List Mgmt. Player Ages Thread

[Zach Package]

-------- KPD1: Carlisle --- KPD3: Hooker
-------- KPD2: Hurley ---- 4thD: Pears (primarily a stopper floating between smalls and talls as required)

R: Bellchambers (the improved, round the ground model)


--------- KPD2: Gumby --- HF1: Crameri (basically to replace Winderlich, not that we can't have both)
--------- KPD1: Daniher -- R2: Ryder

Correct weight. Pears is ideally suited to play on the LeCras, Stringer's, Martin's, Rockliff's and bigger midfielders who rest forward. While he's also proved that he's capable of playing on legit talls or smalls to decent enough effect, also rebounds well.

We haven't really tried 3 talls and crameri, but I don't see any reason why it can't work. Daniher can do absurd things when the ball hits the deck, Ryder moves like a midfielder and we all know what Stew can do, insane aerobic capacity for a guy of his strength and size. I think it could work, always have thought it.

the eagles do it and apply great forward pressure on pattersons, which is much bigger than anywhere else, with Kennedy, Darling, Naitanui/Cox, Lecras and Josh Hill, which is a monstrous forward line when you look at their heights, but they make it work because they put in on the defensive side of the ball, and are all really good movers.

The fact that gumby is the least mobile of our key forward options is an amazing thing to consider.

I just want us to be brave enough to try it for a game or two and see if it can work, because it would be maximizing our strengths, which are our tall stocks.

 

[BrunoV]

I think we are realistically a pre-season from being able to pull it off. Gumby could quite possibly be the machine he always threatened to be with the best part of a two year un-interrupted run, Daniher will need an increased endurance base and Crameri probably needs the time to prepare physically and mentally for the new role. It should absolutely be the aim for 2014.

In 2013 we have to keep Hurley forward, with Fletcher back, and rotate through Gumby and Daniher.

 

[Rancid Trogs]

Going to be blunt but anyone willing to trade Bellchambers and Hooker has lost a number of brain cells if indeed they had them in the first place.
Apologies in advance to anyone offended.

You've got to give quality to get quality, and both those players, while quality footballers, are able to be covered if traded. The benefits of what you bring in far outweigh what you lose

 

[Rancid Trogs]

Because we'd be giving up our most important defender, a potential all australian ruckman and our leading goalkicker for a kid who could (probably will) be good. It's just flat out lunacy.

Put it this way, if the blues traded Lachie Henderson, Matthew Kreuzer and Andrew Walker for Pick one to draft Boyd, would you think that is a positive for the blues?

We'd have one legit ruckman on our list, and our tall depth would have exactly 2 games of AFL experience between them.

Put simply, while i like the nostalgia of the Vanders, Longs and Neagles, you've had an absolute mare here

Hooker isn't our most important defender - I would suggest Carlisle probably holds that mantle.

I acknowledge that Bellchambers is a loss, but one we can cover with the right recruiting. Also, he'd never be all Australian - he's second fiddle to Ryder at Essendon, let alone in the All-Aus side.

Crameri is our leading goal kicker by default - you can't seriously argue that he's a better forward than Gumbleton, Daniher, Boyd ... or even Carlisle and Hurley for that matter.

I'm intrigued by your Carlton analogy. Henderson is like for Hooker and Kruezer is like for Bellchambers. However, Walker is in a whole different league of quality than Crameri is. I think Henderson and Kruezer for pick 1 would work. Which makes me think Bellchambers and Hooker for pick 1. Then we can trade Crameri to the dog / blues for a downgrade of our first round pick to ensure we get Billings.

Would that trade be as positive for Carlton as our one would be for us? Probably not as Carlton don't have the KPP depth that we do. We can cover the losses of those I've suggested we trade out, while Carlton cannot. That is the advantage of having depth and players other clubs want. We should utilise that advantage.

Obviously with our later picks in the draft we would need to pick up a mature aged backup ruckman and a project ruckman (D.Cameron).

And as I stated, the father son is a potential draft advantage. I'm happy for those players to be replaced with better options if there are any available at our respective picks (although, word is J.Long looks the goods, and J.Neagle has been in good form this season).

