On 25/04/2017 at 02:36, rjay said:

Petracca is the only one I rate, and he's more a mid sized forward than small.

No Jeffy love?

I'm in a horribly tiny Minority with my JKH love. But I see him getting better and better.

Now that I've lost you... lol

I also think Kent is going to be massively important for the next 10 weeks. And I think there isn't anything Harmes can't do on an AFL field. But he's not doing it. 

  On 25/04/2017 at 02:40, Dappa Dan said:

Surely every club in the league is taking punts. You can say every player in the comp is a punt. There's no such thing as a safe player. Dangerfield does a knee this season, and their "bet" turns out a bad one.

Yes, correct point. But I didn't say "A grader." I just said depth. Would you say it's good to have good depth in an age bracket, say, 20-25... and educate and wait... and watch some of them become stars? The way I see it, we can't very well go out and trade for established A graders for the WHOLE list. The majority have to come from in house, or you'll be paying overs all the time. I reckon Salem, Hunt and even Smith can be that in the future. Wagner probably one notch down. Lewis and Vince too old to be considered future stars. Hmm.... Maybe need one more.

I think Smith could be a beauty....

Salem is better off up the ground, the rest more likely o be depth.

  On 25/04/2017 at 02:42, Dappa Dan said:

No Jeffy love?

I'm in a horribly tiny Minority with my JKH love. But I see him getting better and better.

Now that I've lost you... lol

I also think Kent is going to be massively important for the next 10 weeks. And I think there isn't anything Harmes can't do on an AFL field. But he's not doing it. 

Jeffy, not the answer long term and way too hot and cold.

JKH is not quick enough for his size and will be depth at best.

I would look to trade Kent to WC, would suit them beautifully...down hill skier.

  On 25/04/2017 at 02:47, rjay said:

I think Smith could be a beauty....

Salem is better off up the ground, the rest more likely o be depth.

Jeffy, not the answer long term and way too hot and cold.

JKH is not quick enough for his size and will be depth at best.

I would look to trade Kent to WC, would suit them beautifully...down hill skier.

Smith could be great. Very early days.

Agree on Salem. But he'll play everywhere they need him with how he kicks. Team will look for him more and more. They already are.

I wanna disagree but I can't. I'll say I do like depth though. You can't have a list of superstars. But yes, we need some more goal scoring power.

Heh. I've always looked at him as a guy that one year will kick 40-50, with a few big bags... and then we'll kick him out for a 2nd rounder. In 2017 though, what he brings to the table, we just need so badly. Pace pace pace.

  On 25/04/2017 at 02:21, Dappa Dan said:

Do you understand you're rebutting a point I didn't make? Watts is a pinch hitting ruck. Boyd is a pinch hitting ruck. This is all I'm saying about their respective ruck roles within the lists they're on.

I didn't say anything about why they were drafted. I'm speaking on their role in the list they occupy. Players are drafted and RETAINED for different things. And Selected for different things too. Noone wants to see Watts in the ruck ever. Ideally, it'd be Gawn and someone like Tippet, and we'd never see Jack in a single stoppage.

You see you're disagreeing with me, and then making the same point I did. Both are pinch hitting in the ruck, but are, in an ideal world, NOT SUPPOSED TO PLAY THERE.

Boyd is SUPPOSED to play forward. Jack is SUPPOSED to play forward. Of course Boyd is built better for the ruck, he's over 2 metres tall. That doesn't mean the Dogs WANT him there. When Campbell or Roughy play, he gets what, 6 hitouts? (the same as Watts). When both play? He's forward for the entire game. Same as Watts. (although Watts is great, cos he plan play literally anywhere on the ground with his massive tank).

