Delistings

[stuie 7,374]

12 hours ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

Tell me one game..One passage of play you can recall from this year that Matt Jones influenced. ..go on

Was awesome against Freo, and also very good against WC and GC. Think he had a good one in round 1 too.

 

[Wilson7 2,670]

28 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah and Salem, Weed, Pedo, Garland, Brayshaw, Trengove, ANB, JKH etc all played 10 games or less.

All list cloggers?

You are the one making the big deal about number of games played. Playing 10 games does not exclude a player from being honored as a list clogger. Jordie McKenzie finished 3rd in the B&F one season and he was the poster boy for list cloggers, Dean Terlich would also make the AA team of list cloggers.

Edited September 3, 2016 by DavidNeitz9

[stuie 7,374]

Just now, DavidNeitz9 said:

You are the one making the big deal about number of games played. Playing 10 games does not exclude a player from being honored as a list clogger. Jordie McKenzie finished 3rd in the B&F one season as he was the poster boy for list cloggers, Dean Terlich would also make the AA team of list cloggers.

Right, and how would you compare our team now to then?

 

[Wilson7 2,670]

19 minutes ago, stuie said:

Right, and how would you compare our team now to then?

Better.

I quickly put together an all star team of list cloggers just for you, hope i didn't miss anyone

D.Nicholson, Lamb, Gillies
Terlich, Gaspar, Norman
Toumpas, McKenzie, Bail
Maric, Dawes, Tapscott
Moorcroft, Newton, Sellar
Spencer, Funcke, Gysberts
Meesen, Nettlebeck, L.Williams, Lamprill

[dazzledavey36 54,951]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Was awesome against Freo, and also very good against WC and GC. Think he had a good one in round 1 too.

 

He got dropped after the Gold Coast simply because he was missing targets 20m in front of him. 

He was poor that day.

[stuie 7,374]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

He got dropped after the Gold Coast simply because he was missing targets 20m in front of him. 

He was poor that day.

Fair enough, going by memory and thought that was about the time he missed due to injury.

 

[stuie 7,374]

2 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Better.

I quickly put together an all star team of list cloggers just for you, hope i didn't miss anyone

D.Nicholson, Lamb, Gillies
Terlich, Gaspar, Norman
Toumpas, McKenzie, Bail
Maric, Dawes, Tapscott
Moorcroft, Newton, Sellar
Spencer, Funcke, Gysberts
Meesen, Nettlebeck, L.Williams, Lamprill

WGAF.

Seriously.

 

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

3 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Better.

I quickly put together an all star team of list cloggers just for you, hope i didn't miss anyone

D.Nicholson, Lamb, Gillies
Terlich, Gaspar, Norman
Toumpas, McKenzie, Bail
Maric, Dawes, Tapscott
Moorcroft, Newton, Sellar
Spencer, Funcke, Gysberts
Meesen, Nettlebeck, L.Williams, Lamprill

Edited September 3, 2016 by The Song Formerly Known As

[old55 23,613]

16 hours ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

Tell me one game..One passage of play you can recall from this year that Matt Jones influenced. ..go on

Matt Jones played some good footy in the first 5 rounds up to his injury.  Your preconceptions about him and gold fish memory seem to be preventing recall.  He's no world beater but we need a capable squad of 30 and he qualifies.

[old55 23,613]

3 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Better.

I quickly put together an all star team of list cloggers just for you, hope i didn't miss anyone

D.Nicholson, Lamb, Gillies
Terlich, Gaspar, Norman
Toumpas, McKenzie, Bail
Maric, Dawes, Tapscott
Moorcroft, Newton, Sellar
Spencer, Funcke, Gysberts
Meesen, Nettlebeck, L.Williams, Lamprill

The inclusion of Spencer in your team shows you have absolutely no idea about depth players and their necessity.  No surprise you're wrong about M.Joness too.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Fifty-5

[Wilson7 2,670]

Just now, Fifty-5 said:

The inclusion of Spencer in you team shows you have absolutely no idea about depth players and their necessity.  No surprise you're wrong about M.Joness too.

Fine, Joe Rugolo can take Spencers spot. What would we have done without Jakes superb 39 games in 8 years, 0 this year, He is the opposite of a valuable depth player.

[old55 23,613]

1 minute ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Fine, Joe Rugolo can take Spencers spot. What would we have done without Jakes superb 39 games in 8 years, 0 this year, He is the opposite of a valuable depth player.

I'm guessing you don't have any forms of insurance?  If Gawn got injured, without Jake, we would have been rucking Pedersen, Dawes and Watts.  It's great that he played 0 games and Max is AA.  He's still providing value even at Casey.  It's clearly a concept beyond your comprehension.

[Wilson7 2,670]

Just now, Fifty-5 said:

I'm guessing you don't have any forms of insurance?  If Gawn got injured, without Jake, we would have been rucking Pedersen, Dawes and Watts.  It's great that he played 0 games and Max is AA.  He's still providing value even at Casey.  It's clearly a concept beyond your comprehension.

