Player Watch Lachie Schultz

Remove this Banner Ad

stormskye said:
Those that criticise him and the trade. Ask yourself, would freo prefer our first or Schultz.. I’d argue they’d be top 2 with him, and he’d be a huge bonus for them in winning this years flag.

A speculative kid from the draft won’t
Click to expand...
Seriously Stormsky, why this rhetoric every time he plays well or poorly.

I really like a lot of your posts but we keep coming back to this point that ignores what anyone who didn't like the cost of the Schultz trade has been saying.

Most of us who didn't approve of the trade cost still really wanted it to happen, even though it wasn't our largest pressing need - we just didn't want our future first to be included. 2023 first at worst.
More than happy for you to look back through the 2023 thread and quote me - I think my posts are around page 600.
None of them criticise the acquisition of Schultz.

Stop talking about a "speculative kid" or "it's basically second round", we wanted our future first as currency for Smith or any other player (or even a move up or move into 2025.) I couldn't give a ___ about who would be there at our first in 2024, I wanted the trade power it provided.
Now, if you or any others believe the pick didn't have any trade currency, fair enough, I think you're wrong, but that's just may view. I think it would have made acquiring Smith a lot easier (perhaps he doesn't nominate us bc we don't have it.)

So, in short:
  • I wanted Schultz but not involving a trade that required a future first - and I think this both could and should have been achieved.
  • I don't want to pick a "speculative kid"

Let's just agree that we hope Schultz helps us win the flag this year.
But outcome, just like the MRO IMO, shouldn't be the determining factor in the event.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SchuPie said:
Seriously Stormsky, why this rhetoric every time he plays well or poorly.

I really like a lot of your posts but we keep coming back to this point that ignores what anyone who didn't like the cost of the Schultz trade has been saying.

Most of us who didn't approve of the trade cost still really wanted it to happen, even though it wasn't our largest pressing need - we just didn't want our future first to be included. 2023 first at worst.
More than happy for you to look back through the 2023 thread and quote me - I think my posts are around page 600.
None of them criticise the acquisition of Schultz.

Stop talking about a "speculative kid" or "it's basically second round", we wanted our future first as currency for Smith or any other player (or even a move up or move into 2025.) I couldn't give a ___ about who would be there at our first in 2024, I wanted the trade power it provided.
Now, if you or any others believe the pick didn't have any trade currency, fair enough, I think you're wrong, but that's just may view. I think it would have made acquiring Smith a lot easier (perhaps he doesn't nominate us bc we don't have it.)

So, in short:
  • I wanted Schultz but not involving a trade that required a future first - and I think this both could and should have been achieved.
  • I don't want to pick a "speculative kid"

Let's just agree that we hope Schultz helps us win the flag this year.
But outcome, just like the MRO IMO, shouldn't be the determining factor in the event.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying we couldn’t have used the pick, I’m just saying it’s not that simple and there’s many considerations. I wasn’t singling you out btw.

I like Schultz. Reckon he’s only going to get better for us.

I’ll leave it there as I agree it’s been done to death
 
stormskye said:
Those that criticise him and the trade. Ask yourself, would freo prefer our first or Schultz.. I’d argue they’d be top 2 with him, and he’d be a huge bonus for them in winning this years flag.

A speculative kid from the draft won’t
Click to expand...
He and Henry were very big losses for them - they're a really complete team with a lot of talent -lacking small forwards.
 
sr36 said:
He and Henry were very big losses for them - they're a really complete team with a lot of talent -lacking small forwards.
Click to expand...
Now that they have multiple tall forwards firing, the loss of their smalls is massive. Some pressure at ground level and Freo would be a nightmare to deal with. Great KPD pillars, some good midfielders, tall forwards.
 
SchuPie said:
Seriously Stormsky, why this rhetoric every time he plays well or poorly.

I really like a lot of your posts but we keep coming back to this point that ignores what anyone who didn't like the cost of the Schultz trade has been saying.

Most of us who didn't approve of the trade cost still really wanted it to happen, even though it wasn't our largest pressing need - we just didn't want our future first to be included. 2023 first at worst.
More than happy for you to look back through the 2023 thread and quote me - I think my posts are around page 600.
None of them criticise the acquisition of Schultz.

