List Management

[Dwight Schrute 16,749]

3 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Yes, it is hindsight, but I've said that enough.  I won't change anybodies mind.

And it's only a problem now as we've had injuries.  If Gawn goes through the year as is AA ruckman again, which he would have done, then nobody cares about the ruck situation.  

Not sure that's the case wise, many posters were discussing it last off season so I definitely don't see it as being hindsight in any way. 

We may need to think outside the box to solve the ruck problem now.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I reckon take the reigning Premiers as the rule for how many ruckmen to keep on the list. If you look closely, we match them pretty well... Jordan Roughead (Gawn), Tom Campbell (Spencer), Tim English (Max King), Nathan Mullenger-McHugh (Mitch King) Tom Boyd (Watts)

And then demons have Filipovic and Keilty as rookies, one who's a career ruckman and the other as a 194cm part timer.

In other words, the list managers couldn't have done any more to get our ruck stocks right. We've got some shocking luck on ruck injuries, with our first 3 all hurt, if you include King (senior listed, not a rookie) as he's only just gotten back and is probably a ways off being right to go for a debut.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Just now, Abe said:

Not sure that's the case wise, many posters were discussing it last off season so I definitely don't see it as being hindsight in any way. 

We may need to think outside the box to solve the ruck problem now.

I might be running with it as I didn't see it as a problem, but it's pointless carping on about it now I guess.

[Dwight Schrute 16,749]

Just now, Wiseblood said:

I might be running with it as I didn't see it as a problem, but it's pointless carping on about it now I guess.

This is true, I think we are also suffering slightly because of the rule changes, 3rd man up might have been a handy option given our current situation 

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

32 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Somewhere along the line in 2016 we misjudged our ruck stocks for the short/medium term.

How can we have misjudged them? We would have to offer a massive deal to a player to shore up the hole... I would assume like most clubs we made offers everywhere and anywhere... Witts, Leuenberger a couple of seasons ago... But it would have cost us a spot on the list that would have gone to an ANB, Bugg type.

Also we would have had to give one of those guys up if we got aggressive in a trade. In the end, as you say, we rolled the dice and drafted something like 6 rucks over the entire list... The alternative would be to pay overs for a NQR player that is only insurance. I like it. Get aggressive. Don't bet safe. I reckon the KPD problem is way more apparent.

[Satyriconhome 9,982]

1 hour ago, Pennant St Dee said:

Meth Coast have Nic Nat, Lycett & Petrie out injured. They are now going with Vardy and Giles

So how did they go at the weekend again?

[Lucifers Hero 36,991]

6 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

I reckon take the reigning Premiers as the rule for how many ruckmen to keep on the list. If you look closely, we match them pretty well... Jordan Roughead (Gawn), Tom Campbell (Spencer), Tim English (Max King), Nathan Mullenger-McHugh (Mitch King) Tom Boyd (Watts)

And then demons have Filipovic and Keilty as rookies, one who's a career ruckman and the other as a 194cm part timer.

In other words, the list managers couldn't have done any more to get our ruck stocks right. We've got some shocking luck on ruck injuries, with our first 3 all hurt, if you include King (senior listed, not a rookie) as he's only just gotten back and is probably a ways off being right to go for a debut.

Clutching at straws there a bit DD:

• Max King is no longer on our list.
• Boyd:  2.01m, 102kgs.  Watts: 196cm, 96kgs.  They are not like for like.  We don't have a Boyd type.  And take Boyd out of forward line and bulldogs still have other experienced tall forwards.  Take Watts out and it is just Hogan/Weideman at best. 
• Mitch King and FIlipovic are 3 to 4 years away from regular AFL games let alone being the #1 ruck on game day. 
• Keitly as a part-time ruckman - a pinch-hitter at best. 

