What do we do with all these ruckmen?

[legend166]

If bedford is right (and he usually is), the Swans will offer pick 38 for Seaby. This thread isn't to debate the merits of the trade, but rather assume it will take place and what to do with.

We are going to have 5 ruckmen on our list. Not half ruckmen/half KPP like White and LRT could be. But rather, 5 full time ruckmen.

Jolly
Seaby
Currie
Orreal
Pyke

Now, none of those guys are going to get the chop. Hell, Orreal is getting promoted to the senior list, and Pyke played games in his first year on the list. Currie has been injured but has huge raps.

Now, it's obvious all these guys can't play in the same team. I imagine Seaby will be used as the main backup to Jolly. I don't see why they'd trade him otherwise. MAYBE as a forward, but it wouldn't make sense because we'd just trade for a forward.

So, if Jolly and Seaby will be used as the two ruckmen, where do the other guys fit in? They'll probably still use 2010 as a developing year for Orreal, but for the other two guys, they'd want to be pushing for a full time spot in the senior team.

Could we be looking at developing Currie as a forward, as I know he's spent some time in the forwards in the reserves. But he was drafted as a ruck prospect.

Maybe the coaches don't want Goodes to play in the forward line, so they'll try and use Currie as a CHF? The problem with that is that Goodes can crumb as well as take contested marks. Plus, he's quick enough to apply good forward pressure. I haven't seen Currie play, but I don't think he could do that. So with a forward line of White, Johnston and Currie, we'd be going in very tall. It would be further highlighted by the fact we have no good crumbers.

I don't know what Pyke will be doing. Ruck is pretty much the only position he can play at this stage. I thought his tap worked showed a lot and now he's got senior footy under his belt hopefully he'd be able to kick on a improve his around the ground work and become more consistant.

What do you guys think we'll do with our five ruckmen?

 

[Swans120]

I was opposed to Seaby at first, but the more i think about it the more i am warming to it. My thinking of the whole situation goes something like this:

Currie is struggling to put consistent games together in the 2's and as a consequence surely his body is not yet ready to be a ruckman at senior level, in fact hasn't he played most of his footy in the 2's at CHF or FF (Soph?). So going on that, i reckon if and when we see Currie play seniors next year it will probably be mostly as a forward with perhaps a small amount of time in the ruck.

Orreal from almost all accounts is quite a bit off playing seniors footy and has a lot of work and development to go before he can fully be considered for a ruck spot in the 1's.

Pyke came on brilliantly this year and by far surpassed any expectations the Swans had of him. But he obviously has a bit of work to go before he is a consistent ruckman at seniors level, which is fair enough, he has been playing the game for less than 12 months after all.

So with Currie underdeveloped body wise and playing in the forwards, Orreal not ready, Pyke inconsistent and underdeveloped in game knowledge, i think it is not a bad idea to bring in a ready made, senior ruckman who can come in and do the job to help out Jolly who has been working his arse off for the last 2 seasons essentially by himself in the ruck (he was as good as alone with Spida barely able to walk last year). Seaby can be dangerous floating forward too, so he is somewhat versatile. I dont mind the idea at all as long as we do not give up more than what is necessary to get him. A 3rd rounder should be fine to get him.

 

[kira]

from the moment pyke was drafted, i always felt he would be squeezed out of the side

roos has talked up currie up forward, in addition seaby can play up forward as well with a reasonble good accuracy in front of goals

ideally 1 or 2 of these players will play defence.... but i don't reckon any of these lumbering dinosaurs will be up to the task

orreal... is still years away, so he really doesn't need to come into consideration

for the immediate future.... i would imagine (if seaby did get picked up)..... RUCK: Jolly and Seaby (rotating through forward line)..... FWD: Currie (as a permanent)

pyke gets squeezed out... and we persist with orreal in the reserves

however saying this suggests all of them will have long AFL futures which might not be the case.... question marks still linger over seaby, orreal, pyke and currie..... and depth and selection is always a good headache to have really

 

[swans16]

Yeah, Seaby is going to be the backup ruck for Jolly, One of the other ruckmans could be a tall defender because we dont have much of these. If currie goes back that means Smith or Barlow could go into the midfield. Any thoughts?

 

[Swans120]

Dont think any of them can play Key Defence, but Currie has a lot of wraps on him as a Key Forward. Dunno if any of them are mobile enough to do it down back. We are fine down back with Craig, Reg, LRT and Ted ready to do the job back there.

Nah Smith should stay back for now, he was going really well as a small defender, dined out on Eddie and Didak. He has overtaken Bevo as a small defender and Crouchy is gone, so he should stay there for now. I have no doubt he will play midfield in a few years though. He'll be a good hard nut inside with Birdy i reckon.

