Rhys Stanley for Pick #21

[desertsaint]

Can only wait for potential so long before you realise it aint gonna be realised.
If the young man had played with a bit more heart and hardness i'd prefer we take a chance on him, as it is he hasn't and we won't. all good, now we need his replacement to make the grade before any talk of win or loss.

[Bunk_Moreland]

I wonder if Rhys can refuse to be traded?

He's contracted so yes.

Gees if he does and the deal does fall thru it would be a big wake up for him and might be just the trigger to get him performing![/quote]

You would think the player is sounded out prior to any deal being done.

Rhys would have said yes, probably with a $$ sweetner thrown in.

[Enrico_Misso]

At best he's a project player.
So is Spencer.
Can't carry both.
If we have to choose between them I'd go with SW.

Rhys needs a huge dose of angry pills.
Has great attributes but no mongrel.

6 years and 1 good game is not enough.
I'd take Geelong's offer.

That would give Geel two basket-case forwards!

[Batnoe]

A win here.

Doesn't kick goals.

Top 25 in this draft is actually pretty even.

I say trading Rhys Stanley for 21 is better than armo for pick 12 for example.

A hard nut inside mid with leadership qualities vs a tall inconsistent forward that might touch the ball 8-9 times and averages less than a goal.

I think we've all gone gaga over his sprints in the gf. Something he's never done on the footy field except once.
He needs 100m to warm up.

Take it and run..
Then draft well

[magnifisaint]

A win here.

Doesn't kick goals.

Top 25 in this draft is actually pretty even.

I say trading Rhys Stanley for 21 is better than armo for pick 12 for example.

A hard nut inside mid with leadership qualities vs a tall inconsistent forward that might touch the ball 8-9 times and averages less than a goal.

I think we've all gone gaga over his sprints in the gf. Something he's never done on the footy field except once.
He needs 100m to warm up.

Take it and run..
Then draft well

No certainty that Stanley goes. He needs to agree to it.

[saintspremiers]

original post requires a queastion mark- as it is only a suggestion at this stage........

Wouldn't be on here as a question mark I assure you!

So this deal is 100% done Jax?

Yes

Disappointing.

Will be a very good ruck / forward at Geelong for many years to come. He could even become their #1 ruckman.

We shall regret this one.

Geelong are clever.

We are too desperate to get that third pick inside 22.

Pelican has KPI's.

Gettting 3 picks inside 20 (now 22) is his big one I'm assuming.

[Junior]

Geelong will play Stanley as a ruckman, our ex recruiting manager John Peake who is back at Geelong is having in a say in their chasing him.

Peake stood behind me at out internal practice match at Seaford I think from meomory two years ago and said to the guys he was with that St Kilda were destroying Rhys as he was recruited as a ruckman and would never be a consistent AFL standard forward.

Think I might have posted what he said at the time on here.

[falka]

I agree re rucking is Stanley's best spot

Suppose we have surplus

But personally I think he is undersold and is better than Longer as he can go forward and kick goals and can actually mark the footy and has speed. His leap is well timed also

Sure we might get lucky at draft, but his Freo game shows us what he can do and talls take time.

He and Hickey shaped as a 10 year partnership of quality.

Now to watch how Hickey and Longer go together. Not enthused

Good luck Rhys.

[BackFromUSA]

I agree re rucking is Stanley's best spot

Suppose we have surplus

But personally I think he is undersold and is better than Longer as he can go forward and kick goals and can actually mark the footy and has speed. His leap is well timed also

Sure we might get lucky at draft, but his Freo game shows us what he can do and talls take time.

He and Hickey shaped as a 10 year partnership of quality.

Now to watch how Hickey and Longer go together. Not enthused

Good luck Rhys.

Spot on.

He is a great tap ruckman (look at his taps to advantage stats at centre bounces) with value when forward.

He has a great kick.

Could have been used as a release valve from defense - just kick it to him or over his head and let him run onto it against other / slower ruckmen.

Geelong to benefit.

Scott will use him well.

Good for Rhys.

Bad for us.

Sad.

[The OtherThommo]

TOT , Con

Easy to pick figures on " clever" drafting and pick numbers. One thing to take into consideration is that it's a lot easier to hide players away from Victoria than it is in it.
I can promise you for example that Chris Grant went to the Bulldogs in the old days after pick 70 (73?) . Doug Hawkins actually worked for my organization at the time ( I was his actual supervisor but we became very, very good friends).
From the best of my memory ( and without googling it) Grant came from Dayslford?
Grant was the most outstanding young player from that district for years. He was withdrawn from playing the local league about round seven and given a cast iron ( and dollar) guarantee that he would be drafted by the Dogs.

