I think PJ has played his best footy when he has been the sole or #1 ruckman in the side.

When he's in a rotation or 2nd choice ruckman he's been ineffective.

The only problem with that is when Jamar is the only ruck, he also plays his best, and it happens to be better than PJ.

So Gawn at 206cm is the messiah, but Spencer at 203 is a spud?

Spencer will play 2010 as a 20 year old. He's unfashionable, but I think that clouds people's opinions of him. If he had a smooth kicking action then I doubt that you'd be able to shut people up about his potential.

Correct. I also think that Spencer's infamous ball-drop when he was trying to kick a goal has destroyed his reputation.

Spencer has as much chance of making it at AFL level as Gawn does.

I think PJ has played his best footy when he has been the sole or #1 ruckman in the side.

When he's in a rotation or 2nd choice ruckman he's been ineffective.

That seems largely irrelevant, unless you feel that he's good enough to play as the sole or #1 ruckman, White-style. (I don't).

Even at the end of 2010 Jamar will still be miles better than the rest of the bunch.

I think Fitzpatrick was drafted with the idea of playing him forward and in the ruck, so even after some years of development he might turn out to be a forward instead of a ruckman.

Gawn and Spencer are a while off taking the #1 spot, and Meesen and Pj will be pushing to stay on the list.

Jamar stays.

for f#$k sake...lets not get excited guys...Jamar only played 7 games this year...he showed a little.

personally i think he needs to play 18+ games to hold his spot next year...hence why he was given only a year contract this year.

melbourne can't afford to give out 2 yr contracts to players who just aren't consistent...like newton, meesen, etc

melbourne can't afford to give out 2 yr contracts to players who just aren't consistent...like newton, meesen, etc

*Cough*

Newton got a 2 yr contract in 2008 and Meesen is in the last year of a 3year contract.

Jamar was very good last year in limited appearances. He needs to be on the ground to continnue the efforts. The truth of the matter is that his 7 games were better than other options that played 20 or so last year.

A lot will depend on how Mad Max goes in 2010. I totally agree with Bailey's opinion about taking time with these big blokes, but let's face it, ruck isn't the most difficult role on the ground, and if Max can get fit enough to play some AFL footy next year, we could possibly see PJ, Meesen and Spencer (I hope so) gawn (sorry - gone!). I'm not sure how many rucks we need, if someone knows what other clubs have I'd be interested to know.

Have a look at Kruezer at Carlton. Number 1 pick in 2007, played a handful of games in 2008, and played all 23 games in 2009. He has been very good in the ruck (playing as 2nd ruck) and down forward, I can't see why either Gawn or Beaker Fitzpatrick can't do the same thing. While Gawn or Fitzy are far from number 1 picks, if they've got a big enough motor come next year, I reckon they'll play.

Jamar needs to stay, providing he can play 16-22 games next year.

*Cough*

Newton got a 2 yr contract in 2008 and Meesen is in the last year of a 3year contract.

Jamar was very good last year in limited appearances. He needs to be on the ground to continnue the efforts. The truth of the matter is that his 7 games were better than other options that played 20 or so last year.

like i said rhino...melbourne can't afford to give players 2+ year contracts if they only have limited appearances...

can't believe your happy to have a player who can only manage 7 games. we will never get off the bottom of the ladder if people like yourself have a say.

A lot will depend on how Mad Max goes in 2010. I totally agree with Bailey's opinion about taking time with these big blokes, but let's face it, ruck isn't the most difficult role on the ground, and if Max can get fit enough to play some AFL footy next year, we could possibly see PJ, Meesen and Spencer (I hope so) gawn (sorry - gone!). I'm not sure how many rucks we need, if someone knows what other clubs have I'd be interested to know.

Have a look at Kruezer at Carlton. Number 1 pick in 2007, played a handful of games in 2008, and played all 23 games in 2009. He has been very good in the ruck (playing as 2nd ruck) and down forward, I can't see why either Gawn or Beaker Fitzpatrick can't do the same thing. While Gawn or Fitzy are far from number 1 picks, if they've got a big enough motor come next year, I reckon they'll play.

Jamar needs to stay, providing he can play 16-22 games next year.

Gawn won't play more than a couple of games in 2010 and it will only for development's sake.

He won't be ready until 2012 at the earliest.

like i said rhino...melbourne can't afford to give players 2+ year contracts if they only have limited appearances...

can't believe your happy to have a player who can only manage 7 games. we will never get off the bottom of the ladder if people like yourself have a say.

Re read my post and re think your response. Who is our better option in the ruck than Jamar? I said before he needs to get on the park

To be honest, the very notion of trading Jamar at the end of 2010 before he has played a game in the 2010 season is absurd.

