Trade Week (Updated - Mattner to Swans 4:40pm Tues)

SaintBot · Post: # 471887Post **SaintBot** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:00pm

Armoooo wrote:
Riewoldting wrote:
ausfatcat wrote:
Riewoldting wrote:Don't want to see Gilbert playing as a KPP back

IMO he is a true wingman ... play him there
Why can't he play a scarlett type role, good shutdown player and runs off well.
Oh I've no doubt he could play that role

I am just saying that I would prefer to see him play as a true wingman, i.e. as a linkman running the lines and transferring the ball from defence into the forward 50

They are relatively rare nowadays and I feel that Gilbert playing that role would be tremendous for the Saints. Height, pace, evasiveness, long kick = beautiful

Hence I would prefer to see someone else take that rebounding KPP role and kick it to a leading Gilbert
Do you believe that he has a good enough kick for that, I know he is young and can still improve but he has even admitted himself that he is not the best kick. I wouldn't mind seeing him play any of those roles or even a job on the HFF, I don't think we've seen enough yet to know for sure.

he has rugby foot syndrome...extremly inconsistent with accurate kicks

st_Trav_ofWA · Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:01pm

does anyone sorta see the end of the need for a true fullback nowdays ?? with the true stay at home fullforward now a thing of the past the old school fullbacks i feel will be next on the evolution list now days defenders are being used to set up attacks more then negate attacks and thier priority is to run off their opponent where in the past the were in thier opponents backpocket all day

Riewoldting · Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:02pm

Armoooo wrote:Do you believe that he has a good enough kick for that, I know he is young and can still improve but he has even admitted himself that he is not the best kick.

Put it this way, he's a better kick than top-10 Saint Jason Blake

Armoooo · Post: # 471895Post **Armoooo** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:05pm

st_Trav_ofWA wrote:does anyone sorta see the end of the need for a true fullback nowdays ?? with the true stay at home fullforward now a thing of the past the old school fullbacks i feel will be next on the evolution list now days defenders are being used to set up attacks more then negate attacks and thier priority is to run off their opponent where in the past the were in thier opponents backpocket all day

Well with out the forwards to play on I would say so...
That being said you can't have a backline made out of flankers either, you need to find the balance and IMO we have that.

Oh When the Saints · Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:06pm

st_Trav_ofWA wrote:does anyone sorta see the end of the need for a true fullback nowdays ?? with the true stay at home fullforward now a thing of the past the old school fullbacks i feel will be next on the evolution list now days defenders are being used to set up attacks more then negate attacks and thier priority is to run off their opponent where in the past the were in thier opponents backpocket all day

Terrific post.

The idea of having a set "full-back" is over IMO.

You have 2-3 "taller defenders", but not set positions. The days of a Luke Penny type who stays home in your defensive goalsquare are nearing their finish.

More and more, your backmen are Harris/Scarlett/S. Fisher types, who play on an opponent and run off them.

As long as you have 2-3 tall defenders, you probably don't need a set full back.

Armoooo · Post: # 471898Post **Armoooo** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:07pm

Riewoldting wrote:
Armoooo wrote:Do you believe that he has a good enough kick for that, I know he is young and can still improve but he has even admitted himself that he is not the best kick.
Put it this way, he's a better kick than top-10 Saint Jason Blake

Show some respect to the great man, he's a top 9 saint player

st_Trav_ofWA · Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:09pm

Armoooo wrote:
st_Trav_ofWA wrote:does anyone sorta see the end of the need for a true fullback nowdays ?? with the true stay at home fullforward now a thing of the past the old school fullbacks i feel will be next on the evolution list now days defenders are being used to set up attacks more then negate attacks and thier priority is to run off their opponent where in the past the were in thier opponents backpocket all day
Well with out the forwards to play on I would say so...
That being said you can't have a backline made out of flankers either, you need to find the balance and IMO we have that.

thats what im saying really if we beef up the defence i feel we will lose alot of the run from the back line to create up the ground problem is Maxy cant go on forever so we need to fine a suitable replacement for him for the future

SaintBot · Post: # 471901Post **SaintBot** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:10pm

Oh When the Saints wrote:
st_Trav_ofWA wrote:does anyone sorta see the end of the need for a true fullback nowdays ?? with the true stay at home fullforward now a thing of the past the old school fullbacks i feel will be next on the evolution list now days defenders are being used to set up attacks more then negate attacks and thier priority is to run off their opponent where in the past the were in thier opponents backpocket all day
Terrific post.

The idea of having a set "full-back" is over IMO.

You have 2-3 "taller defenders", but not set positions. The days of a Luke Penny type who stays home in your defensive goalsquare are nearing their finish.

More and more, your backmen are Harris/Scarlett/S. Fisher types, who play on an opponent and run off them.

As long as you have 2-3 tall defenders, you probably don't need a set full back.

totally agree...the days of the Hudghton's, Rutten's, Green's, Michael's, Parker's, Etc are numbered

Unless you are an absoulete gun of a DEFENDER (Rutten, Green) you are going to struggle to get a game these days. You need to be able to hurt as well as minismise the damage of the opposition.

Armoooo · Post: # 471902Post **Armoooo** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:10pm

Oh When the Saints wrote:
st_Trav_ofWA wrote: As long as you have 2-3 tall defenders, you probably don't need a set full back.

