Retirements, Trades, Delistings and the Rookie list

[G-Mo77]

Yes he should and plus he can still play a bit!

Still has currency in the open market as well. I don't think anything will happen but I'd be certainly listening to what is on offer.

[Eastdog]

Still has currency in the open market as well. I don't think anything will happen but I'd be certainly listening to what is on offer.

What if we decided to trade Ayce Cordy. Who could we get for him.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

What if we decided to trade Ayce Cordy. Who could we get for him.

Based on his performances this year I doubt if there would be a lot of interest in Cordy.

[Eastdog]

Based on his performances this year I doubt if there would be a lot of interest in Cordy.

Agree. He doesn't have too much value. Who could we potentially though and get a quality player in return.

[soupman]

Agree. He doesn't have too much value. Who could we potentially though and get a quality player in return.

I assume that you are asking who we could trade for a qulaity player in return.

The answer to that is a quality player or a high draft pick. You can't get quality players for nothing in a trade scenario, you only stand a chance if they are out of contract and eligible for free agency.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Djerrkura, Grant, Hooper, Moles, Mulligan, Sherman, Veszpremi need to go IMO.

Skinner i would keep on as i can see potential.

DJ is a shame as he has endeavour but he has been in the system too long now without effect. Same goes for Vez. Delist.

Grant and Sherman are tricky as they have so much potential but again have been around long enough with ample opportunity to improve and they both have barely improved. Possible trade bait here.

The rest are no-brainers.

Thats 7 candidates with the added possibility of Hill and Panos but i think we should continue with them due to our lack of a decent forward target.

Add the retirements of Gilbee and Hargrave and that is potentially 9 players to turnover. Thats a lot. But with our recent success with the rookie draft and the number of quality draft picks we have this year i think its a godd opporunity to rid the deadwood and finalise a quality list.

[LostDoggy]

Brian Lake is one of the player from the more experienced that should stay on to guide the younger players.

Be good to see Lake and a fit Morris get back to working well together.

[Maddog37]

Is it silly to say that Brian was able to become the great player he was because he had Dale Morris to support him?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Is it silly to say that Brian was able to become the great player he was because he had Dale Morris to support him?

Quite the opposite. Its spot on.

We all know Morris is our best defender and that Lake is not the best when playing 1-on-1. Lake is best utilised when playing off his man.

[soupman]

Djerrkura, Grant, Hooper, Moles, Mulligan, Sherman, Veszpremi need to go IMO.

Skinner i would keep on as i can see potential.
.

Why does Skinner stay on because of potential and Grant gets cut? Grant has more realistic potential and has shown much much more than any of the players listed above (excluding Sherman). Skinner however is yet to show an ability to do anything, and I mean anything anywhere near AFL level and he is retained? I don't get it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Why does Skinner stay on because of potential and Grant gets cut? Grant has more realistic potential and has shown much much more than any of the players listed above (excluding Sherman). Skinner however is yet to show an ability to do anything, and I mean anything anywhere near AFL level and he is retained? I don't get it.

Most don't realise that Skinner is older than Grant

[bornadog]

Most don't realise that Skinner is older than Grant

yes by 9 days:D

[Ghost Dog]

Most don't realise that Skinner is older than Grant

Why not try Grant as a midfielder? Toughen him up a bit?

[LostDoggy]

Why not try Grant as a midfielder? Toughen him up a bit?

Why not try him as a forward.

[ledge]

Maybe throw him on a wing give him some freedom he would go ok I think.

[Ghost Dog]

I'm quite serious about the Midfield. Recently, I started doing laboring work and cleaning, only because I had to. Actually I discovered that I was good at it. Of course it's not sustainable but you can learn things. Sometimes if you put people out of their comfort zone, they learn something about themselves. I'd like to see what would happen.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Why does Skinner stay on because of potential and Grant gets cut? Grant has more realistic potential and has shown much much more than any of the players listed above (excluding Sherman). Skinner however is yet to show an ability to do anything, and I mean anything anywhere near AFL level and he is retained? I don't get it.

mostly because Grant has had 2 more years in the system. i have barely seen any improvement from him at all. He has had almost 50 games to show some improvement. We all know he has the ability but if you cant increase your effort after 50 games i doubt it will happen. As opposed to Skinner who has had 6 games, with probably half as a sub, and you are ready to write him off? I'm not saying Skinner will definately amount to something but you have to give him a chance. Grant has had those chances.

[bornadog]

Why not try him as a forward.

Now there is an idea:D

[EasternWest]

Why not try Grant as a midfielder? Toughen him up a bit?

I'm ok with that. But I'd like to see him rotated forward also.

[Ghost Dog]

At least one person in here is crazy enough to agree!
He will end up a forward. But maybe he takes a bit too much for Grant-ed...get it? tish boom

[Greystache]

Maybe throw him on a wing give him some freedom he would go ok I think.

He's played on the wing a few times recently for Williamstown.

[Sockeye Salmon]

mostly because Grant has had 2 more years in the system. i have barely seen any improvement from him at all. He has had almost 50 games to show some improvement. We all know he has the ability but if you cant increase your effort after 50 games i doubt it will happen. As opposed to Skinner who has had 6 games, with probably half as a sub, and you are ready to write him off? I'm not saying Skinner will definately amount to something but you have to give him a chance. Grant has had those chances.

That is the most blatant example of the 20 game rule I think I've seen.

By your logic I should get a game because I've played even less than Skinner.


There is a reason that at the same age Grant has played 50 games and Skinner 6 - it's because Grant has ability and Skinner doesn't. Skinner has never deserved a single one of his 6 games and it sickens me to see our jumper handed out like that.

Skinner is the worst player to don our jumper since Nick Bruton and I include James Mulligan in that. He should be the first one delisted.

[LongWait]

That is the most blatant example of the 20 game rule I think I've seen.

By your logic I should get a game because I've played even less than Skinner.


There is a reason that at the same age Grant has played 50 games and Skinner 6 - it's because Grant has ability and Skinner doesn't. Skinner has never deserved a single one of his 6 games and it sickens me to see our jumper handed out like that.

Skinner is the worst player to don our jumper since Nick Bruton and I include James Mulligan in that. He should be the first one delisted.

I'll bet that Skinner is not at the top of the clubs 'delist' list. My money is on him still being on either the main list or the rookie list next year. Mulligan is gone already.

[soupman]

mostly because Grant has had 2 more years in the system. i have barely seen any improvement from him at all. He has had almost 50 games to show some improvement. We all know he has the ability but if you cant increase your effort after 50 games i doubt it will happen. As opposed to Skinner who has had 6 games, with probably half as a sub, and you are ready to write him off? I'm not saying Skinner will definately amount to something but you have to give him a chance. Grant has had those chances.

You're questioning me writing off Skinner, and yet you are happy to write off Grant?

Can you give me an example of anything Skinner does to AFL level? Grant however dissaponting he may have been this year, has been so because he clearly has the talent and has shown the ability to perform in the ones before. We only have to look
Back to the game against Gold Coast to see a match that he didn't just contribute in, but even influenced the result.

Sure Grant has had chances, but it's around the 70 game mark that players tend to really kick on, abd Grabt is one player that not only can do so, but is the exact type we need to kick on. If we cut him I will be incredibly frustrated with the club, and even more so if Skinner stays in his place.

[Ghost Dog]

You're questioning me writing off Skinner, and yet you are happy to write off Grant?

Can you give me an example of anything Skinner does to AFL level? Grant however dissaponting he may have been this year, has been so because he clearly has the talent and has shown the ability to perform in the ones before. We only have to look
Back to the game against Gold Coast to see a match that he didn't just contribute in, but even influenced the result.

Sure Grant has had chances, but it's around the 70 game mark that players tend to really kick on, abd Grabt is one player that not only can do so, but is the exact type we need to kick on. If we cut him I will be incredibly frustrated with the club, and even more so if Skinner stays in his place.

It's pretty hard to compare players as much as we love to. But the main point is, a player gets his turn.
Neither player really has the tackling capacity that we need, that ability to harry and harrass within the fwd50. Weak tackles, not what we need.

[w3design]

Why not try him as a forward.

Why not try him on a hook at the end of a line?
Has all the talent in the world, but has displayed none of the mental side required to be a class or reliable AFL player. How many years can he live off "potential" without delivering?
Sadly appears to be yet another Everitt/Sherman, all the potential, and none of the performance.
Worth an extra 2nd round draft pick?

[BulldogBelle]

Lets be realistic, I can't see the club turning over the volume of players that some posters on here think.

Gilbee
Hargrave
Hooper
Mulligan
Moles

That's 5 and thats all we need to cut to take our allocated picks in the draft.
Have I missed something or do we need to cut more guys to fulfill any league rules, or are people calling for turning over 9+ players just because....

[azabob]

Lets be realistic, I can't see the club turning over the volume of players that some posters on here think.

Gilbee
Hargrave
Hooper
Mulligan
Moles

That's 5 and thats all we need to cut to take our allocated picks in the draft.
Have I missed something or do we need to cut more guys to fulfill any league rules, or are people calling for turning over 9+ players just because....

I tend to agree that the club won't turn over 9 odd players, but they perhaps should.

DJ isn't on your list but he seriously is not up to standard, why hang onto him?

We also may be upgrading potentially 3-4 rookies plus (rightly or wrongly) we have to have at least 3 picks in the draft (5,6 & we activated the Sam Reid compo pick) so once you do the sums we may well have to delist closer to 9 than 5.

[LostDoggy]

Anyone else see the tweet from AFL Offseason about Murph being a big part of trade week? Sources have said he will cross to a club that will play finals. Better be BS or I'll be very pissed off

[BulldogBelle]

I was under the impression that DJ got a 3 yr contract when he came to the club, hence why he isn't on my list.
Otherwise, he should be cut. His skills below his knees are pretty woeful!

[azabob]

I was under the impression that DJ got a 3 yr contract when he came to the club, hence why he isn't on my list.
Otherwise, he should be cut. His skills below his knees are pretty woeful!

Was on this board as being 3 years for quite sometime, but in an interview this year he said he only got a 2 year deal.

[GVGjr]

Lets be realistic, I can't see the club turning over the volume of players that some posters on here think.

Gilbee
Hargrave
Hooper
Mulligan
Moles

That's 5 and thats all we need to cut to take our allocated picks in the draft.
Have I missed something or do we need to cut more guys to fulfill any league rules, or are people calling for turning over 9+ players just because....

I hope we didn't activate picks so we could fill them with rookies.

I think the flaw a lot of people have when they look at the playing is list that they just want to delist players they don't think will make it.

Given the potential retirees over the next 2 years will include the likes of Giansiracusa, Cross, Murphy, Morris, Cooney and Lake I think we have to cut deeper than what you are suggesting.

I'd add Djerrkura, Veszpremi and Skinner and probably upgrade Campbell, Austin and Johannisen. Panos and Sherman will survive because I believe they are both contracted next season

[Sockeye Salmon]

Lets be realistic, I can't see the club turning over the volume of players that some posters on here think.

Gilbee
Hargrave
Hooper
Mulligan
Moles

That's 5 and thats all we need to cut to take our allocated picks in the draft.
Have I missed something or do we need to cut more guys to fulfill any league rules, or are people calling for turning over 9+ players just because....

Not interested in upgrading any rookies?

Don't think Johannisen or Campbell might get a gig for instance?

[Mofra]

Gilbee
Hargrave
Hooper
Mulligan
Moles

That's 5 and thats all we need to cut to take our allocated picks in the draft.
Have I missed something or do we need to cut more guys to fulfill any league rules, or are people calling for turning over 9+ players just because....
We have stated we want to use 5 picks in the top 50, so add rookie upgrades and we will need to cull (or trade out) more than 5 players.

B-Mac's had a look at the list this year, now he gets the chance to start to shape it.

[LostDoggy]

Has anyone heard the Murphy rumors?

[azabob]

Has anyone heard the Murphy rumors?

I haven't. I can't imagine they would be true.

We need to keep all the experience we can around the club.

[LostDoggy]

I haven't. I can't imagine they would be true.

We need to keep all the experience we can around the club.

Yeah we do and from what I can tell, Bobby is as loyal as they come and loves the club

[bornadog]

Has anyone heard the Murphy rumors?

Tell us more?

[LostDoggy]

Tell us more?

Saw a tweet from AFL offseason claiming that Murph will play big part in trade week. Wants to move to a club that will play finals to finish career on a high. The tweeter claims that he's an "AFL" fanatic so I don't think it's a media person. Hopefully just another BS rumor

[BulldogBelle]

Given the heart felt speech he gave at the hall of fame night about what it meant to be a bulldog, I would think this is just baseless speculation

[Max469]

Saw a tweet from AFL offseason claiming that Murph will play big part in trade week. Wants to move to a club that will play finals to finish career on a high. The tweeter claims that he's an "AFL" fanatic so I don't think it's a media person. Hopefully just another BS rumor

His name is Robert Murphy NOT Nathan Brown.

Can't imagine it would be true.

Someone just stirring up trouble. Well they can just bugger off.

Murph's words:

There's also the simple logic of acknowledging just how bloody special it is to play league football, especially for a club as proud as the Bulldogs.

[Remi Moses]

Lets be realistic, I can't see the club turning over the volume of players that some posters on here think.

Gilbee
Hargrave
Hooper
Mulligan
Moles

That's 5 and thats all we need to cut to take our allocated picks in the draft.
Have I missed something or do we need to cut more guys to fulfill any league rules, or are people calling for turning over 9+ players just because....

