List Mgmt. 2024 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Ticky009]

 

[tombomb]

There's no reason McVeigh can't organise the team to play in the same game style as the seniors while using the magnets creatively to provide development opportunities.
For instance Green can play some games as a back, some as a forward as the second ruck for about 25% game time. Ladhams and Stretch can alternatively take the 75% ruck time and when not rucking play as a tall forward. It ain't that hard.
It's difficult to understand why Truslove didn't.

I am not worried about game style. I am more concerned why we draft players and then seemingly make no effort in the vfl to get them involved in the game.

If Konstanty or Vickery aren't getting much of the ball as small forwards or defenders, why not put them in the middle and give them an opportunity to show if they are up to it?! Instead they just spend 2 years standing around watching the play and then we delist them, while we play top-up players in the middle.

I can see it already happening with Green where they are just going to stuff around with him playing on the fringes and then delist him or he asks for a trade.

I just hope that McVeigh being coach is a sign that the club wants the VFL team to be used to develop players for the senior team, not for whatever it has been getting used for in the past few years. But I don't trust anything really with this club at the moment.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Ladhams is horrendous as a tall forward. Plays like an Under 12. Much better as a first ruck.

Both versions of Ladhams are versions of horrendous

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Ladhams is horrendous as a tall forward. Plays like an Under 12. Much better as a first ruck.

Agreed at AFL level. At VFL level, he's good enough as a forward to spend time there to allow Green time in the ruck to develop.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I am not worried about game style. I am more concerned why we draft players and then seemingly make no effort in the vfl to get them involved in the game.

My comment was "use the magnets to provide development opportunities" which is exactly what you're saying.
Green is very tall. His opportunities will be to play tall roles. More regular time rucking seems pretty obvious but not to the extent of damaging him against guys like Soldo or Ned Moyle.
Lots of people have bemoaned the lack of midfield time afforded Magor or wing HBF time for Vickery for instance and have done so most of the season. Konstanty has at least played his position when fit. Midfield maybe? I dunno.
As to "game style" the VFL team had no discernible game plan which again was remarked upon many times. Perhaps it would be good if their game plan looked something like the seniors wherever possible.
I think we all hope Macca will sort a lot of this stuff out.

 

[Wheresbuddy]

If we think we need 4 rucks on the list (I think 3 is enough), I would de-list McAndrew and rookie a state league player.

I've always liked the look of Crossley and from a recent interview I read, sounds like he's matured from his misspent youth and is desperate for another go. He is clearly a better player than McAndrew and has the added bonus of being able to play forward. He's only one year older than McAndrew and having been brought up on footy, can execute basic skills which sadly for Stretch, still have not reached even VFL standard.

I throw Crossley's name up not necessarily as the only option as there would surely be others who would be an upgrade on Stretch. But he's one that comes to my mind.

 

[wolftone57]

Time to lose Ladhams. He is useless at AFL level. He does not have enough footy smarts & has a bad attitude. Lost that game at Adelaide Oval. We were fighting back when he was involved in two incidents, one with Wines & I can't remember who the other was. Got suspended. Then he commits another unforgivable sun in the Reserves, a head high deliberate hit. He is so smart he ran straight at the guy.

He is a liability & I would rather we developed the other two. Big Mac will have another pre-season & he will put on some bulk, not much but some. He reminds me a bit of Greg Stafford

Greg Stafford

Age

50

Ht

204cm

Wt

106kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.1

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.3

3star

HO

11.7

5star

No current season stats available

D

7.2

2star

K

3.0

1star

HB

4.2

4star

HO

5.8

5star

. He has a great ability to hit taps to advantage, he now needs to learn to win the ball around the ground. That only happens if you are played in the ruck.

Green, is a newbie, he obviously has huge talent. His taps also go to advantage & with a second pre-season he will stack on some bulk to help him body opponents. Let's play these two exciting young rucks. Green can take a grab forward or back & so can Big Mac. Why not take advantage of talent, footy intelligence & let the Dumbo go.

