Gator

Sure, but if Tom Lynch from Gold Coast was available do you think they'd fit him in ? Clearly, there's more than one way to win finals and maybe even a flag, but a quality key is still one of the first players I'd pick. With 18 teams and a diluted talent pool clubs have to adjust to perhaps not having one, but every club wants one and you're more likely to build a team that has 'sustained' success with one. When we challenge for a flag and hopefully win one I want a sustained period of success and multiple flags. A great key forward makes it more likely. And remember, the games evolves and while you may be able to get away with not having one now it doesn't mean you will in 3 years.

Speak for yourself.

I occasionally open this thread to read a "trade whisper". You get anything but. And yes, I've just added to the "but".

Geelong had Ottens as a terrific forward/ruck, as well as a quality key forward in Hawkins. Not to mention about 8 All Australians one year. That helps too, but less likely in an 18 team comp. Hawthorn had the Roughead and Franklin combo. How do you think that worked ? Roughead isn't a typical key forward in that he's more a one on one contested mark and great on the ground, but how many key defenders did he occupy ? Imagine being a great ground level player feeding off their spoils. How did Brisbane go with Lynch, Brown and Bradshaw ? It's silly to suggest you can't win a GF without a star key forward and it's sillier to suggest clubs wouldn't want one if there was one available. It's one thing trying to survive and thrive without one and another to devalue the importance of one. Just because Hawthorn won in 2015 without one doesn't suddenly make it desirable to not have one on your list. Do you think Clarko would have played one if he had one ? There's no doubt the game has changed and defensive pressure all over the ground has never been more important, but any club wants a contested marking, hard running, goal-kicking key tall. Which is why Nick Riewoldt is still causing havoc running around kicking 9 goals. Hogan's best is as a hard running aggressive CHF. And if you think a great one isn't worth their weight in gold we clearly see footy differently.

On the contrary, Jeremy Cameron highlighted the value of a quality key forward. If Cameron plays even a poor to average game they win. He plays an utter stinker (1 mark - no goals) and will have nightmares for 6 months. Great teams with a great key forward will give you the chance of a dynasty. Great teams with no great key forward 'may' sneak a flag. The Swans will have to have a mare next week for Dogs to get up.

I see a lot of posters state that Hogan is 20, he's not, he's 21. In fact, he turns 22 in February, which means he plays all of next year as a 22 year old. If you're going to quote his age you may as well be accurate.

So now Hogan is too short for a key forward ? FMD. People's brains must explode with some of their theories. What I can say is that no 200cm key forward has ever been a consistently dominant forward in the history of the game. Ever. That may change, but the next will be a pioneer (Salmon injured early). I think Hogan is going to be right for a while. If he's tall enough to be in the top 5 contested marks in the game, and we know he has footy smarts, then I suspect he's not the tweener you claim.

I understand your point, but disagree with it re Hogan. Quality power forwards are far less likely than the Jack Anthony's of this world to drop off. They have skillsets that set them apart. Btw, Hogan was a gun at 17 for Swan District's Colts. He got better and won Casey's B&F when he was 18 and the youngest player in the team. From 13 completed games. He got better again in his first year of AFL on his way to winning the Rising Star. And even for two thirds of this year his numbers were up before he dropped off. Apparently Tom Lynch can keep improving, but not Hogan, even though he'll get stronger, fitter and more experienced as he progresses. Hogan gets marked differently to many of his peers. Must be his body language. Hogan is a very good and smart field kick, but yes, needs to improve his goal-kicking and penetration. He can improve his technique. A lack of defensive pressure is the least of my concerns. You're right about Darling. I don't consider him a power forward, so our perceptions on players and positions vary. Anyway, enough. You won't change my mind nor me yours.

This guy... Carey was a CHF. How many CHF's in history regularly kick 60-80 goals ? Carey was a freak then and would be the best player in the game now. And more valuable than any mid.

Anthony, Darling and Membrey are not power forwards. It's best to compare like with like. They can't do what Hogan can do. Did they take 90 contested marks in their first 2 years ? In any 2 years ? If you're not a true power forward there's definitely more of a chance you'll get shut down, which is why they're a poor comparison. Cloke has had a very good career. He's a poor example, unless you have a poor memory of his prime years when he was very very good. Cameron is a gun, but a different player to Hogan. He rarely ventures out of his forward 50 and has an uncanny knack of manufacturing goals. Even on his poor days where he only touches it 6 times he'll find a way to kick 3 or 4 goals. He and Cloke are the only two worth comparing and both are/were exceptional players.

I will never take anything you ever say about football seriously again. Cheers, Bud.

In my view Lynch is a better mark and Hogan has more mobility. Does that mean I'm underselling Hogan's marking ability ? Of course not, he's top 5 in the competition. Just like me saying Hogan has a better ground level and hand-balling game doesn't mean I'm (necessarily) underselling Lynch. Or is that too nuanced for you ?

