Changes v Collingwood

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

3 JLTs, + 4 matches... only the surgery will affect him physically. The silver lining is he'll have energy where others won't in the late rounds.

[titan_uranus 24,974]

8 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Weideman has generally played below expectations though and Pedersen has played very well - his marking has been very strong.  Even with our tall shortage Weed can't get in.  He needs to work on his game at Casey.  It will be interesting to see how we go with Hogan, Pedersen and Watts as the tall forwards when a ruckman comes in.

I can't wait.

Gawn/Spencer as the number 1 ruckman, Hogan and Watts as the two permanent marking forwards (both of whom can, if/when necessary, be pushed up into the middle to get their hands on the ball and change the dynamic) and Pedersen the hard-working third tall who provides the ruck relief (sparing Watts, which he and the side needs). 

Weideman to challenge Pedersen for his spot in the long-term (though that will mean Watts returns to the relief ruck role which I don't like).

7 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Why is Salem an automatic inclusion, particularly after a win and no injuries?

I thought the club was no longer standing for cheap shots such as the Hogan and Lewis indiscretions.

Because he is clearly best 22 and we're not in a position as a club to be over-punishing players.

He did his time, now he comes back.

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

I reckon oMac will be kept in. Mainly because I think the FD is liking the Pedo/Tmac combo bit more than the Watts/Pedo one in the ruck. Having said that, that may have just change things up again with the return of Hogan.

[beelzebub 23,313]

Pies aren't that big up the sharp end. They can however move it into their 50 with effect. You need pacey defenders who can spoil and crowd.

 

[Drunkn167 5,093]

7 hours ago, Demons11 said:

Keilty doesn't come in.  He is very very average. 

Oscar turned a couple over but his spoiling and attack on the ball was very good 

Yes Keilty isn't up too AFL standards yet but "very,very average"? You really don't know what you are talking about man

[Dee-licious 1,949]

Rightio - The O-Mac dropping question. The reason we can play Tom forward is because O Mac is able to put on the pressure to defend. There was a comment earlier about taking a contested mark against an opposition forward - the kid is 21. When we drafted him, honestly don't know if any of us expected he would have played 25 games by now.

He is structurally important. He allows Tom and Frost to run off their man and hurt offensively. He understands the zone really well and the reason we all pull our hair out is because he seems to be at every defensive contest - even when it isn't his man. If you drop him, you will loose the defensive run of Frost and/or Tom because they have to play full back and be more accountable. Yes he is making mistakes, yes he is frustrating, but in terms of young defenders, he is doing what he needs to do in his development. Yes I'd love Lever, but then I'd need someone to play the full back role because Tom and Frost don't play it. In saying all of that, O Mac doesn't get dropped. 

Right now, we need to play the best 22 we have to play our game style (rather than Collingwood's). So assuming that we are given a gift with Hogan

In: Salem, Hogan

Out: Wager (like for like with Salem), Bugg (playing short in the forward line over the past month so this straightens us up)

[Nasher 33,607]

7 hours ago, Drunkn167 said:

Yes Keilty isn't up too AFL standards yet but "very,very average"? You really don't know what you are talking about man

I don't envy your position on here. There are always going to be tools on footy forums that want to pot your bloke without knowing anything about him. Just roll your eyes and ignore.

[Akum 2,660]

11 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

I reckon oMac will be kept in. Mainly because I think the FD is liking the Pedo/Tmac combo bit more than the Watts/Pedo one in the ruck. Having said that, that may have just change things up again with the return of Hogan.

Agree, but I reckon their thinking is that they can cover losing T-Mac from the defence better than they can cover losing Watts out of the forward line. 

Watts has a good tank for running all over the ground & making repeat leads etc, but not to stand up to the physical battering that happens in the ruck, and it's starting to show. T-Mac and Pedo are better with standing up to the physical toll.

[HBDee 361]

I'd be very surprised if Hogan played, amazed if Gawn got up, and am hopeful Spencer plays. 

Agree Salem comes in. God knows who gets dropped, but probably an unlucky Bugg, Harmes, ANB. Depends on the Pies line-up. Elliott and Fasolo, although they can't kick accurately are dangerous, and we need to match up on them well (Jetta/Elliott, Wagner/Fasolo). Not sure Salem has the ability defensively to go with either so maybe he plays up the ground. 

If Spencer plays, I agree that OMac gets dropped. TMac goes back. Pedo is the full-forward/2nd ruck, Watts plays the whole game as a lead up half forward which is what he should always be doing.

The week after for mine will be most interesting. Hogan and Gawn possibly back. Do Spencer and Pedo immediately go out, or do you keep one as a third tall-forward? 

[Chris 2,892]

In: Hogan and Salem (both auto inclusions when available.

Out: (Bugg or Watts*) and Wagner. (Hogan replaces (Bugg or Watts*) in the forward line and Salem replaces Wagner in the backline).

Tmac and Pedo to ruck with Tmac resting back and Pedo resting where needed.

*Watts only out if his groin doesn't come good.

[Chris 2,892]

13 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I can't wait.

Gawn/Spencer as the number 1 ruckman, Hogan and Watts as the two permanent marking forwards (both of whom can, if/when necessary, be pushed up into the middle to get their hands on the ball and change the dynamic) and Pedersen the hard-working third tall who provides the ruck relief (sparing Watts, which he and the side needs). 

Weideman to challenge Pedersen for his spot in the long-term (though that will mean Watts returns to the relief ruck role which I don't like).

