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:
Jake kicked over 40 goals (and 1 goal off leading our goal kicking for the 4th time?) in a completely disfunctional fwd line of a pretty well disfunctional team. I can only imagine how many goals he'd kick for a team like the Dees or the Pies if we let him go.

Agree that he's unlikely to be with us if and when we are finally pushing for success, so I can respect calls to trade him out on that basis. But potting him as if he's not contributing or he's 'past it' or any other tripe is just total nonsense. He's about #135 of our biggest problems on the field.
 
Don’t mind if he stays. Too many times last couple of months the supply to him has been shit. There was on on the weekend all by himself near the boundary and kicker completely missed him. 40 goals is not a bad effort considering
 
Last edited:
Can we not play Stringer and Langford in the same forward line?

Our forward line has a lot of issues but not necessity caused by the two playing together:
  • Deliver into F50 was appalling late in the season / which helped neither
  • Went too tall at times / shouldn’t play 2MP & Drapper (fwd) in addition to Stringer & Langford
  • Need more pace and impact from smalls / reflective on our lack of quality of smalls

Their quality is one of the few things we could build on. 40 goals each. Could see them both improving on that with better delivery.

Whilst I love watching Stringer play, I won’t be devastated if he isn’t resigned as I think we’re a few years away from truely contending and he’ll be out by then.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

P Money said:
Jake kicked over 40 goals (and 1 goal off leading our goal kicking for the 4th time?) in a completely disfunctional fwd line of a pretty well disfunctional team. I can only imagine how many goals he'd kick for a team like the Dees or the Pies if we let him go.

Agree that he's unlikely to be with us if and when we are finally pushing for success, so I can respect calls to trade him out on that basis. But potting him as if he's not contributing or he's 'past it' or any other tripe is just total nonsense. He's about #135 of our biggest problems on the field.
Click to expand...

i'd agree, but I'm not signing him for more than 1 year and then provide the incentives for a trigger clause - need to keep this guy hungry.

40 goals is a pass mark and it's fair to say that our fwdline isa complete shit show.
 
Jake would've had 60 goals in a side that could find him (Menzie not seeing him by himself for like 20 seconds only to not even make the distance from 50m out against Freo) or/and actually kick to him (he looked disgusted with that out of bounds kick by Parish on the weekend)

People wanted to burn everything to the ground and ditch two 40+ goalkickers are just being stupid, like **** you don't remember monfries being our leading goalscorer with 24 in year?
 
Last edited:
Ball is in his court. Hit the trigger but doesn't warrant upping his money or years.

Doesnt really work with langford and 2 talls so not fussed. A good fit for another team or on our base terms.

Had a good career at ess so worked for both but might be time to depart.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'd give him 1 year.

He gets a lot of shit (understandable) but he was better than Langford and Wright.

When you have spuds like Menzie and Gresham around you and the butchery of the ball into your area, you're not always going to do well.

Again, I get the shit he cops and a fair bit is justified.
But I just don't see us been better with Langford and Wright supporting Nate.

Let's be honest, Kyle and Peter have had one good season each in 10 years.
 
naraku said:
I'd give him 1 year.

He gets a lot of shit (understandable) but he was better than Langford and Wright.

When you have spuds like Menzie and Gresham around you and the butchery of the ball into your area, you're not always going to do well.

Again, I get the shit he cops and a fair bit is justified.
But I just don't see us been better with Langford and Wright supporting Nate.

Let's be honest, Kyle and Peter have had one good season each in 10 years.
Click to expand...
He was better than Langford. Comparing him with Wright is like comparing him with Caddy or Draper or Jones or Alwyn Davey Jr. He's not there to provide what they provide.
 
Cold Sober said:
Stringer stays, get rid of the idiots who can't hit targets.
Click to expand...
This is our biggest issue and the game plan does not help. I am not sure this forward press game will ever stand up in finals and it is boring as fcuk footy. Even Lyon at Saints has woken up re running the ball.

All the good teams are running the ball and creating space off the back of breaking lines. We chip, chip, get to the middle to be confronted with an opposition stacked forward line and zero pressure if the ball hits the ground.

Then you look at the last 15 minutes of the Freo game when we ran the ball we looked a million times better. Time to recruit mid sized runners that can break lines.

