Justin Westhoff at CHB?

[Ford Fairlane]

No I'm not taking the piss. I was thinking about Ryder's game on Cloke on the weekend (until the floodgates opened at three quarter time) and a Westhoff half-game at FB vs North Melbourne against a rampant David Hale a few years back.

Although it looks like Trengove might now be available for the Collingwood game another tall defensive option could be needed, especially if Chaplin doesn't come up (or even if he does). Stewart, Butcher even Webb can all play as tall forwards so it might be worth giving Justin a run down back.

Sure he needs a few defensive tricks, but so does Salter. Maybe now is the time to give Greg Phillips or Darren Mead a call for some one-on-one tutoring. I'm sure they could fit it into their schedules.

 

[5um0F1]

Slightly OT but at the weekend I realised Matty was not trying to win when I saw Robbie and Westie in defense.
At that moment I realised something many here have know for a while, the powers that be don't want to win.

But back on topic I don't see why he could not be given a run down back, he could do with some extra bulk but how could things get worse?

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I didn't see much of Ryder on Cloke but I can only imagine Westhoff on Cloke being an unmitigated disaster.

Westhoff has shown time and again that he struggles when he is forced to play man on man. He is at his best when he is allowed to drift across the front of the pack, Cloke would MONSTER him!

 

[Macca19]

Ryders spent a significant part of his career at CHB too. I cant even picture the carnage that would happen with Westhoff on Cloke.

 

[Portia]

If we had a constant flood on, I can almost see it working, but if we leave enough space for opposition key forwards to lead into (which we habitually do these days), then I can see him getting burned every time.

 

[philthy05]

^ i agree with et.

at this point im not fussed and dont see alot of harm in playing him back to cover losses there but ild expect him to concede alot of his strengths and expose his weaknesses.

is shultz is out maybe we could choose between butcher or redden at the goalfront with stewert ay chf??

 

[Peck]

Westhoff is a HFF/Wingman that is (much) taller than average IMO. Does his best work creating link play between the 50 arcs.

 

[*PAF]

I would have Schulz at CHB and Butcher at CHF.

We need a player that will bash opposition forwards, well not bash as such but make sure that if they go for a mark they will be waiting for that hard heavy contact to come.
In our forward line we could go Butcher (CHF), Westhoff (HFF/FP), Stewart (FF), Salter (HFF), Hitchcock and one more crumbing short with goal sense.
If we need to play a 5 man forward line one of Westhoff / Stewart on the bench.
Backline of Carlile, Chaplin, Schulz and Jonas, plus 2 smaller players that can kick.
In the midfield we must have Boak, Hartlett, Gray, Pittard and Jacobs plus a couple of bigger bodies until these players beef up a bit.

On paper that is quite a good side but they all need to gut run.

 

[Portmanteau]

Could work as a loose man. Loves floating in from the side of packs.

Maybe Chaplin can man up for once.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Geelong kicked 233 points against Melbourne last week. Travis Cloke alone would kick 233 points if we tried this.

Plus Westhoff is needed up forward as much as he is down back with Schulz out, so this is robbing Peter to pay Paul really. Except considering we know that Westhoff is a decent forward but probably less so down back, it's more like robbing Peter, paying Paul about a quarter of what you robbed from Peter and pouring the rest down the drain. Almost like another key forward who got moved into defence ...

I would have Schulz at CHB

Out for the year and our best forward BY FAR even if he wasn't, terrible idea.

 

[TheSuper6of06]

im with FF

could work

if he plays the floating type ie Chaplin

he's a better mark then chaplin and i probably trust his kick a bit more than chappys

solid mark option from a kick in ... and better decision maker in the field

@ 199 cm - should be watching tapes of dustin fletcher

 

[*PAF]

Geelong kicked 233 points against Melbourne last week. Travis Cloke alone would kick 233 points if we tried this.

Plus Westhoff is needed up forward as much as he is down back with Schulz out, so this is robbing Peter to pay Paul really. Except considering we know that Westhoff is a decent forward but probably less so down back, it's more like robbing Peter, paying Paul about a quarter of what you robbed from Peter and pouring the rest down the drain. Almost like another key forward who got moved into defence ...



Out for the year and our best forward BY FAR even if he wasn't, terrible idea.

Wasn't talking about this year as Butcher in not ready.
Schulz has played some of his best games in the backline.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I'll clarify what I was thinking because somehow people have read what I wrote as Let's play Westhoff on Cloke for the whole game for the lulz.