History will say he was a fantastic late draft pick
Fact is , he was probably the best junior in the whole state of Victoria

Now I could be naive , but let me suggest for just a moment that away from prying eyes that interestate clubs seem to find a Gem here and there away from prying eyes.
These days, with more and more talent scouts , it's a he'll of a lot harder to hide players , but I bet it still happens.

As a matter of fact one one my old team mates was paid by Carlscum (in the old paper bag days), Not to sign with any other club ( back in those days VFL clubs). Actually got paid more than he was getting playing for the what we called the VFA in those days. He had degenerative knees , never Played in the big league , but was a champion full forward in the then VFA.

While they may have got some advantage out of hiding a couple, super, I was actually surprised when I took a squiz at their general drafting picture. The squiz covered 8 years of the draft and of their core 18 odd I looked at only 4 were top 10 picks (1 every 2 years), 2 top 5 (1 every 4).

The picture presented is contrary to suggestions they have had a draft bonanza from a number of years down the arse end (I think the figure used was 5 years).

It's also worth noting they have rebuilt into probable contenders during the years of compromised drafts.

The picture just struck me that it is possible to improve by various means, and is best done by getting a number of things right, not just drafting.

Contrast Port's resurrection with that of Carlton. Port rebuilt a side, in compromised times, while Carlton relied on racking up high picks.

Hawthorn and Geelong have managed to stay aloft. While incumbency has certainly helped in times of new clubs entering, I think they've held up because they seem to concentrate more on drafting/getting a type of player, a type they believe addresses a deficiency in their on ground team, and who will be able to fit what they're trying to achieve. There's more to it than that, of course, but I reckon it is something of a different approach to many.

On Geelong being keen on Stanley: while they have an apparent swag of talls, it's also apparent they are concerned about how robust they are. They took a punt on McIntosh and the risk was seen last year. Vardy looks mighty fine....just can't get on the park.

Our situation is different, apart from the obvious. We have a number of 'maybe' young forwards and ruck types - bit of a log jam, actually. To me we have 2 key areas of concern - sufficient midfield talent and tall, strong defenders. They tried Stanley down back, hoping his size and athleticism might prove decisive. Sadly, it wasn't so. His lack of strength in contests, and his smaller tank over repeated efforts (always the case down back) brought him and his confidence undone.

Someone wondered earlier who of the bigger types might be able to play ruck and forward, a versatility which Stanley seems to have. While Hickey has shown a want and ability to get forward and score, I think we might find Lewis Pierce emerge with the required versatility. In his junior years he was able to lead at the ball carrier, with reasonable speed, and catch it above his navel.

I reckon he might prove a superior Stanley type, to Stanley, and bring some extras, too.

I also reckon Longer has some catch it and kick it, close to goal, ability hidden away somewhere. I just think this year saw him battle very hard to be competitive while rucking, a job that in the latter part of the year he was left largely one out to do. And, for a 21 y.o, with less than 20 games, in the bottom side, largely on his own, I thought he competed manfully. I doubt Stanley could have done the same at 21.

So, I reckon Stanley's surplus to need. I just hope we have a crack at addressing those 2 earlier mentioned deficiencies with what we get in exchange for Stanley.

And, like Bunk, I wish Stanley well, he seems a decent fella. I think him moving might be a win for all parties, and that's a good thing.

[Ghost Like]

TOT , Con

Easy to pick figures on " clever" drafting and pick numbers. One thing to take into consideration is that it's a lot easier to hide players away from Victoria than it is in it.
I can promise you for example that Chris Grant went to the Bulldogs in the old days after pick 70 (73?) . Doug Hawkins actually worked for my organization at the time ( I was his actual supervisor but we became very, very good friends).
From the best of my memory ( and without googling it) Grant came from Dayslford?
Grant was the most outstanding young player from that district for years. He was withdrawn from playing the local league about round seven and given a cast iron ( and dollar) guarantee that he would be drafted by the Dogs.

History will say he was a fantastic late draft pick
Fact is , he was probably the best junior in the whole state of Victoria

Now I could be naive , but let me suggest for just a moment that away from prying eyes that interestate clubs seem to find a Gem here and there away from prying eyes.
These days, with more and more talent scouts , it's a he'll of a lot harder to hide players , but I bet it still happens.

