Jake Stringer

[binman 38,881]

15 minutes ago, DaveyDee said:

 

But I bet you one thing - Jake Stringer will be on an AFL list in 2018. 

Not sure how old you are. But when i was a young fella the appropriate response to this comment would have been:

Der Fred

[binman 38,881]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Again....what do we know ?? 

What do we know?

An all australian premiership player whose ability is not in question is effectively sacked by his coach. A coach who from the beginning of his tenure has made clear his coaching philosophy is based on a team first culture and total buy in.

No mystery here.

[ChaserJ 3,979]

1 minute ago, binman said:

What do we know?

An all australian premiership player whose ability is not in question is effectively sacked by his coach. A coach who from the beginning of his tenure has made clear his coaching philosophy is based on a team first culture and total buy in.

No mystery here.

And yet Tom Lib is a-ok, see you at pre-season training?

I suspect Bevo's philosophy and the overall culture at the club hasn't held up this year and it looks like Jakey's been scapegoated. It doesn't sound like he ever had a great relationship with the coach, so not the toughest call to trade for both parties.

Won't fix all of the problems though.

 

[Ted Lasso 16,979]

Would you swap jack watts for jake stringer?

[ChaserJ 3,979]

I'm a Watts fan, so it would pain me to do it, but I'd certainly consider it.

[JTR 2,660]

I would.  Watts is 27 now, and I think we have seen and got all we are going to get out of him. He may well benefit with a change too.

[beelzebub 22,269]

38 minutes ago, binman said:

What do we know?

An all australian premiership player whose ability is not in question is effectively sacked by his coach. A coach who from the beginning of his tenure has made clear his coaching philosophy is based on a team first culture and total buy in.

No mystery here.

Realy. You know sweet f#$k all really then eh . 

We only know he's out of favour. You're just buying into groupthink. 

Footy isnt perfect .

[Dee tention 611]

Stringer is going to Geelong with 27.

Blicavs & 33 to Melbourne.

Watts and 20 to Bulldogs.

[binman 38,881]

52 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Realy. You know sweet f#$k all really then eh . 

We only know he's out of favour. You're just buying into groupthink. 

Footy isnt perfect .

[censored]. He has been sacked. Good luck to him but he won't be coming to our club. i am 100% certain of that.

[deelete my account 1,194]

9 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

Stringer is going to Geelong with 27.

Blicavs & 33 to Melbourne.

Watts and 20 to Bulldogs.

Any other third man up specialists we're recruiting now that we've got two of the best in the AFL and the rule to bar the 3rd man up has been brought in?! 

By the way, I think that should be Bliclavs and 20 to us, Watts and 27 to the Dogs, Stringer and 33 to the Cats. Stringer has the most AA upside, Watts next has shown he is elitely skilled and Bliclavs was great as a third man up 2 years ago.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Deeprived Childhood

[Binmans PA 26,316]

8 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Convenient you left out the clear fact that we have not been linked to him at all.  I'd say we have little to no interest in him.

I'm not saying we're interested necessarily, but you know better than this, mate. Just because it hasn't been reported, doesn't mean we aren't heavily into him. We often play our cards incredibly close to our chest. My feeling with the Lever trade and the Hibberd trade last year, is that they were leaked by the opposite party, in order to pressure us into giving up more.

Once again, I'm not saying we're into Stringer at all, but just because we're not mentioned, doesn't rule us out.

[Binmans PA 26,316]

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

I'm a Watts fan, so it would pain me to do it, but I'd certainly consider it.

 

1 hour ago, JTR said:

I would.  Watts is 27 now, and I think we have seen and got all we are going to get out of him. He may well benefit with a change too.

This is it really. If they were both the same age, I'd err on the side of Watts, but given Stringer has a few years up his sleeve, I'd do this deal.

54 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

Stringer is going to Geelong with 27.

Blicavs & 33 to Melbourne.

Watts and 20 to Bulldogs.

If this was the deal though, I'd be pretty disappointed. I wouldn't give Watts up for Blicavs, but something must be cooking given we've delisted Spencer. Blicavs also seems like he'd fit our system and non-negotiables better than Watts. That said, this seems like a reasonably poor deal for the Dogs and the Cats get away by giving up little.

[WERRIDEE 5,239]

10 minutes ago, A F said:

 

This is it really. If they were both the same age, I'd err on the side of Watts, but given Stringer has a few years up his sleeve, I'd do this deal.

If this was the deal though, I'd be pretty disappointed. I wouldn't give Watts up for Blicavs, but something must be cooking given we've delisted Spencer. Blicavs also seems like he'd fit our system and non-negotiables better than Watts. That said, this seems like a reasonably poor deal for the Dogs and the Cats get away by giving up little.

Why is Blicavs going? Just stopped the in form Kennedy tonight I think he would be staying at Geelong.

[DaveyDee 421]

1 hour ago, Dee tention said:

Stringer is going to Geelong with 27.

Blicavs & 33 to Melbourne.

Watts and 20 to Bulldogs.

Every team in Victoria around the 8 will be all over Stringer - Essendon, Richmond, Geelong & Us - I would also not discount North & The Saints. Once Jake makes a decision where he wants to play we will know more. Again I'm happy to back Macca & the boys. 

[Macca 16,173]

Well he's the right age and his best is very good but ...

• Bereridge sees him as surplus (for whatever reason)
• He's not an overly quick player
• Is in and out of the team
• His teammates might see him as having an ego that doesn't fit the mould

On the plus side he's sometimes a game-changer when he's on and he has that 'big-occasion' bit about him.  Seems to be rushed when he has more time - I'm not sure he even understands his own game.

