Who will be our first-choice FF in 2009?

[Underdog]

Have to give Ben McKinley first crack at FF.

I don't think so. I'd prefer to go with a more traditionally structured forward setup before resorting to pinch hitting smaller players in key positions.

We have some young big fellas, let's give them a shot first.

 

[Crimson King]

as a CHB:

MacKenzie > Brown

we would totally waste brown's pack crashing ability and general aggressive play if he was locking down on the opposition's CHF. i'd prefer him to make things happen up forward.

as you say though, im sure he'll be tried at both ends of the ground.

i could be wrong with this, but i think we have a wealth of young CHB options and i'd much rather take the punt on brown being a CHF as it's a much more influential position and he could be anything.

Agreed. Spangher/Wilkes/MacKenzie are enough options for the CHB/FB spots. I would like him to start at CHF but if the need be he can be thrown down back.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

as a CHB:

MacKenzie > Brown

we would totally waste brown's pack crashing ability and general aggressive play if he was locking down on the opposition's CHF. i'd prefer him to make things happen up forward.

as you say though, im sure he'll be tried at both ends of the ground.

i could be wrong with this, but i think we have a wealth of young CHB options and i'd much rather take the punt on brown being a CHF as it's a much more influential position and he could be anything.

Of what I have seen from Brown so far (which isn't all that much) he doesn't look like a goal kicking forward.

I think his size would be perfect to handle the big CHF's and he will get plenty of opportunity to make an impact in that position.

I see Mackenzie as more of a FB, with less athletic ability than Brown in more of a shut down role. I think he will compete with Wilkes for the 3rd tall defender position this year.

Saying all that if Hunter gets back to his best who knows where anybody will play, we really do have plenty of key position options, just need to work out where they are all at.

 

[bodazoka]

I still think we need somebody bigger than Mckinley at FF, especially at this stage of his career to help him out.

Hansen can lead, has a good kick at goal and will act as a foil for Mckinley.

I really think Brown will be better suited at CHB, but no doubt will be tried at both ends during NAB Cup.

Top post, been saying for ages that Hansen needs to play at FF. We have players now that can play CHF better in Brown (unproven) and Kennedy, Lynch has proven that he can float through defense, midfield and half forward effectively and Hansens body obviously cant cope with major running throughout a season. McKinley will be a great forward but people have to remember that Hansen is a pretty talented bloke as well and we are going to need stay at home height in the forward 50 the way our I/S 50 entries are.

Couple of really good indicators for me this season, one of them is Hansen at FF and the other is Staker in the middle. Both seem to be eventuating.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Brown is stronger, Faster and fitter. Id love him at FF, Wilkes and McKenzie can hold down CHB without him.

Hansen is unproven at FF. It could work, but id rather Brown.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Top post, been saying for ages that Hansen needs to play at FF. We have players now that can play CHF better in Brown (unproven) and Kennedy, Lynch has proven that he can float through defense...

If you acknowledge that Brown is unproven, then how can you assert that he would do a better job at CHF than Hansen?

Which part of Hansen's game commends him as a FF?

He's not particularly quick on the lead, and he is suspect overhead.

 

[beatlesmith]

hansen is one of a dying breed. His inability overhead in contested situations, reduced mobility and lack of defensive pressure mean that he can only play the lead up role. Kennedy, Brown and Lynch may be preferred at CHF because of an ability to both lead up the ground and contest closer to goals.
Hansen has the runs on the board no doubt, but i'm not sure if there is a place for him in modern football, especially in a rebuilding side looking to try youth. He's not getting pristine service anymore, so he has to work harder at winning his own contested ball, which he is simply poor at.
Hansen at FF is a no go. Too one dimensional. Not enough pace, agility or marking ability. I'd much rather try some kids more suited to the FF role.

 

[PRANKSTER666]

I too don't think Hansen is going to be part of our medium to long term plans but I think people get a little carried away with what the younger players could do on potential.

Hansen will get a gig up forward because he has the runs on the board and I am willing to give him a chance at FF until he shows he is not capable of contributing in such a position.

I think he can kick 2 goals a game and help out the forward line this year.

Saying all that I still can't believe they gave him a 3 year contract last year...