I woke up to the news this morning that we could be missing Carlile, Chaplin and possibly Trengove as key defensive options for this game. We still could. That leaves Salter and Pettigrew.

For the more hyperbole minded if Cloke could kick 233 points on Westhoff, what could he kick on those two given some of the opinions of their capabilities as tall defenders that have been flying around lately? And what are the alternatives if he gets away from them - if Trengove et al are missing?

I gave a couple of examples of a bit of alternative thinking when it came to defensive match ups and suggested he could be another tall defensive option ... which some have taken on board.

As for robbing Peter etc, he's kicked 18 goals in 15 games this year. If we expect Hurricane Collingwood to blow away the hatches what might we reasonably expect JW to kick? 2 goals? If Butcher kicks 1 and Westhoff plays some time down back and actually reads the ball coming in and cuts off a few attacks with timely marks then the robbery might not be so grievous.

 

[Peck]

It'd be a thing to try FF you are correct. I don't think westhoff would do too bad in defence if loose, he seems to know how to spoil and if he is in a position to mark you can feel pretty safe that he will hold onto it.

I suspect he will get destroyed if he has to go man on man though, as he doesn't seem able to watch an opponent. Perhaps he could learn to in which case GET HIM BACK THERE.

Would be quite interested to see how he would go TBH.

 

[Waspy79]

I'd give the Cloke job to Chad but I doubt Primus will.

 

[edgie]

So correct me if I was seeing things, but from the telly it looked like Westhoff was in fact on cloke in the late stages of the game?

 

[Enviable Tradition]

So correct me if I was seeing things, but from the telly it looked like Westhoff was in fact on cloke in the late stages of the game?

Yes. It was a very poor game from Westhoff and I think Matty was trying to teach him a lesson. To show what sort of workrate is required to be an AFL forward.

 

[Sheeds]

Yes. It was a very poor game from Westhoff and I think Matty was trying to teach him a lesson. To show what sort of workrate is required to be an AFL forward.

Well the lesson did not work. Westhoff was absolutely confused playing in defence Saturday night in his brief time there , even looking more confused than usual. He had no idea who to go to, would then walk around in circles and would then ask Pettigrew for advice before standing in the vicinity of Cloke and just praying the ball did not go down there.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Well the lesson did not work. Westhoff was absolutely confused playing in defence Saturday night in his brief time there , even looking more confused than usual. He had no idea who to go to, would then walk around in circles and would then ask Pettigrew for advice before standing in the vicinity of Cloke and just praying the ball did not go down there.

How is that any different to what he was doing in the forward line?

His body language Saturday night was some of the worst I have seen.

 

[Macca19]

Well the lesson did not work. Westhoff was absolutely confused playing in defence Saturday night in his brief time there , even looking more confused than usual. He had no idea who to go to, would then walk around in circles and would then ask Pettigrew for advice before standing in the vicinity of Cloke and just praying the ball did not go down there.

Sounds like how our forward line operates.

 

[Forzaport]

Maybe we should keep Pettigrew and put him forward next year if Schulz gets injured again, that way he can hold Westhoff's hand

 

[Portology]

Yes. It was a very poor game from Westhoff and I think Matty was trying to teach him a lesson. To show what sort of workrate is required to be an AFL forward.

The cunning plan being hatched may be a forward line of Westhoff, Salter & Pettigrew.

</ducks head>

 

[Peck]

Nah, pettifogger (spellcheck, you are amazing) and Salter are our back up tall defender stocks. Though I strongly expect and hope that Salter remains in the side all of this/next year.

Not sure what will happen with pettifogger. Many people really dislike him, but I thought he provided a lot of run out of the backline on the weekend. Can't really remember how he played defensively though.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

The cunning plan being hatched may be a forward line of Westhoff, Salter & Pettigrew.

</ducks head>

Our players seemed to think they already are. They did everything possible to ensure that the ball went towards them.

 

[Froggy]

You may all hate Pettigrew, but at least he is hitting the contest each week and then at least trying to get the ball moving forward. He'd look a lot better if on one of his runs he got to the forward 50 and he actually had someone to kick to. I dare say like him or not he keeps getting selected because at least he's giving it his all and hitting into people physically unlike most of our team. Westhoff's confidence is shot, he's a confidence player without it he ends up just doing that small jog in circles looking at the ground.