Rivers is a better player than Warnock and can play his position just as effectively, and he has the flexibility to play other roles even better. Warnock is a good player and is certainly best 18, but he is chronically overrated on here. I would trade him over Rivers every day of the week. We also have Martin who is a far better defender than forward and he would also be an option for fullback. I actually really like him down there.

I rate our key defenders: Garland > Frawley > Rivers > Warnock, Martin

It is a myth (bullpoo) that Rivers can only play as a loose man/3rd defender. He is not great on the lead but otherwise he will beat his man 9/10 times. He is so reliable, and has far better disposal and smarts than Warnock.

Riv is too slow to keep up with the CHBs that Warnock keeps up with. And Rivers can adequately play on the best or second best tall forwards but Frawley and Warnock are better, as Rivers is better at the loose man.

It's no myth.

If given the choice I would trade Rivers instead of Warnock because Warnock can play on the best or second best forward better than Rivers.

Rivers is a good player but overrated by supporters that don't have a good understanding of the game.

I'd happily traded provided the price was right.

Surplus to requirements, but only just.

Rivers is a good player but overrated by supporters that don't have a good understanding of the game.

By that I assume that it means: "People that don't agree with me".

Huberis.

Sorry for the double post but I just noticed that on 'Ology there is a thread on the top 25 in all stats and Rivers comes in at #5 for 1%ers.

All this for a bloke coming back from injury and with a limited pre-season.

I agree. We should get rid of him? He should of at least been in the top 3 to make it in our glorious spoon side.

Huberis.

Ah...hubris. B)

A follow up if I may, do you think we'd get more than a mid/late second round pick for him on the open market?

I don't know.

I'd probably try and package him up with a player/draft pick swap.

Ah...hubris. B)

That too.

I don't know.

I'd probably try and package him up with a player/draft pick swap.

Rivers + 18 for pick 9?

Rivers + 18 for pick 9?

So you would swap Riv and pick 18 for pick 9 in a shallow draft would you? Who would you have in mind as our choice for pick 9 then? What, by the way, would you think if you knew that Garland wasn't going to come back next year or for that matter the year after? We could get Sculley Trengove/Morabito/Rohan/Martin plus maybe Panos with what we have and still keep Riv. Where would we be under your scenario?

Sorry but why is this thread called keep Jared Rivers? Has there been any talk about him changing clubs or has this just all be created on demonland?

If he can put another full season together this guy will only improve.

Sorry for the double post but I just noticed that on 'Ology there is a thread on the top 25 in all stats and Rivers comes in at #5 for 1%ers.

All this for a bloke coming back from injury and with a limited pre-season.

I agree. We should get rid of him? He should of at least been in the top 3 to make it in our glorious spoon side.

As many would agree, there are not too many better 'loose men' in the game than Rivers.

But they are not as valuable as someone who can beat a CHF (Warnock), beat a FF (Frawley), and play tall and small while being a offensive threat (Garland).

I feel we should leave our defence as is, but if we were to get an enticing offer for one of the four, I know which one I would move on.

By that I assume that it means: "People that don't agree with me".

Huberis.

Nope. By people who have a poor understanding of the game.

The type that place far too much stock in an award like the Rising Star.

(I wouldn't trade pick 18 for Palmer, for example.)

He is good, I said that.

But he gets overrated by the above-mentioned people. Marginally, but nonetheless.

So you would swap Riv and pick 18 for pick 9 in a shallow draft would you? Who would you have in mind as our choice for pick 9 then? What, by the way, would you think if you knew that Garland wasn't going to come back next year or for that matter the year after? We could get Sculley Trengove/Morabito/Rohan/Martin plus maybe Panos with what we have and still keep Riv. Where would we be under your scenario?

Oh, there's no one in mind.

Its just that stockpiling draft picks is so much fun and 9 sound like such a nice high number...

Fully considering the implications of such a move would take too much thinking

I would entertain a trade for Rivers but we wouldn't get much of value so it's a moot point.

He takes on all but the biggest forward...

...sneaks out to the wing and delivers inside 50s.

Who are you watching? It's not Rivers.

With Garland back we are too tall in defence

Is this the same Garland that played on and beat Farmer?

To be fair I think you need to take into account that for an entire year, we've missed Garland, who is both a KP defender and a play maker. This meant that the rest of the defenders have had less of a chance to create attacking opportunities. What are Frawley's inside 50 stats?

What's Garland being out have to do with it?

I can't remember a time when we've ever had three defenders in front of Rivers so it's not like Rivers in the top three 'tall defenders' is a different role for him.

When has Rivers ever played the defender who gives you a heap of inside 50's?

I add my vote to this thread. Rivers should be an untouchable.

Untouchable? For an injury-prone tall defender who doesn't provide much rebound and also doesn't take the opponent's key forward? I like Rivers but IMO that's crazy talk.

Untouchable? For an injury-prone tall defender who doesn't provide much rebound and also doesn't take the opponent's key forward? I like Rivers but IMO that's crazy talk.

You ain't the first, and you sure as hell won't be the last, to accuse me of crazy talk so I won't get too upset about it. But he should be untouchable. So should all of the starting backline. The backline we are growing has the potential to be the best in the league. Everyone waffles about how important a good midfield is but a good - and settled - backline is just as, and possibly more, important. How did the Hawks go this year with the guts ripped out of the back half? How would Geelong go without their fine defence? And St Kildas backs are a well drilled unit that runs in waves and causes the opp forwards to turn it over so they can then (as some commentators might say) reload.

