"We have enough forwards"

[Hu$$ey]

"We have great depth in the forward line"
"We can afford to trade away forwards"
"We have a quality forward line"
"Most forwards are trade baits because we have enough of them"

Is this the biggest myth on this board right now? Do we really have enough forwards to field in a whole match let alone having "depth" and being able to trade them?

Let's have a look at our best forward setup

FF: Betts - Fevola - Waite
HF: ???? - ????? - Fisher

I believe most of this belief was held prior to Season 2006 when we had largely unknown quantities in forwards. Prior to 2006 starting, we thought:

Fevola - forward
Whitnall - forward
Waite - forward
Kennedy - forward
Betts - forward
Setanta O' hAilpin - forward
Fisher - forward
Hartlett - forward
Koutoufides - forward

This long list brought about what I now call a 'myth'. That was before 2006 began and most, if not all, of those players were bandied about as being in our best 22 line up and so most supporters thought that we were too top heavy, had enough forwards and really should be looking to trade away rather than recruit. This belief still holds true with some but, in my opinion, the reality is very different.

Season 2006 showed us:

Fevola - forward, lock it in.
Waite - Injury prone, can't kick, differing opinions on using him as a forward or flanker or even a wingman or backman, but still I'll count him as a forward.
Fisher - Injury prone, can't kick, but a good overhead mark and so count him in too.
Whitnall - played his best footy back, will probably spend rest of the career there.
Kouta - can't play any other position than midfield.
Setanta - best position is in the backline
Betts - can be used, and was used a lot, for spurts in midfield given we lack speed and tackling ability.
Hartlett - can't even get on the park!
Kennedy - still a few years away from dominating or holding down a regular spot.

Raso is a flanker and Edwards is a utility.

So....out of all this we get 3 full time forwards (2 of whom are injury prone and bad kicks) and a crumber who spent increasing amounts of time up the ground. Hartlett is being groomed to play in the back line and so is Whits and Carlos.

Where is this supposed 'depth' we spoke about? It's all a myth, we got one genuine gun forward and not much more going for us. We had the second worst attack in the AFL in 2006 and granted Waite + Fisher playing full time should give us more goals but I am amazed when people mention them as trade baits and give reasons such as "enough to cover", "good depth and forward line" etc.

Hell we can't even get a full forward set up on to the ground, where is this depth that we can afford to trade forwards?? It's past, we don't have depth in the forward line and we need to keep those forward unless we can get another forward in return. Therefore, before you go about mentioning trading players, have a think and a look at our line up, particularly the forward half.

 

[audas]

"We have great depth in the forward line"
"We can afford to trade away forwards"
"We have a quality forward line"
"Most forwards are trade baits because we have enough of them"

Is this the biggest myth on this board right now? Do we really have enough forwards to field in a whole match let alone having "depth" and being able to trade them?

Let's have a look at our best forward setup

FF: Betts - Fevola - Waite
HF: ???? - ????? - Fisher

I believe most of this belief was held prior to Season 2006 when we had largely unknown quantities in forwards. Prior to 2006 starting, we thought:

Fevola - forward
Whitnall - forward
Waite - forward
Kennedy - forward
Betts - forward
Setanta O' hAilpin - forward
Fisher - forward
Hartlett - forward
Koutoufides - forward

This long list brought about what I now call a 'myth'. That was before 2006 began and most, if not all, of those players were bandied about as being in our best 22 line up and so most supporters thought that we were too top heavy, had enough forwards and really should be looking to trade away rather than recruit. This belief still holds true with some but, in my opinion, the reality is very different.

Season 2006 showed us:

Fevola - forward, lock it in.
Waite - Injury prone, can't kick, differing opinions on using him as a forward or flanker or even a wingman or backman, but still I'll count him as a forward.
Fisher - Injury prone, can't kick, but a good overhead mark and so count him in too.
Whitnall - played his best footy back, will probably spend rest of the career there.
Kouta - can't play any other position than midfield.
Setanta - best position is in the backline
Betts - can be used, and was used a lot, for spurts in midfield given we lack speed and tackling ability.
Hartlett - can't even get on the park!
Kennedy - still a few years away from dominating or holding down a regular spot.

Raso is a flanker and Edwards is a utility.

So....out of all this we get 3 full time forwards (2 of whom are injury prone and bad kicks) and a crumber who spent increasing amounts of time up the ground. Hartlett is being groomed to play in the back line and so is Whits and Carlos.

Where is this supposed 'depth' we spoke about? It's all a myth, we got one genuine gun forward and not much more going for us. We had the second worst attack in the AFL in 2006 and granted Waite + Fisher playing full time should give us more goals but I am amazed when people mention them as trade baits and give reasons such as "enough to cover", "good depth and forward line" etc.