On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dubsforsam1]

Seems here that everyone defines players/squads etc by one game.
We had the top scoring offence in the AFL by points with the 7th best defence by points conceded but everyone seems to think it's the attacks fault we lost

 

[rustycrate]

If we think we need 4 rucks on the list (I think 3 is enough), I would de-list McAndrew and rookie a state league player.

I've always liked the look of Crossley and from a recent interview I read, sounds like he's matured from his misspent youth and is desperate for another go. He is clearly a better player than McAndrew and has the added bonus of being able to play forward. He's only one year older than McAndrew and having been brought up on footy, can execute basic skills which sadly for Stretch, still have not reached even VFL standard.

I throw Crossley's name up not necessarily as the only option as there would surely be others who would be an upgrade on Stretch. But he's one that comes to my mind.

Because we are a non Victorian team I think the Swans feel a responsibility to draft academy players and retain them on the list. This inspires the kids in schools every year when they see players being drafted and retained on the list at the Swans. This cannot be understated. The academy kids wanting to be a part of the academy every year is not a default. It requires the Swans to demonstrate that there is a definite path to the AFL. If these kids see that every year there are players being drafted or rookied or retained on the Swans list then it inspires hope in kids of all ages in the Swans academy.

When we see we have academy kids of the quality to be drafted we on this board get a bit excited. But it is not an accident or fluke that the kids are striving to get on the Swans list. It is because the Swans show care and offer opportunities for them on the list and keep them on the list. These players then become role models to the younger academy kids.

Delisting Stretch vs delisting Ladhams does not have the same effect. Delisting Ladhams is whatever. He has been a servant of the club. But delisting Stretch is one less role model player motivating academy kids. Delisting academy players is a decision, I think, that the Swans do not take lightly.

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Because we are a non Victorian team I think the Swans feel a responsibility to draft academy players and retain them on the list. This inspires the kids in schools every year when they see players being drafted and retained on the list at the Swans. This cannot be understated. The academy kids wanting to be a part of the academy every year is not a default. It requires the Swans to demonstrate that there is a definite path to the AFL. If these kids see that every year there are players being drafted or rookied or retained on the Swans list then it inspires hope in kids of all ages in the Swans academy.

When we see we have academy kids of the quality to be drafted we on this board get a bit excited. But it is not an accident or fluke that the kids are striving to get on the Swans list. It is because the Swans show care and offer opportunities for them on the list and keep them on the list. These players then become role models to the younger academy kids.

Delisting Stretch vs delisting Ladhams does not have the same effect. Delisting Ladhams is whatever. He has been a servant of the club. But delisting Stretch is one less role model player motivating academy kids. Delisting academy players is a decision, I think, that the Swans do not take lightly.

Ladhams has a year to run. I think we would have to pay him out and I'm pretty sure that money would still come off the salary cap. So unfortunately it's not happening.

However, I take your point and suspect if we persist with the 4 ruck strategy, then Stretch will get another year. But if he doesn't get up to speed, it will be his last. Can only afford to carry him for so long.

 

[Dan87]

We can add whatever mid and small forward you want but if we don't improve our aerial contest we're going to get exposed against the best in big games.

We straight up don't have the spine

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Ladhams has a year to run. I think we would have to pay him out and I'm pretty sure that money would still come off the salary cap. So unfortunately it's not happening.

However, I take your point and suspect if we persist with the 4 ruck strategy, then Stretch will get another year. But if he doesn't get up to speed, it will be his last. Can only afford to carry him for so long.

I would like to see whether we can turn Stretch into another position probably won’t work but Ladhams and Green splitting the ruck in the VFL should be priority 1

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We can add whatever mid and small forward you want but if we don't improve our aerial contest we're going to get exposed against the best in big games.

We straight up don't have the spine

We did when we were 13-3. Then we changed our structures and everything to fit players in. We ended up being too slow and too tall.

