3 minutes ago, Boots and all said:

...or having one of our forwards ruck and having Gawn and/or Grundy marking outside 50 for repeat entries.

Somehow I don't think the plan is each of them plays 50% game time and they're never on the ground at the same time..

Grundy when fit is a very good ruckman, and he's a better kick than Gawn. Going for players like this will only solidify our chances even more for premierships in years to come.  Our forward line will be fine. TMAC back and Van Rooyen will get games in next season. 

At least if we get Grundy that will give us choice of either forward pocket to bomb it long too.

 

You know, make us unpredictable.

2 hours ago, Steve13 said:

Everyone assumes that a 2nd ruck must play fwd. we looked significantly better last year with Gawn behind the ball. Just a thought on how 2AA quality rucks could work. 

I just can’t agree that is where footy is going. We have an amazing group of tall defenders and we want one of our ruckmen to sit with them? And where is the extra number coming from? The forward line. So that is then us playing a man short up front.

I want to embrace this, I just don’t see the benefit outside of Gawn insurance, and I think that is such a pathetic way to spend some of the draft capital we get from the LJ trade.

Maybe Max isn't up to being the 1st ruck over the next few years. Some media mentioned he's been playing with groin issues the last 10 weeks. Maybe match committee are thinking they have to re invent Max. 31yo, knee issues, 209cm, 111kgs

14 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I just can’t agree that is where footy is going. We have an amazing group of tall defenders and we want one of our ruckmen to sit with them? And where is the extra number coming from? The forward line. So that is then us playing a man short up front.

I want to embrace this, I just don’t see the benefit outside of Gawn insurance, and I think that is such a pathetic way to spend some of the draft capital we get from the LJ trade.

It’s more about the salary cap space and the fit when both are on the field IMO than the draft picks.

There’s no way Gawn or Grundy play in a 7 man defence. That would mean completely giving up on a forward half game.  

Doubles our kick out options. Tough ask for opp to nulify both Gawn and Grundy targets. 

30 minutes ago, Winter Dan said:

Doubles our kick out options. Tough ask for opp to nulify both Gawn and Grundy targets. 

Spoiling a mark is very easy when you know where the ball is going. No way Grundy and Gawn will be offering alternative targets.

Did you see it with Gawn and Jackson for example

Nonsensical trade. We need a quality forward.

7 hours ago, Winter Dan said:

Doubles our kick out options. Tough ask for opp to nulify both Gawn and Grundy targets. 

 

6 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Spoiling a mark is very easy when you know where the ball is going. No way Grundy and Gawn will be offering alternative targets.

Did you see it with Gawn and Jackson for example

Yes, they will be in the same flooded pack area to try to overwhelm in the air.

Getting excited that our Forward Pocket  (which is where a 2nd ruck spends most their time) will be competing for kick outs is baffling to me.

If they do this, they only way it makes sense is if we now consider Gawn more of a forward than ruck. Unprecedented surely for a AA ruck to be shunted off to the forward line. And he is a terrible shot for goal. 

I don’t understand this I’m sorry and certainly not for the mooted $700k and laughable first round pick.

On 8/10/2022 at 11:39 AM, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

I see it more as him doing most of the ruck whilst Gawn spend more time forward

Yes and Gawn has the capacity to kick lots of goals?

On 8/11/2022 at 10:03 AM, dazzledavey36 said:

I'm also confused by Goodwins presser yesterday.

He stated that they have been really happy with Gawns progress in the forward line and could see this as something that could be used more often down the track.

Checks notes and see that Gawn hasn't kicked a goal since round 12 against Sydney...

Goody is a funny bugger. ...

No he just looks dumb!

8 hours ago, Mincho Mania said:

Maybe Max isn't up to being the 1st ruck over the next few years. Some media mentioned he's been playing with groin issues the last 10 weeks. Maybe match committee are thinking they have to re invent Max. 31yo, knee issues, 209cm, 111kgs

Yeah, maybe this is the issue. Unfortunately, Brodie seems to have similar issues. Ultimately we all end up speculating with imperfect information in these matters.