Before trade period I'd hazard to guess we'll have 6 picks at least.
Got the five you've mentioned plus DJ and Skinner, question mark on Panos.
Throw Sherman in as well! Could be 9 delistings

[LostDoggy]

I think some posters are looking at Skinner through a different prism. Clearly the MC are playing him to fast track his development even though he is not ready. The best way to improve his ability to cope with the tempo of the game, to learn how to lead and where to run, how to position himself and to learn what defenders do is to PLAY HIM in blocks of games.

If we look at Skinner throughout the prism of a development continuum and not through a judgemental one of where he is at now, we can arrive at a different conclusion about him.

Of course he is poor in many areas but that is not what this is about. It's about what he learns each week and whether he can implement any of it the next week.

Against Richmond I saw him lead more than he has before…and get in front…and get free kicks. Against the Swans he took a strong contested mark in the forward line. Each one of these represents small steps in his development.

I will be disappointed if the club move him on as it would mean we are looking at players as to how they are performing now and not how we can develop them. Nevertheless I can understand the club saying that there are better opportunities out there to develop…….and we need to go after the best available. But that is not an exact science is it?

I'd give him another preseason and then evaluate if the progress he has made is sufficient for an AFL footballer.

[Ghost Dog]

I think some posters are looking at Skinner through a different prism. Clearly the MC are playing him to fast track his development even though he is not ready. The best way to improve his ability to cope with the tempo of the game, to learn how to lead and where to run, how to position himself and to learn what defenders do is to PLAY HIM in blocks of games.

If we look at Skinner throughout the prism of a development continuum and not through a judgemental one of where he is at now, we can arrive at a different conclusion about him.

Of course he is poor in many areas but that is not what this is about. It's about what he learns each week and whether he can implement any of it the next week.

Against Richmond I saw him lead more than he has before…and get in front…and get free kicks. Against the Swans he took a strong contested mark in the forward line. Each one of these represents small steps in his development.

I will be disappointed if the club move him on as it would mean we are looking at players as to how they are performing now and not how we can develop them. Nevertheless I can understand the club saying that there are better opportunities out there to develop…….and we need to go after the best available. But that is not an exact science is it?

I'd give him another preseason and then evaluate if the progress he has made is sufficient for an AFL footballer.

Some good points. In general, you would think the MC are playing people it intends to strongly consider keeping next season. Would they really play anyone who wasn't hitting their performance targets?

[stefoid]

They are also playing Djekurra and gave Hooper a game as well.

List spots are valuable commodities and fringe players and rookies need to be upgraded when they show they can play, or dropped quickly so the next promising lad can have his chance.

I reckon if you had a firm policy turning firnge players and rookies over quickly if they fail to show anything, you will find more genuine players overall, even though you will miss a few due to pulling the trigger too early.

Skinner has shown basically no improvement in two years - hes a little stronger, a little fitter and just as clueless. Time to give someone else a chance.

[Ghost Dog]

They are also playing Djekurra and gave Hooper a game as well.

List spots are valuable commodities and fringe players and rookies need to be upgraded when they show they can play, or dropped quickly so the next promising lad can have his chance.

I reckon if you had a firm policy turning firnge players and rookies over quickly if they fail to show anything, you will find more genuine players overall, even though you will miss a few due to pulling the trigger too early.

Skinner has shown basically no improvement in two years - hes a little stronger, a little fitter and just as clueless. Time to give someone else a chance.

If he hadn't shown improvement, he wouldn't be in the team. As soon as he stops improving, he will be dropped. I'm dead sure the people at the club are pretty serious about fielding the best players possible. We saw this with Grant. He was dropped like a hot potato and sent back to the gym. I'm dead certain they will drop Skinner just as fast if he slacks off.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

If he hadn't shown improvement, he wouldn't be in the team. As soon as he stops improving, he will be dropped. I'm dead sure the people at the club are pretty serious about fielding the best players possible. We saw this with Grant. He was dropped like a hot potato and sent back to the gym. I'm dead certain they will drop Skinner just as fast if he slacks off.

exactly. im certain the MC have a fair idea of what is going on.

[always right]

If he hadn't shown improvement, he wouldn't be in the team. As soon as he stops improving, he will be dropped. I'm dead sure the people at the club are pretty serious about fielding the best players possible. We saw this with Grant. He was dropped like a hot potato and sent back to the gym. I'm dead certain they will drop Skinner just as fast if he slacks off.

On this basis is doesn't matter if you play crap as long as it is marginally less crappy than the previous week.

I'm hoping the MC have simply said.....let's play him in the seniors where he has good players around him and see if he shows anything. On what I have seen the last three weeks, he has very little to work with.

[LongWait]

I think some posters are looking at Skinner through a different prism. Clearly the MC are playing him to fast track his development even though he is not ready. The best way to improve his ability to cope with the tempo of the game, to learn how to lead and where to run, how to position himself and to learn what defenders do is to PLAY HIM in blocks of games.

If we look at Skinner throughout the prism of a development continuum and not through a judgemental one of where he is at now, we can arrive at a different conclusion about him.

Of course he is poor in many areas but that is not what this is about. It's about what he learns each week and whether he can implement any of it the next week.

Against Richmond I saw him lead more than he has before…and get in front…and get free kicks. Against the Swans he took a strong contested mark in the forward line. Each one of these represents small steps in his development.

I will be disappointed if the club move him on as it would mean we are looking at players as to how they are performing now and not how we can develop them. Nevertheless I can understand the club saying that there are better opportunities out there to develop…….and we need to go after the best available. But that is not an exact science is it?

I'd give him another preseason and then evaluate if the progress he has made is sufficient for an AFL footballer.

Agree with your views here Metal: I think that the MC look at Skinner's upside potential and are prepared to give him every chance to develop.

Players with Skinner's potential (there's that dirty word again) are rare commodities and should not be discarded lightly. Team selection and list management are not dictated solely by the current performance levels of players.

[Ghost Dog]

On this basis is doesn't matter if you play crap as long as it is marginally less crappy than the previous week.

I'm hoping the MC have simply said.....let's play him in the seniors where he has good players around him and see if he shows anything. On what I have seen the last three weeks, he has very little to work with.

As long as he's not going backwards. But then again, you are 'always right'

[always right]

Agree with your views here Metal: I think that the MC look at Skinner's upside potential and are prepared to give him every chance to develop.

Players with Skinner's potential (there's that dirty word again) are rare commodities and should not be discarded lightly. Team selection and list management are not dictated solely by the current performance levels of players.

What actually is his potential? What attributes do you think he has...apart from his ability to jump?

From what I've seen so far;
1. he isn't quick
2. he doesn't have great stamina
3. he isn't strong
4. he isn't a strong overhead mark
5. he doesn't have a penetrating kick
6. he isn't particularly agressive

I concede that he can fix 2 and 3 through hard work. I reckon he is starting off from a very low base in regard to the rest.

Don't get me wrong.....I want him to succeed. I just don't see what others seem to see. What attributes does he have that make him a better prospect than say Tom Hill who has yet to be given an opportunity?

[OLD SCRAGGer]

Have also heard a rumour that Brett Mongomery is on the way out & Cameron Mooney is coming in as replacement. I'd be happy if that is true !!

[Mofra]

From what I've seen so far;
1. he isn't quick
2. he doesn't have great stamina
3. he isn't strong
4. he isn't a strong overhead mark
5. he doesn't have a penetrating kick
6. he isn't particularly agressive

I concede that he can fix 2 and 3 through hard work. I reckon he is starting off from a very low base in regard to the rest.
I'll bite simply because Skinner is an interesting player to discuss:

1. He's quick for his height and seems fairly agile
2. Agree - he can improve but it will never be a strength
3. Fixable
4. He has woeful hands*
5. Given time on the left he can load up - under pressure is another kettle of fish
6. Agree

* Is the reason why I think he will struggle. He's dropped some sodas at AFL level and his ball handling under pressure is not good. At the top level where a fraction of a second in handling the ball can make a huge difference under pressure it is a massive concern.

He will get most of the way there, but for mine he needs to demnonstrate an ability to mark and handle the ball under pressure before we really factor him into our long term plans.

[always right]

As long as he's not going backwards. But then again, you are 'always right'

It's an annoying user name isn't it? It was more designed for the Big Footy forum.

[azabob]

Have also heard a rumour that Brett Mongomery is on the way out & Cameron Mooney is coming in as replacement. I'd be happy if that is true !!

Interesting, I never thought much of Mooney until he started (and still is) doing special comments on ABC radio.

Before he retired they interviewed him and it was very late in the season and it was just when Hawkins was starting to find form and become Geelong's number one tall target, and the commentry team were feeling sorry for Mooney and asking him are you sad that you won't get back in the team due to Hawkins form?

His response made me nearly fall of my chair, basically he said no way in hell, I couldn't be prouder and happier for Hawkins. We have been working closely and hard together to try and bring his game to the next level.

His repsone was genuine, you couldn't fake it.

Can he coach? No idea!

[bornadog]

Interesting, I never thought much of Mooney until he started (and still is) doing special comments on ABC radio.

Before he retired they interviewed him and it was very late in the season and it was just when Hawkins was starting to find form and become Geelong's number one tall target, and the commentry team were feeling sorry for Mooney and asking him are you sad that you won't get back in the team due to Hawkins form?

His response made me nearly fall of my chair, basically he said no way in hell, I couldn't be prouder and happier for Hawkins. We have been working closely and hard together to try and bring his game to the next level.

His repsone was genuine, you couldn't fake it.

Can he coach? No idea!

Another mate of the coach:D

[Ghost Dog]

It's an annoying user name isn't it? It was more designed for the Big Footy forum.

haha Nah, I like it. It encapsulates the egocentric football male poster perfectly! ( myself included from time to time! )

[Desipura]

Speaking of the coach, a person I know who has worked at the club for a long time absolutely loves BMac as a coach, cannot speak highly enough of him.

[azabob]

Another mate of the coach:D

It is a fine line isn't?

It can be seen as jobs for the boys, but on the other hand if you feel they are the best people (we can affoard) for the job why not hire them.

[bornadog]

It is a fine line isn't?

It can be seen as jobs for the boys, but on the other hand if you feel they are the best people (we can affoard) for the job why not hire them.

I still feel we need a really good experienced senior assistant, especially to help out on match day.

[ledge]

I still feel we need a really good experienced senior assistant, especially to help out on match day.

Gary Ayres?

[LostDoggy]

Gary Ayres?

100-1.
A younger ex senior afl coach to be 2ic to McCartney?

[EasternWest]

100-1.
A younger ex senior afl coach to be 2ic to McCartney?

You got any suggestions then Chops?

I'd agree that Ayres would be a long shot, but he does tick a lot of boxes.

[azabob]

I still feel we need a really good experienced senior assistant, especially to help out on match day.

Would be a good idea, two issues I see in our ability to pay and who could do that role?

EasternWest suggested Ayres, I suggest he'd be on a bit of coin.

Wallace would be good, but I get the feeling he may be hard to trust.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Skinner's case is an interesting one. A lot of commentators 'rate' him and speak of his potential quite highly. Dermott Brereton has praised Skinner on two occasions; once, in the pre-season, and the other when we played in Darwin. Whilst watching the Richmond game, I recall Commetti saying something along the lines of "once it clicks for him, he'll be a very damaging player". Likewise, Bruce has shared similar sentiments.

Personally, I just don't see the appeal outside of a few flashy moves. Does he have talent? Yes, but it seems to suit suburban football moreso than AFL football. His hands are really poor and his endurance is still very average. Additionally, he isn't a clever player in terms of knowing when/where to run.

If he was on Collingwood's list, then perhaps they could afford to gamble on 'developing' him but I am not so sure we are afforded the same luxury. With where our list is at, we need to cut deep this year and next. At best, I think he may get another year, but how much further can he improve? It's not as though he's an 18 year old kid.

Perhaps the rookie list would be an option.

[EasternWest]

Would be a good idea, two issues I see in our ability to pay and who could do that role?

EasternWest suggested Ayres, I suggest he'd be on a bit of coin.

Wallace would be good, but I get the feeling he may be hard to trust.

I didn't suggest Ayres. I was replying to Chops to see if he had a suggestion.

The more I think about Ayres though, the more his credentials stack up.

I know nothing about him as a guy though, so I don't know if he'd be suitable or even interested.

[ledge]

I mentioned Ayres because he has experience , still coaches at a decent level successfully and seems to have a good footy brain for game day. Just a name I thought of straight away.

[LostDoggy]

Why would an ex senior coach that's any good want to be an assistant?
It's a step down.
If he was any good he'd go for a senior role itself or a football managers role.

Besides that our structure is wrong. We have football manager with that's been in the afl for a while but has little coaching and no playing experience. Under him we have a first year coach with no afl playing experience.
We want to slot someone in underneath them on a struggling clubs wage that out qualifies both?

[azabob]

I mentioned Ayres because he has experience , still coaches at a decent level successfully and seems to have a good footy brain for game day. Just a name I thought of straight away.

Apologies EasternWest and Ledge!

[EasternWest]

Why would an ex senior coach that's any good want to be an assistant?
It's a step down.
If he was any good he'd go for a senior role itself or a football managers role.

Besides that our structure is wrong. We have football manager with that's been in the afl for a while but has little coaching and no playing experience. Under him we have a first year coach with no afl playing experience.
We want to slot someone in underneath them on a struggling clubs wage that out qualifies both?

So do you have a suggestion?


Apologies EasternWest and Ledge!

No sweat.

[LostDoggy]

So do you have a suggestion?

No idea really, just with the current structure it makes it difficult to get an experienced assistant.

[EasternWest]

No idea really, just with the current structure it makes it difficult to get an experienced assistant.

Fair enough. You make a few compelling points as to why Ayres wouldn't do it.

[stefoid]

On skinner: Its not only the question of 'will he make it?' Although I do think the answer to that is eventually...no. but even if it was eventually....yes. how long is that? next year? doutbful. the year after? every year that goes by is a year another kid could be on the list and showing significant improvement quickly, as the good ones tend to do.