My point was our ruckstocks are thread bear for the next 3/4 years and blind freddy could see it. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,738]

Apparently Fitzy was almost BOG for Box Hill last weekend

TBH ruck stocks and back up KPP's must be hard to handle from a list management viewpoint.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Clutching at straws there a bit DD:

• Max King is no longer on our list.
• Boyd:  2.01m, 102kgs.  Watts: 196cm, 96kgs.  They are not like for like.  We don't have a Boyd type.  And take Boyd out of forward line and bulldogs still have other experienced tall forwards.  Take Watts out and it is just Hogan/Weideman at best. 
• Mitch King and FIlipovic are 3 to 4 years away from regular AFL games let alone being the #1 ruck on game day. 
• Keitly as a part-time ruckman - a pinch-hitter at best. 

My point was our ruckstocks are thread bear for the next 3/4 years and blind freddy could see it. 

You misunderstand. Or I misspoke moreso. I'm not saying they're the same quality/size. I'm talking more about the intention behind their list spot. ie

Roughead was starting ruck as is Max

Campbell is second in line, as is Spencer

Boyd is SUPPOSED to be a KP forward and was drafted chiefly for that, but because of injuries has been filling in in the ruck, just like Watts. And Watts has offered a lot more than Boyd in both the midfield and up forward, so far this season. So yes, we don't have that extra 6cm, but we have the better player. And in terms of role, neither were supposed to do anything but fill in for 5 minutes here and there in the ruck. In that sense, yes, we do have a Boyd type. And no it's absolutely not clutching at straws.

I misstyped max. Meant to be Mitch. My mistake. And duplicated him there too. Was meant to be Roughead (Max), Campbell (Spencer), Boyd (Watts), English (King), Mullenger-McHugh (Filipovic) with Keilty as an extra that they don't have, unless you count Redpath.

Mitch and Flip are as far away from afl debuts as English and Mullenger-McHugh.

So you've missed my overall point (probably more due to my laziness). Our ruck stocks are SIMILAR to the reigning premiers. Only ours has the reigning AA, and one extra kid. You can bemoan our "threadbare" ruck stocks (they're a long way from threadbare... they're just injured) all you like, but the intention was sound. We have a lot of career ruckmen, and we had two guys in their mid twenties who were ready to go for 22 rounds, with backups everywhere. It's nonsense to say we were underprepared. You can't blame the list managers for the kind of injuries we've copped. Most clubs would love our ruck division. Our ruck stocks are one of our strengths. Our injury luck? Not so much.

[Bonkers 914]

10 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

You misunderstand. Or I misspoke moreso. I'm not saying they're the same quality/size. I'm talking more about the intention behind their list spot. ie

Roughead was starting ruck as is Max

Campbell is second in line, as is Spencer

Boyd is SUPPOSED to be a KP forward and was drafted chiefly for that, but because of injuries has been filling in in the ruck, just like Watts. And Watts has offered a lot more than Boyd in both the midfield and up forward, so far this season. So yes, we don't have that extra 6cm, but we have the better player. And in terms of role, neither were supposed to do anything but fill in for 5 minutes here and there in the ruck. In that sense, yes, we do have a Boyd type. And no it's absolutely not clutching at straws.

I misstyped max. Meant to be Mitch. My mistake. And duplicated him there too. Was meant to be Roughead (Max), Campbell (Spencer), Boyd (Watts), English (King), Mullenger-McHugh (Filipovic) with Keilty as an extra that they don't have, unless you count Redpath.

Mitch and Flip are as far away from afl debuts as English and Mullenger-McHugh.

So you've missed my overall point (probably more due to my laziness). Our ruck stocks are SIMILAR to the reigning premiers. Only ours has the reigning AA, and one extra kid. You can bemoan our "threadbare" ruck stocks (they're a long way from threadbare... they're just injured) all you like, but the intention was sound. We have a lot of career ruckmen, and we had two guys in their mid twenties who were ready to go for 22 rounds, with backups everywhere. It's nonsense to say we were underprepared. You can't blame the list managers for the kind of injuries we've copped. Most clubs would love our ruck division. Our ruck stocks are one of our strengths. Our injury luck? Not so much.

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.  