10 hours ago, Mincho Mania said:

Maybe Max isn't up to being the 1st ruck over the next few years. Some media mentioned he's been playing with groin issues the last 10 weeks. Maybe match committee are thinking they have to re invent Max. 31yo, knee issues, 209cm, 111kgs

Agree. I can see the arguments for and against getting Grundy, but the FD seems committed to getting him and the most likely explanation is that Max is more banged up than we'd like.

I think the Jackson trade could drag on while Freo try to negotiate their other deals to set it up. I wouldn't mind getting the Grundy deal done early for our future first with Collingwood paying a 30% of Grundy's salary. 

Then we can concentrate on some other deals like trading up for Brisbane's first.

14 hours ago, Steve13 said:

Everyone assumes that a 2nd ruck must play fwd. we looked significantly better last year with Gawn behind the ball. Just a thought on how 2AA quality rucks could work. 

This is about the best post on this thread.

Max behind the ball frees up May, Lever and Petty significantly and brings their intercept into the game, as teams will need to avoid Max at all costs.

It could also mean we could afford to shift Petty forward and play Turner in his place.

If Grundy is fit, it could be a master stroke.

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by A F

Not sure about Max (or Grundy) behind the ball. 

I think that belongs in the 'it was a 2021 tactic' basket.  It worked in the first part of this year but when we played Geelong they did everything but kick it high into f50 or anywhere near where Max was. 

Other teams have followed that with varying degrees of success.  Not sure Max behind the ball is the same weapon in future that it was in 2021.

The new mantra to play against Melbourne:  keep the ball low into f50 where Melb struggle to defend.  Every team will try that tactic in 2023 so fixing that part of our defensive game will be a key for 2023 success.

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Not sure about Max (or Grundy) behind the ball. 

I think that belongs in the 'it was a 2021 tactic' basket.  It worked in the first part of this year but when we played Geelong they did everything but kick it high into f50 or anywhere near where Max was. 

Other teams have followed that with varying degrees of success.  Not sure Max behind the ball is the same weapon going forward that it was in 2021.

The new adage to play against Melbourne:  keep the ball low into f50 where Melb struggle to defend.  Every team will try that tactic in 2023 so fixing that part of our defensive game will be a key for 2023 success.

we were much better when ball came in low with Bowza playing as his positioning was so good. Still can't understand why he didn't play finals - was BOG for Casey.

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by chook fowler

1 hour ago, old55 said:

Agree. I can see the arguments for and against getting Grundy, but the FD seems committed to getting him and the most likely explanation is that Max is more banged up than we'd like.

I think the Jackson trade could drag on while Freo try to negotiate their other deals to set it up. I wouldn't mind getting the Grundy deal done early for our future first with Collingwood paying a 30% of Grundy's salary. 

Then we can concentrate on some other deals like trading up for Brisbane's first.

Yeah, it has to be the Max is nearly done. Such a shame. 

Now we have to try and fashion a forward line with Gawn in the square. BBB can’t play with that then. We will have to stop flooding back ANB and Spargo (or the people who play their roles) so deep as Gawn can’t be up that high and run back into space. I would actually prefer to not flood so far back from the forward line so that I will like. I hope it means more leading at the footy from JVR and Fritsch INSIDE the 50.

Gotta feel for Grundy, signed a long term deal and doesn't want to leave his club.  The Pies are looking after their stars on long term deals as usual!  they are not worth the paper they are written on

Grundy will have to wait until the LJ trade gets done which will last until the last couple of days of the trade period.  So he will not know where he is playing for weeks and weeks

5 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

we were much better when ball came in low with Bowza playing as his positioning was so good. Still can't understand why he didn't play finals - was BOG for Casey.

My theory on Bowey is he, understandably, ran our of puff and couldn't hold his ground against bigger bodies.  Geelong rag-dolled him.  He was dropped the next week. 

If my hunch is correct he will be bulked up a bit over the preseason.

I expect to see a bigger, stronger, better Bowey next year.