The only reasons we would want to keep him on the list are the same ones that would give him any value on the trade table.

If he becomes expendable because of the form of other ruckmen on our list, then this is worth discussing... but we will never know until we see how those players perform.

Gawn won't play more than a couple of games in 2010 and it will only for development's sake.

He won't be ready until 2012 at the earliest.

I'm of a similar opinion Keyser, but I'm starting to think that it's worth throwing in a young ruck and let him develop playing in the 1s. As I said about Kruezer he seems to be handling it fine. Sure, he has his games where he has copped a hiding, but he's played some pretty bloody good footy too. Even Nic Nat played some OK footy. Reality is that we need 2 rucks playing a majority of our games, Jamar (assuming 100% fit) is by far our best ruckman, so let's make the second spot a competitive one. Chances are Gawn wont be ready by round 1 anyway (because of his knee/general fitness).

As I said, I'm not disagreeing about the "development method" used by the club, but where would the player get the best development from - Casey or the MCG? Looking at blokes like Frawley, it was the MCG. It's the million dollar question, I'm totally sitting on the fence!!! On one hand, it would be great to see the likes of Gawn running around in the seniors (especially fr us interstate supporters as we get no VFL telecast), but if his longevity will be increased by taking a slower approach, well, I'm all for that too.

...

Gawn however is recovering from an ACL injury and doesn't have the mobility of Kreuzer.

Kreuzer also spent a fair chunk of time playing in the forward line... which I guess isn't out of the question for Gawn.

If we have a capable performing ruckman in Jamar, why would we persist with playing an underdone developing ruckman?

I think its important to take baby steps with this kid for a while.

Gawn however is recovering from an ACL injury and doesn't have the mobility of Kreuzer.

Kreuzer also spent a fair chunk of time playing in the forward line... which I guess isn't out of the question for Gawn.

If we have a capable performing ruckman in Jamar, why would we persist with playing an underdone developing ruckman?

I think its important to take baby steps with this kid for a while.

I did indicate that Gawn would be underdone because of his injury, but from round 10+ he should be ready.

By no means am I saying we should be playing an underdone ruckman, the question I am asking is what would we achieve by playing a developing ruck in the seniors? There are strong points for both sides of the argument, but as I said, I'm on the fence for it.

If Jamar is flying, I would love to see our future ruck stocks operating as his understudy (ie playing the 2nd ruck role) - very similar to the White/Jolly era.

The hard part is that there is no right or wrong generic answer, it is all dependent on the individual. Some will prosper playing at that next level at a young age, some will not have an immediate impact. The fun/difficult part is when do you test it out.

I would have to say it is quite possible. Jamar did only sign for 1 year!

He will be 27 next year and will be looking for a more secure contract (3 years) which we all know Melbourne will only offer maximum 2 you would think. I can see the Gold Coast, Port and possibly Adelaide very interested!

GC can take one uncontracted player from each club. Is Jamar it? Or could we trade him for one of there early picks. I think they have Picks 1-5.

I think we might see Jamar going to GC or Port. Petterd is likely to be at GC also.

Being from Brisbane, Miller will be our offering to GC, that's why he is on a one year contract. Jamar will not go anywhere until Gawn is ready to take 1st ruck responsibility, and that will be at least three years IMO.

Being from Brisbane, Miller will be our offering to GC, that's why he is on a one year contract. Jamar will not go anywhere until Gawn is ready to take 1st ruck responsibility, and that will be at least three years IMO.

Not sure where Miller is at. Voted in to the leadership group again, so has the respect from his players. His leadership/age will be an area that we will need as blokes like Junior and Bruce fall off the other end.

I did read somewhere that the GC may decide not to pick up all 16 out of contract players. It'll depend on what high profile players they pick up and how much it costs them. The still have a salary cap, so if they pick up the likes of Ablett (doubtful, but if they do), it will cost them around $1m+ a year, that chews in to their salary cap, therefore may only target 8 or 9 OOC players.

2010 will be a big year for our (experienced) ruck stocks. As I have said in a previous post, assuming all are fit, Jamar is easily our best. I don't think there is much gap between PJ and Meesen, with Spencer a long way behind them. I think we are best to stick with Jamar for the remainder of his career (again, assuming we can keep him on the park this year), as we get jack sh!t for him come trade time, and he will be a valuable leader in the development of Max.

It might not be a matter of whether we want Jamar to stay - it might be more about whether Jamar wants to stay.

Is it possible that Port made an absolutely huge play for Jamar in trade week (they'd be crazy not to in their situation), and this unusual 1-year contract was the only way we could keep him for 2010? That a deal was made, him agreeing to stay one more year because that's when we really need him the most to help develop our young ruckmen, and the club agreeing to consider a trade at the end of 2010 if he really wants to go?

