Who would you have JMac target this year?

[ratsmac]

I'd seriously like us to at least have a chat to Jack Watts seeing that it's looking likely that Stringer and Crameri will be shipped off. Depending of what Melbourne want for him, he'd fill a need.

I'd be happy only bringing in a couple of kids in the draft as our list is still quite young. I felt we got caught out a bit this year with too many kids having to fill in and they weren't quite ready.

[Rocco Jones]

Really unsure of the Watts, Stringer, Crameri types the way the game is being played. I think it's tall or small who can apply pressure. These guys really need to be 60 goals a year types or they quickly become a liability as they don't really bring the ball to ground or apply defensive pressure.

[comrade]

Really unsure of the Watts, Stringer, Crameri types the way the game is being played. I think it's tall or small who can apply pressure. These guys really need to be 60 goals a year types or they quickly become a liability as they don't really bring the ball to ground or apply defensive pressure.

Yep. I would take a 20-25 goal a year pacy small who pressures all day vs a 40-50 goal mid sized forward that hasn't got the athleticism or intent to pressure any day of the week.

It's weird, but I think we should structure up exactly like Richmond have this year, who kind of copied what we did in 2015/2016.

[bulldogtragic]

Yep. I would take a 20-25 goal a year pacy small who pressures all day vs a 40-50 goal mid sized forward that hasn't got the athleticism or intent to pressure.

Well we don't have one as of today. The closest thing we have is Clay Smith... Interesting that we've not sought to address it at draft or trade recently while most clubs have.

[Sedat]

Really unsure of the Watts, Stringer, Crameri types the way the game is being played. I think it's tall or small who can apply pressure. These guys really need to be 60 goals a year types or they quickly become a liability as they don't really bring the ball to ground or apply defensive pressure.

Tom Lynch is a potential counter to your argument but he was found wanting yesterday when the heat was really on. Mid-sized connectors who have elite endurance are nice to have but they need to work just as hard the other way. The 3 guys you mentioned don't, and neither does Lynch and he's the best in the comp in that role.

[Twodogs]

Yep. I would take a 20-25 goal a year pacy small who pressures all day vs a 40-50 goal mid sized forward that hasn't got the athleticism or intent to pressure any day of the week.

It's weird, but I think we should structure up exactly like Richmond have this year, who kind of copied what we did in 2015/2016.

We were doing it out of necessity in 2008-9. There was a game in Canberra v Sydney when we held an 8 point lead for the last 20 minutes by locking the ball down on the half forward line and creating contest after contest with a bunch of midgets swarming on the ball and falling on top of it.

[GVGjr]

Most of the early guff was this draft had five or maybe six stand out candidates and then it fell away or evened out depending on the article. That narrative has changed since the championships (as it usually does, I don't know why we try and judge the strength of the draft in May. It's like rolling out the Christmas decorations in September.) but maybe Remi was going by the early reviews.

Maybe it's the wording that I'm challenging but to me it's a draft without a lot of top end talent but I don't regard it as a weak one at all in fact I think it's quite a deep draft.

[GVGjr]

I don't know exactly what went on behind the scenes this season but our culture has come into question a lot. Maybe some of the "boys" getting sent to another club wouldn't hurt overall.

I think we need at least 4 picks in the draft on top of any Free agent/trade we may make.

There has to be a real question mark on the culture and leadership displayed this year and splitting up any disruptive groups that didn't buy in this season just isn't something you can tinker around with.

I agree with the numbers you have suggested

[azabob]

All things point to going to the draft with 3 picks only - which likely will include Smith being upgraded.

Traditionally we have been conservative with delisting numbers.

Each year since at least 2008 GVGjr has suggested we need cut at least 2 more than we end up cutting.

[GVGjr]

All things point to going to the draft with 3 picks only - which likely will include Smith being upgraded.

Traditionally we have been conservative with delisting numbers.

Each year since at least 2008 GVGjr has suggested we need cut at least 2 more than we end up cutting.

Yep, back in 2008 we misread the draft the impact of the new teams coming in and we didn't factor the pending father son selections. A couple of years later everyone was of course moaning about the state of the list and blaming the AFL for it. Mind you players like Mulligan being reatained for 2 years longer than he should have escaped the focus.
We kept marginal players on the list for longer than ideal and I think we paid a price for it. You can be passive or active with list management and I'd prefer the latter given we aren't great at acquiring the bigger name players unless we spend a fortune.

The last few years have been particularly low turnovers of players and now after a poor season with a number of distractions we are putting the faith in a list that let us down. We will probably make 3 changes this year and much like in 2008 and pay for it later on.

[Rocco Jones]

Tom Lynch is a potential counter to your argument but he was found wanting yesterday when the heat was really on. Mid-sized connectors who have elite endurance are nice to have but they need to work just as hard the other way. The 3 guys you mentioned don't, and neither does Lynch and he's the best in the comp in that role.

Lynch is far more team orientated that Jake and Jack. Crameri played a similar role in late 2015, I just doubt his body allowing him to be a constant hit up. Also his kicking/decision making going inside 50 isn't at Lynch's level (neither is Stringer's, Watts has decent IQ when he is on).

Yep. I would take a 20-25 goal a year pacy small who pressures all day vs a 40-50 goal mid sized forward that hasn't got the athleticism or intent to pressure any day of the week.

It's weird, but I think we should structure up exactly like Richmond have this year, who kind of copied what we did in 2015/2016.

Yeah looking at their small forwards goal/tackle average for the year...


Townsend: 3.2 goals, 4 tackles
Butler: 1.3 goals, 4 tackles
Graham: 1 goal, 7 tackles
Castagna: 1.1 goals, 3 tackles
Lambert: 0.6 goals, 5 tackles
Rioli: 1 goal, 3 tackles

Townsend stats a bit warped by playing so few games but so many small forwards averaging at least 3-4 tackles a game. Caddy and Edwards also in that tackle category. Their small forward prototype = 25 goals a year type + 4 tackles a game. Compare that to Menzel who the footy world were shocked when dropped by the Cats. He kicked 40 goals this year but only averaged 1 tackle a game. Massive out for the opposition, breaks the chain. I don't think you can have your cake or eat it too. If you want the Tigers forward line pressure, you can't have a player who opts out of pressure (unless they are a Coleman medal threat type).

[Rocco Jones]

Impey and Crozier fit into the pressure small forward role.

Impey averaged about 1 goal + 3 tackles when forward this year.

Crozier played forward in his last 6 games when Freo were struggled. He averaged about a goal + more than 4 tackles a game.

[Remi Moses]

It's hard to make household changes with contracted players . It's all very well advocating more changes than the club actually does, but it's more difficult with players contracted .

[azabob]

It's hard to make household changes with contracted players . It's all very well advocating more changes than the club actually does, but it's more difficult with players contracted .

Which begs the question why did we re-sign a few fringe players on 12 month deals.

[ledge]

Which begs the question why did we re-sign a few fringe players on 12 month deals.

Well could be a few reasons
1 if we want to trade them we have a say and more asking power.
2 the club rates them more than we do and they would know more than us.
3 might be no one better in the positions they play around.
4 we have put in the time and they are expected to come good next year.
5 they were kept because they will fill in for retired players or step up while younger ones come on, eg Campbell / English.