If you don't won't to overpay Jackson, why would you want to overpay Logue and Acres?
List Mgmt. Luke Jackson - Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter MrDanggazz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The only two players in the dark seem to be Acres and Logue. And there is zero evidence that their offers have anything to do with Jackson.
4x500k is already generous for Logue. And after his first two years Acres should be paying us to stay on the list -- not the other way round. There is no guarantee that Acres will continue his form once he has got a bit of runway in his contract.
If Jackson doesn't come in, I hope we don't change our offers for Logue or Acres.
Last edited:
- Apr 25, 2011
- 8,056
- 18,911
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I just don’t understand that people are ok paying more than 500k to Logue who
has reached his peak, but Jackson who has an massive upside is worth less than
that?
Then there is Lobb who has kicked over 20 goals a year twice for us, yet his
contract price isn’t a blunder?
This isn’t Hogan like, which I thought was too high a price to pay.
If we pay more than what Lobb is on then yes we are yet again getting reamed.
I’d like to think Bell has learned from his mistakes, but if this goes pear shaped
it’s his head that will roll.
has reached his peak, but Jackson who has an massive upside is worth less than
that?
Then there is Lobb who has kicked over 20 goals a year twice for us, yet his
contract price isn’t a blunder?
This isn’t Hogan like, which I thought was too high a price to pay.
If we pay more than what Lobb is on then yes we are yet again getting reamed.
I’d like to think Bell has learned from his mistakes, but if this goes pear shaped
it’s his head that will roll.
- Jul 20, 2014
- 8,194
- 18,416
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
So this knee problem being spoken of here, what is it and how bad is it? We don't have to look any further than our coach to see the trajectory of a brilliant top 5 draft pick ruck forward whose career was over aged 25 with a degenerative knee.
It better be curable is all I can say, as if it is what's holding him back, we don't want that for the price we're paying
It better be curable is all I can say, as if it is what's holding him back, we don't want that for the price we're paying
- Apr 21, 2014
- 3,961
- 6,953
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Vancouver Canucks
I don't think this game or the last few has really changed my view much on Jackson.
He's young and he has some moments where you can clearly see how he adds a specific element in the ruck and midfield. Melbourne just don't play him there much more than 30% of the time because Gawn is better. But ultimately he is a ruckman. He isn't a forward as has been pretty well demonstrated this year. He isn't a midfielder despite the wishful thinking i've seen some engage in. He is a ruckman.
If the good teams over the last few years have taught us anything it's that you really don't need to have a stellar ruck division to do much. Melbourne the obvious exception last year but who was the last truly gun ruck to win a flag before then - probably Cox you'd say. It's just not that much of a difference maker compared to having an extra gun midfielder or forward. Having two gun rucks is even more weird given you can't play them both in their best position for more than half the game.
We have one of the youngest best 22's in the competition that has made it's way to a semi final based on an excellent defence and midfield, and largely in spite of a cobbled together and dysfunctional forward line which appears set to lose it's leading goalkicker. We already have one of the best young rucks in the game who is definitely a better ruck than Jackson right now and probably will be a better ruck than him going forward, who we got for pick 38.
While we have some good young players who will hopefully become part of a decent forward line going forward, that is by no means guaranteed. The last 8 years of this club has been searching for a forward line that is more than one or two players and a bunch of bit pieces. We've already half traded out of this coming draft and I think if we want players to come through and make a difference in the next 4-5 years we probably need to draft them sooner rather than later. I don't agree with people who don't value late firsts because I think where we failed to a great degree (not entirely through our own fault with injuries and expansion drafts) in the last window was bringing through some contributors with those later picks.
I just can't see the justification for paying a large amount of money and draft capital for a player who's best position we already have covered and isn't really going to help our biggest area of need. I worry it will hamstring us going forward with so much money invested in the ruck division, arguably the least important position on the ground, and so few eggs in the basket for the forward line.
If we needed a ruckman rather than a forward then yeah i'd be clamouring for him to come. The only scenario where i'm remotely okay with it is if Lobb and Meek leave and the draft capital basically equillibrates.
