The Ruck Thread

[theGav56]

I have a couple of ruck scenarios for discussion which assume that the club is chasing Clark. Would find it difficult to fit MJ or Bradley anywhere near the team of Clark was brought in;

1) We keep all four of our ruckmen on the list.
-Sandilands #1 ruck spare part forward
-Clark KPF/ruckman
-Clarke rangy dude running everywhere and doing some ruckwork
-Griffin simply backup for Sandilands (although a better option would be assorted Clark(e)s rucking).

2) Trade Griffin to Port. Difficult to assess Griffin's trade value or Port's interest. I also cannot see why Richmond or even GWS are not viable options assuming Griffin is traded as he wants more games. Those three rucks are adequate on the list in my eyes and Griffin becomes redundant. Possibly attract 2nd rounder.

3) Trade Clarke to GWS for O'Meara
-defies logic a bit as O'Meara is young and by definition unproven at AFL level, whereas Clarke is nailing it and looking like he has massive upside.
-For me it would mean we go with a ruck combination of Sandilands and Clark, which is not too bad.
-Couldn't see Griffin being a 3rd ruck in any games

4) Trade Sandilands to GWS for O"Meara and a first rounder
-Griffin and Clarke available as #1 ruck spare part forward
-Clark KPF/ruckman
-Have the option of playing 2 or 3 ruckmen depending on Clarke's development and the opposition
-Places our ruck stocks in a much younger time-frame, although Griffin brings maturity
-Big change for a club that has become Sandilands-centric
-Psychologically challenging trading out a true champion of the club.

Out of those four options, which scenario places the club in the strongest situation. Remember, the assumption is assuming Clark is being pursued.

 

[Leslie_Chow]

I'd go with #1 especially with the weak draft this year, a second rounder won't really count for much.

If Clark comes in you'd presume he would spend most time at full forward. Still think there is so much untapped potential in our Zac that he won't really have a set position and will play a Cox type role around the ground.

 

[heypenny]

I know this is quite simplistic and missing the point of your thread.

Keep Griffen and Clarke as back up and second ruckmen.

Put Pavlich in the forward line next year.

Draft a inside mid with pick 12 or 14 this year.

Keep the Palmer compensation pick for 2012 and use that, or our first rounder for a KPP.

 

[theGav56]

I'd go with #1 especially with the weak draft this year, a second rounder won't really count for much.

If Clark comes in you'd presume he would spend most time at full forward. Still think there is so much untapped potential in our Zac that he won't really have a set position and will play a Cox type role around the ground.

If we went for #1, I would assume Griffin would be the player to get the least game time, and quite possibly would leave at the end of the next year with very little trade value. Why wouldn't you trade him now even though it is a weak draft?

 

[creamygoodness]

I say number 2, maybe even shop Kep to GWS

 

[theGav56]

I know this is quite simplistic and missing the point of your thread.

Keep Griffen and Clarke as back up and second ruckmen.

Put Pavlich in the forward line next year.

Draft a inside mid with pick 12 or 14 this year.

Keep the Palmer compensation pick for 2012 and use that, or our first rounder for a KPP.

Yes totally missing the point of the thread. There are strong indications that the club is interested in CLARK. If we get him, how is that going to work? I am all for not getting Clark.

 

[Chris25]

Obviously there has been a lot of talk about Mitch Clark, but he has already said he doesn't want to play as a ruckman (well I think it was his manager who said that). He sees himself as a forward.

So as far as I'm concerned, trading for Mitch Clark has no effect on Zac Clarke. And whether Griffin goes or not is a different matter in itself, can't imagine Mitch Clark influencing that decision.

Kepler is the one who would be in trouble.

 

[Leslie_Chow]

If we went for #1, I would assume Griffin would be the player to get the least game time, and quite possibly would leave at the end of the next year with very little trade value. Why wouldn't you trade him now even though it is a weak draft?

Yeah but then if Sandi or Clarke go down we are back to where we were this year. I agree that Kepler could be the one in trouble in all of this

 

[heypenny]

Yes totally missing the point of the thread. There are strong indications that the club is interested in CLARK. If we get him, how is that going to work? I am all for not getting Clark.

Yeah I realise that, I just wanted to selfishly reinstate my point.

If we get Clark, there is no point in keeping Griffen, and Im sure he will feel even more disheartened knowing he's fourth in line.

If we are making a deal to get Clark, then try and get the best deal for Griffen and one of Johnson or Bradley.

So option 2. Begrudgingly

 

[theGav56]

Obviously there has been a lot of talk about Mitch Clark, but he has already said he doesn't want to play as a ruckman (well I think it was his manager who said that). He sees himself as a forward.

So as far as I'm concerned, trading for Mitch Clark has no effect on Zac Clarke. And whether Griffin goes or not is a different matter in itself, can't imagine Mitch Clark influencing that decision.

Kepler is the one who would be in trouble.

I think Clark coming would influence Griffin's contract hugely. He becomes the #4, and I can't see why we would want to retain him for a start.