Value at Casey, so what ? Terlich provides value at Casey. Spencer is the luckiest player in the league to have a contract for next season.

[old55 23,613]

1 minute ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Value at Casey, so what ? Terlich provides value at Casey. Spencer is the luckiest player in the league to have a contract for next season.

I expect he'll have one somewhere if not at MFC for quite a few years.  Valuable commodity capable depth ruckman.  It's a specialist role.  Dan Currie, you've probably never heard of him?

[Wilson7 2,670]

3 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I expect he'll have one somewhere if not at MFC for quite a few years.  Valuable commodity capable depth ruckman.  It's a specialist role.  Dan Currie, you've probably never heard of him?

Currie is about 28 and played 6-7  games. I understand the concept and value of a depth ruckman, i think we can do better than Spencer, he's a big body that provides a contest and that's about it

[stuie 7,374]

45 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Currie is about 28 and played 6-7  games. I understand the concept and value of a depth ruckman, i think we can do better than Spencer, he's a big body that provides a contest and that's about it

Which is exactly what we want.

How many gun ruckmen are going to stick around and be happy to play 0 games because they're behind our AA ruckman?

FMD.

 

[Satyriconhome 10,878]

1 hour ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Fine, Joe Rugolo can take Spencers spot. What would we have done without Jakes superb 39 games in 8 years, 0 this year, He is the opposite of a valuable depth player.

I hate to [censored] on your fire, but Spencer has already got another year, announced mid year, didn't you read it? or not want to, did he run over your cat?

Edited September 3, 2016 by Satyriconhome

[old55 23,613]

1 hour ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Currie is about 28 and played 6-7  games. I understand the concept and value of a depth ruckman, i think we can do better than Spencer, he's a big body that provides a contest and that's about it

With Max and Mitch King both on our list it's hard to see much Spencer clogging going on.

[worldwideweb_demon 90]

Hey guys, what do think about moving Lynden Dunn back to the forward line. With depth in our back stocks now, Dunn as a third tall might be better than say Dawes?

[Wiseblood 24,637]

A depth player is someone who, when called upon, can add some true value to a side.  

A list clogger is someone who, when called upon, rarely adds value to the side.  They generally don't last that long, but there are exceptions to the rule.

Matt Jones USED to be a list clogger.  He's not so much anymore.  He can add some value, although his kicking still makes me twitch.  

Jake Spencer, to me, is a list clogger.  If he added any value to the side, at his size, then he would have played a few games this year.  The only reason he got another year on the list is that we have no one else and there is no guarantee we'll get one in trade week or through the draft.

[mauriesy 7,299]

The reason Spencer didn't play this year is because Max Gawn played all 22 games. Spencer is not a list clogger, he's insurance in case the unthinkable happens.

[DV8 2,271]

6 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Currie is about 28 and played 6-7  games. I understand the concept and value of a depth ruckman, i think we can do better than Spencer, he's a big body that provides a contest and that's about it

Yes, but you don't de-list your 2nd starting ruck, prior to proving his understudy.

[Demon Disciple 12,164]

Spencer is not a list-clogger atm. He can't be, purely for the fact that throughout this year, he was the only other pure ruckman on our entire list. He was not preventing/clogging any other ruck the opportunity of playing.

Now if we were to bring in a 2nd ruck this off-season, Spencer would become a list-clogger, if his presence was preventing that potential 2nd ruckman from playing games.

[Nasher 33,616]

14 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Currie is about 28 and played 6-7  games. I understand the concept and value of a depth ruckman, i think we can do better than Spencer, he's a big body that provides a contest and that's about it

Who do you propose then? Criteria:

1. Must have a developed body, capable of competing as a first ruck at AFL level
2. Must be willing to sit in the twos all year if Gawn doesn't get injured

It's an extremely limited field I think.  Nobody springs to mind for me.

I get why people don't love Spencer, but there's more to it than how highly you rate the individual player.  It wouldn't take much development from Mitch King next year to render Spencer redundant - King just needs to get to a level where he's fit and we think we could scrape by if he had to fill in in the seniors - but we're not there yet.  This is why Spencer is still on the list.  

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,809]

On 03/09/2016 at 11:46 AM, Nasher said:

If we get rid of all the players you've suggested, we'll have picks 44, 61, 78, 95, 112, 129, 146, as well as 163 if you decide we need another and delist Matt Jones.  Top plan mate.

The contracted JKH, ANB and Dunn/Garland and possibly Lumumba are next year's delistings if they don't get going.  You need to churn your list every year, it's just a fact of life that you can't get rid of all your players at once.

But you seem to forget that at picks 112, 129, 146, 163 and possibly even 95, we'll get who we want because there'll be no other clubs bidding at that time. Just think, we can make our selection at 146 without being nervous about who we might miss out on at 145. (Insert appropriate emoticon here).