WELCOME TO THE MELBOURNE FOOTBALL CLUB - BRAYDON PREUSS

[beelzebub 23,390]

11 hours ago, nosoupforme said:

Preuss is not only a back up for Gawn . He is 23 stands at 206 cm and is around 110kgs he is huge  Played  predominantly  forward in his junior days.  At one stage he was the main ruck at North in front of Goldstein but was shuffled back when Goldstein came good again. Preuss has played 8 games and kicked 5 goals so he knows how to kick a goal.

I believe that Goody is going to stretch the opposition backline with Preuss or Gawn when resting. there similar to WCE with Lycett, Vardy and co   It can work and it will be interesting to see. He is worth picking up.

I agree. And it's why the loss of that other bloke is hardly as cataclysmic as feared. 

We'll effectively have two nominated tall forwards...with a 'visitor' . All 3/4 able to mark a contested ball if need be. The kicking varies a little but with Truck.. Milkshake and a squadron of mids lurking we aren't looking too shabby.

Very hard to line up on imho. If Goody employs the old NS decoy thing Oppo coaches have their work cut out ( good )

[Engorged Onion 10,224]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

I agree. And it's why the loss of that other bloke is hardly as cataclysmic as feared. 

We'll effectively have two nominated tall forwards...with a 'visitor' . All 3/4 able to mark a contested ball if need be. The kicking varies a little but with Truck.. Milkshake and a squadron of mids lurking we aren't looking too shabby.

Very hard to line up on imho. If Goody employs the old NS decoy thing Oppo coaches have their work cut out ( good )

Nick Stevens?

Nigel Smart?

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,015]

16 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Max seems keen to get Preuss to the Dees.  Sounds like we would play two ruckmen.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/max-gawn-keen-for-braydon-preuss-support-20181002-p507bq.html

Mahoney hinted at that in radio interview when he said there were others beside Preuss we are looking at for the role we had in mind (or words to that affect).

The more I hear Josh Mahoney, the more impressed I am with him. It's a good strategy to hint that we are looking at other options, even if we're not. It keeps the pressure on Preuss's manager to keep his salary expectations down and also discourages North Melbourne from asking for too much compensation in a trade.

That being said, I suspect we really are looking at others. With young Bradtke on the list as a project player, we should also be looking for a serviceable ready-to-play back up option (a Pedersen replacement).

[Nasher 33,617]

14 hours ago, nosoupforme said:

Preuss is not only a back up for Gawn . He is 23 stands at 206 cm and is around 110kgs he is huge  Played  predominantly  forward in his junior days.  At one stage he was the main ruck at North in front of Goldstein but was shuffled back when Goldstein came good again. Preuss has played 8 games and kicked 5 goals so he knows how to kick a goal.

I believe that Goody is going to stretch the opposition backline with Preuss or Gawn when resting. there similar to WCE with Lycett, Vardy and co   It can work and it will be interesting to see. He is worth picking up.

Without meaning to be too cynical, this sounds exactly like Paul Johnson’s bio when we picked him up from West Coast. Not saying the result will be the same, just pointing out that annointing him the solution to both our ruck problem *and* third tall forward problem (as belzebub did in reply) is setting the bar very high.

If he was that good he’d be in the Norf ones and not getting traded. There is risk involved and the trade, and our expectations, should be weighted accordingly.

I’d still be looking at rucks in the draft, even if we get Preuss. (Edit: forgot about Bradtke on the rookie list, so maybe that’s enough project rucks on the list.)

Edited October 3, 2018 by Nasher

[Demonland 73,483]

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

If he was that good he’d be in the Norf ones and not getting traded. There is risk involved and the trade, and our expectations, should be weighted accordingly.

It really comes down to what we give up to get him.

[beelzebub 23,390]

1 hour ago, Danelska said:

Nick Stevens?

Nigel Smart?

 

Norm Smith

[beelzebub 23,390]

35 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Without meaning to be too cynical, this sounds exactly like Paul Johnson’s bio when we picked him up from West Coast. Not saying the result will be the same, just pointing out that annointing him the solution to both our ruck problem *and* third tall forward problem (as belzebub did in reply) is setting the bar very high.

If he was that good he’d be in the Norf ones and not getting traded. There is risk involved and the trade, and our expectations, should be weighted accordingly.

I’d still be looking at rucks in the draft, even if we get Preuss. (Edit: forgot about Bradtke on the rookie list, so maybe that’s enough project rucks on the list.)

It might depend how well Nuffnuffland are at managing players and lists ? I dont think theyre as sharp as some other teams here.

Also I think their hand is forced somewhat with bringing in all there silver bullets.I think Sctt and Co think theyre closer to the breeze than they really are....just my thoughts granted.

[monoccular 17,642]

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I agree. And it's why the loss of that other bloke is hardly as cataclysmic as feared. 

We'll effectively have two nominated tall forwards...with a 'visitor' . All 3/4 able to mark a contested ball if need be. The kicking varies a little but with Truck.. Milkshake and a squadron of mids lurking we aren't looking too shabby.

