If option 4 was a possibility I’d go that way.
Still get a gun mid at pick 5 and Patton to help out Jobe.
Two holes for the price of one.
If option 4 was a possibility I'd go that way. Still get a gun mid at pick 5 and Patton to help out Jobe. Two holes for the price of one.I suppose I just don't see it as a hole. I think Hooker fills that hole. So getting Rockliff AND one of the Mc's seems better to me, especially with two more picks in the top 20.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
If option 4 was a possibility I'd go that way. Still get a gun mid at pick 5 and Patton to help out Jobe. Two holes for the price of one.I suppose I just don't see it as a hole. I think Hooker fills that hole. So getting Rockliff AND one of the Mc's seems better to me, especially with two more picks in the top 20.
I’d like to see Patton replace Belly in our forward line and pinch hit in the ruck. I don’t have the same faith as others in Bell.
Then Hooker can stay forward if the balance works. If Hurley or Hartley go down Hooker goes back. Good flexibility.
.
But yours works
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
If option 4 was a possibility I'd go that way. Still get a gun mid at pick 5 and Patton to help out Jobe. Two holes for the price of one.I suppose I just don't see it as a hole. I think Hooker fills that hole. So getting Rockliff AND one of the Mc's seems better to me, especially with two more picks in the top 20.I’d like to see Patton replace Belly in our forward line and pinch hit in the ruck. I don’t have the same faith as others in Bell.
Then Hooker can stay forward if the balance works. If Hurley or Hartley go down Hooker goes back. Good flexibility.
.
But yours works
Patton >>>>>>> Bellchambers
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
I don’t know what his off field issues are but love his on field game. Seems too good to be true for the deal being talked about. Surely would have to be worth a punt at that trade offer.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
I don’t know what his off field issues are but love his on field game. Seems too good to be true for the deal being talked about. Surely would have to be worth a punt at that trade offer.
People have suggested he led player disharmony against the past two coaches, and is a bad influence on others when it comes to off field influence.
I don’t think any of that would be a problem at a strong club with a seasoned coach.
Watch Hawthorn nab him if Lewis goes.
In O’Meara, Rockcliff and Mitchell
Voss was a ■■■■ coach.
Leppa, also ■■■■.
maybe if the brisbane board could implement a proper football program they wouldn’t be the absolute basket case they are.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
I don’t know what his off field issues are but love his on field game. Seems too good to be true for the deal being talked about. Surely would have to be worth a punt at that trade offer.
People have suggested he led player disharmony against the past two coaches, and is a bad influence on others when it comes to off field influence.
I don’t think any of that would be a problem at a strong club with a seasoned coach.
Watch Hawthorn nab him if Lewis goes.
In O’Meara, Rockcliff and Mitchell
Surely they could not fit both in Salary cap. Hope they take Rocky and we end up with Jaeger cause they can no longer afford him but would not be unhappy if other way round.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
I don’t know what his off field issues are but love his on field game. Seems too good to be true for the deal being talked about. Surely would have to be worth a punt at that trade offer.
People have suggested he led player disharmony against the past two coaches, and is a bad influence on others when it comes to off field influence.
I don’t think any of that would be a problem at a strong club with a seasoned coach.
Watch Hawthorn nab him if Lewis goes.
In O’Meara, Rockcliff and MitchellSurely they could not fit both in Salary cap. Hope they take Rocky and we end up with Jaeger cause they can no longer afford him but would not be unhappy if other way round.
The rumour was by letting go of either Mitchell or Lewis they would have enough to put a price on O’Meara’s head that no one would match is they needed to push him through to the draft.
Not sure if it’s true, but if it is and they trade O’Meara in, they should have enough cash by losing the other two to nab Rockcliff.
He’s be a good fit.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
I don’t know what his off field issues are but love his on field game. Seems too good to be true for the deal being talked about. Surely would have to be worth a punt at that trade offer.
People have suggested he led player disharmony against the past two coaches, and is a bad influence on others when it comes to off field influence.
I don’t think any of that would be a problem at a strong club with a seasoned coach.
Watch Hawthorn nab him if Lewis goes.
In O’Meara, Rockcliff and MitchellSurely they could not fit both in Salary cap. Hope they take Rocky and we end up with Jaeger cause they can no longer afford him but would not be unhappy if other way round.
The rumour was by letting go of either Mitchell or Lewis they would have enough to put a price on O’Meara’s head that no one would match is they needed to push him through to the draft.
Not sure if it’s true, but if it is and they trade O’Meara in, they should have enough cash by losing the other two to nab Rockcliff.
He’s be a good fit.
Particularly if, and I emphasise if, he’s a Grade A ■■■■.