 

[wolftone57]

Agree with this i think a restructure of the forward line does have the job with the improvement. Also think this is a big year for Campbell especially if they go to the 2-2-2 forward structure as he has the pressure forward player written all over him

The forwards are not the problem. The forward set ups are. Too many times we had all three talls in a pack trying to mark the ball. We had nobody leading. The last kick was a long kick. This plays into the hands of teams like Lions & it did GF day. They just blew us away on rebound every time.

The mids are soft. There, I said it. Easily pushed aside. McHandbag & Co made us look like kids. They bullied our mids & they folded. Get pushed aside. Including Heeney, who was shite. If he really wants to be a great player he has to turn up to dance the big dance. He doesn't, he cringes in the corner. He had lots of friends. Gulden, Warner, Papley, McInerney all poor. We need mids who stand up like Rowie.

Sheldrick in please. Cleary, at least he gives you 120%. Get a young big bodied mid or get Mitchell or Roberts in there full time. We need grunt in there. I don't give a shite if it is raw, McHandbag was raw once, now he is a bull.

As for the backs. Boy. We are in trouble here. With Lloyd out of there we look vulnerable. He is so underrated. He was one of the few who can stand tall after that horrible GF. His intercepts against talker opponents are classic. But with him gone nothing gets done. Mills has to go back next season. Release Blakey to run & carry. Wing or mids. Macca on the other wing. Gulden playing HF/mid role. What I mean is that he starts HF but becomes a mid after the bounce.

We need to draft a small forward. The last time we drafted two, Konstanty & Magor, one ended up at HB & the other was perennially injured but now wants out. Probably to Carlton. Why did we ruin Magor? I think Trusslove effed any chance he had at a career.

On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[rustycrate]

We can add whatever mid and small forward you want but if we don't improve our aerial contest we're going to get exposed against the best in big games.

We straight up don't have the spine

My preference is for a KPF and a small forward. The small could potentially play next year but we are pretty much constrained because we have signed the majarority of the current team to long deals. There are other players needing to be signed. The answer lies in the current team fortunately or unfortunately. There is not going to be much trading this outside of maybe one player I reckon. Rookies are a different matter. But we are pretty full there too.

 

[caesar88]

Seems here that everyone defines players/squads etc by one game.
We had the top scoring offence in the AFL by points with the 7th best defence by points conceded but everyone seems to think it's the attacks fault we lost

I think two things can be true at the same time. The forward line worked well for the majority of the year and, at its best, was as dangerous as any. But the forward line also wasn't maybe flexible enough and it did cost us.

I don't know if anyone else saw it this way, but it seemed really clear to me from watching that our forward line was structured to be as much about creating space for mids/flankers to push forward as it was about talls taking marks and having shots at goal. This worked a lot of the time, but there's a flaw with it, which is that it relies heavily on those mids/flankers getting that space and using it well to create those scoring opportunities. As we saw on the grand final, when most of the mids & flankers are simply not playing well, then that's when you need the actual forwards themselves to step up in their absence.

But if they can't step up - as they couldn't on grand final day at all (all three talls and all three smalls/mediums were non-factors) - then at the very least there needs to be enough pressure at ground level to just lock the ball in, generate repeat entries and at least give ourselves some chances to make goals out of nothing. We didn't have that pressure at ground level, and so not only were we not being effective when we had the ball in the front half, but we were also not making it difficult on the opposition defence in our front half.

All of this is to say that I think our forward line's plan A is good. Great, even. It's when plan A fails that it becomes clear our plan B isn't good enough, and that maybe there isn't even a plan C at all.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I think two things can be true at the same time. The forward line worked well for the majority of the year and, at its best, was as dangerous as any. But the forward line also wasn't maybe flexible enough and it did cost us.

I don't know if anyone else saw it this way, but it seemed really clear to me from watching that our forward line was structured to be as much about creating space for mids/flankers to push forward as it was about talls taking marks and having shots at goal. This worked a lot of the time, but there's a flaw with it, which is that it relies heavily on those mids/flankers getting that space and using it well to create those scoring opportunities. As we saw on the grand final, when most of the mids & flankers are simply not playing well, then that's when you need the actual forwards themselves to step up in their absence.

