Saints into Hickey
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- samoht
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5817
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
- Location: https://www.amazon.com.au/Fugitive-Sold ... B00EO1GCNK
- Has thanked: 598 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
- Contact:
Re: Saints into Hickey
We have young Stanley and McEvoy, plus pinch hitters - so our ruck stocks are okay.
We won most of the clearances this year vs teams with supposedly superior ruckmen - even with Blake rucking !.
I hope we concentrate in other areas, which will improve us more as a side.
We won most of the clearances this year vs teams with supposedly superior ruckmen - even with Blake rucking !.
I hope we concentrate in other areas, which will improve us more as a side.
- ausfatcat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6524
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:36pm
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 95 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
Stillwaiting wrote:The other question I have is how would he come to us, via draft/trade, not sure of how we would get him. If its trade then we would probably have to give a high draft pick to get him.
Yes but maybe not a huge amount depends on interest from other clubs, as GC has drop like 10 players off their list
- samoht
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5817
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
- Location: https://www.amazon.com.au/Fugitive-Sold ... B00EO1GCNK
- Has thanked: 598 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
- Contact:
Re: Saints into Hickey
Sure, Jolly is stronger than McEvoy - but Jolly also gets away with pushing opposition ruckmen in the back, and man -handling them during the throw-ins and the around the ground ruck-work - and the umpires have almost turned a blind eye to it. No other ruckman seems to get away with what he does.Animal Enclosure wrote:I still think Mac will evolve into a ruckman of similar ilk to Jolly.
It took Jolly until he was 25-26 to really establish himself in the upper echelon of ruckmen & it's his strength, not his leap (which has never been enormous) that makes him so good. People underestimate how many pre-seasons it takes to develop the kind of strength that Jolly posesses.
Let's see if he gets away with it again tonight !
- dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
No, we aren't okay, we have one ruckmen in mac, Stanley is an enigma at this stage, that is why the coaches have been talking about getting more ruckmen all year.samoht wrote:We have young Stanley and McEvoy, plus pinch hitters - so our ruck stocks are okay.
- samoht
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5817
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
- Location: https://www.amazon.com.au/Fugitive-Sold ... B00EO1GCNK
- Has thanked: 598 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
- Contact:
Re: Saints into Hickey
Okay, how about one more low-cost ruckman then, as long as we spend wisely in other areas, which will give us more bang for buck.dragit wrote:No, we aren't okay, we have one ruckmen in mac, Stanley is an enigma at this stage, that is why the coaches have been talking about getting more ruckmen all year.samoht wrote:We have young Stanley and McEvoy, plus pinch hitters - so our ruck stocks are okay.
Anyway - we can't play three ruckmen in the side - we're better off playing one ruckman and a forward-ruckman, for balance. So one ruckman will just be a reserve/imsurance. I hope we don't pay a high premium for this insurance.
Last edited by samoht on Fri 21 Sep 2012 2:30pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Saints into Hickey
That's the point of Hickey, he will come cheap. GC have an abundance of tall options - At this stage Day, Dixon, Corringe, Smith and Lynch are ahead of Hickey.samoht wrote:Okay, how about one more low-cost ruckman then, as long as we spend wisely in other areas, which will give us more bang for buck.dragit wrote:No, we aren't okay, we have one ruckmen in mac, Stanley is an enigma at this stage, that is why the coaches have been talking about getting more ruckmen all year.samoht wrote:We have young Stanley and McEvoy, plus pinch hitters - so our ruck stocks are okay.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23208
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1776 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
I'd prefer keep you at arms length..., you should stick to "sir "SaintPav wrote:Can I call you Teffers too?Teflon wrote:Tks Doc
And I shall call you "envious"
Deal?
“Yeah….nah””
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
It worries me that the club has a lack of faith in Macca as is being reported on here....
I certainly hope we don't spend any of our top 2 picks on a ruckman.
I certainly hope we don't spend any of our top 2 picks on a ruckman.
Last edited by Con Gorozidis on Fri 21 Sep 2012 3:14pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Saints into Hickey
Know nothing about Hickey but i do know if you cant play forward as a resting ruckman there really isnt a role for you. Ben couldnt play forward for more than 20% of the game so i hope Hickey is capable of about 60% of time in the forward line. Anyone seen him play at least a few games.
