| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | The bottom line is that's it better to have two quality ruckmen on your list. Because if you only have the one and he gets injured you're screwed. |
Correct weight.
You'd have to be mad to trade one of 2 ruckman. Hawthorn have at least 3. The concept of trading some quality for a good pick is a good idea. However, when there are only 2 Ruckman then that idea is less than satisfactory.
Get an extra draft pick at what cost? To pick another Ruckman given the team would be one Ruckman down? |
This isn't that complicated  . A best 22 only requires one ruck. We currently have two able to fit that bill. Maybe both can play together maybe not, but it's possible the best position for both is first ruck.
If there was a player we desperately wanted and we needed to give up a quality player then Witts is our most tradeable and valuable asset. Of course, we still need a backup to Grundy, so we would either need to trade for a mature ruck content to play as second fiddle or see if one can be got in free agency.
Overall we'd be far more inclined to keep Witts than trade him given how promising a player he is and the amount of development we've put in. A trade would only happen under very specific circumstances (we could find a good backup ruck and there was a quality player we desperately wanted).
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
 |
mudlark
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Location: Maroochydore Qld
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | Trade Witts - yeah right on stupido keep one ruck and when he gets injured�???
|
I've never advocated trading Witts, but these strawman arguments are stupid. If we did trade Witts (or Grundy for that matter) we would obviously only do so if we could bring in another ruck as backup. |
WHY would we develop youngsters and then consider them as trade bait??? F%*&#Ks me?? When Essendope nearly went through the season undefeated and won the flag,they had 3 ruckmen AND a spare. As we well know,good ruckmen don't grow on trees and if you have a couple you KEEP THEM!!! |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| mudlark wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | yin-YANG wrote: | Trade Witts - yeah right on stupido keep one ruck and when he gets injured�???
|
I've never advocated trading Witts, but these strawman arguments are stupid. If we did trade Witts (or Grundy for that matter) we would obviously only do so if we could bring in another ruck as backup. |
WHY would we develop youngsters and then consider them as trade bait??? F%*&#Ks me?? When Essendope nearly went through the season undefeated and won the flag,they had 3 ruckmen AND a spare. As we well know,good ruckmen don't grow on trees and if you have a couple you KEEP THEM!!! |
I'm almost certain we hold onto him. He wouldn't be "trade bait" but he is the best of our tradeable players, given that we have another excellent young ruck prospect on the list.
Part of the discussion is how well do we think Grundy and Witts can integrate into the same team, because both are simply too good to play as a backup.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Member 7167 
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble.
_________________
Now Retired - Every Day Is A Saturday |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Member 7167 wrote: | This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble. |
Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Shoved it up a few critics arses today, big rethink on us now, to say the least, very strong victory over a strong team, real team effort, but speccial mention to clokey, oxley, langdon, swannie, pendles, and taylor adams was terrific, jesse had a red hot go too. Now for a rest, and if we could win two out of our next four we are well on our way
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
neil 
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Trade Pendlebury afterall we would get a great trade for him
Same logic as trade Witts
_________________
Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: | This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble. |
Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion. |
it's only unworthy to those who don't get what you are saying.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | The bottom line is that's it better to have two quality ruckmen on your list. Because if you only have the one and he gets injured you're screwed. |
Correct weight.
You'd have to be mad to trade one of 2 ruckman. Hawthorn have at least 3. The concept of trading some quality for a good pick is a good idea. However, when there are only 2 Ruckman then that idea is less than satisfactory.
Get an extra draft pick at what cost? To pick another Ruckman given the team would be one Ruckman down? |
This isn't that complicated . A best 22 only requires one ruck. We currently have two able to fit that bill. Maybe both can play together maybe not, but it's possible the best position for both is first ruck.
If there was a player we desperately wanted and we needed to give up a quality player then Witts is our most tradeable and valuable asset. Of course, we still need a backup to Grundy, so we would either need to trade for a mature ruck content to play as second fiddle or see if one can be got in free agency.
Overall we'd be far more inclined to keep Witts than trade him given how promising a player he is and the amount of development we've put in. A trade would only happen under very specific circumstances (we could find a good backup ruck and there was a quality player we desperately wanted). |
Que? I demand a drug test 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
John Wren
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
must not be much to discuss about today's game.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
Woods 
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| How about keeping the trade Witts discussion for the thread dedicated to it, and leave this one for post game discussion. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| John Wren wrote: | | AN_Inkling wrote: | | Member 7167 wrote: | This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble. |
Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion. |
it's only unworthy to those who don't get what you are saying. |
On the contrary, it is a very easy idea to understand - for all of us. Just the idea in the range of ideas is not the best or the smartest.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| i hate carlton wrote: | | Loved watching Heater scoop up turnovers and run along the boundary. Oh wait... |
Me too, loved him gettin pissedoff when his team mates blew it as well
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| neil wrote: | Trade Pendlebury afterall we would get a great trade for him
Same logic as trade Witts |
Package him up with Clokey for a super trade!! 
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
roar
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Dangles wrote: | | The bottom line is that's it better to have two quality ruckmen on your list. Because if you only have the one and he gets injured you're screwed. |
Correct weight.
You'd have to be mad to trade one of 2 ruckman. Hawthorn have at least 3. The concept of trading some quality for a good pick is a good idea. However, when there are only 2 Ruckman then that idea is less than satisfactory.
Get an extra draft pick at what cost? To pick another Ruckman given the team would be one Ruckman down? |
This isn't that complicated . |
Wouldn't think so but some appear to be really struggling.
Back to the game: Goldy tres ordinaries and Seedy very poor again, Tooves quiet but his opponent was even more quiet so all good there, Fas also quiet but kept working so that's also good.
_________________
kill for collingwood!
Last edited by roar on Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