As a matter of fact one one my old team mates was paid by Carlscum (in the old paper bag days), Not to sign with any other club ( back in those days VFL clubs). Actually got paid more than he was getting playing for the what we called the VFA in those days. He had degenerative knees , never Played in the big league , but was a champion full forward in the then VFA.

While they may have got some advantage out of hiding a couple, super, I was actually surprised when I took a squiz at their general drafting picture. The squiz covered 8 years of the draft and of their core 18 odd I looked at only 4 were top 10 picks (1 every 2 years), 2 top 5 (1 every 4).

The picture presented is contrary to suggestions they have had a draft bonanza from a number of years down the arse end (I think the figure used was 5 years).

It's also worth noting they have rebuilt into probable contenders during the years of compromised drafts.

The picture just struck me that it is possible to improve by various means, and is best done by getting a number of things right, not just drafting.

Contrast Port's resurrection with that of Carlton. Port rebuilt a side, in compromised times, while Carlton relied on racking up high picks.

Hawthorn and Geelong have managed to stay aloft. While incumbency has certainly helped in times of new clubs entering, I think they've held up because they seem to concentrate more on drafting/getting a type of player, a type they believe addresses a deficiency in their on ground team, and who will be able to fit what they're trying to achieve. There's more to it than that, of course, but I reckon it is something of a different approach to many.

On Geelong being keen on Stanley: while they have an apparent swag of talls, it's also apparent they are concerned about how robust they are. They took a punt on McIntosh and the risk was seen last year. Vardy looks mighty fine....just can't get on the park.

Our situation is different, apart from the obvious. We have a number of 'maybe' young forwards and ruck types - bit of a log jam, actually. To me we have 2 key areas of concern - sufficient midfield talent and tall, strong defenders. They tried Stanley down back, hoping his size and athleticism might prove decisive. Sadly, it wasn't so. His lack of strength in contests, and his smaller tank over repeated efforts (always the case down back) brought him and his confidence undone.

Someone wondered earlier who of the bigger types might be able to play ruck and forward, a versatility which Stanley seems to have. While Hickey has shown a want and ability to get forward and score, I think we might find Lewis Pierce emerge with the required versatility. In his junior years he was able to lead at the ball carrier, with reasonable speed, and catch it above his navel.

I reckon he might prove a superior Stanley type, to Stanley, and bring some extras, too.

I also reckon Longer has some catch it and kick it, close to goal, ability hidden away somewhere. I just think this year saw him battle very hard to be competitive while rucking, a job that in the latter part of the year he was left largely one out to do. And, for a 21 y.o, with less than 20 games, in the bottom side, largely on his own, I thought he competed manfully. I doubt Stanley could have done the same at 21.

So, I reckon Stanley's surplus to need. I just hope we have a crack at addressing those 2 earlier mentioned deficiencies with what we get in exchange for Stanley.

And, like Bunk, I wish Stanley well, he seems a decent fella. I think him moving might be a win for all parties, and that's a good thing.

Well said.

[avid]

Personally, I want Rhys to stay.
After six years of slow awakening, he's still a gamble to keep on the list -- but no more so than any new draftee.
He has something unique. And I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing it unfold.
Even if he doesn't grow into his full potential package, he has real value in our mix.

Rhys, I don't see why you're any more likely to succeed at Geelong -- they certainly have a far bigger stable of big men.
Stay with us -- and prove yourself with the Saints.
The journey, when you get there, will be all the more satisfying for you, and me, and many other Saints fans.

[plugger66]

TOT , Con

Easy to pick figures on " clever" drafting and pick numbers. One thing to take into consideration is that it's a lot easier to hide players away from Victoria than it is in it.
I can promise you for example that Chris Grant went to the Bulldogs in the old days after pick 70 (73?) . Doug Hawkins actually worked for my organization at the time ( I was his actual supervisor but we became very, very good friends).
From the best of my memory ( and without googling it) Grant came from Dayslford?
Grant was the most outstanding young player from that district for years. He was withdrawn from playing the local league about round seven and given a cast iron ( and dollar) guarantee that he would be drafted by the Dogs.

History will say he was a fantastic late draft pick
Fact is , he was probably the best junior in the whole state of Victoria

Now I could be naive , but let me suggest for just a moment that away from prying eyes that interestate clubs seem to find a Gem here and there away from prying eyes.
These days, with more and more talent scouts , it's a he'll of a lot harder to hide players , but I bet it still happens.

