Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Looking forward to Hickey and Stanley jumping all over McEvoy when we play the Dawks.
When you look at it the Dawks have effectively replaced Buddy with McEvoy and lost Savage
Can't believe the masses actually rhink the Dawks won this trade outright
Reckon the Dawks will have a Premiership hangover and struggle to make the 4 next year ...... bookmark it!!
Well they got our best ruckman and gave us a player who played his last game for Box Hill and pick 17. At the moment and because I rate Ben they have a good deal. We will find out in 2 or 3 years if we have a good deal as well.
maverick wrote:Not from what I remember, Crows were always keen most phantoms had him early teens...
Both Emma Quayle and Matt Burgan mentioned Crows interest in Dangerfield, but ultimately had the Crows taking Ebert. Amateur Phantoms had Dangerfield all over the place; some didn't even have him in the first round. Ebert was visibly upset when he was taken by West Coast and Dangerfield said after the draft that he wasn't expecting to go top-ten. Players sometimes say things like that afterward, but Dangerfield was a bottom-ager and they were always hard to place. My memory is that it was the biggest shock in what was otherwise the most predictable first round in recent years.
In any case, I don't remember a single person mentioning Dangerfield in the leadup or even following the draft. Almost all the discussion was on McEvoy versus Rioli. I know some people were big on Henderson and I was personally big on Grimes, but I think most accepted we had to take the ruck. There were a few who were adamant that we should take Rioli and deal with the ruck elsewhere - Dawson Simpson's name was mentioned a lot - but majority view was Mac; minority was Rioli. Everything else barely rated a mention. It's a shame we lost the archives, because I'd love to see what people thought at the time.
Don't like that deal - I rated McEvoy, and also thought good youngish ruckmen are harder to come by than fringe outside wing/HF - albeit fringe at a top club. Years of development for someone else to benefit.....
Guess the Saints saw the pointy end of Savage v the bigtime Hawker this year, where he had one of his better matches -
30 disp at 73% eff. Noticed 8 were cont poss & only 1 tackle. Would have preferred Jon Simpkin TBH, more an inside type.
It's done now so good luck to Savage & McEvoy
Last edited by MCG-Unit on Thu 10 Oct 2013 3:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agree Big Mac a nice guy but can't ruck for s&&t. Hickey showed great potential last few games and now Stanley has to stand up and take the next follower position.
Agree somewhat reluctantly , but as I see it Ben stagnated due to our lack of a top ruck coach, I think he would have been better than he is , if he was tought to leap correctly And at the right time!
If we don't get a decent ruck coach now I doubt we will ever develop a top ruckman from out list
We have too many upcoming rucks learning the game not to peruse someone like Jolly who can back up for a year as well as becOme coach .
And the president said " I did not have sex with that woman"
And our former president said " Football is like golf"
Looking forward to Hickey and Stanley jumping all over McEvoy when we play the Dawks.
When you look at it the Dawks have effectively replaced Buddy with McEvoy and lost Savage
Can't believe the masses actually rhink the Dawks won this trade outright
Reckon the Dawks will have a Premiership hangover and struggle to make the 4 next year ...... bookmark it!!
Well they got our best ruckman and gave us a player who played his last game for Box Hill and pick 17.
They got an average ruckman by AFL standards and gave us a player who was on the fringe of breaking into Hawthorn's elite midfield brigade ....... and Pick 17
MCG-Unit wrote:Don't like that deal - I rated McEvoy, and also thought good youngish ruckmen are harder to come by than fringe outside wing/HF - albeit fringe at a top club. Years of development for someone else to benefit.....
Guess the Saints saw the pointy end of Savage v the bigtime Hawker this year, where he had one of his better matches -
30 disp at 73% eff. Noticed 8 were cont poss & only 1 tackle. Would have preferred Jon Simpkin TBH, more an inside type.
Looking forward to Hickey and Stanley jumping all over McEvoy when we play the Dawks.