Exactly, S.Fisher, Gilbert, Maguire are all good enough.
I don't think we should be looking for any backmen at all, is it just my imagination or are almost every one of our fringe players defenders...
IMO our first need is a small/medium quick forward flanker. Our second need is a hard at it midfielder. I don't believe we need pace as much as everyone makes us out to... look at Fiora and C.Jones, all the pace in the world minus the talent. Give me Hayes, Harvey and Dal anyday of the weak, when you've got skill you don't have to be fast because you are always fast enough...

skeptic · Post: # 471905Post **skeptic** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:12pm

how about Brent Prismal?

Pettifer was linked to us some time ago

SaintBot · Post: # 471906Post **SaintBot** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:13pm

skeptic wrote:how about Brent Prismal?

Pettifer was linked to us some time ago

offer Brooks for the pair

skeptic · Post: # 471907Post **skeptic** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:15pm

SaintBot wrote:
skeptic wrote:how about Brent Prismal?

Pettifer was linked to us some time ago
offer Brooks for the pair

Armoooo · Post: # 471911Post **Armoooo** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:18pm

skeptic wrote:how about Brent Prismal?

Pettifer was linked to us some time ago

Would love to get Prismal over, would be willing to offer a second round pick, don't know if they would take it or not. As for Pettifer being linked to us that rumour was started right here on SS and for some reason it spread like wildfire and has been in newspapers + on talkback.
No substance to the rumour whatsoever.

skeptic · Post: # 471913Post **skeptic** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:20pm

i think it was helped along by the fact that he played a blinder against us too

saintbrat · Post: # 471914Post **saintbrat** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:22pm

http://sportal.com.au/default.aspx/afl- ... ades-36974
Saints aiming for tall trades
8/10/2007 5:01:19 PM
Angus Morgan
Sportal
Ruck reinforcements are at the top of St Kilda's draft and trade wish list according to the club's development manager Tony Elshaug - but the opening day of trade talks produced no leads.
>>>>>>>>>>>>........... mentions King and Blake but loooking at ANYONE TALL

Armoooo · Post: # 471915Post **Armoooo** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:23pm

skeptic wrote:i think it was helped along by the fact that he played a blinder against us too

Lol, Yeah true.
I still support us making a play for him but realistically I don't see him going anywhere.

SaintBot · Post: # 471917Post **SaintBot** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:24pm

thanks for that brat...as long as we do nothing silly with pick 9 or 26 im happy for the club to do anything to get another ruckman, even King

Oh When the Saints · Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:28pm

Misleading headline saintbrat ... Elshaug just talks in general terms, not any specifics.

Reported on Ch. 7 news that Buchanan and Schneider are both up for trade by the Swans.

I would definitely offer pick #9 for Buchanan, and probably for Schneider too.

Riewoldting · Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:36pm

Oh When the Saints wrote:I would definitely offer pick #9 for Buchanan, and probably for Schneider too.

Pick #9 for Buchanan and Schneider? Now you're talking, OWTS

skeptic · Post: # 471928Post **skeptic** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:37pm

King is another bandaid solution... if we get him, we still need an up and comer

Ideal Ruck stocks

2 ruckman in the starting 22...
Primary Ruck: #1 tap ruck who is excellent around the ground
Secondary Ruck: KPP that pinch hits in the ruck
(Maybe u have a few other pinch hitters too e.g. Blake, Maguire etc)

Reserves
Specific needs Ruck: 1 dinosaur... a tap ruckman, good at contests, not much more (insurance)
At least 2 developing kids that could develop into primary or secondary rucks; expect them to be competitive

1-2 rookie ruckman
All in all 5 rucks on the list.

We have:

Primary
Secondary: Kosi
Specific: Rix (not good enough)
Developing: Brooks (Not looking good)
Rookie: Van Reehan

Gardiner (never on the park) potentially #1

Riewoldting · Mon 08 Oct 2007 7:40pm

I understand a consortium will offer Monkhorst, Capuano, Knobel, Ackland, M Clarke and King for pick #9 ... with Vidovic as a sweetener

Sources close to Lyon and Sheldon say the Saints are keen ...

Scoop · Post: # 471969Post **Scoop** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 9:16pm

evertonfc wrote:Just to clarify guys, Schneider is very unlikely to be offered around by the Swans at trade week.

I wouldn't be so sure of that everton!

evertonfc wrote:(unless, as with anyone, a freak deal comes forward).

Mmmmm....??

Armoooo · Post: # 471970Post **Armoooo** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 9:18pm

Scoop wrote:
evertonfc wrote:Just to clarify guys, Schneider is very unlikely to be offered around by the Swans at trade week.

I wouldn't be so sure of that everton!

evertonfc wrote:(unless, as with anyone, a freak deal comes forward).
Mmmmm....??

Care to elaborate?

Scoop · Post: # 471973Post **Scoop** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 9:30pm

All I'm saying is that Schneider may not be the untouchable that everton may believe him to be.

SaintDippa · Post: # 471974Post **SaintDippa** » Mon 08 Oct 2007 9:33pm

Buchanan - Pass
Schneider - Pass

Save #9 for the draft.