List Mgmt. Should We Add A Mature Age Ruckman To Our List?

[philthy05]

So you don't buy health insurance you don't buy car insurance you don't but house insurance.

This is about insurance not finding a new #1 ruckman. What's this super potential stuff? Did Ah Chee have super potential? Did Young have super potential? Did Impey have super potentail? Yet we kept picking them and giving them contact after contract.

Its about not being complete and utter f**king idiots like 2014 and 2016 when we were caught out by non thinking list management saying she'll be right we only need 3 rucks on the list and in 2016 it was only 2 who the coach was ready to play in the season when we had a 2 year suspension hanging over the man guys head. We are talking about 1 player in 44 ie 2.27% of the list as it will be some disaster if we pick a ready to go ruck. Now that's marginal . Gain or no gain.

I want a 4th proper ruck ready to go if the cyclone hits the house. If we can find one in the national draft then so be it but he has to be developed enough to be ready if needed in round 1. If he isnt there, use the PSD or rookie draft.

I just don't get the thinking that we can't take out insurance because 1 extra ruck will somehow destroy our list and it's balance.

I buy car insurance because it will give me the cost of replacing my car


If you told me my car insurance would only give me 1/3 of the cost of replacing my car , and that I most likely wouldn't claim it anyway I probably don't buy car insurance

 

[philthy05]

I've advocated us picking up a mature ruck in years past. But I've seen time and again Hinkley will always go back to the well he knows. It only takes how long for someone to get games under Hinkley ?

Getting someone who Hinkley will almost certainly not play. Meh

And back then we didn't have developing rucks on the list that I liked and wanted to see get given a chance.

 

[raptalia]

I'm not convinced there is a Nathan Vardy lurking for us to pick up as a dfa

You will never ever know if you never ever go. There were plenty on this forum who didn't want us to go anywhere near Vardy this time last year so even if there was a Vardy on offer we would be besieged with 'we do not need him' wallahs.

We have nine spaces on our lists, surely investing one of those spaces on an experienced ruckman in case of emergency is not that mind bogglingly difficult? in fact for those of us who want a balanced list it is a no brainer.

My point is there are nine spaces and many of those will be filled by list cloggers anyway so why not use one space as insurance?

Those who are re building our list have done a pretty good job over the past couple of years and it will finish next year not this year. With the bigger picture in mind I would be disappointed if the same people who traded Trengove and Lobbe and did not replace them.

 

[philthy05]

You will never ever know if you never ever go. There were plenty on this forum who didn't want us to go anywhere near Vardy this time last year so even if there was a Vardy on offer we would be besieged with 'we do not need him' wallahs.

We have nine spaces on our lists, surely investing one of those spaces on an experienced ruckman in case of emergency is not that mind bogglingly difficult? in fact for those of us who want a balanced list it is a no brainer.

My point is there are nine spaces and many of those will be filled by list cloggers anyway so why not use one space as insurance?

Those who are re building our list have done a pretty good job over the past couple of years and it will finish next year not this year. With the bigger picture in mind I would be disappointed if the same people who traded Trengove and Lobbe and did not replace them.

1. Vardys issue was never talent , it was always his body.

No, there isn't a Nathan vardy available

2. The cost of this insurance is more than a list spot.

I want to see us develop frampton and ladhams.

It's not guesswork that a mature ruck will take up time in the centre when others should be in there. It's a fact.

3. The ability of any back up ruck to be better than our list of options is entirely debatable

Zac Clarke for instance , as one of the more experienced options has been delisted by a freo with probably less depth in ruck than we do. Can sandi blink without being injured and missing 8weeks these days ? Freo has literally leap frogged spud Taberner into a 2nd ruck position because even he offers more than Clarke when you add everything together.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I buy car insurance because it will give me the cost of replacing my car


If you told me my car insurance would only give me 1/3 of the cost of replacing my car , and that I most likely wouldn't claim it anyway I probably don't buy car insurance

I look at car insurance covering more than just replacement value of my car. What happens if I do property damage, insurance covers that, public liability component and depending on which jurisdiction you are in, it also covers the cost of causing injury to a person might injure be they in the other car, your car, on the street or inside other property you run into. You have to look at the full 360 degrees not just the bleeding obvious.

 

[Magus]

Think of the mature age ruckman as the loan car.

