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

[Lore]

Contract Status: Out of contract 2024
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 19, Harlequin

 

[BrunoV]

It's got nothing to do with midfielder's ability to hit a target. When was the last time Jake broke out onto a lead into space and they missed him? The biggest offender for missing wide open targets is most likely Jake, when guys are free and he doesn't like them and/or wants to play hero-ball instead.

Yep. And we can't player a forward 50 game because we're playing Wright, Stringer, Langford, Jones and often a second ruck. And we have a cultural problem that we can't fix by de-listing Voss, Wanganeen and Baldwin.

Stringer is a structural black hole. He covers the territory of a tall who is particularly weak in this part of the game and does it providing no aerial presence or target to help with ball movement.

We basically torpedo a proper forward structure for him to kick less than 2 goals a game. What would it look like if it was properly balanced? I suspect we'd cover his goals easily.

He is to Essendon what Menzel was to Geelong which had a big problem playing forward half footy.

What are we clinging to anyway, 46 points and a percentage of 94%? We are the epitome of mid-table mediocrity which is going nowhere.

 

[Old Campaigner]

I doubt we move him on, we’d be worse off on the short term regardless of the long term benefits and then the nuffies would shriek even louder about how we’ve gone backwards under Scott

 

[Saddlemanbags]

Waste of talent, never liked him or his mentality, wouldn't miss him getting in the way of other players and going for glory every time he gets the chance.

 

[yodellinhank]

I doubt we move him on, we’d be worse off on the short term regardless of the long term benefits and then the nuffies would shriek even louder about how we’ve gone backwards under Scott

Would we though? Would we go 35 i50 entries for zero score all of a sudden because we haven't got Jake standing his ground and calling for it on top if his head?

 

[P Money]

Kicked 42 goals and the next highest for us was 19. So yeah... which of our gun fwds are making up that extra 23 goals next season?

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

I know they play slightly different roles, but this is AA squad member Cam Rayner who all Lions fans apparently love now vs Jake.

 

[yodellinhank]

Kicked 42 goals and the next highest for us was 19. So yeah... which of our gun fwds are making up that extra 23 goals next season?

Langford gets more, for a start, as he is no longer competing with Jake for position. The crumbers get more if they are feeding off a proper tall who gives a contest instead of a guy who can't take a decent overhead and has to go to the boundary to create a stoppage...

 

[Vindicater]

Edmund saying he thinks it will be a two year deal.

 

[Rick Ross]

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.

Your assessment of dysfunction makes perfect sense.

Do wonder if there are more obvious things to change first (before jettisoning Stringer):

• Small / pace forwards are clearer gap
• Tall forwards / ruck balance (I’m including 2MP, Draper, Jones & Caddy here)

Mid sized forwards in Stringer and Langford seem to be the best piece / last thing to change.

 

[quotemokc]

I would say it boils down to what we could get for him.

If it was a late 2nd trade away.

If teams only offer a 4th rounder he might as well stay on a 1 year deal.

 

[Rick Ross]

Yep. And we can't player a forward 50 game because we're playing Wright, Stringer, Langford, Jones and often a second ruck. And we have a cultural problem that we can't fix by de-listing Voss, Wanganeen and Baldwin.

Stringer is a structural black hole. He covers the territory of a tall who is particularly weak in this part of the game and does it providing no aerial presence or target to help with ball movement.

We basically torpedo a proper forward structure for him to kick less than 2 goals a game. What would it look like if it was properly balanced? I suspect we'd cover his goals easily.

He is to Essendon what Menzel was to Geelong which had a big problem playing forward half footy.

What are we clinging to anyway, 46 points and a percentage of 94%? We are the epitome of mid-table mediocrity which is going nowhere.

As always a lot of ground covered…

1st item - playing Wright, Stringer, Langford, Jones and often a second ruck.

