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

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 95 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Like
    • 367 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Shocked
      • Clap
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 47 replies