Pierce Signs Extension..

[Saints94]

The third signing by the club #SaintsFutureFest

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2014-09-1 ... s-new-deal

[gringo]

I really like the look of Pierce. He looks like the only one of our rucks I could see being able to play more as a KPP. Has good hands and is quite fast for such a big guy. Good tap work too. The ruck is now sorted for a long time.

[dragit]

I don't know enough to get excited about this guy… but I was thinking, since he is nearly 4 years younger than Hickey, he's virtually a generation behind him in terms of peaking.

I always wonder about drafting ruckmen at 18, considering they don't usually show much until 23-25+… takes a lot of patience to see it through, not many last 5 years to show something.

[Saints94]

I don't know enough to get excited about this guy… but I was thinking, since he is nearly 4 years younger than Hickey, he's virtually a generation behind him in terms of peaking.

I always wonder about drafting ruckmen at 18, considering they don't usually show much until 23-25+… takes a lot of patience to see it through, not many last 5 years to show something.

+1, Luke Lowden the perfect example.

[saint6709]

I don't know enough to get excited about this guy… but I was thinking, since he is nearly 4 years younger than Hickey, he's virtually a generation behind him in terms of peaking.

I always wonder about drafting ruckmen at 18, considering they don't usually show much until 23-25+… takes a lot of patience to see it through, not many last 5 years to show something.

+1, Luke Lowden the perfect example.

Its probably ok if you draft them with a low pick and don't pay them too much - they must come from somewhere

[dragit]

I don't know enough to get excited about this guy… but I was thinking, since he is nearly 4 years younger than Hickey, he's virtually a generation behind him in terms of peaking.

I always wonder about drafting ruckmen at 18, considering they don't usually show much until 23-25+… takes a lot of patience to see it through, not many last 5 years to show something.

+1, Luke Lowden the perfect example.

Its probably ok if you draft them with a low pick and don't pay them too much - they must come from somewhere

It's not so much the pick, but the space on the list they take up while you wait. With a list of only 40, you can't have many guys on there they may not come good for 5 years, and may not come good at all.

I think the trend of trading in mature ruckmen is popular for a reason, rucks are just too hard to pick as teenagers.

Look at Fraser & Kreuzer, massive disappointments, & McEvoy was probably taken too early in hindsight.

[gringo]

I don't know enough to get excited about this guy… but I was thinking, since he is nearly 4 years younger than Hickey, he's virtually a generation behind him in terms of peaking.

I always wonder about drafting ruckmen at 18, considering they don't usually show much until 23-25+… takes a lot of patience to see it through, not many last 5 years to show something.

+1, Luke Lowden the perfect example.

Its probably ok if you draft them with a low pick and don't pay them too much - they must come from somewhere

It's not so much the pick, but the space on the list they take up while you wait. With a list of only 40, you can't have many guys on there they may not come good for 5 years, and may not come good at all.

I think the trend of trading in mature ruckmen is popular for a reason, rucks are just too hard to pick as teenagers.

Look at Fraser & Kreuzer, massive disappointments, & McEvoy was probably taken too early in hindsight.

He had a fantastic highlight reel from before he was drafted. Looks like a young Darren Jolly. Really strong mark and good vision from that too. Has been good at VFL level too despite fighting over the spot with Holmes and battling injury. As I said he looks the most natural forward of all our rucks.

[saintly]

I don't know enough to get excited about this guy… but I was thinking, since he is nearly 4 years younger than Hickey, he's virtually a generation behind him in terms of peaking.

I always wonder about drafting ruckmen at 18, considering they don't usually show much until 23-25+… takes a lot of patience to see it through, not many last 5 years to show something.

+1, Luke Lowden the perfect example.

Its probably ok if you draft them with a low pick and don't pay them too much - they must come from somewhere

It's not so much the pick, but the space on the list they take up while you wait. With a list of only 40, you can't have many guys on there they may not come good for 5 years, and may not come good at all.