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
Trawl through this site or any other fan site and you’ll see numerous posts about who we should get and who we shouldn’t get. Specific players we should target and those we should avoid. Talls or mids; young men or kids.
It no doubt comes as a shock to some fans that we aren’t as knowledgeable about these things as we might like to think we are. We live “outside the fence” and have very limited knowledge of specific needs; of the salary cap; of likely trades “out” etc.
Fortunately we have some very smart cookies at the club who are empowered to make these decisions. Persons who are very experienced in regards to List management, Trading and Drafting. Persons who get handsomely paid to perform those functions.
So should we go after Tom Hickey? Stuffed if I know. But if the blokes “inside the fence” reckon we should make a big play for him, well that’s good enough for me.
It no doubt comes as a shock to some fans that we aren’t as knowledgeable about these things as we might like to think we are. We live “outside the fence” and have very limited knowledge of specific needs; of the salary cap; of likely trades “out” etc.
Fortunately we have some very smart cookies at the club who are empowered to make these decisions. Persons who are very experienced in regards to List management, Trading and Drafting. Persons who get handsomely paid to perform those functions.
So should we go after Tom Hickey? Stuffed if I know. But if the blokes “inside the fence” reckon we should make a big play for him, well that’s good enough for me.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009 4:25pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
No one from the club has said anything about a lack of faith in Big Mac that i know of.Con Gorozidis wrote:It worries me that the club has a lack of faith in Macca as is being reported on here....
I certainly hope we don't spend any of our top 2 picks on a ruckman.
That was Jake Niall and/or Michael Gleeson's opinion that McEvoy struggles with centre bounces.
Fair call though in my opinion.but there appear to be more options for supporting McEvoy, who is an excellent mark but his lack of a leap means he can struggle to lay hands on the ball at bounces.
Anyway, we really only have one ruckman on our list. So to me there is a clear need for another ruckman.
IMO;
Stanley is a forward who can ruck
McEvoy is a ruckman, can drop back and fill the hole in defense
Hickey is a ruck/forward from the little I have seen
With Hickey, if we land him and he is as good as everyone seems to think he is, (in no way would he be ahead of McEvoy) then it could spell the end of Kosi. Watters has shown that he will play McEvoy, Stanley and Kosi in the one side, so don't see why these three young big men can't all play together and could become quite a problem to contain for the opposition.
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
IF the media reporting is correct then the Saints aren’t simply enquiring about Hickey but they actually really want to get their hands on him. And it’s presumably not to help Sandy win the 2013 flag.
The way I see it there are 3 main options:
1. Two Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing together in the Seniors
2. One Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing in the seniors and one Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing at Sandy as a backup
3. One Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing in the seniors and one Reasonable ruckman playing at Sandy as a backup
The trouble with Option 2 is that the Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing at Sandy will soon be seeking a trade through lack of opportunity.
The trouble with Option 3 is that the Reasonable ruckman may prove to be the weak link in the event that we are challenging for the finals and the Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman goes down.
So Option 1 is the ideal situation, as demonstrated by the likes of West Coast.
And this is where the “inside the fence” stuff comes in. Only those blokes know the reasons for trying to secure Hickey. Only they really know what, if anything, lies in store for the likes of Kosi and Blake in 2013 and beyond.
But I think there are certain assumptions that we can make, namely
* McEvoy is going nowhere and will play seniors
* Stanley is going nowhere and will be playing seniors (subject to injury)
* Hickey is being recruited to play seniors (subject to form)
If these assumptions are correct then Scott will be looking to find a way of playing all of McEvoy, Hickey and Stanley in the same team. And if that’s the case then I expect the first two to share the ruck duties and for Stanley to play predominantly as a hard to match up forward.
The way I see it there are 3 main options:
1. Two Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing together in the Seniors
2. One Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing in the seniors and one Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing at Sandy as a backup
3. One Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing in the seniors and one Reasonable ruckman playing at Sandy as a backup
The trouble with Option 2 is that the Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman playing at Sandy will soon be seeking a trade through lack of opportunity.
The trouble with Option 3 is that the Reasonable ruckman may prove to be the weak link in the event that we are challenging for the finals and the Gun/Great/Very Good ruckman goes down.
So Option 1 is the ideal situation, as demonstrated by the likes of West Coast.
And this is where the “inside the fence” stuff comes in. Only those blokes know the reasons for trying to secure Hickey. Only they really know what, if anything, lies in store for the likes of Kosi and Blake in 2013 and beyond.