As for Clark's manager saying he wants to play as a forward, so what? Even as a forward he would presumably get some ruck time when required from injuries.

 

[theGav56]

Yeah but then if Sandi or Clarke go down we are back to where we were this year. I agree that Kepler could be the one in trouble in all of this

No we wouldn't. Mitch Clark would ruck in tandem with the other. Playing 3 ruckmen in the AFL is rare.

 

[raffrox]

I have a couple of ruck scenarios for discussion which assume that the club is chasing Clark. Would find it difficult to fit MJ or Bradley anywhere near the team of Clark was brought in;

1) We keep all four of our ruckmen on the list.
-Sandilands #1 ruck spare part forward
-Clark KPF/ruckman
-Clarke rangy dude running everywhere and doing some ruckwork
-Griffin simply backup for Sandilands (although a better option would be assorted Clark(e)s rucking).

2) Trade Griffin to Port. Difficult to assess Griffin's trade value or Port's interest. I also cannot see why Richmond or even GWS are not viable options assuming Griffin is traded as he wants more games. Those three rucks are adequate on the list in my eyes and Griffin becomes redundant. Possibly attract 2nd rounder.

3) Trade Clarke to GWS for O'Meara
-defies logic a bit as O'Meara is young and by definition unproven at AFL level, whereas Clarke is nailing it and looking like he has massive upside.
-For me it would mean we go with a ruck combination of Sandilands and Clark, which is not too bad.
-Couldn't see Griffin being a 3rd ruck in any games

4) Trade Sandilands to GWS for O"Meara and a first rounder
-Griffin and Clarke available as #1 ruck spare part forward
-Clark KPF/ruckman
-Have the option of playing 2 or 3 ruckmen depending on Clarke's development and the opposition
-Places our ruck stocks in a much younger time-frame, although Griffin brings maturity
-Big change for a club that has become Sandilands-centric
-Psychologically challenging trading out a true champion of the club.

Out of those four options, which scenario places the club in the strongest situation. Remember, the assumption is assuming Clark is being pursued.

Number 2 is the only one that I like and only 1 or 2 are realistic.

Clarke and Sandi will not be traded and shouldn't be.

It was Tony Shaw I know but I agree with him when he said that Clarke will be an All Australian. As I've said elsewhere Sandi won't be traded.

 

[strobe00]

IF we were going after Clark, then I'd be going 2. No point in keeping Griff on the list, as he won't want to hang around playing WAFL behind 3 guys. May as well get something for him, and give him the chance to get more game time.

Have mentioned in another thread that it'd be tempting to secure JOM and pick 5 for Sandi. Wasn't saying we should, but didn't think it was ridiculous.

The more I think about it though, the more I'd hate seeing the big fella in any colour other than purple. He is getting older and he's had a couple of injuries in recent years, but it'd be too hard to lose him... from a club/supporter/player morale point of view and from a structures point of view. It'd also put us a couple of years away from seriously challenging for the flag as I reckon it'd take a while to work the ruck area out again.

 

[strobe00]

Obviously there has been a lot of talk about Mitch Clark, but he has already said he doesn't want to play as a ruckman (well I think it was his manager who said that). He sees himself as a forward. He'd have to anyway as that's what we'd be using him as. Wouldn't even want to consider trading Zac away after what he's shown in the last couple of months.

So as far as I'm concerned, trading for Mitch Clark has no effect on Zac Clarke. Agreed.

And whether Griffin goes or not is a different matter in itself, can't imagine Mitch Clark influencing that decision. Disagree. If Mitch Clark ends up here, then any chance that Griff could back up an injured ruckman is gone. He may want to leave anyway, but if Mitch came over Griff would be out the door in a heart-beat.

Kepler is the one who would be in trouble. Agree. But reckon he and Griff would both be shopped around for whatever we could get.

Waffle above.

 

[Chris25]

As for Clark's manager saying he wants to play as a forward, so what? Even as a forward he would presumably get some ruck time when required from injuries.

Yeah, he might get ruck time if Sandilands and Clarke went down during a game. But if we recruited him as a forward, then one would imagine he would continue to play as a forward and we'd bring in a ruckman for the next week.

I can't speak for our coaches, but I'd have Griffin ahead of Clark in the ruck line-up. So in my opinion, it wouldn't matter much. But obviously there are other opinions out there.

 

[freocuz]

Option 2. Although I'd say GWS might be prepared to offer a bit more that Port, after all they have got more to throw about in the way of picks.

 

[eastfreo75]

The Ruck question is a big question.

No brainer for me is keep Sandilands, and Clarke.

Love to keep Griffin as a back up but if he is not willing to stay, then trade him to another club. Maybe, on trade any picks or players to GWS for O'mara in a package deal.

Keep Bradley, as we can play KPF or as a back up ruck.

Johnson is the interesting one for me. Highly skilled and mobile for a tall guy, but not strong enough to play KP.

Last, thing is we shouldn't go after Clark. We need to win clearances.

 

[Sman-21]

Griffin wouldnt exactly be 4th inline.