Because he is clearly best 22 and we're not in a position as a club to be over-punishing players.

He did his time, now he comes back.

Who is to say the Weid won't take on that role once he gets a bit more size and confidence. Just to look at I would pick him in the ruck everyday over Watts. Problem is he doesn't have the tank or strength yet. 

[Dr. Mubutu 831]

Would Tim Smith be a chance to return, if no Hogan? It was reported he was available last weekend.
Obviously it would depend on how he goes (assuming he plays) for Casey on Sunday, but surely worth keeping in the mix?

[Demons11 6,915]

10 hours ago, Drunkn167 said:

Yes Keilty isn't up too AFL standards yet but "very,very average"? You really don't know what you are talking about man

I have nothing against him personally and maybe the 'very average' comment was a little harsh but there are people on here who bang on about replacing O Mac with Keilty for no logical reason.  

I was mainly going into bat for O Mac as opposed to trying to put Keilty down. 

Edited May 30, 2017 by Demons11

[Demons11 6,915]

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

I don't envy your position on here. There are always going to be tools on footy forums that want to pot your bloke without knowing anything about him. Just roll your eyes and ignore.

So I can't comment on his football ability because I don't know him personally?

[Nasher 33,607]

14 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

So I can't comment on his football ability because I don't know him personally?

Critique away - even his biggest fan on Demonland (his brother) acknowledges he isn't AFL ready and has things to work on. 

You didn't offer any insight or constructive criticism at all. It was a cheap shot at a junior player. [edit: retracted stupid comment]

Edited May 30, 2017 by Nasher

[Demons11 6,915]

7 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Critique away - even his biggest fan on Demonland (his brother) acknowledges he isn't AFL ready and has things to work on. 

You didn't offer any insight or constructive criticism at all. It was a cheap shot at a junior player. [edit: retracted stupid comment]

As I mentioned in my reply above i was mainly going into bat for OMac as opposed to having a go at Keilty. 

I take it that it was probably the wrong choice of words.

Apologies to his bro in particular. 

[Robbie57 2,020]

I like the Omac forward idea. Tmac is not a forward (a sentiment I shouted at my TV for a half of football and fortunately either my TV is two way or the coaches read my comment on the game day thread). We looked better with Tmac taking some of the ruck duties releasing Pedo forward and thus giving us some structure. Omac would offer more than Weeds and create a real contest with the benefit for our smalls and taking pressure of Hogan should he return. 

Out: Wagner or Bugg (unless he promises not to take the set shot). 

In: Salem (possibly Hogan) 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Dr. Mubutu said:

Would Tim Smith be a chance to return, if no Hogan? It was reported he was available last weekend.
Obviously it would depend on how he goes (assuming he plays) for Casey on Sunday, but surely worth keeping in the mix?

I hope so.  I hold this hope that if we persist with him it will pay off as it did with Hannan

[Dees2014 2,377]

On 28/05/2017 at 7:41 AM, Bon appetit said:

What's the chance of Spencer coming in?

Well, last week Dave Misson said Spencer was 2-3 weeks away. Collingwood would be two weeks, so maybe he might be a chance. Max apparently is scheduled for round 13 which would make it an 11 week recovery which would be pretty spectacular for that injury. 

I reckon if we had have had Lewis for the three games for which he was rubbed out, we would be 7 & 3 now rather than 5:5. You can see by the crucial role he played in marshalling the troops in Alice Springs what a difference he would have made to those tight finishes. With him, plus  Max and Jesse back, plus Salem we could win 8 or 9 of our last 13 games which would just about put us in the top 4, and a contender. We may even get brayshaw back for the last half dozen games. We miss his run and carry.  

How's this for a finals line-up:

FB:  Jetta.         T MacD.     Hibberd
HB: Salem.        Frost.          Hunt
CC:  Vince.        Jones.        Lewis
HF:  Petracca.   Pederson    Watts              
FF:   Garlett.         Hogan      Hannan
Foll:  Gawn.       Viney.         Oliver
Inter:  Tyson.   Stretch.  Harmes.   Brayshaw

 

Better mix of experience, and supreme talent I would have thought! Not a bad side...

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Dees2014 said:

How's this for a finals line-up:

FB:  Jetta.         T MacD.     Hibberd
HB: Salem.        Frost.          Hunt
CC:  Vince.        Jones.        Lewis
HF:  Petracca.   Pederson    Watts              
FF:   Garlett.         Hogan      Hannan
Foll:  Gawn.       Viney.         Oliver
Inter:  Tyson.   Stretch.  Harmes.   Brayshaw

No Oscar???

[beelzebub 23,313]

3 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

No Oscar???

The awards are over for the year 

[pinkshark 950]

can someone remind me please.  What was the general consensus on Billy Stretch's reason for omission all those weeks back and how has he been going in the magoos? 

[Demons11 6,915]

1 hour ago, pinkshark said:

can someone remind me please.  What was the general consensus on Billy Stretch's reason for omission all those weeks back and how has he been going in the magoos? 

He wasn't in great form

[DemonLad5 1,642]

Would Spencer play on QB if fit?

[What 18,810]

36 minutes ago, DemonLad5 said:

Would Spencer play on QB if fit?

Might depend on how Pedders is travelling fatigue wise, hes carried  a huge load the last  5 weeks in a taxing position against blokes much bigger than him.  

Maybe if Hogan isnt ready they bring in Spencer and play Pedders forward/back up ruck.  Then Watts can play the whole game in his natural position.