Possible ruck solution

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by DaveW
No. Mott is an average tap ruckman who offers nothing else.

He doesn't fill a need at all.

agree, he's also a nutjob.

 

[Russian]

Originally posted by DaveW
No. Mott is an average tap ruckman who offers nothing else.

He doesn't fill a need at all.

I'm a fan of Ricky but he doesn't fit the Crows needs. His around the ground play isn't significantly better than Clarke, Biglands and Marsh. That's the weakness and if that problem can't be fixed then might as well stick with the status quo

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by DaveW
No. Mott is an average tap ruckman who offers nothing else.

He doesn't fill a need at all.

So if are lead ruck duo are injured, you would prefer Marsh ahead of Mott....

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
So if are lead ruck duo are injured, you would prefer Marsh ahead of Mott....

It's come to that again.

Mott v Marsh? There's probably not much in it.

 

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by DaveW
It's come to that again.

Mott v Marsh? There's probably not much in it.

No, but then Gallagher may be delisted if he isn't traded. So what's the harm in having a 4th ruckman for free basically?

Problem is I think Freo would say "no thanks" to Gags.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by naughty monkey
No, but then Gallagher may be delisted if he isn't traded. So what's the harm in having a 4th ruckman for free basically?

True. Although we must've overlooked Mott in the pre-season draft last year - where we didn't take anyone despite having a spot available on the list.

Problem is I think Freo would say "no thanks" to Gags.

Agreed. It's a moot point anyway.

 

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Yes but we can't trade any of our other rookies

Are you sure?
Skip was promoted temporarily while Crowell was on the long term injury list. (I assume he's still there)
But it wasn't a "permanent" promotion as such, as with Mott.

Don't know the exact rule here, bit of a quirky one.

I'm thinking we couldn't be allowed to trade both Crowell AND Skipworth as they are effectively only one spot on the senior list. (Could be construed as giving Adelaide an advantage otherwise as they would have one extra player available to trade than the other clubs).

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by naughty monkey
No, but then Gallagher may be delisted if he isn't traded. So what's the harm in having a 4th ruckman for free basically?

Problem is I think Freo would say "no thanks" to Gags.

Exactly, we would be getting a backup ruckman for a player who is unlikely to be on our list if we can't make a trade for him.

Freo still lack midfield depth IMO & in particular wingmen, so the trade isn't as silly as it sounds.

 

[Portia]

Mott would be a good get for the Crows. Craig would soon get the extra poundage off and he actually can ruck.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
So if are lead ruck duo are injured, you would prefer Marsh ahead of Mott....

Bloody hell Kane i know Marsh is down near the bottom of the AFL ruck pile but so is Mott & what's the use of going through all the re-settlement & other expenses for a ruckman type that we already have,

be better off drafting a ruckman from the sanfl ranks or putting one on the rookie list,

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Porthos
Mott would be a good get for the Crows. Craig would soon get the extra poundage off and he actually can ruck.

As much as i respect your knowledge in drafting matters & talent in the pool on this one i think you are just having a little dig at us,

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by noddy
Bloody hell Kane i know Marsh is down near the bottom of the AFL ruck pile but so is Mott & what's the use of going through all the re-settlement & other expenses for a ruckman type that we already have,

be better off drafting a ruckman from the sanfl ranks or putting one on the rookie list,

Marsh has had more than enough time at AFC. Time to look to other options, be it Mott, someone from the SANFL or someone else. Mott may not be as talented, but he has ticker, which is more than I can say for Marshmellow.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Marsh has had more than enough time at AFC. Time to look to other options, be it Mott, someone from the SANFL or someone else. Mott may not be as talented, but he has ticker, which is more than I can say for Marshmellow.

Somehow Mott reminds me of Lucas Herbert,

There must be someone in the sanfl ranks who could do a better job.

 

[Russian]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Marsh has had more than enough time at AFC. Time to look to other options, be it Mott, someone from the SANFL or someone else. Mott may not be as talented, but he has ticker, which is more than I can say for Marshmellow.

Mott has been promoted from the Freo rookie list so u'd have to trade for him

 

[Thunderstruck]

Craig Parry is the man for the job. If we cant get Charman (great proposal btw) then this guy would surely be the next best option. He is 19 years old, is very agressive, takes marks around the ground and was the leading hitout ruckman in the SANFL this year. About 194cm 98kg, and has a good leap. Ive seen enuff of him to be fully convinced he is worth picking up. Better than Marsh thats for certain!

