On 24/11/2018 at 06:52, ProDee said:

The ladder will tell you that.

Orr yeah.

Melb 2299 Vs Rich 2143.

My recollection was that we might have finished second for scoring to Richmond, but that was just for percentage, due to their lower scores against, which hopefully we have fixed up in the second half of the season and only strengthened further with May and possibly Kolodjashnij.

  On 24/11/2018 at 03:59, Lord Travis said:

I agree that we play our best football when we have multiple players kicking goals and a variety of options. However, our list is unbalanced at present with T McDonald and Weiderman our only tall forwards. We've just lost Hogan and Pedo. Some people have suggested T Smith, but at 192cm, 28 years of age, and yet to play a competent game as a forward at AFL level, I don't think he's a realistic option. He has played well up around the ball as a big bodied midfielder however. 
Weiderman is yet to prove he can consistently stand up at AFL (though I rate him and defended him on here in the past when others sank the boot in). If TMac suffered another long term injury like the foot injury he suffered, we'd miss finals. We need tall forward depth. Games are won in the midfield, but you will always need a tall target to kick too come finals time. Imagine having Fritsch or Hannan or Petracca as our marking option when play gets locked down come finals time. Though they're more than competent, they'd all get eaten alive if they had to wrestle a Talia, McGovern, Tarrant, Andrews type. 

Compare that to tall defenders where we have May, Lever, McDonald, Frost, Petty, Keilty. That's a good amount of depth to cover injury and form.

It's a shame we missed out on Bailey Williams, but our recruiters didn't rate him so I'm comfortable with that as the current group have a good track record. It's a shame there weren't many decent tall forward options at all outside the top 10 this year. Hopefully we can bring another quality one in next season, as while our list is in brilliant shape, it's definitely lacking tall forwards.

At 6' 2 and 90kgs, Vanders is another mid/fwd that could provide a decent target inside 50 if called upon.

Jessy was a solid forward option, no two ways about that, but assuming Weid continues to stand up, I don't see how the situation has really changed that much in terms of KPF depth terms.

The way I see it, we replaced Jessy's role as a KPF with Weid, Pedo's role as Fwd/Ruck with Pruess as a Ruck/Fwd and Weids role as backup KPF with May as KPB/KPF.  We are not short (pardon the pun) of big guys that can take a grab or as more generally the case in the modern game, create a contest and bring the ball to ground for our runners.

It would take both T Mac, Weid and probably a few others going down before we became too exposed IMHO.  You mention Mc Govern and Talia, but there are probably only a few teams in the comp with monster key backs like that and with May, we are probably now one of them!

  On 24/11/2018 at 03:59, Lord Travis said:

with T McDonald and Weiderman our only tall forwards. 

Couldn't agree more.

Unless we rely on Vanders and Trac who aren't real talks then if Weid doesnt repeat his form (which was late to appear) and Tmac is late to start again we will be in big trouble. Plus Trac cant kick straight. 

Perhaps we will have many goal scorers but how m any games have we all seen that were won off the boot of a tall on fire?

I'm hoping Max will be free more often but I think we have been short sighted in not replacing Jesse and Pedo.

  On 24/11/2018 at 08:25, leave it to deever said:

Couldn't agree more.

Unless we rely on Vanders and Trac who aren't real talks then if Weid doesnt repeat his form (which was late to appear) and Tmac is late to start again we will be in big trouble. Plus Trac cant kick straight. 

Perhaps we will have many goal scorers but how m any games have we all seen that were won off the boot of a tall on fire?

I'm hoping Max will be free more often but I think we have been short sighted in not replacing Jesse and Pedo.

2017 suggests he can

2018 he can’t 

  On 24/11/2018 at 06:28, ProDee said:

Right now everyone would have Curnow ahead of Weideman.

But they are quite different players and it's too early to call.  We might not know for a decade.

Curnow’s accuracy is a concern. 

  On 24/11/2018 at 09:55, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Curnow’s accuracy is a concern. 

In your mind.