I think you're saying Boyd is recruited, retained and selected to be a forward and backup ruck, and that Watts isn't. Based partly on the fact he's 200cm, and partly on his great GF. Neither one of us knows for sure Bevo's true intentions, no matter what he says or what is written. But... I don't think you pay a million a year for a pinch hitting ruck that's playing the game Boyd is right now. He's supposed to be the KP clunker. Same reason they went and got Cloke. And Redpath. And no, I don't think Watts is a KP clunker. Matter of fact he's not as good a mark as any of Redpath, Boyd, or Cloke. I think it's probably he was drafted as a KP forward, and when they realised that's not what he is, they adapted his role and made him what he is now. He'd have to be one of the best utilities in the game right now. At one point he's dobbing them from 55 metres like he's Lloyd. A quarter later he's on our defensive goal line taking a mark to repel.

My overarching before we got bogged down arguing the same point to each other, was that in terms of ruck stocks, we're the same as the best team in the comp. And various other strong rucking teams. You can't have 5 AA ruckmen on your list. You ahve your starter who should be ideally a top 10 guy. Then his backup, who's a good honest trier, but is between 19th-36th in the ruckman pecking order. Then after that you have backups and pinch hitters of all different shapes and sizes... and then you develop 2-3 kids at any given time. List management wise, we did absolutely the right thing. Any more we'd have too many ruckmen. Any less we'd be thin. They got it right. We just got injured. It's simple.

In one of your original posts you mentioned that the list managers couldn't have done more to get our ruck stocks right. In my opinoin this is clearly not correct as they could have addressed a need for a ruck/forward in last years draft. Instead we have gone with Watts in this role. This is essentially where I am disagreeing with you.

If I'm list manager of the Dogs I am ok with Boyd pinch hitting as his body/frame is suitable for this role. If I'm list manager of Melbourne I wouldn't have Watts in this role, I'd be looking for someone with more height & a stronger body.

Regarding ruck stocks we have four specialist rucks, what we don't have is someone capable of playing forward ruck. This is why I have stated that I disagree with you as Boyd in my opinion can play this role, whereas Watts whilst he is currently in this position really shouldn't be. It suits the Dogs more to play Boyd there, it doesn't really suit the MFC.

List management wise what I am saying is that we could have drafted for a KPF who also is capable of playing ruck.  

  On 25/04/2017 at 02:21, Wiseblood said:

Their role on the list isn't allowed to change over time?  If Watts' role wasn't to play as a forward/relief ruckman, then he wouldn't be doing it.  Clearly that is his role now for the club going forward, whether that be in the short or long term.  If it wasn't then Pedersen would have gotten a gig or they would have gone with both Gawn and Spencer from Round 1.  

So while Boyd may have a few centimetres on him, he still plays the same role as Watts.  Watts just does it better.

Yes that is Watts current role & I'm saying it shouldn't be. There was an obvious need for a forward ruck, we didn't go for that player for whatever reason.

Of course their role can change over time, I'm saying in this instance it shouldn't. If I was coach or list manager I wouldn't be playing Watts there, I would have tried to find a similar player like a David Hale to provide some flexibility. Whether a player like that was available is a whole different story.

  On 25/04/2017 at 03:06, Bonkers said:

In one of your original posts you mentioned that the list managers couldn't have done more to get our ruck stocks right. In my opinoin this is clearly not correct as they could have addressed a need for a ruck/forward in last years draft. Instead we have gone with Watts in this role. This is essentially where I am disagreeing with you.

If I'm list manager of the Dogs I am ok with Boyd pinch hitting as his body/frame is suitable for this role. If I'm list manager of Melbourne I wouldn't have Watts in this role, I'd be looking for someone with more height & a stronger body.

Regarding ruck stocks we have four specialist rucks, what we don't have is someone capable of playing forward ruck. This is why I have stated that I disagree with you as Boyd in my opinion can play this role, whereas Watts whilst he is currently in this position really shouldn't be. It suits the Dogs more to play Boyd there, it doesn't really suit the MFC.

List management wise what I am saying is that we could have drafted for a KPF who also is capable of playing ruck.  