Also there are always injuries, every single year there are heaps of injuries so dont be surprised to see one or 2 of these guys injured (touch wood it doesnt happen of course). So we may well need the depth, there is no harm in having depth and insurance for injuries for such a long year when injuries can really rattle a team.

 

[Corpuscles]

I posted reply in other thread (different)

Further

Both Roos and Horse has said Orreal needs more development
Pyke done well but ruckmen these days need to do more around the ground
Currie often plays KP in ressies
Must have a backup for injuries

WE have TWO teams



PS Speculation yet... it's harder to do than just meet and plan an offer

 

[legend166]

We don't have two teams. You don't recruit for reserves football, that's stupid.

I see what you guys are saying, but remember we're not just getting Seaby for one year. What happens in say, 2012? What if Jolly and Seaby are going along just fine? Currie, Orreal and Pyke will probably want to go someone else so they can actually play senior football.

You've got to remember it's not just about what the Swans need. Having a surplus of one position can be good, but it can also be bad for the development of the younger guys who will want to be playing senior football. Best case in point is Craig Bolton. Brisbane lost an AA defender who couldn't crack into the team. But the Brisbane supporters don't really mind, because they were winning 3 flags.

We're not going to be winning 3 flags.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that if we get to the end of 2010 and Currie can't crack a game despite being fit because Seaby is sititng in his place, he'll ask for a trade. Then we lose a possible 10 year ruckman for Mark Seaby?

Stuff that.

 

[Corpuscles]

OMG!

in 2002 many many Swans faced the likelihood of the chop or trade under Eade.

Roos had faith in them all and gave them a chance to prove themselves

Result: Here-it-is! (3yrs later same bunch of "Cortinas"!)

Pressure from ressies and all players for a spot in the best 22 makes quality teams!

The harder Currie Orreal Johnson etc have to work to make it... the harder others need to work to stay there =better team!!!

Even most top 10 picks need to play in a decent side to develop, and that doesn't mean having aside with nor ruckman or ex Rugby or Basketball players (who are also learning) covering forthe smaller blokes.

WE do have to field TWO teams, andI doubt ifthey would look at any recruit just expecting them to play ressies

Currie & Orreal if they stay fit and progress and HAVE TO WORK CONSISTENTLY HARD.....will make it

Seaby whether he does or doesn't, is at least another tall in a relatively short squad. But he would have to improve MASSIVELY to deserve to be a best 22 SWAN!

 

[vonn]

Jolly can push forward and rotate with Goodes. (not that I want Goodes rucking)

Goodes goes into forward line, Jolly goes to ruck, Jolly goes to forward line, ______ rucks, Goodes goes to Midfield.

 

[grimlock]

Forgetting the Swans point of view, if I was Seaby I think Sydney wouldn't be the best option for me. He leaves West Coast because of one dominant ruckman (Cox) and a promising up-and-comer (Natanui) surely to push him out of spots. Come to Sydney and he'll be playing behind one dominant ruckman (Jolly) and fighting it out with Pyke, Currie and Orreal for that second spot.

 

[disgruntled goat]

Much as I hope we persist with Currie, if the Seaby deal comes off, don't be surprised if Currie is used as a sweetener to any trade deal with a Melbourne club. He's always carried massive wraps, yes, but also obviously has problems.

I've been trying to work out why we would chase Seaby, with this apparent plethora of young ruckmen at the club, and the only thing I could come up with was using one of the unproven ones as trade bait. Currie is the only one who'd have any currency with Victorian teams.

 

[Tuhob]

I doubt we'd trade Currie as the club obviously rates him and we picked him up as an underage player. I think it has only really been this season where he has had injury problems (could be wrong but I think he played a lot of reserve games last year). I think it's important we hang onto Dan even if Seaby arrived. Talls take much longer to develop. I reckon Dan will be given a go as a forward first before moving into the ruck.

 

[CAS79]

Much as I hope we persist with Currie, if the Seaby deal comes off, don't be surprised if Currie is used as a sweetener to any trade deal with a Melbourne club. He's always carried massive wraps, yes, but also obviously has problems.

I've been trying to work out why we would chase Seaby, with this apparent plethora of young ruckmen at the club, and the only thing I could come up with was using one of the unproven ones as trade bait. Currie is the only one who'd have any currency with Victorian teams.

I'll be surprised based on the way I read Roos talking about him a couple of weeks ago.

 

[disgruntled goat]

I'll be surprised based on the way I read Roos talking about him a couple of weeks ago.