Edited April 25, 2017 by Bonkers

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

1 minute ago, Bonkers said:

I think your  logic regarding Boyd and Watts is flawed. 

How so? People really should read posts closer. I didn't claim they're the same player. Or even similar. I was comparing ROLES. They're both pinch hitters in the ruck. They play only when the coach believes playing 2 full time ruckmen costs you too much around the ground. That's it. If you look closely, you're making the same point I did. I never said Jack was a pack buster or that Boyd was a slice and dice kick the way Watts is.

The only other area I compare them is production. Or in other words, regardless of your role in a team, how much production are you creating. Watts is slamming Boyd at the moment. Not getting as many hitouts (he's not really there for direct hitouts), but is kicking more goals, setting players up better, becoming an extra tall midfielder. He's been awesome. Yes Boyd might be there to crash packs, but he doesn't do it. Not that I'm knocking him massively, he's a lot younger and will become a really good player one day.

[titan_uranus 22,286]

I don't think this can be properly analysed without looking at other clubs' lists.

Adelaide has Jacobs, O'Brien then Himmelberg (19yo) and Hunter (rookie). They get some relief out of Jenkins who is 200cm.

GWS has Mumford, Simpson, Downie and Flynn (19yo). They get some relief out of Lobb (207cm).

Geelong has Stanley, Smith then Buzza and Abbott. They get some relief out of Blicavs (198cm).

We have Gawn, Spencer, then Filipovic and King. We get some relief out of Watts (196cm).

We are in a position that is similar, I think, to the above clubs. If Adelaide lost Jacobs and O'Brien they'd be in a very, very similar boat to us (either Himmelberg or Hunter or they rely more on Jenkins or another forward/defender). Ditto GWS. Ditto Geelong.

West Coast has more rucks but they started the pre-season with Naitanui and Lycett already out for all/most of 2017.

I haven't been through the other clubs yet but at the moment I tend to think our ruck stocks are about the same as others' and the main issue is the bad luck of losing Gawn and Spencer. 

Happy to be proven wrong if other clubs' lists are different, though.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Just now, titan_uranus said:

I don't think this can be properly analysed without looking at other clubs' lists.

Adelaide has Jacobs, O'Brien then Himmelberg (19yo) and Hunter (rookie). They get some relief out of Jenkins who is 200cm.

GWS has Mumford, Simpson, Downie and Flynn (19yo). They get some relief out of Lobb (207cm).

Geelong has Stanley, Smith then Buzza and Abbott. They get some relief out of Blicavs (198cm).

We have Gawn, Spencer, then Filipovic and King. We get some relief out of Watts (196cm).

We are in a position that is similar, I think, to the above clubs. If Adelaide lost Jacobs and O'Brien they'd be in a very, very similar boat to us (either Himmelberg or Hunter or they rely more on Jenkins or another forward/defender). Ditto GWS. Ditto Geelong.

West Coast has more rucks but they started the pre-season with Naitanui and Lycett already out for all/most of 2017.

I haven't been through the other clubs yet but at the moment I tend to think our ruck stocks are about the same as others' and the main issue is the bad luck of losing Gawn and Spencer. 

Happy to be proven wrong if other clubs' lists are different, though.

Why can't I be this concise? lol

[Bonkers 914]

5 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

How so? People really should read posts closer. I didn't claim they're the same player. Or even similar. I was comparing ROLES. They're both pinch hitters in the ruck. They play only when the coach believes playing 2 full time ruckmen costs you too much around the ground. That's it. If you look closely, you're making the same point I did. I never said Jack was a pack buster or that Boyd was a slice and dice kick the way Watts is.

The only other area I compare them is production. Or in other words, regardless of your role in a team, how much production are you creating. Watts is slamming Boyd at the moment. Not getting as many hitouts (he's not really there for direct hitouts), but is kicking more goals, setting players up better, becoming an extra tall midfielder. He's been awesome. Yes Boyd might be there to crash packs, but he doesn't do it. Not that I'm knocking him massively, he's a lot younger and will become a really good player one day.

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.