  On 23/11/2018 at 23:21, Uncle Fester said:

Our best games were when we had a flood of players lining up to kick, or to dish it out to someone in a better spot. I admit I was sad when it became clear that Jesse was going, but when looked at in the cold light of day, we are a better team without him. That is not denying his talent. Just that we always looked to Jesse focused. If he kicked 3.2, then it would mean 5 other times he was double teamed and the ball came straight out, and probably another 5 it was halved. That isn't even counting missed options as the guy with the ball waited for Jesse's lead while others stood unmarked.

We play better being unpredictable. And I think that is where the game is heading,  And even if it isn't, then I still like seeing us play that way. 

One of the smartest posts all year!!!

agree 100%

Can’t believe post-season brought it out?!!

 

Given the versatility of Pedo (Ruck/Fwd) I think he’s the only one we didn’t replace fully. However, Vanders might be able to do that role.

i think Weid will ste up this year (to be fair, he [censored] has to) it’s his time, or send him off to Collingwood 

  On 23/11/2018 at 14:09, rjay said:

We obviously didn't rate him...

We've gone with best available and he wasn't it according to our recruiting team.

Would you prefer we draft for needs again & end up with the list we had under the previous administration?

That approach got us Lucas Cook at pick 12 because we missed Lynch who was taken the pick before.

if you listened to Jason Taylor, we did draft for needs.  He wanted to bolster our midfield with a second tier of mids coming through, and that's what we did.

 

Prior to draft, we traded for needs as well.

  On 24/11/2018 at 12:13, DV8 said:

if you listened to Jason Taylor, we did draft for needs.  He wanted to bolster our midfield with a second tier of mids coming through, and that's what we did.

 

Prior to draft, we traded for needs as well.

Yes, it's what I've said on many occasions you don't draft for needs you trade for them and that's exactly what we did.

There were no talls available at our picks that we rated, if you want to believe that translated into us drafting needs go ahead and please yourself. Taylor is always going to put the best spin on it.

I can guarantee you we took best available.

Edited November 24, 20186 yr by rjay

  On 24/11/2018 at 10:20, ProDee said:

In your mind.

This is like Hogan all over again, lots of talent but can struggle with his set shots on goal. I wouldn’t know what his stats are  but we all had plenty of opportunities to watch Carlton last season and from what I saw he missed a few that were 30-35 metres out with little angle.

  On 23/11/2018 at 06:13, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I’m a bit worried that we haven’t recruited any tall forward prospects in the draft.I think we’re a “tall short” as far as forwards are concerned on our list.

We have TMac and the Weed, but who else? Tim Smith would be next, I guess, and I think Max will be free to play more up front now we’ve got the big Prussian. I would have liked to see us pick up a tall forward prospect for development.

If Frost can’t squeeze back into the backline, perhaps we should give him another go up forward for Casey, in case TMac or Weed miss through injury.

Does anyone know if there’s a  tall forward prospect in the rookie draft?

 

We probably have enough tall forwards, I'd think. The base: TMac, Weideman; a new possibility is OMac who is a possibility as Frosty is better than him in the backline; I am sure we will take advantage of a swinger or two in the Preuss/Gawn resting ruck/forward role should May, Jetta and Lever crush opponents; on that, May threatens to have a spell or two in the deep fwd position, then Tim the Smith, and even Joel Smith is not an unlikely fwd hit. I'd like to see Preuss at FFwd and TMac at CHF supported by our increasingly elusive smalls and mediums. The Weed can be propped permanently between FF and HFF in a roving utility role - bursting pack marks hopefully for scoring opportunities - anything within 50 metres would be fine, whatever angle it may be. 

It seems like people always need something to worry about. If forward depth is that thing for you, then ok. Personally I think our list is about as balanced as I have ever seen. Given our game style and the fact that a high proportion of injuries happen in the midfield, stacking for contested midfield depth seems only sensible.

