18 hours ago, ProDee said:

Well said.

And let's not forget that Spencer carried the ruck when we beat the Dogs early in the season and partnered Gawn in the win down at Geelong.

Clearly he's number 2 in the pecking order, but he's a capable fill in.  I also reckon his actual ruckwork is underrated and often maligned without a lot of foundation.

You 'reckon' his ruck-work is underrated and maligned without a lot of foundation?

Well where's the 'foundation' behind your assumption that his ruck-work is 'rated'?

His ruck-work is not rated nor underrated. It's simply 'meh'. He contests at ruck-stoppages. Are you saying that is an underrated quality? 

 

17 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pg-melbourne-demons--jake-spencer

I don't think the stats back you up.  His first few games last year when he was our sole ruckman he did well and when looking at the stats remember that Gawn didn't play until round 10 last year.  Spencer was also very good against Geelong.

Your description of him as a "standing tree-stump" is insulting and clearly wrong.  I don't recall anyone saying Gawn is not clearly our first pick ruck but Spencer is a good backup.

Your assertion that he doesn't involve himself past the ruck work is not born out by his tackling stats.  He gets involved in stoppages, chases and competes.  Just for the record he had more tackles in his 7 games than Gawn did in 13.  And if you think being a negating ruck is worthless you only need to see last weeks practice match.  It was only when Spencer went off that Gawn took control and gave is mids an easy ride.

Gawn is clearly no 1 but Spencer is a worthwhile backup.

Honestly, I don't know why I posted anything at all given the response from many in reply.

It's clear we all agree that Gawn is the number one choice. 

The assertion that Spencer is a 'good' backup is blatantly obvious given the alternative. (The alternative being a couple of lanky underdeveloped kids that share the same surname).

As a 26 year old Ruckman who was a speculative pick in the 90's back in 2010, the bloke has played 30-odd games and has struggled to improve at any fundamental AFL specific football skill.

He has built a strong body. He has improved his running. His strength as a ruckman is that he contests hard and provides physical pressure to a certain level when he is in and around the ball. He can halve ruck-contests with his combative and competitive style. The stats you presented highlight exactly this. The tackle count one specifically. That is a strength of his. Running to space to provide an option like Gawn is not because he is an below average contested mark. So I'm not surprised he has more tackles to his name.

Spencer will do for now as backup. But next year it would be nice to bring someone in who has more strings to their bow. 

As a team you want depth at every line on the field. We're clearly not there and that includes our ruck-stocks. The difference in quality from Gawn to Spencer is far too great. It's exactly the same as when we had someone like Jordie McKenzie coming in for Nathan Jones a few years back. You want to reduce the gap in quality between players.

I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise. 

Edited February 23, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

19 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise. 

Yeah I don't think you would have sparked the same response if you posted this first time around instead of:

"Spencer is literally a standing tree-stump. It would be nice if he provided even a little bit as an AFL backup Ruckman. But he doesn't. And he won't."

Keen to hear from you who you think the replacement should be?

Edited February 23, 20169 yr by Fifty-5

11 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

You 'reckon' his ruck-work is underrated and maligned without a lot of foundation?

Well where's the 'foundation' behind your assumption that his ruck-work is 'rated'?

His ruck-work is not rated nor underrated. It's simply 'meh'. He contests at ruck-stoppages. Are you saying that is an underrated quality? 

 

Honestly, I don't know why I posted anything at all given the response from many in reply.

It's clear we all agree that Gawn is the number one choice. 

The assertion that Spencer is a 'good' backup is blatantly obvious given the alternative. (The alternative being a couple of lanky underdeveloped kids that share the same surname).

As a 26 year old Ruckman who was a speculative pick in the 90's back in 2010, the bloke has played 30-odd games and has struggled to improve at any fundamental AFL specific football skill.

He has built a strong body. He has improved his running. His strength as a ruckman is that he contests hard and provides physical pressure to a certain level when he is in and around the ball. He can halve ruck-contests with his combative and competitive style. The stats you presented highlight exactly this. The tackle count one specifically. That is a strength of his. Running to space to provide an option like Gawn is not because he is an below average contested mark. So I'm not surprised he has more tackles to his name.

