Mac Andrew

[Whispering_Jack 30,674]

12 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I would not recruit a ruckman with a top 10 pick, I agree waiting 5+ years for them to hold down the job is a huge expense.

But Luke Jackson isn't really a ruckman (or isn't only a ruckman), and I'd still have some worries about Jacko holding up a full time ruck job until he's 22+, fortunately we haven't asked him to do that. Josh Fraser didn't last doing it. Grundy's not tracking on the same level after a lot of getting belted early in his career too.

Even though he'll almost certainly end up a ruckman and came in to AFL footy most confident as a ruckman there's a reason Simon Goodwin played Jackson for a rotation or two as a centre square midfielder (as well as a ruck) in his first AFL preseason game. And a reason Jackson gets asked to play as a key forward a lot too (apart from because that's where the ruck spells). He's a super athletic competitive footballer who can provide huge value in so many ways. His hit outs rarely matter, but his follow up is amazing, his ability to clunk marks or force contests across half forward is huge. With an obstructed run at the ball Jackson isn't getting beat by key defenders and is starting to beat them back. His ability to chase, tackle and pressure is vital to us playing 4 tall rucks/forwards and Fritsch.

If Mac goes top 20 and especially top 10 it's because he's not a ruckman but a super athletic footballer who can ruck and do other things. GWS have Matt Flynn (solid and improving), Preuss (solid if healthy), Briggs (promising) and might get Lobb (hates rucking but can do it) back. They aren't chasing a primary ruckman any time soon.

What they're looking for is a guy in the mold of Jackson, but also in the mold of Nik Cox and Zach Reid at Essendon, Aliir Aliir, Harris Andrews, even the King twins. Sure there's a risk that means they become Rhys Stanley or Rory Lobb, but 200cm + can seriously move + wins the ball + can use it. Doesn't matter what position you play in juniors if you can do those things you're a rare talent, which means an early pick and let the coaches work out the rest.

The irony is that in his two representative games Andrew wasn’t played primarily as a ruckman and didn’t produce numbers that would suggest that’s going to be his role any time soon. Both games are linked in this thread if anyone wants a look for themselves.

[Pinball Wizard 326]

Haven’t seen him play. Haven’t seen the highlights reel. Aren’t invested in whether or not we pick him up or whether we don’t. I have a interest in physical education and athletic performance work wise.  

My question is what makes people think that just because someone has height and athleticism they can automatically  be a champion in a contact sport like AFL? The American Mason Cox who plays for Collingwood Magpies is nearly 7 foot tall and can sometimes take a very good mark and kick goals but he never was and never will be a ruckman.

[dazzledavey36 55,360]

4 hours ago, Pinball Wizard said:

Haven’t seen him play. Haven’t seen the highlights reel. Aren’t invested in whether or not we pick him up or whether we don’t. I have a interest in physical education and athletic performance work wise.  

My question is what makes people think that just because someone has height and athleticism they can automatically  be a champion in a contact sport like AFL? The American Mason Cox who plays for Collingwood Magpies is nearly 7 foot tall and can sometimes take a very good mark and kick goals but he never was and never will be a ruckman.

Because the game has swayed more towards athleticism then actual footballers. The game simply got quicker.

The recruiting landscape changed in the mid 2000's when clubs were willing to use early picks on players who could could run quicker and jump higher then the footballer who was a bit slow but could find the ball naturally.

Two examples for instance.

1. Mark McGough was a 188cm 89kg who was drafted to Collingwood in the 2002 draft. Well famous for his 2002 anzac medal as an 18 year in his first year. He was an absolute ball magnet who was powerfully built, but one thing he lacked was speed and athleticism. The perfect prototype footballer that was built more for the 80's and 90's style football. He quickly got found out as each year went by when the game got quicker and the game chewed him out and spat him out. 