When you look at it the Dawks have effectively replaced Buddy with McEvoy and lost Savage
Can't believe the masses actually rhink the Dawks won this trade outright
Reckon the Dawks will have a Premiership hangover and struggle to make the 4 next year ...... bookmark it!!
Well they got our best ruckman and gave us a player who played his last game for Box Hill and pick 17.
They got an average ruckman by AFL standards and gave us a player who was on the fringe of breaking into Hawthorn's elite midfield brigade ....... and Pick 17
Well thats where we differ. I think they got a person who is great around the ground and we got a player who aveages 13 possessions and half a goal a game plus pick 17. McEvoy is a much better all round ruckman than Bailey could ever be. We could have a great deal in 2 or 3 years time. They have a great deal now if you rate Bens rucking. Obviously if you dont then they have an average deal at best.
Surely we can at least all agree that the rucking element (i.e being the tall guy competing for throw ins and ball ups) to Mcevoy's game was average, at best.
FQF wrote:Surely we can at least all agree that the rucking element (i.e being the tall guy competing for throw ins and ball ups) to Mcevoy's game was average, at best.
Surely?
Certainly agree and I also reckon that could be the most overated thing in the game of Aussie rules.
FQF wrote:Surely we can at least all agree that the rucking element (i.e being the tall guy competing for throw ins and ball ups) to Mcevoy's game was average, at best.
Surely?
Certainly agree and I also reckon that could be the most overated thing in the game of Aussie rules.
So I assume you take the Grant Thomas position? In that case, why not play an extra tallish onballer?
If the only other reason you play a lumbering giant is so that he can have a height advantage in taking marks, I think I'd prefer the extra spread, leg speed, and effective ball use.
MCG-Unit wrote:Don't like that deal - I rated McEvoy, and also thought good youngish ruckmen are harder to come by than fringe outside wing/HF - albeit fringe at a top club. Years of development for someone else to benefit.....
Guess the Saints saw the pointy end of Savage v the bigtime Hawker this year, where he had one of his better matches -
30 disp at 73% eff. Noticed 8 were cont poss & only 1 tackle. Would have preferred Jon Simpkin TBH, more an inside type.
It's done now so good luck to Savage & McEvoy
Maybe they seen Shane as a mid/small forward?
Yes, you may be right, they could use him as Haw did, wing/half fwd. May transition into the midfield later, but I don't recall seeing that with Savage.
FQF wrote:Surely we can at least all agree that the rucking element (i.e being the tall guy competing for throw ins and ball ups) to Mcevoy's game was average, at best.
Surely?
Certainly agree and I also reckon that could be the most overated thing in the game of Aussie rules.
So I assume you take the Grant Thomas position? In that case, why not play an extra tallish onballer?
If the only other reason you play a lumbering giant is so that he can have a height advantage in taking marks, I think I'd prefer the extra spread, leg speed, and effective ball use.
GT liked ruckmen but they had to be good. You cant play just an extra tall onballer because they would be smashed physically in the bounces and also the other ruckman would dominate the ruck but when its a 48/52 contest or something close to that it makes little difference. Sandilands has won hit outs for years. they only came good because they now have a great midfield.
GT liked ruckmen but they had to be good. You cant play just an extra tall onballer because they would be smashed physically in the bounces and also the other ruckman would dominate the ruck but when its a 48/52 contest or something close to that it makes little difference. Sandilands has won hit outs for years. they only came good because they now have a great midfield.
Alright, fair point.
But if we care more about a ruckman's around the ground impact, and versatility in other positions, I think Hickey has more upside. His development will definitely be fast tracked as the number one ruckman now.
Yes Mcevoy was our best ruckman, and it's a shame to lose him, but I don't think it will affect our onfield performance very much at all.
SainterK wrote:Not super damaging up forward, can take a defensive grab.
We had Ben covering for our defensive deficiencies much more than Hawthorn will. I imagine he'll kick a lot more goals as a Hawk than he did here.
I would say that he's also one of the better around the ground rucks in the game right now. Excellent kick for a big man; one of the best contested marks in footy.