I want to keep Currie, don't get me wrong, but I'd hate him to turn out another Fitzy and the club might be tempted to get something for him based on reputation and gamble against his injuries.

But I hope we keep him and I hope he gets fit and stars as a Swan.

 

[Dangas]

Pyke and White in the forward line as talls with Seaby and Jolly to ruck, and Jolly /Seaby to push forward. Can't see Orreal making it tbh...

 

[Stevie Ray Swan]

Twin Towers: White/Currie

 

[vonn]

Whatt shall we do withh the drunken sailorrr what shall we doo with the drunkenn sailorrr

as if no one thought dat from the thread title.

 

[MF]

We could build a fort with them?

 

[swans12]

If bedford is right (and he usually is), the Swans will offer pick 38 for Seaby. This thread isn't to debate the merits of the trade, but rather assume it will take place and what to do with.

We are going to have 5 ruckmen on our list. Not half ruckmen/half KPP like White and LRT could be. But rather, 5 full time ruckmen.

Jolly
Seaby
Currie
Orreal
Pyke

Now, none of those guys are going to get the chop. Hell, Orreal is getting promoted to the senior list, and Pyke played games in his first year on the list. Currie has been injured but has huge raps.

Now, it's obvious all these guys can't play in the same team. I imagine Seaby will be used as the main backup to Jolly. I don't see why they'd trade him otherwise. MAYBE as a forward, but it wouldn't make sense because we'd just trade for a forward.

So, if Jolly and Seaby will be used as the two ruckmen, where do the other guys fit in? They'll probably still use 2010 as a developing year for Orreal, but for the other two guys, they'd want to be pushing for a full time spot in the senior team.

Could we be looking at developing Currie as a forward, as I know he's spent some time in the forwards in the reserves. But he was drafted as a ruck prospect.

Maybe the coaches don't want Goodes to play in the forward line, so they'll try and use Currie as a CHF? The problem with that is that Goodes can crumb as well as take contested marks. Plus, he's quick enough to apply good forward pressure. I haven't seen Currie play, but I don't think he could do that. So with a forward line of White, Johnston and Currie, we'd be going in very tall. It would be further highlighted by the fact we have no good crumbers.

I don't know what Pyke will be doing. Ruck is pretty much the only position he can play at this stage. I thought his tap worked showed a lot and now he's got senior footy under his belt hopefully he'd be able to kick on a improve his around the ground work and become more consistant.

What do you guys think we'll do with our five ruckmen?

Why even add this guy, despite improving slowly, he is a mile off the AFL pace from games I have seen. (Waiting for his female supporter group to reply)

 

[.Shotties.]

We could build a fort with them?

I'd like to hear more about this fort.

 

[DST]

While we would have 5 on the list, in reality only 3 of them would be capable of playing full-time as a ruckman.

Jolly and Seaby as first choice and Pyke as an injury fill in.

Orreal is still a couple of years away if he makes it and Currie is likely to be played forward next year as our three young talls in White, Johnston and Currie all get extended time to see if they can make it forward.

The Seaby trade (for the right deal) does make alot of sense.

DST

 

[snappy]

No dont like the idea, we are rebuilding..

Legend made a good point, what happens in a couple of years? Its not that long to wait. Get the kids exposed for a bit, Pyke is an athlete, he can handle it, Lrt can pinch hit.

 

[Leapingleobarry]

Roos doesn't like pinch hitting with LRT. He says it unsettles the back 6.

No dont like the idea, we are rebuilding..

Legend made a good point, what happens in a couple of years? Its not that long to wait. Get the kids exposed for a bit, Pyke is an athlete, he can handle it, Lrt can pinch hit.

 

[captain peanut]

hi guys

it is interesting to read that you will have so many ruckmen on the list next year with the addition of seaby. is there any chance jolly is heading back to a melb club for next year?

there are rumours everywhere here in melb that he wants to head home to finish his career and that the swannies are interested in letting him go for a high draft pick or quality youngster. he will apparently be 28 when the 2010 season starts and therefore probably has maybe 2-3 years left playing at somewhere near his best and they are years that the swans will be spending rebuilding. doubtful that jolly will be part of their next finals push so at face value it would seem to make alot of sense for them to trade him now while he has high currency and get a top notch younger player into the organisation in return. seaby can help carry the load while some of the younger rucks develop over the next 2-3 years

haw and coll are said to be leading the inquiries into his services

any thoughts? or rumours around up there on the issue?

 

[RobbieK]

Structurally, Jolly is the most important player in the club. There is no way the Swans would be letting him go.