Well you're entitled to your opinion in that, and that's fine. But you've ignored some of the facts. Firstly, we hunted a ruck/forward, and couldn't get a deal done. Leuenberger, for example, was a big target and was gettable. Problem is those guys know their value, and usually want a starting ruck job, in the manner of Goldy who does both ruck and forward duties, and does them amazingly. We could have gotten Leuie, but wouldn't have been able to deal for Hibberd. Or possibly wouldn't have been able to do the deal that got us Weed. You can only do so much with what you have and with the picks you get assigned each year. And no, it's not "clearly" incorrect as you say. The club looks at drafting every type every year. Every club does that. There weren't ruck forwards in the draft available to us at the picks we had. And even if there were, they'd be in development for 3 years, and wouldn't be on the ground in 2017 anyway. To summarise, you don't find a ruck/forward to play in 2017 in the draft. You can potentially find someone elses NQRs or Free agents... and we looked... but the price was too steep. Add to this that Watts form in the midfield has been excellent, if not great as a pure ruckman. So disagree all you like, but the facts are there in plain sight.

This is the third time you've disagreed with a point that you've agreed with me on. Take another look. I DON'T WANT WATTS IN THE RUCK. Ideally, your best kicks and career forwards should play where they're best suited. But injuries being as they are, we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is what it is. Add to this you've ignored, again, the fact that Watts is outplaying Boyd (not entirely Boyd's fault, he's still a kid). If you are of the opinion that 6cm and a ruckman's body means the Dogs have better list management, and simultaneously ignore the million dollars a year he's being paid to average 12 hitouts a game in that role... then that's your business. Personally, I think the whole Dogs community would want Boyd playing 4 quarter forward, and learning that craft, kicking goals.

Look. Everyone in the league wants an RF. And I mean EVERYONE. Even in fantasy they're one of the most sought after commodities. But as I said, you don't draft one and magically expect them to play 22 games in 2017. They take years. Gawn took 6! And you think it's the list managers fault for not drafting one that plays 22 games and stars at age 18? I just think you have to look bigger picture. First of all. No. Noone does that. Ever. Secondly, it's about the ENTIRE ruck strategy. They're backing their kids to be ok in a few years. Or at least pushing for 10 games a year each. Meanwhile they roll with 2 starters and a variety of backups. Just like everyone else who isn't Sydney, with their big chequebook and ability to sign Tippet. We applied the same rule to list spots and ruckmen as most other clubs and came unstuck BECAUSE OF INJURY. Not because of poor list management. Jack Watts has battled manfully. I AGREE that the problem is he needs more bulk and doesn't have it/won't ever get it. But he's not supposed to play the whole game in the ruck! That's just circumstance. If we went into a season with Gawn, Spencer and say... Leuenberger or Bellchambers or someone like that.... we'd be presented with even more problems. More list clogger. More money spent on players that, had Spencer and Max been fit, would likely never get a game.

As a final thought, take a look at the Lions. Not doing well, I'd agree. But have you had a close look at Hipwood? Apparently he grew 5cm since they drafted him. He's now 200cm. And the kid is a jet. Does the lot. Now if you look at how well he's doing, in a team with a sole ruckman in Stef Martin and noone really of any note behind him... It looks like a genius call. Now what happens if Stef and whoever their second liner is goes down? (Freeman maybe?) Suddenly Hipwood is in the ruck, and not having the impact he should and not learning what he should. He's built well to be both a ruck and forward, but he doesn't ruck as well. It's the same thing. Only they have a fit starter and we don't. You can't manage a ruck list better than we have without magic powers and a crystal ball. The only alternative we had was to overpay for a list clogger that's someone else's NQR. 

