 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | I can't imagine GWS entertaining offers for McCarthy unless he's specifically asked to be traded.
Even then given the amount of young talent they already possess draft picks might not be of much interest to them. |
Agree GWS are beyond trading for picks now. The only way they would trade someone like McCarthy is for another player who fits a need in their list. As much as I would be loathe to trade him, Witts would likely fit that need as the successor to Mumford, being an AFL quality ruck already at only 22.
Whether they would be more likely to trade McCarthy or Patton would be the question, but it's conceivable that they would trade one of the two given it would be difficult to fit all three in their forward line. |
I disagree, I think they'll be very happy to get draft picks.
Would allow the current crop of kids the opportunity to establish themselves while ensuring they maintain a conveyor belt of high draft picks to emerge longer term. Adding players like Shaw and Griffen moving forward only creates a bottleneck for the emerging kids.
Trading in someone to fill an identified need is another thing altogether but with a couple of developing ruckmen it's hard to see where there is a specific need.
Last edited by jackcass on Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| perthmagpie wrote: | I think the club consider the vast bulk of the National Draft rebuild is done. In other words in order to top off our list nicely and to fine tune the age/ experience balance we now need a gun mid with between 50 to 90 games under his belt. I would not be surprised if we trade our top pick this year for the right gun midfielder. The kind that can extract and can hurt on the outside by foot.
Also wouldn't surprise on top of that we go hard at free agency for another midfielder or key tall in the 24 to 26 age range. You could argue loading up on more eighteen year olds will mean our talent starts to be spread out too far age wise. In other words we've gotta win this thing while Cloke, Pendles, Brown, Reid, Greenwood are still near their peak or at least damn good players. The recruiters are ready to put the icing on the cake and the development coaches are now expected to make all this talent take the next step. |
Hine said as much on the ABC Sunday. Said all the heavy lifting has been done in terms of list restructure. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | ^^Isn't tall forward a deficiency though? Looks like there will need to be some difficult decisions at season's end. Gault is at least one that has played some games this year. Sure, he doesn't fit into the starting team, but he's first or second option as a backup. I think he stays unless we add another tall forward.
I don't think there's an obvious delist option. All of Armstrong, Young, Dwyer and Gault are at least decent backups. Manteit and Abbott haven't been around long so would likely be retained, but if we don't see them as genuine prospects they could be cut.
A bit early to be thinking about this though. It's likely we make some moves in the post-season, either trading or signing, so the delist task could be easier or more difficult depending on whether we gain or lose players. |
Must be getting close to the point where we either promote Gault or delist. Hasn't impacted as I'd thought he might this year and has to be vulnerable if he can't be retained as a rookie. |
|
|
|
|
inxs88
Joined: 17 Aug 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Agree Jackass. To be a key forward you need to judge the ball drop and have the correct running/leading patterns thereby increasing your chances of getting hit lace up or jagging 2-4 contested marks per match. Watching Gault closely on the weekend, he doesn't seem to have improved on this. Hope he can as D Moore is 3-5 years away from making a definitive footprint on the team consistently.
_________________
I love the Pies, hate Carlscum |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | I can't imagine GWS entertaining offers for McCarthy unless he's specifically asked to be traded.
Even then given the amount of young talent they already possess draft picks might not be of much interest to them. |
Agree GWS are beyond trading for picks now. The only way they would trade someone like McCarthy is for another player who fits a need in their list. As much as I would be loathe to trade him, Witts would likely fit that need as the successor to Mumford, being an AFL quality ruck already at only 22.
Whether they would be more likely to trade McCarthy or Patton would be the question, but it's conceivable that they would trade one of the two given it would be difficult to fit all three in their forward line. |
I disagree, I think they'll be very happy to get draft picks.
Would allow the current crop of kids the opportunity to establish themselves while ensuring they maintain a conveyor belt of high draft picks to emerge longer term. Adding players like Shaw and Griffen moving forward only creates a bottleneck for the emerging kids.
Trading in someone to fill an identified need is another thing altogether but with a couple of developing ruckmen it's hard to see where there is a specific need. |
Their developing ruckmen are completely shit. It's easy to say they have developing ruckmen, but if they're both no good (which they are) then they'd jump at the chance to get an AFL ready successor to Mumford. |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| inxs88 wrote: | | Agree Jackass. To be a key forward you need to judge the ball drop and have the correct running/leading patterns thereby increasing your chances of getting hit lace up or jagging 2-4 contested marks per match. Watching Gault closely on the weekend, he doesn't seem to have improved on this. Hope he can as D Moore is 3-5 years away from making a definitive footprint on the team consistently. |
Moore is talented enough to be playing senior footy consistently as early as next year. He will debut as a forward within a month imo. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | I can't imagine GWS entertaining offers for McCarthy unless he's specifically asked to be traded.