Spencer will do for now as backup. But next year it would be nice to bring someone in who has more strings to their bow. 

As a team you want depth at every line on the field. We're clearly not there and that includes our ruck-stocks. The difference in quality from Gawn to Spencer is far too great. It's exactly the same as when we had someone like Jordie McKenzie coming in for Nathan Jones a few years back. You want to reduce the gap in quality between players.

I'm not sure why anyone would argue otherwise. 

I think Spencers ruckwork at VFL level is above what you would suggest, I recall reading somewhee that he had the 12th best hitout to advantage in the VFL for the top 50 hitout players, whilst it is not exceptional it indicates that it is clearly much improved.

Adel: Sam Jacobs, Luke Lowden
Bris: Stefan Martin, Trent West
Carl: Kreuzer, Wood, Gorringe, Phillips
Coll: Grundy, Witts
Essendon: Leuenberger, Mckernan, Jamar
Freo: Sandilands, Griffiths, Clarke,
Geel: Smith, Blicavs, Stanley
GC: Nicholls, Currie, Brooksby
GWS: Mumford, Simpson, Lobb, Downie
Haw: Ceglar, McEvoy,
Melb: Gawn, Spencer
NM: Goldstein, Daw
Port: Lobbe, Howard
Rich: Maric, Hampson
STK: Longer, Hickey, Pierce
Syd: Derickx, Nankervis, Sinclair,
WC: Naitanui, Lycett, Giles
Dogs: Minson, Roguhhead, Campbell
 

When you actually look at the ruck division of all teams, I would almost argue that as purely a ruck (which i eliminated most fwd/rucks) that Spencer would nearly be the pick of the bunch. Highlighted are most of the second rucks and they are all players I would not have on the list ahead of Spencer. Of course this is a personal opinion, but it stands to reason that whilst he is not a world beater as a number one ruckman, for depth purely he will suffice until Mitch King has had 4-5 years in the system and is looking to compete for the number 1 spot.
 

He looks a nice bloke too, and I like him. Old ruckmen stick together.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

You 'reckon' his ruck-work is underrated and maligned without a lot of foundation?

Well where's the 'foundation' behind your assumption that his ruck-work is 'rated'?

His ruck-work is not rated nor underrated. It's simply 'meh'. He contests at ruck-stoppages. Are you saying that is an underrated quality?

I never thought I'd be arguing with anyone on the merits of Spencer, but I must say it is easy to argue with you.

You said, "he doesn't tap to advantage and he certainly doesn't limit the influence of opposition Ruckmen in these areas of the game".  This is a "foundation" to my assumption that his ruckwork is rated in a negative light and unnecessarily "maligned".  In the Bulldogs game he had 40 hitouts, which is clearly having an effect in negating his opponents.  We all know he's depth, but he certainly can play an adequate ruck role if called upon.

Seemingly, you can't remember your own commentary.

43 minutes ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

When you actually look at the ruck division of all teams, I would almost argue that as purely a ruck (which i eliminated most fwd/rucks) that Spencer would nearly be the pick of the bunch. 

There is an argument there that if he was at other clubs he'd be their no 1 ruck, even Sydney.

What your post shows, for which I thank you, is it's more than likely that Spencer will get another contract given his body holds up.  Sadly that has been an issue for him in the past.

The general "value of a ruck" debate is one that has been going on for decades.  Some love them and think they are a foundation and others don't value them at all and think the Mark Blicavs solution is more benefit to a team.  My view is you must have someone who can negate the opposition ruck and stop the opposition getting a free run from stoppages. It's then obviously beneficial if you get anything else.  Nic Nat is great because he can really give WC an advantage and he's very hard to negate.  But he is useless around the ground.  Goldy is the best because he can do it all.  Not many can and Gawn has a chance.

But what is pretty clear from this discussion is Spencer is underrated by many here (including he prior to this discussion) and I reckon he'll be around for a while.