 

[Rancid Trogs]

Correct weight. Pears is ideally suited to play on the LeCras, Stringer's, Martin's, Rockliff's and bigger midfielders who rest forward. While he's also proved that he's capable of playing on legit talls or smalls to decent enough effect, also rebounds well.

We haven't really tried 3 talls and crameri, but I don't see any reason why it can't work. Daniher can do absurd things when the ball hits the deck, Ryder moves like a midfielder and we all know what Stew can do, insane aerobic capacity for a guy of his strength and size. I think it could work, always have thought it.

the eagles do it and apply great forward pressure on pattersons, which is much bigger than anywhere else, with Kennedy, Darling, Naitanui/Cox, Lecras and Josh Hill, which is a monstrous forward line when you look at their heights, but they make it work because they put in on the defensive side of the ball, and are all really good movers.

The fact that gumby is the least mobile of our key forward options is an amazing thing to consider.

I just want us to be brave enough to try it for a game or two and see if it can work, because it would be maximizing our strengths, which are our tall stocks.

While I love the idea of fitting them all in, I just think our 'frontal pressure' won't be up to standard. In terms of chasing, tackling, harassing and repeat efforts, I don't think Daniher, Gumbleton, Ryder and Crameri offer enough. While they are all mobile big men, their agility / tackling combination isn't great. You need at least three mosquitoes inside forward 50 to generate 'frontal pressure' at a required level.

West Coast get away with it because Le Cras and Hill and mobile leading forwards so can apply defensive pressure and Naitanui and Darling are incredibly agile and extremely good tacklers for their size. Even Kennedy is a better defensive player than any of our 4 you've suggested.

 

[waldo]

Not sure if this has been discussed as this is quite a long thread. So if so then please excuse:

How about we trade Hurley for pick 1. First i will say i love Hurley however he is not a natural forward. The Essendon hierarchy seem fixed on him being a forward. Therefore like in fantasy football lets use his value to get pick 1. We would then have probably the 2 best forwards in the game. Cameron and Patton could fight for this mantel.

This would free up around 500k which we could use in free agency. Either get Dale Thomas or Ryan Griffan. We have depth to cover losing one tall and this will get us another gun mid-field.

Another thought is re Fletcher. Can we just sign him to the rookie list similar to Hudson at Collingwood. Then if we get injury issues we have a ready made defender to come into the team.

 

[Rancid Trogs]

Not sure if this has been discussed as this is quite a long thread. So if so then please excuse:

How about we trade Hurley for pick 1. First i will say i love Hurley however he is not a natural forward. The Essendon hierarchy seem fixed on him being a forward. Therefore like in fantasy football lets use his value to get pick 1. We would then have probably the 2 best forwards in the game. Cameron and Patton could fight for this mantel.

This would free up around 500k which we could use in free agency. Either get Dale Thomas or Ryan Griffan. We have depth to cover losing one tall and this will get us another gun mid-field.

Another thought is re Fletcher. Can we just sign him to the rookie list similar to Hudson at Collingwood. Then if we get injury issues we have a ready made defender to come into the team.

Keep Hurley to play CHB, trade Bellchambers and Hooker for pick #1.

 

[Autobahn]

Not sure if this has been discussed as this is quite a long thread. So if so then please excuse:

How about we trade Hurley for pick 1. First i will say i love Hurley however he is not a natural forward. The Essendon hierarchy seem fixed on him being a forward. Therefore like in fantasy football lets use his value to get pick 1. We would then have probably the 2 best forwards in the game. Cameron and Patton could fight for this mantel.

This would free up around 500k which we could use in free agency. Either get Dale Thomas or Ryan Griffan. We have depth to cover losing one tall and this will get us another gun mid-field.

Another thought is re Fletcher. Can we just sign him to the rookie list similar to Hudson at Collingwood. Then if we get injury issues we have a ready made defender to come into the team.

Thomas: Damaged goods, but we'll take Seedsman thanks.
Griffen: Contracted till 2015.

