2 hours ago, picket fence said:

Not sure I ever said that but keep digging into lost relics file!

Knew some smmmarty would no doubt bring this up!

Huh?!

"not sure i said that... I knew someone would bring it back up".. ie i did say that?

OK MATE

With Vince and Smith out and it being a Sunday game we will name 4 additional players in the squad out tomorrow.

Tyson, Kent, Harmes and...... Trengove?

7 minutes ago, CHF said:

With Vince and Smith out and it being a Sunday game we will name 4 additional players in the squad out tomorrow.

Tyson, Kent, Harmes and...... Trengove?

Actually, we have to add five names to make it a 25 man squad (and assuming no mystery injuries of the week this week). I would run with:- 

Don Tyson, Dean Kent, Cam Petersen, Jake Spencer and James Harmes.

18 hours ago, nutbean said:

 

Sigh...I'll have another go  - TALL forwards - why even discuss Membrey  ?He is 188 cm  - mid size and we had any number of players who could have gone to him. That is the reason why it did not have an impact when Smith went off. If StKilda had McCartin in the side Smith's injury may have caused a little extra concern for us.

McKay (200cm) was in the best last week , kicked 4 goals . Casboult (201cm) will get one of the Mac's . If Weitering  (195cm and plays tall) plays forward which I expect him to, he will get the other Mac. So McKay who is tall marking forward  -  who will you play on him ? To say anyone can play spoil him shows disrespect for the player - apart from the Macs - he is at least 10 cms and 10 kilos heavier than our next defender. Still haven't got an answer from anyone.

VP - How exactly will we adjust  ? My view is one of two - Tyson IMO is a lock - leaving Bugg or Kent as the other - if we go that way AND they select McKay AND they play three talls forward then we may start smaller but if they start marking the pill then Watts (preferred as he has played back) or The Weed may need to go back ( we have even sent Hogan back at times but it is obvious where his most use to us is). Or we select Pedo - but he is not seen as the future.

Either way - we are definitely one tall back short at the moment and at the start of the season we would have been thinking Frost/Smith - Garland as depth. 

I suspect this is where most of the discussion will be for match committee this week.

Edit - I'm not panicking as there are options but none of them are ideal IMO and I anxiously await the return of Smith and the availability of Frost. We need one more tall back

During Trade period I made exactly the same point we needed to pick up a tall developing back man maybe 3 years into his craft

We didnt and spent 2nd round picksin subsequent years on Melks and Hibberd which we could have used to trade

We had an opportunity and didnt take it

10 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Actually, we have to add five names to make it a 25 man squad (and assuming no mystery injuries of the week this week). I would run with:- 

Don Tyson, Dean Kent, Cam Petersen, Jake Spencer and James Harmes.

I've always wondered why we have to do that.  Why force us to name players we have no intention of playing? It's weird.

Don't understand why the AFL don't just allow the clubs playing on the Sunday to name 22-25 players and leave the clubs to decide how to use that.

12 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I've always wondered why we have to do that.  Why force us to name players we have no intention of playing? It's weird.

Don't understand why the AFL don't just allow the clubs playing on the Sunday to name 22-25 players and leave the clubs to decide how to use that.

Same as why they force the Friday/Saturday teams to name emergency's, give's time to media outlets to know within reason who will be playing - anything your ever confused about think about the media and that's normally the answer. It is however much easier to bring players in and out of those 25 man squads for Sunday games. 

1 hour ago, jackaub said:

During Trade period I made exactly the same point we needed to pick up a tall developing back man maybe 3 years into his craft

We didnt and spent 2nd round picksin subsequent years on Melks and Hibberd which we could have used to trade

We had an opportunity and didnt take it

Isn't that exactly what Keilty is?

1 hour ago, jackaub said:

During Trade period I made exactly the same point we needed to pick up a tall developing back man maybe 3 years into his craft

We didnt and spent 2nd round picksin subsequent years on Melks and Hibberd which we could have used to trade

We had an opportunity and didnt take it

Don't know if there were that many tall developong backs who fit that description? Plus Hibberd plays a lot taller than he is, so i think they may have thought there was enough coverage for that 3rd/4th tall back - Hibberd, Frost, Smith, Pedo, Garland, Wagner, White, Keilty- just a pity our injuries at the moment seem to be concentrated in that area.

I've also heard that this years draft is much better for talls, in particular backs so we might have made a strategic decision to get through this year and load up next year?

13 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

Isn't that exactly what Keilty is?

I thought Kielty  was a ruck forward

What i meant was not drafting a new player but trade for a developing back man already playing 

1 minute ago, jackaub said:

I thought Kielty  was a ruck forward

What i meant was not drafting a new player but trade for a developing back man already playing 

Like Hibberd? 

 

The problem with what you are are suggesting is a 3rd-4th year tall that is currently playing is definitely going to cost the bank. Otherwise you get a second/third string who probably wouldn't be getting a game ahead of McDonald x 2, Hibberd, Frost, Wagner and to a lesser extent Garland and Smith. Our backline depth is pretty solid, considering our horrible run with injuries, it could be a lot worse. 

