Phantom Draft

[Dave McNamara]

Wigg = Suckling? No way then. No receivers! Ever! Get Daniel. He can win it himself and deliver it... and brilliantly!

Do you think Suckling wouldn't get a game with us?

And did you even watch the draftmachine highlights of Wigg before writing this?
He looks a good player, and a lethal kick.

Hi HTB, currently, yes, I think that Suckling would get a game with us... though I certainly wouldn't select him.

And no, I haven't watched anything on Wigg. That's why I used the '?' in my post above... was meant to imply 'if' Wigg = Suckling, then I don't want him. Apologies if that was unclear.

[Con Gorozidis]

Wigg could be Suckling but he sounds more like Sam Crocker to me.

Suckling = 187cm
Wigg = 179cm

[plugger66]

Wigg = Suckling? No way then. No receivers! Ever! Get Daniel. He can win it himself and deliver it... and brilliantly!

Do you think Suckling wouldn't get a game with us?

And did you even watch the draftmachine highlights of Wigg before writing this?
He looks a good player, and a lethal kick.

Hi HTB, currently, yes, I think that Suckling would get a game with us... though I certainly wouldn't select him.

And no, I haven't watched anything on Wigg. That's why I used the '?' in my post above... was meant to imply 'if' Wigg = Suckling, then I don't want him. Apologies if that was unclear.

Why wouldn't you pick Suckling? Credibility is going down more than the prices at Coles.

[Goose is king]

No to Suckling? You twat.
You've dug yourself a hole Dave and you can't get out of it.
You keep saying "ask Clarko" in your arguments.
Did you "ask Clarko" if he would take Suckling?

[Dave McNamara]

No to Suckling? You twat.
You've dug yourself a hole Dave and you can't get out of it.
You keep saying "ask Clarko" in your arguments.
Did you "ask Clarko" if he would take Suckling?

Now Goose, the 'vagina' related thread is over in the AE entitled 'Frankston is improving'.


And there's no hole. I pointed out how the 2012 Dawks lost that GF. (Supply to their outside recievers was largely shut down, so those blokes went missing... now why would supply being shut down cause a bloke who can supposedly win his own footy to 'go missing'? )

I haven't (ever) spoken to Clarkson, but it was obvious that he realised that the whole AFL had just been shown the blueprint to beat the (2012) Dawks. He clearly tweaked the game plan by bringing in blokes who can not just do the pretty boy run and carry unopposed stuff, but can also win their own footy. So much so, that Suckling is the only pure reciever left. (I've heard many Hawks fans use a harsher term than 'receiver' too, btw.) They got away with carrying on of these, however I still would not ever play him, no any of his ilk.

If you have to rely on mates handing you the footy on a platter, then if those mates are shut down, you 'go missing'. That makes receivers a massive Achille's Heel to any team! Whereas blokes who don't rely on the success of others to earn a kick, are not greatly affected if those 'others' have a quiet day. And in tough hard pressure cooker games... that is an imperative.

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining that logic clearly enough, but I would have thought it was clear(?) What else can I say, except that for me, no show ponies who can't also stand up when the going gets tough.

[plugger66]

No to Suckling? You twat.
You've dug yourself a hole Dave and you can't get out of it.
You keep saying "ask Clarko" in your arguments.
Did you "ask Clarko" if he would take Suckling?

Now Goose, the 'vagina' related thread is over in the AE entitled 'Frankston is improving'.


And there's no hole. I pointed out how the 2012 Dawks lost that GF. (Supply to their outside recievers was largely shut down, so those blokes went missing... now why would supply being shut down cause a bloke who can supposedly win his own footy to 'go missing'? )

I haven't (ever) spoken to Clarkson, but it was obvious that he realised that the whole AFL had just been shown the blueprint to beat the (2012) Dawks. He clearly tweaked the game plan by bringing in blokes who can not just do the pretty boy run and carry unopposed stuff, but can also win their own footy. So much so, that Suckling is the only pure reciever left. (I've heard many Hawks fans use a harsher term than 'receiver' too, btw.) They got away with carrying on of these, however I still would not ever play him, no any of his ilk.

