Out of contract GWS player with genuine upside, close with Tyson apparently.

What are peoples' thoughts about Tomlinson? And what do you think he'd cost?

A starting point could be our second rounder, or a straight swap for Howe.

Note - not out of contract.

Haven't seen a lot of him, but what little I have seen, he was bog ordinary. So can't say I care too much for the prospect of him coming to us

I'd do a third rounder probably. Wouldn't go any lower.

Nothing I've seen has really impressed me, 3rd round at most.

Signed a contract last year to keep him at the giants until the end of 2017.

http://m.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2014-11-18/tomlinson-commits-to-giantsontracted until the end of 2017.

Signed a contract last year to keep him at the giants until the end of 2017.http://m.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2014-11-18/tomlinson-commits-to-giantsontracted until the end of 2017.

Unfortunately, in AFL circles, signed contracts don't necessarily mean that the agreements in them will necessarily be honoured.

With Trealor and McCarthy already on the table I would be surprised if they moved Tomlinson on this year. It would take a good offer, and I don't think the market for him is that hot.

Not a huge wrap for Thomlinson.

Vanilla. We need better.

Was averaging 16 disposals last year but has gone backwards this season perhaps through less opportunity.

Knows how to take a grab. Over 17 games in 2013 he averaged 7.5 marks, ranked 7th in the league.

Former top ten pick, so there's some talent there somewhere.

I wouldn't be immediately dismissive if it involved a swap of players.

I quite like him. Big size, can play either end of the ground and can also pinch hit in the ruck.

Had a long term toe injury, just like Frost this year which put him down the pecking order a bit. They rushed him into the side but didn't quite seem fit enough.

I don't think the back-line is his natural and best position and when I've seen him play forward he is actually fairly dangerous and would be great protection for Hogan.

The best I've seen of him is when he plays that CHF position and roams up the field. He is more in the mould of Darling, big tank and big body.

I think he'd be a good target and would allow Watts to play that Lynch-like role as a third tall.

A lot of this obviously would come down to working well together as a three-pronged forwardline.

With added midfield depth and talent, you'd hope our forwards would see more opportunity but going forward I'd love to see something like:

F Garlett Hogan Petracca

HF Watts Tomlinson Kent

Rotations: Bennell, JKH, Harmes, Vanders etc

Edited September 11, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Can he ruck?

STMJ, I like where you are thinking about Watts - a Howe-less forward line would see a role for Jack I reckon.

Edited September 11, 20159 yr by rpfc

I don't think the back-line is his natural and best position and when I've seen him play forward he is actually fairly dangerous and would be great protection for Hogan.

The best I've seen of him is when he plays that CHF position and roams up the field. He is more in the mould of Darling, big tank and big body.

I think he'd be a good target and would allow Watts to play that Lynch-like role as a third tall.

A lot of this obviously would come down to working well together as a three-pronged forwardline.

With added midfield depth and talent, you'd hope our forwards would see more opportunity but going forward I'd love to see something like:

F Garlett Hogan Petracca

HF Watts Tomlinson Kent

Rotations: Bennell, JKH, Harmes etc.

The other advantage of that setup is that all three can play all roles. So with reduced rotations off the bench you get to rotate one deep - almost resting - after a spell working hard up into the midfield

That is an exciting looking forward line with HB in the mix. And if Harmes last game was a sign of things to come rather than a flash in the pan.......

From what I've read from GWS fans they share your view that Tomlinson is not a backman. Indeed they're quite derisive of his defensive efforts

He is ok. He has no hurt factor though. He isn't very quick but he uses his tank to grind players in to the ground and occasionally picks up large stats. Would be a better option for CHF than Dawes, at the least. A poor man's Tom Lynch.

Can he ruck?

STMJ, I like where you are thinking about Watts - a Howe-less forward line would see a role for Jack I reckon.

Saw him ruck against Dunn a few times which tells us nothing... But no, he's no Ruckman.

It's the only position I can see for Watts now. It just makes sense. Played 18's and juniors as a forward, can kick goals, has a forward's understanding of the game.