Like, take this Tom Lee guy. Has been in the system before, 194cm, quick, good hands, kicking bags of goals in the WAFL. Two years younger than skinner at just 21. Wouldnt mind him on the list.

Sure Skinner doesnt have to come off to get Tom Lee on, but there are others out there, Im sure - guys like Dickson who just needed a chance and it will become evident very quickly whether they can play or not. What about this guy from the mug leagues who has kicked 500 goals a season for the last three years? Worth a shot as a 23yo rookie?

Mulligan was given a list spot because he was a 'project' who, although he hadnt shown anything, was big and athletic. Can you believe he has been on the list for 3 years? Because of that someone else who may have kicked on didnt get a chance, even if it would have been as a rookie.

No more projects!

[kruder]

Did anyone see Sam May's from GCS performance on the weekend? Not sure if he would have been on anyones radar before that but gee he was impressive. It was only one game but he looked like he wanted the ball in his hands unlike our young forwards who seem mentally shot.

If Kurt goes to Brisbane rather than GCS then Day would be staying at the suns hence there maybe some scope. For me Grant, Jones and maybe even Minson are tradable commodities along with the second round pic and it would be nice to add another promising young player on top of the first round selections.

Caddy might be too similar to what we already have but we need to be scoping both new franchise teams for talent. Savage from Hawthorn still can't get a full game and If he doesn't play finals again then he would be on my radar as well.

[Go_Dogs]

I'm very much in the camp of Skinner getting one more year. I'm not convinced he deserves it based on output, but based on his development and scope for improvement I think he's worth persevering with. We need players who can kick goals, and if Skinner can be good for a couple each week and continue to improve his motor he should become a solid player.

[always right]

I'm very much in the camp of Skinner getting one more year. I'm not convinced he deserves it based on output, but based on his development and scope for improvement I think he's worth persevering with. We need players who can kick goals, and if Skinner can be good for a couple each week and continue to improve his motor he should become a solid player.

But is his scope for improvement greater than others on our list? Where will that improvement come from and why?

[Ghost Dog]

Did anyone see Sam May's from GCS performance on the weekend? Not sure if he would have been on anyones radar before that but gee he was impressive. It was only one game but he looked like he wanted the ball in his hands unlike our young forwards who seem mentally shot.

If Kurt goes to Brisbane rather than GCS then Day would be staying at the suns hence there maybe some scope. For me Grant, Jones and maybe even Minson are tradable commodities along with the second round pic and it would be nice to add another promising young player on top of the first round selections.

Caddy might be too similar to what we already have but we need to be scoping both new franchise teams for talent. Savage from Hawthorn still can't get a full game and If he doesn't play finals again then he would be on my radar as well.

What exactly are your thoughts on trading Minson? He's doing well in the team at the moment.

[stefoid]

I think the consensus is that Minno is a free agent, may be entertaining offers from GWS and that we would get band 3 (2nd round) or 4 (end of 2nd round) compo from the AFL if he did go as a free agent, and that such picks must be used the same year they are given, i.e. in the upcoming draft.

So with minno: a) its out of our hands and b) wouldnt be the worst thing in the world if we had an extra 2nd rounder (pick 28 ish) in this years draft

If anyone knows for sure, please correct.

[stefoid]

But is his scope for improvement greater than others on our list? Where will that improvement come from and why?

He could learn to mark the ball and kick goals which would put him ahead of most of our taller forwards :p

But how likely is that?

[westdog54]

Why would an ex senior coach that's any good want to be an assistant?
It's a step down.
If he was any good he'd go for a senior role itself or a football managers role.

Besides that our structure is wrong. We have football manager with that's been in the afl for a while but has little coaching and no playing experience. Under him we have a first year coach with no afl playing experience.
We want to slot someone in underneath them on a struggling clubs wage that out qualifies both?

On the first point, I don't think that going to a Senior Assistant's role in the AFL is a step down from coaching in the VFL. He's taken the step down already.

Secondly, would Ayres want a Football manager's role? We could do worse than throw it out there.

[jeemak]

On the first point, I don't think that going to a Senior Assistant's role in the AFL is a step down from coaching in the VFL. He's taken the step down already.

Secondly, would Ayres want a Football manager's role? We could do worse than throw it out there.

You make a good point in the first instance, in that I think a first assistant role at an AFL club is a higher position than a senior coach at VFL level, and a football person like Ayers or similar would recognise that, and might even take it if money wasn't their main concern.

Not sure about your second point though. We might think Fantasia is flawed in many ways, though I haven't seen any evidence that Ayres would do a better job.

[LostDoggy]

On the first point, I don't think that going to a Senior Assistant's role in the AFL is a step down from coaching in the VFL. He's taken the step down already.

Secondly, would Ayres want a Football manager's role? We could do worse than throw it out there.

It's a step down for someone that been an afl senior coach before.

Maybe Ayres would make a good Football Manager. Problem is we have one there already and will it work with McCartney? I understand if we had a young inexperienced coach willing to take advice but we have an old inexperienced coach.

[Go_Dogs]

But is his scope for improvement greater than others on our list? Where will that improvement come from and why?

Not sure it's greater than others, the thing about Skinner though is if he does make it, he offers a big point of difference to some of our other players with his potential skill set. He's still miles off at the moment and he's no certainty to still be on the list next year.

That being said, he's been training in a professional environment for not quite 2 years. He still needs to get fitter so he can offer more repeat leads and defensive efforts for a whole game. I saw some slight improvement in this area in his last game. He also needs to get better at knowing when and where to run, which should improve with time too. He hasn't yet shown his aerial marking ability at AFL level, but it is something he possess.

I think it's time that he needs, time on the track and time learning how to play his role.

The question will ultimately be, how confident are we that he can make these improvements, and if we are confident he can, do we think we could get a better/more likely to make it player with another late draft pick this year?

Maybe I'm blinded by wanting to see him make it, but there are others I'd move on first so I'd like him to have another year.

[jeemak]

I would have hoped for a little more from Skinner due to his age, though it's undeniable he's come from such a long way back that he's probably not that far behind now than where he might have been in the best case anyway.

[Hotdog60]

It's a step down for someone that been an afl senior coach before.

Maybe Ayres would make a good Football Manager. Problem is we have one there already and will it work with McCartney? I understand if we had a young inexperienced coach willing to take advice but we have an old inexperienced coach.

Would it be worth while to consider Coco Royal back to the kennel, he may tell us to get stuffed but he does have a lot of experience and has been away from the club for awhile.

[westdog54]

It's a step down for someone that been an afl senior coach before.

Maybe Ayres would make a good Football Manager. Problem is we have one there already and will it work with McCartney? I understand if we had a young inexperienced coach willing to take advice but we have an old inexperienced coach.

He has been a senior coach, I acknowledge that, but would a senior assistants job not be a step forward from where he is now?

As for Mccartney, I don't think he'd shy away from his inexperience if it was felt higher up that he'd benefit from some extra help.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

You make a good point in the first instance, in that I think a first assistant role at an AFL club is a higher position than a senior coach at VFL level, and a football person like Ayers or similar would recognise that, and might even take it if money wasn't their main concern.

Not sure about your second point though. We might think Fantasia is flawed in many ways, though I haven't seen any evidence that Ayres would do a better job.

We could do a lot worse than to engage Gary Ayres in a 2IC Assistant Coach to McCartney. We do have an inexperienced MC and the experience of Ayres would greatly assist the football department which through lack of finances has lacked football know how compared to the greater resources available to the more successful clubs.

[bornadog]

We could do a lot worse than to engage Gary Ayres in a 2IC Assistant Coach to McCartney. We do have an inexperienced MC and the experience of Ayres would greatly assist the football department which through lack of finances has lacked football know how compared to the greater resources available to the more successful clubs.

It would be the same role Rocket and Bomber are doing now and could be a good choice. Malthouse would be ideal, but I doubt we would have the cash or he would want to do it.

[1eyedog]

We could do a lot worse than to engage Gary Ayres in a 2IC Assistant Coach to McCartney. We do have an inexperienced MC and the experience of Ayres would greatly assist the football department which through lack of finances has lacked football know how compared to the greater resources available to the more successful clubs.

I'm not sure how well Ayres is led. He is a bit of an alpha male is Ayres. He was earmarked for assistant roles when he went to the Boroughs but chose to run his own show.

[jeemak]

I'm not sure how well Ayres is led. He is a bit of an alpha male is Ayres. He was earmarked for assistant roles when he went to the Boroughs but chose to run his own show.

He's said he has aspirations towards fulfilling a senior role again at AFL level, but the reality is he's been out of the system for a long time since being a senior AFL coach, and he is now at a successful second tier club that is independent from the AFL system. I don't think it would be a stretch to suggest he's not going to be a ready made football manager, or senior assistant for that matter.

If I was going to suggest anyone that is recently experienced in AFL football from a senior coaching perspective that might be suitable I'd be realistic enough to table guys like Dean Laidley and Mark Harvey.

However, I actually don't think we need anyone to supplement our current match committee and coaching staff. Just as the list of players they have at their disposal has to learn a lot, they do as well, and I'd prefer to see them given free reign over the club for the next year or so and develop our list how they want to and learn together.

[LostDoggy]

Wallace would be good,

Aye?
Terry Wallace?

[Ghost Dog]

I'm getting a bit nervous because of how little we are getting from the senior blokes at the moment ( in terms of skill level - Griff aside ) . Would it be worth elevating anyone to the leadership group?

[LostDoggy]

I'm getting a bit nervous because of how little we are getting from the senior blokes at the moment. Would it be worth elevating anyone to the leadership group? An out an out workhorse on the track and someone who gives consitency on the field. Young or old, don't care.

Is this another Picken captain thing GD?
But this time you want us to say it?

[Ghost Dog]

Is this another Picken captain thing GD?
But this time you want us to say it?

No wasn't at all. You read that wrong. Just opening it up for debate.
I know some other clubs have some young players in their leadership groups.
And before you say it, I think Boyd is the right captain at the moment, hence my Avatar.

[GVGjr]

I'm getting a bit nervous because of how little we are getting from the senior blokes at the moment ( in terms of skill level - Griff aside ) . Would it be worth elevating anyone to the leadership group?

So a leader must have a high skill level? I don't think the two are linked.
I think there is an argument to be had that says a leader must provide some inspiration (on and off the field) but I'm not sure skill levels would be a huge consideration.

Do we have any highly skilled players that could also provide strong leadership?

[Bulldog Joe]

So a leader must have a high skill level? I don't think the two are linked.
I think there is an argument to be had that says a leader must provide some inspiration (on and off the field) but I'm not sure skill levels would be a huge consideration.

Do we have any highly skilled players that could also provide strong leadership?

Really is one of the problems. We do lack on field leadership and I don't see it in Boyd. He also struggles with the media side of things. Murphy would be a better option in my view.

Their is some potential in the younger group and having been at events and listened to Wallis and Roughead, I found them to be articulate young men.

Medium term I believe Higgins is the only real option to replace Boyd, given that Murphy is also close to retirement.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I firmly believe Murphy should be captain.

[SlimPickens]

I firmly believe Murphy should be captain.

Disagree Murph has been very ordinary this year. Now more than ever he needs to focus on his football.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Murph has been pretty solid until the last couple of weeks.
I think he should be captain as he seems to be..........
A. The heart and soul of the club.
B. The public face/spokesman for the club.
C. He is an inspiring, constructive player who plays with dash, flair and skill.

Watch all the boring kneekerks come out and say his disposal has been poor the last few weeks.
I know it has.......ho hum.

[Greystache]

Disagree Murph has been very ordinary this year. Now more than ever he needs to focus on his football.

Agreed. Another poor season next year may have Murphy considering his long term future, not the ideal situation for a first year captain. The last thing we would want is a Brad Green scenario.

[LostDoggy]

Very short sighted, Murphy has probably a year left to play.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I don't think Boyd fits the bill given how much he hurts the side through his disposal and his lack of media skill, but let's be honest, until somebody like Wallis is ready, he'll stay captain.

I didn't like Higgins as a leader last year -- all he did was point -- and I think we'd all rather he concentrate on his body/footy first.

[Rocco Jones]

Cannot believe the lack of love for Bobby's season.

He is a massive victim of expectation. Say he gets 17 disposals and his opponent gets 12 and doesn't kick a goal, people will see that as a poor game from Bobby.

Due to the massive limitations of our team, Bob has made to be our primary small defensive stopper AND creative player. Bob is pigeon holed as a rebounding/creative defender and it seems like most fans just ignore what their opponents do, which is the reason I believe Bob's 2012 season has been underrated. Having a look at the last 7 games, his main opponent from each game total for just 1 goal overall (late goal from Milne). That's an amazing effort. Yes he may only get 17 or so touches but he absolutely blankets his opponent most weeks. It's an enormous sacrifice for most sides to play a guy on him who will get say 10 touches and 0 goals. It's not Bobby, it's everyone else around him! (bar Lake).

[azabob]

Wallace would be good, but I get the feeling he may be hard to trust.




Aye?
Terry Wallace?

Yeah Terry Wallace, but as I said in my post you quoted, he'd most likely be hard to trust, but you left that bit out.

All in all Wallace had a great footy brain and at the time was at the forefront of the game.

[LostDoggy]

Yeah Terry Wallace, but as I said in my post you quoted, he'd most likely be hard to trust, but you left that bit out.

All in all Wallace had a great footy brain and at the time was at the forefront of the game.

Because the hard to trust quote is obvious. The part that concerned me was the "Wallace would be good" part.
Forget trust, why would you want him back? He basically took a shit on our club. The players would not want a bar of him so how the hell would he "be good"?