Sure, I have nothing to base this on, but how else do you explain this weird 1-year contract? The club must have been happy with Jamar's performances in 2009 (when he managed to get himself on the park) and would not have hesitated to give him a 2-year contract like everyone else. Especially as I'd have thought we'd want to get players like Jamar out of the reach of GC17 by keeping them in contract past the end of 2010. The idea that the 1-year contract was to align with others doesn't cut it, and I haven't heard another reasonable explanation.

We have 2 experienced rucks (Jamar & PJ), 2 promising novices (Spencer & Gawn), and 2 possible "pinch-hitters" (Martin & Fitzpatrick), plus Meesen. The young guys in particular need to be given maximum game time with either Melbourne or Casey. Provided all 4 are fit, maybe 1 old-hand & 1 novice will play together; if there are injuries, Martin or Fitzy step in. Frankly, I'm not sure where Meesen fits in - he seems to be nowhere near recovery, maybe he'll be injured most of the year; maybe Casey 2nds if not?

Therefore in game 1 2010, for example, Jamar & Spencer & Martin play for Dees with Spencer doing most of the ruckwork, Jamar playing forward and taking over if Spencer's having problems or needs a rest, with Martin in reserve when Spencer's benched or needs an injury. And PJ, Gawn (if fit) & Fitzy play for Casey in the same manner. I repeat, they need maximum game time in "first ruck" from the young guys, but with back-up from the old-hands in case of trouble. On the other hand, it makes no sense to play Gawn & Spencer in the same team - they'll just be taking "first-ruck" time away from each other (it also makes no sense to have Jamar & PJ in the same team).

My points are that: (1) we need to use 2010 to prepare for the possibility that Jamar might not be around in 2011, and (2) Jamar's main use in 2010 may well be helping to develop Spencer & Gawn (& maybe Meesen if he comes through).

I did read somewhere that the GC may decide not to pick up all 16 out of contract players. It'll depend on what high profile players they pick up and how much it costs them. The still have a salary cap, so if they pick up the likes of Ablett (doubtful, but if they do), it will cost them around $1m+ a year, that chews in to their salary cap, therefore may only target 8 or 9 OOC players.

Correct, their recruiting manager said he thought they would take about 8 out of contract players at most.

Would any these players be:

Jones

Bruce

Moloney

Rivers

by any chance??

Bruce has been and remains in our top 3 or 4 players, and will be for a few more years. To talk of getting rid of him is ridiculous.

DB was quoted as saying last week that this is the first full pre-season Rivers has put in for FOUR years. He will be almost like a new recruit this year, except one of our few players with finals experience. I predict he will get back to his Rising Star form this year.

I agree Jones and Maloney have question marks against them. Neither have good decision making, and often get caught with the ball, but both are excellent kicks and experienced "in and under" types so for the time being remain on our list while the young guns develop.

Both though could be good trade bait if we wanted to access the early picks from GC or WS in the next couple of years.

Who agrees?

Jones and Moloney are required players. 2nd and equal 5th in the Best & Fairest. Both are tough as nails and put their body in and will be needed in finals, especially in a young team. These are the guys we particularly need with Mclean gone. Jones has shown exceptional endurance and Moloney has managed to stay out there considerably well given this season was his first to have a solid preseason in some years. Both also have good leadership/team ethic characters and Moloney in particular is a crazy man obsessed with the Red & Blue.

Jamar is our best ruck right now and almost certainly for some years. He developed quite well in 2009 despite injuries hobbling him. I'd consider him to be one of our most required players right now, and I am of the opinion we're about to see a very fine return on the club's investment in him.

Jones and Moloney are required players. 2nd and equal 5th in the Best & Fairest. Both are tough as nails and put their body in and will be needed in finals, especially in a young team. These are the guys we particularly need with Mclean gone. Jones has shown exceptional endurance and Moloney has managed to stay out there considerably well given this season was his first to have a solid preseason in some years. Both also have good leadership/team ethic characters and Moloney in particular is a crazy man obsessed with the Red & Blue.

Jamar is our best ruck right now and almost certainly for some years. He developed quite well in 2009 despite injuries hobbling him. I'd consider him to be one of our most required players right now, and I am of the opinion we're about to see a very fine return on the club's investment in him.

I agree about Jamar - yet to be convinced about the other two....

Correct, their recruiting manager said he thought they would take about 8 out of contract players at most.

I'd imagine that that's because they can't get their hands on too many of the top quality players and want to keep most of their draft picks for the future.