Saints into Hickey

[samoht]

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.

[ausfatcat]

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]

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.

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.
Let's see if he gets away with it again tonight !

[dragit]

We have young Stanley and McEvoy, plus pinch hitters - so our ruck stocks are okay.

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]

We have young Stanley and McEvoy, plus pinch hitters - so our ruck stocks are okay.

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.

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.
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.

[Old Mate]

We have young Stanley and McEvoy, plus pinch hitters - so our ruck stocks are okay.

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.

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.

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.

[Teflon]

Tks Doc

Can I call you Teffers too?

I'd prefer keep you at arms length..., you should stick to "sir "

And I shall call you "envious"

Deal?

[Con Gorozidis]

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.

[plugger66]

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]

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.

[shmic_s]

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.

No one from the club has said anything about a lack of faith in Big Mac that i know of.
That was Jake Niall and/or Michael Gleeson's opinion that McEvoy struggles with centre bounces.

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.

Fair call though in my opinion.

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]

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.

[borderbarry]

Maybe we can offer a player for Hickey.

[sax]

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

[Old Mate]

Maybe we can offer a player for 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.

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.

[Moorabbin Man]

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]

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.

[SaintPav]

Tks Doc

Can I call you Teffers too?

I'd prefer keep you at arms length..., you should stick to "sir "

And I shall call you "envious"

Deal?

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.

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.

[vacuous space]

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?

[bobmurray]

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.

there are definite questions over Big Macs tap work....like, where is it ?.....

[saintsRrising]

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.

[Bardon Saint]

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.

[St Ick]

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?

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?

[BigMart]

Why should Stanley not ruck??

Great athlete.... Gets room to run around the ground and use his athleticism

[St Ick]

Why should Stanley not ruck??

Great athlete.... Gets room to run around the ground and use his athleticism

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...