53 minutes ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

I think Spencers ruckwork at VFL level is above what you would suggest, I recall reading somewhee that he had the 12th best hitout to advantage in the VFL for the top 50 hitout players, whilst it is not exceptional it indicates that it is clearly much improved.

 

Nobody is saying that as purely a tap ruckman, Spencer is inadequate. He can compete at centre bounces. But you can't deny that he's inadequate around the ground. The fact that posters need to bring up individual highlights or a game to defend Spencer suggests that AFL standard football has been few and far between.

My point is that if Frost can equally compete as a 2nd ruckman as Spencer, and offers more around the ground, why wouldn't you play him as backup to Gawn and use Pedersen in Frost's role.

 

6 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Nobody is saying that as purely a tap ruckman, Spencer is inadequate. He can compete at centre bounces. But you can't deny that he's inadequate around the ground. The fact that posters need to bring up individual highlights or a game to defend Spencer suggests that AFL standard football has been few and far between.

My point is that if Frost can equally compete as a 2nd ruckman as Spencer, and offers more around the ground, why wouldn't you play him as backup to Gawn and use Pedersen in Frost's role.

 

Few if anyone is arguing for playing both Spencer and Gawn.  But if Gawn goes down Spencer is an adequate replacement.

4 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Few if anyone is arguing for playing both Spencer and Gawn.  But if Gawn goes down Spencer is an adequate replacement.

My point is that if Gawn goes down, play Frost as the 1st ruck and Pedersen as the 2nd ruckman. That's on the proviso that Frost can actually compete as a clearance ruckman at an adequate level, even if it's slightly inferior to Spencer.

Just now, mo64 said:

My point is that if Gawn goes down, play Frost as the 1st ruck and Pedersen as the 2nd ruckman. That's on the proviso that Frost can actually compete as a clearance ruckman at an adequate level, even if it's slightly inferior to Spencer.

Fair enough.  I disagree, I think you're underselling Spencer as a first ruck and I think the stats show that.

Let's hope Max gets through the season.

14 minutes ago, mo64 said:

My point is that if Gawn goes down, play Frost as the 1st ruck and Pedersen as the 2nd ruckman. That's on the proviso that Frost can actually compete as a clearance ruckman at an adequate level, even if it's slightly inferior to Spencer.

Both of Frost and Pedersen are not ruckmen and would be giving away height, weight and experience.

While playing them as your ruckmen, as fill ins,  for a few minutes a quarter, is sustainable, for the whole game it is not. 

17 hours ago, monoccular said:

Well stated, BB.

One thing that really pi55e5 me off is posters  labelling and listed player a 'spud' or a 'dud', and especially one who puts in 100% every time like Spencil (and Jordie McK for that matter.  Not all players are ultimately up to AFL standard, but if they get listed and make the effort it is insulting and disrespectful to vilify them.   Very few of those posting on this forum have ever been AFL (or old VFL) listed, and I doubt if you would see them vilifying our players.

I know this isn't directed to me, but I've made similar statements about other players over the years.

When I state that a player is not good enough, it's not personal, I'd love for them all to succeed but some just can't take the step up. It's reality. And I will point it out especially when they somehow still get games when their skill level at AFL is lacking.

In Spencer's case I think he is ok, could do a lot more around the goal, showed in he doggies game that he can kick the ball and hit targets. Not a bad tap of the ball but needs to step it up to remain on the list past the end of next year. 

On 2/23/2016 at 9:48 AM, Fifty-5 said:

Yeah I don't think you would have sparked the same response if you posted this first time around instead of:

"Spencer is literally a standing tree-stump. It would be nice if he provided even a little bit as an AFL backup Ruckman. But he doesn't. And he won't."

Keen to hear from you who you think the replacement should be?

Clearly it's an exaggerated comment. But he rarely offers us anything other than providing a contest at Ruck stoppages. That is the god darnest truth. And if you or anyone else chooses to highlight some contested mark or goal from last year, it will only further illustrate my point.

