Traded #25: Jake Stringer - 📦 Traded to GWS for Pick #53 - 16/10

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode
25 - stringer.jpg
Contract Status: Out of contract 2024
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 19, Harlequin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yodellinhank said:
The issue is Stringer as the target. Yes, sometimes he converts that to goals. More often than not he won't. We crab the ball around because of this. We kick to the boundary because of this. We carry the ball longer to make our entries deeper because of this.

Forward 50s haven't been abysmal. Show me where Stringer has provided a lead and some hack has sprayed it. It looks abysmal because of the lack of leading forwards.

The gameplan everyone hates, the inefficiency of our conversion, it's all because we have pseudo talls as the main targets.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find Stringer makes plenty of leads and the mids close their eyes and bomb it on everyone's heads. How you could possibly watch the team play and come to the conclusion that there isn't something seriously wrong with our fwd 50 entries is genuinely baffling. It also looks abysmal because there are 40 players in our fwd 50 by the time we bomb it in there - pretty tough for any fwd to lead into space to anywhere but the boundary line.
 
P Money said:
I think you'll find Stringer makes plenty of leads and the mids close their eyes and bomb it on everyone's heads. How you could possibly watch the team play and come to the conclusion that there isn't something seriously wrong with our fwd 50 entries is genuinely baffling. It also looks abysmal because there are 40 players in our fwd 50 by the time we bomb it in there - pretty tough for any fwd to lead into space to anywhere but the boundary line.
Click to expand...
Every game I see, Stringer leads and stops. Starts and stops. Waves for it in top of his head and doubles back hoping to shark out back. Langford did this in the Carlton game (like a goddamn mirror) but his typical game was always to find a lane/lead up straight at the ball carrier. That's why I like him more and he is also younger. I keep saying I don't see space in a functioning forward line for both.

The overcrowding is by design. We don't have Hooker to bring it to ground. Wright and Weideman didn't work. Now we have Stringer and Langers in those posts. It's a case of don't go long early because it will rebound straight out, set up first and that way we keep it there.

Next year i'm certain they'll try Caddy and Draper in the posts with Bryan the number 1 ruck. That will leave Langford/Stringer to roam and rotate in as FF only as required/when the matchup can be exploited. Again, I don't see room for both.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Would be in the minority I suspect but I wouldn't offer him anything past what we are already contractually obligated to (the 1 year games clause he hit) I'd actually prefer we part ways all together but alas he's hit the trigger.

if he wants 2 he can go and find a club who will give him two. Not professional enough and standards need to be set.
 
BrunoV said:
Menzel as an example is tangential if you don't understand the extent of the similarity and the reason that Stringer is a structural black hole. Menzel, like Stringer, was one of these mid-sized players who was neither a small in the sense of the ground covered nor was he mid or tall for the ability to provide an aerial target or an outlet leading to the wings. He played close to goal because he was dangerous isolated 1v1 and could turn opportunities into goals. The issue then becomes one of the ratio at which opportunities were converted into chances (which is usually low).The set-up was a problem because they already had Hawkins playing forward who was slow as hell together with a combination of 2 rucks or other talls. They replaced Menzel in the side with Gary Rohan, who has never really been more than 1 goal a game, because Rohan could provide speed at ground level. Rohan did not change Geelong's fortunes himself but over the next 18 months, Miers and Close became best 22. In combination with Rohan they turned Geelong into a team that could defend in its forward 50 (even if it wasn't the best).

Looking at it another way, we're seeing it with Hawthorn at the moment, the way that a complimentary group of forwards is a more significant factor for scoring than the individual ability of any individual forward.

The issue of the small forwards, which is a combination I have been saying since we expressed interest in Gresham would never work because it is far too slow, is immaterial to whether Stringer gives anything at ground level or above the shoulders in a structural sense. The reality that our smalls are too slow is just another reason Stringer playing for us make no sense.
Click to expand...

