Saints into Hickey

[gringo]

Why should Stanley not ruck??

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

My concern is his body is fragile at this stage, play him stagnant until he hardens his body up and he can be a forward with pace and fill in around stoppages.

[stkfc1]

Why should Stanley not ruck??

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

Until Stanley can build up his legs he will be too prone to injuries. They are so thin it's not funny.Before he went down in that WC game he was taking it right up to NicNat.I remember himactually beating him quite a few times.He has the natural talent but it will take a few years for him to get his size up without loosing his attributes.If he bulks up too quick he will be even more injury prone.

[Teflon]

Why should Stanley not ruck??

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

Until Stanley can build up his legs he will be too prone to injuries. They are so thin it's not funny.Before he went down in that WC game he was taking it right up to NicNat.I remember himactually beating him quite a few times.He has the natural talent but it will take a few years for him to get his size up without loosing his attributes.If he bulks up too quick he will be even more injury prone.

Agree but also its where IMO we have the biggest hole and need a player to develop - IMO our best bet to cover an ageing Riewoldt right now is Stanley.

That aside, I also question where the best "bang for buck" is - again, IMO the Buddy Franklin enigmatic forward is far more beneficial than the the great tap ruck. I look at what Maric has done at Richmond and I think........geez.....you really can find someone to fill that ruck spot wsho can compete.......enigmatic forwards are far harder to find.............Im obviously praying Stanley becomes an enigmatic fwd.

[Scoop]

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.

Correct.....

[Saintersss]

Don't really understand this, especially if we have to give up a lot. You just can't play two rucks anymore with the new sub role (and rumours are even saying that AFL will reduce the bench to 2 with 2 subs which will make it even more difficult) unless they are both absolute quality (Nic Nat + Cox) or one or both can play forward for long periods (Jacobs + Tippett). McEvoy can ruck 80-90% of the match and only needs a small chopout which Stanley or Kosi or even Blake can provide and I haven't seen enough of Hickey to suggest he can play forward for large periods. Yes, we need a ruckman, but more as a back-up in case McEvoy going down. As far as people sayig

No club statement needed, pretty universally accepted that McEvoy's tap work is well behind most # 1 ruckmen, but he is young, so hopefully still had lots of development in him.

There's a fair bit of fear on here about what will happen to Mac if we get another decent ruckmen in... But surely if we were to find a better ruckman, that would be a good thing? Hale > McIntosh > Goldstien, it happened at north and they are better for it.

And North traded out Hale and are shopping McIntosh. What's the point of giving up quality picks/players for a role we already have covered. I just have real concerns whether Hickey and McEvoy can play in the same team. If he costs pick 60, it's not too much of a worry, but Gold Coast rate him highly and it will take something decent to get him across. The Saints are better off picking up a state-league ruckman who can act as a back-up and not cost too much.

[dragit]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we give up a lot to try and get Hickey... The point is that they have to reduce their list & have a plethora of talls, he might be delisted if no-one trades for him.

The point about North is that just because they had a couple of decent ruckmen doesn't mean they were too scared to try and get an even better one, Goldstien has turned out to be better than Hale & McIntosh. Everyone seems to be frightened to add more rucks to our list as it might make McEvoy want to leave... Big deal, if we unearth a better ruckmen so be it, if Ben improves and stays our # 1 ruckmen - brilliant.

[cwrcyn]

Should we secure a competent ruckman from elsewhere, then surely McEvoy can play Koschitske's role as effectively as he does, but with the option of swinging into the ruck for 30% of the game. Better value than Kosi swinging into the ruck occasionally and getting soundly beaten and injured in the process. Ask yourself the question: At this stage of his career, is Kosi quicker or any more agile than McEvoy?????





.













.

[St Ick]

Look at the top teams, Hawthorn have Hale, Bailey and Rough. Sydney have Mummy and Pyke. WC have Niknat and Cox.

North arent shopping McIntosh around, he might want better opp's elsewhere but he has played in the same team as Goldy, remember Daw is waiting in the wings. Even Bombers have two, sometimes three.

I agree you cant play two rucks that cant go fwd but from what I have seen of Hickey he can definitely play multiple roles. My biggest question mark would not be whether Mac and Hickey can play in the same team but whether Stanley and Hickey can play/develop in the same team. My completely uninformed thought is we will get Hickey as part of a package and that we wont pay overs in terms of what we give up for that package.

[PJ]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we give up a lot to try and get Hickey... The point is that they have to reduce their list & have a plethora of talls, he might be delisted if no-one trades for him.