He's young and he has some moments where you can clearly see how he adds a specific element in the ruck and midfield. Melbourne just don't play him there much more than 30% of the time because Gawn is better. But ultimately he is a ruckman. He isn't a forward as has been pretty well demonstrated this year. He isn't a midfielder despite the wishful thinking i've seen some engage in. He is a ruckman.
If the good teams over the last few years have taught us anything it's that you really don't need to have a stellar ruck division to do much. Melbourne the obvious exception last year but who was the last truly gun ruck to win a flag before then - probably Cox you'd say. It's just not that much of a difference maker compared to having an extra gun midfielder or forward. Having two gun rucks is even more weird given you can't play them both in their best position for more than half the game.
We have one of the youngest best 22's in the competition that has made it's way to a semi final based on an excellent defence and midfield, and largely in spite of a cobbled together and dysfunctional forward line which appears set to lose it's leading goalkicker. We already have one of the best young rucks in the game who is definitely a better ruck than Jackson right now and probably will be a better ruck than him going forward, who we got for pick 38.
While we have some good young players who will hopefully become part of a decent forward line going forward, that is by no means guaranteed. The last 8 years of this club has been searching for a forward line that is more than one or two players and a bunch of bit pieces. We've already half traded out of this coming draft and I think if we want players to come through and make a difference in the next 4-5 years we probably need to draft them sooner rather than later. I don't agree with people who don't value late firsts because I think where we failed to a great degree (not entirely through our own fault with injuries and expansion drafts) in the last window was bringing through some contributors with those later picks.
I just can't see the justification for paying a large amount of money and draft capital for a player who's best position we already have covered and isn't really going to help our biggest area of need. I worry it will hamstring us going forward with so much money invested in the ruck division, arguably the least important position on the ground, and so few eggs in the basket for the forward line.
If we needed a ruckman rather than a forward then yeah i'd be clamouring for him to come. The only scenario where i'm remotely okay with it is if Lobb and Meek leave and the draft capital basically equillibrates.
If nothing else Jackson may have trimmed some of the sprinkles off his cake the last few weeks. Good for us!
He'll be coming to Freo and we'll wait until we receive actual figures and the deal before jumping at shadows, but I'm very much still in the grab this opportunity basket.
He'll be coming to Freo and we'll wait until we receive actual figures and the deal before jumping at shadows, but I'm very much still in the grab this opportunity basket.
- Jun 27, 2020
- 5,902
- 10,095
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Cool Runnings
Simply because I see retaining players within that age group, that possess such skill sets and traits, as an investment.
Tabs kicked 37 goals in 2021.
Lobb kicked 36 goals this year.
Together they supplied 50 plus goals, yet we still didn’t make top 4.
We need more goal kickers than just spearheads. An even spread.
Amiss will be first picked next year, with Tabs, Treacy. Jackson, we will be
fine for talls IMO.
It’s the medium/smalls that will make or break us, and midfield goals are Gold.
Good coaches find a way, makeshift, list will become the envy of the comp.
In some peoples eyes it already is.
Potentially we won’t be beaten in the air, play physical, more groundball.
I’m excited to see what the changes could bring.
Kapow!!!
Premium Platinum
Logue has reached his peak?
I reckon Meek is going to get a big offer and we'll entertain the trade.
Meek, Tucker are valuable assets that are not best 22 and can strengthen our position this offseason. I'd probably put Logue and Acres in there as well, valuable to us yes however some teams are going to overpay for them. As long as we flip that to our advantage we'll be fine.
Meek, Tucker are valuable assets that are not best 22 and can strengthen our position this offseason. I'd probably put Logue and Acres in there as well, valuable to us yes however some teams are going to overpay for them. As long as we flip that to our advantage we'll be fine.
- Apr 21, 2014
- 3,961
- 6,953
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Vancouver Canucks
So we will lose our leading goalkicker and be better up forward? Not really sure how that makes much sense or how we didn't try to have an even spread this year.
