AFL Player #25: Jake Stringer

[Lore]

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

 

[Milanista28]

I'd trade him if possible, if not possible I'd delist him, him helping us win a couple of games a year hurts us in the long run.

 

[jdstorm]

The talk seems to be that Perkins wanted to play midfield and was given that oppurtunity all year at AFL level. He started the year ok in the role too but it obviously got to the point he was a liability and dropped. Is that experiment now over? Its been said by many probably including yourself but if the midfield attempt is to continue then he may need to play a fair bit of VFL for development purposes. If its decided that he is a half forward only (which i think he is) and he and club are on the same page with that then i agree. There's only room for 2 out of Stringer, Perkins and Langford in the starting 22 forwardline for balance purposes as of round 1 next year.

There’s only really room for 1 out of Langford/Stringer either way as both are too small to play Key Position and too Slow to be pressure players.

Stringer would be useful if he was able to play mid/forward but he’s not fit enough for that.

He’d be a good sub if he wants to stick around/no one else wants him.

If they do, then thanks for memories and best wishes with your new club.

 

[div12ressie]

stringer is literally the definition of a downhill skier

 

[astrowizzle]

Get rid of stringer and play Perkins in the Stringer role. Stringer wont be there for our next flag, and I dont know what "experience" or "leadership" he provides..

Nor will Perkins unless he's in a wheel chair

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Agree that we can't play both stringer and Langford, but I'd rather trade Langford. Would get more for him at trade table and he has been even more of a passenger post bye than stringer. At least stringer has the odd match winning game, Langford has done jack all for months.

 

[FrankGrimes]

Agree that we can't play both stringer and Langford, but I'd rather trade Langford. Would get more for him at trade table and he has been even more of a passenger post bye than stringer. At least stringer has the odd match winning game, Langford has done jack all for months.

Apparently, he has a hip injury, but he has certainly dopped off big time..

 

[Bjchan13]

There’s only really room for 1 out of Langford/Stringer either way as both are too small to play Key Position and too Slow to be pressure players.

Stringer would be useful if he was able to play mid/forward but he’s not fit enough for that.

He’d be a good sub if he wants to stick around/no one else wants him.

If they do, then thanks for memories and best wishes with your new club.

He's just a year by year proposition so just offer 1 year and he'll have to perform if he wants to play on again. If someone offers 2 years plus 100% let him go and wish him all the best. Its supposedly a deep draft so a late 2nd/ early 3rd could get you a solid player for the future

 

[FootyGuru]

I’m for trading him because his age doesn’t fit our timeline, but let’s not pretend he isn’t a very good player. 40 + goal kickers don’t just fall from trees not to mention his ability to break from cb. He deserves 2-3 year deal based on his form this season at his age.

 

[Bjchan13]

I’m for trading him because his age doesn’t fit our timeline, but let’s not pretend he isn’t a very good player. 40 + goal kickers don’t just fall from trees not to mention his ability to break from cb. He deserves 2-3 year deal based on his form this season at his age.

40 plus every year for the career and you might offer a multi year deal at this age. But if you include this year (he only needs 1 more goal) then that is 4 out of 12 seasons producing 40+. There is absolutely no reason to offer more than 1 year at his age and with his career so far. I could see another club possibly offering 2 to get him to move clubs

 

[bombreys]

I’m for trading him because his age doesn’t fit our timeline, but let’s not pretend he isn’t a very good player. 40 + goal kickers don’t just fall from trees not to mention his ability to break from cb. He deserves 2-3 year deal based on his form this season at his age.

3 is ludicrous

 

[jdstorm]

I’m for trading him because his age doesn’t fit our timeline, but let’s not pretend he isn’t a very good player. 40 + goal kickers don’t just fall from trees not to mention his ability to break from cb. He deserves 2-3 year deal based on his form this season at his age.

If he could actually play mid/forward he’d be a Brownlow chance.

But he’s not fit enough to play mid and if he can’t play there he’s the same as Langford a 3rd tall and the team can only afford to have one in the best 22

 

[FootyGuru]

If he could actually play mid/forward he’d be a Brownlow chance.

