Will Sullivan Upgraded

[Obeanie1]

You also asked, "Why is Cox/Naitanui any different to Kurt Tippett?"

That suggests a slightly more involved key forward than you're expounding here.

Do you still think there's a negligible difference between both our ruckmen and a KPP who booted 55 goals last season?

Gee Gunner, looks like you've dusted off / fixed the fishing rod.......again.

I don't recall saying that re Tippett. Why don't you just quote what I posted and we can go over it all..............again.

There is one pretty obvious different though Gunner. Tippett was drafted as a ruck / forward and is being played as a KP forward. NN and Cox were drafted as rucks and will be picked / played first as ruckmen but will play / rest forward for parts of a game. I'll leave it up to you to decide if thats 'negligible' or not.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Gee Gunner, looks like you've dusted off / fixed the fishing rod.......again.

I don't know what that means.

I don't recall saying that re Tippett. Why don't you just quote what I posted and we can go over it all..............again.

There is one pretty obvious different though Gunner. Tippett was drafted as a ruck / forward and is being played as a KP forward. NN and Cox were drafted as rucks and will be picked / played first as ruckmen but will play / rest forward for parts of a game. I'll leave it up to you to decide if thats 'negligible' or not.

Yeah – I thought the difference was pretty obvious as well, but back in December you didn't see it that way:

Cox mentioned he expects to play forward more and more as Natanui develops and NickNat has shown in the WAFL and glimpses in the AFL how damaging he can be playing forward.

Why is Cox/NickNat any different than Tippet at the Crows?

Good to see it's only taken you three months to answer your own stupid question.

 

[Obeanie1]

I don't know what that means.

Yeah – I thought the difference was pretty obvious as well, but you didn't see it that way:

Good to see it's only taken you three months to answer your own stupid question.

Here we go....yet again. Gunner claims victory by mixing up debates, splitting hairs and misquoting other posters.

Whatever makes you feel important champ.

Now back to reasonable discussion.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Here we go....yet again. Gunner claims victory by mixing up debates, splitting hairs and misquoting other posters.

Whatever makes you feel important champ.

Now back to reasonable discussion.

What nonsense. It was a direct quote and there's no mix-up. Your attempts to spin it differently are embarrassing. I don't know what kind of hairs are being split – seems like you've just pulled that out of thin air.

And it's not about me feeling important. It's about you undoing yourself with your own words. Suck it up.

Like I said, it only took you three months to answer your own stupid question. Well done.

 

[BartBart]

Go Willy, grab it with both hands.....

Cox?

 

[Obeanie1]

What nonsense. It was a direct quote and there's no mix-up. Your attempts to spin it differently are embarrassing. I don't know what kind of hairs are being split – seems like you've just pulled that out of thin air.

And it's not about me feeling important. It's about you undoing yourself with your own words. Suck it up.

Like I said, it only took you three months to answer your own stupid question. Well done.

You are like a crap journalist quoting someone out of context, take one line out of a statement and twist it to what you want it to say.

Below is your question and my answer in full :



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnar Longshanks
Surely a genuine key forward would be better than a resting ruckman.

My ANSWER

So what does Natanui or Cox do when the other is in the ruck?

I note that you avoided this question.

Cox mentioned he expects to play forward more and more as Natanui develops and NickNat has shown in the WAFL and glimpses in the AFL how damaging he can be playing forward.

Why is Cox/NickNat any different than Tippet at the Crows?

Are you suggesting that we develop a FF who doesn't play anywhere else?

I'd suggest this type of one position player is all but obsolete in the modern game.

The point I am making is that no one KP Forward will 'own' the FF position and that a variety of different types will be rotated through FF. We will have the traditional types such as Lynch, Brown, Kennedy, Notte and Wilson playing from the goal square. That's five options for talls without even mentioning Hansen. At at other stages we will go smaller and play Le Cras and McKinely leading types with a Cox or NickNat deep in the pocket.

end quote."