As a matter of fact one one my old team mates was paid by Carlscum (in the old paper bag days), Not to sign with any other club ( back in those days VFL clubs). Actually got paid more than he was getting playing for the what we called the VFA in those days. He had degenerative knees , never Played in the big league , but was a champion full forward in the then VFA.

While they may have got some advantage out of hiding a couple, super, I was actually surprised when I took a squiz at their general drafting picture. The squiz covered 8 years of the draft and of their core 18 odd I looked at only 4 were top 10 picks (1 every 2 years), 2 top 5 (1 every 4).

The picture presented is contrary to suggestions they have had a draft bonanza from a number of years down the arse end (I think the figure used was 5 years).

It's also worth noting they have rebuilt into probable contenders during the years of compromised drafts.

The picture just struck me that it is possible to improve by various means, and is best done by getting a number of things right, not just drafting.

Contrast Port's resurrection with that of Carlton. Port rebuilt a side, in compromised times, while Carlton relied on racking up high picks.

Hawthorn and Geelong have managed to stay aloft. While incumbency has certainly helped in times of new clubs entering, I think they've held up because they seem to concentrate more on drafting/getting a type of player, a type they believe addresses a deficiency in their on ground team, and who will be able to fit what they're trying to achieve. There's more to it than that, of course, but I reckon it is something of a different approach to many.

On Geelong being keen on Stanley: while they have an apparent swag of talls, it's also apparent they are concerned about how robust they are. They took a punt on McIntosh and the risk was seen last year. Vardy looks mighty fine....just can't get on the park.

Our situation is different, apart from the obvious. We have a number of 'maybe' young forwards and ruck types - bit of a log jam, actually. To me we have 2 key areas of concern - sufficient midfield talent and tall, strong defenders. They tried Stanley down back, hoping his size and athleticism might prove decisive. Sadly, it wasn't so. His lack of strength in contests, and his smaller tank over repeated efforts (always the case down back) brought him and his confidence undone.

Someone wondered earlier who of the bigger types might be able to play ruck and forward, a versatility which Stanley seems to have. While Hickey has shown a want and ability to get forward and score, I think we might find Lewis Pierce emerge with the required versatility. In his junior years he was able to lead at the ball carrier, with reasonable speed, and catch it above his navel.

I reckon he might prove a superior Stanley type, to Stanley, and bring some extras, too.

I also reckon Longer has some catch it and kick it, close to goal, ability hidden away somewhere. I just think this year saw him battle very hard to be competitive while rucking, a job that in the latter part of the year he was left largely one out to do. And, for a 21 y.o, with less than 20 games, in the bottom side, largely on his own, I thought he competed manfully. I doubt Stanley could have done the same at 21.

So, I reckon Stanley's surplus to need. I just hope we have a crack at addressing those 2 earlier mentioned deficiencies with what we get in exchange for Stanley.

And, like Bunk, I wish Stanley well, he seems a decent fella. I think him moving might be a win for all parties, and that's a good thing.

A lot of guess work there and if true of course you would trade him for 21 however none of our ruckman have shown any ability to mark the ball except Stanley. He is also in the important age group we lack so there we go the gap gets bigger again between mid age and young. We get pick 21 and picks around that pick get about one in 3 playing 100 games. So there is a better than 50% chance we get a very ordinary footballer for someone who is our only forward ruck, our only tall who takes pack marks apart from our 50 year old captain and our only tall with pace again apart from our 50 year old captain. Next years tall forwards should apply a lot of pressure if they include Lee and Longer. I feel a bit sad for AR as he will be sacked either at the end of next season or the year after.

[The Redeemer]

TOT , Con

Easy to pick figures on " clever" drafting and pick numbers. One thing to take into consideration is that it's a lot easier to hide players away from Victoria than it is in it.
I can promise you for example that Chris Grant went to the Bulldogs in the old days after pick 70 (73?) . Doug Hawkins actually worked for my organization at the time ( I was his actual supervisor but we became very, very good friends).
From the best of my memory ( and without googling it) Grant came from Dayslford?
Grant was the most outstanding young player from that district for years. He was withdrawn from playing the local league about round seven and given a cast iron ( and dollar) guarantee that he would be drafted by the Dogs.