 

[Fizzler]

I wouldn't want Frampton/Ladhams rucking against top teams if Ryder was out. Maybe if we were playing a team without a really good ruck. I also wouldn't want Watts/Dixon/Westhoff rucking outside the forward line because they are what we need in the forward line (a tall target) which is why I feel like we should go for Nick Meese.

 

[Us against the rest]

Yep, our midfield should be at least competitive to a losing ruck. If they aren’t we’re going to be losing games we should win, as even Ryder won’t win his position every game.

Given that an additional back up (beyond Frampton) is insurance for a case where:
1. Ryder is out
2. Frampton is out
3. It’s beyond a couple of games, where we could go with pinch hitters.

We’ve got 4 KPD’s and 3 KPF’s (leaving aside Hoff and Howard going forward). With limited list spots these are ones that worry me more for lack of coverage due to injuries or suspensions.

Yep agreed. Hopefully our mids now can be more competitive without Ryder dominating.

 

[Powerage]

So you don't buy health insurance you don't buy car insurance you don't but house insurance.

This is about insurance not finding a new #1 ruckman. What's this super potential stuff? Did Ah Chee have super potential? Did Young have super potential? Did Impey have super potentail? Yet we kept picking them and giving them contact after contract.

Its about not being complete and utter f**king idiots like 2014 and 2016 when we were caught out by non thinking list management saying she'll be right we only need 3 rucks on the list and in 2016 it was only 2 who the coach was ready to play in the season when we had a 2 year suspension hanging over the man guys head. We are talking about 1 player in 44 ie 2.27% of the list as it will be some disaster if we pick a ready to go ruck. Now that's marginal . Gain or no gain.

I want a 4th proper ruck ready to go if the cyclone hits the house. If we can find one in the national draft then so be it but he has to be developed enough to be ready if needed in round 1. If he isnt there, use the PSD or rookie draft.

I just don't get the thinking that we can't take out insurance because 1 extra ruck will somehow destroy our list and it's balance.

Testify REH!

It's a specialist position and Ryder and has shown in no uncertain manner what the difference is between having a makeshift one and having a great one means. Rucks are prone to injury, especially ACL's. I just don't get why we would go to the trouble of putting all our chips on the table to assemble this list, then not have a decent backup in place. Like it or not, Frampton and Ladhams are not yet decent!

It can make a different to our season over the course of just one game!!! Remember Renouf and Trengove vs Sandilands in the 2014 match against Fremantle? Or a tired Lobbe vs Hawthorn in the Preliminary 2014? A decent backup for Ryder may well have made the difference between finishing 5th and 4th this year as Ryder began to struggle under the weight of being the only decent ruck we had this year. Steven King in the 2007 GF???

It is cheap insurance against injury and may even be an important tactical move in one two or more games. I can in no way be convinced it is going to hamper the development of Frampton or Ladhams if the list and selections are managed properly. If it does, you would have to question their ability to be top tier ruckmen.

 

[philthy05]

Testify REH!

It's a specialist position and Ryder and has shown in no uncertain manner what the difference is between having a makeshift one and having a great one means. Rucks are prone to injury, especially ACL's. I just don't get why we would go to the trouble of putting all our chips on the table to assemble this list, then not have a decent backup in place. Like it or not, Frampton and Ladhams are not yet decent!

It can make a different to our season over the course of just one game!!! Remember Renouf and Trengove vs Sandilands in the 2014 match against Fremantle? Or a tired Lobbe vs Hawthorn in the Preliminary 2014? A decent backup for Ryder may well have made the difference between finishing 5th and 4th this year as Ryder began to struggle under the weight of being the only decent ruck we had this year. Steven King in the 2007 GF???

It is cheap insurance against injury and may even be an important tactical move in one two or more games. I can in no way be convinced it is going to hamper the development of Frampton or Ladhams if the list and selections are managed properly. If it does, you would have to question their ability to be top tier ruckmen.

Name the ruckman we can collect as a dfa or in the draft that will compete against Gawn , grundy , Kruezer Nic Nat Martin ?

People have unrealistic expectations of what a dfa ruck can do for us. The magical can compete against good rucks at afl level picked up and ready to play straight away mythical unicorn is a exception rather than the rule.


Also , to be clear , ladhams would be 3rd in line to play ruck at sanfl level. You absolutely believe without a doubt not playing a young ruck in the ruck will not hurt his ability to learn to play ruck?

