2 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

Been salivating over dropping that zinger in @adonski?

I've not been able to concentrate since 2:08pm today when I thought of it

2 hours ago, Matt said:

This is what I’ve thought is the best case scenario (not what I agree with, and hopefully I’m wrong). It would be better than using the Dogga picks imo. First rounder is what I was told, from the Pies end, and I posted it, quite a while ago, for those who remember. Still hope it’s a 2nd rounder though.

Next years Draft is a really good crop, i dont reckon we want to be trading out of the first round.. 

I don’t mind handing over a late 1st round pick as long as we get a 2nd round pick back. 

Getting Grundy rules out getting a developed/developing ruckman from another club in the foreseeable future.

The only developing ruckman we'd have at the club is Weid, and he would most likely seek opportunities elsewhere if he continues to develop. We'll probably rookie another younger ruckman, but with our 5 year commitment to Grundy, they'll want out as well.

Getting Grundy is such a short-sighted move.

8 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Getting Grundy is such a short-sighted move.

Short sighted? Yes. At least we’re looking like going all-in to chase another flag. It’s the only thing I like about this move.

2 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Short sighted? Yes. At least we’re looking like going all-in to chase another flag. It’s the only thing I like about this move.

We'd be stronger developing from within - and the recruits well-suited to our intended game plan and forward connection(s). We don't really need two physically tiring rucks; we do need potential, refreshments and outstanding coaching, the latter particularly on game day.

Aaron Sandilands played until he was 36.  He was still playing good footy at 32, but injuries effected his final years.

Dean Cox played until he was 33.

Shane Mumford played until he was 35.  Last good year 33.

Paddy Ryder played until he was 34 and looked like he could go again.

Todd Goldstein is playing good football at 34.  And is going again.

Ben McEvoy played until he was 33.  Last good year 32.

My point ?

Not many ruckman are AA at 24 like Cox and Gawn.  Most start playing their best footy from 25 onwards.  And plenty can be important contributors well into their 30s.

Grundy plays all of next year as a 29 year old.  For me that doesn't put him near the back end of his career, it puts him smack bang in the middle for a ruckman.  How many rucks reach their peak before the age of 26 ?  More-so 28+.

Our premiership window should be at least the next 4 years.  At the end of this period Grundy will be 32 and should still have some years left.  Subject to injury he should play at least 100 games.

You may not think Grundy will work, or you may wonder how it will work, but if he's injury free his age for our list demographic is not only fine, it's perfect.  The only proviso is his injury status.

So dismiss Grundy as a good trade target all you want - no problem - but stop using his age as an issue. 

From an age perspective, he's in the "window" at the exact time we are.

26 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Getting Grundy rules out getting a developed/developing ruckman from another club in the foreseeable future.

The only developing ruckman we'd have at the club is Weid, and he would most likely seek opportunities elsewhere if he continues to develop. We'll probably rookie another younger ruckman, but with our 5 year commitment to Grundy, they'll want out as well.

Getting Grundy is such a short-sighted move.

That’s exactly the point, we are in the window now.

1 hour ago, Demon3 said:

Next years Draft is a really good crop, i dont reckon we want to be trading out of the first round.. 

That may be the case, but we seem to trade back into the draft each year (and hope we don’t have two 1sts for Kozzy too)

How about this as an excuse. Goodwin says 'he suits our game plan'. But I worry that the aspect of our game plan that goodwin wants to continue is to bomb the ball long to a tall and hope they mark it. It's one of the most frustrating aspects of our game plan imo. Goodwins desire for Grundy shows that he wants to keep doing this into the future. I think we looked most damaging when we weren't bombing it to a tall. Grundy is a massive 'no' from me but it looks like it's going to happen. Prepare for gawn to spend alot of time forward. Big bombs in. Quick ball movement out. 

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Aaron Sandilands played until he was 36.  He was still playing good footy at 32, but injuries effected his final years.

Dean Cox played until he was 33.

Shane Mumford played until he was 35.  Last good year 33.

Paddy Ryder played until he was 34 and looked like he could go again.

Todd Goldstein is playing good football at 34.  And is going again.

Ben McEvoy played until he was 33.  Last good year 32.

My point ?

Not many ruckman are AA at 24 like Cox and Gawn.  Most start playing their best footy from 25 onwards.  And plenty can be important contributors well into their 30s.

Grundy plays all of next year as a 29 year old.  For me that doesn't put him near the back end of his career, it puts him smack bang in the middle for a ruckman.  How many rucks reach their peak before the age of 26 ?  More-so 28+.

Our premiership window should be at least the next 4 years.  At the end of this period Grundy will be 32 and should still have some years left.  Subject to injury he should play at least 100 games.

