List Mgmt. Welcome to West Coast: Drew Petrie

[Godfather32]

Bold move but one that should be seriously considered.

Jacovich was switched between CHF and CHB, the forward move may have been post knee reco though.

I'm hoping we scrap the unaccountable 'zone defense' in 2017 and I can see that being forced on us if we are not going to dominate the ruck duel. Both our midfielders and backs will need to be much more accountable and stand near their opponents, not 10 > 15 meters away.

MaCkenzie is much more comfortable standing a player and locking down on the best opposition bigger forward, that's what he was when in All Australian contention.

Barrass and Hurn can play that intercept marking role so releasing McGovern forward is an option we should pursue.

It makes sense, particularly when McGovern played most of his earlier career as a forward with a bit of ruck and was only moved back permanently when McKenzie and Brown went down. I'm pretty sure he was training with the forwards during that 2015 preseason.

 

[Max zero]

So what? So you wouldn't have taken Cameron last year instead of say having the Lucas on the rookie list in case he had to play in his first year? Because Cameron would likely have played last year given that we played Mitch f****** Brown as a backup ruck and I guarantee you Cameron would have been more useful.
First year ruckmen do play, Grundy, Nic Nat, Kreuzer, Zac Smith, Lycett, Hickey, Sandilands, McEvoy all played in their first year just to name a few, so it does happen and we in particular have a history of it.

We are not talking about Lucas we are talking about Petrie. It's easy to second guess a year later.

But thankyou for proving my point.

You think using stopgap backman to fill holes is bad but Mcgovern moving forward to fill holes is fine. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is pointless.

Rookie ruckman can wait one year.

 

[Max zero]

Yeh Fremantle moving their AA key position defender further up the ground worked out terribly didn't it?

So everytime is a success? Mitch Brown forward was amazing for us wasn't it?

 

[Godfather32]

We are not talking about Lucas we are talking about Petrie. It's easy to second guess a year later.

But thankyou for proving my point.

You think using stopgap backman to fill holes is bad but Mcgovern moving forward to fill holes is fine. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is pointless.

Rookie ruckman can wait one year.

I'm not second guessing a year later, plenty of people including myself wanted Cameron last year.
How has your point been proven?
Where did I say anything about stopgap backman? Unless McKenzie is considered a stopgap backman?
Yes, a rookie ruckman can wait one year so we can hold on to a guy who's unlikely to ever play a game for us again and a guy who looked completely done last year.

 

[Godfather32]

So everytime is a success? Mitch Brown forward was amazing for us wasn't it?

Sorry, I missed the part where Mitch Brown was an AA backman.
McGovern has played the majority of his football career as a forward, I think he might do pretty well as one now. In fact I think he could kick 70 goals as one now.

 

[Max zero]

I'm not second guessing a year later, plenty of people including myself wanted Cameron last year.
How has your point been proven?
Where did I say anything about stopgap backman? Unless McKenzie is considered a stopgap backman?
Yes, a rookie ruckman can wait one year so we can hold on to a guy who's un

likely to ever play a game for us again and a guy who looked completely done last year.

Honestly is there anything a rookie ruckman can do that McInnes can't if we are that desperate?

Sorry, I missed the part where Mitch Brown was an AA backman.
McGovern has played the majority of his football career as a forward, I think he might do pretty well as one now. In fact I think he could kick 70 goals as one now.

WTF?

The point was pulling players from one part of the ground were they are elite to fill holes in others is stupid. Remember we don't have Mitch Brown next year so pushing Mcgovern up forward leaves us thin down back. Now you may say if we get that many injuries we are stuffed but its not that many: its literally any injury and we have are down starting 22 fowards or ruckman.

And you want zero coverage.

 

[Keys]

What's going to define this decision as a success or failure?

Ideally, Lycett comes back sooner rather than later and works in tandem with one off Giles or Vardy meaning Petrie plays little or no senior football. We're then left to ponder the intangible benefit of him being in the playing group and passing on his experience to the younger players versus the opportunity cost of missing 12 months development in a young ruck.

Should injuries/form issues take hold through our remaining rucks or key forwards then success or otherwise becomes easier to quantify based on Petries onfield performance - he either plays well or he doesn't

Ultimately he's an insurance policy which like all policies we'd rather not have to use. Don't use it and in hindsight the cost seems pointless as it wasn't needed. Further the policy might not be enough to cover the loss if it eventuates

 

[Godfather32]

Honestly is there anything a rookie ruckman can do that McInnes can't if we are that desperate?

Yes, a rookie ruckman like Goddard could develop into a 10 year player for us whilst still performing at the same level as McInnes next season.

WTF?