History will say he was a fantastic late draft pick
Fact is , he was probably the best junior in the whole state of Victoria

Now I could be naive , but let me suggest for just a moment that away from prying eyes that interestate clubs seem to find a Gem here and there away from prying eyes.
These days, with more and more talent scouts , it's a he'll of a lot harder to hide players , but I bet it still happens.

As a matter of fact one one my old team mates was paid by Carlscum (in the old paper bag days), Not to sign with any other club ( back in those days VFL clubs). Actually got paid more than he was getting playing for the what we called the VFA in those days. He had degenerative knees , never Played in the big league , but was a champion full forward in the then VFA.

While they may have got some advantage out of hiding a couple, super, I was actually surprised when I took a squiz at their general drafting picture. The squiz covered 8 years of the draft and of their core 18 odd I looked at only 4 were top 10 picks (1 every 2 years), 2 top 5 (1 every 4).

The picture presented is contrary to suggestions they have had a draft bonanza from a number of years down the arse end (I think the figure used was 5 years).

It's also worth noting they have rebuilt into probable contenders during the years of compromised drafts.

The picture just struck me that it is possible to improve by various means, and is best done by getting a number of things right, not just drafting.

Contrast Port's resurrection with that of Carlton. Port rebuilt a side, in compromised times, while Carlton relied on racking up high picks.

Hawthorn and Geelong have managed to stay aloft. While incumbency has certainly helped in times of new clubs entering, I think they've held up because they seem to concentrate more on drafting/getting a type of player, a type they believe addresses a deficiency in their on ground team, and who will be able to fit what they're trying to achieve. There's more to it than that, of course, but I reckon it is something of a different approach to many.

On Geelong being keen on Stanley: while they have an apparent swag of talls, it's also apparent they are concerned about how robust they are. They took a punt on McIntosh and the risk was seen last year. Vardy looks mighty fine....just can't get on the park.

Our situation is different, apart from the obvious. We have a number of 'maybe' young forwards and ruck types - bit of a log jam, actually. To me we have 2 key areas of concern - sufficient midfield talent and tall, strong defenders. They tried Stanley down back, hoping his size and athleticism might prove decisive. Sadly, it wasn't so. His lack of strength in contests, and his smaller tank over repeated efforts (always the case down back) brought him and his confidence undone.

Someone wondered earlier who of the bigger types might be able to play ruck and forward, a versatility which Stanley seems to have. While Hickey has shown a want and ability to get forward and score, I think we might find Lewis Pierce emerge with the required versatility. In his junior years he was able to lead at the ball carrier, with reasonable speed, and catch it above his navel.

I reckon he might prove a superior Stanley type, to Stanley, and bring some extras, too.

I also reckon Longer has some catch it and kick it, close to goal, ability hidden away somewhere. I just think this year saw him battle very hard to be competitive while rucking, a job that in the latter part of the year he was left largely one out to do. And, for a 21 y.o, with less than 20 games, in the bottom side, largely on his own, I thought he competed manfully. I doubt Stanley could have done the same at 21.

So, I reckon Stanley's surplus to need. I just hope we have a crack at addressing those 2 earlier mentioned deficiencies with what we get in exchange for Stanley.

And, like Bunk, I wish Stanley well, he seems a decent fella. I think him moving might be a win for all parties, and that's a good thing.

A lot of guess work there and if true of course you would trade him for 21 however none of our ruckman have shown any ability to mark the ball except Stanley. He is also in the important age group we lack so there we go the gap gets bigger again between mid age and young. We get pick 21 and picks around that pick get about one in 3 playing 100 games. So there is a better than 50% chance we get a very ordinary footballer for someone who is our only forward ruck, our only tall who takes pack marks apart from our 50 year old captain and our only tall with pace again apart from our 50 year old captain. Next years tall forwards should apply a lot of pressure if they include Lee and Longer. I feel a bit sad for AR as he will be sacked either at the end of next season or the year after.

It is fair to say I will be done with this whole Football Club if AR gets sacked. Another coach, another poor appointment.

AR should be the coach for the next 4+ seasons. Like any coach, he needs time to mould and guide the next young core group of players into something good. That does not just manifest after 44 games. Furthermore, kids are always injured so team selection becomes like a turnstile.

[Ghost Like]

I honestly cannot see AR getting sacked unless he has a Watters like meltdown or becomes a control freak. The board have signed off on this strategy, the recruiting staff put in place & I'm sure the major sponsors have been briefed. If any of those think we will be playing finals in 3 years they are the ones delusional and not the right fit. Sure, expect competitiveness and player development. If in 3 years neither of those are apparent then look at the coaching structure. I cannot see that being the case, AR impresses me.