2. Jack Watts and Luke Jackson. Both tall and skinny players who had limited football background due to spending more time playing basketball at underage level were taken early in the draft. Watts was known for his athleticism and speed for such a tall kid. Melbourne was criticised for taking Jackson at pick 3 because they picked him on his raw potential what he may become in a few years time as Jason Taylor said his the To Hell and Back doco. His raw athleticism and good body of work that he produced in the 12 months of his draft year was the reason why Melbourne picked him instead of the likes of Lachie Ash, Caleb Serong and Hayden Young who would have been the safe and easy picks because they're more natural footballers. 

[durango 2,023]

I have watch the game from the early 1950's to 2021 and game has not got quicker players have improved their skills on both sides of their bodies because the games have changed from a 6 man defence to a 18 man defence and from 6 players on the ball to 10 players.

Players of the past with skills like Deisel Williams and Sam Mitchell who were not fast but were always aware of the players around them and were ready to dish of to a teammate in a better position.

The players who have highs early in their careers, the reason they get caught out and disappear is that opposition put a lot of work into stopping these players and if they dont evolve they die 'Darwin's theory of natural selection'.

Look at Clayton Oliver starts out as a handball machine and has now evolve as a total disposal expert both by hand and foot, he is now slowly working on how to stop players that tag him and in the Grand Final tagged Bontempelli in the last half of the 3rd quarter.

[Spirit of the Demon 256]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Because the game has swayed more towards athleticism then actual footballers. The game simply got quicker.

The recruiting landscape changed in the mid 2000's when clubs were willing to use early picks on players who could could run quicker and jump higher then the footballer who was a bit slow but could find the ball naturally.

Two examples for instance.

1. Mark McGough was a 188cm 89kg who was drafted to Collingwood in the 2002 draft. Well famous for his 2002 anzac medal as an 18 year in his first year. He was an absolute ball magnet who was powerfully built, but one thing he lacked was speed and athleticism. The perfect prototype footballer that was built more for the 80's and 90's style football. He quickly got found out as each year went by when the game got quicker and the game chewed him out and spat him out. 

2. Jack Watts and Luke Jackson. Both tall and skinny players who had limited football background due to spending more time playing basketball at underage level were taken early in the draft. Watts was known for his athleticism and speed for such a tall kid. Melbourne was criticised for taking Jackson at pick 3 because they picked him on his raw potential what he may become in a few years time as Jason Taylor said his the To Hell and Back doco. His raw athleticism and good body of work that he produced in the 12 months of his draft year was the reason why Melbourne picked him instead of the likes of Lachie Ash, Caleb Serong and Hayden Young who would have been the safe and easy picks because they're more natural footballers. 

We didn’t draft Dogga purely on potential alone. By the time we drafted him, he had represented WA at the Under 18 Championships for two seasons in a row (2018 & 2019) and had won under-18 All Australian selection as ruckman for the winning state in 2019. He also played for the East Fremantle Sharks Colts in those years. Before that he was in the WA Under 16s. Everyone regarded him as the prime young ruckman of the future and he weighed substantially more than 70kgs. Cheese and Chalk.

[dazzledavey36 55,360]

34 minutes ago, Spirit of the Demon said:

We didn’t draft Dogga purely on potential alone. By the time we drafted him, he had represented WA at the Under 18 Championships for two seasons in a row (2018 & 2019) and had won under-18 All Australian selection as ruckman for the winning state in 2019. He also played for the East Fremantle Sharks Colts in those years. Before that he was in the WA Under 16s. Everyone regarded him as the prime young ruckman of the future and he weighed substantially more than 70kgs. Cheese and Chalk.

Of course we drafted him on talent as well. All players have talent. But as Jason Taylor said, you're drafting him to be the next best ruckman for the next 10 years. So you're always looking at what he can become when they start to hit their peak in 5 years time. You'll get the occasional jack in the box like Grundy, Jackson, Naitanui who just come in and make a sudden impact. They're rare breeds.

Just remember Jackson was still tossing up whether to focus on on football or basketball full time in his under 16's year so there was still some uncertainty on him.

Most ruckman are a slow burn, hence why they tend to last longer on a list compared to a stock standard midfielder. Clubs aren't drafting Mac Andrew based on what he can do in his 2nd or 3rd year but what he can produce as a full time ruckman when he hits 24. All they want to do is see gradual improvement each year his on the list. 

