Bonkers

Members
  • Content count

    804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

504 Excellent

About Bonkers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Melbourne

Recent Profile Visitors

5,035 profile views
  1. I think you are getting a bit carried away with your knowledge of what has & hasn't happened. Unless you are in a position within the club you really aren't in a position to talk about facts when it comes to the decisions the club has made regarding list management, who is or isn't available & who we have chased. I'm going to ignore the Watts vs Boyd debate, I think it's pretty clear what I am saying & I think we are in partial agreement. Regarding the Ruck forward there is always an option. We could have gone after a stop gap solution like Petrie as an example as a short term cheap solution. It would have at least provided us with some insurance. I'm not necessarily saying I would have done a deal like that I'm just saying that in terms of list management we could have looked at filling the role of a forward ruck, whether the club did or not I am not in a position to say. I just see it as a glaring weakness on our list. Happy to leave it there. Cheers.
  2. Yes that is Watts current role & I'm saying it shouldn't be. There was an obvious need for a forward ruck, we didn't go for that player for whatever reason. Of course their role can change over time, I'm saying in this instance it shouldn't. If I was coach or list manager I wouldn't be playing Watts there, I would have tried to find a similar player like a David Hale to provide some flexibility. Whether a player like that was available is a whole different story.
  3. In one of your original posts you mentioned that the list managers couldn't have done more to get our ruck stocks right. In my opinoin this is clearly not correct as they could have addressed a need for a ruck/forward in last years draft. Instead we have gone with Watts in this role. This is essentially where I am disagreeing with you. If I'm list manager of the Dogs I am ok with Boyd pinch hitting as his body/frame is suitable for this role. If I'm list manager of Melbourne I wouldn't have Watts in this role, I'd be looking for someone with more height & a stronger body. Regarding ruck stocks we have four specialist rucks, what we don't have is someone capable of playing forward ruck. This is why I have stated that I disagree with you as Boyd in my opinion can play this role, whereas Watts whilst he is currently in this position really shouldn't be. It suits the Dogs more to play Boyd there, it doesn't really suit the MFC. List management wise what I am saying is that we could have drafted for a KPF who also is capable of playing ruck.
  4. You said we have a Boyd type when in fact we don't. Boyd is more suited to that role Watts isn't. I read your post & don't agree with it. It's irrelevant why they were drafted. They are currently playing a similar role in the ruck, one is suited to it & one isn't which is the point I made. We don't have someone like a Boyd to play that role so they are playing Watts which is not benefiting the team. You also mentioned about their intention in terms of list spot. Do you think Watts is on the list to play 2nd ruck or do you think he is a 2nd or 3rd tall forward? I personally think Boyd is on their list to play key position forward & relief ruck which is not the same list spot as Watts.
  5. I think your logic regarding Boyd and Watts is flawed. They are both filling in the same role but they are a totally different type of player. Boyd is a pack crashing, contested marking forward, due to his height he is suited to playing as a back up or fill in ruck. As we all know from witnessing Watts' career to date he is not that type of player. He is at best a 2nd or 3rd tall type who is blessed with skills & a game sense at ground level that helps him set up play. He can take a good grab but he is definitely not a pack busting contested mark & he's really not capable of throwing his weight around. We could have drafted for a ruck / forward but we chose not to. If the footy department went in to this season thinking that Watts would be an ideal back up ruck I have grave concerns over their judgement. What is most likely to have happened is that they identified this position as a weakness but perhaps the players available were not obtainable or deemed not good enough so they gambled on what they already had.
  6. We don't have a player who can play the forward/ruck role effectively. This was spoken about last year & it's why we are still talking about Watts & Pederson to fill in. If we had addressed it at least we'd have some back up now. The ruck/forward role is a little bit of a wasted position as it's rare to find a quality player for that role. The example being Hawthorn recruiting Hale & then Vickery to replace him. Who would we have traded in? We've got other issues at the moment still, not enough good kicks but a lot of inside ball winners. We need to find a balance.
