Being a better forward then Grundy isn't an achievement, Tim is not a very good forwardThink English can be much better forward than Grundy. But then he's just holding Darcy out
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
Being a better forward then Grundy isn't an achievement, Tim is not a very good forwardThink English can be much better forward than Grundy. But then he's just holding Darcy out
Given rucks generally take a few years. As well as his injury history, experience and strength.If Tim leaves, would Sam be the #1 next year? Or would we need to go out and get another mature ager?
Should haveStill maintain that we should of gone for Grundy and they should of gone for Lobb.
Would fix our “English cant ruck” issue and would fix their “Lack of secondary ruck” issues. Both teams screwed up in that period.
I’d much rather Lobb as back up on $500k a year than Sweet on $150k.
The other side of this is would you rather pay Lobb $500k and English say $1.0M a year or do away with English and Ruck Lobb and Darcy
Nup. Lobb will be done in a couple of years leaving us with Darcy and Smith.
Need to capitalise on us having one of the best rucks in the comp and another who’s likely to become the best.
Unless English wants out, I wouldn’t trade him.
Agree but I ask what are you prepared to pay English ?
Don’t trade him yes but what are you prepared to pay him ?
At 1M he’s almost 8 times the worth of Sweet in output ? 2 times Lobb?
By definition any player is worth infinitely more than a player not getting a game. So yes.Agree but I ask what are you prepared to pay English ?
Don’t trade him yes but what are you prepared to pay him ?
At 1M he’s almost 8 times the worth of Sweet in output ? 2 times Lobb?
Maybe right. Just feels like Tim would make a good 2nd ruck/KPF. But we already have Darcy and Lobb in that role anyway. Kinda odd really having options there, that being such a hard/unicorn role.I very much disagree with this. We tried playing him forward for large stretches in large parts of the latter part of the 2021 season (to try and play a role after Bruce went down).
R22 vs. Hawthorn: 0 goals, 10 disposals, 10 hitouts, 2 contested marks, 1 mark inside 50
R23 vs. Port Adelaide: 2 goals, 1 hitout, 1 contested mark, 1 mark inside 50
EF vs. Essendon: 0 goals, 1 hitout, 15 hitouts, 0 contested marks, 1 mark inside 50
SF vs. Brisbane: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 22 hitouts, 0 contested marks, 0 marks inside 50 (this was the game that Young was having a stinker rucking in the 1st half so we basically returned to rucking English for the second half, helping us win, Martin comes in the next week)
PF vs. Port: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 11 hitouts, 0 marks inside 50, 0 contested marks.
GF: 0 goals, 13 disposals, 12 hitouts 1 contested mark, 1 mark inside 50.
Granted he won a few frees but he wasn't doing anything at all as a key forward to influence the game. At all. From memory he actually took a couple of those marks inside 50 when he was actually playing his 35% game time in the ruck or whatever.
On current form and uncertainty around his concussion issues, probably $800k. $900k at the very most.
He’ll get offers of $1mil elsewhere so 800k is about right.
Tim went well early as a third tall forward in 2021. Kicked 9 in five games before getting injured and then we lost Martin.Maybe right. Just feels like Tim would make a good 2nd ruck/KPF. But we already have Darcy and Lobb in that role anyway. Kinda odd really having options there, that being such a hard/unicorn role.
It depends if it's a players choice to retire (on doctors advice) or if the dr has not cleared them to play. Well that's how it was explained to me atleast.I didn't really follow it but was Brashaw concussion retirement just excluded from their cap? Does that reduce the risk of getting stuck with a long contract and concussion?
I didn't really follow it but was Brashaw concussion retirement just excluded from their cap? Does that reduce the risk of getting stuck with a long contract and concussion?
That sounds fair. But now that's established it will be pretty simple to find a doc that is prepared to say don't/can't play with multiple concussions.It depends if it's a players choice to retire (on doctors advice) or if the dr has not cleared them to play. Well that's how it was explained to me atleast.
So Paddy McCartin's contract is out of the cap but Bradshaw's was still in the cap, although they were trying to change that at the time.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the situation will give a better response.
I don't think that's entirely right, because the retirement risk from previous concussions was already known by Melbourne when they re-signed him to his contract, so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to exclude him from their cap as a result. The injury provisions explained to you and as outlined in the AFL's collective bargaining agreement are more or less for surprising and unforeseen injuries. Obviously they can partially exclude it but not entirely.It depends if it's a players choice to retire (on doctors advice) or if the dr has not cleared them to play. Well that's how it was explained to me atleast.
So Paddy McCartin's contract is out of the cap but Bradshaw's was still in the cap, although they were trying to change that at the time.
I'm sure someone with better knowledge of the situation will give a better response.
But if that were the case then Sydney wouldn't have been able to have Paddy taken off their books before he signed with them he had already retired once due to concussion.I don't think that's entirely right, because the retirement risk from previous concussions was already known by Melbourne when they re-signed him to his contract, so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to exclude him from their cap as a result. The injury provisions explained to you and as outlined in the AFL's collective bargaining agreement are more or less for surprising and unforeseen injuries. Obviously they can partially exclude it but not entirely.
Otherwise you'd just sign injury-prove players to expensive contracts and retire them on the basis that because they're medically unfit to play (say with a year to go on their contract with an injury that rules them out of the year) so you shouldn't have to pay them, but can effectively operate above the cap. That isn't fair, nor is it the intention of the salary cap.
Think it's different for single-year and multi-year contracts. McCartin was only ever contracted for one additional year at the end of his season which he was retired in.But if that were the case then Sydney wouldn't have been able to have Paddy taken off their books before he signed with them he had already retired once due to concussion.
This. Plus we committed to a player who was in contract and got him over, we didn't baulk like others cough*Essendon*cough and change our minds because we were trying to win the trade.I feel like Lobb gets an unnecessary hard wrap on here sometimes.
We all know he isn't the best but is a massive upgrade on our depth from what we previously have seen (i.e Cordy and Dunkley in the ruck).
His last four games of 2023 were:
Vs GEE 16 disposals 3 goals
Vs WCE 14 disposals 3 goals
Vs HAW 14 disposals 2 goals
Vs RICH 13 disposals 2 goals
Those are great stats for a 2nd Ruck / 3rd KPF + his ruck work which was decent. I know he had a shocking game against Melbourne but so did a lot of the team.
Yes, we have Darcy coming through and he looks to be a real real player. However, I believe having Lobb there to take some of the pressure off and provide another option can only be a good thing.
Lobb is the best depth we've had for awhile. If anyone of JUH, Naughton, Darcy or English go down, he is straight back into the team. He can play all those roles. Much better compared to Bruce (post 2021), Shache and Sweet.
He is 31 and I doubt he will go to his 4th club unless he spends 80% of the Season in VFL.