The game more and more is decided by turnovers, and by turnovers on the half back line when the side running forward is suddenly caught out of position and the other side gets a free run to the other end. It is also becoming a lower scoring game so when a backline is beaten all the forwards and mids in the world can't help (see Carlscum).

And this is what annoys me. People want to trade the only good thing we have going. Why not offer forwards? Bate and Petterd? "Of course not coz our forward line isn't good enough yet - we need them". Mids? Why not offer Mc Lean or Jones? "No, we need all our mids because we are weak there". Now I'm not suggesting that we should trade these players but I'd be happier that if we had to trade we would trade out players from our weak spots to bring in players that would make it stronger.

Back to Jarred. 3rd best defender? Sure. But he is a master of reading the play and being 3rd man up with suicidal courage which helps turn the ground ball into a 50/50, which, if our backs are good enough, we will win most of the time. As for being injury prone - hell, if you are going to trade blokes from our club that have that problem we'd have a whole new team next year.

So untouchable? Bloody oath!

I don't agree with much of that, but fair enough.

One thing I'm keen to know is what you mean by 'untouchable'. To me, that means I'm not interested in any offer*. If I don't think someone is 'untouchable' it doesn't mean I'm actively keen for us to offload them.

What does it mean for you?

*anything remotely reasonable, that is - I'm excluding offers of anything bigger than we've seen in AFL trading history, so I'm ignoring hypotheticals like 'I'll give you picks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 plus Riewoldt, Franklin and Judd for Rivers'

One thing I'm keen to know is what you mean by 'untouchable'. To me, that means I'm not interested in any offer*.

What it means to me is that we will not get an offer that I think he is close to being worth. If Richmond offered #3 I'd take it but they won't. Pick #7 I'd consider but we won't get that either, and any thing else would hurt us more than it would gain us IMO. If we could get another top ten pick then good stuff but NOT at the expense of the backline. Maybe I'm a bit skittish but I would be a very unhappy supporter if we gave him away so we could draft another Bell or Dunn.

What it means to me is that we will not get an offer that I think he is close to being worth. If Richmond offered #3 I'd take it but they won't. Pick #7 I'd consider but we won't get that either, and any thing else would hurt us more than it would gain us IMO. If we could get another top ten pick then good stuff but NOT at the expense of the backline. Maybe I'm a bit skittish but I would be a very unhappy supporter if we gave him away so we could draft another Bell or Dunn.

There are two issues here. The first is what you could you could get for him and what you could you use the pick on. No one will deny that first round picks used for Bell and Dunn have not been successes but that does not discount the good sense of the trade that brought them to us. Both Woey and Jolly were trades done at the right time based on the information the Club had at the time. If you that spooked on the use of draft picks, maybe we should pass on picks 1 and 2 because you never know

The reason you trade is that you seek to better your list by ideally trading what you have potentially surplus of. Its already been clearly covered why Rivers name has come up. Why you have suggest trading players in the forward line when we one have a shortage of talent up there and neither player is likley to garner signinficant interest only suggests you dont understand list management or the concepts of trading.

Rogue and rpfc are on the right track with this.

There are two issues here. The first is what you could you could get for him and what you could you use the pick on.

.........................

The reason you trade is that you seek to better your list by ideally trading what you have potentially surplus of.

This is really all its about.

Issue: Team talent and balance, timelines of maturing players/ post peaking of others, effective currency of anyone at anytime.

its a juggling act...get it right..you win..get it wrong.. well...you do your balls!!

There are two issues here. The first is what you could you could get for him and what you could you use the pick on. No one will deny that first round picks used for Bell and Dunn have not been successes but that does not discount the good sense of the trade that brought them to us. Both Woey and Jolly were trades done at the right time based on the information the Club had at the time. If you that spooked on the use of draft picks, maybe we should pass on picks 1 and 2 because you never know

The reason you trade is that you seek to better your list by ideally trading what you have potentially surplus of. Its already been clearly covered why Rivers name has come up. Why you have suggest trading players in the forward line when we one have a shortage of talent up there and neither player is likley to garner signinficant interest only suggests you dont understand list management or the concepts of trading.

Rogue and rpfc are on the right track with this.

There is a HUGE difference between pick 1/2 and picks in the mid-teens. Stupid comparison

I don't know.

I'd probably try and package him up with a player/draft pick swap.

This is my favoured option for trade week.

Key defenders are in short supply in the league; we've got a surfeit of them. I vote for packaging up Rivers and pick 18 to obtain another pick inside the first round. Likely targets include Carlton (pick 11) and Hawthorn (pick 9).

It would free up an extra space on our senior list and give us three picks inside the first round of what is expected to be a shallow draft.

The third party would receive a proven key defender to boost their weaknesses as they challenge for September honours and a pick just outside the first round of the draft.

Win-win.

What it means to me is that we will not get an offer that I think he is close to being worth.

I don't think that means Rivers is an 'untouchable' - doesn't it just mean you think his market value is less than the value you attach to him?

Maybe I'm a bit skittish but I would be a very unhappy supporter if we gave him away so we could draft another Bell or Dunn.

...or a Grimes?