wondering on people's thoughts on these recent positional changes and their impact on future lineups. were these flash-in-the-pan moves or will they stick?

..... were these flash-in-the-pan moves or will they stick?

Maybe, maybe not. Mr Neeld may read their VicKick reports and pull out another rabbit from the hat. I think he is looking at a degree of versatility as part of the master plan.

Edited June 4, 201213 yr by monoccular

Out of the three, I'm going with Grimes as a mid

Who cares. 20th min last q of a grand final and our full back goes down, there would be total confidence in someone else going back there and doing the job. Flexibility is key

You never now with Garland,Neita was a star CHB & once moved forward never returned.

It's all about Grime's body - It hold up & he is a midfielder.

Watts has been impressive down back, finding the footy & growing in confidence.

Those leaps over the pack to offer a huge spoil in the last where very good.

Flexability is the key to long term success.

No. He will be a swing man.

Yes.

Yes.

Grimes has always been a mid, but we have needed him down back, as said above, if his body holds iup he will play mid.

There's no doubt that Garland will get more attention and pressure if he remains a forward in the future but with Frawley coming back into the side, it's likely that he'll stay there for a few more weeks. Let's see what happens.

Jack Grimes was slotted to go into the midfield last year at the time he was injured. He was always destined to be there and if his body is willing, he'll stay there. In addition, the return of two of our early draft picks in Jordan Gysberts and James Strauss will make things interesting as well. Gysberts would add an extra dimension to the midfield mix and Strauss could fill the void in defence left by Grimes.

Jack Watts will most likely stay in defence for the time being but I suspect that he's ultimately destined for a key forward role.

Importantly, we're developing a more flexible team.

There's no doubt that Garland will get more attention and pressure if he remains a forward in the future but with Frawley coming back into the side, it's likely that he'll stay there for a few more weeks. Let's see what happens.

Jack Watts will most likely stay in defence for the time being but I suspect that he's ultimately destined for a key forward role.

I agree with the more attention comment, but with Clark, Silvia, Howe (and potentially Jurah) in the team it will give opposition teams a lot to think about in regards to matchups because all are very mobile.

Also I see Watt's role as a link man; playing the role that Davey played so well before he lost his form.

Edited June 4, 201213 yr by ickey_11

Watts will never be a key forward, he would be wasted, if we must compare, listen to what Neeld said paraphrase 'there are players at other clubs that don't have a defined role'......ie Goodes, Goddard, Hodge....this will be Watts in the future...can go fwd and kick, play on the wing, third man up in the ruck...(did it at least twice on Sat night), half back, floater etc etc

Col Garland was a gun junior fwd in Tassie

Jack Grimes was a gun junior midfielder/halfback

But versatility/flexibility is the key

I expect Neeld to keep doing this

Grimes is a natural centre man because he doesnt let the Ball get past him, and he has a very competitive streak. Being Captian...its exactly where we need him.

Watts can and will play anywhere ala Jame Hird

Garland may just stay a forward he is a great reader of the play, has long arms ,so hard to punch away from, and would cause the opposition match up headaches, but he will probably go back to defense every now and then, especially if Jurrah and Petterd come good, and a match up is needed.

Watts (Goddard) and Garland (Wanganeen) are evolving their obvious talent to become good players in multiple positions which is a huge asset for the club and Grimes (Mitchell) flourishing as a Captain in the middle, is essential.

Good signs.

Edited June 4, 201213 yr by PaulRB

Watts (Goddard) and Garland (Wanganeen) are evolving their obvious talent to become good players in multiple positions which is a huge asset for the club and Grimes (Mitchell) flourishing as a Captain in the middle, is essential.

Good signs.

Love these comparisons......Rubber man Garland!

Watts' future may depend on whether Cook takes on the CHF position. Nevertheless, my gut feel is that he'll now play predominantly back in the same role that Hodge, Goddard and Gibbs have been playing for years. Like them, he'll occasionally go on ball or forward. And what's the common link? All No 1 draft picks - and no-one seems to think that each of them has been a wasted pick.

I'm in the Garland to be a swing man club. Always have been. Back, forward and wing.

The key issue with this though, is that Garland is so flexible as a defender that him going forward will rely on us having others on the park to get the defensive matchups right. He can take anyone from a Betts to a Franklin, and often gets called on to pick up a small, if Bartram is out or the oppostition have multiple speedy small forwards.

So, the key is to have a good range of defenders available such that swinging Garland forward doesn't leave a hole down back. Frawley and MacDonald for the faster talls, Rivers and Watts for the slower talls or third man up (although Watts does the latter well now), Sellar or Martin to pinch hit against teams with two or three monster forwards/resting rucks and Bartram and Bail/Strauss/Bennell/Blease for the smalls. Grimes, and Tappy/Morton/Trengove for the mids.

No. He will be a swing man.

Yes.

Yes.

What he said.