13 minutes ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

Like Hibberd? 

 

The problem with what you are are suggesting is a 3rd-4th year tall that is currently playing is definitely going to cost the bank. Otherwise you get a second/third string who probably wouldn't be getting a game ahead of McDonald x 2, Hibberd, Frost, Wagner and to a lesser extent Garland and Smith. Our backline depth is pretty solid, considering our horrible run with injuries, it could be a lot worse. 

Thats where I disagree, it doesn't look particularly solid remember we had 2 second round draft picks to use for the trade and we have had exactlly 1 game of AFL out of the both of them

 A need for developed tall defender was identified at the time all i am saying is we chose not to look for one

Goody has confirmed Tyson is one of the ins during his presser this morning.
 

 

30 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Goody has confirmed Tyson is one of the ins during his presser this morning.
 

 

Bugg seems to be the forgotten man...I think we will go with Tyson & Bugg.

1 minute ago, rjay said:

Bugg seems to be the forgotten man...I think we will go with Tyson & Bugg.

why wouldn't Goodwin have mentioned him? I would love Bugger to be added. I reckon he can play Vince's role as a defensive small bloke.

 

On a side note, who are we trusting with the kicking in duties on the weekend/.?

Just now, Leoncelli_36 said:

On a side note, who are we trusting with the kicking in duties on the weekend/.?

I'd guess Lewis/Salem

38 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Thats where I disagree, it doesn't look particularly solid remember we had 2 second round draft picks to use for the trade and we have had exactlly 1 game of AFL out of the both of them

 A need for developed tall defender was identified at the time all i am saying is we chose not to look for one

It is not often that you will have to be missing 5 players from one are of the ground, especially taking that one position 3rd tall defender. Which is why we chose not too look for one.

im bullish on the fact our backline almost has as much depth as our midfield, if we needed anything it's debatably a third tall forward. 

There aren't many 3rd/4th year kpp defenders that would slot instead of O McDonald, or that are any good that would be up for trade (think T Gillies). Marchbank and Plowman but we never had the currency for them anyway. 

A disposer out of our backline was always our most genuine target and Hibberd was this and fits into third tall also. 

9 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I'd guess Lewis/Salem

does Salem have a penetrating kick? I reckon he'd struggle to cover 50metres. He is a good user, but our get out of jail kick was Bernie playing on and going 60 metres wide to Gawn

Just now, Leoncelli_36 said:

does Salem have a penetrating kick? I reckon he'd struggle to cover 50metres. He is a good user, but our get out of jail kick was Bernie playing on and going 60 metres wide to Gawn

Yeah but he usually has the option to play on to get a little extra distance or the pocket option if nothing else. Obviously Bernie takes it back off him in round 3 but I'm not too conserned for a 1 off game.

1 hour ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Goody has confirmed Tyson is one of the ins during his presser this morning.
 

 

I would liked to of seen Kent get a game ahead of the other two. We need more effective players. Even though it is Carlton, at times last week we looked sloppy. Harmes and Tyson are hardly going to rectify that. Look forward to Kent coming back in eventually. If fit he could make a big difference IMO.

Edited March 30, 20178 yr by KingDingAling

29 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

why wouldn't Goodwin have mentioned him? I would love Bugger to be added. I reckon he can play Vince's role as a defensive small bloke.

Harmes, Kent and Tyson were the three mentioned by Plapp from the VFL game - which Bugg didn't play.  Probably just an oversight based on that.  

I agree with rjay that it will probably be Bugg and Tyson.

Could be a bit wet and windy on Sunday so not ideal conditions for tall forwards.

If the Blues go in too big we should be able to cut them up on the rebound.

35 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

why wouldn't Goodwin have mentioned him? (Bugg)

Direct response to the question that only mentioned those 3

Just now, KingDingAling said:

I would liked to of seen Kent get a game ahead of the other two. We need more effective players. Even though it is Carlton, at times last week we looked sloppy. Harmes and Tyson are hardly going to rectify that. Look forward to Kent coming back in eventually. If fit he could make a big difference IMO.

Im a huge fan of both Kent and Tyson. But on Kent: with ANB, Garlett and Hannan all playing well, who goes out? He wouldnt be replacing either of Smith/Vince I would think. Do they take out the Wied and play really small? That would be a surprise for me but there are very few ways i can see to fit Kent in. Aside from dropping one of the smalls who doesnt deserve to be dropped.

27 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

does Salem have a penetrating kick? I reckon he'd struggle to cover 50metres. He is a good user, but our get out of jail kick was Bernie playing on and going 60 metres wide to Gawn

 

You're making an assumption that Carlton are going to score   

If things go according to plan, kick ins shouldn't be required much on Sunday.

35 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

why wouldn't Goodwin have mentioned him? (Bugg)

Direct response to the question that only mentioned those 3