I think the trend of trading in mature ruckmen is popular for a reason, rucks are just too hard to pick as teenagers.

Look at Fraser & Kreuzer, massive disappointments, & McEvoy was probably taken too early in hindsight.

Like Ceglar for the hawks. on collingwoods list for a 3 years before being delisted and then being picked up by the hawks in 2013

[St Chris]

Saw the VFL game on TV against Werribee where he and Spencer played side by side in the forward line for large patches of the game. Not sure how he finished re: stats and goals, but looked a lot more threatening than Spencer did.

Happy to hear he is progressing well and is extending his stay, as long as he understands his opportunities in the AFL are going to limited in the short term.

[plugger66]

The more I think of the recruitment of the ruckman the more I wonder what the hell is going on. We have about 5 in the squad and they are all young. Ideally you would have one young, one old and one middle age. i cant see the point of so many as only Stanley seems capable of playing as a forward and is certainly no star at doing that. Yep some will say we could trade them out but what trade value you will get is if they are not playing in the ones constantly? Just for an example if next season neither Hickey or Longer are injured then one will be in the seconds unless the others form isnt good enough and then you wont get anything for them anyway. Im afraid I just dont get it at all. Maybe someone can tell me the point of 5 ruckman all of hich are close to being good players yet and of course they are young but why are they all young?

[gringo]

The more I think of the recruitment of the ruckman the more I wonder what the hell is going on. We have about 5 in the squad and they are all young. Ideally you would have one young, one old and one middle age. i cant see the point of so many as only Stanley seems capable of playing as a forward and is certainly no star at doing that. Yep some will say we could trade them out but what trade value you will get is if they are not playing in the ones constantly? Just for an example if next season neither Hickey or Longer are injured then one will be in the seconds unless the others form isnt good enough and then you wont get anything for them anyway. Im afraid I just dont get it at all. Maybe someone can tell me the point of 5 ruckman all of hich are close to being good players yet and of course they are young but why are they all young?

My guess is that with the new franchises getting a mass of amazing mids and KPs the only tradable commodity to get their kids back in a couple of years will be the rucks they don't have masses of. Most teams need at least a back up besides their main ruck and plenty have 3. I don't think Bellchambers would be hard to trade despite not playing every game in the ones. If we have a second ruck that is already developed running around in the VFL they will get noticed and attract interest. I would say Holmes is a free hit at developing a ruck, if he makes it we can then worry about trading out another. Otherwise we have Hickey who you would expect will be the number one for now and Longer for a couple of years in the future. Pierce around the same time as Longer.

[plugger66]

The more I think of the recruitment of the ruckman the more I wonder what the hell is going on. We have about 5 in the squad and they are all young. Ideally you would have one young, one old and one middle age. i cant see the point of so many as only Stanley seems capable of playing as a forward and is certainly no star at doing that. Yep some will say we could trade them out but what trade value you will get is if they are not playing in the ones constantly? Just for an example if next season neither Hickey or Longer are injured then one will be in the seconds unless the others form isnt good enough and then you wont get anything for them anyway. Im afraid I just dont get it at all. Maybe someone can tell me the point of 5 ruckman all of hich are close to being good players yet and of course they are young but why are they all young?

My guess is that with the new franchises getting a mass of amazing mids and KPs the only tradable commodity to get their kids back in a couple of years will be the rucks they don't have masses of. Most teams need at least a back up besides their main ruck and plenty have 3. I don't think Bellchambers would be hard to trade despite not playing every game in the ones. If we have a second ruck that is already developed running around in the VFL they will get noticed and attract interest. I would say Holmes is a free hit at developing a ruck, if he makes it we can then worry about trading out another. Otherwise we have Hickey who you would expect will be the number one for now and Longer for a couple of years in the future. Pierce around the same time as Longer.