There's no doubt that Garland will get more attention and pressure if he remains a forward in the future but with Frawley coming back into the side, it's likely that he'll stay there for a few more weeks. Let's see what happens.

Jack Grimes was slotted to go into the midfield last year at the time he was injured. He was always destined to be there and if his body is willing, he'll stay there. In addition, the return of two of our early draft picks in Jordan Gysberts and James Strauss will make things interesting as well. Gysberts would add an extra dimension to the midfield mix and Strauss could fill the void in defence left by Grimes.

Jack Watts will most likely stay in defence for the time being but I suspect that he's ultimately destined for a key forward role.

Importantly, we're developing a more flexible team.

Play Garland on a wing, That is his right position. Watts at back, is a great learning curve which will only teach him which the experience will give him great confidence.Grimes, totally needed inthe guts and we all have forgotten about LJ, what a difference he'll make when available?Agree re Gys & Strauss.A making of a good team, need to get a top CHF , two quick outfield mids(wingers), a small forward and we are there..

Perhaps Garland only established himself as a primary defender because Dean Bailey played him out of position for years under his tanking regime.... ? Credit to Garland for being good at it anyway

Everything WJ said.

I love the fact that our captains are tough, inside-out mids with enormous talent.

Keep them both in the guts.

Ok...heres a thought.... Why does ANY player only get to be this that or the other. . Think about the trumps you hold when you have half a dozen players you canmix and match according to the opposition or even the nature of the days fortunes.

I get the feeling not only is Neeld trying to develop players beyond limitations hes providing himself with a smrgasbord of options on any game day. Hes trylu thinking TEAM and not just positions. The machine as a total, not as parts !! just a thought.

Ok...heres a thought.... Why does ANY player only get to be this that or the other. . Think about the trumps you hold when you have half a dozen players you canmix and match according to the opposition or even the nature of the days fortunes.

I get the feeling not only is Neeld trying to develop players beyond limitations hes providing himself with a smrgasbord of options on any game day. Hes trylu thinking TEAM and not just positions. The machine as a total, not as parts !! just a thought.

I hope your right

The squad has many complimentary and competing units which makes the team

playing the attributes required to combat the opposition is the answer

playing at Casey can be used as with Watts to refresh players and also give them the winning feeling which can be translated to AFL Its not a deemotion its a deevelopment.

Ive been promoting this for some time and still believe it can work

I have also said I trusted Neeld a teacher to get the best out of the units and hoped he wasnt a one trick pony. The season is unfolding and the sum total of the parts is beginning to look much more substantial.

Im even more depositive

GO DEES

Perhaps Garland only established himself as a primary defender because Dean Bailey played him out of position for years under his tanking regime.... ? Credit to Garland for being good at it anyway

No doubt Bailey viewed him as a defender, and he's a very good defender. He had an excellent game as a forward, but it was just one game where we caught Hirdy and his merry men with their pants down. Buckley's not going to fall for the same trick; it'll be one possible scenario they look at as they prepare for this match and they'll have had time to devise a way to limit his impact if he plays forward.

For me it still remains to be seen whether Garland forward is a viable option in the long term. At worst he's demonstrated he can offer something at least on occasion, and it's a great "plan B" for Neeld to have up his sleeve.

garlands pace and experience as a back (playing on talls and smalls) should give our forward defensive pressure a good boost. which is definitely an area we need vast improvement

Jack Watts will most likely stay in defence for the time being but I suspect that he's ultimately destined for a key forward role.

It's an important point W_J. Watts has continues with an education this season, it started with a frank assessment from Neeld to work hard in the pre-season, to getting things right in the VFL. I see his current role as an extension of his education, a couple of weeks ago he was playing in the VFL, now he has a BOG under his belt playing in defense. Who knows we he'll be in 6 weeks time.

No doubt Bailey viewed him as a defender, and he's a very good defender. He had an excellent game as a forward, but it was just one game where we caught Hirdy and his merry men with their pants down. Buckley's not going to fall for the same trick; it'll be one possible scenario they look at as they prepare for this match and they'll have had time to devise a way to limit his impact if he plays forward.

For me it still remains to be seen whether Garland forward is a viable option in the long term. At worst he's demonstrated he can offer something at least on occasion, and it's a great "plan B" for Neeld to have up his sleeve.

That is true that Collingwood will now plan to negate him, but I'd like it to be plan A for a few weeks.

The pies will plan on shutting down Garland, as well as Mitch, where as last week it was just shut down Mitch Clark.

That's more work for the Pies, not us. We could use Garland as a long leading foil to create space for Mitch, or at worst a long leading forward that's a pretty solid target.

Also it looked like Sylvia became interested, I like him at the feet of Mitch and Garland. He could be the surprise packet against Collingwood if we get it down there enough.

Of course if Sellar and Joel Mac turn to rubbish Garland probably needs to be sent back.

It's all pretty interesting, at least it feels like we can build something with what we have.