  On 25/04/2017 at 03:29, Dappa Dan said:

Well you're entitled to your opinion in that, and that's fine. But you've ignored some of the facts. Firstly, we hunted a ruck/forward, and couldn't get a deal done. Leuenberger, for example, was a big target and was gettable. Problem is those guys know their value, and usually want a starting ruck job, in the manner of Goldy who does both ruck and forward duties, and does them amazingly. We could have gotten Leuie, but wouldn't have been able to deal for Hibberd. Or possibly wouldn't have been able to do the deal that got us Weed. You can only do so much with what you have and with the picks you get assigned each year. And no, it's not "clearly" incorrect as you say. The club looks at drafting every type every year. Every club does that. There weren't ruck forwards in the draft available to us at the picks we had. And even if there were, they'd be in development for 3 years, and wouldn't be on the ground in 2017 anyway. To summarise, you don't find a ruck/forward to play in 2017 in the draft. You can potentially find someone elses NQRs or Free agents... and we looked... but the price was too steep. Add to this that Watts form in the midfield has been excellent, if not great as a pure ruckman. So disagree all you like, but the facts are there in plain sight.

This is the third time you've disagreed with a point that you've agreed with me on. Take another look. I DON'T WANT WATTS IN THE RUCK. Ideally, your best kicks and career forwards should play where they're best suited. But injuries being as they are, we have to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is what it is. Add to this you've ignored, again, the fact that Watts is outplaying Boyd (not entirely Boyd's fault, he's still a kid). If you are of the opinion that 6cm and a ruckman's body means the Dogs have better list management, and simultaneously ignore the million dollars a year he's being paid to average 12 hitouts a game in that role... then that's your business. Personally, I think the whole Dogs community would want Boyd playing 4 quarter forward, and learning that craft, kicking goals.

Look. Everyone in the league wants an RF. And I mean EVERYONE. Even in fantasy they're one of the most sought after commodities. But as I said, you don't draft one and magically expect them to play 22 games in 2017. They take years. Gawn took 6! And you think it's the list managers fault for not drafting one that plays 22 games and stars at age 18? I just think you have to look bigger picture. First of all. No. Noone does that. Ever. Secondly, it's about the ENTIRE ruck strategy. They're backing their kids to be ok in a few years. Or at least pushing for 10 games a year each. Meanwhile they roll with 2 starters and a variety of backups. Just like everyone else who isn't Sydney, with their big chequebook and ability to sign Tippet. We applied the same rule to list spots and ruckmen as most other clubs and came unstuck BECAUSE OF INJURY. Not because of poor list management. Jack Watts has battled manfully. I AGREE that the problem is he needs more bulk and doesn't have it/won't ever get it. But he's not supposed to play the whole game in the ruck! That's just circumstance. If we went into a season with Gawn, Spencer and say... Leuenberger or Bellchambers or someone like that.... we'd be presented with even more problems. More list clogger. More money spent on players that, had Spencer and Max been fit, would likely never get a game.

As a final thought, take a look at the Lions. Not doing well, I'd agree. But have you had a close look at Hipwood? Apparently he grew 5cm since they drafted him. He's now 200cm. And the kid is a jet. Does the lot. Now if you look at how well he's doing, in a team with a sole ruckman in Stef Martin and noone really of any note behind him... It looks like a genius call. Now what happens if Stef and whoever their second liner is goes down? (Freeman maybe?) Suddenly Hipwood is in the ruck, and not having the impact he should and not learning what he should. He's built well to be both a ruck and forward, but he doesn't ruck as well. It's the same thing. Only they have a fit starter and we don't. You can't manage a ruck list better than we have without magic powers and a crystal ball. The only alternative we had was to overpay for a list clogger that's someone else's NQR. 

I think you are getting a bit carried away with your knowledge of what has & hasn't happened. Unless you are in a position within the club you really aren't in a position to talk about facts when it comes to the decisions the club has made regarding list management, who is or isn't available & who we have chased. 

I'm going to ignore the Watts vs Boyd debate, I think it's pretty clear what I am saying & I think we are in partial agreement.