 

[Ambrosia]

Future structure could and should be:

-------- KPD1: Carlisle --- KPD3: Hooker
-------- KPD2: Hurley ---- 4thD: Pears (primarily a stopper floating between smalls and talls as required)

R: Bellchambers (the improved, round the ground model)


--------- KPD2: Gumby --- HF1: Crameri (basically to replace Winderlich, not that we can't have both)
--------- KPD1: Daniher -- R2: Ryder

I like this idea but I don't think Hooker has the capabilities to go with the hard running, smart and quicker third talls.

So I see the club going with

-------- KPD1: Carlisle/Hurley --- KPD3: Pears
-------- KPD2: Hooker ----
R: Bellchambers (the improved, round the ground model)
--------- KPD2: Hurley/Carlisle --- HF1: Crameri
--------- KPD1: Daniher -- R2: Ryder

 

[Zach Package]

I like this idea but I don't think Hooker has the capabilities to go with the hard running, smart and quicker third talls.

Hurley definitely does, mitigates that problem somewhat

 

[Ambrosia]

Hurley definitely does, mitigates that problem somewhat

I just can't see Hurley regularly playing as third tall.

Is it possible to play three 200cm giants in the forward line along with Crameri who even if he becomes a midfield rotation will always be primarily a lead up forward.

 

[calyam]

I just can't see Hurley regularly playing as third tall.

Is it possible to play three 200cm giants in the forward line along with Crameri who even if he becomes a midfield rotation will always be primarily a lead up forward.

It could work if most of them are mobile. Daniher and Gumbleton are both pretty mobile for their size, Ryder is more mobile than either while Bellchambers mobility is pretty average.

If the Bombers went with a forward line of Daniher, Gumbleton, Crameri and Bellchambers / Ryder I would have one of Daniher / Gumbleton and Crameri rotating up the wing to provide a lead up target because I believe those three have the running capacity and speed to go on searching leads up the wing. Normally teams use their ruckman as a target coming out of defense but I see no reason why you couldn't use an extra tall forward as another option.

But that working largely depends on whether the players involved are good enough to be a threat for the opposition, if they are then it almost forces the opposition to make structural changes to counter it.

 

[Yoda_]

Gumbleton may be mobile but he adds virtually zero once the ball hits the ground.

 

[Zach Package]

I just can't see Hurley regularly playing as third tall.

Is it possible to play three 200cm giants in the forward line along with Crameri who even if he becomes a midfield rotation will always be primarily a lead up forward.

He won't do it regularly. With a defence of Hooker, Carlisle and Hurley, i'd definitely give Hurley the task of taking the forward who gets up the ground the most, because he sets up the play, just pushes the ball forward and is a brilliant field kick.

Carlisle and Hooker I like playing deeper because he reads the play really well, and if he's not cutting balls of by marking them, he's giving Carlisle a massive chop out by spoiling.

Despite the fact that he's the lest mobile of the 3 (no slight on him, Hurley and Carlisle are just very mobile) I like Hooker as the loose man (and it seems TRB are the same going on Sundays game) because he's become really good at distributing by hand and foot, and just reads the game very well.

I noticed that when he was on Westhoff, he'd follow him up to a sort of defensive wing position, and anywhere further than that he just let him go, didn't worry about him and filled the hole, and didn't really get caught out at all.

 

[BrunoV]

I like this idea but I don't think Hooker has the capabilities to go with the hard running, smart and quicker third talls.

So I see the club going with

-------- KPD1: Carlisle/Hurley --- KPD3: Pears
-------- KPD2: Hooker ----
R: Bellchambers (the improved, round the ground model)
--------- KPD2: Hurley/Carlisle --- HF1: Crameri
--------- KPD1: Daniher -- R2: Ryder

I referred to him as the third tall but really meant that he would continue to do what he is currently doing, zoning off to help out the rest of the defence.

It really doesn't matter who is 1, 2 or 3. They'd be assigned roles based on their strengths. Hurley would play on the really hard leading players while Carlisle would get the guys who are better contested marks and Hooker would cover the higher, generally least dangerous, marking target so that he can continue to support the other key defenders.

 

[HULK HOGAN]

OK OK OK this thread is getting to me a bit with the constant dribble!!!!
Please why would we trade Hooker an in form centre half back who has been a very solid contributor in a side that is a good chance of finishing in the top 4. Also why would we trade Bellchambers a YOUNG ruck man who can also go forward and kick goals???
For a number 1 pick key forward who could turn out to be a Jack Watts.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't we have JD?
Our Premiership window may be opening, but its almost as if people don't want us to succeed.