The point was pulling players from one part of the ground were they are elite to fill holes in others is stupid. Remember we don't have Mitch Brown next year so pushing Mcgovern up forward leaves us thin down back. Now you may say if we get that many injuries we are stuffed but its not that many: its literally any injury and we have are down starting 22 fowards or ruckman.

And you want zero coverage.

And my point is that McGovern could quite possibly be elite at both positions so I don't see it as robbing peter to pay paul in the event that your hypothetical injury to a key forward should occur, I see it as moving McGovern to his natural position, a position which as I said he has played for the majority of his career. I don't see whats so WTF about that.
Remember we still have McKenzie (who is better than Brown ever was) next year so how does pushing McGovern forward and bringing McKenzie into the side leave us thin down back? And should any injury occur to our starting 22 forward or ruckman, of course we'd be down a starting 22 forward or ruckman, why even say that, it's obvious.

 

[squashface]

Honestly the more time passes the more I don't mind the Petrie pick

 

[Keys]

Honestly the more time passes the more I don't mind the Petrie pick

I've come to grips with it but still think that having both McInnes and Petrie is a mistake - only one of those two should be on our list leaving space for a developing ruck

In any case, barring a miracle, they'll both be gone in 12 months

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Petrie could and should play on for 2 years, as should Mitchell.

 

[Max zero]

Yes, a rookie ruckman like Goddard could develop into a 10 year player for us whilst still performing at the same level as McInnes next season.


And my point is that McGovern could quite possibly be elite at both positions so I don't see it as robbing peter to pay paul in the event that your hypothetical injury to a key forward should occur, I see it as moving McGovern to his natural position, a position which as I said he has played for the majority of his career. I don't see whats so WTF about that.
Remember we still have McKenzie (who is better than Brown ever was) next year so how does pushing McGovern forward and bringing McKenzie into the side leave us thin down back? And should any injury occur to our starting 22 forward or ruckman, of course we'd be down a starting 22 forward or ruckman, why even say that, it's obvious.

Or he could be a complete bust. The point is he won't do anything for us next year.

The problem is that if are forward is injured we have no coverage except to pull a backman forward and no ruck coverage at all.

 

[Max zero]

What's going to define this decision as a success or failure?

Ideally, Lycett comes back sooner rather than later and works in tandem with one off Giles or Vardy meaning Petrie plays little or no senior football. We're then left to ponder the intangible benefit of him being in the playing group and passing on his experience to the younger players versus the opportunity cost of missing 12 months development in a young ruck.

Should injuries/form issues take hold through our remaining rucks or key forwards then success or otherwise becomes easier to quantify based on Petries onfield performance - he either plays well or he doesn't

Ultimately he's an insurance policy which like all policies we'd rather not have to use. Don't use it and in hindsight the cost seems pointless as it wasn't needed. Further the policy might not be enough to cover the loss if it eventuates

And if we are stuck without 2 decent forwards or rucks our entire team structure breaks down and we rage in gameday threads.

1 year of insurance seems important if we are going for a flag now.

 

[Keys]

And if we are stuck without 2 decent forwards or rucks our entire team structure breaks down and we rage in gameday threads.

1 year of insurance seems important if we are going for a flag now.

And if Petrie doesn't stand up the melts will put global warming to shame

We've taken a risk that a new environment will be able to reverse a downward spiral in petries form - by his own admission he wasn't great in 2016

I don't see the issue in posters questioning the decision but also hoping they'll be proved wrong

 

[Godfather32]

Or he could be a complete bust. The point is he won't do anything for us next year.

The problem is that if are forward is injured we have no coverage except to pull a backman forward and no ruck coverage at all.

I guess I honestly just don't see how an aging player well past his prime is really going to fill the gap either. Even with Petrie on the list I would still rather play McGovern forward if Kennedy gets injured than bring Petrie into the team. I don't necessarily view injuries as the be all and end all of team success. It offers clubs the chance to adapt and come up with new strategies, gives players opportunities they might not have gotten otherwise. Take McGovern for example, if we hadn't lost emac and brown we probably wouldn't even be talking about McGovern as an AA backman, and we probably wouldn't have cobbled together a defensive strategy that helped us to our most successful season in 10 odd years.

 

[Max zero]

And if Petrie doesn't stand up the melts will put global warming to shame

We've taken a risk that a new environment will be able to reverse a downward spiral in petries form - by his own admission he wasn't great in 2016

I don't see the issue in posters questioning the decision but also hoping they'll be proved wrong

Don't mind the questioning either but the youth worship does get old.