[stefoid]

Murph doesnt play a hugely contested game so barring the onset f serial soft tissue injuries (which can happen) I see no reason why he cant continue to play into his 30s.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Very short sighted, Murphy has probably a year left to play.

OK. Captain for a year then.

[Ghost Dog]

So a leader must have a high skill level? I don't think the two are linked.
I think there is an argument to be had that says a leader must provide some inspiration (on and off the field) but I'm not sure skill levels would be a huge consideration.

Do we have any highly skilled players that could also provide strong leadership?

No. Not at all. but a leadership group should have a variety of player types. And at least one game breaker, to be respected. I think Luke Dahlhaus, for a club that has had a miserable year, for us to hang laurels around such a young player, and trumpet on about his ability, milk him for all the press we can get about him, then why shouldn't he be a part of the leadership group in a year or two? Why is nobody gushing over his efforts like they are Wallis? or is the romance with Wallis' blood line too strong?
Name another young player who has returned a better investment for us in the past 10 years as Luke Dahlhaus? has given us his all this season.

[GVGjr]

No. Not at all. but a leadership group should have a variety of player types. And at least one game breaker, to be respected. I think Luke Dahlhaus, for a club that has had a miserable year, for us to hang laurels around such a young player, and trumpet on about his ability, milk him for all the press we can get about him, then why shouldn't he be a part of the leadership group in a year or two? Why is nobody gushing over his efforts like they are Wallis? or is the romance with Wallis' blood line too strong?
Name another young player who has returned a better investment for us in the past 10 years as Luke Dahlhaus? has given us his all this season.

So you really mean young and exciting not skilled?
I don't think our younger group are there yet in terms of being leaders at the club in fact I think the club might need to focus on helping them in becoming good young men rather than trying to develop them as leaders right at this moment. As good as Dahlhaus is as a footballer I don't think he is ready to be a leader and I'd say the same about Wallis.

Another 12 months should tell the story if any of our younger guys have what it takes to become leaders at the club. Two seasons at the club isn't sufficient to make that call in my opinion.

[azabob]

No. Not at all. but a leadership group should have a variety of player types. And at least one game breaker, to be respected. I think Luke Dahlhaus, for a club that has had a miserable year, for us to hang laurels around such a young player, and trumpet on about his ability, milk him for all the press we can get about him, then why shouldn't he be a part of the leadership group in a year or two? Why is nobody gushing over his efforts like they are Wallis? or is the romance with Wallis' blood line too strong?
Name another young player who has returned a better investment for us in the past 10 years as Luke Dahlhaus? has given us his all this season.

GD, you make some good points. Not sure you putting a throw away line about Wallis and his bloodlines is necessary. I think you should edit your comment.

[bornadog]

Another 12 months should tell the story if any of our younger guys have what it takes to become leaders at the club. Two seasons at the club isn't sufficient to make that call in my opinion.

Agree with all you say GVGjr, and I say it will take even a longer period. These guys are only 19/20 years old and won't start maturing for awhile yet.

In my opinion, the only other guy that is young and could be captain, right now is Higgins. The rest of the players are now getting too old, ie Gia, Murphy. As per the other thread on the captain, end of 2013 we should be deciding then.

[Ghost Dog]

GD, you make some good points. Not sure you putting a throw away line about Wallis and his bloodlines is necessary. I think you should edit your comment.

I'll explain further. It's no slight on Wallis. More to the point on here some have already pencilled him in as captain. His father is a champion and that adds some emotion to the equation. But Dahlhaus and the others are just as equally, Bulldogs through and through. Enormous respect for Wallis. As I do for Luke and Clay Smith, who have really given themselves 100% this season. I mean no disrespect to Mitch.

Other clubs like GWS and Melbourne have gone the step of putting very young blokes into the leadership group.
Selwood is captain, for example, of Geelong at the age of 24. Would our club ever have the gravitas to ever do something like this?

Is it possible to face change, something new, like putting a younger player into the leadership group, not because they are young, but as they are ready for it? Or will we auto cancel any young player, regardless of leadership ability?

[Ghost Dog]

So you really mean young and exciting not skilled?
I don't think our younger group are there yet in terms of being leaders at the club in fact I think the club might need to focus on helping them in becoming good young men rather than trying to develop them as leaders right at this moment. As good as Dahlhaus is as a footballer I don't think he is ready to be a leader and I'd say the same about Wallis.

Another 12 months should tell the story if any of our younger guys have what it takes to become leaders at the club. Two seasons at the club isn't sufficient to make that call in my opinion.

No. I mean, like Selwood at Geelong.. If the situation came up, ( not now, but in the future ) do we have the gravitas to promote a player based on attitude and disregard youth?
In regard to Luke GVG, in fairness to myself, did I not say in a year or two?

[Hotdog60]

I'll explain further. It's no slight on Wallis. More to the point on here some have already pencilled him in as captain. His father is a champion and that adds some emotion to the equation. But Dahlhaus and the others are just as equally, Bulldogs through and through. Enormous respect for Wallis. As I do for Luke and Clay Smith, who have really given themselves 100% this season. I mean no disrespect to Mitch.

Other clubs like GWS and Melbourne have gone the step of putting very young blokes into the leadership group.
Selwood is captain, for example, of Geelong at the age of 24. Would our club ever have the gravitas to ever do something like this?

Is it possible to face change, something new, like putting a younger player into the leadership group, not because they are young, but as they are ready for it? Or will we auto cancel any young player, regardless of leadership ability?

That might be more out of necessity than design. One team has a few senior players and the other got rid of theirs.;)

[GVGjr]

In regard to Luke GVG, in fairness to myself, did I not say in a year or two?

It was more around the initial comment of skills being a requirement that threw me.
All of our youngsters need to a) establish themselves as senior footballers and b) demonstrate good behaviors on and off the field before coming in consideration.

The reason why so many see Wallis as a potential leader is because he's been a captain and a leader throughout his junior football and he is impressive with the microphone in his hand.
Good qualities for a leader but we know there is more to it than that.

Time will tell if Dahlhaus and other youngsters at the club have what it takes.

[Ghost Dog]

It was more around the initial comment of skills being a requirement that threw me.
All of our youngsters need to a) establish themselves as senior footballers and b) demonstrate good behaviors on and off the field before coming in consideration.

The reason why so many see Wallis as a potential leader is because he's been a captain and a leader throughout his junior football and he is impressive with the microphone in his hand.
Good qualities for a leader but we know there is more to it than that.

Time will tell if Dahlhaus and other youngsters at the club have what it takes.

Yes I see. Granted. Nick Maxwell, Tom Harley, here we are talking about captains.
But Collingwood, in their leadership group, do have some pretty inspirational players. Geelong also. Where are ours? Murphy, Gia, Cooney; Their time has almost past.
In terms of Wallis, Clay Smith and others are equally impressive, and my point is, he could be getting carry over points because of his Dad. Time will tell, is all I am saying.

[Ghost Dog]

That might be more out of necessity than design. One team has a few senior players and the other got rid of theirs.;)

Right. But young players relate to young leaders. No doubt about it.

[Dog54]

Does anyone think if we can get farren ray for nothing we bring him back to the club. We are missing players desperately in this age group and I think he has been harshly treated by the saints this year.

[Mofra]

I'm guessing that I'd be in the minority that say for the right price, absolutely yes

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

So you really mean young and exciting not skilled?
I don't think our younger group are there yet in terms of being leaders at the club in fact I think the club might need to focus on helping them in becoming good young men rather than trying to develop them as leaders right at this moment. As good as Dahlhaus is as a footballer I don't think he is ready to be a leader and I'd say the same about Wallis.

Another 12 months should tell the story if any of our younger guys have what it takes to become leaders at the club. Two seasons at the club isn't sufficient to make that call in my opinion.

Here here GVGjr. I cannot believe the strong push to replace Boyd who under duress has been quite exceptional this year to be by far our most consistent performer. Boyd is tough and rarely misses a game. It is not hard to understand why BMcC has such a strong opinion of Boyd.

[FrediKanoute]

Just looking at some of the fringe guys,

Djkerra - he really is bi-polar. His good is pretty good, but his bad is awful. For me he would be someone I would delist. You want a player who brings a consistent level to the game each week and his fumbling at key times is costly.

Howard - I can't work this guy out, but the more I see him he is not a backman. Looked ok across half forward today in probably his best game. His big problem is lack of awareness and the fact he panics. Worth another season, but you I would be expecting significant improvement as a winger half-forward.

Grant - in 40mins of footy he kicked 3 from limited disposals. He is a forward and a natural forward who knows where the goals are. Better than any of his contemporaries is his ability to find space and run to the right places. Big preseason for Grant, but definitely a keeper.

Jong - gem. This guy just knows where to be, where to run and is not afraid to put his body on the line. Rookie list elevation for me.

Marcovic - worth another season, but borderline. Much will depend on how Morris pulls up and how Austin comes along.

Skipper - I want to find positives to say this guy should stay on the list. He was anonymous for the fist half today. Came into it in the second, but I query whether its enough. The one thing he has in his favour is that he is classic tall/short. I think because he is a forward he is a chance to stay, but he is borderline for me.

Talia - solid defender and definitely worth keeping. Will come along next year and hopefully take the place of Shaggy.

Austin - for me hasn't done enough to get elevated, but is worth keeping on the rookie list.

Campbell - another who has shown glimpses, but not enough for a permanent elevation. Really needs to build his tank so he can get to more contests. Also struggles to hold marks in AFL. Worth perservering with.


Hooper - gone

Mulligan - gone

Panos - you have to think that he is gone. I can't comment as I haven't seen him play other than in pre-season where I though he looked ok.

Hill - same as Panos.

[GVGjr]

You mean Skinner don't you Fredi?

[Ghost Dog]

Here here GVGjr. I cannot believe the strong push to replace Boyd who under duress has been quite exceptional this year to be by far our most consistent performer. Boyd is tough and rarely misses a game. It is not hard to understand why BMcC has such a strong opinion of Boyd.

I can't see where anyone has called for Boyd to be replaced. He's a great captain. The issue is ( for me at least ) who can be promoted to the leadership group? Especially now that Gia looks uncertain.

[FrediKanoute]

You mean Skinner don't you Fredi?

Doh!!!!! Yep Skinner.......was almost going retro!

Also should add too that Vez, for me is gone as well. Jong has gone past him and if you keep Howard and Grant I think Vez is sqeezed out.

[EasternWest]

I'm guessing that I'd be in the minority that say for the right price, absolutely yes

My concern is that Ray doesn't have what we need. Sure he's in the age bracket, but he's not particularly quick and he's not a penetrating kick/creative kick.

I've got nothing against him at all, but I would pass simply because I can't see him makingus better.

[FrediKanoute]

I can't see where anyone has called for Boyd to be replaced. He's a great captain. The issue is ( for me at least ) who can be promoted to the leadership group? Especially now that Gia looks uncertain.

I don't think its ever too early to promote someone to the leadership group. Wallis if noting else could be the leader of the young guys. He doesn't have to be club captain yet, but elevating him and saying to the group, here is an example you should model your ethics on isd not a bad thing. We shouldn't be shy of asking guys to take responsiblity, especially if we have earmarked them for future leadership duties.

[Ghost Dog]

I don't think its ever too early to promote someone to the leadership group. Wallis if noting else could be the leader of the young guys. He doesn't have to be club captain yet, but elevating him and saying to the group, here is an example you should model your ethics on isd not a bad thing. We shouldn't be shy of asking guys to take responsiblity, especially if we have earmarked them for future leadership duties.

Right on Fredi. Why not promote Wallis next season?

[Mofra]

My concern is that Ray doesn't have what we need. Sure he's in the age bracket, but he's not particularly quick and he's not a penetrating kick/creative kick.

I've got nothing against him at all, but I would pass simply because I can't see him makingus better.
He gives us run & carry and his disposal in nowhere near as bad as many make out - he takes the high risk/reward option less which was a major issue when he was with us (leg across the body diagonal F50 entries that rarely worked).

He has no problem backing into packs, has experience, will run the ball on the outside (a major issue for us this year) - he'd be getting games for us if he was on the list for sure.

[Dancin' Douggy]

Doh!!!!! Yep Skinner.......was almost going retro!

Also should add too that Vez, for me is gone as well. Jong has gone past him and if you keep Howard and Grant I think Vez is sqeezed out.

I actually wouldn't have been surprised to find Skipper still lurking in a dark distant corner of our list.

[stefoid]

He gives us run & carry and his disposal in nowhere near as bad as many make out - he takes the high risk/reward option less which was a major issue when he was with us (leg across the body diagonal F50 entries that rarely worked).

He has no problem backing into packs, has experience, will run the ball on the outside (a major issue for us this year) - he'd be getting games for us if he was on the list for sure.

Sorry, but if we are going to spend our precious resources (list spot, dollars and draft picks) to trade someone into the club, they MUST have EXCELLENT footskills as a minimum. We have a tonne of players developing who have "ok footskills if they take low risk options" allready.

[Mofra]

Sorry, but if we are going to spend our precious resources (list spot, dollars and draft picks) to trade someone into the club, they MUST have EXCELLENT footskills as a minimum. We have a tonne of players developing who have "ok footskills if they take low risk options" allready.
I disagree - you'd turn down a Riewoldt if offered? A Selwood? A Jobe Watson?

Ray would be nowhere near the worst kick on our list.

[GVGjr]

I disagree - you'd turn down a Riewoldt if offered? A Selwood? A Jobe Watson?

Ray would be nowhere near the worst kick on our list.

You're right. Ray isn't an elite kick by any stretch of the imagination but there would be a lot of guys behind him in our side.

I just can't see us adding someone like Ray to our side because of his age.