But if they can't step up - as they couldn't on grand final day at all (all three talls and all three smalls/mediums were non-factors) - then at the very least there needs to be enough pressure at ground level to just lock the ball in, generate repeat entries and at least give ourselves some chances to make goals out of nothing. We didn't have that pressure at ground level, and so not only were we not being effective when we had the ball in the front half, but we were also not making it difficult on the opposition defence in our front half.

All of this is to say that I think our forward line's plan A is good. Great, even. It's when plan A fails that it becomes clear our plan B isn't good enough, and that maybe there isn't even a plan C at all.

Sorry for the long post.

A lot of it comes back to our mids getting the ball in. Rebound, clearance, contested ball etc. When those are going OK Plan A works. When they fell away mid season plan B was somewhat exposed. Also the ball hit our defence faster which exposed is there in a different way.
It all comes back to the same thing.

 

[Kbroome]

A lot of it comes back to our mids getting the ball in. Rebound, clearance, contested ball etc. When those are going OK Plan A works. When they fell away mid season plan B was somewhat exposed. Also the ball hit our defence faster which exposed is there in a different way.
It all comes back to the same thing.

Yep i mean we also got extremely lucky that we barely had games in the wet because the team is not set up for that. I just think that we realised it wasn't 100% working and we kept copping injuries to squad players in the forward line/out of form players that we had to stick with the 3 tall structure. Hopefully John comes to his senses and realises 2-2-2 gives a lot more flexibility and pace to the lineup

 

[wolftone57]

I think two things can be true at the same time. The forward line worked well for the majority of the year and, at its best, was as dangerous as any. But the forward line also wasn't maybe flexible enough and it did cost us.

I don't know if anyone else saw it this way, but it seemed really clear to me from watching that our forward line was structured to be as much about creating space for mids/flankers to push forward as it was about talls taking marks and having shots at goal. This worked a lot of the time, but there's a flaw with it, which is that it relies heavily on those mids/flankers getting that space and using it well to create those scoring opportunities. As we saw on the grand final, when most of the mids & flankers are simply not playing well, then that's when you need the actual forwards themselves to step up in their absence.

But if they can't step up - as they couldn't on grand final day at all (all three talls and all three smalls/mediums were non-factors) - then at the very least there needs to be enough pressure at ground level to just lock the ball in, generate repeat entries and at least give ourselves some chances to make goals out of nothing. We didn't have that pressure at ground level, and so not only were we not being effective when we had the ball in the front half, but we were also not making it difficult on the opposition defence in our front half.

All of this is to say that I think our forward line's plan A is good. Great, even. It's when plan A fails that it becomes clear our plan B isn't good enough, and that maybe there isn't even a plan C at all.

Sorry for the long post.

Our mids & flankers went missing in the GF. Our only way to goal was the long kick. This is because our forwards all bunched together & our backs, mids & wingers just bombed in which fed right into their hands as they rebounded faster than a supersonic airliner.

Our forwards didn't go missing. The forward structure was one of the great failures of any FF ever. All players bunched together for the long bomb. But our greatest failure was being murdered in contested possession, clearances & stoppages. Turnovers hurt as well. We lost every indicator of a Premiership side. Our mids were piss weak. If you blame anyone blame Heeney, Warner, Macca, Papley, Gulden. Rowie & Parker tried hard. Lloydy was good but had few friends. Maybe Fox again. Our so called heroes did not stand up. They were terrible.



On CPH2471 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SeanM]

Demons set to land Essendon's pick 9 in swap deal

A major pick swap is set to be completed on Monday

www.afl.com.au

Not sure how much truth is in the article. But it will be interesting if Melbourne end up getting Essendon's pick 9.

They were mentioned as one of the main clubs interested in Gold Coast's pick 13. So it may increase the chance that we end up with it. Because Gold Coast will be looking to trade it to someone.