Tippet was drafted as a ruck and then was trialed forward due to need, it looks like after several seasons he will end up as more valuable up forward than playing in the ruck.

Given we now have two genuine gun rucks in Cox and NN why wouldn't we consider the same option. THAT is the context to the question raised.

Oh and what what did you suggest? Lets develop NN as another onballer when Cox is rucking. We should play NN on the ball and when Cox needs a break NN can simply continue playing on the ball?

Now THATS stupid.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Tippet was drafted as a ruck and then was trialed forward due to need, it looks like after several seasons he will end up as more valuable up forward than playing in the ruck.

Given we now have two genuine gun rucks in Cox and NN why wouldn't we consider the same option. THAT is the context to the question raised.

Wow – you established 'the context', like that proves something. That's such a tired bloody line.

You asked a stupid question, hoping to demonstrate that one of our ruckmen could be a successful tall forward, like Tippett – "how are they different?" – only to debunk your own stupid analogy a few months later.

Stop blethering about context. In this case, it doesn't change anything, and only identifies you as someone trying to distance themselves from a dumb statement.

Oh and what what did you suggest? Lets develop NN as another onballer when Cox is rucking. We should play NN on the ball and when Cox needs a break NN can simply continue playing on the ball?

Now THATS stupid.

I said I'd happily see Naitanui played on a wing when Cox is rucking. I stand by that. Anything that gives Naitanui as much time around stoppages and in general play as possible.

 

[Marlin01]

Scintillating debate

 

[Forrest Gimp]

Why is it when a argument breaks out on here it's always Gunner involved?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Why is it when a argument breaks out on here it's always Gunner involved?

Firstly, that's not true.

Secondly, if it were, I'd take it as a compliment. Would you prefer a board where everyone just furiously agrees with each other?

 

[Play by Numbers]

It's a difficult one.

Where does Naitanui perform best outside of the direct rucking contest?

Personally I think at the stoppages/contest.

Yes it is often roving his own tap, but does not change the fact he has an excellent tackle, great breakaway power and speed, recovers very well, hunts the ball and has exceptionally clean hands.

Whilst he can kick goals as a FP, he also kicks goals running into the forward line from the midfield, indeed a few of his other goals kicked in the preseason were from either a stoppage or from getting his hands on the ball in congestion.

Fact is this is where he is most effective.

He definitely has work to do on learning to lead well and to the right places and improve his marking. Why not maximise his time where he has the greatest impact? So yeah I don't think the idea of him working up the ground when not rucking or even rotating through the midfield is too ridiculous (still I could be wrong, does he have the fitness and we have a lot of potential mids).

 

[BartBart]

Another thing is being a wall in front of someone who tries to handball over him. They strangely forget he can jump - often resulting in a blocked handball & turnover. Though - this is effective anywhere on the ground.

 

[Obeanie1]

Wow – you established 'the context', like that proves something. That's such a tired bloody line.

You asked a stupid question, hoping to demonstrate that one of our ruckmen could be a successful tall forward, like Tippett – "how are they different?" – only to debunk your own stupid analogy a few months later.

Stop blethering about context. In this case, it doesn't change anything, and only identifies you as someone trying to distance themselves from a dumb statement.

I said I'd happily see Naitanui played on a wing when Cox is rucking. I stand by that. Anything that gives Naitanui as much time around stoppages and in general play as possible.

So the context related to what is being said is irrelevant?

Riiiiiiiiiight!

It is obviously irrelevant to people who can't seriously debate a topic.

So Gunner, why are you so opposed to NN developing his game in the forward third of the ground when Cox is in the ruck?

You are just being your normal pig headed self and if you didn't think of it first its stupid.

You are so childish its embarrasing.......................and also quite entertaining. For someone who is "here to educate the savages" you constantly display serious immaturity.

 

[Obeanie1]

Another thing is being a wall in front of someone who tries to handball over him. They strangely forget he can jump - often resulting in a blocked handball & turnover. Though - this is effective anywhere on the ground.