 

[Janus]

A slow ruck *s up our defensive structure. If he's not really going to offer us much in the way of hitouts, he needs to be athletic and versatile. Find me one of those and you can draft all the back up rucks you want.

 

[Dave Omsby]

A slow ruck ****s up our defensive structure. If he's not really going to offer us much in the way of hitouts, he needs to be athletic and versatile. Find me one of those and you can draft all the back up rucks you want.

Billy

 

[Corby_says]

Westhoff is the man, can ruck, is mature and just about smart enough to be competitive and durable, no guarantee Billy would be better at the level in2018 and Ladams is honestly 2 years away, if Westhoff is dedicated week to week as the back up then if he plays off the bench we get the flexability of an extra mobile mid on the field, or if we play westhoff from a forward pocket we still get the value of his height.
I want our young rucks to tear the SANFL appart befor we throw them to the wolves, I have no doubt Frampton and Ladams will come to AFL standard but who is to say it will be as Ruckmen, Westhoff will be gone soon enough...

 

[Andre]

Westhoff is the man, can ruck, is mature and just about smart enough to be competitive and durable, no guarantee Billy would be better at the level in2018 and Ladams is honestly 2 years away, if Westhoff is dedicated week to week as the back up then if he plays off the bench we get the flexability of an extra mobile mid on the field, or if we play westhoff from a forward pocket we still get the value of his height.
I want our young rucks to tear the SANFL appart befor we throw them to the wolves, I have no doubt Frampton and Ladams will come to AFL standard but who is to say it will be as Ruckmen, Westhoff will be gone soon enough...

Of Dixon, Howard, Watts and Westhoff, the Hoff is the worst ruck is the lot. He shouldn’t be rucking at all, unless he just happens to be the tall in the vicinity.

 

[badbeats]

Let's be honest here, how many clubs have a second ruckman who could actually be a fulltime ruck for more than half the season. I bet it's less than 6 and where they are actually half decent as a KPF/D already.

 

[Magus]

Name the ruckman we can collect as a dfa or in the draft that will compete against Gawn , grundy , Kruezer Nic Nat Martin ?

And Frampton can? We don't know what he's capable of. At all. And he just went in for surgery.

People are after a big bodied, mature player as insurance only.

Clubs pick up all sorts of players in the trade/free agency period. Do you think West Coast picked up Ah Chee for the midfield because it was a pressing need or that they expect him to go head to head with the Fyfe, Dangerfield and Martin? Not every player is expected to rival the elites in the competition.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

That’s not an unreasonable way of looking at it I suppose, but it seems like drafting for the Magpies at the expense of the Power.

I want the backup ruck to be the best available option for the position of AFL ruck. Currie, Spencer and Clarke are all better rucks than Brooksby, so they’re the three we should be looking at. If that means Currie, Spencer or Clarke spuds it up in the goalsquare for the Magpies for most of next year because we want to train up Frampton for the #1 role, so be it.

Well I think keeping the Magpies winning with an AFL shape is important to development. I am trying to predict what the coaching hive mind is with regard to the ruck position. It became obvious last year that Lobbe didn't fit in their long term plans and they really didn't know what to do with him. It wasn't just about his contract, they decided that Frampton was the anointed next in line ruckman so he had to get game day exposure in that position. They really struggled to find a spot for Lobbe because they already had tall forward and defence options.

If they grab a cast off pure ruck and play him in the goalsquare they can't replicate how the AFL side sets up. And it is going to be difficult to play Ladhams on the field in that context and that's a waste because he has the mobility to develop some forward skills. There's no point leaving him on the bench, what's he going to develop there? So the obvious solution is get a mature body who can ruck but is comfortable playing as a key forward.

A player like Brooksby fits the bill as he has shown in the NEAFL that he can play forward and kick goals. Spencer and Clarke may be better ruckmen than him, there's no evidence about Currie - they are so close it is irrelevant.

In this scenario, we can draft a big young ruckman like Scott Jones and playing him off the bench is not an issue as he is a pure ruck. If Frampton was called up to AFL duty he can fit straight into the lead ruck role in the sanfl (really he only has to beat logs like Osborn) and we maintain our shape in the sanfl. Or we even take a punt on him in the AFL.

