Rivers

[H_T 3,043]

Unfortunately this will be missed by many. His task wsnt huge yesterday. That he carried it out to aceptable levels without dominating as possible his heritage might sugest will aslo fal on deaf ears.

And so many will think its bashing...its just unblinkered reality.

Wasn't it you BB that said upon Joel Mac's signing at PSD time that it surely sounded the death knell for Rivers ?

J.Rivers, the man you once described as one who would be pigeon-holed to a back pocket (at best) ?

J.Rivers, the one who recently just signed on for a 2 year contract ?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Jared Rivers: Riv started the game really well, backing his positioning and going in for his marks. He’s a really important player for us. He missed a few kicks early, but he helped out with the positioning and helped out with the match ups. Again, his experience down back is invaluable for our young defenders.

People need to start getting over this. Riv is well regarded by the coaching group as the player review above shows and will continue to be a part of this team.

I have yet to read an MFC/VFL coaching report on a player that is ever critical no matter how that player plays. I dont think this proves anything at all.

What is said behind closed doors may well be different to the treacle that is written on club websites.

[titan_uranus 24,975]

His kicking is not good enough.

Let's not forget he was playing on Jay Neagle. Nothing to write home about there.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Wasn't it you BB that said upon Joel Mac's signing at PSD time that it surely sounded the death knell for Rivers ?

J.Rivers, the man you once described as one who would be pigeon-holed to a back pocket (at best) ?

J.Rivers, the one who recently just signed on for a 2 year contract ?

Jared allowed a struggling kid to kick 3 goals ... Not that flash . He did settle for while but some decisions were deplorable. Rest of game was acceptable. Hardly a rousing indictment. I must confess to Jareds 2 year deal ... Very . Can only be as insurance .he's not a starting 18candidate anymore .Top 25? Maybe.. If fit. No auto pick he'll have to put in to get a gig. If he was two yards quicker he'd be safer. Let's see if he even put two decent games together this week ( and I'm being charitable with this week. )

[H_T 3,043]

Jared allowed a struggling kid to kick 3 goals ... Not that flash . He did settle for while but some decisions were deplorable. Rest of game was acceptable. Hardly a rousing indictment. I must confess to Jareds 2 year deal ... Very . Can only be as insurance .he's not a starting 18candidate anymore .Top 25? Maybe.. If fit. No auto pick he'll have to put in to get a gig. If he was two yards quicker he'd be safer. Let's see if he even put two decent games together this week ( and I'm being charitable with this week. )

Only be as insurance.. ?

As I stated last year, I find Rivers experience for our young defender group both essential and important.

Again, if he is not a starting 18 candidate anymore BB (your words), then why has he been in the starting 18 on a consistent basis of late ?

I find that a silly thing to say and it directly contradicts what the more informed know (the FD) about Rivers' contribution to our side/our list.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Idont for a moment question his work effort and possible influence on the track as by all accounts it's 100 pc or there abouts. Possibly accounts for the 2 y. Crossing that line you need to deliver . HT you think he does. ... I and others think the bar is low then. That bar will lift and where will Jared be. ? We've seen his best. .. That's passed

[Dee*ceiving 1,674]

Riv made a few errors early but made up for it throughout the day. I realise his opponents were sub standard but his hands were strong and confident which is good news for the side.

Regarding his 2 year contract extension what else could we really do?

If we offered 1 year he would have had no choice but to seek offers from elsewhere and no doubt several clubs would have been happy to offer 2 or even 3 years with 2 new sides about to enter the competition and thin out the overall class of the competition.

If we didn't make an offer at all and attempted to trade him it's unlikely we would have recieved adequate compensation in the form of draft picks or players. Any quality out of contract players will be gobbled up by a cashed up GC anyway.

I think the 2 year deal was the right move considering the lay of the land from 2011 to 2013.

[Red Sox 2]

I have yet to read an MFC/VFL coaching report on a player that is ever critical no matter how that player plays. I dont think this proves anything at all.

What is said behind closed doors may well be different to the treacle that is written on club websites.

The last line of this treacle is enough for me to suggest he is held in high regard by the coaching staff. Not sure why I even bother to justify it really because you and anyone else can carry on all you like, it is obvious that they rate him very highly.