Could go the other way and he impacts in his 2nd year like Jackson? No one saw that coming..

Edited October 8, 2021 by dazzledavey36

[1964_2 2,357]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Because the game has swayed more towards athleticism then actual footballers. The game simply got quicker.

The recruiting landscape changed in the mid 2000's when clubs were willing to use early picks on players who could could run quicker and jump higher then the footballer who was a bit slow but could find the ball naturally.

Two examples for instance.

1. Mark McGough was a 188cm 89kg who was drafted to Collingwood in the 2002 draft. Well famous for his 2002 anzac medal as an 18 year in his first year. He was an absolute ball magnet who was powerfully built, but one thing he lacked was speed and athleticism. The perfect prototype footballer that was built more for the 80's and 90's style football. He quickly got found out as each year went by when the game got quicker and the game chewed him out and spat him out. 

2. Jack Watts and Luke Jackson. Both tall and skinny players who had limited football background due to spending more time playing basketball at underage level were taken early in the draft. Watts was known for his athleticism and speed for such a tall kid. Melbourne was criticised for taking Jackson at pick 3 because they picked him on his raw potential what he may become in a few years time as Jason Taylor said his the To Hell and Back doco. His raw athleticism and good body of work that he produced in the 12 months of his draft year was the reason why Melbourne picked him instead of the likes of Lachie Ash, Caleb Serong and Hayden Young who would have been the safe and easy picks because they're more natural footballers. 

This is all true. But remember Jackson did show evidence of being an incredibly talented natural footballer in his limited time at underage level (as well as being a freak athlete) - hence the exceptional player we have

[durango 2,023]

If you go back to 2020 Jackson played 6 games and then got injured, he had already shown what he could do with a rising star award I think that if he had not got injured he would have help the MFC reach the finals in 2020.

[Redleg 41,468]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Of course we drafted him on talent as well. All players have talent. But as Jason Taylor said, you're drafting him to be the next best ruckman for the next 10 years. So you're always looking at what he can become when they start to hit their peak in 5 years time. You'll get the occasional jack in the box like Grundy, Jackson, Naitanui who just come in and make a sudden impact. They're rare breeds.

Just remember Jackson was still tossing up whether to focus on on football or basketball full time in his under 16's year so there was still some uncertainty on him.

Most ruckman are a slow burn, hence why they tend to last longer on a list compared to a stock standard midfielder. Clubs aren't drafting Mac Andrew based on what he can do in his 2nd or 3rd year but what he can produce as a full time ruckman when he hits 24. All they want to do is see gradual improvement each year his on the list. 

Could go the other way and he impacts in his 2nd year like Jackson? No one saw that coming..

We will know with Mac in a few weeks where he is taken in the draft. I am with WJ in a very, very small minority,  who think he will get past top 10 and maybe even top 20. You are with the majority, including the draft experts, who think he is now top 10 and maybe even top 5. We will find out soon enough.

BTW, I hope WJ and I are right for obvious reasons and nothing to do with bragging rights. 

[dazzledavey36 55,360]

 

 

12 minutes ago, Redleg said:

We will know with Mac in a few weeks where he is taken in the draft. I am with WJ in a very, very small minority,  who think he will get past top 10 and maybe even top 20. You are with the majority, including the draft experts, who think he is now top 10 and maybe even top 5. We will find out soon enough.

BTW, I hope WJ and I are right for obvious reasons and nothing to do with bragging rights. 

Yeah and it's not about who's right and wrong. I just think recruiters are putting more premium on talented ruckman more then we've seen before. 

We've seen how popular ruckman were in the mid season draft, but now even with the ruck merry go around thats been talked up in this year's draft period.

You look at the way the Gawn/Jackson worked. This would have opened a fair few recruiters eyes about the way this can work. Have a solid senior ruckman ruck for about 70-80% of the game with the younger apprentice spend majority up forward but also pinch hit that 20-30% during the game.

