Jump to content

Featured Replies

 
5 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

Not against the idea as he'd still be a good marking option that generates scoring opportunities. No actual evidence he's looking to move clubs though.
I don't think he's exactly the type of marking forward we need though. We need a King brother/Mckay/Cameron type 200cm target that won't get outmarked and can reliably hit the scoreboard. Ben Brown doesn't have long left and is already struggling. We don't have another one on the list unless god forbid they plan to play Gawn forward close to 100% and hope for the best with his kicking!

Agree. 

The other factor is that MG is a similar size, and possibly role, as JVR.

That said, if he was gettable they'd have to seriously think about it.

I'd rather too many marking forwards than what we had in the back end of this year.

And really good talls of the type you mention are bloody thin on the ground.

Which is why a player like Lobb can command serious coin despite being so inconsistent - though I guess the fact he can ruck adds to his value.

Edited by binman

The other thing about Georgiades is you'd be paying for his potential more than the level he's at now.

He's got great hands, presents well, but often goes completely missing and can get the yips kicking at goal.

 

 
5 hours ago, Redleg said:

What, both of them?

why not

play them week on week and see which is the better forward pocket marker

(the joys of a hypothetical)

I do get a bit confused about the obsession with height for KPFs. Georgiades is listed at 192 which is the same as Curnow (who is 3cm shorter than Cripps). 


7 minutes ago, Kit Walker said:

I do get a bit confused about the obsession with height for KPFs. Georgiades is listed at 192 which is the same as Curnow (who is 3cm shorter than Cripps). 

Yep.Three pure goal kickers all at 192cm would do it. 

2 minutes ago, Webber said:

Yep.Three pure goal kickers all at 192cm would do it. 

At least we might be inclined then to stop the left forward pocket bomb as our our only method of scoring. 

We don't need overly tall forwards unless our game plan is to bomb it in. We just don't lead inside the 50 and resort to roosting it into the forward pocket. Instruct our forwards to lead. Our crumbers should be able to lock it in if it's missed from a lead or a big bomb. 

 

I haven't seen him in too many pack marking situations but he does have great hands. If available we should enquire.

17 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Who would you say is really gettable, this year or next? E.g. Naughton is not

Dunno. Good tall forwards are tough to find


Darling and Kennedy from the Eagles are 1.91m and 1.94m respectively, would be great to see us change up the forward strategy, still have the long-bomb target (McDonald/Brown) but with two lead-up style forwards in Fritsch and Georgiades. This setup would be less predictable and a tough match up for opponents. 

If we had JVR, Georgiades and Fritta we’d have a very dynamic trio. All similar height but each a very different style of player.

Paired with either of BB & T-Mac, that would be a quality setup.

Would also help to keep all of the above honest and put pressure on for game time

With Max and Grundy next year, and TMac and Ben Brown will play a fair amount of footy too, we're well set for the tall target inside 50 who won't be outmarked. Add Fritsch and JVR and we have a full complement of tall forwards over the next two years.

We need to be looking 3 years down the track to the 2025 season. Draft a KPF this year (my intuition is we're trying to move up the order to do so) and position ourselves for a big fish trade, e.g. Naughton, at the end of 2024  by freeing salary cap.

21 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Is he better option than a McKay or B King though?

Could Georgiadis be complementary to the above mentioned (if we can go for either next year)?

But we do need to go for what is available.

2 hours ago, Bers said:

Darling and Kennedy from the Eagles are 1.91m and 1.94m respectively, would be great to see us change up the forward strategy, still have the long-bomb target (McDonald/Brown) but with two lead-up style forwards in Fritsch and Georgiades. This setup would be less predictable and a tough match up for opponents. 

see below

2 hours ago, old55 said:

With Max and Grundy next year, and TMac and Ben Brown will play a fair amount of footy too, we're well set for the tall target inside 50 who won't be outmarked. Add Fritsch and JVR and we have a full complement of tall forwards over the next two years.

We need to be looking 3 years down the track to the 2025 season. Draft a KPF this year (my intuition is we're trying to move up the order to do so) and position ourselves for a big fish trade, e.g. Naughton, at the end of 2024  by freeing salary cap.