[Zed]

If a 23 year old ruck/ forward with a great kick and quite a few games under his belt was available at another club what would we be offering? This forum would be screaming about why we weren't all over him.

Trading for tradings sake .

Dumb

[saintspremiers]

If a 23 year old ruck/ forward with a great kick and quite a few games under his belt was available at another club what would we be offering? This forum would be screaming about why we weren't all over him.

Trading for tradings sake .

Dumb

Pelican's brief or the brief he gave us was 3 picks inside 20.

That's what he needs to deliver......he needs to trade out quality and Stanley fits the bill....I'd prefer Lee and Sipposs instead though

[plugger66]

I honestly cannot see AR getting sacked unless he has a Watters like meltdown or becomes a control freak. The board have signed off on this strategy, the recruiting staff put in place & I'm sure the major sponsors have been briefed. If any of those think we will be playing finals in 3 years they are the ones delusional and not the right fit. Sure, expect competitiveness and player development. If in 3 years neither of those are apparent then look at the coaching structure. I cannot see that being the case, AR impresses me.

If we finished bottom for 3 years in a row and that is a slight chance, im doubting many if any club would re sign a coach with that record. He could be doing everything right but it would be nearly an impossible sell to sign him for 2 more years and there isn't much point of one more year.

[plugger66]

If a 23 year old ruck/ forward with a great kick and quite a few games under his belt was available at another club what would we be offering? This forum would be screaming about why we weren't all over him.

Trading for tradings sake .

Dumb

Pelican's brief or the brief he gave us was 3 picks inside 20.

That's what he needs to deliver......he needs to trade out quality and Stanley fits the bill....I'd prefer Lee and Sipposs instead though

What do mean prefer Lee and Siposs? Prefer to keep or trade? If its trade both have no value. Stanley does. I don't see why Pelchen had to get 2 inside 20 just because he said it. He isn't doing it anyway.

[The OtherThommo]

A lot of guess work there and if true of course you would trade him for 21 however none of our ruckman have shown any ability to mark the ball except Stanley. He is also in the important age group we lack so there we go the gap gets bigger again between mid age and young. We get pick 21 and picks around that pick get about one in 3 playing 100 games. So there is a better than 50% chance we get a very ordinary footballer for someone who is our only forward ruck, our only tall who takes pack marks apart from our 50 year old captain and our only tall with pace again apart from our 50 year old captain. Next years tall forwards should apply a lot of pressure if they include Lee and Longer. I feel a bit sad for AR as he will be sacked either at the end of next season or the year after.

You begin by saying "A lot of guess work there" and conclude by saying "I feel a bit sad for AR as he WILL be sacked...etc, etc."

The opening's a bit redundant dontcha think, particularly given the leap to certainty to close out your opinion?

Just as a suggestion, take a look at the structure of this year's top 3 sides. While Sydney may have some riches in big forward numbers (and 1 of them can ruck), they are way better footballers than Stanley.

In the case of Port and Hawthorn they're actually light on for big rucking types who can play as key forwards. Hawthorn use Roughhead to fill the breach from time to time and, again, that's an elite forward becoming versatile because of need. Port have Lobbe to ruck, and not much else. Schulz plays as the key forward and they run versatile types like Westoff around him. Both are way better footballers than Stanley (only as a ruckman for Lobbe).

So, 2 of the top 3 don't see the same importance in having lots of big blokes to ruck and play forward, as some others do. And, the other mob have been able to stockpile the elite end of that type, and their No 1 ruckman came from Canada in his 20's.

I just happen to think those trying to get up from the cellar are probably looking at what those up top have done, and are doing, with their lists.

I'll stick with what I suggested earlier.

[Legendary]

Stanley played half a dozen games this year that were no better than his first season, 4 years ago.

Many people here are claiming that his best position is as a ruckman, who can occasionally push forward (rather than as a permanent forward).

If that's correct, then it's even more reason to trade him. We have a plethora of ruckmen on our list, but Stanley has had 50 opportunities over 5 years. Internally, Pierce is rated just as highly, and we've got Longer and Hickey and Holmes. Unless we give those guys regular opportunities, they will start to walk.

Stanley can't fill the key forward role that we need to fill long term - he plays 1 good game a season as a key forward. Westhoff (by comparison) kicked 40-odd goals in his first year.