 

[Evil Pleb]

This year should be about playing the kids in preperation for a 2010 finals assault. Getting miles into the newbies legs and giving them game time for the experience should be top priority. Brown may not be best suited to FF at the moment because of his inexperience, but given enough game time there to develope, he imo will prove to be the best candidate to hold down the position long term. Brown has the height, size, speed and agility to make a big impression there. All he needs is time to grow into the role. Hansen's future at the eagles looks bleak due to the mounting competion from the youngsters who'll surpass him in ability very shortly.(If they haven't done so already.) McKinley is too short and should play in the pocket where he won't cop the best defender. JFK is a natural CHF and should be our first pick CHF. The mob should be on a HFF or a wing delivering quick long balls into our forward line. Q's massive size around the middle of the ground is also handy.(OH s..t look out Bryce, oops toooo late!)

 

[Underdog]

Q's massive size around the middle of the ground is also handy.(OH s..t look out Bryce, oops toooo late!)

Did Q eat Gibbs?

 

[carn_eagles04]

i think ash hansen will play full forward this year, he has put on some size and looks fit and ready to go. his not happy with the season he had last and looks hungry.
ben mckinly to play the spearhead marking forward who is just as good at his feet.
marky mark lecras is a star, i love this bloke cant rate him high enough
josh kennedy to play centre half bak, his a great mark and lead and i think he will play a similiar role to ash hansen in 2006

we got the making of a star studded forward line guys lets hope they can get it together

 

[beatlesmith]

i think ash hansen will play full forward this year, he has put on some size and looks fit and ready to go. his not happy with the season he had last and looks hungry.
ben mckinly to play the spearhead marking forward who is just as good at his feet.
marky mark lecras is a star, i love this bloke cant rate him high enough
josh kennedy to play centre half bak, his a great mark and lead and i think he will play a similiar role to ash hansen in 2006

we got the making of a star studded forward line guys lets hope they can get it together

kennedy at CHB? Hansen was CHF in 2006
I don't think hansen will ever work at FF because he isn't quick, with his hamstrings he has horrible agility, can't apply defensive pressure and can't take a contested mark.
He will only ever play well as a lead up forward, and if guys like lynch, kennedy and brown surpass him in the CHF position, with the ability to both lead up and stay closer to goals, hansen will have to go, or only remain as depth.
He is too one dimensional. He either has to excel at CHF this year, or there is no place for him in the 22.

 

[sTeeL]

If they can find a way to fit him in with Brown, Kennedy, Q and McKinely I guess I am okay with it.

I dont want to see Brown and Kennedy getting put back because Hansen is much loved round the club

 

[bodazoka]

If you acknowledge that Brown is unproven, then how can you assert that he would do a better job at CHF than Hansen?

Which part of Hansen's game commends him as a FF?

He's not particularly quick on the lead, and he is suspect overhead.

I acknowledged Brown as unproven just incase people quoted me to say that he was unproven and I should not of written that he can do a better job than Hansen. Unproven but seems to have the tools to play a CHF role is what I meant to say about Brown, just did not word it all that well.

As for Hansen, the part where I have seen him play FF well.
Who would you name at FF for the season Gunnar? and what would you do with Hansen?

 

[Evil Pleb]

Ash Hansen can't mark the ball unless it hits him square in the middle of the chest. The problem with Ash at FF is that when he doesn't take the mark, he doesn't have the agility to have a second go at the ball by picking it up off the deck.
It's good to hear Ash has put on 5kg, it should help him in 1 on 1 contests.
Despite Hansen's flaws, he will get 1st crack at FF because there is no ready made replacment. Q won't get the job because he can't kick accurately and he had more success play up the ground.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Who would you name at FF for the season Gunnar? and what would you do with Hansen?

I think we should try to structure our forwardline around McKinley, while rotating different talls through that F50 in support.

I'd expect all of Lynch, Staker and Hunter to spend time close to goals. And if Brown and Kennedy are ready to go, they'll probably get a crack up there at some stage as well.

But McKinley is the guy who will be playing there week-in, week-out, in the expectation that he regularly kicks his 2-3 goals. Hopefully more.

As for Hansen, I reckon it's CHF or nothing. Of course, that doesn't mean he won't be pushing back into the F50 at times as well.

I just reckon that Hansen's greatest asset is his work-rate. Those long, searching leads. They won't serve him as well playing out of the goal square, but if he's in good nick, he can still be an important lead-up player for us when we come out of defence.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

McKinley is simply not big enough to play full forward, he is an awsome kick, brilliant mark but he is a luxury depth player and should be used in tandem with a FF and LeCras for best effect, giving him the Number one defender is pointless. He can kick enough goals from the pocket given we get enough ball Forward. He lacks defensive pressure and is not the most quick minded player when the ball hits the ground, he can improve this.