I dont think any of our players are Bellchmabers though. he has shown signs that he could be a very good ruckman previously. If Longer played 15 games in the seconds next year he becomes pick 50. Please use examples that are at least close. And yes plenty of sides have 3 rucks as I suggested we should have but we have 5 and that means at least 3 play in the seconds if all are fit. Makes little sense to me. I just hopw that 2 or 3 are still tradable in a year or two time.

[Saint wagga]

The more I think of the recruitment of the ruckman the more I wonder what the hell is going on. We have about 5 in the squad and they are all young. Ideally you would have one young, one old and one middle age. i cant see the point of so many as only Stanley seems capable of playing as a forward and is certainly no star at doing that. Yep some will say we could trade them out but what trade value you will get is if they are not playing in the ones constantly? Just for an example if next season neither Hickey or Longer are injured then one will be in the seconds unless the others form isnt good enough and then you wont get anything for them anyway. Im afraid I just dont get it at all. Maybe someone can tell me the point of 5 ruckman all of hich are close to being good players yet and of course they are young but why are they all young?

My guess is that with the new franchises getting a mass of amazing mids and KPs the only tradable commodity to get their kids back in a couple of years will be the rucks they don't have masses of. Most teams need at least a back up besides their main ruck and plenty have 3. I don't think Bellchambers would be hard to trade despite not playing every game in the ones. If we have a second ruck that is already developed running around in the VFL they will get noticed and attract interest. I would say Holmes is a free hit at developing a ruck, if he makes it we can then worry about trading out another. Otherwise we have Hickey who you would expect will be the number one for now and Longer for a couple of years in the future. Pierce around the same time as Longer.

I'm thinking that the possibly over hyped potential of Pierce and Holmes has added to this over supply of ruckmen conundrum. I mean, neither has played a senior game and whilst listed in the best at Sandi on quite a few occasions, I just can't believe Holmes is going to come in and displace a fit and healthy Hickey...As for Longer, loved his extended run at senior footy, but I would have been pretty happy had he been dropped after probably 4-5 of those games without thinking too much of it. Neither Pierce or Holmes was promoted during the season...and yes, a big pre season by all will help fast track their develpoment...but being realistic, they clearly aren't going to come in and dominate at AFL level. If we are again a bottom placed side next year, people aren't likely to be paying overs for any of our fringe players, so we can afford to keep them all on the list for a while longer yet...

They may very well be used as steak knives in future trade deals, with only Hickey costing us serious trade currency to get into the club, so their isn't a massive net loss should one or 2 of them find a home elsewhere in a year or two...

As for Injury, high likeilhood at least 1 of the 4 will be injured at various stages of the season...

As for none showqing any glimpses of forward potential bar Stanley - happy to take a wait and see approach on that one, don't sense the urgency. IMO

[dragit]

Let's be honest, all 4 ruckmen going extended periods uninjured is just very unlikely.

Holmes is just a project - doesn't take up any list space, doesn't really count.

Pierce is a few years from being a serious AFL ruckmen, so we really have 2 that will compete for #1.

At this rate one will be injured and if not, Longer is still young so shouldn't get too shirty spending large blocks in the VFL.

A lot of clubs have at least 4 genuine ruckmen on their list… it's one area that can't really be filled by another type of player.

Hawthorn had 4 and still added McEvoy.

Agree though that ideally they can play a decent role up forward… I have heard mentioned that we may go back to 4 on the bench though, this could impact how rucks are used.

[plugger66]

Let's be honest, all 4 ruckmen going extended periods uninjured is just very unlikely.

Holmes is just a project - doesn't take up any list space, doesn't really count.

Pierce is a few years from being a serious AFL ruckmen, so we really have 2 that will compete for #1.

At this rate one will be injured and if not, Longer is still young so shouldn't get too shirty spending large blocks in the VFL.

A lot of clubs have at least 4 genuine ruckmen on their list… it's one area that can't really be filled by another type of player.

Hawthorn had 4 and still added McEvoy.

Agree though that ideally they can play a decent role up forward… I have heard mentioned that we may go back to 4 on the bench though, this could impact how rucks are used.

