One kid who is going to become a superstar CHF is Peter Wright.

Him and Lynch is going to be one powerful combo in years to come.

I think we're in pretty good shape for tall forwards in the medium and long term.

Personally I prefer a 2xCHF set-up, so that there is always one offering a lead and always one lurking with menace around the 50, meaning that our midfield always has at least one sensible option for a kick to connect with a lead or gain a lot of ground and reach a credible contest.

I agree with the others who have said our higher priority is getting our group of defenders organised and efficient.

Our other main issue is of course the chop-out ruck. While Gawn is surely a Titan, even Atlas got tired. I'd also hate to think that his career could be cut back by 50 games because of accumulated battering just that little bit beyond weekly recovery.

Lets not get caught up in tags and game styles. This is more about structure over position. The actual chf tag is irrelevant in modern footy.

Lets take the crows as a good exapmle. Soldi talls and small combo. Talls - Tex, Jenkins & lynch

My point is our forward line is one tall short of being really dangerous.

Hence the discussion, shoukd we bring someone in for 2017 or is there someone on the list to fill that 2nd tall. 

I haven't seen anyone take that spot.

FYI 

Hogan is 1, Watts is 3 we are missing another solid contributor

4 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

We are averaging 96.5 points per game this season. Our forward line is not a problem IMO.

That is another discussion all together. I thin that's been due to a change in game style over improvement in thr forwards.

Also if we win enough footy and convert more consistently there is an argument that defence would be irrelevant.

The discussion is centeredaround no one has taken the opportunity this year as the 2nd tall. And there are no obvious immediate replacements imo

I could sit here and pick holes in the current team all day. As i siad just before it's about the forward 6

10 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I think we're in pretty good shape for tall forwards in the medium and long term.

Personally I prefer a 2xCHF set-up, so that there is always one offering a lead and always one lurking with menace around the 50, meaning that our midfield always has at least one sensible option for a kick to connect with a lead or gain a lot of ground and reach a credible contest.

I agree with the others who have said our higher priority is getting our group of defenders organised and efficient.

Our other main issue is of course the chop-out ruck. While Gawn is surely a Titan, even Atlas got tired. I'd also hate to think that his career could be cut back by 50 games because of accumulated battering just that little bit beyond weekly recovery.

While nothing you've said is wrong i sm talking about short term forward options and the fact that we've had no one step up as the 2nd or 3rd (if u rate Watts as 2) tall forward.

We've got kids in other spots who are developing now in the senior team.

Who's stepping up in the forward line? 

 

How is Son of Smith (Joel) tracking?

Edited July 8, 20169 yr by johndemons

1 hour ago, Unleash Hell said:

Lets not get caught up in tags and game styles. This is more about structure over position. The actual chf tag is irrelevant in modern footy.

Lets take the crows as a good exapmle. Soldi talls and small combo. Talls - Tex, Jenkins & lynch

My point is our forward line is one tall short of being really dangerous.

Hence the discussion, shoukd we bring someone in for 2017 or is there someone on the list to fill that 2nd tall. 

I haven't seen anyone take that spot.

FYI 

Hogan is 1, Watts is 3 we are missing another solid contributor

Sam Weideman  will be full forward Hogan CHF & Watts the 3rd tall

3 tall forwards ... Hogan  Watts Weideman.

Hogan to play more as a CHF but all 3 can interchange through the tall forward options.

11 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

3 tall forwards ... Hogan  Watts Weideman.

Hogan to play more as a CHF but all 3 can interchange through the tall forward options.

Its my bad as I probably didn't explain my point.

But Weeds is unproven and under-developed. He needs a year or 2 to get himself AFL ready. I don't believe he will hold down a tall forward position in 2016 or 2017. The same applies for Hulett. We haven't seen them yet, its only a prediction

Anyway I will watch with interest what they do for the next 8 rounds with our front 6. I don't believe we have a capable 2nd tall option on our list atm

One interesting scenario would be Spencer/Gawn combo. Where one plays Tall Forward and the other rucks and vice versa. I'd love to know what is keeping Spencer out of the team? For those who follow Casey, is Spencer not a capable forward?

23 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

The 18 positions just don't exist anymore.  CHF is an extinct dinosaur.

Not strictly true. I take your point but some players are better suited to some parts of the ground. Simple example: Lynden Dunn has played his best footy in defence. Was always NQR as a forward.

Hogan is a CHF for reasons laid out earlier in the thread.

Whereas Jack Riewoldt is not a CHF. He is  a FF. Good quick lead, good hands, good straight kick. Where better on the ground than near the goals?

1 hour ago, Ted Fidge said:

Not strictly true. I take your point but some players are better suited to some parts of the ground. Simple example: Lynden Dunn has played his best footy in defence. Was always NQR as a forward.

Hogan is a CHF for reasons laid out earlier in the thread.

Whereas Jack Riewoldt is not a CHF. He is  a FF. Good quick lead, good hands, good straight kick. Where better on the ground than near the goals?

I agree there are tall forwards and tall backs but CHF and CHB don't exist any more.

Riewoldt get up the ground and plays deep and so does Hogan.

The problem that Cloke and Dunn have been having is that they think like you.

Hogan is the ultimate CHF.  Weed will be a great FF.  Bring in 2017.

So, tonight? What does selection say about the importance of the 'three-talls-though-no-dedicated-positions' structure (which I like btw) in the minds of the coaches? I'm presuming we're still selecting to win.

No. 2 dropped, the 'ins' not replacing him, and No. 3/4 currently performing better/usefully around the ground. With two half backs, and little height, coming in, perhaps constant rotations, with 2 x Macs, Frost and Max featuring? Does uncertainty (confusion!?) have merit as a tactic against Dockers?

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

I agree there are tall forwards and tall backs but CHF and CHB don't exist any more.

Riewoldt get up the ground and plays deep and so does Hogan.

The problem that Cloke and Dunn have been having is that they think like you.

Riewoldt has been shown to be far more effective close to goals. Hogan has his best games when he roams around.

Everyone knows the classic "positions" don't exist, but one big bloke up forward is not the same as the next.

Hogan is more like a traditional CHF than FF, and Riewoldt the reverse.

Your backhander at me makes no sense.

2 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Hogan is the ultimate CHF.  Weed will be a great FF.  Bring in 2017.

I agree with your first sentence.......your second is at best unproven, at worst wishful thinking.  

Most here sincerely hope you turn out right but we have seen many "great" and "gun" future layers lauded on these boards who have turned out to have "under fulfilled their potential" to put it kindly.  Blease, Gysberts, 426Smith, Juice, Cook......

Third sentence we can all agree with.

On 8 July 2016 at 10:33 AM, Unleash Hell said:

My point is do we look at guys like Vickory as a short term solution?

Nooooooo.

I'm a better option at CHF and I'm 115 kgs with the turning circle of a 747. Blood the kids before bringing in list cloggers who can't move us forward.