List Mgmt. 2022 Trade Thread - Part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I said IF we get another KPD AND Coff comes back from his ACL then something has to give height wise.

You can't play Howard, Wilkie, Coffield, Battle and another KPD in the same backline. Unless we want less run off the back half and shift Sinclair.

Paton Howard Wilkie

Coff ???? Sinclair
Coff is a jet and can do the running job, and I guess I do want less run off HB since I prefer kicking, want Hill removed.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The answer is sitting in the twos is SA

View attachment 1492507

Bit of a mind-boggling one from us. Got torched by Curnow/McKay in the Carlton game playing as a KPD and got dropped back to the SANFL, despite winning 3/6 games before that as a lockdown defender. Has been working on his 1-1 game back in the 2’s but has been racking up mental 3rd tall (almost HB) type numbers in terms of intercepts, metres gained.

Averaging about 20 disposals per game, elects to go by foot nearly every single time and has a DE of about 80%+

200cm, is quite good chopping out in the ruck.

Absolutely a fan of his, I reckon he’ll go for a packet of chips, and he’ll him thrive in whatever team he gets to next year


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Anyone thinking Battle could potentially get pushed out of the side please watch our game against GWS this year.

The bloke is an absolute warrior. Stepped into the ruck and got smashed but his sheer will to participate lifted the boys and we held on for the win.

One of the few who has a bit of ticker about him, must stay in the team.
 
Defending has changed so much in the last 30 years as the athleticism of players has increased. We have had Two tall guys standing in the square vying for the ball, then high aerobic capacity footballers like Riewoldt blowing up their opponents by running all day is also not where we are at anymore. The best defenders right now are those that can read the play and anticipate the ball for intercept marks and rebounding rather then spoils. James Sicily was so good this year and hard done by not to get an AA and he is 186cm. Adam Saad 178cm, Tom Stewart 190cm, Sam Taylor 196cm. Shows height isn't as important as it once was in choosing your backline.
Steven May doesn't use his height but is 100kg frame and is ability to be in the right spot first to be such a great defender. Give me a defender who reads the play like him and the above players and I'd be very happy regardless on his height.

 
So who goes if we get another key defender and Coff comes strong back from his ACL.

Back 6 certainties would then be

????? Howard Wilkie

Coff ???? Sinclair

If we have delisted Joyce because we have our eyes on a tall KPD then Battle has got to be considered trade bait simply because he has more value than someone like Highmore or Leinert.

Interesting times coming up.
Been reported we are having a look at this guy. He too out Bombers reserves B&F this year. Ruck that can play defence.

 
Unfortunately he's just not May though

He rarely takes the big forwards, often even playing on smalls

Not the type we need
I'm hoping Battle can develop into the May type. He is a unit a same height as May. He is just getting some continuity in the backline, so wouldn't surprise to see him go to the next level next year. Definitely hope we don't bring another 3rd tall type in Logue. We could get rid of some as it is
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Any chance Gold Coast trade pick 25 for Butler now they need a small forward..?

I would be shopping him around big time and looking to play Gresh and Higgins fwd

Also Battle is a gun. One of the First picked most weeks I would say.
It's possible..

If we're giving their list manager gifts in brown paper bags.

Also think Butler is contracted so he would have to agree to a trade
 
Love the ambition- but trading up to pick 1 in reality would definately involve us coughing up someone like jack steele or something equally essential.

Teams overvalue pick 1- it comes with an additional price premium over all other picks.
(Due to as much as anything, mitigation of the future embarrassment of potentially giving up a champion for magic beans)

It's dumb and illogical because pick 1's aren't in reality any more likely to be champions than later picks- but just because it's illogical, doesn't mean it doesn't happen-
If you want pick 1, you need to pay bigger overs to get it vs any other pick.



Love the idea, but Logue as the solution doesn't get me excited.

If we nailed trading in a gun FB, I think it would be like getting a 2 for 1 deal- because I think Dougs would go to a whole new level at CHB- a virtual new recruit.

yeah yeah yeah, too many talls down back, can't play them all etc etc etc. :rolleyes:

Yes correct- but it's time to strap on the big boy pants and make some hard calls.