He wouldn't be in the leadership group, he wouldn't be offered 2 year contracts.

So keep on highlighting his obvious weaknesses. It matters little. Treacle or no treacle it is easy enough to read between the lines in many of the coaches ratings anyway.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The last line of this treacle is enough for me to suggest he is held in high regard by the coaching staff. Not sure why I even bother to justify it really because you and anyone else can carry on all you like, it is obvious that they rate him very highly.

He wouldn't be in the leadership group, he wouldn't be offered 2 year contracts.

So keep on highlighting his obvious weaknesses. It matters little. Treacle or no treacle it is easy enough to read between the lines in many of the coaches ratings anyway.

If thats the case then PJ is a great all round ruck with wonderful small man skills.

Yze and Robbo were in the leadership in their final years and the players not the coaches select that. The option to not giving him a 2 year contract would be to let him go for nothing in the PSD. His manager would not accept a one year contract and would chase around the market. He has little trade value. So its not conclusive what the football department actually think (but clearly what you want to believe). Clearly a player who will have to sing for his supper with few credits to offset poor performances in a competitive defensive set up.

[H_T 3,043]

Idont for a moment question his work effort and possible influence on the track as by all accounts it's 100 pc or there abouts. Possibly accounts for the 2 y. Crossing that line you need to deliver . HT you think he does. ... I and others think the bar is low then. That bar will lift and where will Jared be. ? We've seen his best. .. That's passed

I love it how some prefer to see through things in relation to the terms of a new 2 year contract for Rivers.... Things such as: -

* Possible influence and work effort on the track ?

* What club officials say about players isn't necessarily what they think behind closed doors in relation to a new 2 year contract.

Didn't it occur to anyone that the player in question, actually earned his new contract based on his importance to the team on the field ? Based on his importance not only to the team but the team's structure for the next 2-year phase and perhaps beyond ?

Staggering.

[loges 6,767]

Agree to disagree.

In my opinion Rivers is not fast enough, big enough or strong enough to be a key backman. If we are going to pick a player to play loose in defense, pick someone that is a good kick and has speed.

I'll bring this thread back up in twelve months and see if I need to make an appology, or have been proved correct.

Apology or not you were wrong about yesterday

[Red Sox 2]

If thats the case then PJ is a great all round ruck with wonderful small man skills.

Yze and Robbo were in the leadership in their final years and the players not the coaches select that. The option to not giving him a 2 year contract would be to let him go for nothing in the PSD. His manager would not accept a one year contract and would chase around the market. He has little trade value. So its not conclusive what the football department actually think (but clearly what you want to believe). Clearly a player who will have to sing for his supper with few credits to offset poor performances in a competitive defensive set up.

Not quite following on your PJ point there.....you could have just replied (but clearly what you want to believe)!

I hear you on your point regarding negotiations but if there was any doubt within the walls of the club would they have made the decision so quickly? Might they have not called his bluff to a point and let his manager chase the market as it is this kind of by play that can actually turn in our favour should a club want him?

I would find it strange and disappointing if the club signed him up quickly because they saw little value in him? That to me makes little sense. As much as you might like to suggest that is clearly what I want to believe it is actually what I feel from reading between the lines. I may be totally wrong but it has little relevance to what I actually think of Riv as a player, what I think of him as a player could certainly be deemed what I want to believe. Your reply is just as much as what you want to believe or think you know anyway.

[beelzebub 23,313]

I love it how some prefer to see through things in relation to the terms of a new 2 year contract for Rivers.... Things such as: -

* Possible influence and work effort on the track ?

* What club officials say about players isn't necessarily what they think behind closed doors in relation to a new 2 year contract.

Didn't it occur to anyone that the player in question, didn't actually earn his new contract based on his importance to the team on the field ? Based on his importance to the team and it's structure in the next 2 year phase and perhaps beyond ?

Staggering.

How lovely it is to disrgard anyhting that might not suit.

If he's that bloody valuable why not a 3 year contract ?? And thats the answr..because hes NOT that valuable. He will be insurance. We are not loing to tilt this year or next. He is a stop gap until others come through. Just as probably MacDonald might be in all reality.