Very hard to line up on imho. If Goody employs the old NS decoy thing Oppo coaches have their work cut out ( good )

 

3 hours ago, Danelska said:

Nick Stevens?

Nigel Smart?

 

Norm Smith - Athol Webb, Alan Rowarth and to a lesser extent Barry Bourke.

All premiership FFs who weren’t big and didn’t always kick many goals.

But I am not sure that this is the time or this is the list to rely on “decoy” FFs.

[nosoupforme 3,085]

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

Without meaning to be too cynical, this sounds exactly like Paul Johnson’s bio when we picked him up from West Coast. Not saying the result will be the same, just pointing out that annointing him the solution to both our ruck problem *and* third tall forward problem (as belzebub did in reply) is setting the bar very high.

If he was that good he’d be in the Norf ones and not getting traded. There is risk involved and the trade, and our expectations, should be weighted accordingly.

I’d still be looking at rucks in the draft, even if we get Preuss. (Edit: forgot about Bradtke on the rookie list, so maybe that’s enough project rucks on the list.)

Preuss To me with his height at 206cm and solidly built a man mountain had the distinction of leading the NM ruck division when Goldstein was struggling and to me he  covered the ground well. Look for a future ruckman , my word l think we have one  a B rookie in Bradtke  l think that is what he is. However the Premiership window is open and he is been identified with the FD. So l am going with the flow. And that is how it is.

I have followed the club just as long as alot of others and although we all have our opinions we mostly think in the same light when it comes to our club. In other words we are almost all on the same page. cynical or not l love the club and and when l think of something l like to share it and not all are going to like it. I didn't read PJ's comments. If l had of then l wouldn't have written it.

 All IS GOOD  Nasher.         

Edited October 3, 2018 by nosoupforme
add on

[DeeSpencer 26,273]

Interesting to see what happens here. Mahoney was circumspect when it came to Preuss on trade radio.

I think one of the big reasons we chased him was because North had to off load cheaply him to free up salary cap. They probably don't have to do that now.

So either we pay more for him to satisfy North or we move to other targets.

What's out there? Jordan Roughead? Levi Casboult? Zac Smith?

[rpfc 28,906]

9 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Interesting to see what happens here. Mahoney was circumspect when it came to Preuss on trade radio.

I think one of the big reasons we chased him was because North had to off load cheaply him to free up salary cap. They probably don't have to do that now.

So either we pay more for him to satisfy North or we move to other targets.

What's out there? Jordan Roughead? Levi Casboult? Zac Smith?

Depends what Hogan does to some extent...

If Hogan stays I can see us playing Weed as the 2nd ruck more in games and having a back up ruck give Gawn a break every 6-8 weeks.

If Hogan leaves then we can resolve that problem to some degree by playing a dedicated ruck with a decent grab. Especially, if we are going to 6 6 6 next year.

[Bonkers 994]

13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Interesting to see what happens here. Mahoney was circumspect when it came to Preuss on trade radio.

I think one of the big reasons we chased him was because North had to off load cheaply him to free up salary cap. They probably don't have to do that now.

So either we pay more for him to satisfy North or we move to other targets.

What's out there? Jordan Roughead? Levi Casboult? Zac Smith?

The way it's been reported in the media made it appear like it was a sure thing for him to be traded to Melbourne. His manager has told other clubs not to enquire about him as he wants to move to the MFC if what's been written is to be believed.

I thought Mahoney said what he said to keep North in line and to make it appear like we aren't that desperate to trade for him and therefore attempt to keep North's demands lower. 

What can North realistically expect us to pay for a player who they don't pick to play, doesn't want to be there and has played under 10 games of AFL? 

There's not much else available at the moment. Like you said Zac Smith or Roughead, they aren't much chop but may be ok as insurance and low salary? Shane Mumford wants to make a comeback but I've got no idea whether that is a feasible idea or not.

[DeeSpencer 26,273]

2 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Depends what Hogan does to some extent...

If Hogan stays I can see us playing Weed as the 2nd ruck more in games and having a back up ruck give Gawn a break every 6-8 weeks.

If Hogan leaves then we can resolve that problem to some degree by playing a dedicated ruck with a decent grab. Especially, if we are going to 6 6 6 next year.

We need a back up ruck regardless of what Hogan does.

We really would like that back up to have forward abilities if they are going to play alongside Weed and T Mc, but there's very few of those types in the league.

3 minutes ago, Bonkers said:

The way it's been reported in the media made it appear like it was a sure thing for him to be traded to Melbourne. His manager has told other clubs not to enquire about him as he wants to move to the MFC if what's been written is to be believed.

I thought Mahoney said what he said to keep North in line and to make it appear like we aren't that desperate to trade for him and therefore attempt to keep North's demands lower. 

What can North realistically expect us to pay for a player who they don't pick to play, doesn't want to be there and has played under 10 games of AFL? 

There's not much else available at the moment. Like you said Zac Smith or Roughead, they aren't much chop but may be ok as insurance and low salary? Shane Mumford wants to make a comeback but I've got no idea whether that is a feasible idea or not.

I think Mummy would only return to the Giants, which actually makes a fair bit of sense.