But I think there are certain assumptions that we can make, namely
* McEvoy is going nowhere and will play seniors
* Stanley is going nowhere and will be playing seniors (subject to injury)
* Hickey is being recruited to play seniors (subject to form)
If these assumptions are correct then Scott will be looking to find a way of playing all of McEvoy, Hickey and Stanley in the same team. And if that’s the case then I expect the first two to share the ruck duties and for Stanley to play predominantly as a hard to match up forward.
- borderbarry
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 11:22pm
- Location: Wodonga
- sax
- Club Player
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Tue 29 Nov 2005 10:19pm
- Location: Barossa Valley
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Saints into Hickey
borderbarry wrote:Maybe we can offer a player for Hickey.
From what I understand Gold Coast have made it pretty clear they want draft picks not players
Foundation Social Club Member No. 296
Re: Saints into Hickey
GC have had list concessions which expires this year and need to cut players so they will be more interested in moving up the draft order.borderbarry wrote:Maybe we can offer a player for Hickey.
From what I've seen and read about Hickey he is more of a project player. He grew up in Qld and started playing AFL later than most playing volleyball as a youngster.
I suspect that Watters has Stanley in mind as a permanent forward, McEvoy permanent ruck and Hickey as a 50/50 forward/ruck. The challenge will be to fit all three in the team whilst considering Riewoldt, Kosi and Wilkes.
Possibly Watters has confidence that Wilkes can develop his defensive game over the off-season, given that's why we recruited him in the first place to fill the void Dawson left. One thing is for sure and that is that we lack height on our list. Hickey would add some much needed depth.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011 1:31pm
Re: Saints into Hickey
Mc Evoy has to impose himself at centre bounces and learn the art of tap work. A good second ruckman will keep the pressure on him, I like Giles from GWS and I'm glad we're into him. Mc Evoy will then need to address those issues in his game because Giles can play and will take his place.
- samoht
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5817
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:45am
- Location: https://www.amazon.com.au/Fugitive-Sold ... B00EO1GCNK
- Has thanked: 598 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
- Contact:
Re: Saints into Hickey
We need to keep the impact of ruckmen in perspective !! .. it's minimal as far as hitouts go.
OK let's go to the top - West Coast won 46 hitouts per week on average compared to St Kilda's lowly 34 hitouts per match - so 12 more hitouts per match on average in 2012 - YET !!! .. is everyone ready for this ???? ....
Okay here we go ....
West Coast only averaged 2 more clearances than us !!!
BIG DEAL !
If there's a young ruckmen that doesn't cost us too much, then why not add one more - that's different.
So the perception that master tap ruckmen will win you oodles more clearances is not borne out in the stats.
Imagine paying another $500k per year for 2 top tap ruckman vs 2 average tap ruckmen who will save you the $500k and still get the job done.
OK let's go to the top - West Coast won 46 hitouts per week on average compared to St Kilda's lowly 34 hitouts per match - so 12 more hitouts per match on average in 2012 - YET !!! .. is everyone ready for this ???? ....
Okay here we go ....
West Coast only averaged 2 more clearances than us !!!
BIG DEAL !
If there's a young ruckmen that doesn't cost us too much, then why not add one more - that's different.
So the perception that master tap ruckmen will win you oodles more clearances is not borne out in the stats.
Imagine paying another $500k per year for 2 top tap ruckman vs 2 average tap ruckmen who will save you the $500k and still get the job done.
Last edited by samoht on Fri 21 Sep 2012 8:55pm, edited 2 times in total.
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18834
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1567 times
- Been thanked: 1959 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
I don’t do deals with strangers on the internet but I’m going to make an exception in your case given that you’re the type of bloke that likes to be called sir.Teflon wrote:I'd prefer keep you at arms length..., you should stick to "sir "SaintPav wrote:Can I call you Teffers too?Teflon wrote:Tks Doc
And I shall call you "envious"
Deal?
I’m only really envious of people who know you in the real world Teffers because you sound so affable and never full of yourself.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
Hickey isn't a tap ruckman though - at least not yet. By far his most noticable quality is his contested marking. He also only turned over the ball 5 times by hand or foot this year. He gave away a lot of frees, but that may just be from being a young, raw ruckman. He's not an exceptionally large ruck, so hopefully (for his sake) he's more mobile than Ben is.