He got two years because he has SOME value and wed extract more than at the trade table where he isnt worth a ZAc in reality.

So where is he in the grand scheme HT ? Hes a very poor man FB..and I woulnt have ever put him there..thats not fair on him really. Hes two slow for their (opps) 2nd lea up style forward as hell be scorched almost every time..So hes a 3rd defender ...pinch hitter and a reality is a crap set up player. He is far beter as a reader and han off..or spoiler. Hes not a rebounder...or are you going to suggest he is ? With speed he was a different player..but that has gone an the game has picked up..so a double whammy. What he WILL do is bleed for the club an bloody good on him..

Not too sure the last time a scoreboard got influenced by that though !!

o yo suggest there is anywhere else on the field for him ?? if not its as a defender.. So if they are all fit...out of Warnock Frawley Garland, Bartram, Grimes, Cheney, McDonald, MacDonald, Rivers, Bruce ??? do you start in the back 6?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Not quite following on your PJ point there.....you could have just replied (but clearly what you want to believe)!

Where's the sarcasm key.

It was a jibe at some of the syrupy player reports on websites. They pander to a shared interest constituency that general likes their analysis lukewarm at coldest.

I think the Rivers resigning was very deliberate and negotiated. If the Club dont believe a player is line ball then a 2yr contract is the only feasible option. A 1 year contract is essentially a slap in the face to a player who will take the advice of their manager and look elsewhere.

I dont see it as an act of affirmation or condemnation of a player by a Club. Just common commercial sense given the disposition of the player.

[Red Sox 2]

So if they are all fit...out of Warnock Frawley Garland, Bartram, Grimes, Cheney, McDonald, MacDonald, Rivers, Bruce ??? do you start in the back 6?

Haven't all of these players been fit for the majority of this season? Grimes only recently and McDonald now but he is not part of the backline really.

If your going on this year which it seems you are right here BB then Rivers is clearly in the starting or best back 6 has he is picked each week.

If you are arguing about further down the track it might be different but then you also have to factor in other players that could possibly be included, Strauss for example and those that defiantly wont be, McDonald & Bruce.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Haven't all of these players been fit for the majority of this season? Grimes only recently and McDonald now but he is not part of the backline really.

If your going on this year which it seems you are right here BB then Rivers is clearly in the starting or best back 6 has he is picked each week.

If you are arguing about further down the track it might be different but then you also have to factor in other players that could possibly be included, Strauss for example and those that defiantly wont be, McDonald & Bruce.

theres no indication Bruce and Junior wont be there next year and if so definitely wont be ( I couldnt imagine ) play the midfield as such...so back half it is.

Your introdution of Strauss is valid. with the forward line filling up even Bail could push for inclusion on a back flank and HAS the speed Jared lacks.

The point Im making is that in my view ( and others ) Jared is NOT a walk up start each week. yes RR singing it will be !!

[Guest Thomo]

Jared Rivers: Riv started the game really well, backing his positioning and going in for his marks. He’s a really important player for us. He missed a few kicks early, but he helped out with the positioning and helped out with the match ups. Again, his experience down back is invaluable for our young defenders.

People need to start getting over this. Riv is well regarded by the coaching group as the player review above shows and will continue to be a part of this team.

Won't be dropped. Is better than the criticism that he receives.

Paul Johnson: Johnno came back into the team, having not played for a number of weeks. He played forward and in the ruck. He was very important in providing some help for Russian (Mark Jamar). We didn’t lose much at all, when Paul went into the ruck. As a forward, he is always dangerous, because he can take a defender.

I don't take what is published by the player review to seriously.

Rivers was not good yesterday. He made some extremely bad errors that resulted in goals. When he was manning up on a player he was repeatedly beaten on the lead. He takes a lot of uncontested marks in the backline because he is playing loose in defense most of the time. If he was not in the best playing the easiest position on the ground against the team that Essondon dished up yesterday, in my opinion he was poor.

[Red Sox 2]

Paul Johnson: Johnno came back into the team, having not played for a number of weeks. He played forward and in the ruck. He was very important in providing some help for Russian (Mark Jamar). We didn’t lose much at all, when Paul went into the ruck. As a forward, he is always dangerous, because he can take a defender.