But a ball turned over coming out of defense usually results on a shot on goal.

As we can all attest to from watching our side over the past couple of years.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

So the context related to what is being said is irrelevant?

Riiiiiiiiiight!

In this case, yes. Absolutely.

The context doesn't change the fact that you offered a dumb analogy between Cox/Naitanui and Kurt Tippett, only to debunk it yourself a few months later. That's what happened. Bleating about context doesn't alter anything.

Muppets just use context as a buzzword to avoid being called to account for stupid things they've said in the past. This is a perfect example of that.

"I didn't say anything stupid – context, context." That's the outline of your dead fish comments here.

So Gunner, why are you so opposed to NN developing his game in the forward third of the ground when Cox is in the ruck?

I've answered this question enough times already.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17139578&postcount=57

Second blurb down.

You are just being your normal pig headed self and if you didn't think of it first its stupid.

You are so childish its embarrasing.......................and also quite entertaining. For someone who is "here to educate the savages" you constantly display serious immaturity.

Now, now – don't get snarky just because you were made to look stupid.

Not my fault you undid yourself with your own words.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

In this case, yes. Absolutely.

The context doesn't change the fact that you offered a dumb analogy between Cox/Naitanui and Kurt Tippett, only to debunk it yourself a few months later. That's what happened. Bleating about context doesn't alter anything.

Muppets just use context as a buzzword to avoid being called to account for stupid things they've said in the past. This is a perfect example of that.

"I didn't say anything stupid – context, context." That's the outline of your dead fish comments here.

I've answered this question enough times already.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17139578&postcount=57

Second blurb down.

Now, now – don't get snarky just because you were made to look stupid.

Not my fault you undid yourself with your own words.

Sorry guys no clear winner here.

Its more fun when you do this with 15 year, Gunnar.

I tend to like alot of what Obeanie1 says Gunnar, he is more respected than some of our posters.

Cant you two, just kiss and make up

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I tend to like alot of what Obeanie1 says Gunnar, he is more respected than some of our posters.

That's nice.

But in this case, he's rolled himself and he doesn't like having it pointed out.

If you actually read his comments in this exchange, it's mostly self-serving blether designed to muddy the waters and distance himself from his earlier comments. That doesn't deserve respect.

 

[Obeanie1]

Self refencing to your own dribble only proves you have no argument.

So comparing Tippett to NN or Cox is stupid according to you.

Well the issue really being debated is should a coach develop a young ruckman as a part time forward or a winger?

Well Tippetts development seems to have paid dividends......not sure how good a winger he'd make.

What about Brad Ottens? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Pretty good FF as well as ruckman.

Ever heard of Paul Salmon Gunner? Salmon wanted to play ruck but Sheady already had a good ruckman...................so he developed him into a premiership FF. Salmon retired and then came out of retirement as a ruckman for the Hawks.

It is clear from what Whoosa and Sumich have stated that they want to see how NN goes playing forward when Cox is back.

Knights at Essendon has also stated that Hille and Ryder will be spending time forward when not rucking.

Ummmm, any others? Oh, Corey McKernan was pretty good at it as well.

So thats Niel Craig, Kevin Sheedy, Worsfold, Sumich and Pagan who have decided the smart thing to do is develop and ultilise resting rucks in the forward line.

But Gunner Longwhinge thinks the wing is a much better option to develop a ruckman but to try them up forward is stupid.

The case for the "NN should play forward when not rucking" rests.

Trust the context in what I've explained isn't too difficult for you to understand.

 

[Underdog]

Resting Naitanui on a wing seems quite absurd.

I'm all for getting him into positions where he can influence but surely the point of resting a ruckman is actually letting him get some rest?

I also think he is potentially too damaging up forward to deny him time there.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Self refencing to your own dribble only proves you have no argument.

Yawn.

My argument is there in black-and-white. Why pretend otherwise?

Do you think that insisting I haven't made an argument, when I patently have, is going to mask the inanity of your own comments?