Regarding the Ruck forward there is always an option. We could have gone after a stop gap solution like Petrie as an example as a short term cheap solution. It would have at least provided us with some insurance. I'm not necessarily saying I would have done a deal like that I'm just saying that in terms of list management we could have looked at filling the role of a forward ruck, whether the club did or not I am not in a position to say. I just see it as a glaring weakness on our list. 

Happy to leave it there. Cheers.

  On 25/04/2017 at 02:30, Dappa Dan said:

I won't quote the whole thing, but aren't you sort of making the point that it's not our depth, but our YOUTH that's the problem? Second youngest list in the league and all that? (4th youngest when old-man Lewis comes back).

I reckon our depth in certain areas is incredible. General defenders in particular. Starters would be Jetta, Salem and Hibberd. After that it's Smith, Hunt, Vince, Stretch, Lewis, Wagner, Melksham. That's a LOT of good names.

But yes, deficiency in areas on a list is standard for any team. Injuries just uncover it. KPD we came into the season one less than where we needed to be, and we lost Garland who, as much as he's not liked around these parts, was a good backup. KPF we have only Hogan and Watts, and then a raft of younger kids who aren't able to run games out. I like our small forwards and our midfield I still think is deep. So for me it's pick 1, KPD, pick 2 KPF.

I differ in opinion. 'Incredible' is not the word I'd use because many you mention are either not defenders or poor defenders (Hibberd, Hunt and maybe Jetta excepted). Last night Rance highlighted what we do not have atm. As did Dusty, Cotchin and Rievoldt.

We have youth, we have no A graders and limit players with leadership. On top of this we have depth of questionable quality.

Get Fyfe/Dusty or similar, get May or another good KPD and we are much better placed going forward. Experience, leadership and high quality players

Many teams are rated by their "bottom 6"

Another way to rate is by their over 25 year old players. It is in this category that we have failed miserably. Take out the recent additions of Hibberd  and Lewis and one can easily see what the last ten years have done to this club.

The mantra over the last few years has been draft more mids as that gives you an immediate hit. Hard to disagree but hell I  hope Weid and Hulett come on in the next two years.

On the ruck position.... well at least Lumumba's position is free next year.

Frankly I think this season is gone unless we alter the game plan to one which is more defensive. The again we could look at using this season to fine tune the game plan.

Lose next week and we may as well "play the kids".

  On 25/04/2017 at 03:41, Bonkers said:

I think you are getting a bit carried away with your knowledge of what has & hasn't happened. Unless you are in a position within the club you really aren't in a position to talk about facts when it comes to the decisions the club has made regarding list management, who is or isn't available & who we have chased. 

Regarding the Ruck forward there is always an option. We could have gone after a stop gap solution like Petrie as an example as a short term cheap solution. It would have at least provided us with some insurance. I'm not necessarily saying I would have done a deal like that I'm just saying that in terms of list management we could have looked at filling the role of a forward ruck, whether the club did or not I am not in a position to say. I just see it as a glaring weakness on our list. 

Happy to leave it there. Cheers.

You're confusing facts and speculation. Put together the facts then the speculation becomes narrower. I know only the same facts as everyone else, I just think most fail to put together those facts into the correct picture.

Yeah fair enough, so by draft you meant any way to get players in, not just the National draft itself. And yeah fair enough. I think you'll find we agree on that too when you look at what's available out there. I'd not have been happy if we took Petrie. And of all the other options available in the last two seasons (which we can suggest the club SHOULD be aware of and look at seriously) there really aren't any ones I'd love to have. Only Leuenberger who is just ok as a player, and would have cost an arm and a leg. I like the moves we're making in ruck stocks. Now THAT isn't a fact. Just an opinion. Fair enough to disagree.

  On 25/04/2017 at 04:00, Moonshadow said:

I differ in opinion. 'Incredible' is not the word I'd use because many you mention are either not defenders or poor defenders (Hibberd, Hunt and maybe Jetta excepted). Last night Rance highlighted what we do not have atm. As did Dusty, Cotchin and Rievoldt.