 

[Zach Package]

Hooker isn't our most important defender - I would suggest Carlisle probably holds that mantle.

I didn't say best, I said most important, as in structurally important. Him chopping off kicks and being 3rd man up is a fair part of why Carlisle is being talked up in AA circles. No matter how good you are, you always need help. Just look at the putrid backline Fletcher had at his disposal from about 04-2010,

I acknowledge that Bellchambers is a loss, but one we can cover with the right recruiting. Also, he'd never be all Australian - he's second fiddle to Ryder at Essendon, let alone in the All-Aus side.

Look at his numbers, they compare favourably to cox of last year, who was AA. I don't think he will this year, probably not the year after either, but he is absolute gold.

Crameri is our leading goal kicker by default - you can't seriously argue that he's a better forward than Gumbleton, Daniher, Boyd ... or even Carlisle and Hurley for that matter.
I'm intrigued by your Carlton analogy. Henderson is like for Hooker and Kruezer is like for Bellchambers. However, Walker is in a whole different league of quality than Crameri is. I think Henderson and Kruezer for pick 1 would work. Which makes me think Bellchambers and Hooker for pick 1. Then we can trade Crameri to the dog / blues for a downgrade of our first round pick to ensure we get Billings.

Gumby not even playing senior footy, the other two are all potential, but no production. I've done the numbers, Crameri's career so far compares favourably to any key forward in the competition. A Hurley or Carlisle are very important to our forward structure as they straighten us up something message, but yeah, stew's our best forward by a fair way.

Would that trade be as positive for Carlton as our one would be for us? Probably not as Carlton don't have the KPP depth that we do. We can cover the losses of those I've suggested we trade out, while Carlton cannot. That is the advantage of having depth and players other clubs want. We should utilise that advantage.

Awful trade for them, Awful trade for us.

 

[ant555]

You've got to give quality to get quality, and both those players, while quality footballers, are able to be covered if traded. The benefits of what you bring in far outweigh what you lose

In an ideal world where all of your trades and draft picks work out.
To start with Boyd yes but is a forward, would need to trade Gumby to fit him in.
Next draft J.Billings, D.Garlett, D.Cameron, W.Rioli, A.Heppell, J.Neagle and J.Clothier. Seriously you can just wish up a draft list. There are 17 other clubs out there and who knows when who will be picked and having seen a bit of Neagle and Clothier there is no certainty that either will be any good and i will go as far to say i do not think Jed is AFL material.

Finally i do not see how what you have mentioned is any better than what we have .What happens next when Hille is retired and Paddy gets an injury or suspension ? Are we sending Joe to the wolves and making him ruck alone ?

Seriously if you think that is better then my first comment applies !
You would be giving away quality to get a worse list that is further away from a flag than we are now !

 

[Old Campaigner]

In an ideal world where all of your trades and draft picks work out.
To start with Boyd yes but is a forward, would need to trade Gumby to fit him in.
Next draft J.Billings, D.Garlett, D.Cameron, W.Rioli, A.Heppell, J.Neagle and J.Clothier. Seriously you can just wish up a draft list. There are 17 other clubs out there and who knows when who will be picked and having seen a bit of Neagle and Clothier there is no certainty that either will be any good and i will go as far to say i do not think Jed is AFL material.

Finally i do not see how what you have mentioned is any better than what we have .What happens next when Hille is retired and Paddy gets an injury or suspension ? Are we sending Joe to the wolves and making him ruck alone ?

Seriously if you think that is better then my first comment applies !
You would be giving away quality to get a worse list that is further away from a flag than we are now !

QFT.
Rancid Trogs you are bad and wrong and should stop posting about trading

 

[Benno30]

Just My Opinion but Hooker may be our best trade option at this stage.

We pretty much all agree we dont want big Tommy going anywhere...

I personally would not class Crameri as a Tall Key Forward. yes he is our leading goal kicker blah blah blah
He was drafted as a mid/half back if i remember correctly..

