Jump to content

Featured Replies

9 minutes ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

I agree it has to be someone else. Im well aware that Mitch Brown wont cut it and havent said he would, but I doubt Mckernan can cut it either. Again I'd be concerned that we'd be relying on Mckernan who has been on an AFL list since 2009 and has only played 80 odd games and no more than 15 in a season was bearing our ruck duties.

I'm also in the mind that if Jackson can put on a bit more size on this off season he can really have an impact in the ruck if called upon. Take a look at Tom De Konig from Carlton who is just about their 1st choice ruckman (roughly exactly the same heights and weights) and came in and made an immediate impact. I agree we need the backup...but Mckernan? Such a poor move to recruit an injury prone list clogger

Jackson + McKernan

 
Just now, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Respectfully disagree on that

Just to go with your previous posts, who else would you be looking at that's available and better than McKernan?

Like others, I'm not exactly enamored with getting McKernan, but at this stage I don't think we can do any better.

 
1 hour ago, Yung Blood said:

From Sam Edmund on SEN this morning:

 

 

Benefit is he can fill two roles as a backup forward or more importantly a backup ruck. Mitch Brown is only a back up forward and would move on if we acquire him in my opinion. Good move

Edited by Demons1858

I could live with McKernan for a year as insurance for Max.

He can also play forward and possibly even down back if one of Lever or May got injured.

He would provide some protection for LJ for a year and is a FA and would not hurt the salary cap.

Would also help out Bradtke at Casey.

Lastly, he will be better than our last pick in the draft.

An understandable move if he comes to us.


Just now, Wiseblood said:

Just to go with your previous posts, who else would you be looking at that's available and better than McKernan?

Like others, I'm not exactly enamored with getting McKernan, but at this stage I don't think we can do any better.

Darcy Fort and Ratugolea at the Cats look gettable. Tom Hickey from the Eagles, however looks to be off to the Swans. If we were serious about this area of our list then we'd be sniffing around those. 

Agree there doesnt look to be much else on offer currently, however I think we'd be better off going with what we have then offering what looks now to be valuable list spots to a 4th string forward ruck who barely gets on the park. With at the least 3 of Ben Brown, Weideman, Jackson, Petty, Tomlinson and Mitch Brown available, I have no doubt we'd be able to cover any ruck issues without our forward mix getting thrown off. 

This doesn't shock me at all, we need some mature ruck depth with Preuss leaving and there aren't many other cheap options out there. I mean there's Majak Daw, but he's a questionable character.

Another option I think we should look at is Lewis Pierce who was delisted by St Kilda last year after they recruited Ryder. Still only 25 I think and showed some ability. As he was delisted last year we can still get him as a DFA.

51 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

So which one is it?

FWIW, I'm all for getting a back-up ruck onto the list to replace Preuss but I'm not sure McKernan is the best option.

As in i think mckernan is a scrub but if it means both McDonald's are gone then i'd be happy with the outcome. 

 

We should be looking at each list and through the second tier for a 22-25yo who can be Maxes back up. Hopefully develop under him And maybe take his spot in 3 years. We have Jackson, Weed, Tomo and other talls that can step in if desperate. To recruit McKernan who is more a fwd than ruck doesn’t make sense to me. Also he is pretty average player. 

I’d much prefer McKernan to Mitch Brown as the 4th or 5th key forward and 3rd ruck option. He competes in the air which is the main thing you want from a player like that. 

 That said, I’d be just as happy to just go in light on experienced talls and find a 3rd ruck option somewhere else. 

If it came down to Saints or Demons I’d expect McKernan would chose the Saints as there’s an easier path to him getting regular footy.

We’re yet to be linked to any mature key defensive depth which is what I’d like to see us get in. 


1 hour ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Again I'd be concerned that we'd be relying on Mckernan who has been on an AFL list since 2009 and has only played 80 odd games and no more than 15 in a season was bearing our ruck duties.

He's only played 80 games because he's back-up which is what we want him for. 

We don't have any credible internal options. I don't want to see Brown anywhere near a ruck contest given his knee issues and its too much to expect a second year Jackson to hold the fort. He'd get monstered.

unless there's a better option running around in the state leagues then McKernan works best imv

1 minute ago, Better days ahead said:

He's only played 80 games because he's back-up which is what we want him for. 