Hell we can't even get a full forward set up on to the ground, where is this depth that we can afford to trade forwards?? It's past, we don't have depth in the forward line and we need to keep those forward unless we can get another forward in return. Therefore, before you go about mentioning trading players, have a think and a look at our line up, particularly the forward half.

Kouta is great in the forward line, sorry. And he will spend a good deal of time there.
If we get one or two more boys into defence then this will allow Lance to move forward. He was repeatedly swung into the forward line in 06 but was always sent back to save the day. He is no cert to play down there. Wiggins played a great role feeding the forwards against the weagles and may end up around there abouts again. When Murphy returns and with Gibbs in Betts will return to his full time crumber role. With less pressure on the mids and the ability to rotate intot eh forward you will also have one of Murph, Stevens, Lappin, Gibbs, etc filling up space. Our forwards will be MUCH better fed with Gibbs and Murph in the team. Fish and Waite and Kennedy had interupted seasons. So i can see ALL stepping up a gear significantly next year.
Hence our forward line is potentially:


Fevola - forward
Whitnall - forward
Waite - forward
Kennedy - forward
Betts - forward
Fisher - forward
Koutoufides - forward
Kennedy -forward
Lappin / houla / Wiggins /Walker /Simmo - rotating off wing - Forward
Gibbs, Murph, Stevens - Resting - Forward

DeLuca - Maybe
Bryan -Maybe
Setanta O' hAilpin - maybe
Hartlett - maybe
Edwards - Maybe
Bower - Big fella -maybe
Batson - 202 -looks like Brown ! -maybe
Raso ??
Flint ??
Jackson ??
Smith ??

Hmm, no Myth.

 

[drusswaylander]

Gee they are a number of big assumptions about who can play where .We don’t have many quality players in any position, but with modern football how it is, we can afford to trade one of our forward talents, but Fish is the only one and only for a suitable trade in return.

The problem is mate you are looking at a traditional forward set up. How often does it stay like that after the centre bounces these days. In modern forward play the four or three man forward line is the norm with a number of runners running forward when a team is in possession. Often the tactic is to play one of the forwards, sometimes two as a loose man in defence. You even have forwards tagging backs to stop the oppositions run out of the back half. Teams are now mainly made up of versatile runners with a need for only a few tall marking forwards. So a number of players who would have in the past been labelled as midfielders, wingers, half back flankers etc etc now can play as modern pseudo forwards. That is the job of some of the forwards in any given game is not to score goals or in fact even stay forward.

The talk of a trade generally revolves around Fish and only for a tall backman otherwise we are no better off. This is only because another back would allow Whitnall to go forward.

I disagree with you about Big Red, for me his best position is up forward. He can be exploited down back as his second half of the season showed, once other teams worked out how he was playing. He was playing CHB and allowing his man to get his possessions on the wing and then picking the ball off when his opponent kicked to the forward area. When he played on lesser CHF’s that the opposition didn’t use he would just zone off. When his forward stayed at home and had his leads honoured or even worse dragged him to the goal square and led from there Lance struggled.

He just isn’t quick enough to go with a leading forward. Footy smarts can only get you so far these days. On the other hand up forward he is fantastic at running to the right spots and there is a huge difference between actually doing the leading rather than trying to stop someone doing it. The problem for us is actually hitting our targets as once it hits the deck lance is in trouble. Our forwards can kick a winning score they just need more supply and better delivery. In modern football you need your main mids kicking goals ours don’t.

I agree Kennedy is a few seasons away from being a gun, but he will only improve with game time so we have to play him. Waite if he can get over his injury problems has shown enough to suggest he can be a leading CHF with Kennedy or Lance staying at home and Fev full forward. Eddie is our only true crumbing forward, but in the modern game there are very few about as these specialists are a dying breed which is why they are giving him a run in the midfield.

The other pseudo forward spots can go to any number of our runners. Our rucks( I use the word loosely) can go forward as well. The modern catch cry is versatility which is why players such as Hartlett, Edwards, Bower, Setanta etc are also playing up forward so they can move from down back to become pinch-hitters. Players such as Fish who are a third marking forward, rather than a true key position player for us, are a luxery and if we can get a good trade for a mature bodied backman then great, if he stays with us great as well, as Fish is still a reasonable backup as people are only really talking possibilties.