[Little Goffy 12,554]

I recall being nervous about the ruck situation, and shocked that people were suggesting moving on Spencer without a replacement.

Well, now we've stepped in the poo twice at the same playground, such is life.

I'm in the 'Pederson deserves more respect than he gets' camp, myself, and with Smith also now injured only some kind of vendetta from the coaching panel would stop him from getting a run.

 

Battling insomnia last night, I pictured Melbourne Rucks being a little bit like the guys they send into the cave to retrieve the grail, in Indiana Jones. Not good times.

[rjay 23,888]

21 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I don't think this can be properly analysed without looking at other clubs' lists.

Adelaide has Jacobs, O'Brien then Himmelberg (19yo) and Hunter (rookie). They get some relief out of Jenkins who is 200cm.

GWS has Mumford, Simpson, Downie and Flynn (19yo). They get some relief out of Lobb (207cm).

Geelong has Stanley, Smith then Buzza and Abbott. They get some relief out of Blicavs (198cm).

We have Gawn, Spencer, then Filipovic and King. We get some relief out of Watts (196cm).

We are in a position that is similar, I think, to the above clubs. If Adelaide lost Jacobs and O'Brien they'd be in a very, very similar boat to us (either Himmelberg or Hunter or they rely more on Jenkins or another forward/defender). Ditto GWS. Ditto Geelong.

West Coast has more rucks but they started the pre-season with Naitanui and Lycett already out for all/most of 2017.

I haven't been through the other clubs yet but at the moment I tend to think our ruck stocks are about the same as others' and the main issue is the bad luck of losing Gawn and Spencer. 

Happy to be proven wrong if other clubs' lists are different, though.

Our ruck stocks are not the same as those you have mentioned.

Jenkins at 200cm and Lobb at 207cm are a bit different to Watts at 196cm, as for Geelong their rucks haven't been great since Ottens retired but Selwood and Danger give them a bit of an equaliser...

Lycett was injured in pre season after the lists were settled...WC were better stocked up and took extra insurance with Petrie and Vardy, we didn't...

Edited April 25, 2017 by rjay

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Just now, Bonkers said:

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.

Do you understand you're rebutting a point I didn't make? Watts is a pinch hitting ruck. Boyd is a pinch hitting ruck. This is all I'm saying about their respective ruck roles within the lists they're on.

I didn't say anything about why they were drafted. I'm speaking on their role in the list they occupy. Players are drafted and RETAINED for different things. And Selected for different things too. Noone wants to see Watts in the ruck ever. Ideally, it'd be Gawn and someone like Tippet, and we'd never see Jack in a single stoppage.

You see you're disagreeing with me, and then making the same point I did. Both are pinch hitting in the ruck, but are, in an ideal world, NOT SUPPOSED TO PLAY THERE.

Boyd is SUPPOSED to play forward. Jack is SUPPOSED to play forward. Of course Boyd is built better for the ruck, he's over 2 metres tall. That doesn't mean the Dogs WANT him there. When Campbell or Roughy play, he gets what, 6 hitouts? (the same as Watts). When both play? He's forward for the entire game. Same as Watts. (although Watts is great, cos he plan play literally anywhere on the ground with his massive tank).

I think you're saying Boyd is recruited, retained and selected to be a forward and backup ruck, and that Watts isn't. Based partly on the fact he's 200cm, and partly on his great GF. Neither one of us knows for sure Bevo's true intentions, no matter what he says or what is written. But... I don't think you pay a million a year for a pinch hitting ruck that's playing the game Boyd is right now. He's supposed to be the KP clunker. Same reason they went and got Cloke. And Redpath. And no, I don't think Watts is a KP clunker. Matter of fact he's not as good a mark as any of Redpath, Boyd, or Cloke. I think it's probably he was drafted as a KP forward, and when they realised that's not what he is, they adapted his role and made him what he is now. He'd have to be one of the best utilities in the game right now. At one point he's dobbing them from 55 metres like he's Lloyd. A quarter later he's on our defensive goal line taking a mark to repel.

