I have heard DB say on a number of occasions that Garland will play forward this year.

Well, now is about the right time with Ricky Bobby likely gone for a period.

Rivers is back and doesn't appear to me someone who can go fwd. Watts is not ready yet. Newton is, well, Newton.

Dunn should ideally be the guy but hasn't set the world on fire in recent forays fwd. Shame since he is the same size as Pavlich and 1cm smaller than Goodes and Reiwoldt.

For mine I'd like to see Garland fwd now that he has a few games under his belt and has some fitness.

I have heard DB say on a number of occasions that Garland will play forward this year.

Well, now is about the right time with Ricky Bobby likely gone for a period.

Rivers is back and doesn't appear to me someone who can go fwd. Watts is not ready yet. Newton is, well, Newton.

Dunn should ideally be the guy but hasn't set the world on fire in recent forays fwd. Shame since he is the same size as Pavlich and 1cm smaller than Goodes and Reiwoldt.

For mine I'd like to see Garland fwd now that he has a few games under his belt and has some fitness.

Is he ready yet? I think he's still trying to get back into the pace of the game atm.....

garland was drafted as a forward, and moved to the backline due to injury, yet played well enough to cement a spot. With frawlleyt and warnock dominating, rivers a definant started and the recruiting of macdonald, i think garland forward is a good move, and his kicking is top notch

can't hurt can it, Petterd going down is going to change the set up dramatically, be nice to have a big bloke to focus through. We can always throw The Russian down there to take his obligatory one speccy per game.

Not too silly. He's a smart footballer, can mark, has pace, can kick (though not sure if he's any good at goal), needs body size. Plus surplus to requirements down back.

Good idea I have thought we should try garland in the forward line.

Also big Paul Johnson, wearing Jim Stynes no 11. He is 199 cm. We need a big target in the forward line. Could be worth a go.

Go Dees

Edited May 3, 201015 yr by Go Dees Attack

I can see the merit in it, but I'm not so keen.

I posted in another thread that with Garland, Warnock and Frawley as our 3 core defenders for the next however many years, we have a chance to really make our backline the feature of our game. I would hate to see us screw around with this just to fix our short-term structural problems up forward; we'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Let's keep in mind that Morton is a good prospect to take up a key position; in a few years we might end up with Watts/Morton/Jurrah as our tall forwards. Problem solved, with Garland/Warnock/Frawley still causing the opposition headaches down back. That's a pipe dream right now, to be sure, but even if it never happens, I would still rather we try to develop one of the many tall fringe players on our list, and if this fails, try to trade for a tall forward.

Unless Garland is going to be a significantly better forward than a defender, then I say leave him where he is.

As for this week, I really don't think it's winnable, so in light of what I was saying before, I'd give fringe players like Martin, Rivers etc extended periods up forward and see what they can do.

Edited May 3, 201015 yr by two sheds jackson

If Garland was drafted as a forward, then this week would be a good opportunity for him to play up forward, considering watts will not be playing for a while. Cheney & Strauss have been playing well for Casey so either could get a call up and leave Rivers down back, and make Dunn & Garland stay in the 50 for the big grabs...

Is it just me or does Garland look submissive on the field, does not seem like he has any mongrel about him.

We need to try Garland forward at some stage. And I think this is the week. Neitz started back and went forward!

Garland forward for mine!

OUT - Petterd and Martin to miss.

IN - McKenzie, Bail.

can't hurt can it, Petterd going down is going to change the set up dramatically, be nice to have a big bloke to focus through. We can always throw The Russian down there to take his obligatory one speccy per game.

Petterd as a forward offered us a player who could play Small & Tall. His flying for marks made him a danger to the opposition defenders. He was also a quick mobile small/med player. A dangerous player who needed guarding & was not easily run off.

We need to try to replace him with a similarly quick mobile player who can be a danger in the Air! ??????? Garland? Hughes?

Jurrah in 3 Months.

Hughes?

How is he traveling, has he been consistent enough to warrant a senior spot?

Wonna is not that far away, i assume it would take him a month to six weeks to get back to 100% fitness.

How is he traveling, has he been consistent enough to warrant a senior spot?

Wonna is not that far away, i assume it would take him a month to six weeks to get back to 100% fitness.

He's been hot & warm. Some interrupted form through missed game or games. If we are to keep him on or let him go this year, I think we need to give him a go & give ourselves a chance or 2, to see what he can offer.He can play the role that Petterd was doing as well as play the run 'n' carry game as well. Good overhead.

Wonna is a rover, & hasn't even played Casey Seniors yet after a couple of short minute games for Casey 2nds.

Edited May 3, 201015 yr by dee-luded

He's been hot & warm. Some interrupted form through missed game or games. If we are to keep him on or let him go this year, I think we need to give him a go & give ourselves a chance or 2, to see what he can offer.He can play the role that Petterd was doing as well as play the run 'n' carry game as well. Good overhead.

Wonna is a rover, & hasn't even played Casey Seniors yet after a couple of short minute games for Casey 2nds.

Seeing Petterd is injured and Garland may not be playing forward, Hughes would be a consideration for Petterds position. Seeing he is still a rookie, how will this work?

Side note, Cheney & McKenzie back in the side please (I want to see 3 red heads on the park this Friday night)

..and Garland may not be playing forward

But he may...

...and should.

But he may...

...and should.

....so we can carry Rivers up back?

I don't think so but I suspect the match committee think Rivers is one of our best defenders.

Needs to run more otherwise he becomes a liability.

I don't think so but I suspect the match committee think Rivers is one of our best defenders.

Needs to run more otherwise he becomes a liability.

I think the Footy committee had worked out Rivers liabilities hence Garland, Frawley and Warnock preferred to Rivers for Brisbane. And he was only a late replacement last week for Bail. Hardly a ringing endorsement

I think the Footy committee had worked out Rivers liabilities hence Garland, Frawley and Warnock preferred to Rivers for Brisbane. And he was only a late replacement last week for Bail. Hardly a ringing endorsement

Not sure about that. he was returning from injury and needed the Casey run.

But yes they are most likely aware of his strengths and weaknesses.

Seeing Petterd is injured and Garland may not be playing forward, Hughes would be a consideration for Petterds position. Seeing he is still a rookie, how will this work?

Side note, Cheney & McKenzie back in the side please (I want to see 3 red heads on the park this Friday night)

I reckon we can play both Garland & Hughes in the same forwardline, one deep & Hughes off a flank or just Hughes in Ricky's role.

I like the idea of forwards serving time in the backline (and being good in the backline) prior to going forward. Especially so given the increased need for forwards to apply defensive pressure when the ball is turned over and the 36 player rolling zone nature of modern footy. Garland as the forward who also looks to shut down their rebounding defenders seems a good option and a role that will be increasingly required as footy continues to evolve... Perhaps he'd be a good one to mark Hargrave?

Edited May 6, 201015 yr by predman