As others have noted Gawn can now rest forward. This is massive for us, he was a leading intercept marker last year when Lever was injured and he dropped back into the hole, he will bring that to our forward line. Preuss is literally massive, it will take a pretty big defenders to curb him if he plays forward. I think people also underestimate Tim Smith, he doesn’t always take the mark but he is as fierce competitor and will generally halve the contest even if he doesn’t take it. If we have injuries and need to play him forward then we just need to ensure that we have crumbers there at the contest.

Also as people have noted, many of our backs can swing, including May who has done that role fairly well for GC. We have a fleet of medium forwards who can play tall including Vanders, Petracca and even Hannah to an extent. All of that being said, history shows that staying injury free with a stable team structure is a strong factor in success. 

The majority of this draft was based around Midfielders/back flankers, Key talls were a rare occurrence.

We have a couple of years up our sleeves to draft the correct type of key forwards into our program.

#Dontstress

depth wise we are perhaps undermanned on many fronts.

Rarely did a VFL regular perform week in/week out in a manner that demanded senior selection.

Drafting this year has seen us go young in the main and has said goodbye to many of those who while adequate at VFL level were NQR at senior level.

Does it worry me... not that much unless of course we see five or six of our best 22 out injured as we did in 2017.

Putting this years draft to one side who realistically will push for senior selection:

Stretch, Petty, Baker, the Smith "brothers" are my most likely and then I will add Preuss, Hunt, JFK and Garlett?? into the mix.

Will any of them push their way into the top 15... hard to see it but perhaps.

Tyson was an obvious high level depth player who we no longer have but it could be said that he is replaced by JKK.

I suspect we are not too different to most teams in this respect.

  On 24/11/2018 at 20:57, Bombay Airconditioning said:

This is like Hogan all over again, lots of talent but can struggle with his set shots on goal. I wouldn’t know what his stats are  but we all had plenty of opportunities to watch Carlton last season and from what I saw he missed a few that were 30-35 metres out with little angle.

Lockett is the best kick for goal I've seen.

Lockett converted at 69.7% and Curnow converts at 63.4%.

There's not one club in the league that thinks "I really like Curnow, but I'm worried about his goal-kicking accuracy".

Not a single one.

Note: Peter McKenna, who many say was the best kick for goal they've seen, converted at 65%.

Edited November 24, 20186 yr by ProDee

  On 24/11/2018 at 23:10, ProDee said:

Lockett is the best kick for goal I've seen.

Lockett converted at 69.7% and Curnow converts at 63.4%.

There's not one club in the league that thinks "I really like Curnow, but I'm worried about his goal-kicking accuracy".

Not a single one.

Note: Peter McKenna, who many say was the best kick for goal they've seen, converted at 65%.

Come on 'Pro', we need to have some reason to justify not picking Curnow. To make us feel better.

"He's really not that good"...nah, the kid can play.

Their 2 best players Cripps and potentially Curnow were draft steals in the teens.

I think if Weid keeps improving as we expect then the Curnow talk will fade away.

The Oliver and Weideman draft will be seen as a masterstroke.

The Oliver part has already paid off.

  On 24/11/2018 at 23:10, ProDee said:

Lockett is the best kick for goal I've seen.

Lockett converted at 69.7% and Curnow converts at 63.4%.

There's not one club in the league that thinks "I really like Curnow, but I'm worried about his goal-kicking accuracy".

Not a single one.

Note: Peter McKenna, who many say was the best kick for goal they've seen, converted at 65%.

He certainly hasn't built quite the same body of work as Tony, but Tommy's accuracy is certainly up there with big Tony's at this point, with 68.8% for 2018 74.2% for 2017.  Given he kicked alot more goals in 2018, than 17 his overall career average is probably sitting much closer to 70% than 74%, but it's still a pretty good indication of the quality of the asset we have in big Tommy Mac.

  On 24/11/2018 at 12:05, DeezNuts said:

Given the versatility of Pedo (Ruck/Fwd) I think he’s the only one we didn’t replace fully. However, Vanders might be able to do that role.

i think Weid will ste up this year (to be fair, he [censored] has to) it’s his time, or send him off to Collingwood 

What do you call Pruess?