The point about North is that just because they had a couple of decent ruckmen doesn't mean they were too scared to try and get an even better one, Goldstien has turned out to be better than Hale & McIntosh. Everyone seems to be frightened to add more rucks to our list as it might make McEvoy want to leave... Big deal, if we unearth a better ruckmen so be it, if Ben improves and stays our # 1 ruckmen - brilliant.

+1

Can't understand why people are saying we shouldn't be looking for a ruck because we have Ben.

[SinCitySainter]

I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking at Hickey more his ability to take a contested mark than for his ability in the ruck.
Contested marking is the most valuable asset in the game at the moment.
The modern game consists of 18 men on the field with at least 9 of them playing a ruck-roving role.
The big pack mark is the one thing that break this open. That is why Cloke is being offered so much money.
He may not be the best footballer going round but he is the best exponent of the most valuable skill.

[Dr Spaceman]

The majority of supporters, and posters on this forum, bemoan our extraordinary lack of talls. "Look at xxxxxxx; they've got 6 blokes over 200cms on their list!", they cry.

They also talk about a lack of young talent (in comparison with other clubs) caused by wasteful recruiting/drafting (last 2 years accepted)

And they talk about a lack of backup for Benny McEvoy.

The Saints now, allegedly, commence talks to get a promising 201cm kid who's had 2 years in the system.

Now remind me, what's the problem with this again?

[stkildathunda]

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.

Hickey is a project player still, will most likely only play 10-12 games next year if needed. He is as good mark as Ben McEvoy and is much better tap ruckman. But he wont be walk up start next year, he'll be backup as he's still learning and developing.

[Dr Spaceman]

True thunda, but my point was that the Saints wouldn't be going after him simply with the view of parking him at Sandy for the next few years with an "In case of Emergency break glass" sticker on his forehead.

Longer term they must have a vision of McEvoy, Hickey and Stanley play together in the ones.

If that's not till 2014 or later so be it.

[St Ick]

Hickey is a project player still, will most likely only play 10-12 games next year if needed. He is as good mark as Ben McEvoy and is much better tap ruckman. But he wont be walk up start next year, he'll be backup as he's still learning and developing.

I value your opinion a lot, but I think you are being a bit harsh on Mac's ability to take a good grab! Or is it that you really think Hickey is THAT good? I would have Mac top 5 at the club for marking with Roo, Dempster, Chips and BJ.

[stkildathunda]

Hickey is a project player still, will most likely only play 10-12 games next year if needed. He is as good mark as Ben McEvoy and is much better tap ruckman. But he wont be walk up start next year, he'll be backup as he's still learning and developing.

I value your opinion a lot, but I think you are being a bit harsh on Mac's ability to take a good grab! Or is it that you really think Hickey is THAT good? I would have Mac top 5 at the club for marking with Roo, Dempster, Chips and BJ.

Hickey is a great contested mark, is one of his strengths. Thats not saying Macca is no good, as he is probably one our best marks at club.

[Old Mate]

Spot on AT.

Hickey is a late developer, he's a project player, more so an athlete than a natural footballer. Nabbing him from GC is forward planning and not fixing immediate holes in the list. Obviously he would likely gain more opportunity depending on McEvoy/Stanley's availability.

From what I've seen and read about Hickey, he's far more agile than McEvoy and has a better leap. He's also a good mark, like Ben.

I hope we get him however at the right price. I dare say our second rounder may come into play. I'm more hoping our third rounder but that's getting a little greedy. Possibly our second rounder (33) for Hickey and their third rounder (44) may get it done seeing as though they probably won't use their third pick anyways.

[borderbarry]

Maybe we can trade a player to GC. I dont know who, but they would surely be interested in a player in the mid 2o's as they dont have many on their list at this stage.

[defacto]

Spot on AT.

Hickey is a late developer, he's a project player, more so an athlete than a natural footballer. Nabbing him from GC is forward planning and not fixing immediate holes in the list. Obviously he would likely gain more opportunity depending on McEvoy/Stanley's availability.

From what I've seen and read about Hickey, he's far more agile than McEvoy and has a better leap. He's also a good mark, like Ben.

I hope we get him however at the right price. I dare say our second rounder may come into play. I'm more hoping our third rounder but that's getting a little greedy. Possibly our second rounder (33) for Hickey and their third rounder (44) may get it done seeing as though they probably won't use their third pick anyways.

+1. this talk that we should give up a first or second rounder for him reminds me of andrew lovett all over again. i would only use a second rounder if we somehow to another one through trade. first rounders strictly off limits

[plugger66]

Should we secure a competent ruckman from elsewhere, then surely McEvoy can play Koschitske's role as effectively as he does, but with the option of swinging into the ruck for 30% of the game. Better value than Kosi swinging into the ruck occasionally and getting soundly beaten and injured in the process. Ask yourself the question: At this stage of his career, is Kosi quicker or any more agile than McEvoy?????