We have youth, we have no A graders and limit players with leadership. On top of this we have depth of questionable quality.

Get Fyfe/Dusty or similar, get May or another good KPD and we are much better placed going forward. Experience, leadership and high quality players

Yeah. I think incredible in relation to where we have been the last ten years. And incredible given Roosy only had 3 years to do it.

But it's all opinion. I like and see futures for almost everyone on the list. I don't expect anyone to agree necessarily.

Yeah we don't have the cream. Do you think though that of all those players (I still call them defenders cos they line up there, even if they're not shut down or intercept types) will stay as just good honest triers? Rance was a whipping boy for YEARS before the league decided they loved him. We are that young, and we perform surprisingly well... to the point that I think people forget the ages of the players. You're right, we don't have a Rance coming through. But I think we'll have a Dusty level player. Or 3. Cotchin level player? Sure why not in 5 years? Riewoldt? I'll comfortably say I'll take Hogan's career over Riewoldts at the end. I think Hogan's more complete.

I agree there... the leadership and A graders aren't there. But I definitely would be disappointed if the club paid overs for everyone else's players. The core's there already. I think free agency will give us a LOT of help as a destination club, and if we DO trade I hope it's the Kelly type deals. One a season. And that's it. Fyfe/Dusty.. sure... I think I'd pay a significant chunk of that for Lever.

  On 25/04/2017 at 01:11, Satyriconhome said:

So how did they go at the weekend again?

Oh that was the reason then. Ffs.

Say what you like we could have taken a mature age rookie for 1 year as insurance. In our defence  Lamumbas retirement didn't help us with a spot being taken up on the list

  On 25/04/2017 at 00:14, Wiseblood said:

Nic Nat and Lycett were already injured and projected to be out most of the season.  Our two ruckmen were super fit.  Big difference.

I don't consider the difference that big. Nic Nat yes but Lycett was expected to play round 1 and was injured in Round 1 WAFL .

They already had Giles as 3rd back up and took on 2 more mature players in Vardy and Petrie. We could have taken Petrie as a rookie and he could have assised as a second tall in development at Casey or come in when KPFs or a ruck was injured

  On 25/04/2017 at 06:50, Pennant St Dee said:

I don't consider the difference that big. Nic Nat yes but Lycett was expected to play round 1 and was injured in Round 1 WAFL .

They already had Giles as 3rd back up and took on 2 more mature players in Vardy and Petrie. We could have taken Petrie as a rookie and he could have assised as a second tall in development at Casey or come in when KPFs or a ruck was injured

When the trade/draft period came around, would you seriously have considered having Petrie on the list at the time?  Forget right now, think back to then.  I can guarantee you that 99% of Melbourne supporters would have scoffed at the thought as the bloke looked finished.  Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

  On 25/04/2017 at 06:52, Wiseblood said:

When the trade/draft period came around, would you seriously have considered having Petrie on the list at the time?  Forget right now, think back to then.  I can guarantee you that 99% of Melbourne supporters would have scoffed at the thought as the bloke looked finished.  Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As a rookie yes he costs us nothing . Many Demonlanders said coming in we were light on in the ruck department. We always believed it could be a possibility that if Gawn went down we could be in some trouble.

 I have spoken to people in the FD at meth Coast and can tell you if the 3rd man up rule had been done earlier they would have traded and drafted a little differently 

  On 25/04/2017 at 07:02, Pennant St Dee said:

As a rookie yes he costs us nothing . Many Demonlanders said coming in we were light on in the ruck department. We always believed it could be a possibility that if Gawn went down we could be in some trouble.

 I have spoken to people in the FD at meth Coast and can tell you if the 3rd man up rule had been done earlier they would have traded and drafted a little differently 

So, at the time, you were here talking about how we should rookie Drew Petrie?  Seriously?

  On 25/04/2017 at 07:03, Wiseblood said:

So, at the time, you were here talking about how we should rookie Drew Petrie?  Seriously?