I agree that he has a more rounded game, but what has that got to do with "mobility" ? And quote where I'm "underselling" him.

Good God Ron. Referencing Tom Boyd's ruck skills ? They're ordinary. But at least they get him a game. Without them he's at Footscray. Lynch is a better grab ? Yes he is, but Hogan is in the best 5 marks in the competition. You know, out of nearly 800 players. WTF would you even go there. At the same age Hogan was a better mark. Lynch is more mobile ? Bullcrap. Hogan is more creative, faster and better at ground balls than Lynch. Hogan is a far superior handballer than Lynch. Hogan was also the better player at the same age. Check the goals kicked after the same games played. Some of you flogs don't deserve a talent like Hogan.

Something took my eye last night, but it wasn't Matt Eagles

Can't help. Not logged in.

No mate. Just a past student. One of my Brothers played in Xav's first ever A grade premiership team in 1981, but he's a Hawk's supporter (due to spending 3 years on their senior list). My only claim to fame is winning the individual (and pairs) golf day many years ago.

While I suspiciously haven't logged into this site since August 24 my Brother has never logged in, although he has been an almost daily reader since 2003. He is a bit of a luddite, but I'm sure he'd manage to navigate the sign up process. Truthfully, he has thought about joining over the past 13 years, but assures me he'd be banned in no time. It's fair to say he doesn't have a high opinion of some posters.

Probably the best place to put this... Paul Connors attended the Old Xav's Golf Day on Monday and was the after dinner guest speaker. My Brother attended. He manages 88 players and was happy to have a post-talk 'question and answer' time. At one stage he asked if there were any Melbourne supporters in the room ? It was his initiative and the only club he did it for. It's fair to say he was glowing at the prospects for the club over the next 5 years. He said they were "fantastic" and that supporters were going to have an immense amount of joy. He also said the players love Goodwin, that he'll be a great coach and that Roos was leaving at the "perfect" time. As I said, he brought Melbourne up. He doesn't manage Hogan, but nonetheless offered an opinion. He said "Hogan will stay at the Dees". Obviously it's just his opinion, but he was very confident in his delivery. Obviously it's a relatively small industry and player managers and officials regularly have talks, coffees, etc. He personally barracks for Richmond and said they're stuffed. He said Deledio is on $800K and the club wants to free up cap space so would off load him if they could. This is where the talk has come from. At his age with his recent soft tissue injuries that's easier said than done. He also said he thought O'Meara and Mitchell would get to the Hawks and that Hibberd would nominate Melbourne (he did the next day). No great revelations, but nice to hear...

Virtually every time I see De Goey kicking he butchers it. Why do you think he gets dtopped ? I'm happy to disagree on Brayshaw. He has lovely foot skills on both sides of his body. Obviously young players make mistakes as they get accustomed to the tempo of AFL footy. And yes, the same could be said of De Goey, but my eyes tell me Brayshaw is a vastly better skilled player. ButI have better things to do than argue about a fringe Collingwood player. I'll end up sounding like Stuie.

Is Stu trying his strong arm tactics again

Yes, he is worse than Brayshaw, who is very good despite some of the comments one sees here. Tyson can turn it over, but is a far more penetrating and damaging kick than De Goey. I agree re Harmes, who I don't have as best 22 going into next year (unless he improves his kicking). He's on a par with vandenBerg, but the latter plays a different role. And why bring up a key defender ? Compare like with like. Do you really want a player with McDonald's kicking skills running around your midfield ? Why on earth you'd bring up McDonald is beyond me. That said, he's a better kick than McDonald. De Goey is a poor kick under pressure. Very poor. We're building a midfield that renders De Goey unnecessary.

Can't kick.

I didn't read the wall of text you quoted, but I think Brereton may have been misquoted or understood. I heard him a bit over the weekend and he asserted that some teams need a key forward because of their structure and the way they play, while others, and he cited Melbourne at one point due to Hogan being the topic of discussion, don't overly rely on a key forward. He thought the way Melbourne played this year made Hogan expendable for the right trade. On the flip-side a team like West Coast rely heavily on Kennedy. He also said that Roughead was not a traditional key forward in that he rarely takes contested marks unless it's one on one. Imo, Hawthorn were cooked due to their appalling contested ball numbers, ageing stars, lack of at least one true key forward, and ordinary bottom 6 in their best 22. Footy is so fluid throughout a season let alone what happens over a 3 year period that to make concrete conclusions on player types like Hogan or Brown is silly. A player like Hogan, who has great endurance, aggression and contested marking ability will always be a commodity in high demand. I also think his ground level play and smarts is underestimated.