As a bit of an asides, I'm not quite sure that Pedo was a Ruck/Fwd as opposed to a Fwd/Ruck, though I acknowledge that he did do a pretty good job on a stand in main ruckman in 2017.

The only thing I'd say is that Pedo may have been somewhat more of a proven commodity than perhaps Pruess is at the moment.  But counter to that is that as much as I loved what he brought as a player on his day, it's also fair to say that Pedo was also a bit on fringe side for most of his career and he is now in his 30s, so was never going to be much of an option going forward.  From what I understand, Preuss has certainly shown the ability to play up to a similar standard as Pedo and being 5 or so years younger has the potential to be around for much longer.  If that's not replacing Pedo, I don't know what is.

When you look at how big men develop, from an overall recruiting perspective were much better off trading for a more proven commodity in Preuss with almost all of his development behind him, such that he is ready made to step up and play on the big stage than we were punting on one or more 18 yo key talls/ruckman in the draft (only have to look at King & Fliper to realise that).  We also have Bradke comming up the rear as a development/project ruckman in years to come.  That's not to say that we should never recruit another key position forward/ruck through the draft in the future, but my take is that we are going to sit back a bit, pick and choose ones we think have the most potential, rather than pick one or two every draft just for the sake of it.

  On 24/11/2018 at 23:24, rjay said:

Come on 'Pro', we need to have some reason to justify not picking Curnow. To make us feel better.

"He's really not that good"...nah, the kid can play.

Their 2 best players Cripps and potentially Curnow were draft steals in the teens.

I think if Weid keeps improving as we expect then the Curnow talk will fade away.

The Oliver and Weideman draft will be seen as a masterstroke.

The Oliver part has already paid off.

Poor form rjay, no ones trying to justify anything, merely point out what is obvious to some. Clearly Curnow has talent but the main objective of a key forward is to kick goals. Curnow like Hogan struggles at times with easy set shots. 

  On 23/11/2018 at 08:24, Redleg said:

Bailey Williams at 198 cms and 95 kgs was available at a few of our picks.

 

We could have got a few worthwhile ...but got none....very disappointing in my opinion.

  On 23/11/2018 at 22:21, Redleg said:

You need to read my answer to a post, before assuming my intent. Below is the post and my answer. I merely named a player who was available, of a certain type of player, at our picks, in response to a poster who wanted that type of player.

Personally as it turns out, I would have liked to see more mix in our selections and felt we needed another key forward/ruck type and Bailey Williams was of that type.

I have also posted many times that I have faith in JT and admire his work, but that doesn't stop wish lists and opinions and clearly I accept mine are only mine and not necessarily JT's.

Here is what I said in response to what was posted:

"

  On 23/11/2018 at 08:21, jayceebee31 said:

  13 hours ago, jayceebee31 said:

I think this draft was poor, to much similar types..needed a tall forward and a ruck type in my opinion..

Bailey Williams at 198 cms and 95 kgs was available at a few of our picks.

PS. Drafting for needs by the way doesn't mean you get a crap list. I would trust JT to draft a type of player we need because of his skill and talent at the job. Are you telling me that we will always pick best available over need? So if we lose Preuss and Max we won't look for a ruck, come on. JT actually said we "need" more mids and defenders and he selected them. Personally I think we are now a bit top heavy on mids and defenders and light on one experienced ruck reserve and another developing key forward. Do you disagree?

I second your thoughts

  On 23/11/2018 at 14:29, WERRIDEE said:

Bradtke is a key forward

I thought he was a ruck type.   Where did you get this information from.?

  On 25/11/2018 at 02:55, jayceebee31 said:

I thought he was a ruck type.   Where did you get this information from.?

Shades of Mason Cox?

Edited November 25, 20186 yr by bingers

  On 25/11/2018 at 02:55, jayceebee31 said:

I thought he was a ruck type.   Where did you get this information from.?

Jason Taylor on inside melbourne