If it's GWS that are looking at Mac Andrew then they already have Pruess, Flynn and Briggs who are all solid enough at least to hold down the number one role for a few a years while Andrew developes under them. 

[whatwhat say what 22,948]

13 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Josh Fraser didn't last doing it. Grundy's not tracking on the same level after a lot of getting belted early in his career too.

josh fraser was picked #1, was his side's #1 ruckman from almost his first season in a regular finals outfit and in consecutive grand finals, and played over 200 games across the course his career - it's a complete myth that he was 'belted' early because, like jackson, he was an expert reader of the ball and knew how to position himself to be effective not just as a ruckman but almost as a ruck-rover type due to his athleticism

for mine, the closest comparison jackson has is as an oversized adam goodes - he can play ruck, midfield, forward, and potentially on the wing too

a true 'utility' in the old way of thinking

Edited October 9, 2021 by whatwhat say what

[dazzledavey36 55,360]

1 minute ago, whatwhat say what said:

josh fraser was picked #1, was his side's #1 ruckman from almost his first season in a regular finals outfit and in consecutive grand finals, and played 199 games across the course his career - it's a complete myth that he was 'belted' early because, like jackson, he was an expert reader of the ball and knew how to position himself to be effective not just as a ruckman but almost as a ruck-rover type due to his athleticism

for mine, the closest comparison jackson has is as an oversized adam goodes - he can play ruck, midfield, forward, and potentially on the wing too

a true 'utility' in the old way of thinking

I'm pretty Mick Malthouse has admitted in the past that they threw him amongst wolves and felt that this stifled his development. 

[whatwhat say what 22,948]

19 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I'm pretty Mick Malthouse has admitted in the past that they threw him amongst wolves and felt that this stifled his development. 

is this the same mick malthouse who writes utter garbage in the little paper and talks complete rubbish on aunty?

fraser might've been 'belted up' but he was the #1 ruckman from the get go in a side that was a regular finals side and he played in excess of 200 games across a 13 year career, was vice-captain of his club, and more than held his own as #1 ruck over the course of his time

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

52 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

josh fraser was picked #1, was his side's #1 ruckman from almost his first season in a regular finals outfit and in consecutive grand finals, and played over 200 games across the course his career - it's a complete myth that he was 'belted' early because, like jackson, he was an expert reader of the ball and knew how to position himself to be effective not just as a ruckman but almost as a ruck-rover type due to his athleticism

for mine, the closest comparison jackson has is as an oversized adam goodes - he can play ruck, midfield, forward, and potentially on the wing too

a true 'utility' in the old way of thinking

Fraser was a spent force by the time he was 27/28. Matt Kreuzer the same. All those years taking punishment before they were physically ready came at a big cost at the back end of their careers. Despite being two of the most mobile rucks when they stated they couldn’t move in nearly the same way by the end. They traded 50 games in their prime for 50 games as babies.

I’ve compared Jacko to Goodes before and clearly some form of Goodes like career without the need to give up a ruck role would be the dream.

The point I was making is that rucks not only rarely hold down the number 1 job before 22-24 but even if they can they probably shouldn’t. Any smart team drafting Mac in the top 15 believes they can get value out of him in the first 4-5 years without him being the first choice ruck.

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

18 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

There’s discussion on Knightmare’s thread on bigfooty about the need for patience with Andrew. His view is that “if you're drafting him, you shouldn't expect to see him until year 4 or for him to be playing a high level of football until year 6. It takes that long with ruckmen generally, and it's hard to see it being a quick process with Andrew”. So I registered myself and asked “how on earth a club can use a top 10 draft pick for a player it shouldn’t expect to see until year 4. Is GWS the only club that has this expectation or are there others?”

Knightmare’s answer was as follows -

“There have been Andrew to GWS links made but I don't have any strong word on how interested other clubs are. 

With rucks the rule is you're drafting them for who they'll be in their mid 20s rather than who they are today, just like with key forwards it's about who they'll be in year 4. 