We don't have any credible internal options. I don't want to see Brown anywhere near a ruck contest given his knee issues and its too much to expect a second year Jackson to hold the fort. He'd get monstered.

unless there's a better option running around in the state leagues then McKernan works best imv

He's played 80 odd games because he can barely get on the park. Constantly injured so its not as if going on his track record that he's likely to be readily available. 

 

1 minute ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

He's played 80 odd games because he can barely get on the park. Constantly injured so its not as if going on his track record that he's likely to be readily available. 

 

Noted. I'll add the proviso, subject to the passing his medical.

In Burgess I trust.

Question
 Are we looking to have a back up ruckman who can go forward  OR a backup forward who can ruck. ???? 
 

I’m not sure why there is no love for Mitch Brown. He played an excellent last 5 weeks when given the chance. I thought h I e should have been in earlier in the year. In fact he was nearly BOG in round 18 and showed the bummers what they missed. He supported Max in the ruck and was a very good CHF option. 
 

I know if we get Bbrown then lose Preuss and Tmc as expected it means: 

ruck - Gawn, back up Jackson 

key fwds - BBrown Weid Jackson back up Mitch Brown. 
 

I’d stump a role for someone like Lewis Pierce who was at the Saints. As posted earlier, he’s eligible as a DFA. Would fit as a low $$ mature type backup ruck. 


1 hour ago, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Darcy Fort and Ratugolea at the Cats look gettable. Tom Hickey from the Eagles, however looks to be off to the Swans. If we were serious about this area of our list then we'd be sniffing around those. 

Agree there doesnt look to be much else on offer currently, however I think we'd be better off going with what we have then offering what looks now to be valuable list spots to a 4th string forward ruck who barely gets on the park. With at the least 3 of Ben Brown, Weideman, Jackson, Petty, Tomlinson and Mitch Brown available, I have no doubt we'd be able to cover any ruck issues without our forward mix getting thrown off. 

Darcy Fort 27yo and 9 games.  Tom Hickey 29yo 102 games.  Ratugolea will cost and will want to pays 1s.

Edited by Pollyanna

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’d much prefer McKernan to Mitch Brown as the 4th or 5th key forward and 3rd ruck option. He competes in the air which is the main thing you want from a player like that. 

 That said, I’d be just as happy to just go in light on experienced talls and find a 3rd ruck option somewhere else. 

If it came down to Saints or Demons I’d expect McKernan would chose the Saints as there’s an easier path to him getting regular footy.

We’re yet to be linked to any mature key defensive depth which is what I’d like to see us get in. 

Who's on the market in terms of key defensive depth who you'd want at the club?

I'm not convinced McKernan is an upgrade on Brown as a back-up forward. He probably is as a back-up ruck, but I'm not convinced he's good enough to make it worthwhile. But, it will only be for a bargain basement salary so it won't be the end of the world if it happens.

23 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

we could get TWO of my cult faves in one off-season! sideshow bob AND mckernahan?!

bring it

he is one of the few players at the peptides that i've really liked over the years; always thought of him as their version of pedersen

I have similar thoughts and see him as an asset to re-develop into something forceful - such as a CHB or as a Half Forward. He does provide some chop for Max - and this is a good idea, I'd reckon, releasing Jackson from the role to focus more fully on Key Positions and mobile utility roles. McKernan may be useful as forward defensive pressure. I'd like to know more about his mobility, speed and bodily resilience (are there any injury concerns?) to support such a function.


If the Pies are so desperate for a number of reasons, should we be considering Mason Cox? Could not only be a back up option if Max gets injured but free him up during games to go down back or forward where he can be very hard to match up on. Might be able to negotiate a package with some of the other players who are being talked about from both clubs?

Edited by Demons3031
spelling

He's an absolute spud will be my new whipping boy.

 
On 11/2/2020 at 10:55 AM, AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey said:

Gawn, Ben Brown, Jackson, Weideman, Mitch Brown and now Mckernan? Do we really need another Fwd/Ruck utility type??

Not sure why people see Weideman as a utility. He is clearly a forward and needs to be left to do that 


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

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 2 replies
  • 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.

    • 143 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? 

      • Like
    • 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?

      • Thumb Down
    • 427 replies