Even then given the amount of young talent they already possess draft picks might not be of much interest to them. |
Agree GWS are beyond trading for picks now. The only way they would trade someone like McCarthy is for another player who fits a need in their list. As much as I would be loathe to trade him, Witts would likely fit that need as the successor to Mumford, being an AFL quality ruck already at only 22.
Whether they would be more likely to trade McCarthy or Patton would be the question, but it's conceivable that they would trade one of the two given it would be difficult to fit all three in their forward line. |
I disagree, I think they'll be very happy to get draft picks.
Would allow the current crop of kids the opportunity to establish themselves while ensuring they maintain a conveyor belt of high draft picks to emerge longer term. Adding players like Shaw and Griffen moving forward only creates a bottleneck for the emerging kids.
Trading in someone to fill an identified need is another thing altogether but with a couple of developing ruckmen it's hard to see where there is a specific need. |
Their developing ruckmen are completely shit. It's easy to say they have developing ruckmen, but if they're both no good (which they are) then they'd jump at the chance to get an AFL ready successor to Mumford. |
I'm sure they'll know better than us how their developing ruckmen are tracking. |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | swoop42 wrote: | I can't imagine GWS entertaining offers for McCarthy unless he's specifically asked to be traded.
Even then given the amount of young talent they already possess draft picks might not be of much interest to them. |
Agree GWS are beyond trading for picks now. The only way they would trade someone like McCarthy is for another player who fits a need in their list. As much as I would be loathe to trade him, Witts would likely fit that need as the successor to Mumford, being an AFL quality ruck already at only 22.
Whether they would be more likely to trade McCarthy or Patton would be the question, but it's conceivable that they would trade one of the two given it would be difficult to fit all three in their forward line. |
I disagree, I think they'll be very happy to get draft picks.
Would allow the current crop of kids the opportunity to establish themselves while ensuring they maintain a conveyor belt of high draft picks to emerge longer term. Adding players like Shaw and Griffen moving forward only creates a bottleneck for the emerging kids.
Trading in someone to fill an identified need is another thing altogether but with a couple of developing ruckmen it's hard to see where there is a specific need. |
Their developing ruckmen are completely shit. It's easy to say they have developing ruckmen, but if they're both no good (which they are) then they'd jump at the chance to get an AFL ready successor to Mumford. |
I'm sure they'll know better than us how their developing ruckmen are tracking. |
Lobb is the next cab off the rank after Mumford. He achieved a grand total of 10 hitouts against the Roos, and had a record 80 hitouts against him. He is the same age as Witts. The only other AFL standard ruck they had on their list was Giles, who saw the writing on the wall when Mumford arrived and asked for a trade for more opportunity.
Mumford is the GWS ruck division. There's a reason people were saying GWS' season was over when he went out for the year. At 29 (in a few days) he's no spring chicken, and there's not a lot of rucks who go far past 30 in the modern game. GWS' current rucks after him are so far off its not funny, they would jump at the chance to get a quality, long term replacement for Mumford. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | Lobb is the next cab off the rank after Mumford. He achieved a grand total of 10 hitouts against the Roos, and had a record 80 hitouts against him. He is the same age as Witts. The only other AFL standard ruck they had on their list was Giles, who saw the writing on the wall when Mumford arrived and asked for a trade for more opportunity.
Mumford is the GWS ruck division. There's a reason people were saying GWS' season was over when he went out for the year. At 29 (in a few days) he's no spring chicken, and there's not a lot of rucks who go far past 30 in the modern game. GWS' current rucks after him are so far off its not funny, they would jump at the chance to get a quality, long term replacement for Mumford. |
They have Lobb (22yo, 3 games) Downie (22, 1), and Phillips (24, 11). Biggest issue these guys have is lack of senior opportunity because Mummy seems to work better 1 out. Yes, they're all about the same age as Witts and behind in terms of development but that doesn't clearly make them lesser prospects. Lobb was taken at pick 29 so clearly was highly considered. And getting beaten by Goldstein is no great shock, he's clearly among the top couple of rucks in the league. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| jackcass wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | Lobb is the next cab off the rank after Mumford. He achieved a grand total of 10 hitouts against the Roos, and had a record 80 hitouts against him. He is the same age as Witts. The only other AFL standard ruck they had on their list was Giles, who saw the writing on the wall when Mumford arrived and asked for a trade for more opportunity.