If we do back to 4 on the bench you can bet it will be with less interchange. I have heard it will be 2 and 2. That will mean even your first ruck has to be able to play forward. And whilst Pirce and Holmes cost bugger all the same cant be said for Hickey and Longer so we need one to make it and make it good.

[dragit]

When you consider the change we got in the Hickey deal, I would rate that we paid around a mid second rounder for both Hickey & Longer.

If we can't accommodate the two, we have the luxury of keeping the best one and more than likely trade out the other one fro a similar or better pick than we paid.

There's still time for either to become decent forwards IMO.

[gringo]

When you consider the change we got in the Hickey deal, I would rate that we paid around a mid second rounder for both Hickey & Longer.

If we can't accommodate the two, we have the luxury of keeping the best one and more than likely trade out the other one fro a similar or better pick than we paid.

There's still time for either to become decent forwards IMO.

I thought Hickey showed he could do more than just ruck this year, Longer looks big and combative but raw. He need to build up in the VFL and learn some technique and practice his work around the ground. If Hickey's knee comes good I think he should be a decent player next year. I can imagine giving Pierce a run in the seniors if Rhys is out for any reason. He looks a good mark so could potentially be a forward ruck.

[plugger66]

When you consider the change we got in the Hickey deal, I would rate that we paid around a mid second rounder for both Hickey & Longer.

If we can't accommodate the two, we have the luxury of keeping the best one and more than likely trade out the other one fro a similar or better pick than we paid.

There's still time for either to become decent forwards IMO.

I hope you are right about playing forward but someone needs to tell Longer we have marks in AFL footy. Being very generious about making Hickey similar to a mid second round pick. We went down only 12 spots in both picks we gpt with Hickey and probably could have got both players we got without the upgrade of picks.

[Saint wagga]

Just as an aside, if the interchange does go down the 2 + 2 path as you've mentioned on a couple of occassions plugger and your mail seems to be right more often than not...there will be quite a few senior coaches who may sponatneously combust when it does!! Haven't heard a single senior coach say they like 1 sub, let alone 2!! There will be one hell of a backlash. Personally I hate the sub rule, would much prefer 4 straight ineterchange players with a reasonable cap in interchanges, 80 seems around the mark...

Unfortunately the AFL seems to be suffereing the same sort of issues rugby league went thru a decade or so ago with regards to trying to adjust the 'speed of play' by tinkering with interchanges etc...The league seem to have gotten in right by having a very small number of interchanges in comparison and maintaining the traditional fatigue factor that allows the smaller nimble men to have an impact later in the game...Whilst I know there are similarities in the codes...I feel this is a unique shared attribute with fatigue factor being a great leveller and allowing for smalls/runners to come into games later and I'd like to see this aspect of AFL footy maintained...

For the record it wasn't a painless issue for rugby league either, probably lasted about 5 years with trial and error and feedback being the only way to get to the desired result nor am i suggesting that they are a beacon of perfect management, just think the similarities when it comes to interchanges and fatigue and the effect on the game are worth mentioning...FWIW

[plugger66]

Just as an aside, if the interchange does go down the 2 + 2 path as you've mentioned on a couple of occassions plugger and your mail seems to be right more often than not...there will be quite a few senior coaches who may sponatneously combust when it does!! Haven't heard a single senior coach say they like 1 sub, let alone 2!! There will be one hell of a backlash. Personally I hate the sub rule, would much prefer 4 straight ineterchange players with a reasonable cap in interchanges, 80 seems around the mark...

Unfortunately the AFL seems to be suffereing the same sort of issues rugby league went thru a decade or so ago with regards to trying to adjust the 'speed of play' by tinkering with interchanges etc...The league seem to have gotten in right by having a very small number of interchanges in comparison and maintaining the traditional fatigue factor that allows the smaller nimble men to have an impact later in the game...Whilst I know there are similarities in the codes...I feel this is a unique shared attribute with fatigue factor being a great leveller and allowing for smalls/runners to come into games later and I'd like to see this aspect of AFL footy maintained...