I get why people want to compare (to learn from history) but there are too many variables to accurately predict a similar outcome:
  • Player comparison
  • Forward 50 system comparison
  • Delivery into the F50 comparison
  • Other players in the forward line comparison
  • Etc

Dusty Martin would be equally tangential to Stringer (as Menzel) and he went ok… 🤔
 
BrunoV said:
Menzel as an example is tangential if you don't understand the extent of the similarity and the reason that Stringer is a structural black hole. Menzel, like Stringer, was one of these mid-sized players who was neither a small in the sense of the ground covered nor was he mid or tall for the ability to provide an aerial target or an outlet leading to the wings. He played close to goal because he was dangerous isolated 1v1 and could turn opportunities into goals. The issue then becomes one of the ratio at which opportunities were converted into chances (which is usually low).The set-up was a problem because they already had Hawkins playing forward who was slow as hell together with a combination of 2 rucks or other talls. They replaced Menzel in the side with Gary Rohan, who has never really been more than 1 goal a game, because Rohan could provide speed at ground level. Rohan did not change Geelong's fortunes himself but over the next 18 months, Miers and Close became best 22. In combination with Rohan they turned Geelong into a team that could defend in its forward 50 (even if it wasn't the best).

Looking at it another way, we're seeing it with Hawthorn at the moment, the way that a complimentary group of forwards is a more significant factor for scoring than the individual ability of any individual forward.

The issue of the small forwards, which is a combination I have been saying since we expressed interest in Gresham would never work because it is far too slow, is immaterial to whether Stringer gives anything at ground level or above the shoulders in a structural sense. The reality that our smalls are too slow is just another reason Stringer playing for us make no sense.
Click to expand...
This I do agree with.
 

Essendon contract news: Jake Stringer activates secret clause as Dons make call on Jayden Laverde


Jake Stringer has activated a secret clause in his contract to extend his time at Essendon – unless the Dons decide to trade him, while they’ve also made a call on defender Jayden Laverde.

Essendon veteran forward Jake Stringer has already activated a little-known one-year contract extension after meeting a games trigger clause this season.
While it was widely reported Stringer was out of contract this year, he has played enough games to activate one more year on his deal at Tullamarine.

It means Stringer, 30, can stay at the club for next year unless the Bombers make the call to shake-up the list and trade Stringer for what would be expected to be a late pick.

Stringer had only five touches and played 65 per cent game time in the loss to Brisbane Lions on Saturday night, the third-least amount of game-time at Essendon.

But his match winning abilities forward could yet appeal to a premiership contender with the premiership forward booting 42 goals across 23 games in 2024, only one less than Bulldogs’ superstar Jamarra Ugle-Hagan.

[PLAYERCARD]Jake Stringer[/PLAYERCARD] has activated a clause in his contract to extend for another season. Picture: Martin Keep/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)

Jake Stringer has activated a clause in his contract to extend for another season. Picture: Martin Keep/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)

A club with a strong and experienced culture would be best-placed to make a play for Stringer who won a premiership at Western Bulldogs in 2016 before the bombshell move to Essendon in late 2017.

But Stringer would only consider moving on to a third club for a multi-year deal, with sources claiming Stringer was worth up to $650,00- $700,000 a season including incentives at his best.

​


The Stringer decision is a significant one as the Bombers are keen to produce more consistently in 2025 after losing nine of their last 12 games this season to miss a spot in the eight.

At the start of the 2023 season, Scott said the Bombers relied too heavily on Stringer previously.

“We have got a million miles away from relying on Jake to play really well to win and if he doesn’t we lose,” Scott said.

But the club is not flushed with key forward options in attack with the club led by Kyle Langford and Nate Caddy late in the season after Peter Wright was dropped to the VFL for poor form.

Stringer, along with delisted speedster Nick Hind and Laverde, is one of captain Zach Merrett’s best mates at the club.

Merrett would likely be consulted on any decision on Stringer.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I Remember Bluey said:

Essendon contract news: Jake Stringer activates secret clause as Dons make call on Jayden Laverde​


Jake Stringer has activated a secret clause in his contract to extend his time at Essendon – unless the Dons decide to trade him, while they’ve also made a call on defender Jayden Laverde.

Essendon veteran forward Jake Stringer has already activated a little-known one-year contract extension after meeting a games trigger clause this season.
While it was widely reported Stringer was out of contract this year, he has played enough games to activate one more year on his deal at Tullamarine.

It means Stringer, 30, can stay at the club for next year unless the Bombers make the call to shake-up the list and trade Stringer for what would be expected to be a late pick.