• Agree that didn’t work
• Wright, Jones & 2nd ruck contributed less whilst being bigger functional misfits (IMO)
• Stringer & Langford were 2 pieces that whilst not perfect were much more effective

2nd item - cultural problem
- Bigger problem, agree

3rd item - structural black hole

• Referencing tangential examples like Menzel that’s a different player at a very different club has limited value
• If stringer is a Strucural Black hole what do you call the even bigger problems of no quality small forwards and patchy (at best) talls?
  • “J059-4351”? (Google it if you are a nerd)

4th item - I suspect we'd cover his goals easily.

• We don’t need to just cover Stringer’s goals, we need to kick a lot more goals
• Need to retain 40+ goals and find more
• Creating a bigger deficit is counter productive

5th item - nothing to lose (we are the epitome of mid-table mediocrity which is going nowhere)

• We are not at bottom… our forward line can still degrade to be North level mid & tall talent levels (by exiting the talent we have)
• Need to go hard to fix of forward structure but surely there are bigger opportunities in quality talls, fast smalls who kick goals, forward tactics & delivery into the F50

 

[yodellinhank]

Your assessment of dysfunction makes perfect sense.

Do wonder if there are more obvious things to change first (before jettisoning Stringer):

• Small / pace forwards are clearer gap
• Tall forwards / ruck balance (I’m including 2MP, Draper, Jones & Caddy here)

Mid sized forwards in Stringer and Langford seem to be the best piece / last thing to change.

They're the first. There's room for 1 of tge two, and that one needs to rotate through the FF spot as well as the roaming tall spot.

We can't have both because neither provide an aerial presence, bringing it to ground for the smalls. In order to lock the ball in our 50 we have had them leading right to the boundary so that a spoil goes out and we can reset. It was sustainable for keeping it in our half/50 and not sustainable for converting our i50 to scores.

 

[yodellinhank]

As always a lot of ground covered…

1st item - playing Wright, Stringer, Langford, Jones and often a second ruck.

• Agree that didn’t work
• Wright, Jones & 2nd ruck contributed less whilst being bigger functional misfits (IMO)
• Stringer & Langford were 2 pieces that whilst not perfect were much more effective

2nd item - cultural problem
- Bigger problem, agree

3rd item - structural black hole

• Referencing tangential examples like Menzel that’s a different player at a very different club has limited value
• If stringer is a Strucural Black hole how do you quantify the even bigger problems of no quality small forwards and patchy (at best) talls?

4th item - I suspect we'd cover his goals easily.

• We don’t need to just cover Stringer’s goals, we need to kick a lot more goals
• Need to retain 40+ goals and find more
• Creating a bigger deficit is counter productive

5th item - nothing to lose (we are the epitome of mid-table mediocrity which is going nowhere)

• We are not at bottom… our forward line can still degrade to be North level mid & tall talent levels (by exiting the talent we have)
• Need to go hard to fix of forward structure but surely there are bigger opportunities in quality talls, fast smalls who kick goals, forward tactics & delivery into the F50

Addressing your point about smalls: Tyson Stengle goes from being a delisted free agent to arguably the top of the pile - because of the setup at geelong. Hawk, Jezza, Henry. Literally chucked out for nothing and now he's a go to for all Australian conversations.

 

[Vindicater]

Amazing, he’s better in some areas.

Perception is the issue perhaps.

Would like to see GPS numbers to be honest.

 

[P Money]

Langford gets more, for a start, as he is no longer competing with Jake for position. The crumbers get more if they are feeding off a proper tall who gives a contest instead of a guy who can't take a decent overhead and has to go to the boundary to create a stoppage...

Wait we have crumbers? Maybe Jye Menzie kicks 40 goals without Stringer (I mean it's only 39 more than he kicked this year)? You're clutching at straws because you don't like him. Whether he's right for our team/list right now is a reasonable question. Suggesting the team would score more without him considering he's 23 goals ahead of every other player on the list and 1 goal behind the leading goal kicker is just fantasy land.