With Lance, Fev, Kennedy and Waite I think we do have enough forward marking talent for the future and lets face it we aren’t winning the league in the next season or two. I just can’t see Fish being in our best twenty two if the modern game keeps on going the way it is and he is the only forward being talked about in a trade. Not that anyone will read this anyway

 

[Johnny_3]

"We have great depth in the forward line"
"We can afford to trade away forwards"
"We have a quality forward line"
"Most forwards are trade baits because we have enough of them"

Is this the biggest myth on this board right now? Do we really have enough forwards to field in a whole match let alone having "depth" and being able to trade them?

Let's have a look at our best forward setup

FF: Betts - Fevola - Waite
HF: ???? - ????? - Fisher

I believe most of this belief was held prior to Season 2006 when we had largely unknown quantities in forwards. Prior to 2006 starting, we thought:

Fevola - forward
Whitnall - forward
Waite - forward
Kennedy - forward
Betts - forward
Setanta O' hAilpin - forward
Fisher - forward
Hartlett - forward
Koutoufides - forward

This long list brought about what I now call a 'myth'. That was before 2006 began and most, if not all, of those players were bandied about as being in our best 22 line up and so most supporters thought that we were too top heavy, had enough forwards and really should be looking to trade away rather than recruit. This belief still holds true with some but, in my opinion, the reality is very different.

Season 2006 showed us:

Fevola - forward, lock it in.
Waite - Injury prone, can't kick, differing opinions on using him as a forward or flanker or even a wingman or backman, but still I'll count him as a forward.
Fisher - Injury prone, can't kick, but a good overhead mark and so count him in too.
Whitnall - played his best footy back, will probably spend rest of the career there.
Kouta - can't play any other position than midfield.
Setanta - best position is in the backline
Betts - can be used, and was used a lot, for spurts in midfield given we lack speed and tackling ability.
Hartlett - can't even get on the park!
Kennedy - still a few years away from dominating or holding down a regular spot.

Raso is a flanker and Edwards is a utility.

So....out of all this we get 3 full time forwards (2 of whom are injury prone and bad kicks) and a crumber who spent increasing amounts of time up the ground. Hartlett is being groomed to play in the back line and so is Whits and Carlos.

Where is this supposed 'depth' we spoke about? It's all a myth, we got one genuine gun forward and not much more going for us. We had the second worst attack in the AFL in 2006 and granted Waite + Fisher playing full time should give us more goals but I am amazed when people mention them as trade baits and give reasons such as "enough to cover", "good depth and forward line" etc.

Hell we can't even get a full forward set up on to the ground, where is this depth that we can afford to trade forwards?? It's past, we don't have depth in the forward line and we need to keep those forward unless we can get another forward in return. Therefore, before you go about mentioning trading players, have a think and a look at our line up, particularly the forward half.

I think we definently have enough forwards, with
Options like, Betts, murph, whitnall, kennedy, deluca lappin, fevola, fisher, waite,prenda and longmuir all able to hold down forward line possies... but i dont think we should trade any of them for nothing exept prenda longmuirr... the rest all have places in the team and we do have enough

 

[carltonfan43]

we shouldnt trade fisher. i know this sounds ver ybiast but i would rate him in the to p20 cleanest hands in the game. he marks anything and if he gets his kicking right will be a star of the future

 

[Effes]

Great post Hu$$ey

We lack a medium forward like Ryan O'Keefe who can mark AND kick the ball well

 

[its just sporn mum]

why the farq do u quote the whole post. seriously. whats the point.

 

[btdg]

Agree with Hussey 100% here. This year our forward line consisted of... Fevola

The rest of our 'forwards' are simply too inconsistent, or too young; but most importantly, they don't kick enough goals.

I'd look to trade some or all of our guys while there is still the perception that they are potentially career forwards. I'd definitely lose Fisher and Betts, as I reckon in 12 months time their trade value will be gone. I'd consider trading Waite as well; I think his reputation is way ahead of his actual performances to date and that could lead to a favourable trade. Whitnall is a good forward, provided he has a tough guy nearby to take physical pressure off him (his decline as a forward is directly related to the departure of Aaron Hamill, IMO). If we could get a first round pick that would let us shore up our defence with a real defender, I'd trade Whitnall too. Something like pick 5-7 would be a good get there.

 

[XXX KINGS]

I think we should change the phrase to "we have enough forwards who can't kick"

 

[rota69]

I think we should change the phrase to "we have enough forwards who can't kick"

You mean we have enough players who cant kick actually the whole team.