I very much agree mediums and smalls will be what makes or breaks us. That's why I think we should draft some more, as at present we have one genuine medium forward who was 50/50 to get his one year extension, and our best small forward is 31 without anyone really on the horizon to replace him.
You want to over-invest in mid-career players with a history of:
a) taking (literally) years to nail a position
b) being inconsistent year from year
Lobb also. With Jackson struggling to produce forward impact we can't really afford to lose him. Plus Meek may not be best 22, but if Lobb was leaving and Jackson not replacing him, he definitely has an opportunity to be best 22.
Reality is that what any of us random posters think is a generous offer to Logue is significantly below what other clubs have put in front of him.
I can't put a cogent argument that if Jackson was currently in our squad that he should be playing today. Maybe you can make the case? Right now I would have his most likely positional rivals, Lobb, Acres and Logue, ahead of him.
Just thought I'd add that if Jackson was in our current squad and Darcy was injured, surely Meek would be his replacement.
Last edited:
Jackson is now worth a first and some change…can’t see West Coast splitting 2, especially given the Rioli trade will net them a second.
just let it play out take it or leave it
just let it play out take it or leave it
- Jul 20, 2018
- 1,671
- 3,077
So who would we rather…
1: Using logues money and re-signing Lobb to 4 years, getting Jackson with Logues trade picks and normal draft capital, likely draft deficit for next year also
2: losing Lobb and keeping Logue, and Jackson with Lobb trade picks and normal draft capital, likely draft deficit for next year also
3: keeping Lobb, Logue, Meek and no Jackson
4: keeping Lobb and Logue and getting Jackson, losing quite a few players and deficit of draft capital for this and future years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1: Using logues money and re-signing Lobb to 4 years, getting Jackson with Logues trade picks and normal draft capital, likely draft deficit for next year also
2: losing Lobb and keeping Logue, and Jackson with Lobb trade picks and normal draft capital, likely draft deficit for next year also
3: keeping Lobb, Logue, Meek and no Jackson
4: keeping Lobb and Logue and getting Jackson, losing quite a few players and deficit of draft capital for this and future years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably Option 1.
If we were extending Lobb to 4 years it suggests a lack of confidence in Jackson forward.
I think our 1st and Logue is reasonable for Jackson.
People comparing meek to Jackson in terms of output can’t be serious, when meek was a 20 year old he was running round at Peel reserves and looked positively useless.
I’m firmly in the bring jackson in camp.
He will definitely improve dramatically as he gets to age 24, 25.
Very few talls his age are the finished product. Actually none.
Max Gawn didn’t play AFL till he was 23!
I could see flashes of Jackson’s agility and ground level ball winning ability last night and it was very good.
He’s a different type of ruck to Sean Darcy too.
The only concern I have is the salary we are paying him early on, and also the WCE biased media.
I think he will easily become an $800k player in time.
We have to remember however that he was a Nab rising star winner last year and is a KPP.
Therefore he would be on $500-550k this year for that reason alone. He’s not earning pennies at Melbourne this year.
I reckon Melbourne would be offering him between $650 and 700k to stay.
I think we would have come in with maybe $750k over 5 years.
Here’s a question:
Luke jackson for 7 years at $750k
Tim Taranto for 7 years at $750k
Who are you picking right now?
I’m firmly in the bring jackson in camp.
He will definitely improve dramatically as he gets to age 24, 25.
Very few talls his age are the finished product. Actually none.
Max Gawn didn’t play AFL till he was 23!
I could see flashes of Jackson’s agility and ground level ball winning ability last night and it was very good.
He’s a different type of ruck to Sean Darcy too.
The only concern I have is the salary we are paying him early on, and also the WCE biased media.
I think he will easily become an $800k player in time.
We have to remember however that he was a Nab rising star winner last year and is a KPP.
Therefore he would be on $500-550k this year for that reason alone. He’s not earning pennies at Melbourne this year.
I reckon Melbourne would be offering him between $650 and 700k to stay.
I think we would have come in with maybe $750k over 5 years.