Stringer had only five touches and played 65 per cent game time in the loss to Brisbane Lions on Saturday night, the third-least amount of game-time at Essendon.

But his match winning abilities forward could yet appeal to a premiership contender with the premiership forward booting 42 goals across 23 games in 2024, only one less than Bulldogs’ superstar Jamarra Ugle-Hagan.

Jake Stringer has activated a clause in his contract to extend for another season. Picture: Martin Keep/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)

Jake Stringer has activated a clause in his contract to extend for another season. Picture: Martin Keep/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)

A club with a strong and experienced culture would be best-placed to make a play for Stringer who won a premiership at Western Bulldogs in 2016 before the bombshell move to Essendon in late 2017.

But Stringer would only consider moving on to a third club for a multi-year deal, with sources claiming Stringer was worth up to $650,00- $700,000 a season including incentives at his best.

​


The Stringer decision is a significant one as the Bombers are keen to produce more consistently in 2025 after losing nine of their last 12 games this season to miss a spot in the eight.

At the start of the 2023 season, Scott said the Bombers relied too heavily on Stringer previously.

“We have got a million miles away from relying on Jake to play really well to win and if he doesn’t we lose,” Scott said.

But the club is not flushed with key forward options in attack with the club led by Kyle Langford and Nate Caddy late in the season after Peter Wright was dropped to the VFL for poor form.

Stringer, along with delisted speedster Nick Hind and Laverde, is one of captain Zach Merrett’s best mates at the club.

Merrett would likely be consulted on any decision on Stringer.
Click to expand...
Yeah I reckon Zach would keep him.

Also, the JUH comparison wtf?
 
ghostdog said:
Yeah I reckon Zach would keep him.

Also, the JUH comparison wtf?
Click to expand...
i likely think that comparison solely exists to 1) grab readers attentions (it worked) & 2) say that he didn’t have a bad year in comparison to someone with praise heaped on him (deservedly so).

my problem is that not only are they different players, but they’re also at different stages of their careers. dumb comparison
 
Zach Package said:
View attachment 2096448

If that is correct he’s the best value contract in the AFL next year and it’s not even close
Click to expand...
Decent base, im sure there are incentives. He needs to decide whether he's happy to be a year by year proposition with us and have to earn another year each year. Or does he want to move for 2 years and be able to slack off and go through the motions before retiring with the guaranteed million. Theres been plenty that have carried on for 3 or 4 years on 1 year deals. I think its good for Jake as it keeps him hungry.
 
Bjchan13 said:
Decent base, im sure there are incentives. He needs to decide whether he's happy to be a year by year proposition with us and have to earn another year each year. Or does he want to move for 2 years and be able to slack off and go through the motions before retiring with the guaranteed million. Theres been plenty that have carried on for 3 or 4 years on 1 year deals. I think its good for Jake as it keeps him hungry.
Click to expand...

Good for us too as the financial commitment to him is stuff all.

If someone comes knocking and the offer is stupidly good I’d reconsider but I’m happy to keep.
 
Zach Package said:
Good for us too as the financial commitment to him is stuff all.

If someone comes knocking and the offer is stupidly good I’d reconsider but I’m happy to keep.
Click to expand...
No issue holding him for the year on the contract he's triggered. Its if he wants to start negotiating time/$ is where id look to move him on.
 
Really you cannot blame him if he asks for more. Most players would
I think we should keep him for one more year and take it from there.
We don't know he's not in our window coz i don't think Scott even knows when that is but he has banged on a lot all year around how even the comp is so he might in his mind think we are close even though blind Freddy knows we really aren't.
I just enjoy the funky stuff he does - there has to be some pleasure for long suffering fans and for me stringer delivers
 
Reader mode

Remove this Banner Ad

Traded #25: Jake Stringer - 📦 Traded to GWS for Pick #53 - 16/10

Similar threads

RedmanWasHere
Delisted #36: Jayden Davey - Delisted - 23/10
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
253
Views
19K
boncer34
boncer34
Duckworth
Delisted #38: Rhett Montgomerie - Not offered a contract for 2024 - 28/8
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
196
Views
20K
Zach Package
Zach Package
eth-dog
Retired #45: Anthony Munkara - Leaving the club, returning to Tiwi - 7/9
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
414
Views
44K
FlyingV
FlyingV

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top