Mumford is the GWS ruck division. There's a reason people were saying GWS' season was over when he went out for the year. At 29 (in a few days) he's no spring chicken, and there's not a lot of rucks who go far past 30 in the modern game. GWS' current rucks after him are so far off its not funny, they would jump at the chance to get a quality, long term replacement for Mumford. |
They have Lobb (22yo, 3 games) Downie (22, 1), and Phillips (24, 11). Biggest issue these guys have is lack of senior opportunity because Mummy seems to work better 1 out. Yes, they're all about the same age as Witts and behind in terms of development but that doesn't clearly make them lesser prospects. Lobb was taken at pick 29 so clearly was highly considered. And getting beaten by Goldstein is no great shock, he's clearly among the top couple of rucks in the league. |
It's not that he got beaten, that was to be expected. It's that he provided next to no contest. Goldstein didn't just beat him, he destroyed him ffs. 80 hitouts. 80!
None of their 'prospects' averages over 10 hitouts a game at AFL level, even Phillips, who's 24 and has had more senior experience than the other two combined. They are all dead set ordinary, and as a result GWS are a far worse side without Mumford. Hell, I would have Gault ahead of all 3 of those guys as a ruckman, and I don't rate Gault at all.
Keep doing your usual thing though, arguing the point even though theres nothing to support your argument. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I do rate Gault.
but to provide an extra dataset on your data, when we played against Norf, Goldstein got 51 hitouts in a losing team, Grundy and Witts got 21 each.
http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2015/9/coll-v-nmfc
Make of that what you will.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | I do rate Gault.
but to provide an extra dataset on your data, when we played against Norf, Goldstein got 51 hitouts in a losing team, Grundy and Witts got 21 each.
http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2015/9/coll-v-nmfc
Make of that what you will. |
I'm aware of the stats from the North game. 42 combined hitouts vs 51 from the league leading ruckman. Rucking solo I would have backed Witts or Grundy to be pushing that 40 mark as well. They are both exceptionally good rucks for their age. At a minimum I would expect a second string developing ruck to get 15-20 hitouts, regardless of opponent. Lobb could only manage 10. I'd back Gault to get more than 10 and he's not even a recognised first ruck.
And yes, I'm aware you rate Gault Stui, but im afraid you're fighting a losing battle with him. If he can't at least have significant impact as a forward in the VFL at this stage of his career, I fear his time is almost up. |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | Lobb is the next cab off the rank after Mumford. He achieved a grand total of 10 hitouts against the Roos, and had a record 80 hitouts against him. He is the same age as Witts. The only other AFL standard ruck they had on their list was Giles, who saw the writing on the wall when Mumford arrived and asked for a trade for more opportunity.
Mumford is the GWS ruck division. There's a reason people were saying GWS' season was over when he went out for the year. At 29 (in a few days) he's no spring chicken, and there's not a lot of rucks who go far past 30 in the modern game. GWS' current rucks after him are so far off its not funny, they would jump at the chance to get a quality, long term replacement for Mumford. |
They have Lobb (22yo, 3 games) Downie (22, 1), and Phillips (24, 11). Biggest issue these guys have is lack of senior opportunity because Mummy seems to work better 1 out. Yes, they're all about the same age as Witts and behind in terms of development but that doesn't clearly make them lesser prospects. Lobb was taken at pick 29 so clearly was highly considered. And getting beaten by Goldstein is no great shock, he's clearly among the top couple of rucks in the league. |
It's not that he got beaten, that was to be expected. It's that he provided next to no contest. Goldstein didn't just beat him, he destroyed him ffs. 80 hitouts. 80!
None of their 'prospects' averages over 10 hitouts a game at AFL level, even Phillips, who's 24 and has had more senior experience than the other two combined. They are all dead set ordinary, and as a result GWS are a far worse side without Mumford. Hell, I would have Gault ahead of all 3 of those guys as a ruckman, and I don't rate Gault at all.
Keep doing your usual thing though, arguing the point even though theres nothing to support your argument. |
Wasn't arguing anything. But don't let that stop you turning a discussion into a personal attack. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | Keep doing your usual thing though, arguing the point even though theres nothing to support your argument. |
This is not an arguement, it's a mere discussion! (thanks to Monty Python!)  
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