You may not think Grundy will work, or you may wonder how it will work, but if he's injury free his age for our list demographic is not only fine, it's perfect.  The only proviso is his injury status.

So dismiss Grundy as a good trade target all you want - no problem - but stop using his age as an issue. 

From an age perspective, he's in the "window" at the exact time we are.

So Sam Weidemann is just coming into that period of peak ability. He is in good shape and in my stupid little head the salary and picks we have to pay Grundy doesn't translate to much more productive output onfield. I don't get it.

I can only see this working with Grundy doing more ground coverage and more forward half ruckwork, and Gawn sitting behind the play when the ball's in our forward half and looming as an intercepter, which we know he excels at.

I don't agree that a first round pick is the right price if we're paying 50% or more of Grundy's contract, but I suspect the club doesn't care and sees a plan with Grundy that wins us another flag. 

4 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Max was beat up this year and it showed. Cox drove his knee into his back a dozen times on QB and I don't think Max ever got back to full fitness. He's 31 and with Grundy playing we'll have a chance to float one forward and one behind the ball. With our midfield we'll own clearances and stoppages. We need to sort out some dash and a rejig the forward line a little. Our game plan might bore you but it works really well. Can't see how we don't compete right at the pointy end next year. We actually have most of the pieces already at the club, just some tinkering required. 

Grundy does not, in my recollections, do much as a forward at Colonwood so why should we expect him to do so for us?  

3 hours ago, SFebes said:

Relying on an injury free Grundy and Gawn to kick goals with his uncoordinated style is a recipe for disaster IMO.

✔️
We need a string marking goal kicking forward  far more than we need Grundy, or for that matter Max as a forward. 

16 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I can only see this working with Grundy doing more ground coverage and more forward half ruckwork, and Gawn sitting behind the play when the ball's in our forward half and looming as an intercepter, which we know he excels at.

I don't agree that a first round pick is the right price if we're paying 50% or more of Grundy's contract, but I suspect the club doesn't care and sees a plan with Grundy that wins us another flag. 

Titan, that last little bit about the club not caring and having a plan for the next flag is spot on. IMO we need to stop bagging the prospects of Grundy playing and trust the back room fellas. If they think Grundy will improve us then that is good enough for me. In fact having 2 all Aussie rucks in the same side will do me fine. 

Grundy/Gawn will allow us to try Petty (and Max) up forward while being able to cover talls down back (while Turner comes in for Hibberd) for next few years. 

 

31 minutes ago, deespicable me said:

So Sam Weidemann is just coming into that period of peak ability. He is in good shape and in my stupid little head the salary and picks we have to pay Grundy doesn't translate to much more productive output onfield. I don't get it.

Anything I say about Grundy is done so under one important proviso, his body gets back to being 100% (or very close to it).

Grundy is twice AA and twice a Copeland Trophy winner.

He's 203cm to Weideman's 195cm.

How you can equate their onfield output as being anything remotely similar is not only beyond me, I find it extraordinary.

40 minutes ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Anything I say about Grundy is done so under one important proviso, his body gets back to being 100% (or very close to it).

Grundy is twice AA and twice a Copeland Trophy winner.

He's 203cm to Weideman's 195cm.

How you can equate their onfield output as being anything remotely similar is not only beyond me, I find it extraordinary.

Yes I think the issues are 1- the fitness angle is the area that the club will be putting a lot of its focus on.  Is his injury potentially an ongoing problem. Sure Grundy was AA and had great 2018 and 2019 and that’s attractive but 2022 saw him sit out most of the year. 2- how will he fit in? Neither Gawn nor Grundy naturally become “resting forwards” with both best suited to the Ruck.  Lots of upside if it works but high risk if we’re giving up a potential 1st round draft pick. Maybe lots of other things connected to the decision.  

1 hour ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Anything I say about Grundy is done so under one important proviso, his body gets back to being 100% (or very close to it).

Grundy is twice AA and twice a Copeland Trophy winner.

He's 203cm to Weideman's 195cm.

How you can equate their onfield output as being anything remotely similar is not only beyond me, I find it extraordinary.

Height doesn't mean he can outjump a shorter opponent. Actually it is all about how high a player can leap for a mark or tap out.For instance someone 195 might not be about to outjump/outmark etc a 190 cm one.

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

How about this as an excuse. Goodwin says 'he suits our game plan'. But I worry that the aspect of our game plan that goodwin wants to continue is to bomb the ball long to a tall and hope they mark it. It's one of the most frustrating aspects of our game plan imo. Goodwins desire for Grundy shows that he wants to keep doing this into the future. I think we looked most damaging when we weren't bombing it to a tall. Grundy is a massive 'no' from me but it looks like it's going to happen. Prepare for gawn to spend alot of time forward. Big bombs in. Quick ball movement out. 