There was until Jackson was picked at 3 a concerted effort by clubs not to take ruckmen so early for this very reason. The vast majority take a really long time to come good and become competitive at AFL level.”

I’m very understanding of the need for patience when dealing with big men including KPP’s but find the answer unsatisfactory. The likes of Luke Jackson are the exceptions. That’s why they get picked early. The same goes to an extent with the likes of Jamara Ugle-Hagan, Riley Tilthorpe and Luke McDonald. These guys were getting games in year one, the kpp’s were kicking goals in their early games (Tilthorpe kicked 5 on debut). You would be expecting big things from these players by the end of year 2 (Dogga was a key part of a premiership team). To put someone in their category of top 10 in the draft with a four year window of reasonable expectation doesn’t compute with me. Not for a top 10 pick - maybe at mid 20s. 

Assuming this is the case, can you imagine how good LJ will be in his mid 20s!

[Redleg 41,468]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

 

Yeah and it's not about who's right and wrong. I just think recruiters are putting more premium on talented ruckman more then we've seen before. 

We've seen how popular ruckman were in the mid season draft, but now even with the ruck merry go around thats been talked up in this year's draft period.

You look at the way the Gawn/Jackson worked. This would have opened a fair few recruiters eyes about the way this can work. Have a solid senior ruckman ruck for about 70-80% of the game with the younger apprentice spend majority up forward but also pinch hit that 20-30% during the game.

If it's GWS that are looking at Mac Andrew then they already have Pruess, Flynn and Briggs who are all solid enough at least to hold down the number one role for a few a years while Andrew developes under them. 

And Lobb coming, who can also play forward with Jesse, Himmelberg and Riccardi.

[Key Deefender 143]

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

We will know with Mac in a few weeks where he is taken in the draft. I am with WJ in a very, very small minority,  who think he will get past top 10 and maybe even top 20. You are with the majority, including the draft experts, who think he is now top 10 and maybe even top 5. We will find out soon enough.

BTW, I hope WJ and I are right for obvious reasons and nothing to do with bragging rights. 

I’ve been wondering whether recruiters have a far better understanding of where certain draftees rank even among their competitive peers over any phantom draft experts. There are exceptions of course, and there are always the annual bolters and sliders.

As a consequence of this, Taylor and co may be quietly confident of Mac Andrew sliding to 17 and this maybe a small part of the reason for keeping Majak on the list. He could help Andrew assimilate and act as his mentor, on top of Majak’s own emergency backup qualities if required.

This is assuming that they are still looking at him and still rate him accordingly. If not, there will be plenty of other top end talent to choose from. Selecting for need or best available will be the conundrum given the great profile of our list.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Key Deefender

[Fat Tony 5,272]

The real key to winning an AFL flag is to have players which are outperforming their salaries. Grundy is a top 20 player in the competition but is paid like top 5 and has a negative value contract. Buddy is one of the greatest players ever but now has a negative value contract.

With free agency and player mobility being at an all time high, it makes less sense to take a skinny ruckman, particularly one which will take 3 years to become an AFL player and 8 years to reach his physical peak. Andrew might become one of the best players in the draft, but there is a decent chance that the club that drafts him is not the one that bares the fruit.

Look at Tim English for the Bulldogs. He is looking like one of the best players in his draft and might take the mantle off Max Gawn. (English has shown a lot more than Gawn did in his early years and is now being paid a decent wage on potential.) But he has been badly exposed in two finals campaigns and the Dogs have missed out on flags, in part, due to their ruck weakness.

Andrew strikes me as a poor investment for an early pick in the draft. He will take a long time to develop and then, if all goes well and he stays and his club and hits his peak, he would command a high wage.

That all said, it will only take one club to pick him inside the top 20 and we will miss out here.

[Whispering_Jack 30,674]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yeah and it's not about who's right and wrong.

Never is or was. It’s about having opinions and mine is that it’s not worth spending a first rounder on a speculative tall player who, according to my observation, is likely to take several years to develop into a decent footballer (if at all). 

