Recruitment of a ruckman


#1141

Wouldn’t mind Brooksby or maybe Minson on a rookie for a year


#1142
Wouldn't mind Brooksby or maybe Minson on a rookie for a year

No. You get nothing out of drafting Minson for a year. If we were on the cusp of a flag and were super insecure about your ruck stocks, maybe. You’re better getting one of the younger state league blokes you mentioned in your earlier post. At least one of them will likely still be around come the rookie draft. Way more upside long-term.

The other option is to shuffle Smack to the rookie list and draft a ruckman we like in the National draft but I doubt that will happen.


#1143
Wouldn't mind Brooksby or maybe Minson on a rookie for a year

No. You get nothing out of drafting Minson for a year. If we were on the cusp of a flag and were super insecure about your ruck stocks, maybe. You’re better getting one of the younger state league blokes you mentioned in your earlier post. At least one of them will likely still be around come the rookie draft. Way more upside long-term.

The other option is to shuffle Smack to the rookie list and draft a ruckman we like in the National draft but I doubt that will happen.

I was just thinking can one of the state blokes come in and play round 1 if leuy and belly get injured?

I would love a state bloke especially cameron but worse case we get a stop gap for a year


#1144
Wouldn't mind Brooksby or maybe Minson on a rookie for a year

No. You get nothing out of drafting Minson for a year. If we were on the cusp of a flag and were super insecure about your ruck stocks, maybe. You’re better getting one of the younger state league blokes you mentioned in your earlier post. At least one of them will likely still be around come the rookie draft. Way more upside long-term.

The other option is to shuffle Smack to the rookie list and draft a ruckman we like in the National draft but I doubt that will happen.

I was just thinking can one of the state blokes come in and play round 1 if leuy and belly get injured?

I would love a state bloke especially cameron but worse case we get a stop gap for a year

If one of them gets injured it is ok. I think we will/should only ever play one of them in the senior side at the same time.

If both of them get injured you still have McKernan which certainly isn’t ideal as he is a touch undersized but he’d do a job or if this state league player is deemed to be not far off (depending how raw we go) then he gets a shot.

And whilst not impossible given their histories you’d be stiff if Looney and Belly were both injured at the same time anyway. You can’t budget for everything.

No Minson type for me.


#1145

We must have our eye on someone young and talented if we are delisting Gach. Wouldn’t make sense otherwise. Ruckmen take time to develop, so you ideally would have one in the reserves.


#1146
We must have our eye on someone young and talented if we are delisting Gach. Wouldn't make sense otherwise. Ruckmen take time to develop, so you ideally would have one in the reserves.

I think losing Gach could have been a reflection on the fact that all of our ruck options have a knock on them and you can’t play one in the seniors and 3 in the reserves and hope to develop a young ruckman at the same time. Ego admitted Gach was in an awkward spot because there was Jamar, Smack and Michael in front of him as ruck options.

So the answer probably is you do have to let your rucks develop elsewhere, and when they have AFL potential recruit them then.

We unfortunately have to plan for having Leuey and TBC injured (or out of form or both) at the same time and have a bulletproof genuine ruck ready to go either as a rookie or on the main list. So a Darcy Cameron type would suit, and maybe Smack gets kept because he can stay on the field when not rucking and still be a useful forward option in the VFL, and if he is fully fit, he can compete in the ruck if we are desperate.


#1147
We must have our eye on someone young and talented if we are delisting Gach. Wouldn't make sense otherwise. Ruckmen take time to develop, so you ideally would have one in the reserves.

Hoping we get 2 a big lug like Darcy and a ruck forward like Cameron who has elite BT times at around 13.1


#1148
We must have our eye on someone young and talented if we are delisting Gach. Wouldn't make sense otherwise. Ruckmen take time to develop, so you ideally would have one in the reserves.

I think losing Gach could have been a reflection on the fact that all of our ruck options have a knock on them and you can’t play one in the seniors and 3 in the reserves and hope to develop a young ruckman at the same time. Ego admitted Gach was in an awkward spot because there was Jamar, Smack and Michael in front of him as ruck options.

So the answer probably is you do have to let your rucks develop elsewhere, and when they have AFL potential recruit them then.

We unfortunately have to plan for having Leuey and TBC injured (or out of form or both) at the same time and have a bulletproof genuine ruck ready to go either as a rookie or on the main list. So a Darcy Cameron type would suit, and maybe Smack gets kept because he can stay on the field when not rucking and still be a useful forward option in the VFL, and if he is fully fit, he can compete in the ruck if we are desperate.

From what we saw of his work in the ruck this year, we would have to be very ■■■■■■ desperate to turn to Smack next season.

#1149

I wouldn’t move McKernan to the rookie list - What happens if Leunberger and Bellchambers have short term injuries at the same time, and you are unable to promote MCkernan from the rookie list - You are demoting McKernan from the primary list to the rookie list, to choose a player in the ND, but yet between EFC’s last selection in the ND and pick 1 in the RD may only be 5 or 6 positions.


#1150

ruck stocks are an interesting concept.
The theory of having 4 spots on a list to cover that one spot is difficult cos essentially you’re no1 ruck will get most of the game time, you’re no.2 has to accept his spot and role and do his best when needed, and spots 3 and 4 are there for developing players.

However in any one year pretty much no matter what, if ruck 1 and 2 go down, you’re screwed anyway. Look at WC, soon as nic nat went down, they were screwed.

If gach was doing all the right things off of the field, then his delisting seems odd, as you wouldn’t be expecting him to break into the side for another 2-4 years so the expectation of him wouldn’t be that great, and his ego essentially wouldn’t be dragging him off to another club if he was able to show some promising signs.