Stop talking about a "speculative kid" or "it's basically second round", we wanted our future first as currency for Smith or any other player (or even a move up or move into 2025.) I couldn't give a ___ about who would be there at our first in 2024, I wanted the trade power it provided.
Now, if you or any others believe the pick didn't have any trade currency, fair enough, I think you're wrong, but that's just may view. I think it would have made acquiring Smith a lot easier (perhaps he doesn't nominate us bc we don't have it.)

So, in short:
  • I wanted Schultz but not involving a trade that required a future first - and I think this both could and should have been achieved.
  • I don't want to pick a "speculative kid"

Let's just agree that we hope Schultz helps us win the flag this year.
But outcome, just like the MRO IMO, shouldn't be the determining factor in the event.
Click to expand...
So you think Schultz was a good acquisition but the price should have been a handful of magic beans, got it. Your first couple of lines should have been I always want something for nothing.
 
Carlthetruth said:
So you think Schultz was a good acquisition but the price should have been a handful of magic beans, got it. Your first couple of lines should have been I always want something for nothing.
Click to expand...
Did you even read my post - or just extract the bits of it you wanted to create tension?

Sorry, just re-read, I did mentioned I only wanted to pay magic beans at the bottom and thought that was too much so wanted to pay nothing. My bad.
 
sr36 said:
He and Henry were very big losses for them - they're a really complete team with a lot of talent -lacking small forwards.
Click to expand...
Hey now don't go putting him and Henry on the same level. Don't think you'll find a single freo supporter who's missing Henry. He played wing for us and kicked 1 goal from 17 games last year. Sharp cost nothing and has been a massive upgrade on Henry.

Schultz on the other hand we'd absolutely rather have him than whatever your first will be. Especially considering we have Port's first too, which will be around the same mark. We have at least 1-2 more wins this year with Schultz in the team.
 
s_wd6 said:
Hey now don't go putting him and Henry on the same level. Don't think you'll find a single freo supporter who's missing Henry. He played wing for us and kicked 1 goal from 17 games last year. Sharp cost nothing and has been a massive upgrade on Henry.

Schultz on the other hand we'd absolutely rather have him than whatever your first will be. Especially considering we have Port's first too, which will be around the same mark. We have at least 1-2 more wins this year with Schultz in the team.
Click to expand...
With Henry, I meant if you had his early season form for Saints in the team. He was flying.

I've loved watching Walters, but he's done.
 
sr36 said:
With Henry, I meant if you had his early season form for Saints in the team. He was flying.
Click to expand...
Eh Banfield is playing that same role much better. Henry struggled to make the distance even from 30m every time he was having a shot for goal for us.

In terms of the small forward conversation, Schultz is a huge loss and Henry isn't even in the picture.
 
s_wd6 said:
Eh Banfield is playing that same role much better. Henry struggled to make the distance even from 30m every time he was having a shot for goal for us.

In terms of the small forward conversation, Schultz is a huge loss and Henry isn't even in the picture.
Click to expand...
I wasn't a Henry fan until this year. Did you watch his start to the season?
 
SchuPie said:
Did you even read my post - or just extract the bits of it you wanted to create tension?

Sorry, just re-read, I did mentioned I only wanted to pay magic beans at the bottom and thought that was too much so wanted to pay nothing. My bad.
Click to expand...

Magic beans would cost at least a future first on the trade market.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sr36 said:
I wasn't a Henry fan until this year. Did you watch his start to the season?
Click to expand...
Didn't see his first game, thought he was great v Collingwood. Poor against us and Hawks and average against Melbourne. I definitely haven't seen enough from him to think he's a loss.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
Lost this one in the coaches’ box. Got to kick a score to win. Our forwards are Frampton, Markov, Johnson and Schultz. No effort to swing Howe forward at any stage. Hot garbage.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Lost this one because we couldn’t sustain the midfield effort of the 1st quarter across the whole game. You could see it drop each quarter through the 2nd-4th. It’s what happens when you hit the tipping point through injury. Howe was swung forward in the last quarter but who’s to know if that in fact was the difference in the end as we lost his excellent contribution in defence. Swings and roundabouts.
 
Apples said:
We just ran out of soldiers. We've done pretty well considering.

Tonight, like last week, would have been a win against the odds. We'll lose next week too, so we have to hope we are not too far out of the eight when we get our players back.
Click to expand...