[durango 2,023]

Sometimes you take a calculated risk but if GWS recruit Lobb and Andrew he will be a development player and when he is ready for AFL football he will be picked off like a lot of GWS players and now Hill wants after 30 games.

Hopefully the high performance team at GWS will not destroy Andrew in a haste to get him upto AFL standard a la Jeck Watts.

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

 

Yeah and it's not about who's right and wrong. I just think recruiters are putting more premium on talented ruckman more then we've seen before. 

We've seen how popular ruckman were in the mid season draft, but now even with the ruck merry go around thats been talked up in this year's draft period.

You look at the way the Gawn/Jackson worked. This would have opened a fair few recruiters eyes about the way this can work. Have a solid senior ruckman ruck for about 70-80% of the game with the younger apprentice spend majority up forward but also pinch hit that 20-30% during the game.

If it's GWS that are looking at Mac Andrew then they already have Pruess, Flynn and Briggs who are all solid enough at least to hold down the number one role for a few a years while Andrew developes under them. 

Spot on. And even before we did it this year the way the Saints are twice the team with Ryder and Marshall than without would’ve opened a lot of eyes. They get a full game of ruck quality but also get most of a game of a 200cm athletic long kick contest player who draws defenders away from Max King.

Coaches have been saying for years ‘we just need a contest and the ball bought to ground’ when talking about key forwards. Instead of drafting someone like Schache or Weid and hoping they’re tall, athletic and tough enough to give you those contests I think recruiters have switched priorities. Instead of a ruck in your forward line being a liability it’s now a priority to deal with intercept defenders

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

42 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

With free agency and player mobility being at an all time high, it makes less sense to take a skinny ruckman, particularly one which will take 3 years to become an AFL player and 8 years to reach his physical peak. Andrew might become one of the best players in the draft, but there is a decent chance that the club that drafts him is not the one that bares the fruit.

Look at Tim English for the Bulldogs. He is looking like one of the best players in his draft and might take the mantle off Max Gawn. (English has shown a lot more than Gawn did in his early years and is now being paid a decent wage on potential.) But he has been badly exposed in two finals campaigns and the Dogs have missed out on flags, in part, due to their ruck weakness.

Unless your club has serious retention issues I don’t think you can worry about a player leaving due to the role they play requiring more development time.

I also think you’re underrating how long a lot of small and medium players take. Yes they’re faster than talls, but for every Serong or Pickett there’s a Dyl Stephens or Sam Flanders. They might even play a lot of games early but not actually be contributing to winning. There’s mids who play early for the sake of it more than because they’re strong contributors. 

English is a handy ruck/forward, decent value for the pick, but just isn’t tough enough to be a full time ruck. The dogs issue is shockingly not investing in a proper number 1. If Stef Martin wasn’t 45 he’d have been right back in the centre square at any sign of English faltering. Sean Darcy and Sam Draper are far more promising number 1 rucks. 

[Bitter but optimistic 22,249]

I rarely comment on draft threads simply because I do not follow junior footy and have minimal knowledge of the players involved.

What interests me about this discussion is the player's size. Mac Andrew weighs 70kg. Charlie Spargo weighs 74 kg and Kozzie weighs 72 kg.

For Andrew to be a ruckman, he would need to add 25, or more likely 30 kg to his slender frame.

I would like someone on this board ( who has appropriate knowledge of physiology or something akin) to explain whether or not this is reasonably possible.

[monoccular 17,575]

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

……

The point I was making is that rucks not only rarely hold down the number 1 job before 22-24 but even if they can they probably shouldn’t. Any smart team drafting Mac in the top 15 believes they can get value out of him in the first 4-5 years without him being the first choice ruck.

Or having the luxury of him developing slowly in Casey VFL (assuming that the abomination of 2020&2021 is resolved) under the tutelage of Max (and Jacko) being ready to step up when Max steps down.  

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

One small advantage of having pick 17 (which will prob end up being 19), regardless of it being for our 2022 1st rounder, is that if MA happens to be available at that pick the club will likely have the ability use 19 on another draftee and match for MA with later picks

Edited October 9, 2021 by Stiff Arm