Mahoney might've been doing that, but Preuss is contracted with North for 2 more years. If he were uncontracted we'd just get him for nothing and if Gaff signed at North they'd probably gladly send him over. But now it can be a stalemate and we can really see how highly they value him and how keen they are to shed salary. At some stage if we've made commitments to Preuss we'll have to offer more if the deal stalls. It's the perfect situation for both teams to drag to the wire. Or at least for us to wait until we've done other business and only up our offer to North when it's required.

[rpfc 28,906]

34 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

We need a back up ruck regardless of what Hogan does.

We really would like that back up to have forward abilities if they are going to play alongside Weed and T Mc, but there's very few of those types in the league.

 

We sure do need a back up ruck. But he doesn't have to play much...

Preuss, Hogan, McDonald, and Weideman will struggle to play together in the same forward line so if Hogan stays I expect to see Preuss/'whoever we get to help Gawn' to play a lot less with Weideman playing back up ruck minutes.

If we were to play a dedicated 2nd ruck (Preuss) plus both Hogan and Weideman that is two talls to fit into our forward line alone. Don't see it happening...

Gawn needs help but that doesn't mean reality shifts to make it happen.

[layzie 34,335]

Has anyone seen much of him up forward? Can he take a good grab? 

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

Has been offered a 4 year deal and promised game time apparently.... not sure what we are up to with that. 

[Red and Blue realist 2,058]

There is some talk that Lycett is trying to stay at West coast now, meaning they probably won't want either Lobb (should be discussed in the Hogan thread really) or Roughead. I know we were linked with Roughead very early on, so maybe he might come into the picture. More than a handy backup and also can play back.

[buck_nekkid 6,068]

Prius on Max’s training regime.  Fit, big and strong.  Would be a great option to ruck/play a kick behind the ball, or as the monster forward.  If he commits to work like a beast, he will definitely improve our team.

[george_on_the_outer 7,843]

WIth the change to the goal square next season, it will almost become necessary to have 2 talls( rucks) on either wing at kick ins.  It will be a bonus if one of them can play forward as well.  Once the ball goes down one side, the opposite will have to work hard to get back to provide an additional target, or go the other way and defend. 

Either way you will need 2 really mobile talls( rucks).  One Max will not be enough to cover the whole ground and provide a target as well as actually ruck. 

The important thing is to get someone like Preuss, as he fulfills all the NEEDS for the next season, as well as a backup ruck role.  Mumford, Roughead and Casboult don't have the tanks. 

 

[Deecisive 1,709]

I like the idea of another tall, we got towelled up by Mason Cox because we had no one tall enough to stand and compete with him.  Prius may give us that option. He may also allow us to play Gawny forward a little more, either standing in the goal square or a decoy to worry the opposition's defence.

 

 

[spirit of norm smith 16,615]

Preuss gives us options and backup. Solid real ruck backup. Fingers crossed that he will be onboard. 

[beelzebub 23,390]

30 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

WIth the change to the goal square next season, it will almost become necessary to have 2 talls( rucks) on either wing at kick ins.  It will be a bonus if one of them can play forward as well.  Once the ball goes down one side, the opposite will have to work hard to get back to provide an additional target, or go the other way and defend. 

Either way you will need 2 really mobile talls( rucks).  One Max will not be enough to cover the whole ground and provide a target as well as actually ruck. 

The important thing is to get someone like Preuss, as he fulfills all the NEEDS for the next season, as well as a backup ruck role.  Mumford, Roughead and Casboult don't have the tanks. 

 

you sir win the prize

[DubDee 26,304]

1 hour ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

Has been offered a 4 year deal and promised game time apparently.... not sure what we are up to with that. 

If we offer a bloke that’s played 8 games a 4 year deal that would be insane

[DeeSpencer 26,273]

23 minutes ago, DubDee said:

If we offer a bloke that’s played 8 games a 4 year deal that would be insane

A back up ruck is a back up ruck, they stay on the list for ages. He's the right age that 4 years wouldn't bother me all that much if it's what it takes to get him.

The promise of more game time concerns me more. A bigger goal square or 6-6-6 doesn't change my opinion that the game is still massively decided by pressure - applying it and avoiding it. Unless the game plan is the bomb it down the line and play very negative football I don't see going overly tall working for us. 

[titan_uranus 25,174]

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

WIth the change to the goal square next season, it will almost become necessary to have 2 talls( rucks) on either wing at kick ins.  It will be a bonus if one of them can play forward as well.  Once the ball goes down one side, the opposite will have to work hard to get back to provide an additional target, or go the other way and defend. 

Either way you will need 2 really mobile talls( rucks).  One Max will not be enough to cover the whole ground and provide a target as well as actually ruck. 

The important thing is to get someone like Preuss, as he fulfills all the NEEDS for the next season, as well as a backup ruck role.  Mumford, Roughead and Casboult don't have the tanks. 

AFAIK this hasn't yet been approved?

And reports I read a few weeks ago suggests that whilst the commission was likely to approve 6-6-6, the larger goalsquare was not necessarily a fait accompli?