We've been rendered useless without Knob

[Bojangles17]

The indecision that saw us enter the season with Knob as our second string ruckman is symptomatic of the poor planning that has gone into rebuilding this list. Don't worry about entering the peurile debate over Franklin. Facts are in three drafts who has been specificly recruited to fill Cogs position. This void alone is now like the grand canyon...letalone the debacle in rucking stocks. All summer we were crying out for the club to trawl through every 2nd tier comp in the country to list some lug that could compete. Nope, Knob was thrown a jumper once again.

Poor decision/planning, the club has gotta learn

 

[True Thylacine]

It wasnt popular when I sduggested it at the time but I still think Rix was the one who got away. Would have slotted into that 2nd string role nicely and has a bit of go in him. Has a habit oif remaining injury free it seems too. Not the most skilled around the ground but hey we are comparing to Knobel here.

 

[Bojangles17]

It wasnt popular when I sduggested it at the time but I still think Rix was the one who got away. Would have slotted into that 2nd string role nicely and has a bit of go in him. Has a habit oif remaining injury free it seems too. Not the most skilled around the ground but hey we are comparing to Knobel here.

this is exactly where I am coming from

 

[kainokaino]

does anyone no how to treat a badly corked thigh

 

[Rayzorwire]

The indecision that saw us enter the season with Knob as our second string ruckman is symptomatic of the poor planning that has gone into rebuilding this list. Don't worry about entering the peurile debate over Franklin. Facts are in three drafts who has been specificly recruited to fill Cogs position. This void alone is now like the grand canyon...letalone the debacle in rucking stocks. All summer we were crying out for the club to trawl through every 2nd tier comp in the country to list some lug that could compete. Nope, Knob was thrown a jumper once again.

Poor decision/planning, the club has gotta learn

Worse still, we fluked it with Simmonds. He was meant to be Knobel's understudy, rotating as a dangerous tall forward. Simmonds could well have been far less useful than he has been in the ruck - i.e. a decent 2nd stringer which is what we expected when we recruited him.

 

[PHX]

Worse still, we fluked it with Simmonds. He was meant to be Knobel's understudy, rotating as a dangerous tall forward. Simmonds could well have been far less useful than he has been in the ruck - i.e. a decent 2nd stringer which is what we expected when we recruited him.

What a joke.

You dont play a player that much to come to club to be second string.

We knew what we were doing.

Knobs was never going to challenge Simmo.

 

[Rayzorwire]

What a joke.

You dont play a player that much to come to club to be second string.

We knew what we were doing.

Knobs was never going to challenge Simmo.

Why did Simmonds play CHF and 2nd ruck in the first year while Knobel was the no.1 ruck?

Why did Wallace publicly state numerous times that Simmonds had begged to be played starting 1st ruck in his 2nd season (after playing that role and doing well when Knobel was out for 4 games in total during 2005), that they gave him a shot and he earned it?

We're not paying Simmonds much, we gave him a 5yr contract instead - he's on not much over $300KPA...compared to Ottens who was around $450KPA and didn't like the sound of a pay cut...plus Fiora's salary gone... Net saving was around $300KPA.

If you're determined to be condescending, you should make sure you know the facts mate...it's not like this stuff happened a decade ago or wasn't fully publicised.

 

[Leper]

Over-reacting a little there Bo.... I dare say your missus would say the same of you if you had your's cut off.....

 

[PHX]

Why did Simmonds play CHF and 2nd ruck in the first year while Knobel was the no.1 ruck?

Why did Wallace publicly state numerous times that Simmonds had begged to be played starting 1st ruck in his 2nd season (after playing that role and doing well when Knobel was out for 4 games in total during 2005), that they gave him a shot and he earned it?

We're not paying Simmonds much, we gave him a 5yr contract instead - he's on not much over $300KPA...compared to Ottens who was around $450KPA and didn't like the sound of a pay cut...plus Fiora's salary gone... Net saving was around $300KPA.

If you're determined to be condescending, you should make sure you know the facts mate...it's not like this stuff happened a decade ago or wasn't fully publicised.

What Wallace said. I'd take more notice of what the carbon rod said. Great coach, crap media talker.

We needed a ruckman, and were we silly enough to really think Knobs was the answer? Simmo was clearly better and Wallace did his typical throw a new player around (see Polak) to find his best spot despite the obvious. We found it eventually.

Did you seriously think he wouldn't become a ruckman?

I dont remember back to 2005 individual stories like that and didnt do a search to see the "facts" too well btw but I know that I thought and that was we'd recruited a ruck man.

 

[santa claws]

Why did Simmonds play CHF and 2nd ruck in the first year while Knobel was the no.1 ruck?

Why did Wallace publicly state numerous times that Simmonds had begged to be played starting 1st ruck in his 2nd season (after playing that role and doing well when Knobel was out for 4 games in total during 2005), that they gave him a shot and he earned it?

We're not paying Simmonds much, we gave him a 5yr contract instead - he's on not much over $300KPA...compared to Ottens who was around $450KPA and didn't like the sound of a pay cut...plus Fiora's salary gone... Net saving was around $300KPA.