Mate, PJ wasn't horrible yesterday so you picked up a bad week to highlight this in your argument - IMO!

Rivers was not good yesterday. He made some extremely bad errors that resulted in goals. ...yep, he cost the first two. Col Garland also had a hand in costing the second ....but lay all the blame at Riv thats fine.

When he was manning up on a player he was repeatedly beaten on the lead.

Repeatedly beaten on the lead? I didn't notice that Neagle was leading to the goal square? That's where he kicked his goals wasn't it?

Edited July 12, 2010 by Demon Jack 16

[Guest Thomo]

Paul Johnson: Johnno came back into the team, having not played for a number of weeks. He played forward and in the ruck. He was very important in providing some help for Russian (Mark Jamar). . As a forward, he is always dangerous, because he can take a defender.

Mate, PJ wasn't horrible yesterday so you picked up a bad week to highlight this in your argument - IMO!

Rivers was not good yesterday. He made some extremely bad errors that resulted in goals. ...yep, he cost the first two. Col Garland also had a hand in costing the second ....but lay all the blame at Riv thats fine.

When he was manning up on a player he was repeatedly beaten on the lead.

Repeatedly beaten on the lead? I didn't notice that Neagle was leading to the goal square? That's where he kicked his goals wasn't it?

I didn't say PJ was horrible, but I can't take these reviews to seriously when they say We didn’t lose much at all, when Paul went into the ruck, and As a forward, he is always dangerous

Garland may have made errors, but he generally uses the ball well, is fast, and rarely gets beaten one on one. He also plays a harder role, one that Rivers is not able to do, and thats shutting down a key forward. Garland also can play Rivers role of a loose man in defense. I'm actually not sure who would not be able to play that role. If Rivers continues to butcher the ball, he better learn to run faster, grow taller or jump higher.

[Deefolt 0]

first time since his rising star that i have seen him do what he did on sunday, just keep on taking those marks down back, he hasn't really done that a lot in recent years.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I didn't say PJ was horrible, but I can't take these reviews to seriously when they say We didnt lose much at all, when Paul went into the ruck, and As a forward, he is always dangerous

I watched the tape last night and PJ made little or no headway in the ruck. He wont get it easier than a timid Ryder and young, raw and ordinary Bellchambers. The gulf between Jamar and PJ both in the centre and around the ground is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Its incredible that PJ (199cm, 103kg) who is 1kg lighter than Jamar (198cm 104cm) has so little presence at the the contest. PJ cant ruck. He could not hold marks on the lead out in front of him. He has hands as soft as concrete slabs. And his decision making is woeful. Its a testimony to the weakness of the Essendon big men that he was not exposed further. You get as much or more from rucking Lynden Dunn.

Garland may have made errors, but he generally uses the ball well, is fast, and rarely gets beaten one on one. He also plays a harder role, one that Rivers is not able to do, and thats shutting down a key forward. Garland also can play Rivers role of a loose man in defense. I'm actually not sure who would not be able to play that role. If Rivers continues to butcher the ball, he better learn to run faster, grow taller or jump higher.

Absolutely. Garland was very good on Sunday and often caused neutral outcomes even when it was a 2 on 1 in Essendons favour. Rivers first quarter was poor very poor. His disposal skills are flaky and this only evidenced it further. He was better in the later quarters but realistically who was he on...Neagle. An out of condition, soft attitude footballer. Essendon had no forward line without Hurley and Gumbeleton there and Rivers did and should have been taking marks.

[Red Sox 2]

I watched the tape last night and PJ made little or no headway in the ruck. He wont get it easier than a timid Ryder and young, raw and ordinary Bellchambers. The gulf between Jamar and PJ both in the centre and around the ground is as wide as the Grand Canyon. Its incredible that PJ (199cm, 103kg) who is 1kg lighter than Jamar (198cm 104cm) has so little presence at the the contest. PJ cant ruck. He could not hold marks on the lead out in front of him. He has hands as soft as concrete slabs. And his decision making is woeful. Its a testimony to the weakness of the Essendon big men that he was not exposed further. You get as much or more from rucking Lynden Dunn.

