Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

As was the case last year, I'm a little concerned if we go into next season with just Gawn, Preuss & Bradtke. 

I would like to see us use a rookie pick on an experienced ruck to keep on the list just in case, but also provide cover in the VFL as well. This would be mainl as protecton for Bradtke who is still very much a developing player.

Thoughts on who may be available?

 

For some reason we like to keep a glut of useless flankers on the list rather than cut the cord and use list spots on developing players. That said, it is what it is for this year so I wouldn't bother using one of the precious list spots we have left on a back up to the back up.

The big fella who played at Casey last year, Wale-Buxton? He looked more than adequate as a VFL ruck. And we've got the preseason and mid season rookie periods to add a state league option if needed.

 

Last 3 years:

Melb 69 Games for 33wins and 36 losses = 47.8% wins

With Gawn playing 59 games for 27wins and 32 losses = 45.7% wins

Without Gawn 10 games for 6 wins and 4 losses = 60% wins

Given we have an excellent backup option already, plus a backup to the backup. And given our win loss ratio is better when gawn doesn’t play. Not sure a backup to the backup to the backup is required.

 
2 minutes ago, —coach— said:

Last 3 years:

Melb 69 Games for 33wins and 36 losses = 47.8% wins

With Gawn playing 59 games for 27wins and 32 losses = 45.7% wins

Without Gawn 10 games for 6 wins and 4 losses = 60% wins

Given we have an excellent backup option already, plus a backup to the backup. And given our win loss ratio is better when gawn doesn’t play. Not sure a backup to the backup to the backup is required.

Nice work Coach and agree.  Investment in small forward/s and a KF is a much higher priority for us at this stage.

50 minutes ago, —coach— said:

Last 3 years:

Melb 69 Games for 33wins and 36 losses = 47.8% wins

With Gawn playing 59 games for 27wins and 32 losses = 45.7% wins

Without Gawn 10 games for 6 wins and 4 losses = 60% wins

Given we have an excellent backup option already, plus a backup to the backup. And given our win loss ratio is better when gawn doesn’t play. Not sure a backup to the backup to the backup is required.

Very small sample size to use as a reliable indicator. It'd be interesting to see who the opposition was in the games where Gawn was missing. But I don't think we're useless without him at all either.


  • Author
1 hour ago, —coach— said:

Last 3 years:

Melb 69 Games for 33wins and 36 losses = 47.8% wins

With Gawn playing 59 games for 27wins and 32 losses = 45.7% wins

Without Gawn 10 games for 6 wins and 4 losses = 60% wins

Given we have an excellent backup option already, plus a backup to the backup. And given our win loss ratio is better when gawn doesn’t play. Not sure a backup to the backup to the backup is required.

I'm not saying we are useless without Gawn, I'm just saying most sides have the following:

1. Premier ruck

2. Back up who can forward and ruck if needed

3. Back up ruck

4. Developing ruck who is 2-3 years away

Not sure if you can really afford to have 4 ruckman on your list unless they can play forward which the 3 we have can’t do. 

1 hour ago, Luther said:

Very small sample size to use as a reliable indicator. It'd be interesting to see who the opposition was in the games where Gawn was missing. But I don't think we're useless without him at all either.

Agree on the sample size, but I think the point is still relevant. Many would think we would be cactus without gawn but the stats don’t seem to suggest that. 

At the end of the day I don’t think we need 4 ruckman.

 
2 hours ago, Nelo said:

Not sure if you can really afford to have 4 ruckman on your list unless they can play forward which the 3 we have can’t do. 

Bradtke when he played at Casey, was mostly used as a forward so WRONG as per the norm, but amusing, as per the norm

Sam Jacobs and Ben McEvoy say hello

3 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

Bradtke when he played at Casey, was mostly used as a forward so WRONG as per the norm, but amusing, as per the norm

Sam Jacobs and Ben McEvoy say hello

Just because he plays forward doesn't mean he CAN play forward.  We weren't exactly flush with tall forwards for large parts of the season.

Clarkson has also said (or maybe it was Graeme Wright, can't remember which) that McEvoy will play a bit down back next season, so Nelo has something of a point.


12 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Just because he plays forward doesn't mean he CAN play forward.  We weren't exactly flush with tall forwards for large parts of the season.

Clarkson has also said (or maybe it was Graeme Wright, can't remember which) that McEvoy will play a bit down back next season, so Nelo has something of a point.

Exactly. Anyone can play forward but doesn’t mean they’re any good. So as per the norm stay is wrong. 

Didn't hurt us too badly when McDonald did it in mid-2017. Not against parking a mature player on the rookie list but if Gawn/Preuss both go down we can get away with it.

42 minutes ago, Nelo said:

Exactly. Anyone can play forward but doesn’t mean they’re any good. So as per the norm stay is wrong. 

'Stay' here, Bradtke took some good contested marks and kicked a couple of goals, so he is getting the hang of it, Preuss knows he needs to improve his forward craft, Gawn regularly kicks a goal or two

Just hanging [censored] on players for the sake of it, need that in your life?

Any comment on McEvoy or Jacobs' forward craft, you can throw Zac Smith in there as well,  why he has been moved on

Bellchambers is another, shall I continue?


At some point, do we get the opportunity of signing up someone like Liam Buxton- Wales? He is big, has a great tank already, athletic, a good kick and has a very good pair of hands. Would like to hear from others who have seen more of him what their thoughts are. While he has been rucking at Casey, at 195 and over 100 Kgs, I could see him potentially taking on a mobile key position forward / 3rd tall (similar type to Tom Mac), with occasional spells in the ruck.