No he isnt but it isnt much of an upgrade either. Ben is ruckman and he isnt a forward. He needs to ruck or he doesnt play.















.

[Wrote for Luck]

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.

Ben was 12th in contested possessions annd 8th in clearances last year so I thought this interesting in terms of him 'getting his hands on the ball'. Remembering how good he is below his knees for a big man.

[Wrote for Luck]

Also reckon if we added a quality ruck you would see Ben play forward a lot. Like when he was younger. And be a real marking threat who can run his defender raggard. Because imo Kosi is gawn and Nick doesn't have long.

[The Bluff]

Must have a backup to Ben IMO. Not necessarilly to ruck in the same game but to be able to cover injury and also allow some rotation to freshen them up. Stanley's body is injury prone and care needs to be taken with him to allow him to play conisistently, throwing him in as first ruck when Ben goes down just increases the risk of injury. If Stanley keeps developing and his body fills out a bit more, he could be such a big weapon for us and almost impossible to match up on. IMO the club is defintely heading down the write path.

I remember early in Kosi's career thinking he could be a match winner too, but maybe his development was also hindered by GT using him as a ruckmen.

[Saintersss]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we give up a lot to try and get Hickey... The point is that they have to reduce their list & have a plethora of talls, he might be delisted if no-one trades for him.

The point about North is that just because they had a couple of decent ruckmen doesn't mean they were too scared to try and get an even better one, Goldstien has turned out to be better than Hale & McIntosh. Everyone seems to be frightened to add more rucks to our list as it might make McEvoy want to leave... Big deal, if we unearth a better ruckmen so be it, if Ben improves and stays our # 1 ruckmen - brilliant.

Hickey will not be delisted... and it will take something decent to get him, I'm guessing you haven't seen him play that much? And when did North go out and grab another ruck? Goldstein, McIntosh and Hale (when he was there) have been on the list for 6 years and were all from the draft. And it's got nothing about McEvoy wanting to leave, it's about using your draft picks wisely and not using them on spots that are already covered. Carlton spent a number 1 pick on Kreuzer, another first round pick on Hampson, traded another high pick for Warnock, how did that work out for them? Wouldn't they have been better off using one of those picks on a KPD or too fill another need? Sure Warnock could have ended up the best of the lot, but it was not worth using another high pick to lure him when they already had multiple options in the ruck and could have used that high pick for a more suitable player.

Look at the top teams, Hawthorn have Hale, Bailey and Rough. Sydney have Mummy and Pyke. WC have Niknat and Cox.

North arent shopping McIntosh around, he might want better opp's elsewhere but he has played in the same team as Goldy, remember Daw is waiting in the wings. Even Bombers have two, sometimes three.

I agree you cant play two rucks that cant go fwd but from what I have seen of Hickey he can definitely play multiple roles. My biggest question mark would not be whether Mac and Hickey can play in the same team but whether Stanley and Hickey can play/develop in the same team. My completely uninformed thought is we will get Hickey as part of a package and that we wont pay overs in terms of what we give up for that package.

Ok, at the start of the year he played with Goldy, but it wasn't exactly successful. Goldstein an AA squad member from the year prior was having one of the worst patches of his career when he played in the same side as McIntosh and was even dropped. The Roos where also struggling. All of a sudden McIntosh gets injured, Goldstein returns to form, the Roos start playing much better in the middle and win most of their games. Coincidence?

Like I said you can two rucks (Roughead and Hale) or (Nik Nat and Cox) if they can play forward, or if they are both amazing players. Stanley and McEvoy can work. McEvoy and Hickey can't.

Should we go out and get another half-back flanker, I mean we have plenty of them, but hey the one we spend a high pick on might be better than one we already have. Or do we spend a high pick on a KPD that we desperately need.

[Wrote for Luck]

I think we'll get both. We clearly need a back up ruck and need a KPD. The ruck is probably an easier appointment. Don't know why I say that.

[dragit]

I'm guessing you haven't seen him play that much? And when did North go out and grab another ruck? Goldstein, McIntosh and Hale

No, I haven't seen him much, considering he's only played 12 afl matches I'm guessing you haven't either… Why don't you tell us what pick it would take to get Hickey?

Not sure why you are mentioning that North drafted ruckmen instead of trading for them? The point is they kept looking for better ones, even though they had some good ones…

Our coaches have been talking all year of how desperate we are for more ruck depth, I'm not just making this up. We have ONE specialist ruck on our entire list.

Maybe we will try to get a ruckmen and a key defender over the trade period, or are we only allowed to trade in one player this year?