My overarching before we got bogged down arguing the same point to each other, was that in terms of ruck stocks, we're the same as the best team in the comp. And various other strong rucking teams. You can't have 5 AA ruckmen on your list. You ahve your starter who should be ideally a top 10 guy. Then his backup, who's a good honest trier, but is between 19th-36th in the ruckman pecking order. Then after that you have backups and pinch hitters of all different shapes and sizes... and then you develop 2-3 kids at any given time. List management wise, we did absolutely the right thing. Any more we'd have too many ruckmen. Any less we'd be thin. They got it right. We just got injured. It's simple.

[Wiseblood 24,636]

14 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

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.

Their role on the list isn't allowed to change over time?  If Watts' role wasn't to play as a forward/relief ruckman, then he wouldn't be doing it.  Clearly that is his role now for the club going forward, whether that be in the short or long term.  If it wasn't then Pedersen would have gotten a gig or they would have gone with both Gawn and Spencer from Round 1.  

So while Boyd may have a few centimetres on him, he still plays the same role as Watts.  Watts just does it better.

[Moonshadow 16,161]

IMO we still have many areas of deficiency on our list. Our 'depth' isn't anywhere near as good as many claim.

We need a number 1 kp defender (Tmac is not this), we are at least 2 experienced A grade mids down on other clubs (Clary will be this in 2-3 years, but not as a 19yo) and now we have no real ruck left. Combined with guys like JKH, ANB, Harmes, ben Ken, etc who would struggle to get games at most other clubs and our list appears wafer thin. Poor depth is hardly depth, especially when they are picked regularly enough. The other elephant in the room is our lack of true leaders. 

We've managed to plug some holes over the last 18 months,  Hunt and Hibberd are good additions, Clary will be a star, and (until injured) Max has grown in stature immensely, and so on.

But our midfield lacks quality and depth, we have many C and B graders trying to play roles beyond their capabilities. I include Jones, Vince, Viney, Tyson in this. I'm hoping Brayshaw, Trac and Salem lift above B level, but that's still 2-3 years away.

Look at Richmond last night (which I don't rate that highly). Rance, Rievoldt, Martin, Cotchin. A graders and All Australian players in my view. All grabbing their teammates and demanding "come with me and win this!" Who are our A grade leaders?

My priorities at seasons end would be a FA such as Martin or Fyfe and trade for May from GCS, or similar. We have enough youth, we need 25-26yo high end to come in.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Moonshadow

[titan_uranus 22,286]

Just now, rjay said:

Our ruck stocks are not the same as those you have mentioned.

Jenkins at 200cm and Lobb at 207cm are a bit different to Watts at 196cm, as for Geelong their rucks haven't been great since Ottens retired but Selwood and Danger give them a bit of an equaliser...

Certainly Jenkins and Lobb are much better relief ruckmen than Watts but the main issue is how they would respond if they lost their best and second best ruckmen. They could play Lobb in the ruck but as it stands they play a forward line with Cameron, Patton and Lobb so to take Lobb out is to do the exact same thing we have to do by taking Watts out.

And as for Geelong, isn't that precisely the argument in support of our ruck stocks? That, in a worst case scenario and we get injuries to ruckmen, we rely on our midfielders and the rest of the side to cope without them? It's the same tactic Geelong uses which supports the argument that our list management, insofar as we only have Gawn, Spencer and the two kids, is not actually that different to other clubs'.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

2 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

IMO we still have many areas of deficiency on our list. Our 'depth' isn't anywhere near as good as many claim.

I won't quote the whole thing, but aren't you sort of making the point that it's not our depth, but our YOUTH that's the problem? Second youngest list in the league and all that? (4th youngest when old-man Lewis comes back).

I reckon our depth in certain areas is incredible. General defenders in particular. Starters would be Jetta, Salem and Hibberd. After that it's Smith, Hunt, Vince, Stretch, Lewis, Wagner, Melksham. That's a LOT of good names.