I expect that next year if Ryder has any problems, then Frampton will step up to replace him. Port were using him as a primary ruck in the sanfl, he has signed a new deal and he was sent early to get his shoulder right. Get him up around 100kg by the start of next year and he can step up if needed. If we lose both we go to the Trengove option and play Brooksby or a player like him. Or get really adventurous and play a monster kid like Jones.

 

[Julia#13]

I think the best thing for our future ruck stocks is to let Franpton and Ladhams assume the ruck responsibility in the sanfl and not go down the DFA ruckman route. The logjam this year meant we were way too tall through the ruck and forward lines. If there is a 20-24 forward/ruck who can comfortably stay in the f50 unless billy/ladhams are struggling, then I would rather that than a pure ruck in the Spencer/Currie route. Gives us more flexibility.
Would leave our list looking like:

RUCKS: Ryder, Frampton, Ladhams
PART TIMERS: Dixon, Westhoff, Watts, (draftee)

Plenty to work with. If Ryder goes down, we could have Frampton, Westhoff, Watts, Dixon all rucking at one stage, even for just ten minutes in a game, and would be a nightmare for other times with matchups as they're all athlethic, flexible and can play multiple positions.

 

[TeeKray]

Well I think keeping the Magpies winning with an AFL shape is important to development. I am trying to predict what the coaching hive mind is with regard to the ruck position. It became obvious last year that Lobbe didn't fit in their long term plans and they really didn't know what to do with him. It wasn't just about his contract, they decided that Frampton was the anointed next in line ruckman so he had to get game day exposure in that position. They really struggled to find a spot for Lobbe because they already had tall forward and defence options.

If they grab a cast off pure ruck and play him in the goalsquare they can't replicate how the AFL side sets up. And it is going to be difficult to play Ladhams on the field in that context and that's a waste because he has the mobility to develop some forward skills. There's no point leaving him on the bench, what's he going to develop there? So the obvious solution is get a mature body who can ruck but is comfortable playing as a key forward.

A player like Brooksby fits the bill as he has shown in the NEAFL that he can play forward and kick goals. Spencer and Clarke may be better ruckmen than him, there's no evidence about Currie - they are so close it is irrelevant.

In this scenario, we can draft a big young ruckman like Scott Jones and playing him off the bench is not an issue as he is a pure ruck. If Frampton was called up to AFL duty he can fit straight into the lead ruck role in the sanfl (really he only has to beat logs like Osborn) and we maintain our shape in the sanfl. Or we even take a punt on him in the AFL.

I expect that next year if Ryder has any problems, then Frampton will step up to replace him. Port were using him as a primary ruck in the sanfl, he has signed a new deal and he was sent early to get his shoulder right. Get him up around 100kg by the start of next year and he can step up if needed. If we lose both we go to the Trengove option and play Brooksby or a player like him. Or get really adventurous and play a monster kid like Jones.

It's an interesting discussion. The way the game has moved over the last decade or so has made the idea of playing a second ruckman completely redundant. This has turned the ruck into a specialist position, not unlike the goalkeeper in soccer. So you can only play one ruckman in your firsts team and one ruckman in your seconds team - but what about the rest?

Which gives rise to the conundrum at the heart of this thread. If you have two experienced ruck options and both remain relatively injury free, there will be very limited opportunity to develop up and comers. But if you run with only one experienced ruck option to give the young guys an opportunity to develop, you risk throwing them to the wolves before they are ready because there is no insurance in the event that your main guy gets injured.

I think what we will see (we are probably already seeing it) is a lot of ruckmen moving between clubs searching for greater opportunities. Again, it's like a soccer goalkeeper - nobody wants to be a bench ornament for their whole career, so once you've spent a year or two behind another guy and aren't getting the chance, you've got no option but to move elsewhere.

Also, this whole ruck dilemma is probably the biggest argument there is for a mid season draft/trade period.

 

[OneGreatClub]

I'm still pinching myself that Lobbe has actually gone.

 

[longdonkey]

For me I'd like to see us with one massive unit who is ready to come in if Ryder went down for multiple games. I think for 1 or 2 we could make do with Billy or Hoff or Watts. Just need someone who won't get destroyed by the Gawns of this world. Chances are he won't win the duel, just needs to be big enough that he doesn't get dominated. Because I was feeling sorry for Jacko the time he went up against Gawn.