He offers us very little most of the time....

On 2/23/2016 at 10:12 AM, Mad_Melbourne said:

I think Spencers ruckwork at VFL level is above what you would suggest, I recall reading somewhee that he had the 12th best hitout to advantage in the VFL for the top 50 hitout players, whilst it is not exceptional it indicates that it is clearly much improved.

Adel: Sam Jacobs, Luke Lowden
Bris: Stefan Martin, Trent West
Carl: Kreuzer, Wood, Gorringe, Phillips
Coll: Grundy, Witts
Essendon: Leuenberger, Mckernan, Jamar
Freo: Sandilands, Griffiths, Clarke,
Geel: Smith, Blicavs, Stanley
GC: Nicholls, Currie, Brooksby
GWS: Mumford, Simpson, Lobb, Downie
Haw: Ceglar, McEvoy,
Melb: Gawn, Spencer
NM: Goldstein, Daw
Port: Lobbe, Howard
Rich: Maric, Hampson
STK: Longer, Hickey, Pierce
Syd: Derickx, Nankervis, Sinclair,
WC: Naitanui, Lycett, Giles
Dogs: Minson, Roguhhead, Campbell
 

When you actually look at the ruck division of all teams, I would almost argue that as purely a ruck (which i eliminated most fwd/rucks) that Spencer would nearly be the pick of the bunch. Highlighted are most of the second rucks and they are all players I would not have on the list ahead of Spencer. Of course this is a personal opinion, but it stands to reason that whilst he is not a world beater as a number one ruckman, for depth purely he will suffice until Mitch King has had 4-5 years in the system and is looking to compete for the number 1 spot.
 

Firstly, why on earth would you argue such a thing? Eliminating most forward/rucks on your list to make it look like Spencer is half decent?!

The whole reason I brought this up is because of Spencer's obvious limitations as a player! But you have chosen to turn his weakness as a player, (versatility, football skills and smarts, etc) into a positive by arguing that purely as a 'ruckman' he is better than player X, Y and Z. He is only a 'pure' Ruckman because he doesn't require the skills to play any other position on the field!!! What the [censored] are you arguing? Again, it's like the good old days of posters isolating a stat like McKenzie's tackle count and arguing that it made him a valuable player, whilst ignoring every limitation and weakness he did possess. 

As for your list. You might want to update some of it. Lowden no longer plays for Adelaide as an example. You've also conveniently left out Ryder as the number one ruck for Port, (regardless of the fact that he's suspended) which would make Lobbe and not Howard. 

The point you're trying to make completely deviates from my initial argument. Which is that if and when Gawn goes down, we will need more than Spencer as a fill in to be sustainably competitive as a side. 

By removing the forward/rucks or ruck/forwards on your list, you've only further highlighted the lack of depth we have in these areas. We have one high quality KP forward in Hogan and one high quality Ruckman in Gawn. At present, because Spencer is incapable of offering anything other than injury insurance to Gawn, we have to rely on an under-sized Pederson as a relief ruckman who's in-fact a natural third tall forward. Or Frost, who again is an under-sized athletic KP defender who is currently being trialled as that second KP forward who can help out in the Ruck. And this my friends is because we have NOTHING ELSE.

It will have to do for this year. But jesus christ if people honestly think that they're going to see steady and sustainable improvement with this kind of setup, you might want to pinch yourselves. 

 

On 2/23/2016 at 10:49 AM, ProDee said:

I never thought I'd be arguing with anyone on the merits of Spencer, but I must say it is easy to argue with you.

You said, "he doesn't tap to advantage and he certainly doesn't limit the influence of opposition Ruckmen in these areas of the game".  This is a "foundation" to my assumption that his ruckwork is rated in a negative light and unnecessarily "maligned".  In the Bulldogs game he had 40 hitouts, which is clearly having an effect in negating his opponents.  We all know he's depth, but he certainly can play an adequate ruck role if called upon.

Seemingly, you can't remember your own commentary.