Yep, surprised we’ve managed to go 2-1-1 over the last 4 weeks with the mounting injury toll. And that we’ve still managed to have really strong periods in each of those games. Great effort. Richmond with a similar injury list are 0-4 for the same period.

There were posters here who wanted to just play the kids by choice, this is what others warned is the consequence of doing that.
 
Mollythedolly said:
It was never about that trio. McRae always says we’re a system based club.
Click to expand...

So were the post-2000 New England Patriots. Personnel matters.

And had we scored more goals earlier in the game, we not only would have had a better chance of riding out a fourth quarter where our midfield was spent, we would have had more options available to achieve it.

Conceding the Darcy/Dean matchup and playing a “key forward” who doesn’t score himself and barely contributes to scoring chains was too much to overcome.
 
With Jamie Elliott’s AFL future looking somewhat in doubt, the recruitment of Schultz is looking increasingly astute. He applies great pressure and (assuming no injuries) will have kicked 30+ goals by season’s end, setting him up really well for an even bigger impact in 2025.

Schultz adds way more to the side than Ginnivan and let’s not forgot that he had no role in setting his trade picks price. Responsibility for that rests solely with our list management team. So let’s judge Lachie solely on what he can control - his on-field impact. So far, so good - and on an upward trajectory.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
The Royal Sampler said:
So were the post-2000 New England Patriots. Personnel matters.

And had we scored more goals earlier in the game, we not only would have had a better chance of riding out a fourth quarter where our midfield was spent, we would have had more options available to achieve it.

Conceding the Darcy/Dean matchup and playing a “key forward” who doesn’t score himself and barely contributes to scoring chains was too much to overcome.
Click to expand...

I don’t give a rats about the Patriots, don’t follow it. We had 12 actual scoring shots in the first quarter and likely burned a few others. Frampton was 1 of those who had a set shot and missed in that first quarter. AJ got more involved as the game progressed. The coaching was fine given the cattle we had. I do love that posters proclaim to know better after a loss, but the reality is, the changes they’re advocating as game changing/winning are constantly being considered and dismissed. On weight of averages, I think the coaching teams record stands up over a bunch of hypotheticals.
 
Mollythedolly said:
Yep, surprised we’ve managed to go 2-1-1 over the last 4 weeks with the mounting injury toll. And that we’ve still managed to have really strong periods in each of those games. Great effort. Richmond with a similar injury list are 0-4 for the same period.

There were posters here who wanted to just play the kids by choice, this is what others warned is the consequence of doing that.
Click to expand...

Defence has still been strong. And Nick, Crisp and Pendles magnificent in the midfield - so all the forwards being out hadn't really mattered. Losing Pendles tipped our midfield to needing more than possible from Nick and Crisp.
 
The Royal Sampler said:
So were the post-2000 New England Patriots. Personnel matters.

And had we scored more goals earlier in the game, we not only would have had a better chance of riding out a fourth quarter where our midfield was spent, we would have had more options available to achieve it.

Conceding the Darcy/Dean matchup and playing a “key forward” who doesn’t score himself and barely contributes to scoring chains was too much to overcome.
Click to expand...

Yep

Still baffling we didn't let Ash ruck

He's done it before and it not only would have allowed Frampton to play on Darcy but it would have actually got Ash involved in the bloody game
 
The Royal Sampler said:
So were the post-2000 New England Patriots. Personnel matters.

And had we scored more goals earlier in the game, we not only would have had a better chance of riding out a fourth quarter where our midfield was spent, we would have had more options available to achieve it.

Conceding the Darcy/Dean matchup and playing a “key forward” who doesn’t score himself and barely contributes to scoring chains was too much to overcome.
Click to expand...

I think the patriots played two rucks and that might have been a mistake, and they started attacking via the boundary instead of down the guts.
 
Cousin of Daicos said:
Yep

Still baffling we didn't let Ash ruck

He's done it before and it not only would have allowed Frampton to play on Darcy but it would have actually got Ash involved in the bloody game
Click to expand...
We had a shallow midfield and didn't want to have an uncompetitive ruckman for 20% of the game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Lachie Schultz

Similar threads

TradeDraft
Player Watch Lachie Sullivan
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
226
Views
15K
rand corp
rand corp

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top