Not Drew Petrie but majority of Demonland wanted a mature age ruckman as insurance because some didn't think Spencer was a legitimate back up ruckman after his VFL grand final performance.

The popular talk of draftees was Darcy Caneron. 205cm ruck/forward who is 21 years old and played well at senior level in the WAFL last year.

Had the chance to take him with our first pick but took Hannan instead.

 

I don't know why people are persisting with this 'its all good in hindsight' commentary.

Here is an excellent thread

Quote:  "But, at the same time, the club's back up ruckman Jake Spencer has had some injury problems, recruit ruckman Mitch King's season lasted about five minutes before tearing his ACL in VFL round 1 and rookie Max King, now in his third year, is languishing in the Scorpions' Development League. Luckily, the Demons haven't been placed in the position of delving into its reserve ruck depth...So despite having arguably the #1 ruckman in the competition, the paradox is that it's quite possible that the club's focus in the trade and draft period will be on locating a ruckman to add to its stocks in 2017 and beyond". 

Embedded in the intro is a list of  'Mature Age Talent' of ruckmen and a variety of options were discussed by posters.  I'm not going to revisit the details of that thread and the options, suffice to say the majority of posters saw the need for another 'ready to go' ruckman somewhere on our list.

So please don't say wanting another ruckman is just hindsight.  It is an attempt to re-write DL history.

As I said in an earlier post - while injuries are not foreseeable blind freddy could see our ruck problem.  And we were remiss not to address it when we had the chance. 

I would have liked Minson on our list, but I don't think our ruck situation will spell death for us this year. I'm convinced something positive will come from it.

  On 25/04/2017 at 07:25, Lucifer's Hero said:

I don't know why people are persisting with this 'its all good in hindsight' commentary.

Here is an excellent thread

Quote:  "But, at the same time, the club's back up ruckman Jake Spencer has had some injury problems, recruit ruckman Mitch King's season lasted about five minutes before tearing his ACL in VFL round 1 and rookie Max King, now in his third year, is languishing in the Scorpions' Development League. Luckily, the Demons haven't been placed in the position of delving into its reserve ruck depth...So despite having arguably the #1 ruckman in the competition, the paradox is that it's quite possible that the club's focus in the trade and draft period will be on locating a ruckman to add to its stocks in 2017 and beyond". 

Embedded in the intro is a list of  'Mature Age Talent' of ruckmen and a variety of options were discussed by posters.  I'm not going to revisit the details of that thread and the options, suffice to say the majority of posters saw the need for another ruckman somewhere on our list.

So please don't say wanting another ruckman is just hindsight.  It is an attempt to re-write DL history.

As I said in an earlier post - while injuries are not foreseeable blind freddy could see our ruck problem.  And we were remiss not to address it when we had the chance. 

Spot on and good dig up. 

Vardy was what we needed

 

Anyone know off the top of their heads what ruck division looks like on other club lists?  I said so in the thread LH linked too I think, but to me 1xSenior ruck, 1xAFL capable backup and 2xJuniors seems about right (edit: I argued for only 3 in that thread - probably too few in hindsight).  Any more "AFL capable" rucks on the list and you risk hindering the development of your junior rucks - you only need one ruckman in the VFL.  In most cases it would be very rare for you to end up having to fall through to your junior rucks; in our case this is further exacerbated by the fact that one of our junior rucks also is coming off a long term injury.  

It's all well and good to say we should have got Nathan Vardy who can play ruck or forward, but that wasn't without its own risks - he'd barely been on the park in years.  Imagine if we'd been sitting here now with Gawn, Spencer, King and Vardy all on the sidelines or underdone.  Ruckmen who can play as a genuine ruckman and loaf about as a forward when not required in the ruck are few and scarcely become available, because every club wants a player like that.  The ones that do become available usually do because there's some increased risk - see Vardy.

In an environment where you have finite list places, it's not possible to mitigate or eliminate every single risk.  The position we've landed in sucks, but I'm still not sure I'd take a different course without having the benefit of a crystal ball.