I've never met someone who likes to isolate stats in order to back their statements up whilst completely disregarding the broader context as much as you do. It's intriguing.

In that game against the bulldogs, Roughead and Cordy had 22 and 21 hitouts respectively. He halved the hitouts pretty much. Against two blokes who are both a year younger than him and one of them has been delisted. What the fark are you arguing mate?

I've never said he doesn't negate his opponents and I believe that he does a good job at halving contests at stoppages. 'He can halve ruck-contests with his combative and competitive style' is what I said.

'He doesn't kick goals, he doesn't take contested marks, he doesn't understand where to run as a Ruckman, he doesn't tap to advantage and he certainly doesn't limit the influence of opposition Ruckmen in these areas of the game. So in the broader context of the role of a Ruckman, he does get smashed 'in the ruck'. '

And that was the other quote, half of which you conveniently missed. What I will say is that for the sake of pedantry I should have substituted the word 'doesn't' to 'rarely'.

And as for your last comment, again. WTF does that even mean?

I mean James Magner also played an 'adequate' midfield role whilst our list was utter shite back in 2012. 

Of course Spencer will play an 'adequate' ruck role if Gawn goes down vs the alternative. The alternative being nothing.

 

Edited February 28, 20169 yr by stevethemanjordan

1 minute ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Clearly it's an exaggerated comment. But he rarely offers us anything other than providing a contest at Ruck stoppages. That is the god darnest truth. And if you or anyone else chooses to highlight some contested mark or goal from last year, it will only further illustrate my point.

He offers us very little most of the time....

Firstly, why on earth would you argue such a thing? Eliminating most forward/rucks on your list to make it look like Spencer is half decent?!

The whole reason I brought this up is because of Spencer's obvious limitations as a player! But you have chosen to turn his weakness as a player, (versatility, football skills and smarts, etc) into a positive by arguing that purely as a 'ruckman' he is better than player X, Y and Z. He is only a 'pure' Ruckman because he doesn't require the skills to play any other position on the field!!! What the [censored] are you arguing? Again, it's like the good old days of posters isolating a stat like McKenzie's tackle count and arguing that it made him a valuable player, whilst ignoring every limitation and weakness he did possess. 

As for your list. You might want to update some of it. Lowden no longer plays for Adelaide as an example. You've also conveniently left out Ryder as the number one ruck for Port, (regardless of the fact that he's suspended) which would make Lobbe and not Howard. 

The point you're trying to make completely deviates from my initial argument. Which is that if and when Gawn goes down, we will need more than Spencer as a fill in to be sustainably competitive as a side. 

By removing the forward/rucks or ruck/forwards on your list, you've only further highlighted the lack of depth we have in these areas. We have one high quality KP forward in Hogan and one high quality Ruckman in Gawn. At present, because Spencer is incapable of offering anything other than injury insurance to Gawn, we have to rely on an under-sized Pederson as a relief ruckman who's in-fact a natural third tall forward. Or Frost, who again is an under-sized athletic KP defender who is currently being trialled as that second KP forward who can help out in the Ruck. And this my friends is because we have NOTHING ELSE.

It will have to do for this year. But jesus christ if people honestly think that they're going to see steady and sustainable improvement with this kind of setup, you might want to pinch yourselves. 

 

I've never met someone who to isolate stats in order to back your statements up whilst completely disregarding the broader context as much as you do. It's intriguing.

In that game against the bulldogs, Roughead and Cordy had 22 and 21 hitouts respectively. He halved the hitouts pretty much. Against two blokes who are both a year younger than him and one of them has been delisted. What the fark are you arguing mate?

I've never said he doesn't negate his opponents and I believe that he does a good job at halving contests at stoppages. 'He can halve ruck-contests with his combative and competitive style' is what I said.

'He doesn't kick goals, he doesn't take contested marks, he doesn't understand where to run as a Ruckman, he doesn't tap to advantage and he certainly doesn't limit the influence of opposition Ruckmen in these areas of the game. So in the broader context of the role of a Ruckman, he does get smashed 'in the ruck'. '

And that was the other quote, half of which you conveniently missed. What I will say is that for the sake of pedantry I should have substituted the word 'doesn't' to 'rarely'.