But he’s not fit enough to play mid and if he can’t play there he’s the same as Langford a 3rd tall and the team can only afford to have one in the best 22

They can both play together. Both have kicked near 40 goals. While stringer is at the club he’s always best 22. Doubt there’s a 22 he ain’t making.

I’m for trading him but let’s not pretend he isn’t gonna get a game.

 

[jdstorm]

They can both play together. Both have kicked near 40 goals. While stringer is at the club he’s always best 22. Doubt there’s a 22 he ain’t making.

I’m for trading him but let’s not pretend he isn’t gonna get a game.

And the team has had zero forward pressure when playing tall enough to compete in the air.

for Essendon with Langford on the list he probably shouldn’t

 

[P Money]

If we could just temper our expectations of Stringer to be a superstar week in week out we'd have a much more balanced view of him. There's no way he's anywhere near the bottom 12 players of our best 22. If we had a decent team across the field that didn't shit the bed as soon as pressure came (or the bye, whichever comes first) then noone would have a problem with him. The idea of delisting Stringer after we've just given Menzie a one-year deal is genuinely laughable. Stringer is a very good player, he's good for 30-40 goals a year and despite the hyperbole actually usually applies more pressure in our fwd line than anyone else. Add to that he's too old now to get anything worthwhile at the trade table so that's really not even worth exploring.

 

[P Money]

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I wouldn't say he's been the problem, but at the end of the day, he's still been too inconsistent with his output to invest anything longer than a 1-year, incentivized contract, especially for a guy that is likely not in our next flag side.

to be fair everyone would be on a 1 year deal if that were the measure lol

At this stage i dont even think Merrett will be here for it.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

If we could just temper our expectations of Stringer to be a superstar week in week out we'd have a much more balanced view of him. There's no way he's anywhere near the bottom 12 players of our best 22. If we had a decent team across the field that didn't shit the bed as soon as pressure came (or the bye, whichever comes first) then noone would have a problem with him. The idea of delisting Stringer after we've just given Menzie a one-year deal is genuinely laughable. Stringer is a very good player, he's good for 30-40 goals a year and despite the hyperbole actually usually applies more pressure in our fwd line than anyone else. Add to that he's too old now to get anything worthwhile at the trade table so that's really not even worth exploring.

you can't say he is good for it when he has only kicked more than 30 goals 4/7 years he has been with us....

I'm OK retaining stringer on a 1-2 year deal, but his inconsistency is mind bogglingly bad, but then again so is the rest of the team

 

[Nicholas61]

stringer is literally the definition of a downhill skier

He has become a bit nervous in big moments (remember the easy Anzac Day miss and many since) but I think he played outstanding against many of the top teams when he has been fit in previous years. Even against Geelong last year at the G when they and Hawkins slaughtered us Stringer was a gun and if it wasn't for he and Martin it could have been one of those nasty 130 point plus losses. When Richmond were at their peak he was the guy who would stand up for us. As I see it he is losing a bit of power and his body hasn't been reliable for us and those things will only head one way.

 

[P Money]

you can't say he is good for it when he has only kicked more than 30 goals 4/7 years he has been with us....

I'm OK retaining stringer on a 1-2 year deal, but his inconsistency is mind bogglingly bad, but then again so is the rest of the team

I just think he gets judged to ridiculously high standards. If we had a more talented and consistent fwd line around him getting half decent supply we could appreciate him as the x-factor player that he is that can impact games more than most others can when he lights up. Unfortunately because of the state of the list we expect him to be an impact/x-factor player who's also super consistent and does it every week. Like Brad Scott has said if he played at his x-factor peak every week he'd be the best player in the league.

He's averaging 1.9 goals a game this season which is higher than his career average (noting he has led our goal kicking 3x before), he's just come off a 10-tackle game playing as a pure fwd and is statistically one of our best pressure fwds, and he gets shit-canned more than almost any other player on the list. Just bewildering stuff.

 

[Hird05]

If we had two decent small forwards and another proper tall he'd fit in much better

 

[dank420_]

If he’s not scoring basic goals then he’s of no use. **** this fat dickhead off.

 

[crackers65]

IF

 

[Bjchan13]

1 year most likely still on offer but he's costing himself money

 

[Megabattimus]

One year deal or get the **** out.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Beerfish]

One year deal or get the **** out.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app