 

[Max zero]

I guess I honestly just don't see how an aging player well past his prime is really going to fill the gap either. Even with Petrie on the list I would still rather play McGovern forward if Kennedy gets injured than bring Petrie into the team. I don't necessarily view injuries as the be all and end all of team success. It offers clubs the chance to adapt and come up with new strategies, gives players opportunities they might not have gotten otherwise. Take McGovern for example, if we hadn't lost emac and brown we probably wouldn't even be talking about McGovern as an AA backman, and we probably wouldn't have cobbled together a defensive strategy that helped us to our most successful season in 10 odd years.

And would rather limit the disruption to the team and leave Mcgovern back. Difference of opinion.

Or sometimes they just plain suck. Not seeing any upside from NNs knee.

 

[Keys]

And would rather limit the disruption to the team and leave Mcgovern back. Difference of opinion.

Or sometimes they just plain suck. Not seeing any upside from NNs knee.

The upside, if we can achieve it, is a midfield that learns to compete playing to a losing ruck and weans itself of the reliance of a dominant ruck simply to be competitive

Learn how to thrive without Naitanui and they'll be that much better when he returns

As godfather said, injuries are frustrating but they create a void that gives others a chance to fill that they otherwise might not have been given

 

[Eaglespur]

Petrie could and should play on for 2 years, as should Mitchell.

Ooo controversial

 

[Godfather32]

And would rather limit the disruption to the team and leave Mcgovern back. Difference of opinion.

Or sometimes they just plain suck. Not seeing any upside from NNs knee.

I think the team needs some disruption after last year. Obviously I'm not saying injuries are fantastic especially to someone of Nic Nats caliber, but as Keys said the silver lining is we learn to play without having to rely on a dominant tap ruckman. Also if we had have drafted someone like Cameron or had a devloping ruck on the rookie list instead of Colledge/Lucas etc the silver lining would have been our young ruckman getting game time, like Cox did when Gardiner went down. This is why I'm a big advocate of not wasting rookie list spots on guys who are over the hill or never likely to make it up the hill, you never know when a young guy will get an opportunity, take it and run with it like Cox, McGovern or a heap of WB or Sydney players have done.

 

[Max zero]

The upside, if we can achieve it, is a midfield that learns to compete playing to a losing ruck and weans itself of the reliance of a dominant ruck simply to be competitive

Learn how to thrive without Naitanui and they'll be that much better when he returns

As godfather said, injuries are frustrating but they create a void that gives others a chance to fill that they otherwise might not have been given

I think the team needs some disruption after last year. Obviously I'm not saying injuries are fantastic especially to someone of Nic Nats caliber, but as Keys said the silver lining is we learn to play without having to rely on a dominant tap ruckman. Also if we had have drafted someone like Cameron or had a devloping ruck on the rookie list instead of Colledge/Lucas etc the silver lining would have been our young ruckman getting game time, like Cox did when Gardiner went down. This is why I'm a big advocate of not wasting rookie list spots on guys who are over the hill or never likely to make it up the hill, you never know when a young guy will get an opportunity, take it and run with it like Cox, McGovern or a heap of WB or Sydney players have done.

While they CAN have a silver lining most of the time they are just not good. It's no co-incidence that teams that have the most stable line up going into the finals tend to do the best.

We need to decide what were are doing: building for the future or going for a flag and no you can't do both at the same time.

 

[SpaceClef]

Ooo controversial

Sponsorversial

 

[LittleGreekGod]

What's going to define this decision as a success or failure?

Ideally, Lycett comes back sooner rather than later and works in tandem with one off Giles or Vardy meaning Petrie plays little or no senior football. We're then left to ponder the intangible benefit of him being in the playing group and passing on his experience to the younger players versus the opportunity cost of missing 12 months development in a young ruck.

Should injuries/form issues take hold through our remaining rucks or key forwards then success or otherwise becomes easier to quantify based on Petries onfield performance - he either plays well or he doesn't

Ultimately he's an insurance policy which like all policies we'd rather not have to use. Don't use it and in hindsight the cost seems pointless as it wasn't needed. Further the policy might not be enough to cover the loss if it eventuates

Insurance is the key point here. Nothing more nothing less.
Those who suggest we lose a year of development for a project ruck are also off the mark as we simply poach a developing ruck from another club which seems to be the norm these days.
Like it or not Petrie adds to our list in the short term as well as bringing leadership and knowledge and ideas from another club.

 

[Biggie]

So everytime is a success? Mitch Brown forward was amazing for us wasn't it?

Stop it.

I'm running out of backfire gifs.

 

[Double the Fist]

Not sure you understand the reasoning behind getting Petrie?



Reason explained here.

Sure I do.

Getting a totally cooked player who is 34 to cover ruck/fwd

Its total madness.


So in summary, I understand completely mate.