But yes, deficiency in areas on a list is standard for any team. Injuries just uncover it. KPD we came into the season one less than where we needed to be, and we lost Garland who, as much as he's not liked around these parts, was a good backup. KPF we have only Hogan and Watts, and then a raft of younger kids who aren't able to run games out. I like our small forwards and our midfield I still think is deep. So for me it's pick 1, KPD, pick 2 KPF.

[rjay 23,888]

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

And as for Geelong, isn't that precisely the argument in support of our ruck stocks? T

No, we don't have 2 of the premier mids in the comp....

We have been caught out, we took a punt and we've come unstuck.

I don't like taking punts with list management, we are not in the position to do it.

2 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

I reckon our depth in certain areas is incredible. General defenders in particular. Starters would be Jetta, Salem and Hibberd. After that it's Smith, Hunt, Vince, Stretch, Lewis, Wagner, Melksham. That's a LOT of good names.

Not one 'A' grader amongst them. Hibberd close and Hunt on the way...

[rjay 23,888]

5 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

I like our small forwards

Petracca is the only one I rate, and he's more a mid sized forward than small.

Edited April 25, 2017 by rjay

[ChaserJ 3,963]

4 hours ago, rjay said:

We've lauded the work of Jason Taylor & the recruiting team and love the regeneration of the club under PJ & Roos but what about our list management.

Last year we recruited an EFC player with possible sanctions hanging over him, unfortunately that decision left us one down on the list. Luckily we had a good run with injury & it didn't really hurt us.

We got rid of one problem child & took on another (the prince) who then retired leaving us again one down on the list...this one has hurt us.

We have a list deficiency & this is not a hindsight call.

It was obvious to many of us that we were light on in the ruck division.

Max was carrying the load but had been injury prone. Big Jake gives his all but was/is a battler and has also struggled with injury...we then had King who was recovering from a knee and had only played minutes at VFL level and recruited a kid who is not ready for VFL footy let alone AFL.

Our current ruck predicament was predictable and we didn't take out insurance. Someone like Minson would be very handy about now.

Being one list position short hasn't helped but also not using a rookie spot for insurance has hurt.

What also hasn't helped us is we don't have any tall key position players who could go into the ruck and give a contest.

Watts has battled manfully and many have called for Pedders to come and or Frost to take over. Watts 196cm, Pedders 193cm, Frost 194cm, Weid 195cm, Hogan 195cm, Tommy Mc 194cm....

The Dogs didn't need to use Minson as they had key position players in Boyd and Roughead at 200cm and another in Campbell.

A lot will point to a lack of outside run & class but I think we can cover that. To me we lack good adaptable talls...and insurance.

The luck is not running with us this year but we also haven't done ourselves any favours with list decisions.

 

 

 

 

In particular a lot of discussion was had here about getting a ruck forward who could come in and relieve Jack of the duty.  A player who could come in straight away whilst King came back and developed.

Darcy Cameron was raised a fair bit and I was hoping for Rowan Marshall. Don't mind getting Filipovic in as one for the future, but agree we erred by not getting someone in who could help out in the ruck straight away, even if it was going to (initially) be their secondary contribution.

Hannan and Johnstone may end up being gems for us, but they didn't strike me as filling immediate needs in the 16 draft.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

I don't like taking punts with list management, we are not in the position to do it.

Not one 'A' grader amongst them. Hibberd close and Hunt on the way...

Surely every club in the league is taking punts. You can say every player in the comp is a punt. There's no such thing as a safe player. Dangerfield does a knee this season, and their "bet" turns out a bad one.

Yes, correct point. But I didn't say "A grader." I just said depth. Would you say it's good to have good depth in an age bracket, say, 20-25... and educate and wait... and watch some of them become stars? The way I see it, we can't very well go out and trade for established A graders for the WHOLE list. The majority have to come from in house, or you'll be paying overs all the time. I reckon Salem, Hunt and even Smith can be that in the future. Wagner probably one notch down. Lewis and Vince too old to be considered future stars. Hmm.... Maybe need one more.