Match Committee - Round 6 vs Adelaide

[always right]

I beg to differ I dont think we would be playing them.

Hale, White, Currie and McIntosh all came from other clubs and we had the chance to look at them but again we dont value that type of player.

We would play Hale in a heartbeat. Campbell is superior to Currie IMO.

[soupman]

I beg to differ I dont think we would be playing them.

Hale, White, Currie and McIntosh all came from other clubs and we had the chance to look at them but again we dont value that type of player.

Hale was traded at a time when we had both Hudson and Minson on the list and didn't need another ruckman that would be surplus to requirements. He would absolutely play seniors for us atm though.

White was someone I'm sure I remember us looking at but I believe we weren't either as interested or as happy to pay for him as clubs like Collingwood were. Besides Dawes is similar (big key forward that has a go in the ruck) and we definitely had a look at him.

Currie is not any better than Campbell.

And McIntosh was an injury prone ruckman who is as bash and crash as Cordy.

[1eyedog]

I beg to differ I dont think we would be playing them.

Hale, White, Currie and McIntosh all came from other clubs and we had the chance to look at them but again we dont value that type of player.

Fair enough.
You've listed three ruckman though all with fairly narrow frames that are not ideal for the crash and bash approach you're advocating (perhaps the exception is Currie who is a mature age but is untested at AFL level).

Just for arguments sake we've picked up Roughie, Jones, Mulligan, Cordy, Wight and Williams over the years all very similar in size to the type of players you've listed above. IMHO we've given this type of player heaps of opportunities to deliver which continues to this day (Roughie, Jones, Williams and Cordy). You can only have so many 200 cm guys on the list.

[bulldogtragic]

Fair enough.
You've listed three ruckman though all with fairly narrow frames that are not ideal for the crash and bash approach you're advocating (perhaps the exception is Currie who is a mature age but is untested at AFL level).

Just for arguments sake we've picked up Roughie, Jones, Mulligan, Cordy, Wight and Williams over the years all very similar in size to the type of players you've listed above. IMHO we've given this type of player heaps of opportunities to deliver which continues to this day (Roughie, Jones, Williams and Cordy). You can only have so many 200 cm guys on the list.

Dead right on the last comment. The problem is we've been trying to get 200cm + players who are not actually ruckmen, but rather athletic KPP's, which has been as a successful venture as Fiji recruiting from the names you mention. Im happy to say unless it's a Tom Boyd type gun KPP, we should look to 200cm + players as ruckmen only.

[1eyedog]

Dead right on the last comment. The problem is we've been trying to get 200cm + players who are not actually ruckmen, but rather athletic KPP's, which has been as a successful venture as Fiji recruiting from the names you mention. Im happy to say unless it's a Tom Boyd type gun KPP, we should look to 200cm + players as ruckmen only.

I wish we had two Roughies.

[bulldogtragic]

I wish we had two Roughies.

If we finished one spot lower a decade back, we could have. Interesting to ask, if we could change the pick 3 to pick 2 that Hawks Roughie, would you trade Griff for the hawks Roughie?

[bornadog]

If we finished one spot lower a decade back, we could have. Interesting to ask, if we could change the pick 3 to pick 2 that Hawks Roughie, would you trade Griff for the hawks Roughie?

Never

[1eyedog]

If we finished one spot lower a decade back, we could have. Interesting to ask, if we could change the pick 3 to pick 2 that Hawks Roughie, would you trade Griff for the hawks Roughie?

Not a chance in hell. You?

[KT31]

If we finished one spot lower a decade back, we could have. Interesting to ask, if we could change the pick 3 to pick 2 that Hawks Roughie, would you trade Griff for the hawks Roughie?

Not a hope in Hell, but would certainly have taken Franklin over Williams.

[bulldogtragic]

I'm just doing this for conversation sake guys... Why?

[chef]

I couldn't swap Grif now after all he's done for us, but if it was this years draft and a choice between a future Grif type and a future Roughy I'd take the Roughy.

[azabob]

Not a hope in Hell, but would certainly have taken Franklin over Williams.

Ha! KT, somethings don't need to be said!!!

[KT31]

I couldn't swap Grif now after all he's done for us, but if it was this years draft and a choice between a future Grif type and a future Roughy I'd take the Roughy.

Hopefully in name and ability we already have the future Roughy.

[1eyedog]

Not a hope in Hell, but would certainly have taken Franklin over Williams.

you just mentioned the unmentionable i.e Williams at 6. I always console myself with the fact that Richmond took Tambling at 4.

[josie]

Hi Guys,

Bit off topic wrt match committee...

I know #6 draft spot is hard to stomach...but give Williams (another) chance!! I know he seems a bit soft since his comeback bur his been out of footy a long time - hopefully he will harden up in backline including keeping not getting knocked about so easily or perhaps become a swingman.

Personally I liked him as a forward in what little time we've actually seen him play. I have more hope in Williams as long as he is not injured again than Cordy and I'm still praying Cordy comes good too.

Back onto topic:

• I really hope they keep Bontempelli in. Also hope Hunter or Dickson get's nod at expense of Stringer or Gia.
• Would also love to see Tutt and Honeychurch get a go - perhaps at expense of Wallis and Jong (although I still think Jong is a rough diamond and will come good because of his work ethic just like Crossy did).
• And Morris a shoe in for Talia or Williams. Would love to see Fletcher given a go but perhaps that's too many changes.