BBB is NOT a high pack marking forward and we should realise that by now - he is an excellent LEAD UP marking forward and generally a reliable set shot ....  we just need to change our delivery inside 50 play

20 minutes ago, monoccular said:

But we do need to go for what is available.

see below

BBB is NOT a high pack marking forward and we should realise that by now - he is an excellent LEAD UP marking forward and generally a reliable set shot ....  we just need to change our delivery inside 50 play

You might be waiting a while I think. I doubt we're going to change to attacking through the corridor to an open forward line.  I think we're doubling down on being stoppage based with the acquisition of Grundy.


3 hours ago, old55 said:

With Max and Grundy next year, and TMac and Ben Brown will play a fair amount of footy too, we're well set for the tall target inside 50 who won't be outmarked. Add Fritsch and JVR and we have a full complement of tall forwards over the next two years.

We need to be looking 3 years down the track to the 2025 season. Draft a KPF this year (my intuition is we're trying to move up the order to do so) and position ourselves for a big fish trade, e.g. Naughton, at the end of 2024  by freeing salary cap.

This doesn’t make sense. 2023 and 2024 will potentially be our best chances for flags in the next 5-10 years. The time is now, not 2025!

Also we cant plan on the basis that a) BB + TMac will be consistently fit    and/or     b) that their form warrants them being consistently picked to play. 
 

27 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

This doesn’t make sense. 2023 and 2024 will potentially be our best chances for flags in the next 5-10 years. The time is now, not 2025!

Also we cant plan on the basis that a) BB + TMac will be consistently fit    and/or     b) that their form warrants them being consistently picked to play. 
 

I agree the time is now and I think with the addition of Grundy, return of TMac and rise of JVR we're OK for tall forward targets over the next two years.

There's no better options currently on the market unless you want to offer McStay 6 years.

Ideally we'll draft a KPF prospect and line up a big FA or trade for 2025 so we can continue the Dynasty through to the end of the decade.

1 minute ago, old55 said:

I agree the time is now and I think with the addition of Grundy, return of TMac and rise of JVR we're OK for tall forward targets over the next two years.

There's no better options currently on the market unless you want to offer McStay 6 years.

Ideally we'll draft a KPF prospect and line up a big FA or trade for 2025 so we can continue the Dynasty through to the end of the decade.

Sorry I mis-understood. Yes, agree with what you are saying. 
 

Moved…

Edited by hardtack

On 9/30/2022 at 5:03 PM, Diamond_Jim said:

Prefer Naughton but I'd take the King twins

Of the King Twins wouldn't we all agree that their Max is a worse Kick for Goal than Our Max. He needs the BBB run up. 


10 hours ago, old55 said:

With Max and Grundy next year, and TMac and Ben Brown will play a fair amount of footy too, we're well set for the tall target inside 50 who won't be outmarked. Add Fritsch and JVR and we have a full complement of tall forwards over the next two years.

We need to be looking 3 years down the track to the 2025 season. Draft a KPF this year (my intuition is we're trying to move up the order to do so) and position ourselves for a big fish trade, e.g. Naughton, at the end of 2024  by freeing salary cap.

Yes, constructing a forward line with Gawn as FF makes this need for a tall forward mooter by the day. Gawn, Fritsch, TMac, Kozzie, and a mid rotation are locks for the 7 on game day IMO. I honestly don’t know if the ROI is there with available options to upgrade on JVR or Brown - fit next to Gawn the next few years is crucial. If it’s not an amazing forward, it might just clog us up.

And as boring as it sounds - what’s more important is our ball movement and pressure. We might be better off smaller…

Intriguing situation.

14 hours ago, Kit Walker said:

I do get a bit confused about the obsession with height for KPFs. Georgiades is listed at 192 which is the same as Curnow (who is 3cm shorter than Cripps). 

Agree.

It's not the cm size on paper, it's how they play. Curnow's a perfect example. Meanwhile Gawn's a good example in reverse - has all the height in the world, but just isn't a forward.

  • Whispering_Jack changed the title to Mitch Georgiades
  • 2 months later...
 
On 10/1/2022 at 9:48 PM, titan_uranus said:

Agree.

It's not the cm size on paper, it's how they play. Curnow's a perfect example. Meanwhile Gawn's a good example in reverse - has all the height in the world, but just isn't a forward.

Yeah ... size isn't everything ...

5 hours ago, Winners at last said:

Yeah ... size isn't everything ...

I remember long long ago some young damsel telling me something like 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

  • 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.

      • Like
    • 32 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?

      • Haha
      • Like
    • 241 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/

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 47 replies