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

The set up of our defence will be just as interesting as our fwd line next season in my opinion. The elephant in the room might be Jake Lever if teams continue to play against us as they did, his season while interrupted was pretty poor, not a player in the competition relies more on the team playing the way Melbourne do and holding the opposition up. We didnt do that last half of the season.. he was rendered useless at times. 

In saying that,  i still think Grundy will be a good addition.

1 hour ago, old55 said:

Agree. I can see the arguments for and against getting Grundy, but the FD seems committed to getting him and the most likely explanation is that Max is more banged up than we'd like.

I think the Jackson trade could drag on while Freo try to negotiate their other deals to set it up. I wouldn't mind getting the Grundy deal done early for our future first with Collingwood paying a 30% of Grundy's salary. 

Then we can concentrate on some other deals like trading up for Brisbane's first.

I think you're right - and maybe Max also wants to prolong his career and playing with another ruckman is the only way.  With Trac and Clarry signing long term deals he prob wants to stay in the team as long as he can.

Re the strategy though, while it makes sense, isn't this making it a little easy for the pies.  They are a rival next year (not to mention beating us twice this year).  Grundy has barely played for them - is not in their finals side or the sides that beat us twice.  By paying 70% of Grundy's salary and locking that in, it allows them to go after players that will plug holes in a side that has already overtaken us.  Geelong and Port are (reportedly) out of the race for Grundy and the pies want to move him on to sign De Goey and bring in McStay/Hill and whoever else they're chasing.  What's the rush?  If the cap is so tight for them then we hold all the leverage.

Having said that, I feel like this is already a done deal with most of the details nutted out - it's just a matter of waiting for the pies season to finish / trade period to start to announce.

18 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

we were much better when ball came in low with Bowza playing as his positioning was so good. Still can't understand why he didn't play finals - was BOG for Casey.

Because Salem and others were 'untouchable'. One of the worst things this season was our coaching staff seemingly rewarding players down on form or hampered with injuries based on their 2021 output.

20 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Not sure about Max (or Grundy) behind the ball. 

I think that belongs in the 'it was a 2021 tactic' basket.  It worked in the first part of this year but when we played Geelong they did everything but kick it high into f50 or anywhere near where Max was. 

Other teams have followed that with varying degrees of success.  Not sure Max behind the ball is the same weapon in future that it was in 2021.

The new mantra to play against Melbourne:  keep the ball low into f50 where Melb struggle to defend.  Every team will try that tactic in 2023 so fixing that part of our defensive game will be a key for 2023 success.

I know that you're talking about this like it's a bad thing but I see it as the opposite. 

We are forcing teams that are used to playing a particular way, to play a way that's different to how they want to play. If we are forcing Geelong to kick the ball away from Hawkins and Cameron then that's a win. It also means that we are forcing shallower entries and slower entries, which helps us to counterattack more easily. 

What Max allows us to do is to troubleshoot. If we are dominating the defensive aerial contest or struggling up forward then we can swing him forward, and vice versa. Max has gravity - wherever he goes the opposition's focus will follow. By bringing in a big ruckman to bully the ruck contest it allows us to use Max to exploit his league leading asset .... his contested marking ability. 

9 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I know that you're talking about this like it's a bad thing but I see it as the opposite. 

We are forcing teams that are used to playing a particular way, to play a way that's different to how they want to play. If we are forcing Geelong to kick the ball away from Hawkins and Cameron then that's a win. It also means that we are forcing shallower entries and slower entries, which helps us to counterattack more easily. 

What Max allows us to do is to troubleshoot. If we are dominating the defensive aerial contest or struggling up forward then we can swing him forward, and vice versa. Max has gravity - wherever he goes the opposition's focus will follow. By bringing in a big ruckman to bully the ruck contest it allows us to use Max to exploit his league leading asset .... his contested marking ability. 

I didn't see much evidence of us counter attacking from the back half. I haven't got the stats in front of me, but I recall seeing that our scores from defensive rebounds was pretty low.