You offered a dumb analogy between Cox/NN and Tippett, only to debunk it yourself in this thread. That's what happened.

So comparing Tippett to NN or Cox is stupid according to you.

Suggesting that there is no difference between them, as you did, is stupid.

That's the suggestion you made previously, only to debunk it in this thread.

It's that simple, but you've spent the last page trying to hide from it.

Well the issue really being debated is should a coach develop a young ruckman as a part time forward or a winger?

Well Tippetts development seems to have paid dividends......not sure how good a winger he'd make.

Now you're just chasing your own tail.

What does Tippett have to do with how we develop Naitanui?

In this very thread, you've said that they're too different for a comparison to hold water. Changing your mind again? Oh dear.

What about Brad Ottens? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Pretty good FF as well as ruckman.

Ever heard of Paul Salmon Gunner? Salmon wanted to play ruck but Sheady already had a good ruckman...................so he developed him into a premiership FF. Salmon retired and then came out of retirement as a ruckman for the Hawks.

Relevance?

There have been other ruckmen who have gone OK playing forward. So that means the best way to deploy Naitanui must therefore be out of the goal-square? Are you serious? Is this your argument?

Every assessment of Naitanui seems to point out that he's a unique specimen i.e. he's a ruckman with unprecedented levels of mobility and athleticism at ground level, Therefore, we have more options in how we use and develop Naitanui. Most ruckmen get pushed forward at some stage of their careers because that's their only alternative role – they'd be screwed playing between the arcs. This is not the case with Naitanui.

Your insistence on listing other ruckmen who have gone forward, and offering that as proof positive of what we should do with Naitanui, is childishly simplistic. It's just flat-out inadequate. Try again.

It is clear from what Whoosa and Sumich have stated that they want to see how NN goes playing forward when Cox is back.

Really?

Everything I've heard has been pretty open-ended. They'll try him in a variety of roles and it will depend on how Cox is travelling and how individual games are poised.

Knights at Essendon has also stated that Hille and Ryder will be spending time forward when not rucking.

Ummmm, any others? Oh, Corey McKernan was pretty good at it as well.

So thats Niel Craig, Kevin Sheedy, Worsfold, Sumich and Pagan who have decided the smart thing to do is develop and ultilise resting rucks in the forward line.

Again, how is any of this relevant?

How does Hille's, Ryder's or McKernan's career have any bearing on how we should play Naitanui?

To anyone with half a clue, that argument is an empty sack.

But Gunner Longwhinge thinks the wing is a much better option to develop a ruckman but to try them up forward is stupid.

The case for the "NN should play forward when not rucking" rests.

I imagine Naitanui will spend some time forward. I've never suggested otherwise.

But in terms of his development, we'll be better served by having him spend as much time as possible around the clearances and in general play, even when not rucking.

None of this masks your muddle-headed flip-flopping on a comparison between Cox/NN and Tippett.

 

[Long Sleeves]

I'm not sure Nic is smart enough to play around the packs.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Resting Naitanui on a wing seems quite absurd.

I'm all for getting him into positions where he can influence but surely the point of resting a ruckman is actually letting him get some rest?

I also think he is potentially too damaging up forward to deny him time there.

Well, a lot depends on how much time he actually spends in the ruck.

Let's not forget that we still have the league's best ruckman in Cox.

If Naitanui spends as much time in the ruck as, for example, Seaby did in his last two years, then there's a golden opportunity for him to spend some time between the arcs, just getting to contests and trying to have an impact at ground level around stoppages.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I'm not sure Nic is smart enough to play around the packs.

Isn't that what has been most impressive about him?

 

[SwiftforPM]

Let's be honest the idea of playing Naita on the wing is bloody stupid and wont happen!

 

[Long Sleeves]

Isn't that what has been most impressive about him?

It's impressive when he's playing on a 6' 8 lunk.

Maybe not so when playing on or being accountable for a wily mid or flanker