 

[XXX KINGS]

You mean we have enough players who cant kick actually the whole team.

troll

 

[Jimthegreat]

we shouldnt trade fisher. i know this sounds ver ybiast but i would rate him in the to p20 cleanest hands in the game. he marks anything and if he gets his kicking right will be a star of the future

Can't help but agree with that. It was stated by our club in the press a few months ago that Fisher was our future, and being under 24 I don't think he'll be traded anywhere. To trade him for a pick would be like starting again after 4 years and I'm betting no-one we get will have hands as good. He offers something different and, with ability to play well below his knees too, can play in different parts of the gound. No-one his size can take a contested mark like he can, why would you give that away and have him possibly bite us on the ass elsewhere, especially with a team that has a gun mid-field getting in quickly.Then the same people wanting to trade him will then bag the club asking why. Pretty much sums up football supporters.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Agree with Hussey 100% here. This year our forward line consisted of... Fevola

The rest of our 'forwards' are simply too inconsistent, or too young; but most importantly, they don't kick enough goals.

I'd look to trade some or all of our guys while there is still the perception that they are potentially career forwards. I'd definitely lose Fisher and Betts, as I reckon in 12 months time their trade value will be gone. I'd consider trading Waite as well; I think his reputation is way ahead of his actual performances to date and that could lead to a favourable trade. Whitnall is a good forward, provided he has a tough guy nearby to take physical pressure off him (his decline as a forward is directly related to the departure of Aaron Hamill, IMO). If we could get a first round pick that would let us shore up our defence with a real defender, I'd trade Whitnall too. Something like pick 5-7 would be a good get there.

Why don't you just trade the whole team.

 

[audas]

Can't help but agree with that. It was stated by our club in the press a few months ago that Fisher was our future, and being under 24 I don't think he'll be traded anywhere. To trade him for a pick would be like starting again after 4 years and I'm betting no-one we get will have hands as good. He offers something different and, with ability to play well below his knees too, can play in different parts of the gound. No-one his size can take a contested mark like he can, why would you give that away and have him possibly bite us on the ass elsewhere, especially with a team that has a gun mid-field getting in quickly.Then the same people wanting to trade him will then bag the club asking why. Pretty much sums up football supporters.

Its strange who you end up agreeing with. Betts hasnt had a chance yet as he has been expected to help in the midfield due to our lack of depth there. This has been stated by the coaching staff repeatedly but the goats around here dont give a stuff. When Betts is given th eopportunity to play as a crumbing foward you can judge him. As yet he hasnt, derrr !!

Fish and Waite had serious injuries this year, they may well become VERY handy. We have put the time and effort to get them to the point where they can show us what they have and just as this happens people want to oofload them and start all over again with a completely unkown quantity. How dunb can you get, seriously thats pathetic.

They are overated, however they still carry a LOT more weight than any untried, unkown draft pick. A bird in the hand.

 

[kouta 4 president]

I think we should change the phrase to "we have enough forwards who can't kick"

Can't kick? I'm just wondering did anyone at all happen to see Eddie Betts' goal against Collingwood? I think Kouta had a fairly decent goal a few months ago (it got goal of the week) also Carazzo's goal right near the beginning of the year (that stupid b*stard davey got goal of the week with his flukey soccer out of the air) and Simpson, he got one on the same day as Kouta got goal of the week (hes not a forward but I thought I'd add his goal in here) also can anyone remember that guy, I think his name starts with an F.... Is it Fevola or something like that? I think he got a few goals.... Was it 83 for the season?

 

[BlueWorld]

Can't kick? I'm just wondering did anyone at all happen to see Eddie Betts' goal against Collingwood? I think Kouta had a fairly decent goal a few months ago (it got goal of the week) also Carazzo's goal right near the beginning of the year (that stupid b*stard davey got goal of the week with his flukey soccer out of the air) and Simpson, he got one on the same day as Kouta got goal of the week (hes not a forward but I thought I'd add his goal in here) also can anyone remember that guy, I think his name starts with an F.... Is it Fevola or something like that? I think he got a few goals.... Was it 83 for the season?

All freak goals while guys like Carrazzo can't kick from 20m directly in front. They need to get the basics right!

 

[DIG]

Can't help but agree with that. It was stated by our club in the press a few months ago that Fisher was our future, and being under 24 I don't think he'll be traded anywhere. To trade him for a pick would be like starting again after 4 years and I'm betting no-one we get will have hands as good. He offers something different and, with ability to play well below his knees too, can play in different parts of the gound. No-one his size can take a contested mark like he can, why would you give that away and have him possibly bite us on the ass elsewhere, especially with a team that has a gun mid-field getting in quickly.Then the same people wanting to trade him will then bag the club asking why. Pretty much sums up football supporters.

Spot on.

2 years ago it was Whitnall we were all bagging out and he came good.
Last year it was Fevola.
This year seems to be Fisher.

We Blue supporters have to turn on someone don't we..