He needs to own it though. The article Gary Lyon wrote this year about Watts needing to become our Gunston resonated with me. Not that I enjoy saying 'player x needs to become player y', but in that they share some similar traits and attributes and if Watts really wanted, he could be a really valuable and consistent third tall with a bit of spice.

Edited September 11, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

I reckon he can ruck alright against other non-ruckmen.

He is ok. He has no hurt factor though. He isn't very quick but he uses his tank to grind players in to the ground and occasionally picks up large stats. Would be a better option for CHF than Dawes, at the least. A poor man's Tom Lynch.

I think the next phase of our forward-line development needs to be more of a willingness and understanding for whoever plays that CHF position to roam deep up the ground taking with them what will most likely be the oppositions second best/tallest key back. The idea of playing Patracca and Garlett as pockets rather than another tall is that Hogan will monster most in a one-on-one contested situation if given the chance.

Playing Watts as a third tall works also because he is not a contested pack marking forward and wouldn't get in Hogan's way. But again, he'd need to be really willing and understanding of where to lead, run and make space.. He's a natural forward runner so it suits him, we've seen him push hard into space when he knows there's ball on offer.

Having Gawn play deep forward as a resting Ruckman next to Hoges was just a mess this year and doesn't work. I'd much rather Hogan be given space deep in our F50 with Garlett and Petracca eating anything that falls short etc. Petracca's contested marking for his height is as good as having a KPP in that position anyway. The beauty is that he wouldn't command a tall because he's too quick and agile at ground level.

Edited September 11, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

I reckon he can ruck alright against other non-ruckmen.

I play pretty well against other non footballers.

Saw him ruck against Dunn a few times which tells us nothing... But no, he's no Ruckman.

I reckon he can ruck alright against other non-ruckmen.

He doesn't even have to 'ruck' well, just compete and know how to link or drop behind play or be comfortable running ahead of the footy. Remember, a number of other clubs will not have an adequate 'second ruck' and those that do won't have them in long enough to really make a difference.

I think the next phase of our forward-line development needs to be more of a willingness and understanding for whoever plays that CHF position to roam deep up the ground taking with them what will most likely be the oppositions second best/tallest key back. The idea of playing Patracca and Garlett as pockets rather than another tall is that Hogan will monster most in a one-on-one contested situation if given the chance.

Playing Watts as a third tall works also because he is not a contested pack marking forward and wouldn't get in Hogan's way. But again, he'd need to be really willing and understanding of where to lead, run and make space.. He's a natural forward runner so it suits him, we've seen him push hard into space when he knows there's ball on offer.

Having Gawn play deep forward as a resting Ruckman next to Hoges was just a mess this year and doesn't work. I'd much rather Hogan be given space deep in our F50 with Garlett and Petracca eating anything that falls short etc. Petracca's contested marking for his height is as good as having a KPP in that position anyway. The beauty is that he wouldn't command a tall because he's too quick and agile at ground level.

Yes, the less Gawn plays in that forward line the better. And the reason why 'leading up' players would suit Hogan is that it gets him one-out as they are leading their opponent up the ground and away from the spot that Hogan wants it. I think that is why he likes playing with Dawes - because he gets out of his space and leads out which opens up more space.

He doesn't even have to 'ruck' well, just compete and know how to link or drop behind play or be comfortable running ahead of the footy. Remember, a number of other clubs will not have an adequate 'second ruck' and those that do won't have them in long enough to really make a difference.

My point put a little more eloquently, but not as succinct.

He is ok. He has no hurt factor though. He isn't very quick but he uses his tank to grind players in to the ground and occasionally picks up large stats. Would be a better option for CHF than Dawes, at the least. A poor man's Tom Lynch.

whats his disposal like, field kicking, & for goal?

whats his disposal like, field kicking, & for goal?

Shocking, more turnovers than Grimes! Big no from me. Just watch the Melb v GWS game if you want to see why.

Howe for Tomlinson. Yes and yes.

Tomlinson would be the perfect 2nd key forward to compliment Hogan.