Do we play another tall forward?

[stefoid]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

As I said in the other thread , bringing in Cordy as a forward is not going work within our structure , his offensive output has to be 50/50 with his defensive output

As I stated before , our structure is an oversize midfield with only two forwards and a rotating ruckman in the forward line , if we bring Cordy in to pair with Jones and Dickson we take a midfielder away from a zone rotation , as I stated before Gia, Higgins and Dahlhaus may be named in the forward line but in our current structure they are midfielders

Could a player like Barry Hall fit into Macca's structure ?

Yes but again it would still be only two forwards and a rotating ruckman , the personnel could change but the structure would not

At the moment the midfield has been given the responsibility for scoring 2/3rds of our scoring , the balance has to come from backline players pushing up the ground, the rotating ruckman and the two forwards

( I,m only using BBB as an example )

.

Love your work.

So bring Cordy in for Dickson then? Dickson doesnt seem much of a crumber and he certainly isnt taking any aerial pressure off Jones, nor does he seem much of a defensive pressure specialist so... wheres the bad?

Im presuming that Dicskon is currently keeping his forward specialist spot warm for Sherman, Cordy, Skinner, or even Panos, and Id like to see the switch happen sooner rather than later, even if just for general curisoity sake.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

Love your work.

So bring Cordy in for Dickson then? Dickson doesnt seem much of a crumber and he certainly isnt taking any aerial pressure off Jones, nor does he seem much of a defensive pressure specialist so... wheres the bad?

Im presuming that Dicskon is currently keeping his forward specialist spot warm for Sherman, Cordy, Skinner, or even Panos, and Id like to see the switch happen sooner rather than later, even if just for general curisoity sake.

You got me again ,again I should have said extra forward , Jones and Cordy as the two forwards fits the structure

With Dickson he has had two games and if the match committee decide that his stats don,t show the improvement that they think he should have showed then it could be he gets dropped for Cordy

I think we are getting closer to a bilateral consensus

.

[Mofra]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

I think we are getting closer to a bilateral consensus

If Cordy fires we'll get a site-wide concensus

Interested to see how the three big man structure works. We get to see how far Cordy has come after his best (only?) pre-season to date.

[Eastdog]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

If Cordy fires we'll get a site-wide concensus

Interested to see how the three big man structure works. We get to see how far Cordy has come after his best (only?) pre-season to date.

Looking forward to seeing how he goes. Do you think Mofra that he will play more in the seniors this year.

[Missing-Dog]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

If Cordy fires we'll get a site-wide concensus

Interested to see how the three big man structure works. We get to see how far Cordy has come after his best (only?) pre-season to date.

I think the 3 big man structure is going to work and am very excited to see how it all goes. Although it is his first full pre season I am still positive that he will have a decent impact this season and will play a fair few games in the senior side.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

I hope he gets a consistent crack at it rather than dropped after one match.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

I think the 3 big man structure is going to work

I think having an extra tall forward is definitely a good idea if you are purely talking about structure. My concerns are about the actual quality the trio bring.

Cordy needs to bring enough value purely as a KPP. St.Kilda's tall forward line adds the option of going back to play on Stanley as well as playing forward.

Will and/or Roughy simply need to add more value up forward. It isn't just an old school pinch hitting up forward thing, as a combo they will just the majority of TOG there. We just aren't getting enough from them.

The sub rule suts it in a way as we can sub off one of them for extra run.

My preference would be to have Ayce as 2nd ruck and bring in another tall forward but to be honest guys like Panos just don't warrant a game. Also it's not like Dickson added much of the benefits you get from smaller players (run, pressure etc).

[Mofra]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

Looking forward to seeing how he goes. Do you think Mofra that he will play more in the seniors this year.

Maybe in a different role (purely as the no 2 ruck).

Alot depends on the form of those below him - if a Skinner or Panos or Dickson push for senior selection, we'll have to make a call on Cordy vs Roughead as the no 2 ruck and Ayce must think he's a realistic chance to stay in the side.

[Greystache]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

I think having an extra tall forward is definitely a good idea if you are purely talking about structure. My concerns are about the actual quality the trio bring.

Cordy needs to bring enough value purely as a KPP. St.Kilda's tall forward line adds the option of going back to play on Stanley as well as playing forward.

Will and/or Roughy simply need to add more value up forward. It isn't just an old school pinch hitting up forward thing, as a combo they will just the majority of TOG there. We just aren't getting enough from them.

The sub rule suts it in a way as we can sub off one of them for extra run.

My preference would be to have Ayce as 2nd ruck and bring in another tall forward but to be honest guys like Panos just don't warrant a game. Also it's not like Dickson added much of the benefits you get from smaller players (run, pressure etc).

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

I totally agree with not worrying about spud talls and actually trying to use them to create rebound. I was just commenting that Cordy has the option of going down back if he is struggling forward.

I would definitely start Ayce forward, just that Stanley has the option of going into the ruck if he is spudding it up.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

I think having an extra tall forward is definitely a good idea if you are purely talking about structure. My concerns are about the actual quality the trio bring.

Cordy needs to bring enough value purely as a KPP. St.Kilda's tall forward line adds the option of going back to play on Stanley as well as playing forward.

Will and/or Roughy simply need to add more value up forward. It isn't just an old school pinch hitting up forward thing, as a combo they will just the majority of TOG there. We just aren't getting enough from them.

The sub rule suts it in a way as we can sub off one of them for extra run.

My preference would be to have Ayce as 2nd ruck and bring in another tall forward but to be honest guys like Panos just don't warrant a game. Also it's not like Dickson added much of the benefits you get from smaller players (run, pressure etc).

I think Roughead will push back a lot into defence to free up Lake. Would not be surprised if Cordy is Sub and will replace Will or Rough.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

Good post. I've thought the same thing myself.

[Bornadog]

Re: Do we play another tall forward?

What does Stanley bring to St Kilda that Cordy won't bring for us?

Neither have played much AFL football, nor are either likely to tear a game apart, yet we're talking about needing to play another tall defender to play on him (which will restrict our rebounding ability) yet WE shouldn't play a third tall because we'll get murdered on the rebound. Surely if we need an extra tall defender so will they, or they'll end up with a small defender playing on our tall forward which will expose them in the air.

While I'm highlighting your post Rocco I'm actually making more of a general comment, every week we panic about who's going to play on a third string opposition tall forward, no matter how little threat they pose, yet in the same sentence we talk about not being too tall in our forward line because their short defence will kill us on the rebound. Either we over rate opposition talls, or we just accept that our small forwards are a liability defensively to the point where opposition rebounding defenders will carve us up even when they should in theory have their hands full stopping our tall forwards.

Against the Saints we need to shut down Riewoldt, but Kosi is a spud, and Stanley is not quite as good as Kosi. If we change our entire structure to cover these two we should give up now, our coaching staff are just passengers on game day.

I must admit I am one of the panickers as I have seen too many Bulldogs games where these so called spuds have carved us up.

Overall though, I agree with your assessment.