  On 25/04/2017 at 09:06, Nasher said:

Anyone know off the top of their heads what ruck division looks like on other club lists?  I said so in the thread LH linked too I think, but to me 1xSenior ruck, 1xAFL capable backup and 2xJuniors seems about right (edit: I argued for only 3 in that thread - probably too few in hindsight).  Any more "AFL capable" rucks on the list and you risk hindering the development of your junior rucks - you only need one ruckman in the VFL.  In most cases it would be very rare for you to end up having to fall through to your junior rucks; in our case this is further exacerbated by the fact that one of our junior rucks also is coming off a long term injury. 

I don't know how to quote a post from one thread to another so here are extracts of 'hoopla's post (#100) from above thread: 

• "Both Grand Finalists needed 4 ruckmen to get through their campaigns.  Roughead / Campbell/ Minson/ Boyd v. Tippett/ Sinclair/ Naismith / Nankervis". 
• "Injuries to ruckmen late in the season seriously affected the campaigns  of several clubs - Natanui/ Lycett , Ceglar, Lobbe ( on top of Ryder), Hampson and Jacobs( with Jenkins sore). Add Sandilands/ Griffen ..... the list goes on."

and spectacularly prophetic by 'hoopla'

• "On that display {VFL GF} we could find ourselves limping towards the finals with a ruck combination of Pederson and Watts if anything happens to Max. 
• Recent history says that to win a premiership you've got to have 3 If not 4 genuine ruckmen on your list .We can't risk going into 2017 with Frank the only one big enough and experienced enough to cover Maxie."

I understood it was 'standard practice' to have at least 3 AFL capable ruckman (see my post #23 above).  Even with Spencer we were leaving ourselves short until the young guys develop - about 3/4 years. 

The issue with our ruck stock management is the tall forwards we've brought into the club. All unable (or unwilling) to ruck and not much room for development. Mitch Clark was the exception while Fitzy was jettisoned.

  On 25/04/2017 at 09:06, Nasher said:

Anyone know off the top of their heads what ruck division looks like on other club lists?  I said so in the thread LH linked too I think, but to me 1xSenior ruck, 1xAFL capable backup and 2xJuniors seems about right (edit: I argued for only 3 in that thread - probably too few in hindsight).  Any more "AFL capable" rucks on the list and you risk hindering the development of your junior rucks - you only need one ruckman in the VFL.  In most cases it would be very rare for you to end up having to fall through to your junior rucks; in our case this is further exacerbated by the fact that one of our junior rucks also is coming off a long term injury.  

It's all well and good to say we should have got Nathan Vardy who can play ruck or forward, but that wasn't without its own risks - he'd barely been on the park in years.  Imagine if we'd been sitting here now with Gawn, Spencer, King and Vardy all on the sidelines or underdone.  Ruckmen who can play as a genuine ruckman and loaf about as a forward when not required in the ruck are few and scarcely become available, because every club wants a player like that.  The ones that do become available usually do because there's some increased risk - see Vardy.

In an environment where you have finite list places, it's not possible to mitigate or eliminate every single risk.  The position we've landed in sucks, but I'm still not sure I'd take a different course without having the benefit of a crystal ball.

No crystal ball required. Based on his VFL finals performance, many on here rightfully questioned whether Spencer is an AFL capable backup. So if Gawn went down, that left us with a C grade ruckmen in Spencer, and a young unproven ruckman coming back froma long-term injury in King. We then chose to rookie an even longer term prospect in Filipovic.

What's more bewildering is that Pedersen was given an additional year last year, when the FD doesn't have the confidence to use him as either a backup forward or ruckman. If spots on the list are priceless, why re-sign a player that you don't rate?

And after having a quick look on Dreamteam of the list of ruckmen, most other clubs have a 3rd ruckman with either AFL experience or are highly rated juniors. Some clubs have four on their list.