mo64

We've got forwards that can get separation, but we don't have a game plan that utilises them. Fritsch, Brown and Weid have displayed that they can get separation at times. I'm a huge critic of Weid, but his one strength is leading. Last week was the most disappointing loss of the season. I've never seen a game where one side totally obliterates the other in contested possession and clearances for a vast majority of the game, and lose. We should have been 10 goals up at the 10 min mark of the 3rd quarter. And it comes down to our one dimensional way of entering our forward 50. That fact that all our mids bomb the ball inside 50, even when they have space and time, suggests that it's a coaching directive. All season I've been hearing Goodwin and now Stafford say that we need to get better in that area, but I don't see any change in game plan. Even when we had Melksham one out against Darcy Moore, we still bombed it on his head. The fact that he didn't lead, again must have been a coaching directive. Bombing into 50 worked for part of the G/F, but we've become too predictable. We're not taking advantage of our midfield dominance, and it's not the forwards that are to blame.

We've canned the idea to get Grundy and will go with the equally talented Jake Spencer.

Kozzy was at training though, admittedly wrapped up like a mummy. But this would explain why Laurie was preferred to Chandler.

Players getting back to 100%? Are you crazy? Even the fit players are only at 75% optimal levels now. Haven't you been reading the loading thread?

McLean is a big body, and makes a contest. Weid would still be in the team if he could provide that. McLean is sitting behind Franklin, Reid, McDonald and Amartey as a tall forward. We've resorted to playing Melksham in a role to cover T Mac's absence. McLean has upside as a ruckman, whereas I could never envisage Weid playing as a pure ruckman at AFL level. Similar stats, different players.

McLean has kicked a goal in 7/8 games he's played this year. Averages close to a goal a game, and is still young and developing. A second ruck who gives us 25-30 goals a year would be invaluable. He's a big body who could give us a contest up forward, which is our game style. Only 23. A perfect fit IMO.

That's laughable. The Pies should be compensating us with a draft pick for alleviating their salary cap woes. They want Grundy out for for 2 good reasons. He's getting paid sh#tloads, and he doesn't help them win.

No.

Damn!!! I wanted to know how Mel and Steve have settled into Palazzo Del Dogga.

Correct. Max is the best ruckman in the game. So what percentage of game time does Max get as the number 1 ruck when Grundy plays? What differentiates Max to Grundy is his ability to take contested marks down back or in the forward line as a pure ruckman. Grundy is not a great contested mark. Max is also an excellent runner for his size, and can push forward or back from the contest, whereas Grundy gets from stoppage to stoppage. Max and Grundy are different players. Max is far more impactful. Why take the pre-eminent ruckman out of his best position for extended periods of the game?

The stats that Grundy accumulated under Buckley's coaching are irrelevant. For those who play Fantasy Football know that Grundy was awarded "Pig Status", an honour that's been bestowed on very few. Tom Mitchell and Tom Rockliff also received this accolade. All 3 would rack up meaningless stats win, lose or draw. Under Buckley, the Pies played a high possession game. Under McRae they play a more daring game. Grundy is excess to their needs. The only way we should be taking on a large part of his contract is if the Pies give us a 1st or 2nd rd pick. Something similar to the Will Brodie Suns/Dockers trade. If the Pies can't move Grundy's contract, they'll struggle to keep DeGoey or recruit some of their targets. I don't see why we should be giving the Pies a leg up.

For starters, the Pies aren't paying part of $700k, they're paying part of $1m+. And in 3 years time, if things don't work out for either player at their new club, Jackson would still have massive trade currency, whilst Grundy will be worth zilch. If Grundy had 2 years to run, by all means give it a shot. 5 years is a ridiculous contract to take on.

2 Premiership players (Nankervis and Lycett) who were involved in 4 out of the last 5 premierships. Your point is irrelevant.

Is Grundy better than Darcy Cameron and Mason Cox? On paper the obvious answer is yes, but the reality is that the Pies are performing better without Grundy. Cameron and Cox are far better forwards than Grundy, which makes the tandem work.

You don't know how Grundy is going to come up post injuries. It's a huge risk giving anyone at his age a 5 year deal, let alone a player coming off consecutive long term injuries. If either Grundy or Max were proven forwards, it maybe worth a punt, but they're not.

We'd have Grundy for 5 years on good money. Why not get the Meek/Flynn now, plus drafting a rookie ruckman.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Here's a list of the current no.1 ruckman, who were acquired by their club either by trade or delisted free agency. And note that they weren't the no.1 ruckman at their previous club. It goes to show that there are lesser rucks at clubs who can become no.1 ruck at a new club. Ryder and McEvoy are the exception, as they were no.1 at their previously club. Collingwood: Cameron (since Grundy has been injured) Carlton: Pittonet Swans: Hickey Geelong: Stanley GWS: Preuss Richmond: Nankervis Port Ade: Lycett Gold Coast: Witts

If loading is the issue, then we need to refer it to @binman. He'll be able to give us a diagnosis.

Disagree. Grundy and Jackson are totally different. Jackson has the ability to get space and be an outlet at clearances, through his athleticism. He's also miles better at ground level. In ruck contests, Jackson relies on his leap, whereas Grundy relies on his strength and size. Neither have proven themselves to be great contested marks. Jackson still has time on his side to change that. Grundy was a high possession getter at Collingwood under Buckley, because of how indirect they played. He'd often be on the end of a sideways chip pass. Once Buckley was sacked, his stats dropped. The Pies would be rapt to get him off their books, even if they're paying part of his salary. I can't project how good Jackson will become, but it will be completely different type of player to AA Grundy.

I'm questioning the notion of getting a player who's just suffered his second consecutive serious injury, and is on a guaranteed 5 year contract. Add to that, both Max and Grundy have been no.1 ruckman at their club, and neither are proven forwards. So yes, I am questioning the wisdom of our FD.

No-one said he's injury prone, but having a PCL followed by stress fractures to the ankle isn't great for a big bloke.

He hasn't been a premier ruckman for 2 years, and now has a series of injuries.

I'm a bacon and eggs man. Does that tell you something?

He's on massive coin, so regardless of the dump, we're still paying him at least $700k for 5 years.

Good get @goodwindees Still staggered by this move, regardless of what draft pick we give up. Grundy has basically missed a whole season and is no spring chicken. Neither he or Gawn can play forward. We'll see how it pans out.