I do like a maverick but we've been burnt by these types before.  At the right trade and as long as his salary isn't at a disproportionate level, I'd give him a go.

 

[grazman 6,602]

10 hours ago, beelzebub said:

You're just buying into groupthink. 

I don't think you really understand the theory.

[Redleg 37,909]

We have the former Dogs Coach at our club and he would have several close contacts at the Dogs, including players and officials.

If we don't go for Stringer, can we all rest assured that he would know something and that we would therefore know what we are doing.

On a pure talent basis of course we would look at him. If we don't, then there would be a very good reason.

[Ted Lasso 16,979]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

We have the former Dogs Coach at our club and he would have several close contacts at the Dogs, including players and officials.

If we don't go for Stringer, can we all rest assured that he would know something and that we would therefore know what we are doing.

On a pure talent basis of course we would look at him. If we don't, then there would be a very good reason.

Basically it, the dogs wouldn't put a player of his talent up for trade for no reason, there is clearly a lot going on

[monoccular 16,297]

14 hours ago, Cards13 said:

And what has Macca said so far?

Nothing that I have read, and I am happy that I haven't.  But does that mean he has no interest or perhaps just isn't a media or twitter maniac?  I would be very happy to hear at an appropriate time what he has been thinking.   We will either get him or we won't. 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

We have the former Dogs Coach at our club and he would have several close contacts at the Dogs, including players and officials.

If we don't go for Stringer, can we all rest assured that he would know something and that we would therefore know what we are doing.

On a pure talent basis of course we would look at him. If we don't, then there would be a very good reason.

We would be very derelict were we not to do a full assessment of him.  

To those who say there must be deep seated issues, without elaborating and perhaps not knowing what they are, so we shouldn't even look - I am glad that you are not our list managers.  Perhaps those are the same who said we shouldn't look at Garlett because he 'had issues'?  A change of club has and can still turn some players' careers around ( and I don't mean Ty Vickery, though the 'donor' club has done ok ?)

Edited September 16, 2017 by monoccular

[Redleg 37,909]

36 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Nothing that I have read, and I am happy that I haven't.  But does that mean he has no interest or perhaps just isn't a media or twitter maniac?  I would be very happy to hear at an appropriate time what he has been thinking.   We will either get him or we won't. 

We would be very derelict were we not to do a full assessment of him.  

 

We won't be derelict. 

[Wiseblood 24,636]

11 hours ago, A F said:

I'm not saying we're interested necessarily, but you know better than this, mate. Just because it hasn't been reported, doesn't mean we aren't heavily into him. We often play our cards incredibly close to our chest. My feeling with the Lever trade and the Hibberd trade last year, is that they were leaked by the opposite party, in order to pressure us into giving up more.

Once again, I'm not saying we're into Stringer at all, but just because we're not mentioned, doesn't rule us out.

You could argue that this still means it was leaked.  Even when it was reported that Lewis was on his way out of the club, it was quickly clear we were the destination.  Think back to even the Dom Tyson trade - we knew we had a deal cooking with them well in advance, it was just unclear what the players were.

I feel as though if we were heavily into Stringer then we would know something about it.  We don't generally play our cards that close to our chest, although I wholeheartedly agree that we don't put too much out there in the media, or allow it to happen as much as other clubs.  However, we have not been mentioned anywhere, and it's clear that Stringer has put both the Cats and the Bombers at the top of his list.  I think this takes us well and truly out of the equation.

[mo64 5,230]

40 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Nothing that I have read, and I am happy that I haven't.  But does that mean he has no interest or perhaps just isn't a media or twitter maniac?  I would be very happy to hear at an appropriate time what he has been thinking.   We will either get him or we won't. 

We would be very derelict were we not to do a full assessment of him.  

To those who say there must be deep seated issues, without elaborating and perhaps not knowing what they are, so we shouldn't even look - I am glad that you are not our list managers.  Perhaps those are the same who said we shouldn't look at Garlett because he 'had issues'?  A change of club has and can still turn some players' careers around ( and I don't mean Ty Vickery, though the 'donor' club has done ok ?)

The only deep seated issues with Stringer is that he hasn't played decent football in 18 months. Plus you trade for needs. Stringer is an X factor forward who offers little defensive pressure. With Hogan, Watts and Petracca, our forward line has enough of his type.

We got Garlett for pick 999, and he had superior recent form when we picked him up. 

[rjay 23,970]

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

The only deep seated issues with Stringer is that he hasn't played decent football in 18 months. Plus you trade for needs. Stringer is an X factor forward who offers little defensive pressure. With Hogan, Watts and Petracca, our forward line has enough of his type.

We got Garlett for pick 999, and he had superior recent form when we picked him up. 

Stringer is a midfielder/forward...he's had to play too much forward time at the dogs because he can kick a goal. Release him more into the midfield, that's what I would do if we had him.

Not saying we get him or not but we (Macca & Jennings) would have a pretty fair idea of what we are looking at here.

[ignition. 1,413]

59 minutes ago, rjay said:

Stringer is a midfielder/forward...he's had to play too much forward time at the dogs because he can kick a goal. Release him more into the midfield, that's what I would do if we had him.

Not saying we get him or not but we (Macca & Jennings) would have a pretty fair idea of what we are looking at here.

Well said.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,425]

Stringer is a seriously good player - we have seen that.

It is also clear some serious [censored] has happened at the kennel.

A new start could be just the tonic but it would have to be some sort of performance based contract. If we could get him under the right conditions why not?