Pick 21 is a fair trade and IMO it is in our long term interests.

[LTN16]

At first I thought pick 21 wouldn't be enough for Stanley but if Essendon are only going to get picks 17 & 37 for Ryder then 21 wouldn't be bad for Rhys.

[Dis Believer]

Stanley played half a dozen games this year that were no better than his first season, 4 years ago.

Many people here are claiming that his best position is as a ruckman, who can occasionally push forward (rather than as a permanent forward).

If that's correct, then it's even more reason to trade him. We have a plethora of ruckmen on our list, but Stanley has had 50 opportunities over 5 years. Internally, Pierce is rated just as highly, and we've got Longer and Hickey and Holmes. Unless we give those guys regular opportunities, they will start to walk.

Stanley can't fill the key forward role that we need to fill long term - he plays 1 good game a season as a key forward. Westhoff (by comparison) kicked 40-odd goals in his first year.

Pick 21 is a fair trade and IMO it is in our long term interests.

Actually I reckon Pierce has a real future. Was forced to spend significant time forward it the VFL last year when Maister and everyone else bar Holmes was out injured and acquitted himself well. Was always a long term project, and shows a lot of natural ability as a footballer given his height and age.

[plugger66]

A lot of guess work there and if true of course you would trade him for 21 however none of our ruckman have shown any ability to mark the ball except Stanley. He is also in the important age group we lack so there we go the gap gets bigger again between mid age and young. We get pick 21 and picks around that pick get about one in 3 playing 100 games. So there is a better than 50% chance we get a very ordinary footballer for someone who is our only forward ruck, our only tall who takes pack marks apart from our 50 year old captain and our only tall with pace again apart from our 50 year old captain. Next years tall forwards should apply a lot of pressure if they include Lee and Longer. I feel a bit sad for AR as he will be sacked either at the end of next season or the year after.

You begin by saying "A lot of guess work there" and conclude by saying "I feel a bit sad for AR as he WILL be sacked...etc, etc."

The opening's a bit redundant dontcha think, particularly given the leap to certainty to close out your opinion?

Just as a suggestion, take a look at the structure of this year's top 3 sides. While Sydney may have some riches in big forward numbers (and 1 of them can ruck), they are way better footballers than Stanley.

In the case of Port and Hawthorn they're actually light on for big rucking types who can play as key forwards. Hawthorn use Roughhead to fill the breach from time to time and, again, that's an elite forward becoming versatile because of need. Port have Lobbe to ruck, and not much else. Schulz plays as the key forward and they run versatile types like Westoff around him. Both are way better footballers than Stanley (only as a ruckman for Lobbe).

So, 2 of the top 3 don't see the same importance in having lots of big blokes to ruck and play forward, as some others do. And, the other mob have been able to stockpile the elite end of that type, and their No 1 ruckman came from Canada in his 20's.

I just happen to think those trying to get up from the cellar are probably looking at what those up top have done, and are doing, with their lists.

I'll stick with what I suggested earlier.

Take your point about AR. It was a guess but that doesn't change that your point about others players was also a guess. To be honest I don't care how the top sides structure because we are so far from them it matter little. By the way the hawks use Roughead as a mid now that they have Hale, who mainly plays forward, and either Ben or Ceglar. I think we saw against the Swans how 2 ruckmen can tire out one ruckman. Sydney basically go in with one ruckman because Pyke has been no good forward this year. I agree that Port mainly play Lobbe in the ruck but get help with Westoff. If Stanley goes, and he obviously will, we have no second ruckman at all. Lee is useless at it. We have no one else. And the day Hickey or Longer look like taking a mark in the forward line is the day im very happy. I cannot see it based on everything they have shown in 3 and 4 years of footy.

And the last point is by the time we are in the topf of the ladder footy will have changed again and by a fair way based on all previous experience. I just hope the way we are heading is the right way. No point in following what the leaders are doing now because it will be different in 5 years time. My guess, yes guess, is it will all be about mids with about 5 players in set positions. 2 forwards, 2 backs and a ruckman who has to be able to mark the ball as a forward. maybe Peter Wright is the way to go. Who knows.

[stinger]

If a 23 year old ruck/ forward with a great kick and quite a few games under his belt was available at another club what would we be offering? This forum would be screaming about why we weren't all over him.

Trading for tradings sake .

Dumb

i agree with you...but hey...that's the pelican being true to form...