The goal is to get our best 22 into top 4 shape in the next 2 years.
In order to do that we are gonna have to break a few eggs to make that omelette.

We aren't ever gonna get a top 4 starting 22 with dougs at FB. (He's too attacking, not good enough at man on man contested stuff- an essential part of being a FB.)

So... we either ship him off, or play him at CHB where he can (in theory) actually use his natural abilities.

As such, I say we go with:

2023-
have battle train as a lockdown FB all pre-season,
doogs at CHB with a licence to attack and create.
Wilkie takes the 3rd tall spot,
Coff(if form and fitness warrant selection) takes sinclairs attacking HB spot,
and 2 of paton/long/webster etc take the remaining small back spots.

If this works out well ie:
1. battle can do what doogs can't at FB (win some man-on-man contests and not give his opponent 20meters of space all day), and
2. doogs can use his attacking nature to good effect rebounding and creating at CHB...

happy days- we don't need to bring in another key defender.
2024+ top 4 here we come!

If it doesn't work- well then it's as simple as ditching doogs and getting ourselves a genuine fullback, with battle returning to CHB.
I like the idea of Doogs going to CHB. He is one of the quickest players and would make a great link up player.

I’m not sold on Battle playing as the defender. I have been watching him closely and he rarely competes in the contest. Of recent matches he stood next to the contest when an undersized Seb Ross and Ben Long compete in a contests.
I was also seated near the goal sq when Marshall and Battle exchanged a few tough words on Battles ability to stay on his man.
At one point Marshall is pointing at the player demanding he gets closer to him.

I’m all for trading Battle. Yeah not popular, I know but I just don’t see him playing in our best 22 if we have another defender.
Cash in while we can. This is our big draft year to build around our youth coming through.

I’m for the 200cm+ defender. But more the McKay/ DeConing type that’s young, mobile and athletic. Can stil play like a 190cm but has that extra 10cm. We seem to be moving in the direction of tall big forwards and we need tall big bodies defenders to counter them.
 
I'm not talking about upgrading him, I'm talking about looking at what he does well and does poorly... and seeing if there is opportunity for him (and the team) to be better than we have been.
Because doing nothing isn't an option at this point- we are going nowhere fast with the status quo.

As such I'm saying, why not look at what he does well (attack)- and put him somewhere which suits it.
Play him at CHB and play battle on the mckay, lynch etc tall full forwards.



why is 5 a magic number? That's an entirely arbitrary measure of success or failure.
Mitch lewis gave our defence a bath earlier in the year but only kicked 3.5.
That's a win for our defence just because he didn't kick 5?

The amount of objectively preventable goals (or shots at goal) that doogs concedes is the worry.
He too often gets beaten by the opposition taking a mark that is either completely uncontested or only lightly contested... whereas for instance if it were wilkie- the mark would have been contested at least or not a mark at all.

I recall someone posted win % for 1-on-1 contests not too long ago- it was no surprise to see doogs off the charts (in a bad way)- because he avoids 1-on-1's (not a good trait for any FB), and when he does inevitably get into some- he loses them regularly.

We are trying to smash a square peg into a round hole making him a designated full back just because he's tall... while ignoring:
A. his natural attacking instincts (not a great attribute at FB unless you are doing serious damage offensively rebounding- which doogs doesn't)
B. his weakness in 1-on-1 contests (not a great attribute on the last line of defence)




Extrapolate this mentality across 21 other positions in our starting 22 and no wonder we are 10th every year with most of our list in its prime.
I think you are focusing too much on CHB and FB when modern defences don't really chain someone to that set position.

If you want to play players somewhere that suits their attributes, you wouldn't also be suggesting playing Battle directly on the Lynch and McKay types. All you have to do is look at our game against Carlton this year and see the difference in impact McKay had on Howard compared to when Battle took over in the 2nd half to see that Howard is much better in position than Battle would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top