[Mofra]

I just can't see us adding someone like Ray to our side because of his age.
That might be the kicker, but he's 26, 27? With a good injury run that's 100 games to go, and if we get 100 games out of any draftee that's a massive win so I hope Fantasia does canvass all options, especially if they come cheap.

[Mofra]

That doesnt make him a good kick, it just makes him not the worst -- wouldnt do anything to solve our inability to score whatsoever.
We'll agree to disagree then - I still think we need outside run and a better than average kick to add to our midfield, and I hope we draft accordingly

[G-Mo77]

Mulligan, Moles and Hooper apparently have been told they won't be required next year according to the HUN.

[bornadog]

Mulligan, Moles and Hooper apparently have been told they won't be required next year according to the HUN.

No Surprises there.

That makes five with the two retirees, I just hope we don't stop there.

[Templeton31]

Mulligan, Moles and Hooper apparently have been told they won't be required next year according to the HUN.

I think Mulligan must've known for months! Even I could work it out reading the snippets that appeared about him in the press.

[Maddog37]

So that makes five so far. How many draft picks do we envisage we will use and how many rookie upgrades?

Also, I hate to harp on it but one game to go and no Minson signing..............

[Mofra]

So that makes five so far. How many draft picks do we envisage we will use and how many rookie upgrades?
5 picks in the top 50 has been mentioned a few times, so how many rookies we want to upgrade will come down to it.
JJ & Jong seem likely with Austin & Campbell also mounting a case.

Of course, despite the youth pushign in the media I don't believe we've ruled out trading players out either.

[ledge]

You can trade players out just means you ask for draft picks not old players

[Bulldog Joe]

You can trade players out just means you ask for draft picks not old players

You can also trade out players to improve the draft picks you already have.

Such as Player X and round 3 for a round 2.

[bornadog]

GWS are looking for tall backman, anyone think Markovic could be a good fit for them. and would they want him?

[jeemak]

Mulligan, Moles and Hooper apparently have been told they won't be required next year according to the HUN.

Had this confirmed to me today. No surprises, as BAD states.

[Pickenitup]

Do We really Need To promote Campbell i would keep him on the Rookie list.
Same with Austin i would only promote Jong And JJ.

[Desipura]

Do We really Need To promote Campbell i would keep him on the Rookie list.
Same with Austin i would only promote Jong And JJ.

Ruckmen are in demand, so yes we would have to promote him.
We still do not know what is happening with Minson.

[GVGjr]

Do We really Need To promote Campbell i would keep him on the Rookie list.
Same with Austin i would only promote Jong And JJ.

I believe we made a commitment to Campbell earlier in the year and I think other clubs might have expressed some interested in him.

I would promote Austin and keep Jong as a rookie. Johannisen probably has done enough to be promoted but you never know.

[FrediKanoute]

There is no reason in the world we should promote Campbell at this stage unless Minno chases the $$$$ and leaves. It would leave our list very unbalanced, with 2-3 very inexperienced ruckman all competing for a spot.

Campbell has potential, but he is a fair way off being an AFL Player. To me he is the perfect rookie candidate - someone who has shown glimpses of potential, but needs to build a tank, hone some skills before he is ready. 1 more year on the rookie list would enable him to do that.

In terms of the others mentioned, Austin depends very much on Morris and whether he comes back at all. JJ, has probably done enough to get a spot, but again its a 1-2 year contract I would like to see him offered. Jong, I like the look of, but another year on the rookie list is not going to hurt him.

[GVGjr]

There is no reason in the world we should promote Campbell at this stage unless Minno chases the $$$$ and leaves. It would leave our list very unbalanced, with 2-3 very inexperienced ruckman all competing for a spot.

Campbell has potential, but he is a fair way off being an AFL Player. To me he is the perfect rookie candidate - someone who has shown glimpses of potential, but needs to build a tank, hone some skills before he is ready. 1 more year on the rookie list would enable him to do that.



I don't think many will disagree with you but I believe the club has already committed to Campbell.




In terms of the others mentioned, Austin depends very much on Morris and whether he comes back at all. JJ, has probably done enough to get a spot, but again its a 1-2 year contract I would like to see him offered. Jong, I like the look of, but another year on the rookie list is not going to hurt him.

I think an Austin upgrade depends on more than just Morris. Lake has two seasons to go and I'm not sure we are convinced on Markovic being a regular player.
Talia and Roberts are very raw and of course we don't know in what condition Morris will come back to us.
With that in mind I think Austin should be upgraded

[bornadog]

Jong, I like the look of, but another year on the rookie list is not going to hurt him.

Wouldn't he be better developing with games in the seniors. In his three games he has shown alot more than say a Pearce. On the rookie list he is confined to playing with Willi unless he gets another promotion. I would rather he play than an untried draft pick that will go straight on to the main list.

[Ghost Dog]

I don't think many will disagree with you but I believe the club has already committed to Campbell.



I think an Austin upgrade depends on more than just Morris. Lake has two seasons to go and I'm not sure we are convinced on Markovic being a regular player.
Talia and Roberts are very raw and of course we don't know in what condition Morris will come back to us.
With that in mind I think Austin should be upgraded

Who rates Austin over Marko? Marko seems stronger, but Austin a bit more agile, with perhaps better footy smarts.

[bornadog]

Who rates Austin over Marko? Marko seems stronger, but Austin a bit more agile, with perhaps better footy smarts.

Austin is not a KPP, whereas Markovic is. Austin is more suitable to take the third talls, and as others have mentioned, he will be competing with Morris, so depends on his recovery.

[stefoid]

I like cambell because he can take a grab. If he gets a lot fitter, he can take more grabs.

[westdog54]

Don't rookies get automatic 2 years on list and either way we will know what minsons doing long before we have to elevate him.


There is no reason in the world we should promote Campbell at this stage unless Minno chases the $$$$ and leaves. It would leave our list very unbalanced, with 2-3 very inexperienced ruckman all competing for a spot.

Campbell has potential, but he is a fair way off being an AFL Player. To me he is the perfect rookie candidate - someone who has shown glimpses of potential, but needs to build a tank, hone some skills before he is ready. 1 more year on the rookie list would enable him to do that.

In terms of the others mentioned, Austin depends very much on Morris and whether he comes back at all. JJ, has probably done enough to get a spot, but again its a 1-2 year contract I would like to see him offered. Jong, I like the look of, but another year on the rookie list is not going to hurt him.

We need to ask ourselves 2 simple questions on each of the Rookies:
1) Have they earned a senior spot on their own merits?
2) If yes, Will another club draft them if we keep them on the rookie list? or
3) if no, Have they earned another season on the rookie list?

If 1 is a no then 2 is irrelevant.

IMO, JJ is a Yes and a Maybe, Jong is a no and a yes, Campbell is Yes and no, Redpath is no and no, Austin is no and Yes.

[Bulldog Joe]

We need to ask ourselves 2 simple questions on each of the Rookies:
1) Have they earned a senior spot on their own merits?
2) If yes, Will another club draft them if we keep them on the rookie list? or
3) if no, Have they earned another season on the rookie list?

If 1 is a no then 2 is irrelevant.

IMO, JJ is a Yes and a Maybe, Jong is a no and a yes, Campbell is Yes and no, Redpath is no and no, Austin is no and Yes.

I see where you are coming from but I think the 2nd question should be

Are they more likley to merit a senior game than a new draftee or an existing retained player.

JJ looks a definite yes
Jong is a maybe (needs to improve disposal)
Campbell a yes (more natural strength and takes a good grab)
Austin looks like back-up as Talia/Roberts/Morris cover what he provides.

Would not mind Redpath being retained as a rookie as I think he does offer that power forward option if we can get him to produce.

Greenwood also to be retained as a rookie

[Maddog37]

I have doubts on Austin being able to stay healthy.

JJ looks good to go as does LJ.

Can other clubs draft Campbell if we leave him on the rookie list?

[Mofra]

Who rates Austin over Marko? Marko seems stronger, but Austin a bit more agile, with perhaps better footy smarts.
I rate Austin as being more versatile than Marko, as in we could feasibly play Austin with a fit Lake & Williams in the backline.

Marko does use the ball well.

It's going to be the most interesting off-season we've had for a long time.
The success of our rookie picks in pushing for selection gives us a somewhat pleasant headache (if there can be such a thing).

[Mofra]

Answer me why we would we would need Minson, Roughead, Cordy and Campbell on the list?
The sub rule is likely to go to 2 with 2 interchange.
Playing 3 of the those under the current rule gives us little run and has resulted in heavy losses.
The only reason I see we need Campbell listed is if Minson is going and that will just stamp the incompatence of the list manager.
We do need to seperate the no 1 and no 2 ruck role though - I don't believe they are the same thing.

Campbell & Minson are both no 1 rucks.

Cordy is not a no 1 ruck.
Roughy is also being developed as a backman/no 2 ruck. He is a natural mesomorph though and could become a no 1 ruck type - the question is how his pre-season has been planned.
If he his weight macros are set for key position type, we may well need Campbell on the main list as the only player who can cover the ruck if Minson is injured/suspended.

We have a bunch of possible rookie upgrades and a stated desire for 5 picks in the top 50 which muddy the waters - JJ, Jong & Austin also have legitimate upgrade claims.

[Mofra]

I would promote Austin and keep Jong as a rookie. Johannisen probably has done enough to be promoted but you never know.
FWIW I think JJ should be promoted - he has arguably shown as much as the others, but what he brings to the team is sorely lacking since Harbrow's departure.

Rose coloured glasses perhaps, but he is someone who could stake a serious claim for best 22 in 2013 given his pace out of the backline.

[bornadog]

We do need to seperate the no 1 and no 2 ruck role though - I don't believe they are the same thing.

Campbell & Minson are both no 1 rucks.

Cordy is not a no 1 ruck.
Roughy is also being developed as a backman/no 2 ruck. He is a natural mesomorph though and could become a no 1 ruck type - the question is how his pre-season has been planned.
If he his weight macros are set for key position type, we may well need Campbell on the main list as the only player who can cover the ruck if Minson is injured/suspended.

We have a bunch of possible rookie upgrades and a stated desire for 5 picks in the top 50 which muddy the waters - JJ, Jong & Austin also have legitimate upgrade claims.

But do we need four ruckman?

[stefoid]

Ive got no problem with Cambell being on the list and serving as long apprenticeship as neccessary. He reeks of old school ruckman allready at the age of 21 - a big bruiser with presence who can clunk marks around the ground and up forward. Minson may have a bunch more years as our first ruckman or he may not, but I just think Cambell is a decent prospect and we should bank him.

Having 4 rucks on the list is about right, it means we are OK for the inevitable injuries when they happen and we dont have to worry about drafting any more either.

[Ghost Dog]

How is it we have so many tall guys and not one who has helped us in the f50 this year??

[Mofra]

But do we need four ruckman?
Are you taking the piss :confused:

Sarcasm meter is off today

[The Pie Man]

We do need to seperate the no 1 and no 2 ruck role though - I don't believe they are the same thing.

Campbell & Minson are both no 1 rucks.

Cordy is not a no 1 ruck.
Roughy is also being developed as a backman/no 2 ruck. He is a natural mesomorph though and could become a no 1 ruck type - the question is how his pre-season has been planned.
If he his weight macros are set for key position type, we may well need Campbell on the main list as the only player who can cover the ruck if Minson is injured/suspended.

We have a bunch of possible rookie upgrades and a stated desire for 5 picks in the top 50 which muddy the waters - JJ, Jong & Austin also have legitimate upgrade claims.

Despite the MC's intentions, do you think Cordy could be a No. 1 ruck?

It's the only role I can see him being any good at, and was in the best for Williamstown recently in such a capacity.

I'm way more positive about Roughead making it down back than I am about Cordy at FF

[mjp]

There is a bit more too it than 'do we need 4 ruckman' though.

I like Campbell fine - but I cannot see what we gain by putting him on the senior list. Basically, if Minson plays then Campbell shouldn't...and if Minson is injured (long-term) then we will need Campbell - which sounds like the perfect player for the rookie list.

We should be thinking seriously about what we need in a second ruck. To me, the best couple in this role right now are Natanui and Ryder - for different reasons. Natanui does 'something different' whilst Ryder is a legit 1st choice defender / kpf who demands the ball. Our rucks are too much the same...

I still believe Roughead is a number 1 ruckman AND if Cordy could show any capability of providing a forward target (rather than being a forward line sign-post) then those two would work the best...but who knows what happens with Cordy. I don't know any of the answers to be honest but if we are keeping Minson then I think we should be seriously trying to turn Roughead into an asset through a trade. If we are not keeping Minson then we need to try and trade him before free agency bidding opens and he leaves for nothing. Maybe this means we have to sign him first (sorry, I haven't read all of the rules) but I just cannot see the point of having Minson, Roughead and Campbell all on the list and needing to play games...One should go + we should rookie another young ruckman and hopefully get ourselves another Campbell and hence another asset.

Assuming we keep Minson, would Gold Coast give us McKenzie for Roughead + 2nd rounder? Would St Kilda do a straight swap for Cripps?

[Mofra]

Despite the MC's intentions, do you think Cordy could be a No. 1 ruck?

Possibly - but then where do we play Campbell or Roughead in a few years?

If Roughy is a key defender then fine, but the whole "he's the back-up" argument then means we meander through games with a height disadvantage down back (although if Austin proves flexible enough to play tall and medium it negates that argument).

If someone could confirm the rookie rules re: upgrades that ould have a big argument on Campbell as well - without LTI is it no upgrade before round 11?

It's a risk to assume Minson wont miss games for the first half of a season; hopefully Cordy gets used to his new size (considering he's had less than 12 months at it).

[bornadog]

Are you taking the piss :confused:

Sarcasm meter is off today

Not sure what you are talking about Mofra?