IMO we have way too many talls atm.
 
MiguelM said:
This is our biggest issue and the game plan does not help. I am not sure this forward press game will ever stand up in finals and it is boring as fcuk footy. Even Lyon at Saints has woken up re running the ball.

All the good teams are running the ball and creating space off the back of breaking lines. We chip, chip, get to the middle to be confronted with an opposition stacked forward line and zero pressure if the ball hits the ground.

Then you look at the last 15 minutes of the Freo game when we ran the ball we looked a million times better. Time to recruit mid sized runners that can break lines.

IMO we have way too many talls atm.
Click to expand...
This.

The entire game plan needs to change.
 
Controversial opinion but it's got nothing to do with midfielders not being able to hit a target, it's all the forwards (not Jake so much)

Look at the dogs, had an absolute shit early to mid year because they couldn't get the Darcy Naught Juh scenario right, all 3 were always flying for the same balls and messing up, the only saving grace was when weightman returned to partner west they had ground presence to atleast mop up the mess. As the year went on it was clear the talls worked it out and stopped spoiling each other.

We have a 50 where 2mp (or draper) caddy and Langford are always collapsing on each other's space, spoiling each other , then Harry and Cox drifting in from the side making it worse, even guelfi wants to fly at everything..and zero ground presence to make it even worse. It's gets to the point half the defenders can sag off and wait for us to spoil our own entry then they are in prime position to exit.

We don't need better entry kicks, we need the forwards to respect space, pull their opponents away from the most likely target and create room for leading lanes. This will give the kicker a safe target rather than a hopeful bomb to a pack where not only are the defenders spoiling but we are spoiling our own.
 
Moves like a billiard table and looks like he ate a wheelie bin. 😂😂 not often you open a player thread and laugh
 
Some of Daniel Menzel's numbers in his last 3 seasons at Geelong (before being traded to Sydney):

  • 2016: 33 goals at an average of 1.8;
  • 2017: 40 goals at an average of 2.1;
  • 2018: 27 goals at an average of 2.1.

Jake Stringer's equivalent numbers in his last 3 seasons;

  • 2022: 25 goals at an average of 1.7;
  • 2023: 21 goals at an average of 1.2;
  • 2024: 42 goals at an average of 1.8.

What does a good club do when faced with a dysfunctional forward line? What does a bad club do when faced with the equivalent problem? I want to answers at least part of this latter question to say that it will come up with a number of reasons not to make desperately needed change, none of which address the fundamental issue(s).
 
I’d say the starting point is to work out where the fundamental issue lies. Is it the forward line or is it further up the ground? Is it a personnel issue or how they are organised?
 
BrunoV said:
Some of Daniel Menzel's numbers in his last 3 seasons at Geelong (before being traded to Sydney):

  • 2016: 33 goals at an average of 1.8;
  • 2017: 40 goals at an average of 2.1;
  • 2018: 27 goals at an average of 2.1.

Jake Stringer's equivalent numbers in his last 3 seasons;

  • 2022: 25 goals at an average of 1.7;
  • 2023: 21 goals at an average of 1.2;
  • 2024: 42 goals at an average of 1.8.

What does a good club do when faced with a dysfunctional forward line? What does a bad club do when faced with the equivalent problem? I want to answers at least part of this latter question to say that it will come up with a number of reasons not to make desperately needed change, none of which address the fundamental issue(s).
Click to expand...

How many years did we have issues in the midfield, which most of us could see, but the club wouldn't do anything about. It was unbalanced.

It the same problem with the forwardline. It's dysfunctional because we're missing a some pieces and the balance is off. I'd suggest we remove Stringer for the same reason I was originally a fan of trading Parish. Not because I don't like the players, but because something needs to change to make it function better. If we're going to keep Stringer then we have to look at whether it's viable to keep Langford/Jones/Perkins/Caddy etc, because they can't all function in the same team.

I definitely don't want to get rid of Caddy, but we can only have so many mid sized forwards in the team.
 
He's clearly lost a step

But on the opposite side of the coin he still reads the play better than any other forward we have and is very good 1v1

1 year only if he doesn't retire and he's physically struggling to stay in AFL shape all season long.
 
Reader mode

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top