And as for your last comment, again. WTF does that even mean?

I mean James Magner also played an 'adequate' midfield role whilst our list was utter shite back in 2012. 

 

Found your new whipping boy Steve?

 

 

2 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Clearly it's an exaggerated comment. But he rarely offers us anything other than providing a contest at Ruck stoppages. That is the god darnest truth. And if you or anyone else chooses to highlight some contested mark or goal from last year, it will only further illustrate my point.

He offers us very little most of the time....

Firstly, why on earth would you argue such a thing? Eliminating most forward/rucks on your list to make it look like Spencer is half decent?!

The whole reason I brought this up is because of Spencer's obvious limitations as a player! But you have chosen to turn his weakness as a player, (versatility, football skills and smarts, etc) into a positive by arguing that purely as a 'ruckman' he is better than player X, Y and Z. He is only a 'pure' Ruckman because he doesn't require the skills to play any other position on the field!!! What the [censored] are you arguing? Again, it's like the good old days of posters isolating a stat like McKenzie's tackle count and arguing that it made him a valuable player, whilst ignoring every limitation and weakness he did possess. 

As for your list. You might want to update some of it. Lowden no longer plays for Adelaide as an example. You've also conveniently left out Ryder as the number one ruck for Port, (regardless of the fact that he's suspended) which would make Lobbe and not Howard. 

The point you're trying to make completely deviates from my initial argument. Which is that if and when Gawn goes down, we will need more than Spencer as a fill in to be sustainably competitive as a side. 

By removing the forward/rucks or ruck/forwards on your list, you've only further highlighted the lack of depth we have in these areas. We have one high quality KP forward in Hogan and one high quality Ruckman in Gawn. At present, because Spencer is incapable of offering anything other than injury insurance to Gawn, we have to rely on an under-sized Pederson as a relief ruckman who's in-fact a natural third tall forward. Or Frost, who again is an under-sized athletic KP defender who is currently being trialled as that second KP forward who can help out in the Ruck. And this my friends is because we have NOTHING ELSE.

It will have to do for this year. But jesus christ if people honestly think that they're going to see steady and sustainable improvement with this kind of setup, you might want to pinch yourselves. 

 

I've never met someone who to isolate stats in order to back your statements up whilst completely disregarding the broader context as much as you do. It's intriguing.

In that game against the bulldogs, Roughead and Cordy had 22 and 21 hitouts respectively. He halved the hitouts pretty much. Against two blokes who are both a year younger than him and one of them has been delisted. What the fark are you arguing mate?

I've never said he doesn't negate his opponents and I believe that he does a good job at halving contests at stoppages. 'He can halve ruck-contests with his combative and competitive style' is what I said.

'He doesn't kick goals, he doesn't take contested marks, he doesn't understand where to run as a Ruckman, he doesn't tap to advantage and he certainly doesn't limit the influence of opposition Ruckmen in these areas of the game. So in the broader context of the role of a Ruckman, he does get smashed 'in the ruck'. '

And that was the other quote, half of which you conveniently missed. What I will say is that for the sake of pedantry I should have substituted the word 'doesn't' to 'rarely'.

And as for your last comment, again. WTF does that even mean?

I mean James Magner also played an 'adequate' midfield role whilst our list was utter shite back in 2012. 

 

Too old a topic to be bothered about.

 

Thanks for the effort though.

Spencer is the antithesis of bruise free football. His collision style is in line with what I saw on Saturday.

Im surprised Tyson was not marked down as injured as he would be full of bruises.

Happy as I am with Gawn, I realise he may be rested for games or Spencer might get a run instead of Frost.

Like Matt Jones, Spencer isnt gifted with lots of talent but uses what attributes he's got very well.

 

Edited February 28, 20169 yr by Franky_31

10 minutes ago, Baghdad Bob said:

Found your new whipping boy Steve?