Currently i see our best side from next year on looking something like this

B - Baguley...Hurley...Pears/fletch
CHB - Dempsey...Carlile...Hibberd
C - Goddard...Watson...Zaharakis
HF - Winderlich...Gumbleton/New Player...Crameri
F - Merret...Daniher...Davey/New Player
R - Belly...Stanton...Hocking
INT - Melksham...Myers...Ryder...And whoever else you want

Hurley got AA honors twice before being drafted by us as a FULL BACK...

Trading Hooker, Gumbleton, Davey, Jetta, Hardingham. Not all but Hooker with 1 or 2 of those would give you a shot at say the number 1 draft pick and Taylors Adams from GWS They want the big forward and they want a key defender. Hooker, Gumby and say Jetta as a sweetener. Gives them some more mature players and gives us to have a Franklin/Roughead sort of forward line in Daniher/Boyd maybe better only time will tell but i think well worth a go if possible. Then you could look at drafting the likes of Garlett if available or someone similar for the small forward role.

Not saying this i what they should do but it could well be worth having a look at something like this.
I believe that Hooker is only a decent player when not having to be accountable for the oppositions main forwards.. If he plays on Cloke or Hawkins or someone like that they normally tear him to pieces.. So i think Hurley and Carlile can Cover those types leaving pears to look after the third tall or play the roaming sort of roll like hooker does.

Some will call me crazy but hey shit happens right

 

[HULK HOGAN]

OK OK OK this thread is getting to me a bit with the constant dribble!!!!
Please why would we trade Hooker an in form centre half back who has been a very solid contributor in a side that is a good chance of finishing in the top 4. Also why would we trade Bellchambers a YOUNG ruck man who can also go forward and kick goals???
For a number 1 pick key forward who could turn out to be a Jack Watts.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't we have JD?
Our Premiership window may be opening, but its almost as if people don't want us to succeed.

Also forgot to mention The stupid Stanton mentions pfffft.

 

[BrunoV]

In an ideal world where all of your trades and draft picks work out.
To start with Boyd yes but is a forward, would need to trade Gumby to fit him in.
Next draft J.Billings, D.Garlett, D.Cameron, W.Rioli, A.Heppell, J.Neagle and J.Clothier. Seriously you can just wish up a draft list. There are 17 other clubs out there and who knows when who will be picked and having seen a bit of Neagle and Clothier there is no certainty that either will be any good and i will go as far to say i do not think Jed is AFL material.

Finally i do not see how what you have mentioned is any better than what we have .What happens next when Hille is retired and Paddy gets an injury or suspension ? Are we sending Joe to the wolves and making him ruck alone ?

Seriously if you think that is better then my first comment applies !
You would be giving away quality to get a worse list that is further away from a flag than we are now !

I've noticed a few times that you seem very much in favour of keeping Gumbleton around. Would like to know what you would do with the list (the talls in particular).

 

[hurlygurdy]

OK OK OK this thread is getting to me a bit with the constant dribble!!!!
Please why would we trade Hooker an in form centre half back who has been a very solid contributor in a side that is a good chance of finishing in the top 4. Also why would we trade Bellchambers a YOUNG ruck man who can also go forward and kick goals???
For a number 1 pick key forward who could turn out to be a Jack Watts.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't we have JD?
Our Premiership window may be opening, but its almost as if people don't want us to succeed.

This.

We can talk about trading Gumby, but i can't have any of the rest of it...

 

[lenny2013]

My worst nightmare is that TBC doesn't resign this year and wants to see what he's worth on the market under free agency and we get screwed.

Not to mention Hooker, Crameri, Gumby are out of contract this year and if they sense they might be trade bait could hold off to see what they are worth on the market.

No doubt they all will wont to stay but they'll know in the back of their minds that we are also top heavy.

 

[daz17]

My worst nightmare is that TBC doesn't resign this year and wants to see what he's worth on the market under free agency and we get screwed.

Not to mention Hooker, Crameri, Gumby are out of contract this year and if they sense they might be trade bait could hold off to see what they are worth on the market.

No doubt they all will wont to stay but they'll know in the back of their minds that we are also top heavy.

TBC is not a free agent.. It will go to the trade table and the only way we will get screwed is if he walks.