 

[tribey]

I'd do it...

Clarke is old and is pointless when not at stoppages...
Biglands has all the physical attributes of a fine around the ground ruckman but he just doesn't do the business...

Bring Charman in so we can all call him "Darren"

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Thunderstruck
Craig Parry is the man for the job. If we cant get Charman (great proposal btw) then this guy would surely be the next best option. He is 19 years old, is very agressive, takes marks around the ground and was the leading hitout ruckman in the SANFL this year. About 194cm 98kg, and has a good leap. Ive seen enuff of him to be fully convinced he is worth picking up. Better than Marsh thats for certain!

I am a big fan of Parry BUT he is not big enough to be a ruckman in the AFL.

I did a bit of sniffing around and we definetly have someone in mind to recruit as far as ruckman are concerned. I wasn't able to get the name BUT we are keepng a very close eye on someone that would be a good get and we are hoping to get him for a good price.

He didn't want to tell me who it is but there is someone. I just hope its not someone like McKernan

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
He didn't want to tell me who it is but there is someone. I just hope its not someone like McKernan

McKernan - the future of football...

Should've been the first man before Goodes and Buckley to do the Rising Star/Brownlow double.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by dyertribe
McKernan - the future of football...

Should've been the first man before Goodes and Buckley to do the Rising Star/Brownlow double.

If we get McKernan I'll follow Collingwood

 

[DaveW]

So the old Corey/Carey combo might be reuinted?

 

[maccas_no1]

Good deal Stiffy, I just hope you are hiding under the AFC trade table this week

Also the advantage of having Ottens is he can play up forward, can take marks and kick goals, unlike Clarke and Biglands , Clarke cant kick goals from 10m out

Ottens would be and absoulute gem

Bye Bye Goody

I just want to say this but I read in Tuesday's Herald Sun that Richmond have said Ottens and Coughlan are untouchable

Hope you have a good source Stiffy

 

[lozstar]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
Bye Bye Goody

I'm gonna slap someone around here soon

UNTOUCHABLE!

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

I did a bit of sniffing around and we definetly have someone in mind to recruit as far as ruckman are concerned. I wasn't able to get the name BUT we are keepng a very close eye on someone that would be a good get and we are hoping to get him for a good price.

He didn't want to tell me who it is but there is someone. I just hope its not someone like McKernan

Loats? Seaby? Laycock?

I will not be happy if Marsh is retained.

I am hoping that if we cannot trade for a ruckman, that we can at least draft one. Hopefully we can snare Glenelg's Clint Dubencki (200 cm), too bad Norwoods Tim Nicholls (200 cm) was not up to scratch last year.

I could handle Marsh staying on the list for one more year, provided we also pick up one or two young ruckmen (even on the rookie list) to increase our ruck depth.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Jerome
Loats? Seaby? Laycock?

I will not be happy if Marsh is retained.

I am hoping that if we cannot trade for a ruckman, that we can at least draft one. Hopefully we can snare Glenelg's Clint Dubencki (200 cm), too bad Norwoods Tim Nicholls (200 cm) was not up to scratch last year.

I could handle Marsh staying on the list for one more year, provided we also pick up one or two young ruckmen (even on the rookie list) to increase our ruck depth.

I would love Laycock, that bloke will develop into one very good ruckman who can also play as key forward. Seaby would be good as well but I think it would be Loats ater reading this paragraph on AFL.com

Fremantle’s Steven Koops, Hawthorn’s David Loats, and Geelong trio Peter Street, Cameron Mooney and David Clarke are all tipped to find new homes before 2pm Friday

Street will be a Bulldog and Mooney is not a ruckman so I would say Loats is the likely choice. Doesn't fill me with a lot of excitement but anyone is better than Marsh.

As for Laycock, I would give pick 14 and Michael Doughty to Essendon for him. I really rate the kid.

Don't worry Jerome, I think we will draft a ruckman if one is available

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
Good deal Stiffy, I just hope you are hiding under the AFC trade table this week

Also the advantage of having Ottens is he can play up forward, can take marks and kick goals, unlike Clarke and Biglands , Clarke cant kick goals from 10m out

Ottens would be and absoulute gem

Bye Bye Goody

I just want to say this but I read in Tuesday's Herald Sun that Richmond have said Ottens and Coughlan are untouchable

Hope you have a good source Stiffy

Settle down mate. I posted it as one of those "fantasy trades". Nothing from a source.

The chances of it happening are close to none