We have Minson and Campbell is no one rucks and Roughead and Cordy as second rucks? Unless you are saying Cordy or Roughead should never ruck, so we don't have four?

what I am saying is leave Campbell on the rookie list for 2013 as a backup.

[always right]

One should go + we should rookie another young ruckman and hopefully get ourselves another Campbell and hence another asset.

Why would you delist a ruckman who appears to have ability and then rookie another ruckman? Why not just rookie Campbell......although I gather you are saying we should look at getting a different type of ruckman.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Not sure what you are talking about Mofra?

We have Minson and Campbell is no one rucks and Roughead and Cordy as second rucks? Unless you are saying Cordy or Roughead should never ruck, so we don't have four?

what I am saying is leave Campbell on the rookie list for 2013 as a backup.

Campbell would appear to be the heir apparent to Minson as our back up ruckman, with Cordy failing to impress. Roughead has emerged as a future key defender to eventually replace Lake. Lake maybe better placed next year by playing a role similar to Dustin Fletcher or Scarlett insofar that he doesn't take the opposition's number one forward.

[mjp]

Why would you delist a ruckman who appears to have ability and then rookie another ruckman? Why not just rookie Campbell......although I gather you are saying we should look at getting a different type of ruckman.

I never said delist Campbell. I said trade Roughead...or if Minson is leaving anyway figure out a way to trade Minson.

Campbell is cheap - no point in moving him on (yet).

[Mofra]

Not sure what you are talking about Mofra?
I thought you were taking the piss because you asked the exact question I was answering in my post that you quoted

[mighty_west]

With Minson still yet to re-sign, I wouldn't be suprised one bit if he wanted to explore all options given the way he was treated by the club with the Port/Pearce debarkle.

With that in mind, if Minson does go, I've seen enough in Campbell to see he can turn into a very decent ruck option given another full pre season or 2.

[LongWait]

I'm not sure that there is any point in leaving Campbell on the rookie list for a further year if we keep Minson. Campbell should be promoted in my view.

At least by promoting Campbell we have the opportunity to groom him to either replace Will (via later trading Will) or we trade Campbell in the next year or so. If we leave Campbell on the rookie list he will leave for greener pastures and we will get nothing in return. Campbell already has a value to some other teams and this will only increase. I also think that Campbell will become a fine No. 1 ruckman and a better player than Minson.

[stefoid]

There is a bit more too it than 'do we need 4 ruckman' though.

I like Campbell fine - but I cannot see what we gain by putting him on the senior list. Basically, if Minson plays then Campbell shouldn't...and if Minson is injured (long-term) then we will need Campbell - which sounds like the perfect player for the rookie list.

We should be thinking seriously about what we need in a second ruck. To me, the best couple in this role right now are Natanui and Ryder - for different reasons. Natanui does 'something different' whilst Ryder is a legit 1st choice defender / kpf who demands the ball. Our rucks are too much the same...

I still believe Roughead is a number 1 ruckman AND if Cordy could show any capability of providing a forward target (rather than being a forward line sign-post) then those two would work the best...but who knows what happens with Cordy. I don't know any of the answers to be honest but if we are keeping Minson then I think we should be seriously trying to turn Roughead into an asset through a trade. If we are not keeping Minson then we need to try and trade him before free agency bidding opens and he leaves for nothing. Maybe this means we have to sign him first (sorry, I haven't read all of the rules) but I just cannot see the point of having Minson, Roughead and Campbell all on the list and needing to play games...One should go + we should rookie another young ruckman and hopefully get ourselves another Campbell and hence another asset.

Assuming we keep Minson, would Gold Coast give us McKenzie for Roughead + 2nd rounder? Would St Kilda do a straight swap for Cripps?

Whoah there! Trade Roughie? He could be the best of the lot in another season or so. I am with sheeds on this one , you dont get rid of talented big men! If we are fattening up anyone with an eye for trade value it should be Cambell, but we cant do that if he is on the rookie list next year. I reckon he would be worth poaching with a late draft pick by anyone who is short for rucks, much the same way we poached Tom Hill from GWS. Definately dont want that to happen as his value to us and anyone else can only increase with time.

For mine, we upgrade Jong, JJ and Cambell and leave the rest on the rookie list or delist as appropriate.

We allready know we have 5 spots free from delisting and retirement. Im sure we can find another 3 to trade/delist to get the required 8.

Personally I would stamp DJs papers straight away and try to make up the other two spots by trading any/all of Vez, Addison and Sherman for pick upgrades, and failing that delist Skinner, Panos or Hill as requried.

one last edit: I lean towards delisting rookies that havent shown strong improvement rather than retaining. We have got a few likely players from the rookie list over the last couple of years and they have shown something in their first year on the list. we cant continue to do that if we clog the rookie list with project players. Would like at least 4 rookie spots free for this draft.

[Bulldog Joe]

I'm not sure that there is any point in leaving Campbell on the rookie list for a further year if we keep Minson. Campbell should be promoted in my view.

At least by promoting Campbell we have the opportunity to groom him to either replace Will (via later trading Will) or we trade Campbell in the next year or so. If we leave Campbell on the rookie list he will leave for greener pastures and we will get nothing in return. Campbell already has a value to some other teams and this will only increase. I also think that Campbell will become a fine No. 1 ruckman and a better player than Minson.

I totally agree with you LW.

While I believe Campbell probably needs another year to grow into the role, I think he can probably give us something forward in 2013.

He has the size and strength to take on the number 1 role when he builds enough endurance.

Campbell can also take a pack mark, which is the area that Minson fails.

[mjp]

Whoah there! Trade Roughie? He could be the best of the lot in another season or so.

If you want something good you have got to give up something good. I agree Roughead could be the best of him...but see, I am in the minority in that I would happily allow Minson to leave/be traded and use the $ he will be chasing on a runner - and Roughead takes over in the ruck.

I don't see the point in continuing to play Roughead at CHB next year - it has been a worthwhile exercise in football education but he is a tap ruckman.

Campbell is worth nothing - what would be the point of trading him?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Assuming we keep Minson, would Gold Coast give us McKenzie for Roughead + 2nd rounder? Would St Kilda do a straight swap for Cripps?

Trading Roughead would be a ridiculous move.

W.O would be burned to the ground if we swapped him for Cripps.

[LostDoggy]

I totally agree with you LW.

While I believe Campbell probably needs another year to grow into the role, I think he can probably give us something forward in 2013.

He has the size and strength to take on the number 1 role when he builds enough endurance.

Campbell can also take a pack mark, which is the area that Minson fails.

This pack mark thing is one of myths from a pre-season game.
He has taken 10 in 6 games while Minson has 17 in 20 games. Roughead 19 and Lake 33.
Its great skill to have especially if was up forward but his kicking as poor those he replaced so its not taken advantage of.
To me a no.1 ruck needs to get around the ground to most contests and take taps/help clearances.
He has a long way from doing that atm.

[Maddog37]

You do not give him enough credit Chops. He took some nice pack marks on the weekend that Minson rarely takes. If you expand the numbers he takes twice as many marks as Minno.

[LostDoggy]

Campbell will pass Will next year. I love Will but he is a blunt instrument. With a pre-season under his belt Campbell will be a 21 year old first ruckman who can go forward - I was one of the lucky few who got into the cattery last week and he did a lot of good but unrewarded work on Taylor and Lonergan. Roughy is a fantastic utility player - I liken him to Paddy Ryder; can ruck at a pich but his real value is as a KP, either back or forward. He is a cool customer under pressure and has done really good work on some big assignments in recent weeks. Could be one of the most valuable players on our list in a year or two. Ayce is the one who worries me. A cracking bloke apparently, but when is he going to play a good game? I want him to get behind the ball, or at least come up at it, with some real authority. He needs to show that he can be an authoritative big man - crash packs, take grabs and barge through and into contests. If he doesn't begin to show something significant early in the new season, I fear he'll be dumped into the VFL then moved on at year's end, father/son or not.

[bornadog]

Campbell will pass Will next year. I love Will but he is a blunt instrument. .

So the number one AFL ruckman for hitouts, and second in clearances (amongst rucks) will be surpassed by a 21 year old rookie who barely gets a kick. Give me a break.

[mjp]

Trading Roughead would be a ridiculous move.

W.O would be burned to the ground if we swapped him for Cripps.

Why? Because playing him (Roughy) at CHB, Minson in the ruck, Campbell in the ruck/ff and Cordy up forward has proven to be such an effective strategy?

In order to win games of football we are eventually going to have to field a football team, not a collection of players with potential who are all 'learning the caper'. Maybe Cripps is a bad example - I don't know enough about him - but he has been playing well, runs straight, takes on the opposition and kicks it pretty reliably so I plucked his name.

We need some run and carry players who can kick coming off half-back and we need them pretty quickly.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Why? Because playing him (Roughy) at CHB, Minson in the ruck, Campbell in the ruck/ff and Cordy up forward has proven to be such an effective strategy?

In order to win games of football we are eventually going to have to field a football team, not a collection of players with potential who are all 'learning the caper'. Maybe Cripps is a bad example - I don't know enough about him - but he has been playing well, runs straight, takes on the opposition and kicks it pretty reliably so I plucked his name.

We need some run and carry players who can kick coming off half-back and we need them pretty quickly.

I would expect (and hope) that Roughead will revert back to his ruck/forward duties next season. He's performed well down back, but I can't see it being anything other than a development phase. If it isn't -- then it's stupidity, given he's one of few on our list that can a) read the play and b) take a good solid mark. Obviously needs to improve his kicking, but that's the whole point of developing.

We need run and carry players, but at what expense? You don't trade possible genuine KP stars out of your side, simply because you're lacking run. Address those needs at the draft or at the trade table through other avenues. Sydney didn't cough up great young talent for Shaw, Mattner and co.

St. Kilda would take a deal like that and run to the bank. I would trade Minson (probably not possible given he's an unrestricted free agent) before I even contemplated Roughy's name.

I might be on my own, but I see Roughead as being miles ahead of Jones (and Grant, Cordy, Campbell etc.). I wouldn't seek to trade him, but Grant is probably one name that could come up.

[Maddog37]

If Ruffy keeps improving as a defender then he may be a gun CHB. Quite a few forwards now are massive units in the Tippett and Hawkins mould so it makes sense to have key defenders the same size.

He seems to be more involved and switched on when he plays down back.

[Desipura]

BJ I must say you surprised me with your post suggesting Campbell could become a better ruck man in the future and that he is already a better mark.
When you suggested you would look at trading Minson I nearly fell off my chair!
I thought you were in the we must keep Minson at all costs camp.

If we could somehow trade Minson we would put ourselves in a very strong draft position which may give us access to one of the best 17yo in the land.

We have a surplus of ruckmen, we are seeing Minson perform at his best currently, it's not like he can turn a game on it's head and win a game for us.
If it meant we could get a Hogan, would that not address one of our key forward issues. Jones should be able to fill the other position in the forward line.
Or a Martin could potentially get people through the gates. Is that not what we want, some genuine excitement on our list? If he is a once in a generation player I say we must do all we can as long as we do not lose an A grader.

[mjp]

I might be on my own, but I see Roughead as being miles ahead of Jones (and Grant, Cordy, Campbell etc.). I wouldn't seek to trade him, but Grant is probably one name that could come up.

I agree with you on Roughead vs Minson but that is another story.

Trade Grant? The problem with that - and I have actually suggested it before so let me disagree with myself here - is that he is a relatively unique player on our list whereas we have other ruckman. I agree that we need to make a call on Grant one way or the other and either play him or get rid of him (like we should have with Josh Hill at the end of 2010) but think the argument to trade Grant is a different question to the one that sees us with 4 ruckman potentially ALL of whom (if Campbell is upgraded) are on our primary list.

Basically, we shouldn't head into 2013 with Minson, Campbell, Roughead and Cordy all on the primary list. We just shouldn't.

[LostDoggy]

So the number one AFL ruckman for hitouts, and second in clearances (amongst rucks) will be surpassed by a 21 year old rookie who barely gets a kick.

Yeah - maybe not in pure stats, but in value to the team. Will gets the taps but he just swats 'em. He doesn't follow up his work naturally (although he is better this year than ever before), is not great on the spread and rarely clunks the big, important marks. Campbell is a soft-handed ruckman who guides the ball and follows up naturally. With a bit more work on his craft and a full pre-season under his belt, he'll be better able to contest all over the ground for four quarters. By the end of next season I reckon he'll be giving the the team a more rounded contribution than we get currently from Will. Another one we're going to see a lot more from is Fletcher Roberts. I've seen a few of his VFL games as well as his senior games and gee, I like the way he goes about it. Still very raw, but he is just a natural footballer. With a few more kilos and a few more games, he could be a very valuable KP player, either forward or back. He's only just 19, so there is plenty of upside. Like Campbell, I reckon he's not that far off putting it all together and making a big impact.

[Mofra]

We need some run and carry players who can kick coming off half-back and we need them pretty quickly.
Suban from Freo wants to return to Vic doesn't he?

We'd probably hope Wood can stay injury free and learn to find the ball a bit more, and with JJ developing we may only have to find a third to give us some serious rebound (assuming father-time catches Bobby and he starts to miss games next year).

[bornadog]

Basically, we shouldn't head into 2013 with Minson, Campbell, Roughead and Cordy all on the primary list. We just shouldn't.

This I agree with which means Campbell stays as a rookie for another year and lets see how it pans out. I can't see the club trying to offload one of these guys just yet.

[LongWait]

I agree with you on Roughead vs Minson but that is another story.

Trade Grant? The problem with that - and I have actually suggested it before so let me disagree with myself here - is that he is a relatively unique player on our list whereas we have other ruckman. I agree that we need to make a call on Grant one way or the other and either play him or get rid of him (like we should have with Josh Hill at the end of 2010) but think the argument to trade Grant is a different question to the one that sees us with 4 ruckman potentially ALL of whom (if Campbell is upgraded) are on our primary list.