 

 

No. I'm just demanding overall list improvement and highlighting weaknesses we have in certain positional areas of the ground. The ruck/forward, forward/ruck role being the subject. Highlighting Spencer's weaknesses and the fact that we're struggling with two undersized KP players as current relief players. I'm looking forward. You can continue to be happy with the state of the list. 

That's cool.

 

10 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Too old a topic to be bothered about.

 

Thanks for the effort though.

Ah, you mean you've conceded*

Nice one.

Just now, stevethemanjordan said:

No. I'm just demanding overall list improvement and highlighting weaknesses we have in certain positional areas of the ground. The ruck/forward, forward/ruck role being the subject. Highlighting Spencer's weaknesses and the fact that we're struggling with two undersized KP players as current relief players. I'm looking forward. You can continue to be happy with the state of the list. 

That's cool.

 

Ah, you mean you've conceded*

Nice one.

Cheers, mate.

12 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Firstly, why on earth would you argue such a thing? Eliminating most forward/rucks on your list to make it look like Spencer is half decent?!

The whole reason I brought this up is because of Spencer's obvious limitations as a player! But you have chosen to turn his weakness as a player, (versatility, football skills and smarts, etc) into a positive by arguing that purely as a 'ruckman' he is better than player X, Y and Z. He is only a 'pure' Ruckman because he doesn't require the skills to play any other position on the field!!! What the [censored] are you arguing? Again, it's like the good old days of posters isolating a stat like McKenzie's tackle count and arguing that it made him a valuable player, whilst ignoring every limitation and weakness he did possess. 

As for your list. You might want to update some of it. Lowden no longer plays for Adelaide as an example. You've also conveniently left out Ryder as the number one ruck for Port, (regardless of the fact that he's suspended) which would make Lobbe and not Howard. 

The point you're trying to make completely deviates from my initial argument. Which is that if and when Gawn goes down, we will need more than Spencer as a fill in to be sustainably competitive as a side. 

By removing the forward/rucks or ruck/forwards on your list, you've only further highlighted the lack of depth we have in these areas. We have one high quality KP forward in Hogan and one high quality Ruckman in Gawn. At present, because Spencer is incapable of offering anything other than injury insurance to Gawn, we have to rely on an under-sized Pederson as a relief ruckman who's in-fact a natural third tall forward. Or Frost, who again is an under-sized athletic KP defender who is currently being trialled as that second KP forward who can help out in the Ruck. And this my friends is because we have NOTHING ELSE.

It will have to do for this year. But jesus christ if people honestly think that they're going to see steady and sustainable improvement with this kind of setup, you might want to pinch yourselves. 

Why I eliminated most of the dual positions is that when looking down the list they would spend more time in the forward line than pinch hitting in the ruck and that if the number 1 ruckman on a list got injured, it would be more likely that the second string ruckman would be brought in. If Gawn got injured, Spencer would play number 1 ruck, if Goldstein got injured Daw would likely play number 1 ruck ahead of Ben Brown or Drew Petrie. This is not the case for all teams obviously and thus i kept players like Mckernan and Sinclair in who would probably assume the number 1 mantle if injury was to happen.

In regards to Lowden, he is on Adelaides list and why would I include Ryder who can not play a game this year?

 

In regards to a ruck/fwd yes we are clearly lacking this, I personally do not mind the option of Frost who can develop into the role and worst case Pederson, who proved again in the last quarter that his ruckwork is competitive.

Anywho, all i was highlighting that in terms of an emergency ruckman Spencer is not that bad, never argued that he is a ruck/fwd.
 

I think it's clear Pederson is our best option at the moment for the forward/ruck spot. He is better in the ruck than Frost, he clunked a few marks and kicked 2 goals. Not a bad effort. I doubt we'll see Dawes again. Spencer isn't up to it and the 2 Kings are not ready.

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Ah, you mean you've conceded*

Nice one.

Ah, now I understand!  You think if you have the last post you win.

Wrong.

At least that explains your vendetta approach to players you don't like.