 

[yodellinhank]

Wait we have crumbers? Maybe Jye Menzie kicks 40 goals without Stringer (I mean it's only 39 more than he kicked this year)? You're clutching at straws because you don't like him. Whether he's right for our team/list right now is a reasonable question. Suggesting the team would score more without him considering he's 23 goals ahead of every other player on the list and 1 goal behind the leading goal kicker is just fantasy land.

Stringer kicks goals when he is given isolation and gets a 1 on 1 strength competition with his direct opponent. It's an outdated type of forward. Team defence loves us because they simply come over and outnumber. We waste many inside 50s due to the ineffective nature of this set up. It is why we have him trying to sneak out the back all the time instead of leading at the ball carrier. It is why we kick to the boundary more than looking for someone in a leading lane in front of the goals.

I've given detail and explanation, and it's most probably backed up by the stats. You are the one creating a fantasy life without Stringer where somehow every goal he kicks is wiped from the scores. Somebody ends up on the end of it, whether that's Stringer or someone else.

 

[BrunoV]

As always a lot of ground covered…

1st item - playing Wright, Stringer, Langford, Jones and often a second ruck.

• Agree that didn’t work
• Wright, Jones & 2nd ruck contributed less whilst being bigger functional misfits (IMO)
• Stringer & Langford were 2 pieces that whilst not perfect were much more effective

2nd item - cultural problem
- Bigger problem, agree

3rd item - structural black hole

• Referencing tangential examples like Menzel that’s a different player at a very different club has limited value
• If stringer is a Strucural Black hole what do you call the even bigger problems of no quality small forwards and patchy (at best) talls?
  • “J059-4351”? (Google it if you are a nerd)

4th item - I suspect we'd cover his goals easily.

• We don’t need to just cover Stringer’s goals, we need to kick a lot more goals
• Need to retain 40+ goals and find more
• Creating a bigger deficit is counter productive

5th item - nothing to lose (we are the epitome of mid-table mediocrity which is going nowhere)

• We are not at bottom… our forward line can still degrade to be North level mid & tall talent levels (by exiting the talent we have)
• Need to go hard to fix of forward structure but surely there are bigger opportunities in quality talls, fast smalls who kick goals, forward tactics & delivery into the F50

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.

 

[P Money]

Stringer kicks goals when he is given isolation and gets a 1 on 1 strength competition with his direct opponent. It's an outdated type of forward. Team defence loves us because they simply come over and outnumber. We waste many inside 50s due to the ineffective nature of this set up. It is why we have him trying to sneak out the back all the time instead of leading at the ball carrier. It is why we kick to the boundary more than looking for someone in a leading lane in front of the goals.

I've given detail and explanation, and it's most probably backed up by the stats. You are the one creating a fantasy life without Stringer where somehow every goal he kicks is wiped from the scores. Somebody ends up on the end of it, whether that's Stringer or someone else.

You really haven't told me who this 'someone else' is. Langford is basically playing at his ceiling - he's not going to suddenly kick 60 or 70 goals without Stringer. We have zero small forwards who kick goals but you assert that our 'crumbers' will somehow make up his 42 goals (and more) when he's not there. Just fantasy stuff.

 

[faible]

PSA: Reminder that ChatGPT can summarise posts in plain English.

 

[yodellinhank]

You really haven't told me who this 'someone else' is. Langford is basically playing at his ceiling - he's not going to suddenly kick 60 or 70 goals without Stringer. We have zero small forwards who kick goals but you assert that our 'crumbers' will somehow make up his 42 goals (and more) when he's not there. Just fantasy stuff.

You think the ball goes i50 and 5 other forwards just watch it bounce in space and say "where the ****s Jake?"

I've posted in the List Mgt thread - we are not tall and not small enough. There's only room IMO for 1 of Stringer and Langford in my ideal forward setup.

