Gumbleton

[1eyedog]

Re: Gumbleton

I see the reasoning behind being interested in at least one of them.

Is it Dawes at 21 or that you don't want Dawes at all?

I agree, but at 41 it's an okay deal, Monfries went for 43 and is a marginally better player than Gumbleton. None of our forwards can take a mark but he can. If BMac wants some improvement in 2013 we need someone down there who can mark the ball, among other things...

[FrediKanoute]

Re: Gumbleton

I think for the right price he is worth the punt. Essendon have been poor at drafting and developing over the last 5 or 6 years so the fact he hasn't kicked on is as much to do with that as his injuries. I think that somewhere between 21 and 30 is the right number. Shame we gave the Hawks pick 28 for the Lake trade as this really would have been a good pick to trade.

Just generally, it seems that doing the Lake deal has thrown us into a bit of a spin. We seem to be "chasing" another forward which flies in the face of the mantra the footbal department has been selling this year.....we grow our own. The problem is that this year there are only a few decent forwards on offer......Gumby? Dawes? in any other trade period would they be going for 1st round picks?

Personally, neither of these guys are going to be the answer to our forward line woes, so it begs the question why chase them? At best they will provide 2 new whipping boys for the fans to get stuck into, maybe play a few good games, maybe not. To me the acid test is whether the player is being actively wooed by his current club.......think McDougall, Bartlett, Morgan, Rawlings all guys who were effectively let go by their clubs for nicks. Gumby and Dawes are the eqivalent of these........

[Maddog37]

Re: Gumbleton

We're not far off that now!

According to who?

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Gumbleton

I agree, but at 41 it's an okay deal, Monfries went for 43 and is a marginally better player than Gumbleton. None of our forwards can take a mark but he can. If BMac wants some improvement in 2013 we need someone down there who can mark the ball, among other things...

Monfries has played 140 odd games and kicked 150 goals, whilst I don't love him as a player he has miles more runs on the board than gumby whose had 5 injury plagued years and struggled to play consecutive games.

I tend to think pick 65 is a reasonable return

No way I'm giving up 41

[Topdog]

Re: Gumbleton

the monfries trade wasnt a real trade thogh

[comrade]

Re: Gumbleton

I see the reasoning behind being interested in at least one of them.

Is it Dawes at 21 or that you don't want Dawes at all?

Giving up pick 21 shuts us off from serious talent. There have been many very good players picked up between picks 20 and 30 in recent years - given our list profile, I think we'd be better off adding another draftee, rather than top up with a 23/24yr old key forward that will only be slightly above average at best.

I would definitely consider using pick 41 for either of them.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Gumbleton

Not totally against recruiting Gumbleton but I don't think we should pay any better than pick 41. I'd prefer Gumbleton than Dawes as I believe on talent and footy smarts he is streets ahead, however the question is obviously whether he can get on the park. I'll do a Wallace and spew up if we part with pick 21 for an injury prone risk.

[GVGjr]

Re: Gumbleton

Giving up pick 21 shuts us off from serious talent. There have been many very good players picked up between picks 20 and 30 in recent years - given our list profile, I think we'd be better off adding another draftee, rather than top up with a 23/24yr old key forward that will only be slightly above average at best.

I would definitely consider using pick 41 for either of them.

I'm not sold on acquiring Dawes either mainly because I think it complicates things for a few other players at the club but I understand why we would be having a hard look.

Over the last 10 years or so I think we have often chosen to top up with experienced players and most other years we would have still run the ruler over someone like Dawes particularly with his ability to take a turn in the ruck.

I think sometimes even when in a rebuilding phase you still need to consider adding an experienced player that fits a need.

I won't be disappointed if we can't get him but I won't be upset if we do.

Gumbleton at 47 would be worth a look at.

[Mofra]

Re: Gumbleton

If we trade for him the football department are officially marbles...there's a perfectly good key position player in Jones sitting under our noses being murdered by the coaching panel. Recruit Gumbledumb and we'll be the laughing stock of the league...

Jones is not in the same league as Gumbleton in terms of talent or running ability.

Jones is an outstanding contested mark, and fairly quick for his size. That's it.

[1eyedog]

Re: Gumbleton

Jones is not in the same league as Gumbleton in terms of talent or running ability.

Jones is an outstanding contested mark, and fairly quick for his size. That's it.

Or reading the play. Gumbleton runs as little as possible only to get himself in a good position to mark the ball, one of his strengths IMO and one of the reasons he went high.

Jones runs around like the Mad Hatter.

[Desipura]

Re: Gumbleton

He thinks he's not much chop but at a cheap price, he's happy to be proven wrong. Not that hard to understand, is it?

Not much chop and dud are too different meanings, cant you see that? Its not difficult is it?
Gumbleton at the right price will be a big hit or big miss, no in betweens.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Gumbleton

Can someone explain to me why we need to trade for Gumbleton at all? Isn't he uncontracted and could walk to the PSD where we could pick him up for nothing? For a bloke who doesn't get on the park much, I don't see why we would trade a pick worth more than 65.

[GVGjr]

Re: Gumbleton

Can someone explain to me why we need to trade for Gumbleton at all? Isn't he uncontracted and could walk to the PSD where we could pick him up for nothing? For a bloke who doesn't get on the park much, I don't see why we would trade a pick worth more than 65.

To get him at the club a bit earlier so that he can start training, the trade is the way to go.

[EasternWest]

Re: Gumbleton

He thinks he's not much chop but at a cheap price, he's happy to be proven wrong. Not that hard to understand, is it?

No. He used the term "dud". If someone is a dud, I don't want them regardless of the gamble.

Really? Maybe the phrase "wouldn't be against it" is tripping people up. Explicitly I mean I'm not going to stamp my feet, cry, and email my local member if the deal gets done for cheap. I didn't realize that's such a controversial opinion. '

Would you prefer I acted like a spoilt child and insisted my opinion is infallible?

Nah it's cool Mike. I get you now. I think there's a fair difference between a dud, and someone you just don't rate which is why I found your comment a bit contradictory.

I'd take him with a later pick too FWIW. Yet to really prove himself due to injury, but I think he has ability.

[Mofra]

Re: Gumbleton

Or reading the play. Gumbleton runs as little as possible only to get himself in a good position to mark the ball, one of his strengths IMO and one of the reasons he went high..

Gumbleton is a gut-running animal who plays like a Nick Riewoldt, his issue is with his body not work-rate