The gulf wasn't this wide and obvious 12 mths ago - things can change quickly but agree and can't see it here.

With 14mins to go, I do like his hit from the centre that hits Watts on the chest, the handball from Watts to Jones - lovely to watch.

Absolutely. Garland was very good on Sunday and often caused neutral outcomes even when it was a 2 on 1 in Essendons favour.

Garland was very very good - seems to find it a common thing to be 2 on 1 and as you state well, he neutralises those contests so well. Make sure no one mentions his kick out on the full - I might be wrong here but did this lead to one of Neagles goals? Damn you Rivers!!!.

Rivers first quarter was poor very poor. His disposal skills are flaky and this only evidenced it further. He was better in the later quarters but realistically who was he on...Neagle. An out of condition, soft attitude footballer. Essendon had no forward line without Hurley and Gumbeleton there and Rivers did and should have been taking marks.

Damned if he does or doesn't. Rightly cops a whack for the bad disposal (all two of them in the 1st) but then cops a whack for doing the job because the opponent isn't up to scratch.

If he is as bad as so many like to make out isn't he then punching with blokes at a similar level? So job well done there Riv!!

Neagle kicked 3 opportunist goals, none from a lead where he beat Riv, none from a contested mark where he beat Riv so please, don't try and tell me that Neagle outpointed him in anyway regardless of perceived skill level etc etc.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Demon Jack 16

[Jaded No More 68,867]

You get as much or more from rucking Lynden Dunn.

So so true.

I watched the replay last night and my god was PJ poor. His ruckwork was average, but my biggest issue with him is his marking. He CANNOT hold a mark, no matter how easy, how simple or how perfectly directed at his chest. Now he is agile for a big man, but if he drops those easy marks against smaller guys, then 9 times out of 10 he's lost the contest because they are far more likely to grab the loose ball than he is. So if a big man can't mark, can't make good decisions is only an average kick, what use is he?

I don't find the "give Jamar a rest" the right justification to play someone who cuts our run and doesn't contribute for more than 20 minutes of total ruck time.

Having said that, I am all for giving Jamar a rest during games, which is where Dunn can go up in the ruck for all I care.

As for Rivers, I don't think he was as bad as some make out. He had a shocking start, and yes his opponent was a nobody, but he was at his ball-reading best and helped out the other defenders.

At the end of the day, the club clearly values his contribution, so we need to stop whinging about his deficiencies. It is becoming as useless as those Bruce threads.

[beelzebub 23,313]

There seems to be many who in their arguments supporting Riv seemvery quick tooverlook his lack of leg speed. Unless youre trying to wrestle a stationary opponent or float across a casual offence you're going toget mercilessly exposed in today's faster game. These days it's all about mobility, pace at the contest !! Who else is noticing Jareds not so efective at the spoils against quality forwards ?

Some seem to think there's enjoyment in these observations, not the case at all. If he can pull through another pre-s fully fit and another yard of pace then fantastic but why the head in the sand stance should that not be the case ? It's about a team surely. Get the best on the field not simply the favoutites

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Neagle kicked 3 opportunist goals, none from a lead where he beat Riv, none from a contested mark where he beat Riv so please, don't try and tell me that Neagle outpointed him in anyway regardless of perceived skill level etc etc.

The gulf will remain wide between Johnson and Jamar because PJ has mastered to any competence the key ingredients of being a big man. Ruckwork, physical contests and strength and marking above his shoulders. Jamar always had those skills but never the belief to do it more often. PJ does not have the base of skills. And you can pinpick the good 30 second stanzas here and there if you like. It would hide the rest of the time. He wont get easier ruck opposition and he just struggled. Tells it all

With Neagle its on the contrary. Neagle's goals were receiver goals. Neagle is a talented but lazy uncommitted footballer that wins very little of his own contested ball and does not work anywhere hard enough when he does not have it.You saw that yourself as Neagle did not make one effective lead from the forward line. Rivers would not get an easier opponent. A bigger challenge for Rivers would have been Hurley/ Gumbleton or a resting Ryder or Hille. Neagle is a small scalp.