Basically, we shouldn't head into 2013 with Minson, Campbell, Roughead and Cordy all on the primary list. We just shouldn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong here MJP, but isn't the conventional wisdom that AFL teams need 4 ruckmen on their lists. I know that Malthouse believes this - I've heard him speak about it at a fund-raiser.

[Sedat]

I know that Malthouse believes this - I've heard him speak about it at a fund-raiser.
Whanever he might have said at the fundraiser, Malthouse certainly didn't practice what he preached. If he did, he wouldn't have had absolute plodders like Steven McKee (in 2002-3) and Guy Richards (in 2007) as his No.1 rucks in years that they were close to a flag. It took Darren Jolly's wife to threaten her husband with divorce if they didn't move back to Melbourne for Malthouse to finally get around to trading for a decent ruckman, and hey presto they win a flag.

I reckon 4 rucks on the primary list is 1 too many. Happy to have 3 on the main list and 1 rookie.

[jeemak]

I'm OK with having all of Cordy, Roughead, Campbell and Minson on the Primary List.

Cordy isn't likely to be played as a first ruck throughout his career, and is going to be groomed as a forward who pinch hits in the ruck at most. The next year for him, and possibly the year after is going to be about him learning how to be the second or bail out option in the forward line. As he gets stronger, the rucking side will be developed over time. I don't think we can discount how tricky the forward pinch hitting in the ruck position is to master, or how valuable it is to be a successful side.

Roughead is being groomed as a KPD whether we like it or not. I believe he'll be a very handy player in defense, as he is smart, cool and will get stronger. He's got the potential to be a very good ruckman of course, though at the moment I think the club is concerned about the reliability of our KPD stocks and need Roughead to develop there very quickly.

Campbell is still developing, and is a long way off being a regular senior contributor as a first 22 member. Though, if Minson goes down for a three or four week period, I think we need him around to fill the gap rather than exposing Roughead, Cordy or Jones in that area.

Minson is an interesting proposition. If we trade him now we're probably likely to receive the most value for him we're ever likely to. If he does get moved on, then our plans for Roughead need to change, and he needs to play first ruck. If this happens, we need to be prepared for Talia and Roberts to be exposed. At this stage, I have an odd feeling that tells me Marko might be in a bit of trouble going forward as these two develop, especially if Williams can get his body together to play regular football once again.

Essentially, I don't want to see a lack of ruck stock on the primary list being the reason behind exposing players who aren't ready or suitable for ruck duties (mainly Cordy and Jones) for a couple of weeks at a time, a few times a year.

[Ghost Dog]

I'm OK with having all of Cordy, Roughead, Campbell and Minson on the Primary List.

Cordy isn't likely to be played as a first ruck throughout his career, and is going to be groomed as a forward who pinch hits in the ruck at most. The next year for him, and possibly the year after is going to be about him learning how to be the second or bail out option in the forward line. As he gets stronger, the rucking side will be developed over time. I don't think we can discount how tricky the forward pinch hitting in the ruck position is to master, or how valuable it is to be a successful side.

Roughead is being groomed as a KPD whether we like it or not. I believe he'll be a very handy player in defense, as he is smart, cool and will get stronger. He's got the potential to be a very good ruckman of course, though at the moment I think the club is concerned about the reliability of our KPD stocks and need Roughead to develop there very quickly.

Campbell is still developing, and is a long way off being a regular senior contributor as a first 22 member. Though, if Minson goes down for a three or four week period, I think we need him around to fill the gap rather than exposing Roughead, Cordy or Jones in that area.

Minson is an interesting proposition. If we trade him now we're probably likely to receive the most value for him we're ever likely to. If he does get moved on, then our plans for Roughead need to change, and he needs to play first ruck. If this happens, we need to be prepared for Talia and Roberts to be exposed. At this stage, I have an odd feeling that tells me Marko might be in a bit of trouble going forward as these two develop, especially if Williams can get his body together to play regular football once again.

Essentially, I don't want to see a lack of ruck stock on the primary list being the reason behind exposing players who aren't ready or suitable for ruck duties (mainly Cordy and Jones) for a couple of weeks at a time, a few times a year.

:confused: You reckon?? Check out some of his contested marking in the Geelong game. Took some bloody great grabs. Particularly one in the back half that was the first link in a goal. Not afaid to get down at ground level either.

[jeemak]

:confused: You reckon?? Check out some of his contested marking in the Geelong game. Took some bloody great grabs. Particularly one in the back half that was the first link in a goal. Not afaid to get down at ground level either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Georgiades


Consistency is a much harder task to master than putting together one or two solid games or glimpses in a debut season.

Campbell might benefit from our continuing development of talls, that sees us playing all of Roughead, Cordy, Minson and himself in the same side. If Cordy or Roughead have a great preseason and can demonstrate the ability to hold down forward and defensive posts respectively, while helping out in the ruck Campbell might be stuck at Williamstown waiting for an injury to materialise.

[Ghost Dog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Georgiades


Consistency is a much harder task to master than putting together one or two solid games or glimpses in a debut season.

Campbell might benefit from our continuing development of talls, that sees us playing all of Roughead, Cordy, Minson and himself in the same side. If Cordy or Roughead have a great preseason and can demonstrate the ability to hold down forward and defensive posts respectively, while helping out in the ruck Campbell might be stuck at Williamstown waiting for an injury to materialise.

Good start though eh? Anyway, impressed with Campbell in Ballarat V North in the NAB, and Geelong last week, also the handfull of Willy games I have seen. He can take grabs and kicks straight, can ruck ok. What's not to like?

[jeemak]

Good start though eh? Anyway, impressed with Campbell in Ballarat V North in the NAB, and Geelong last week, also the handfull of Willy games I have seen. He can take grabs and kicks straight, can ruck ok. What's not to like?

There's plenty to like GD. But, I think we need to be realistic about his performances to this point of his career, and just how bloody hard it is for players like him to take the next step up to be senior contributors on a regular basis.

It might come down to effort, fortune, talent, injury or coaching decisions to determine whether he's first 22 material. All we can ask of him is to get in good shape over the preseason and work his arse off and take his opportunities.

[Ghost Dog]

There's plenty to like GD. But, I think we need to be realistic about his performances to this point of his career, and just how bloody hard it is for players like him to take the next step up to be senior contributors on a regular basis.

It might come down to effort, fortune, talent, injury or coaching decisions to determine whether he's first 22 material. All we can ask of him is to get in good shape over the preseason and work his arse off and take his opportunities.

For sure.

[LostDoggy]

No doubt 21yo Campbell is behind 27yo Minson. But he isnt terrible for a 21yo ruck. In a year or two he will be an asset I reckon, whether thats in trade or in case of injuries, or whether he just turns out to be bloody good.

Personally I place a premium of big guys who can take big contested marks around the ground, and he can.
Maybe if he was a tall forward.
I also dispute the fact that he has passed Minson in marking ability. 1 match of 3 contested marks is all there is at the moment
As a ruck the priority is to get to as many contests as possible and provide some influence.
I heard someone say that Campbell is a soft handed ruck so will be ruck than Minson. All well and good when there is no opposition or no contest. None of the rucking stats show he is or will be a better than Minson.

[Bulldog Joe]

BJ I must say you surprised me with your post suggesting Campbell could become a better ruck man in the future and that he is already a better mark.
When you suggested you would look at trading Minson I nearly fell off my chair!
I thought you were in the we must keep Minson at all costs camp.

If we could somehow trade Minson we would put ourselves in a very strong draft position which may give us access to one of the best 17yo in the land.



Desi
I certainly acknowledge that I have always been a Minson supporter and his performances this year are in line with my expectation.

While Hudson was a terrific player for us, he held back Minson and Rocket tried to make Will a key forward when he clearly never had the marking hands for that. Hudson was also deficient in the marking area.

I do see Campbell as being better long term, but any trading of Minson is certainly not something I would advocate now.

With Will we either re-sign and keep him ar we lose him as a free agent. Talk of re-signing to trade him is just ridiculous. Why would he agree to that?

Personally I see Campbell learning about the bash and crash of ruckwork over the next 2 to 3 seasons as Minson's understudy and then being ready to take on the main mantle.

I would be happy to trade Will out at that point, but only if Campbell or perhaps Cordy/Roughead were showing they could take on the role effectively.

[bornadog]

Desi
I certainly acknowledge that I have always been a Minson supporter and his performances this year are in line with my expectation.

While Hudson was a terrific player for us, he held back Minson and Rocket tried to make Will a key forward when he clearly never had the marking hands for that. Hudson was also deficient in the marking area.

I do see Campbell as being better long term, but any trading of Minson is certainly not something I would advocate now.

With Will we either re-sign and keep him ar we lose him as a free agent. Talk of re-signing to trade him is just ridiculous. Why would he agree to that?

Personally I see Campbell learning about the bash and crash of ruckwork over the next 2 to 3 seasons as Minson's understudy and then being ready to take on the main mantle.

I would be happy to trade Will out at that point, but only if Campbell or perhaps Cordy/Roughead were showing they could take on the role effectively.

Good Post BJ
We now have the number one ruckman in the AFL, a guy that loves playing for the dogs, who is passionate and gives 100% every time, yet people want to trade him out for an unknown pick.

[always right]

Good Post BJ
We now have the number one ruckman in the AFL, a guy that loves playing for the dogs, who is passionate and gives 100% every time, yet people want to trade him out for an unknown pick.

Maybe there are stats that support this but as terrific as Will has been this season there is no way known he would be rated above Cox and/or Natanui IMO....and some would argue the mullet has has also had a better season at Richmond.

Having said that, I'm a Minson fan and would hate to see him leave. For a start I would have to buy my daughter a new number.

[Maddog37]

Jolly is pretty handy too. Mumford goes ok, sandilands is not too bad, Goldstein is alright.


I would prefer all of these to Minno everything being equal.

[LostDoggy]

Good Post BJ
We now have the number one ruckman in the AFL, a guy that loves playing for the dogs, who is passionate and gives 100% every time, yet people want to trade him out for an unknown pick.

We all love Will, but... Give me a break ;)

[Eastdog]

Jolly is pretty handy too. Mumford goes ok, sandilands is not too bad, Goldstein is alright.


I would prefer all of these to Minno everything being equal.

How about Macintosh from North as well.

[Maddog37]

Too injury prone. Nicnat would be ok too I suppose.

[bornadog]

Better than Cox? :eek: Wouldn't think so

He has had a poor season in the ruck averaging only 25 hitouts per game compared to 32 from Will.


Jolly is pretty handy too. Mumford goes ok, sandilands is not too bad, Goldstein is alright. I would prefer all of these to Minno everything being equal.

Sandlinads and Mumford haven't played much this year. Jolly is up there with Will on average hitouts.


How about Macintosh from North as well.

Played 7 games this year


Too injury prone. Nicnat would be ok too I suppose.

Still learning but will be a superstar.

[Eastdog]

He has had a poor season in the ruck averaging only 25 hitouts per game compared to 32 from Will.



Sandlinads and Mumford haven't played much this year. Jolly is up there with Will on average hitouts.



[/B]Played 7 games this year[/B]



Still learning but will be a superstar.

That's what I mean. He has struggled to get into the Kangaroos first team and he is a quality player I think.

[Remi Moses]

Hitouts can mean didily squat honestly.
Comparing Cox and Minson is like comparing our Forwards to Buddy Franlkin, honestly.
Yeah Will's had his best year but he's nowhere near the best ruck .

[Eastdog]

Hitouts can mean didily squat honestly.
Comparing Cox and Minson is like comparing our Forwards to Buddy Franlkin, honestly.
Yeah Will's had his best year but he's nowhere near the best ruck .

Have to agree with that. Cox is miles ahead of Minson who apart from this year has struggled as Hudson was ahead of him in the pecking order.

[azabob]

No rookie is obligated to accept a rookie position.

Absolutely he could turn us down and enter the draft.

If we want Campbell in our long term plans we need to elevate him, if we don't, keep him as a rookie and run the risk of him moving on, which I think would be very high.

[G-Mo77]

If we want Campbell in our long term plans we need to elevate him, if we don't, keep him as a rookie and run the risk of him moving on, which I think would be very high.

He'll be chased hard by other clubs if he's not tied down. I think we've locked him up though. It's been said around here a few times that he has a contract for 2013 and beyond.

[LongWait]

To leave Campbell on the rookie list is akin to delisting him - Campbell will gain a lot of interest from other clubs and we will lose him this year or next. He is ours to keep if we want and we should protect and secure what is and will continue to be an appreciating asset. Busines 101 and good football list management as well.

[GVGjr]

To leave Campbell on the rookie list is akin to delisting him - Campbell will gain a lot of interest from other clubs and we will lose him this year or next. He is ours to keep if we want and we should protect and secure what is and will continue to be an appreciating asset. Busines 101 and good football list management as well.

Whilst I have some doubts over the value Campbell can offer us I don't think having him on a senior list poses us any problems. I tend to think we are better having him than trying to find another back-up ruckman.

[w3design]

I am a fan of Campbell, and think he has lots of potential. BUT, the reality is he is 3rd in line at the Doggies at present, and even then in an almost 49/51 posi with Ayce.
Will is so far ahead at present there is daylight between them.
Will was only behind Hudson last season in Rocket's mind, and absolutely no where else. Big Will is without doubt one of the top 3-4 rucks in the league at present, and the idea of trading him out because Campbell has potential makes about as much sense as Russian Roulette.

