losing side against them - Prelim final 2013.

Walker showed promise in that final, but he hasn't yet replicated what Pods did. We'll see if he can do that.

 

[catempire]

Walker showed promise in that final, but he hasn't yet replicated what Pods did. We'll see if he can do that.

Or, more likely, we won't see.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Yes a guy who was unable to get on the park for 2 years with injury and then gave up the game from depression was an outside chance to be playing round 1. The fact that a newspaper thinks it's newsworthy that he could play round 1 suggests there were massive question marks over him.

I thought it was widely acknowledged that both Rivers and McIntosh were very likely to retire. That's 2 already and any of the other 4 would be a realistic chance depending on how the season goes.

I see. Any links, or by 'widely acknowledged' do you mean that's your opinion? It's news to me that 2015 is likely to be Rivers' farewell tour.

Hamling and Brown were dumped because we didn't think they were good enough. No injury curse or group of retirements makes a substandard AFL player a good AFL player. Clearly the MC thought that Stanley would offer significantly more than those 2. Time will tell.

Simply getting an opportunity for a different team looks like it may have though.