Here’s a question:
Luke jackson for 7 years at $750k
Tim Taranto for 7 years at $750k
Who are you picking right now?
Mids are bountiful, just look at our drafting history. I’m not looking at Jackson’s
goal tally, it’s his impact and how he brings others into the game.
Has the capability to play as ruck/mid, and he’s already proven on the big stage.
Honestly if Lobb goes and we have untried KP’s, next year then yes we will
stagnate.
- May 26, 2003
- 24,570
- 19,127
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- SFFC, Aussie Women's Cricket, HNK
If Logue can’t get a game down back for us, and many are assuming that’s part of why he’s baulking at what’s in front of him, then Melbourne might not be his best destination with May, Lever and Petty as their tall backs. So I reckon it’s best to leave Logue out of trade talks for Jackson. IMO
For mine, I wouldn't trade either Lobb or Meek unless it was very significant overs. Both are well worth keeping and make us better.
If you had to move on a tall, I would definitely move Tabs on before Lobb -- if that were possible.
If Jackson, Lobb and Darcy were all playing for us next year, I reckon it would probs be Darcy as #1 ruck, Lobb as permanent FF, and Jackson as 3rd forward/2nd ruck.
In that scenario, if Darcy went down then 100% I am putting Meek in Darcy's role and keeping Lobb and Jackson unchanged.
Right now, I would absolutely play Lobb ahead of Jackson but Jackson ahead of Logue. For mine Logue really doesn't offer much in that 3rd tall role -- apart from an honest marking contest.
I don't see Acres and Jackson in competition for the same spot. At least not right now. Perhaps Jackson proves himself as a big bodied midfielder. But he isn't getting a gig like that right now.
Purely guessing (of course!) but I reckon we have pursued Jackson so hard because:
a) we have resigned ourselves to Lobb leaving
b) we believe Jackson is the best use of Lobb's money and the pick we get on trade
c) we think if Jackson stays now he won't come back later
Last edited:
After watching JVR in the VFL final today (3 goals with 10 mins to go), he should be the player (or type of player) we should be targeting. Happy to pay overs for him as well.
Jackson will be a great ruckman in time I am sure, but we need a proper forward not a part-timer. Plus we have two good ruckman already.
NAY
Jackson will be a great ruckman in time I am sure, but we need a proper forward not a part-timer. Plus we have two good ruckman already.
NAY
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #274
If Jackson only gets to the height of Nic Nat I'd be extremely happy with that, Nic Nat at his peak would dominate the ruck contest and turn average midfielders into clearance machines - and we don't have average mids. The built a game plan off Nic Nat in the ruck, McGovern intercepting and Kennedy leading at the ball. At his peak Nic Nat was a truly unique matchup and a serious headache for the opposition.
If we can introduce that player it makes us better, Darcy's weakness at the moment is being jumped over and that's one of Jackson's strength.
We should expect to have Sean Darcy lined up forward at every bounce next season and Jackson leaping at the ball, then Darcy takes the stoppages around the ground.
If Jackson gets involved in general play we have a big bodied midfielder who can take a mark at 4m above the ground. He can win it on the ground and work the ball out to the outside. That's just what he can do now.
He will get stronger and fitter and we will get full value out of him in two to three years.
If we can introduce that player it makes us better, Darcy's weakness at the moment is being jumped over and that's one of Jackson's strength.
We should expect to have Sean Darcy lined up forward at every bounce next season and Jackson leaping at the ball, then Darcy takes the stoppages around the ground.
If Jackson gets involved in general play we have a big bodied midfielder who can take a mark at 4m above the ground. He can win it on the ground and work the ball out to the outside. That's just what he can do now.
He will get stronger and fitter and we will get full value out of him in two to three years.
- Jul 20, 2014
- 8,194
- 18,416
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Sorry I just can't see that Jackson is ever going to have the leap of NN, or his capacity to direct the ball 360 degrees from that excessive leap. Forget it. Jackson will have the peak NN athletic capacity to be an extra clearance player, but he'll never dominate via tap work like NN