Hansen, is in my opinion not strong enough mark to play FF, has poor skills below his feet and shocking agility defensive pressure, his runs the board count for Nothing. Try him at FF but why leave a strong backman out of the side just to keep Hansen in.

Lynch, can wrestle, strong, good mark. Has improved agility and better skills bellow his knees than Hansen. Not a lazy in stopping the player rebounding, accountable. Questionable accuracy within 20m of goal.

Hunter, strong mark but is inconsistant up forward. Equally he is past his best, lost a little of the already small amounts of footspeed he had, good below feet. Level headed, in truth his not really an upgrade on even Hansen. Won't get CHB in 2009 and i my best six backman does not include him.

Kennedy, Quick, tall, strong mark and rather consistant kicker of the football. Untested but is rated higher as a forward than any player we have. Given his strong mark and quality leg speed he is the number 1 CHF.

Brown, fast, fit, agile, strong body and a strong mark. His physical attributes make him a perfect KPP. Sure his not a proven forward but if he and hansen get tested up forward this year i think Brown will come out ontop by a long margin. Can't compare the two, he as a forward would have a complete game, he has the fitness to do it.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

McKinley is simply not big enough to play full forward, he is an awsome kick, brilliant mark but he is a luxury depth player

McKinley is a "depth player"?

I don't think so.

He was clearly our best forward last season. And he plays tall. He's a traditional lead-and-mark forward.

Why should we structure our forwardline around a player less likely to kick goals, just because that player is taller?

That makes no sense.

You devise a gameplan around the cattle you have, and at the moment, our best forwards happen to be mid-sized. That's the way it is.

If McKinley is the most likely to kick goals, he should be the focus of our attack. I reckon that almost goes without saying.

I'm not saying that he should be expected to carry the can entirely on his own. I'm happy to play a couple of taller guys alongside McKinley and LeCras in supporting roles, but structuring the attack around another guy, just because he is taller, is wrong-headed.

and should be used in tandem with a FF and LeCras for best effect, giving him the Number one defender is pointless.

We don't get to decide who the opposition defenders play on. We don't get to "give McKinley the number one defender".

But, quite frankly, if he's our best forward, he's going to attract the best defender anyway.

Plonking Hansen or Lynch or Brown or whoever in the goal square and saying "he's our FF" isn't going to fool anyone.

Do you really think opposition coaches are going to say, "well, McKinley is their best forward, but he's named in the FP, so we'll pay him less attention"?

If he's our most dangerous forward, he's going to get a good defender, regardless of whether he plays FF or not. And structuring our attack around a bigger, less productive player certainly isn't going to make McKinley's life any easier.

 

[CHIPPY23]

this is a good thing tho we couldn't buy a FF couple years ago now we got alot to choose from (Mc Kinley for my choice)

 

[illegaleagle]

I would go with Brown or McKinley. Hansen is too slow and terrible when the ball goes to ground. mcKinley & Brown are the future with Kennedy at CHF and Tony Notte will come into the calculations as well in a few years. Injuries have almost finished Hansen off and can't imagine him playing a full year.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

If you think McKinley is our ff who plays around him and who gets into our squad as far as defense goes? Honestly if Brown can play forward he should presuming Bones is fit to play. I don't see a need for Brown down back and don't want him there. If Bones is injured we still have McKenzie, ect, the only reason to put him in defense is if we get mass injuries like last year.

A.Selwood Glass Waters
B.Jones Wilkes Hurn

Clearly our best players for defense in 2009, Brown no doubt can play back but he was recruited as a forward and id like him to get the chance. If he attracts allot of ball down forward then he can go to ff, if you think McKinley is default ff that would be evident after actual evidence can prove he is the go to man, but given we had our worst season on record i would not base our game plan around our leading goal scorer from 08, especially considering our depth was tested early in our development process, sure McKinley stood up but that is not qualification to build a forward structure around him.

 

[Evil Pleb]

I believe we need to invest time into grooming Brown for the position long term. McKinley at FF is a stop gap measure at best. It's easy to be the best forward in a side when there is no one else. A six foot tall FF full time is a joke. McKinley not being tall or the quickest FF will be found out in 09 if he takes on the role of go to guy. He won't take teams by surprise this year. The eagles are going to be a power team again in the near future. In the meantime the eagles should focus on developing a young capable tall to build a forward line around. Brown has all the physical attributes, now he needs the time (and patience) to grow into the FF we desperatly need.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

If you think McKinley is our ff who plays around him and who gets into our squad as far as defense goes?

Huh?

I don't see the connection between McKinley playing at FF and the way our defence looks. You've got me baffled there.