If you're determined to be condescending, you should make sure you know the facts mate...it's not like this stuff happened a decade ago or wasn't fully publicised.

here here rayzor. i remember people over at pre wanting to get rid of simmonds because he was struggling as a forward.he played good footy for melb and freo in the ruck. struggled at freo when played as a forward. wallace had no choice but to play him where he belonged in the end. if i recall he came to the club because of the 5 yr deal and a promise that he would play in the ruck but wallace reneged because we had few kpp.i have to say ive always liked simmo as a player and he is one of the few things miller got right even though he fell into our lap.

 

[santa claws]

just on knobel hes a damn good ruckman will give a great contest at stoppages but he needs to be physical when the ball is on the ground and he needs to take marks its his lack of input away from the ruck contest that kills him. when fit later this yr i would play him in the ruck and have simmo play backward of centre helping out the defense.

 

[Rayzorwire]

What Wallace said. I'd take more notice of what the carbon rod said. Great coach, crap media talker.

We needed a ruckman, and were we silly enough to really think Knobs was the answer? Simmo was clearly better and Wallace did his typical throw a new player around (see Polak) to find his best spot despite the obvious. We found it eventually.

Did you seriously think he wouldn't become a ruckman?

I dont remember back to 2005 individual stories like that and didnt do a search to see the "facts" too well btw but I know that I thought and that was we'd recruited a ruck man.

Wallace wasn't 'spinning' when he said Simmonds hadn't played 1st ruck all year ahead of Knobel, then was given a chance at 1st ruck (while Knobel was injured) and grabbed it with both hands - it happened.

Simmonds was recruited as a ruckman, but we have to put the chronology into context. We picked up Simmo during the trade period, we got Knobel in the PSD - afterwards...we had no idea at that stage we would definitely get Knobel. Simmo was announced (by Wallace and Miller) as a ruckman to replace Ottens, then 'relegated' to 2nd/3rd ruck/CHF when Knobel was picked up (and while Stafford was fit and still around). Not only were we 'silly' enough to believe Knobel was a better ruckman, we also speculated that Stafford was. And with good reason at face value - at the time Fremantle were a soft, nowhere side, while Simmo was a 35 goal a season CHF and 3rd choice ruckman.

It's also worth mentioning that as a 2nd ruck, Simmo won a fair percentage of hitouts that went straight down the throat of the opposition onballers in 2005 - Knobel was the opposite. In 2006, Simmo made a massive improvement in this area and genuinely earned his stripes in the 1st ruck role. No question about that at all - but as I said first off, it was a fluke where he rucked beyond all expectations, not a confirmed plan.

In many ways, Knobel was the answer when fit. If you closely analyse the games we won with him AND Simmonds/Stafford during 05/06, our peak performances revolved around having both of them. At the very least, when fully fit, either Simmo or Knobel is a far better ruckman than almost all other sides' 2nd ruck option - it gave us the big advantage of first use we badly needed, whereas now (with Simmo and Knobel out) we have a void in both 1st and 2nd ruck positions.

here here rayzor. i remember people over at pre wanting to get rid of simmonds because he was struggling as a forward.

Yep, he was a bit like a Holland CHF/2nd ruck in year one claw...most people were freaking out at the 5yr contract.

if i recall he came to the club because of the 5 yr deal and a promise that he would play in the ruck but wallace reneged because we had few kpp.

Dead right mate...after Knobel was signed we hoped Simmo could hold down CHF and pinch hit in the ruck. We rotated all three of Staff, Simmo and Knobel through the ruck and used the other two who weren't rucking with Richo in the 'Terry's Triangle' forward setup. Staff played 15 games, Knobel played 18, Simmo played 22 and showed enough to be given a shot at 1st ruck the following season after Knobel had an interrupted pre-season.

i have to say ive always liked simmo as a player and he is one of the few things miller got right even though he fell into our lap.

I'll fully admit I had my doubts at the time he was recruited. I doubted his application to the cause, but more especially the wisdom of recruiting a mature age 195cm ruckman whose leap (the factor which overcomes his {these days} unsuitable height for a ruckman) would diminish over time, on a 5yr contract. I'm really happy to be proven wrong on the former, and hoping that I'm not proven right on the latter over the last 2.5 years of his contract.

just on knobel hes a damn good ruckman will give a great contest at stoppages but he needs to be physical when the ball is on the ground and he needs to take marks its his lack of input away from the ruck contest that kills him. when fit later this yr i would play him in the ruck and have simmo play backward of centre helping out the defense.

Apparently his ankle is a degenerative condition - he will more than likely never play again. In this transition period when we're blooding future onballers, it's a big loss IMO.

 

[Crumden]

I'm not a big fan of Knobel or Ray Hall as players, but in last weeks game against Port it stood out like dogs balls that these two are important to our structure. The only two matchwinners in our side last week were Deledio and Richo, but we had Deledio on White and Richo had to be sacrificed in the ruck. If we had Hall to play on White and Knobel in the ruck, they may have still lost their positions, but it would have freed up Deledio and Richo to play more damaging roles. Never thought I'd be advocating having Hall back in the team, but its a bit like LRT and Ted Richards at the Swans. Ordinary players but important to structure.

Although I'm still a bit non-plussed as to why Deledio and not McGuane started on White. Maybe Wallace thought Deledio could run off him, or expanding on his football education.