[LongWait]

I am a fan of Campbell, and think he has lots of potential. BUT, the reality is he is 3rd in line at the Doggies at present, and even then in an almost 49/51 posi with Ayce.
Will is so far ahead at present there is daylight between them.
Will was only behind Hudson last season in Rocket's mind, and absolutely no where else. Big Will is without doubt one of the top 3-4 rucks in the league at present, and the idea of trading him out because Campbell has potential makes about as much sense as Russian Roulette.

I don't think that too many on here would say that Campbell is close to as good as Minson right now and not many would consider trading Will now (even if we are able to.)

Do you think we should leave Campbell on the rookie list? I'm not sure what you think we should do Paul.

[w3design]

Yes, for now. Then see what next season brings. Do not want to lose TC, but he is for the future, not for the now. Needs a couple of years before he is ready for a regular senior berth.

[Sedat]

To leave Campbell on the rookie list is akin to delisting him - Campbell will gain a lot of interest from other clubs and we will lose him this year or next. He is ours to keep if we want and we should protect and secure what is and will continue to be an appreciating asset. Busines 101 and good football list management as well.
That philosophy sure worked a treat with Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles.

That's not a criticism of Campbell by the way - I think he has some good tools to work with, but how many unproven talls (at senior AFL level at least) can we actually afford to have on the main list? Roughy, Cordy, Jones, Campbell, T Hill, Roberts, Talia - that is a huge list of work-in-progress talls to have on any list, let alone ours. It's no biggie to me if Campbell is elevated because I can see the merit in this. But warehousing so many unproven talls onto the main list won't be addressing the balance of our list any time soon.

[LongWait]

That philosophy sure worked a treat with Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles.

That's not a criticism of Campbell by the way - I think he has some good tools to work with, but how many unproven talls (at senior AFL level at least) can we actually afford to have on the main list? Roughy, Cordy, Jones, Campbell, T Hill, Roberts, Talia - that is a huge list of work-in-progress talls to have on any list, let alone ours. It's no biggie to me if Campbell is elevated because I can see the merit in this. But warehousing so many unproven talls onto the main list won't be addressing the balance of our list any time soon.

I don't agree that Campbell is no more attractive to other teams (and to us) than Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles. Campbell has shown enough to attract the attention of other clubs who have a shortage of ruck stocks. I know for a fact that Hawthorn are watching him with interest this season. I don't think Campbell fits in the same bracket as the other former rookie list players you mentioned.

[GVGjr]

That philosophy sure worked a treat with Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles.


I guess the difference is that Campbell is a developing ruckman which has some appeal to other clubs as a cheap alternative to back up a ruck division.

Compared to a 3 year to Mulligan who had no clearly defined position was quite baffling and makes Campbell look like a very decent bargain.

At least I can see the logic behind a potential upgrade to Campbell but I never did with Mulligan.



That's not a criticism of Campbell by the way - I think he has some good tools to work with, but how many unproven talls (at senior AFL level at least) can we actually afford to have on the main list? Roughy, Cordy, Jones, Campbell, T Hill, Roberts, Talia - that is a huge list of work-in-progress talls to have on any list, let alone ours. It's no biggie to me if Campbell is elevated because I can see the merit in this. But warehousing so many unproven talls onto the main list won't be addressing the balance of our list any time soon.

We are going through a transition period and we are paying a heavy price for inactivity in previous seasons and that is why we have so many unproven talls.
It may very well come down to a choice between maintaining Hill or upgrading Campbell but like you I don't see Campbell being upgraded as a real problem for the list.
The list has been unbalanced for a while and another season isn't a show stopper.

[LostDoggy]

I don't agree that Campbell is no more attractive to other teams (and to us) than Panos, Hooper, Mulligan and Moles. Campbell has shown enough to attract the attention of other clubs who have a shortage of ruck stocks. I know for a fact that Hawthorn are watching him with interest this season. I don't think Campbell fits in the same bracket as the other former rookie list players you mentioned.

If Hawthorn need anyone now its a good experienced ruck not a 6 game up and comer.
There are plenty of inexperienced and unproven rucks around.
Same with Collingwood or the Saints. The story was Essendon wanted Campbell, with their 3 rucks often in their starting line up I can't see why they would.
I think we have out smarted ourselves here.

[chef]

The story was Essendon wanted Campbell, with their 3 rucks often in their starting line up I can't see why they would.
I think we have out smarted ourselves here.

didn't they also trade a ruck they had on their rookie list to adelaide(Jenkins) as they didn't have a spot for him on their main list

[LongWait]

If Hawthorn need anyone now its a good experienced ruck not a 6 game up and comer.
There are plenty of inexperienced and unproven rucks around.
Same with Collingwood or the Saints. The story was Essendon wanted Campbell, with their 3 rucks often in their starting line up I can't see why they would.
I think we have out smarted ourselves here.

Hawthorn may or may not want a good experienced ruckman - they may not be prepared to pay the price required to get one. I do know, however, that they have some interest in Campbell and I am told that this is fairly common knowledge within the AFL recruiting fraternity.

We all know and they acknowledge that Hawthorn have depth issues in their ruck stocks (as do a number of other teams.) It's all very well to say that Hawthorn need an experienced ruckman but getting one is easier said than done. Their best option for an experienced ruckman may well be Minson. Hawthorn may well be hoping that Hale can hold down the number 1 spot for a year or two until someone else develops. On last night's form that looks a reasonable plan.

I have no idea what you are referring to re Essendon.

How have you outsmarted yourself?

[Ghost Dog]

Whilst I have some doubts over the value Campbell can offer us I don't think having him on a senior list poses us any problems. I tend to think we are better having him than trying to find another back-up ruckman.

The thing is, when he goes for a mark, I'm pretty confident he will take it. And he does. When he goes for goal, I feel the same. He's a decent kick.
In the ruck he has a way to go, but that's not surprising. His opponents in the first have been pretty good so far. But again, I have confidence that he will do the right things.
So I'm not really sure why you feel the way you do. Just a good honest tall player, of the Huddo variety.

[Dry Rot]

Thoughts on retaining Redpath and Greenwood?

[bornadog]

Thoughts on retaining Redpath and Greenwood?

I think they will stick with Greenwood for another year on the rookie list, he has shown some signs of improvements in the Willi seniors.

On Redpath, you better start looking for a new Avatar:D

[Prince Imperial]

Thoughts on retaining Redpath and Greenwood?

At the last Inside the Kennel function, McCartney said both would improve next year, strongly indicating that they will be retained.

[ledge]

Both have another year to run don't they?

[westdog54]

Both have another year to run don't they?

You can cut a first year rookie without having to pay them out for the second year.

[LongWait]

You can cut a first year rookie without having to pay them out for the second year.

I'm hearing that both will likely be retained.

[GVGjr]

I'm hearing that both will likely be retained.
I sort of see the sense in that but I haven't seen a lot of positives in Redpath.

Perhaps he just needs more time but he seems to lack awareness of what's going on around him.

[LongWait]

Unfortunately I haven't seen Redpath play, so I have little idea what he might bring to the table. The coach has, on a couple of occasions, publicly said encouraging things about his expectations next year for Redpath and Greenwood. I'm assuming he is genuine and therefore I'm thinking they are at least in the picture to be retained as rookies.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I sort of see the sense in that but I haven't seen a lot of positives in Redpath.

Perhaps he just needs more time but he seems to lack awareness of what's going on around him.

To be fair, if we can give Mulligan and Hooper multiple years on the rookie/senior list, then Redpath probably deserves an opportunity at a second season if his attitude is good -- which apparently, it is.

I don't have a problem with it.

I can't see us keeping both Panos and Hill though.

[jeemak]

To be fair, if we can give Mulligan and Hooper multiple years on the rookie/senior list, then Redpath probably deserves an opportunity at a second season if his attitude is good -- which apparently, it is.

I don't have a problem with it.

I can't see us keeping both Panos and Hill though.

Each of Panos and Hill from what I've seen and read have shown more than Redpath at Willi, so wouldn't it be a bit silly to ditch each of them and keep Redpath?

Am I missing something? Redpath is already 22 and from an experience gained and perforamnce point of view is behind each of Panos and Hill. Surely either of the latter would be better place downgraded to Rookie List status?

[Hotdog60]

To be fair, if we can give Mulligan and Hooper multiple years on the rookie/senior list, then Redpath probably deserves an opportunity at a second season if his attitude is good -- which apparently, it is.

I don't have a problem with it.

I can't see us keeping both Panos and Hill though.

From the Bulldogs site, Panos got a contract extension in November so I think he is safe unless they are going to pay him out.

[Desipura]

I may be in the minority however I think Hill is worth perservering with. I think his best position is a full forward, I like the position he gets into to take a mark, he moves well for a 199cm big bodied player.
His skills below his knees are very good and I think he has some smarts about him.

Unless his attitude is not the best and cannot be changed, I hope he stays on the list.
He should have played a game in the seniors this year given his good form early in the season.
Other players showed less form and played. Injuries in the middle of the season did not help and I think he has been a victim of the Williamstown/Bulldogs alignment.

[G-Mo77]

I'm happy to keep Hill as well but we do need to cut into our list. We're likely going to elevate Campbell and I think we'll do the same with Jong. Shaggy, Gilbee, Moles, Hooper, Muligan won't be with us next year. While there is still question marks over Vez, Sherman and DJ it's not guaranteed they'll be moved off our list.

Personally I'd like minimum 6 picks in the draft but would prefer 7.

[GVGjr]

I may be in the minority however I think Hill is worth perservering with. I think his best position is a full forward, I like the position he gets into to take a mark, he moves well for a 199cm big bodied player.
His skills below his knees are very good and I think he has some smarts about him.

Unless his attitude is not the best and cannot be changed, I hope he stays on the list.
He should have played a game in the seniors this year given his good form early in the season.
Other players showed less form and played. Injuries in the middle of the season did not help and I think he has been a victim of the Williamstown/Bulldogs alignment.

I'm not sure you are in a (small) minority because there is no doubt he has some ability. Currently I don't think he has the motor at the moment to be a senior footballer but if he is a hard worker I'm sure the coaches can get a lot more out of him.

He had some good form during the season and had to battle some injuries as well. Perceived team balance might be the biggest hurdle for him

[Bulldog4life]

I think that the Club might delist Shaggy, Gilbee, Moles, Hooper, Muligan, Vez and Hill.
Campbell and Jong will be elevated. This will leave us 5 picks in the draft.
I think that Hill would most likely be retained if we had fewer big men. Sherman and Panos's contracts save them and DJ's last game might contribute to him staying.

Just my opinion on what the Club might do.

[bornadog]

I think that the Club might delist Shaggy, Gilbee, Moles, Hooper, Muligan, Vez and Hill.
Campbell and Jong will be elevated. This will leave us 5 picks in the draft.
I think that Hill would most likely be retained if we had fewer big men. Sherman and Panos's contracts save them and DJ's last game might contribute to him staying.

Just my opinion on what the Club might do.

and you are not too far off. Hill may get another year?

[azabob]

I think that the Club might delist Shaggy, Gilbee, Moles, Hooper, Muligan, Vez and Hill.
Campbell and Jong will be elevated. This will leave us 5 picks in the draft.
I think that Hill would most likely be retained if we had fewer big men. Sherman and Panos's contracts save them and DJ's last game might contribute to him staying.

Just my opinion on what the Club might do.

I think JJ can also be added to the elevation list.

Can we put Panos back to the rookie list as we did with Michael West (tall forward) a few years back?

[stefoid]

I have my doubts about Redpath and Panos - maybe 15 years ago when big bruising lead from the square into space style FF were viable they would have been able to carve out a career. But these days you have to be as smart, agile and skilled as Barry Hall to play that style of game, and those guys arent.

Pack marks are back for goal square forwards so 198cm Hill seems worth persevering with.

I think Id like to see us trade Panos if we can ,perhaps to Port, and Sherman to the Dees, and delist Redpath.

Upgrade Campbell, JJ and Jong.

Retain Greenwood and Austin. Get in 4 new rookies.

[azabob]

, and Sherman to the Dees,



Have you heard Melbourne have shown an interest in Sherman or are you just saying Melbourne in hope?

[The Underdog]

I think JJ can also be added to the elevation list.

Can we put Panos back to the rookie list as we did with Michael West (tall forward) a few years back?

If JJ isn't elevated there is something clearly wrong. He was by far the best of any of the rookies at AFL level and would almost be starting 22 next year given he gave us both run and foot skills.

[bornadog]

Surely DJ must be delisted.

[G-Mo77]

Surely DJ must be delisted.

You'd like to think that but stranger things have happened. It's a worry that he played the final games if his papers are stamped.

[Hotdog60]

Surely DJ must be delisted.

After tonight Howard would be on thin ice, if he doesn't go now and there no improvement next season I'd say goodbye.

[The Underdog]

You'd like to think that but stranger things have happened. It's a worry that he played the final games if his papers are stamped.

Hooper got a game against Richmond. You'd think he was done prior to that.

[BulldogBelle]

If DJ is actually delisted on the back of stringing together multiple games for us, then it's clear that we have absolutely no idea what direction we are heading in. We knew we were a thin chance to beat anyone, surely the games must go to someone who has a future at the club.

Would be a total waste.

[Dog54]

I think VEZ is in big trouble and might have to make way for some potential upgrades from rookies.

Can anyone clarify if Sherman is actually contracted for next year ?

[GVGjr]

I think VEZ is in big trouble and might have to make way for some potential upgrades from rookies.

Can anyone clarify if Sherman is actually contracted for next year ?

Yes Sherman has a contract

[Ghost Dog]

If DJ is actually delisted on the back of stringing together multiple games for us, then it's clear that we have absolutely no idea what direction we are heading in. We knew we were a thin chance to beat anyone, surely the games must go to someone who has a future at the club.

Would be a total waste.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused. If DJ is delisted, that's bad. ? or good? IYOpinion?