As far as the rest of our forwardline goes, it's a work in progress. I reckon McKinley and LeCras are the only two guys who are walk-up starts for our first-choice forward six. After that, there are a few questions that need to be answered.

Does Lynch's future lie elsewhere? Are Brown and Kennedy ready? Is Hansen shot? Is it time for Hurn, Hunter, Waters or Nicoski to switch ends? Can any of our developing mids make an impact as a forward? Do Embley or Staker have a role in there somewhere?

So I reckon there will be quite a bit of experimentation as the season unfolds. Certainly, I don't think anyone can name six players on our list who are already proven as full-time forwards.

Honestly if Brown can play forward he should presuming Bones is fit to play. I don't see a need for Brown down back and don't want him there. If Bones is injured we still have McKenzie, ect, the only reason to put him in defense is if we get mass injuries like last year.

A.Selwood Glass Waters
B.Jones Wilkes Hurn

What's your point?

There might not be a spot for Brown in defence, but because he's so established and so clearly best 22, we should shoehorn him into the side at FF?

How about we wait until Brown does something before manipulating our side in order to accommodate him? In the meantime, how about we go with the guy who has actually shown he can kick goals?

Brown no doubt can play back but he was recruited as a forward and id like him to get the chance.

He was recruited as a promising, athletic tall. He still needs to show that he can cut it at AFL level.

He's played how many games?

The raps on him around here are OTT.

If he attracts allot of ball down forward then he can go to ff, if you think McKinley is default ff that would be evident after actual evidence can prove he is the go to man, but given we had our worst season on record i would not base our game plan around our leading goal scorer from 08

Well, what would you base it on? Guesswork?

In a horrible season, McKinley showed emphatically that he can be an effective forward. That's "the evidence". And it puts him a long way ahead of some of the other contenders, who have done bugger-all.

Are you suggesting that, because it was a horrible season, we shouldn't keep faith with the guys who actually stepped up?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

sure McKinley stood up but that is not qualification to build a forward structure around him.

The qualification is that, on exposed form, he's our most dangerous forward.

What kind of evidence trumps actual performances at AFL level?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I believe we need to invest time into grooming Brown for the position long term. McKinley at FF is a stop gap measure at best. It's easy to be the best forward in a side when there is no one else. A six foot tall FF full time is a joke.

In 2009, McKinley should be the focus of our attack.

I think that's a more important discussion than whether he is named at FF or in a FP.

The eagles are going to be a power team again in the near future. In the meantime the eagles should focus on developing a young capable tall to build a forward line around. Brown has all the physical attributes, now he needs the time (and patience) to grow into the FF we desperatly need.

Yeah, so the taller players most likely will take time to develop.

That's why, in the meantime, we should go with the guy who has already shown he can kick goals.

It's unreasonable to expect that we can just plonk Brown at FF and have him deliver immediately.

 

[Evil Pleb]

Before Brown develops any attributes and tendancies, eagles managment have an opportunity to mould him as a footballer into anything they deem required. My argument is that we have a seemingly capable although unproven player in Brown, and a hole to plug at FF. He has the potential to make this position his own and rid the side of a problem while going about it. If the eagles were in finals contention then having a proven player at FF would probably be the way to go. But since we are only building and developing a young squad, it would be prudent to give the opportunity to a likely young candidate such as Brown.
Considering Ermac will be Glass' replacement. Wilkes will play a role at CHB at least for the time being as a replacement for hunter when neccesary. JFK won't be moved by Woosha away from CHF IMO. Lynch will be up the ground.
Having Brown at FF allows him to fit into the team without him having to wait in the que and be a depth player. He fills an immediate need at FF. He has way too much potential to be sitting on the bench. He'll share time there with Hansen though.
I don't expect immediate success with Brown, but playing him at FF and sticking with him during trying times will only help his confidence and development.
If Brown is to be groomed as a FF there would be no point in playing him in a forward pocket. That would be 2nd guessing him and confidence shattering. All players but especially the young need to be upbuilt and have confidence shown in them. Especially as he's trying to establish himself and cement a place in the side.
Playing McKinley at FF would be a sign from the club saying we're only interested in short term results at the cost of longer term player development.
Besides, I would much rather see Mitch Brown play on Matty Scarlet and the like. Brown has a far greater size advantge over McKinley to handle the rigours of being a KPP. A far more favourable match up for us than Scarlett vs McKinley. It would also do wonders for his development even if he lost the duel on the day.
The eagles would be best served with McKinley along with Lecca at the base of a pack snaring the crumbs.