At no cost he'd be a very handy pick up. Not sure what we'd have to give up to get him though. GC aren't likely to be interested in our second round pick unless they can on trade it to move up in the draft. We might have to move our first pick down to get Hickey. Is that really worth it for a backup ruck?
At no cost he'd be a very handy pick up. Not sure what we'd have to give up to get him though. GC aren't likely to be interested in our second round pick unless they can on trade it to move up in the draft. We might have to move our first pick down to get Hickey. Is that really worth it for a backup ruck?
Yeah nah pleasing positive
- bobmurray
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7781
- Joined: Mon 03 Oct 2005 11:08pm
- Location: In the stand at RSEA Park.
- Has thanked: 497 times
- Been thanked: 226 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
there are definite questions over Big Macs tap work....like, where is it ?.....CURLY wrote:Teflon wrote:Todays Age (haven't got link) have reported we have met Caddy but also offered Hickey 3 year deal with questions over McEvoys tap work. Also said we aren't only Vic club looking at Hickey but we are a "strong " chance so that's clearly the priority
First thing I have no problems believing that we may have approached Hickey. Hickey looks like a very promising young ruckman. What I do struggle to believe and find it a crock that someone from the club has given info out saying theres question marks over McEvoys tap work.
Six debutants for the Saints so far in Season 2024. ![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
Re: Saints into Hickey
We need another ruckman as a minimum to cover for injuries and suspensions.
Hickey would seem to be in that mould.
Ideally we want either:
1/ A much better No 1 ruck that Ben...in which case what happens to Ben
2/ A ruck/forward...with Stanley to then play as a key forward to complete Watters preferred 3 tall forward structure
However the Saints may be content to gaina reasonable young ruck such as Hicky who may get better over time, but who initially will just bea back-up. In which case expect to see a lot of Wilkes in the firsts next year.
Hickey would seem to be in that mould.
Ideally we want either:
1/ A much better No 1 ruck that Ben...in which case what happens to Ben
2/ A ruck/forward...with Stanley to then play as a key forward to complete Watters preferred 3 tall forward structure
However the Saints may be content to gaina reasonable young ruck such as Hicky who may get better over time, but who initially will just bea back-up. In which case expect to see a lot of Wilkes in the firsts next year.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- Bardon Saint
- Club Player
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Thu 27 Aug 2009 4:04pm
- Location: Cairns
Re: Saints into Hickey
We just need someone taller than 189cm to contest the ruck if Ben goes down. Kosi is not an option and Stanley looks to be filling a role structurally down forward with the odd pinch hit in the ruck. Hickey is still raw but has shown promise enough to fill that role. With games and maturity, he'll become a bit more competitive. If he becomes a star and better then Ben, well that's a bonus.
Re: Saints into Hickey
It would all depend on what GC could on trade it for. Eg, we give up 13 and second round for late first round pick and Hickey/Toy. GC then package our picks or similar for Tippett. Am I missing something or could that work in an ideal world?vacuous space wrote:Hickey isn't a tap ruckman though - at least not yet. By far his most noticable quality is his contested marking. He also only turned over the ball 5 times by hand or foot this year. He gave away a lot of frees, but that may just be from being a young, raw ruckman. He's not an exceptionally large ruck, so hopefully (for his sake) he's more mobile than Ben is.
At no cost he'd be a very handy pick up. Not sure what we'd have to give up to get him though. GC aren't likely to be interested in our second round pick unless they can on trade it to move up in the draft. We might have to move our first pick down to get Hickey. Is that really worth it for a backup ruck?
Strength through Loyalty
Go those mighty Sainters!!
Go those mighty Sainters!!
Re: Saints into Hickey
Why should Stanley not ruck??
Great athlete.... Gets room to run around the ground and use his athleticism
Great athlete.... Gets room to run around the ground and use his athleticism
Re: Saints into Hickey
Not such a bad arguement, I wonder the same. He showed a fair bit in the ruck, a bit Niknat like. Either way, a backup who can play fwd is formidable. Doesnt bode well for Kosi, but a combo between Hickey, Stanley and Mac could do us well for 10 years. With his marking a real feature, maybe Hickey will become our answer to a missing backman too. We obviously see a fair bit in him...BigMart wrote:Why should Stanley not ruck??
Great athlete.... Gets room to run around the ground and use his athleticism
Strength through Loyalty
Go those mighty Sainters!!
Go those mighty Sainters!!