  7. My main observations from the game were: -Clarry is already our best player at 19, a fit Gawn probably changes that -Hibberb is what we needed with ball in hand down back -the pressure applied at the contest almost ground Richmond into submission. We dominated the game everywhere but the scoreboard for 2.75 quarters. -whilst some have been complaining about ANB, I'm happy to have him in the side if he's laying 10 tackles & getting the pill 20 times a game. -I'm not sure what the coaching staff need to do. Our dominance of the contest is not resulting into a winning score. Forward line set up & stopping easy goals the other way must be a priority. Maybe we need to focus on outnumbering out the back so we aren't getting touched up so much in transition. -Riewoldt unfortunately was the difference as well as the injuries. It hurts to say this but he took almost all the opportunities he had & some of his goals especially in the first quarter were class. Overall the club is clearly going in the right direction. We need to convert more & possibly add some more skill & composure around the forward half of the ground. Frost & Pedo should share ruck duties next week. Other than Daniher do Essendon have a decent tall forward?
  8. In my opinion there appears to have been lot of development with regards to the younger players as well as the style we are playing. Petracca, Hogan, Oliver and even someone like Smith appear to have become better players over the summer & probably still have a couple of Gears left or higher level to go to. Apologies to some other players that I'm sure I would have missed. Last year we were grinding a lot of games out & our contested brand of footy was what was winning us games from memory? Our attacking play was better but not looking like it does at the moment. That contested brand is still there but Goodwin has added another dimension to our attacking play. Our kicking patterns have changed and the players now appear to be under instruction to take more risks & kick on many different angles rather than a predictable pattern. The side also has the additions of Lewis, Hibberd & Melksham this year. Which has made us a lot more experienced side with a lot of depth. I get what you are saying & it's hard/impossible to predict the future. But I think as supporters we should be expecting to play finals & perhaps even play deep into the finals. I think the club should as well to be honest. If you don't have the vision to succeed then it makes it pretty hard to get to that point in my opinion. Hopefully they don't prove me wrong this year! 😬
  9. Thanks mate.
  10. How many members are we up on this time last year? Does anyone have a running total for comparison?
  11. Not sure if this has been posted. Looks like Pickering is trying to get the deal over the line for Lewis. Hawks now digging their heels in or trying to save face. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trades-2016-jordan-lewis-not-filthy-with-hawthorn-as-contract-talks-continue-20161014-gs304p.html
  12. We played the youngest age profile team in over half of the games this year. I don't think we need to worry about being too old, we have 2 players over 28. As another poster recently commented some people over analyse list management. If you can get a quality player who makes your list better for little cost then you do it. If its at the expense of an equally talented young player then maybe you don't, but you have to ask the question who would he keep out of the side? There's no one banging the door down who is absolute quality that can say they deserve a game over Lewis. Matt Jones still played over 10 games this year, Lewis is an upgrade on him so why wouldn't you do the deal? He will improve our best 22 when we already have a young group. It's a no brainer.
  13. This is rubbish. The Hawks have told Lewis he won't be contracted past next season. That tells me the Hawks value him a one season player. Why would we give up a pick of any value for a player wth one year left? We hold all the cards here including the player wanting to come here. Hawthorn have just allowed their b&f winner to move to the Eagles for free almost, this situation is hardly any different. How could the Hawks treat Mitchell differently to Lewis? This is a PR nightmare for them if they don't agree to let Lewis leave & would show blatant disrespect to a 4 time premiership player.
  14. For a deal to be agreed Lewis was obviously well down the road of accepting his career at the Hawks was over. From the outside it would appear there has to be some bad blood now between Lewis & the Hawks FD. How does that then just flip 180 again in the space of a couple of hours? I think this will play out over the next couple of days, if Lewis is genuinely upset he may force Hawthorn's hand & request a trade.
  15. Any game against Victorian opposition is good, especially if its one of the more well supported clubs. If we can make it a regular game & alternate who gets to be the home side it would really add to our fixture.