Big bombs in - must stop. It destroys our strengths and is extremely uncertain. Predictability for our opponents must cease.

7 hours ago, PaulRB said:

Grundy/Gawn will allow us to try Petty (and Max) up forward while being able to cover talls down back (while Turner comes in for Hibberd) for next few years. 

 

Think Hibbo is a medium played tall and Turner is more of a tall and may not be able to handle the medium size Dusty's  of the world.

Have thought Turner may be able to give Petty the time  to go forward and join JVR and Tmac if he recovers his  fitness.

All ways around between JVR Tmac Pettyweshouldhave3goodbacks/forwards in the mix with our existing back champs and Turner Tommo Smith and possible forwards BBB in form plus Weid Gawny and Grundy with cameos.

An early pick in the draft of a forward and or back of 195cm plus as a 1/2 year project is also worthy of considering. 

Not too difficult ? 

in JT we trust.  Goody etc. have to be creative at selection 

11 hours ago, mo64 said:

Getting Grundy rules out getting a developed/developing ruckman from another club in the foreseeable future.

The only developing ruckman we'd have at the club is Weid, and he would most likely seek opportunities elsewhere if he continues to develop. We'll probably rookie another younger ruckman, but with our 5 year commitment to Grundy, they'll want out as well.

Getting Grundy is such a short-sighted move.

Why would a budding young ruckman want out or decline to be the understudy to two great ruckmen like Gawn and Grundy? We know that it takes years for young talls to develop and a great amount of patience is needed in their development. The Suns gave up pick 5 to get Mac Andrew as a 5 year project last year and to date, he has yet to even play in the ruck. 

Getting Grundy is a long sighted move in terms of the development of our future ruck strength and will help shore up that position in the short term with the departure of Jackson. 

13 hours ago, D4Life said:

If Gawn stood in the goalsquare with Pickett at his feet would be a nightmare to defend and Pickett can also keep defensive pressure. Max would draw two talls leaving the forward pocket with Brown, Van Rooyen having one less tall against them or Fritsch potentially one on one or free. Seems to create a lot more goal scoring options and could still set relatively good hold in pressure in forward line.  

Grundy is an elite ruckman, and at stage LJ is in his career, Grundy is a better player. Bigger, tougher, stronger and covers the field well, no slouch at following up in the ruck hitouts in the middle. For a few years the argument was Max or Grundy, if they can make work will be great.

I think Grundy will add years 1-2 to Max career and vice versa.

If one injured then a Weideman or Van Rooyen as a backup can work. 

 

 

One other element to this is Bedford and Chandler replacing Spargo and Melksham. Now that has serious " Do some Destroyation Damge" around the forward line. Get the drift?

11 hours ago, Hannibal Inc. said:

Aaron Sandilands played until he was 36.  He was still playing good footy at 32, but injuries effected his final years.

Dean Cox played until he was 33.

Shane Mumford played until he was 35.  Last good year 33.

Paddy Ryder played until he was 34 and looked like he could go again.

Todd Goldstein is playing good football at 34.  And is going again.

Ben McEvoy played until he was 33.  Last good year 32.

My point ?

Not many ruckman are AA at 24 like Cox and Gawn.  Most start playing their best footy from 25 onwards.  And plenty can be important contributors well into their 30s.

Grundy plays all of next year as a 29 year old.  For me that doesn't put him near the back end of his career, it puts him smack bang in the middle for a ruckman.  How many rucks reach their peak before the age of 26 ?  More-so 28+.

Our premiership window should be at least the next 4 years.  At the end of this period Grundy will be 32 and should still have some years left.  Subject to injury he should play at least 100 games.

You may not think Grundy will work, or you may wonder how it will work, but if he's injury free his age for our list demographic is not only fine, it's perfect.  The only proviso is his injury status.

So dismiss Grundy as a good trade target all you want - no problem - but stop using his age as an issue. 

From an age perspective, he's in the "window" at the exact time we are.

You can add Hickey to that list.

11 hours ago, Grouse said:

How about this as an excuse. Goodwin says 'he suits our game plan'. But I worry that the aspect of our game plan that goodwin wants to continue is to bomb the ball long to a tall and hope they mark it. It's one of the most frustrating aspects of our game plan imo. Goodwins desire for Grundy shows that he wants to keep doing this into the future. I think we looked most damaging when we weren't bombing it to a tall. Grundy is a massive 'no' from me but it looks like it's going to happen. Prepare for gawn to spend alot of time forward. Big bombs in. Quick ball movement out. 

No-one wants to be a Ross Lyon! Well I should hope not. 

We've got the basis of a good game plan but I'd like to think some things are altered. Game plans aren't usually simple can't shouldn't be summed up in a sentence. 

Hopefully we get some news today