If you have to rely on mates handing you the footy on a platter, then if those mates are shut down, you 'go missing'. That makes receivers a massive Achille's Heel to any team! Whereas blokes who don't rely on the success of others to earn a kick, are not greatly affected if those 'others' have a quiet day. And in tough hard pressure cooker games... that is an imperative.

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining that logic clearly enough, but I would have thought it was clear(?) What else can I say, except that for me, no show ponies who can't also stand up when the going gets tough.

Very impressively written but you continue to be wrong. The hawks had more outside players than the Swans in this years GF and that helped them run and carry the ball. Even the likes of Lewis and Mitchell get more uncontested ball than most mids and then there is Birchall off HB who lives off uncontested ball. I suggest you look at the stats and realise the Hawks are a very uncontested side. Probably more than ever so I don't get this change in game plan stuff because its simply wrong.

[karnak]

Maybe it's because they clear the ball so well, many different options can clear the ball more quickly & accurately if you're able to adapt on the fly? Surely they have more options if more players are able to get the contested ball - in order to give it to a player in an uncontested situation.

[plugger66]

Maybe it's because they clear the ball so well, many different options can clear the ball more quickly & accurately if you're able to adapt on the fly? Surely they have more options if more players are able to get the contested ball - in order to give it to a player in an uncontested situation.

Yep but I don't get your point. We already have enough contested players. Dave only wants players that win their own ball. Every AFL player wins their own ball so that should not be a criteria. Some win it more than others. We now require players that will win it, because they all do, but mainly receive it and have pace to break the lines. At the moment the only player we have like that is jack. Billings may end up like that but doesn't have great pace. We need a Isaac Smith type. Even the supposed Hawks in and under players like Mitchell and Lewis and really much more uncontested players.

[gringo]

Maybe it's because they clear the ball so well, many different options can clear the ball more quickly & accurately if you're able to adapt on the fly? Surely they have more options if more players are able to get the contested ball - in order to give it to a player in an uncontested situation.

Yep but I don't get your point. We already have enough contested players. Dave only wants players that win their own ball. Every AFL player wins their own ball so that should not be a criteria. Some win it more than others. We now require players that will win it, because they all do, but mainly receive it and have pace to break the lines. At the moment the only player we have like that is jack. Billings may end up like that but doesn't have great pace. We need a Isaac Smith type. Even the supposed Hawks in and under players like Mitchell and Lewis and really much more uncontested players.

I hate to agree with Plugger on anything but he's right. 22 players with similar skill sets are not better teams. Every player that makes it this far can win his own ball just some with more regularity. Even guys like Dal who would regularly play an outside game could go into the coal face and come out with a clearance. A lot of regularity of the contested ball can depend on where you are played. If we told every player at a centre bounce to go in and win the ball as it comes off the ruck man I doubt the ball would come out of the centre more than a few times. You need some guys to start moving off the points of the square and have the in and under guys dish it out to them so they can get free to give off a meaningful pass to the next link.
A good team has several profiles of players, to me the thing that sets the Hawks apart are the speed with which they read the play and the quality of their possessions. They have a lot of outside run and plenty who can win contested ball. They also have a very good spine, several decent rucks outstanding backs and a spread of guys who all score heavily.

[kalsaint]

Paige wrote that Our Petracca dropped 6kgs over Summer.

WTF?? Why did he get too heavy if he's an elite prospect? Doesn't make sense for a teen footballer. ...normally they are slowly bulking up as they naturally develop.

He was a marking forward and turned into a midfielder. He isn't eating hot chips and pies.

By his own interviews he has admitted that endurance is a weakness he needs to address. Lower weight would help with this.

[stinger]

afl's top 30....

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2014-11-1 ... ber-update

[Con Gorozidis]

Paige wrote that Our Petracca dropped 6kgs over Summer.

WTF?? Why did he get too heavy if he's an elite prospect? Doesn't make sense for a teen footballer. ...normally they are slowly bulking up as they naturally develop.

He was a marking forward and turned into a midfielder. He isn't eating hot chips and pies.

By his own interviews he has admitted that endurance is a weakness he needs to address. Lower weight would help with this.

If he can lose 2kg but still increase his strength by 20-30%. He will be a star. A professional AFL club should be able to get him there.

[MC Gusto]

If we were to get Corey Ellis at 21 / 22 that would be an absolute boon