As he will be Sandilands replacement when injured.
So as soon as he doesnt play Griffin would be thrown in as number 1 ruck.
Where as Clarke an Clark would be fighting for the backup duties/forward every week.

Best option is to not get Clark.
He looks to have alot of ability trouble is he has really never shown anything apart from 1 good season to be any more valueable than Bradley.

If they do get Clark though it will cost us bigtime with either players or picks.
So to be able to get some of those losses back we would have to seriously consider trading guys like Bradley,MJ,Griffin an even Clarke.
Getting Clark isnt going to help us all that much so at that kind of cost it would be silly to have so much backup options an not use it to try an get us some more picks an the chance of picking up a young mid/kpp.

 

[theGav56]

Griffin wouldnt exactly be 4th inline.

As he will be Sandilands replacement when injured.
So as soon as he doesnt play Griffin would be thrown in as number 1 ruck.
Where as Clarke an Clark would be fighting for the backup duties/forward every week.

I don't agree with this. Griffin, Clarke and Clark doesn't look great to me, whereas Sandi definitely brings another element.

Best option is to not get Clark. That is my opinion too. I wanted Clark until we got Griffin, and now that Clarke has lept up it looks a bit of a bad move. In fact for me it only really makes sense if options 3 and 4 are on the cards, which I don't want.
He looks to have alot of ability trouble is he has really never shown anything apart from 1 good season to be any more valueable than Bradley.

If they do get Clark though it will cost us bigtime with either players or picks. Getting a 150 game player is worth a lot. We are about to lose Palmer quite happily. And if he fixes structural issues that is a big tick. That has to be how Harvey sees Clark, because rucks are simply not a need structurally.
So to be able to get some of those losses back we would have to seriously consider trading guys like Bradley,MJ,Griffin an even Clarke. Clarke for Clark makes zero sense. The others make a lot of sense.
Getting Clark isnt going to help us all that much so at that kind of cost it would be silly to have so much backup options an not use it to try an get us some more picks an the chance of picking up a young mid/kpp.

I also can't see a scenario where we get him cheaply.

 

[theGav56]

Number 2 is the only one that I like and only 1 or 2 are realistic.

Clarke and Sandi will not be traded and shouldn't be.

It was Tony Shaw I know but I agree with him when he said that Clarke will be an All Australian. As I've said elsewhere Sandi won't be traded.

Clark has tipped as AA as well. 1 and 2 are the ones that makes sense, but improve us marginally.

 

[Patty_Moz]

I have a couple of ruck scenarios for discussion which assume that the club is chasing Clark. Would find it difficult to fit MJ or Bradley anywhere near the team of Clark was brought in;

1) We keep all four of our ruckmen on the list.
-Sandilands #1 ruck spare part forward
-Clark KPF/ruckman
-Clarke rangy dude running everywhere and doing some ruckwork
-Griffin simply backup for Sandilands (although a better option would be assorted Clark(e)s rucking).

2) Trade Griffin to Port. Difficult to assess Griffin's trade value or Port's interest. I also cannot see why Richmond or even GWS are not viable options assuming Griffin is traded as he wants more games. Those three rucks are adequate on the list in my eyes and Griffin becomes redundant. Possibly attract 2nd rounder.

3) Trade Clarke to GWS for O'Meara
-defies logic a bit as O'Meara is young and by definition unproven at AFL level, whereas Clarke is nailing it and looking like he has massive upside.
-For me it would mean we go with a ruck combination of Sandilands and Clark, which is not too bad.
-Couldn't see Griffin being a 3rd ruck in any games

4) Trade Sandilands to GWS for O"Meara and a first rounder
-Griffin and Clarke available as #1 ruck spare part forward
-Clark KPF/ruckman
-Have the option of playing 2 or 3 ruckmen depending on Clarke's development and the opposition
-Places our ruck stocks in a much younger time-frame, although Griffin brings maturity
-Big change for a club that has become Sandilands-centric
-Psychologically challenging trading out a true champion of the club.

Out of those four options, which scenario places the club in the strongest situation. Remember, the assumption is assuming Clark is being pursued.

Sorry I cant understand this post what has to be given up to get Clark??? You seem to detail all the picks/O'Meara benefits that we will get for Sandi/Clarke/Griffen yet seem to forget what we will have to give up in order to get Clark, almost like Clark is already a Docker. Clark wont come for free, if you trade Sandi/Clarke/Griffen you may get O'meara but we wont get Clark given to us. I like the enthusism but it makes this fantasy seem a bit unrealistic.

 

[Schauermann]

Is Clark at all interested? Remember reading he see's himself as ruckman, so why would he want to be recruited mainly as forward?

 

[The Night Shift]

Option 5.

No paying over's for anything.

Keep the depth of our ruck department, unless someone wants to pay over's to us for Griffin... and that's even if he wants to go.

We have the ruckman to trade. If they are a precious commodity then FFC should have the commanding position.

 

[Clay Davis]

Option 2.

 

[DOCKERZ]

Is Clark at all interested? Remember reading he see's himself as ruckman, so why would he want to be recruited mainly as forward?

Yeah I thought I had read the same..