For the record it wasn't a painless issue for rugby league either, probably lasted about 5 years with trial and error and feedback being the only way to get to the desired result nor am i suggesting that they are a beacon of perfect management, just think the similarities when it comes to interchanges and fatigue and the effect on the game are worth mentioning...FWIW

Around 10 years ago we had 2 interchange and then coaches said we need more because of injuries and how unfair it was when you got injuries. In the last 5 or 6 years the coaches have used 22 players. There is no such thing as a bench. The AFL decided that one sub makes it fairer for side that suffer an early injury which is true. if we go back to 2 and 2 then coaches cant complain about injuries effecting their side and we will be back to the 2 interchange as we were when coaches wanted the interchange initially. I dont mind the idea at all. Its a blend of the pre 70's and the early 2000's. Worth a try IMO. May mean the like of Ablett, Fyffe, Selwood etc have to play 95% of the game. Surely that is only a good thing.

[Saint wagga]

Just as an aside, if the interchange does go down the 2 + 2 path as you've mentioned on a couple of occassions plugger and your mail seems to be right more often than not...there will be quite a few senior coaches who may sponatneously combust when it does!! Haven't heard a single senior coach say they like 1 sub, let alone 2!! There will be one hell of a backlash. Personally I hate the sub rule, would much prefer 4 straight ineterchange players with a reasonable cap in interchanges, 80 seems around the mark...

Unfortunately the AFL seems to be suffereing the same sort of issues rugby league went thru a decade or so ago with regards to trying to adjust the 'speed of play' by tinkering with interchanges etc...The league seem to have gotten in right by having a very small number of interchanges in comparison and maintaining the traditional fatigue factor that allows the smaller nimble men to have an impact later in the game...Whilst I know there are similarities in the codes...I feel this is a unique shared attribute with fatigue factor being a great leveller and allowing for smalls/runners to come into games later and I'd like to see this aspect of AFL footy maintained...

For the record it wasn't a painless issue for rugby league either, probably lasted about 5 years with trial and error and feedback being the only way to get to the desired result nor am i suggesting that they are a beacon of perfect management, just think the similarities when it comes to interchanges and fatigue and the effect on the game are worth mentioning...FWIW

Around 10 years ago we had 2 interchange and then coaches said we need more because of injuries and how unfair it was when you got injuries. In the last 5 or 6 years the coaches have used 22 players. There is no such thing as a bench. The AFL decided that one sub makes it fairer for side that suffer an early injury which is true. if we go back to 2 and 2 then coaches cant complain about injuries effecting their side and we will be back to the 2 interchange as we were when coaches wanted the interchange initially. I dont mind the idea at all. Its a blend of the pre 70's and the early 2000's. Worth a try IMO. May mean the like of Ablett, Fyffe, Selwood etc have to play 95% of the game. Surely that is only a good thing.

Certainly can't argue with those points you've made Plugger and as I mentioned it may only be through trial and error that we find the best result favoured by the most number of people. Our difference of preferences only highlights the multitude of opinions out there.

[magnifisaint]

Good luck to Pierce. I hope he dominates.

[magnifisaint]

Good luck to Pierce. I hope he dominates.

[sunsaint]

I love the "dont draft ruckmen" discussions
someone, somewhere has to draft, train, and play these kids so you can all pay overs later on

[stinger]

When you consider the change we got in the Hickey deal, I would rate that we paid around a mid second rounder for both Hickey & Longer.

If we can't accommodate the two, we have the luxury of keeping the best one and more than likely trade out the other one fro a similar or better pick than we paid.

There's still time for either to become decent forwards IMO.

we got longer....a struggling very inexprienced but still young ruckman for our compensation pick for dal santo...a champion mid......we paid a bit more than a mid second round draft pick ffs....