Not a bad delisting by any stretch, but eh.


#1151

^
Ruck is tricky because it’s the only position where you can’t play 2-3 guys there during the game
Eg if you have 3 developing key forwards you probably can play them all in the one side at reserves level, if you have 3 developing rucks then really only 1 is likely to get substantial game time, maybe 2 if you go closer to 50:50
Almost needs to be a gentleman’s agreement that all AFL clubs will play their rookied ruckman in the development league lol


#1152

Wonder if the AFL will get more and more concerned about losing 200cm athletes to other sports and implement some sort of rookie type list exemption.

Of course if lists were 50 it wouldn’t matter if Nyuon played vfl 3rds for 2 years.


#1153

I think SMACKs 2015 year as a ruckman has been undeservedly downgraded by many. In 2015 when he replaced TBell in the ruck the rest of the team had gone awol, and the team as a whole was on the skids, losing badly.

SMack is a bit more than a placeholder in the ruck. In 2015 his 2nd and 3rd efforts enabled him to get quite a few clearances even if he was at the low end of hitouts. However he has to learn not to give away so many frees when rucking.

Comparing Leuenberger 2016 and SMACK 2015 it is clear that as a pure ruckman, measured by hitouts Leuie is far superior. But in terms of averages, SMACK gained more possessions by far, averaged more clearances, more marks , more contested marks, more inside 50s, and kicked more goals in 9 games than Leuie did in 20.

In 2015 SMack played with a lot of heart . If only he could bring his best consistently.


#1154
Wonder if the AFL will get more and more concerned about losing 200cm athletes to other sports and implement some sort of rookie type list exemption.

Of course if lists were 50 it wouldn’t matter if Nyuon played vfl 3rds for 2 years.

200cm is too short even at NBL level unless you can play 3 or 4 (in which case you’d need to be Pendlebury skills in NicNat body)
Rugby union maybe, but most AFL ruckman start out as beanpoles and those guys are 110kg+
Rowing, volleyball definitely but who even plays those sports?
Athletics (shot, hammer, discus) probably similar situation to RU in that mass isn’t going to be there

Outside of private schools, I’d hazard a guess the tall kids are playing footy and basketball (at least in Tas, WA, Vic and SA). In the rugby states they may gravitate more towards rowing and volleyball (or even swimming)


#1155

While I agree, it’s about opportunity. If teams aren’t drafting 18yo ruck types the tall guys at 16 might decide there’s no reason to persist with footy when they could be playing another sport. The RU guys…sure they are heavier, but an 18yo developing guy who’s 200+cm who knows that at AFL he will need 5 years and 30kgs until he gets a look in on a list may no longer have a compelling reason to stick to AFL over RU where he’s also 5 years and 30kgs off getting an opportunity.

If the AFL’s development pathway is no longer there for these super tall guys who everyone knows ‘take longer’ and they’re left playing state league seconds at 18, 19, 20, with no guarantees, then it’s harder to convince them to hang around. If they’re on a list doing that, with clear development pathways it’s one thing, but being not on an AFL list means that some will be lost.

And if there’s one thing the AFL has hated, it’s losing anything to any other sport!


#1156
What's Balderstone doing these days?

still building bridges!


#1157
While I agree, it's about opportunity. If teams aren't drafting 18yo ruck types the tall guys at 16 might decide there's no reason to persist with footy when they could be playing another sport. The RU guys...sure they are heavier, but an 18yo developing guy who's 200+cm who knows that at AFL he will need 5 years and 30kgs until he gets a look in on a list may no longer have a compelling reason to stick to AFL over RU where he's also 5 years and 30kgs off getting an opportunity.

If the AFL’s development pathway is no longer there for these super tall guys who everyone knows ‘take longer’ and they’re left playing state league seconds at 18, 19, 20, with no guarantees, then it’s harder to convince them to hang around. If they’re on a list doing that, with clear development pathways it’s one thing, but being not on an AFL list means that some will be lost.

And if there’s one thing the AFL has hated, it’s losing anything to any other sport!

Rookie list category C (or maybe another type of B ): Players over 200cm under 23 years of age - with an expectation that they may be playing below VFL level initially. I reckon there should be space for 2 of these.

If Gach wasn’t picked up at all at last years draft because of his lack of physical presence and game sense, we now could have looked to get him nominated as a Category B rookie as a player from a multicultural background. Because he was All Australian U18 ruck, he probably wouldn’t have made it that far, but that is another matter, however, it may be better to look to get tall Sudanese players onto AFL lists this way, if they aren’t ready to go at least at VFL level, rather than struggle to justify a category A rookie list place.


#1158

You’d be stiff if you were 199cm lol


#1159
You'd be stiff if you were 199cm lol

Give or take 10%


#1160

Smack is such an interesting and frustrating player. He is too short for ruck and it reflects in the number of frees he gives away in contests. In 2015 he was great around the ground but that fell away in 2016 when he wasn’t the exclusive ruckman. He was recruited to be a ruck forward, but unless he is engaged in the play all the time, he can get lost and be uncompetitive as a forward. Ryder suffered from this a lot and only really in his last year with us did he become more consistent when in the ruck and up forward.

I can understand why they are keeping him, because of his size and versatility, but he is not a solution for the ruck on a long term basis. I haven’t watched any VFL games but from my understanding in the VFL he dominates as a forward. That doesn’t translate to AFL. It could also be because of our delivery etc but maybe with the team back and all the crap behind us he could perform better as a forward?

We still need to recruit a genuine ruckman to develop with Gach gone maybe even two, but I think the list management for 2016 has been excellent.