-
27-08-2021, 11:39 AM
#736
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
1eyedog
The only player in there better than Sweet / English is Ceglar. McEvoy is getting on now (33 next year) and Ceglar is late 20s. I'd be ok with Ceglar.
Ceglar will be 31 in February
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
27-08-2021, 11:41 AM
#737
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
1eyedog
The only player in there better than Sweet / English is Ceglar. McEvoy is getting on now (33 next year) and Ceglar is late 20s. I'd be ok with Ceglar.
I think they are all comfortably better than English in the ruck.
Strachan I rate and would be my preferred choice of that lot. Ceglar I've always kind of liked and would be content with.
I should leave it alone but you're not right
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
27-08-2021, 11:41 AM
#738
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Ceglar will be 31 in February
Like he said late 20s, just like me.
I should leave it alone but you're not right
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Likes
-
27-08-2021, 11:46 AM
#739
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Ceglar will be 31 in February
Thought he was 29, still 31 is not old for a ruckman actually it's almost the prime age in terms of experience, strength and conditioning. We'd get three years out of him.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
27-08-2021, 11:48 AM
#740
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
soupman
I think they are all comfortably better than English in the ruck.
Strachan I rate and would be my preferred choice of that lot. Ceglar I've always kind of liked and would be content with.
Yes certainly better than English. As it stands we'll have one ruckman on the list at the end of this year and that needs to change.
-
27-08-2021, 11:56 AM
#741
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
1eyedog
Thought he was 29, still 31 is not old for a ruckman actually it's almost the prime age in terms of experience, strength and conditioning. We'd get three years out of him.
I agree, 31 is fine these days
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
27-08-2021, 01:17 PM
#742
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Issue with Stef wasn't just this age, it was body (I know that can be easily linked). Stef + another mature ruck would have been great.
For next year we have:
- Stef probably gone. If he is keen, we think the body can give us 7-10 games and he is happy to play for very little coin, I'd keep him on. Think his body is just going to get worse though. Basically there as a player coach if he can go.
- Sweet. Despite fan frustration with him now playing, he is progressing. He was raw AF and is getting closer. Hopefully with another pre-season he becomes the back up option next season.
- English 2nd ruck/fwd. Darcy there in the future. Lewy improving there as an option. I think the 2nd ruck/forward role is fine and we can really concentrate on a 1st ruck.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
12-09-2021, 02:23 PM
#743
Re: Well Ruck Me.
We have a very good core of players and are in a window for the next 5 years.
If you were a ruck in a team that is rebuilding would you not look at the Dogs as a club to go for if you wanted a chance at finals.
Martin may not go on next year and Sweet is your only opposition I would think we would look very attractive.
Don't piss off old people
The older we get the less "LIFE IN PRISON" is a deterrent...
-
13-09-2021, 12:46 PM
#744
Re: Well Ruck Me.
We don’t have to do one or the other. But say we did...
1. Re-Rookie a young Sweet
2. Rookie List an old Martin. The new list rule this year is you can move a player automatically down from the Primary List to the Rookie List who is contracted for 2022+. It’s done between the National Draft & Rookie Draft. So we could sign Martin for 2022 and use this rule to automatically move him to the Rookie List without delisting him and then waiting around to re-sign him.
Assuming we get a younger First Ruck with English as the second ruck. Would you have on the Rookie List, Sweet or Martin? Or both?
Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023
-
13-09-2021, 07:24 PM
#745
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Do we rookie Martin as Bevo puts it break glass and go all out on Sweet for half a season with Martin as his mentor and if Sweet doesn't show improvement then it's time to look elsewhere. We will have Darcy also under Martin's wing so that will also push Sweet along who will be 24 and should start playing like he belongs.
Don't piss off old people
The older we get the less "LIFE IN PRISON" is a deterrent...
-
14-09-2021, 02:17 AM
#746
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
bulldogtragic
We don’t have to do one or the other. But say we did...
1. Re-Rookie a young Sweet
2. Rookie List an old Martin. The new list rule this year is you can move a player automatically down from the Primary List to the Rookie List who is contracted for 2022+. It’s done between the National Draft & Rookie Draft. So we could sign Martin for 2022 and use this rule to automatically move him to the Rookie List without delisting him and then waiting around to re-sign him.
Assuming we get a younger First Ruck with English as the second ruck. Would you have on the Rookie List, Sweet or Martin? Or both?
Originally Posted by
Hotdog60
Do we rookie Martin as Bevo puts it break glass and go all out on Sweet for half a season with Martin as his mentor and if Sweet doesn't show improvement then it's time to look elsewhere. We will have Darcy also under Martin's wing so that will also push Sweet along who will be 24 and should start playing like he belongs.
That's exactly what we should do. Extend Martin's contract and move him to the rookie list and keep him as a break glass option. That way he can coach or mentor Sweet, Darcy and English and we have a bit of flexibility on the main list to bring in another experienced ruckman or a ruck/forward.
They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.
-
14-09-2021, 03:02 AM
#747
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
bornadog
I agree, 31 is fine these days
What about 42 sugar?
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
-
14-09-2021, 08:23 AM
#748
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
jeemak
What about 42 sugar?
Blend 43?
More of an In Bruges guy?
-
14-09-2021, 09:23 AM
#749
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Hindsight..... Bevo has finally realised how important the ruck situation is. What would '19 and '20 have been like had we acted then? would we be in an even better position now?
Im not sold on a dads army ruck approach, I think we need to outlay something decent to get someone decent, I think Mr Power will be really working his magic this off season.
-
14-09-2021, 10:49 AM
#750
Re: Well Ruck Me.
Originally Posted by
ReLoad
Hindsight..... Bevo has finally realised how important the ruck situation is. What would '19 and '20 have been like had we acted then? would we be in an even better position now?
Im not sold on a dads army ruck approach, I think we need to outlay something decent to get someone decent, I think Mr Power will be really working his magic this off season.
We were gonna recruit that bloke from Port who got delisted (lucky for us it didn't happen) and I'm sure we've tried for others (Steph has apparently been a consistent target) so I'm not sure the above is fair. He clearly has an idea of what a ruckman is that fits this team but filling that role has been difficult.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Likes