Definite NO. Casey needs one on their list, even though it probably means they play top heavy with Preuss, their ruck and Bradtke all in the team together.

I really don't know why we would waste a list door on another developing ruckman. Gawn is AA, Preuss is very serviceable and will certainly improve with more time training with gawn.  Both Weid and Tomlinson can provide a chop out and Bradkte is developing on the wings. 

Why exactly would we want to use a draft pick or a list spot on yet another Rick development project right now? 


46 minutes ago, FlashInThePan said:

I really don't know why we would waste a list door on another developing ruckman. Gawn is AA, Preuss is very serviceable and will certainly improve with more time training with gawn.  Both Weid and Tomlinson can provide a chop out and Bradkte is developing on the wings. 

Why exactly would we want to use a draft pick or a list spot on yet another Rick development project right now? 

44 list spots plus Cat B. If it were up to me I'd always have plenty of young talls making their way through. If they succeed you can fill gaps cheaply or trade them away for value. A 3rd ruckman alone might be a waste of a spot but another 200cm versatile tall project would be a worthwhile investment.

The 30 best players should be able to cover most spots with some kids getting games as well, so there's about 10 spots plus cat B that should be used on developmental prospects. 

To get the next Gawn or next Stef Martin then you have to have a variety of prospects coming through.

45 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

44 list spots plus Cat B. If it were up to me I'd always have plenty of young talls making their way through. If they succeed you can fill gaps cheaply or trade them away for value. A 3rd ruckman alone might be a waste of a spot but another 200cm versatile tall project would be a worthwhile investment.

The 30 best players should be able to cover most spots with some kids getting games as well, so there's about 10 spots plus cat B that should be used on developmental prospects. 

To get the next Gawn or next Stef Martin then you have to have a variety of prospects coming through.

Yes, but the OP was suggesting rookieing a delisted ruck as backup. Presumably a delisted one, since that would be all that would be available and prepared to be rookied.  

That being said, I also don't think now is the time to spend draft picks on developing another ruck option although I am open to developing a versatile tall forward. Right now we need some elite kicking and some more outside run. Even a quality crumbing forward is a significantly higher priority. Using draft picks on some possible far future need seems like a really bad idea. 

On 10/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, chook fowler said:

My tip for the big mover next season - has a really good skill set, only needed some size, which he now has going by that photo. Delicious.

Haven't really seen much of Bradtke but I'm hoping he can really be a big improver this season as I have little confidence in Preuss ever amounting to much 

 
On 10/20/2019 at 3:21 PM, chook fowler said:

My tip for the big mover next season - has a really good skill set, only needed some size, which he now has going by that photo. Delicious.

Pity he cant play AFL as well as his father could play basketball or his mother Tennis. From the little I have seen of him he needs a big year at Casey in 2020.

He is 19 years old and 204cm ruckmen(ex basketballers) mature at a different rate to smaller midfielders because they have get used to the clash of bodies which does not happen in basketball as much, I would not write him off as yet.

If he shows no progess by the time he reaches 21/22 then maybe he is a good basketballer who never made it in the AFL.

His father was a very good Australian basketballer who never made it to the NBA and his mother was a very good tennis player which is not a contact sport and she never won a major title although we made it to a semi-final.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

    It's Game Day and the Demons are back on the road for their 3rd interstate game in 4 weeks as they face a fit and firing Crows at Adelaide Oval. With finals now out of our grasps what are you hoping from the Dees today?

    • 1 reply
  • WHAT’S NEXT? by The Oracle

    What’s next for a beleagured Melbourne Football Club down in form and confidence, facing  intense criticism and disapproval over some underwhelming recent performances and in the midst of a four game losing streak? Why, it’s Adelaide which boasts the best percentage in the AFL and has won six of its last seven games. The Crows are hot and not only that, the game is at the Adelaide Oval; yet another away fixture and the third in a row at a venue outside of Victoria. One of the problems the Demons have these days is that they rarely have the luxury of true home ground advantage, something they have enjoyed just once since mid April. 

    • 2 replies
  • REPORT: Gold Coast

    From the start, Melbourne’s performance against the Gold Coast Suns at Peoples First Stadium was nothing short of a massive botch up and it came down in the first instance to poor preparation. Rather than adequately preparing the team for battle against an opponent potentially on the skids after suffering three consecutive losses, the Demons looking anything but sharp and ready to play in the opening minutes of the game. By way of contrast, the Suns demonstrated a clear sense of purpose and will to win. From the very first bounce of the ball they were back to where they left off earlier in the season in Round Three when the teams met at the MCG. They ran rings around the Demons and finished the game off with a dominant six goal final term. This time, they produced another dominant quarter to start the game, restricting Melbourne to a solitary point to lead by six goals at the first break, by which time, the game was all but over.

    • 0 replies
  • CASEY: Gold Coast

    Coming off four consecutive victories and with a team filled with 17 AFL listed players, the Casey Demons took to their early morning encounter with the lowly Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium with the swagger of a team that thought a win was inevitable. They were smashing it for the first twenty minutes of the game after Tom Fullarton booted the first two goals but they then descended into an abyss of frustrating poor form and lackadaisical effort that saw the swagger and the early arrogance disappear by quarter time when their lead was overtaken by a more intense and committed opponent. The Suns continued to apply the pressure in the second quarter and got out to a three goal lead in mid term before the Demons fought back. A late goal to the home side before the half time bell saw them ten points up at the break and another surge in the third quarter saw them comfortably up with a 23 point lead at the final break.

    • 0 replies
  • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

    With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thumb Down
    • 213 replies
  • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

    The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

      • Sad
    • 231 replies