We will be better next year with Caddy able to play more of a role, and invite the long ball more. He will kick more goals, as will the smalls who will feed off those contests.

Wright, Draper or someone else need to be also provide that presence. Langford/Stringer can then be the floater that then gets off the hook. Jones may form part of either of those roles but he needs to find improvement also.

In recent memory our forward line functioned best when we had Hooker providing that key post presence. He didn't need to kick 60 goals for us to miss that.

For me Stringer is, say, a 2 out of 10 prospect when it goes forward. You remember the 2 times it goes in and he pushes off and marks, goals from the boundary, takes on three and wins. It's spectacular and sticks in the mind. But you ignore the 8 times he doesn't provide a target, is forced wide or easily spoilt because he isn't a true KPF. He doesn't provide crumbs and structure, the structure is actually designed around the fact he can't take a mark like other KPFs in the league.

It's low efficiency because of Stringer, not because we need more Jake Stringers.

 

[P Money]

You think the ball goes i50 and 5 other forwards just watch it bounce in space and say "where the ****s Jake?"

I've posted in the List Mgt thread - we are not tall and not small enough. There's only room IMO for 1 of Stringer and Langford in my ideal forward setup.

We will be better next year with Caddy able to play more of a role, and invite the long ball more. He will kick more goals, as will the smalls who will feed off those contests.

Wright, Draper or someone else need to be also provide that presence. Langford/Stringer can then be the floater that then gets off the hook. Jones may form part of either of those roles but he needs to find improvement also.

In recent memory our forward line functioned best when we had Hooker providing that key post presence. He didn't need to kick 60 goals for us to miss that.

For me Stringer is, say, a 2 out of 10 prospect when it goes forward. You remember the 2 times it goes in and he pushes off and marks, goals from the boundary, takes on three and wins. It's spectacular and sticks in the mind. But you ignore the 8 times he doesn't provide a target, is forced wide or easily spoilt because he isn't a true KPF. He doesn't provide crumbs and structure, the structure is actually designed around the fact he can't take a mark like other KPFs in the league.

It's low efficiency because of Stringer, not because we need more Jake Stringers.

I think we both agree that the fwd line is dysfunctional and unbalanced. Where we seem to disagree is the cause. I think Stringer would fit into any properly functioning fwd line that has a decent full fwd who can take contested marks / not get outmarked, and genuine smalls who apply pressure and crumb goals. We have neither of those. In fact I'd hazard a guess that Stringer kicked more crumbing goals this year than any of our small forwards.

Add to that that our forward 50 entry is abysmal, as well as our game style ensuring that our fwd 50 is congested with 40 odd players crammed into it every time we get it in there.

Either way I think we have far bigger problems in our fwd line than Stringer kicking 40 goals.

 

[faible]

Shots on goal for EFC this year; Stringer and Langford got by a substantial margin the most opportunities to score.

 

[yodellinhank]

I think we both agree that the fwd line is dysfunctional and unbalanced. Where we seem to disagree is the cause. I think Stringer would fit into any properly functioning fwd line that has a decent full fwd who can take contested marks / not get outmarked, and genuine smalls who apply pressure and crumb goals. We have neither of those. In fact I'd hazard a guess that Stringer kicked more crumbing goals this year than any of our small forwards.

Add to that that our forward 50 entry is abysmal, as well as our game style ensuring that our fwd 50 is congested with 40 odd players crammed into it every time we get it in there.

Either way I think we have far bigger problems in our fwd line than Stringer kicking 40 goals.

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.

 

[yodellinhank]

Shots on goal for EFC this year; Stringer and Langford got by a substantial margin the most opportunities to score.

View attachment 2093558

They're the main targets alright.

 

[naraku]

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.

I know that.
But as an overall forward line critique- even as different players and roles- I don't think Jake was that bad.

It's just frustrating because we all know how good he could be if he stayed fit and locked on for a year.