I don't necessarily see Belly getting game time. I think given Worsfold's preference for two rucks he's most likely, but not a certainty. It could easily be JD/Hooker/Brown with Hurley/Hartley/Ambrose down back. Or even drop one and go two talls up forward if the mediums in Langford/Laverde/Redman/Watson(?) are doing well. There are a number of options, and I haven't even touched on Francis! If we took Stewart cheap, I actually think we've got a very good set of talls that balance a number of styles and a good amount of depth. None too old either. Enough that I would much favour focussing on the midfield (to Jbomber's shock :) ).I'd like to see Patton replace Belly in our forward line and pinch hit in the ruck. I don't have the same faith as others in Bell. Then Hooker can stay forward if the balance works. If Hurley or Hartley go down Hooker goes back. Good flexibility. . But yours worksIf option 4 was a possibility I'd go that way. Still get a gun mid at pick 5 and Patton to help out Jobe. Two holes for the price of one.I suppose I just don't see it as a hole. I think Hooker fills that hole. So getting Rockliff AND one of the Mc's seems better to me, especially with two more picks in the top 20.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
I agree that it sounds astounding, but if Fog says its possible I’m giving that weight.
I don't necessarily see Belly getting game time. I think given Worsfold's preference for two rucks he's most likely, but not a certainty. It could easily be JD/Hooker/Brown with Hurley/Hartley/Ambrose down back. Or even drop one and go two talls up forward if the mediums in Langford/Laverde/Redman/Watson(?) are doing well. There are a number of options, and I haven't even touched on Francis! If we took Stewart cheap, I actually think we've got a very good set of talls that balance a number of styles and a good amount of depth. None too old either. Enough that I would much favour focussing on the midfield (to Jbomber's shock :) ).I'd like to see Patton replace Belly in our forward line and pinch hit in the ruck. I don't have the same faith as others in Bell. Then Hooker can stay forward if the balance works. If Hurley or Hartley go down Hooker goes back. Good flexibility. . But yours worksIf option 4 was a possibility I'd go that way. Still get a gun mid at pick 5 and Patton to help out Jobe. Two holes for the price of one.I suppose I just don't see it as a hole. I think Hooker fills that hole. So getting Rockliff AND one of the Mc's seems better to me, especially with two more picks in the top 20.
I reckon Brown has been great down back, but average and inconsistent up forward. I really rate him as an intercepting back man, actually. But then you have the issue of Ambrose, who is also better back. We’re already optioning Hooker & Francis forward.
If you were GC and ended up with 4, 6 (Prestia), 8, 10 (O’Meara)
Surely you go hard at pick 1 with 4 & 8.
Then try and trade 6 and whatever it takes with Bris for 3.
Take 1 & 3 to the draft, assume GWS won’t bid on Bowes at 2, and use 10 on him.
Pick up 3 of the best 5 kids in the draft.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I’d go the Rockliff option first, then just go to draft, from the realistic options. Though I must say - I don’t think Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41 is realistic - under values Rockliff greatly, even considering all the side-issues like attitude/behaviour/salary cap etc.
Don’t Brissy just want him off their hands and are not overly concerned about getting the best price?
Even if that is the case, and it may be, I’m struggling to imagine the other 16 clubs won’t bite harder than that. I mean - there are people on here who are apparently in the know, and say the issue is simply one of ‘a few too many on the weekend’. If that’s the case, there would be a few hundred others in the league to keep him company, you’d think…
I don’t know what his off field issues are but love his on field game. Seems too good to be true for the deal being talked about. Surely would have to be worth a punt at that trade offer.
People have suggested he led player disharmony against the past two coaches, and is a bad influence on others when it comes to off field influence.
I don’t think any of that would be a problem at a strong club with a seasoned coach.
Watch Hawthorn nab him if Lewis goes.
In O’Meara, Rockcliff and Mitchell
If that’s the case then he is very astute…at least more astute than the Brissy board.
I don’t reckon you ever go with 3 out-and-out talls either forward or back.
So I’d be happy with a mixture of Hooker/Hurley back with a 3rd medium tall like Brown, Ambrose or Francis, but not Hartley
Similarly if you have Hooker and Joe forward, no Belly, but can have Francis or maybe Brown.
Talls can play on gorillas, e.g. Hurley, Hooker, Hartley, Daniher, Patton, Bellchambers. Others might play on them for a spell, but you wouldn’t sustain it.
Midsizes are Brown, Dea, Francis, Laverde, Langford.
Depends on the opposition on the day, of course, but most teams seem to run with 2 talls and a two medium talls and 2 smalls either end.
So there appears to be a few (hugely unlikely but fun to speculate about) murmurings in the air. i.e. a potential Rocky deal, a potential Motlop possibility (not heard anyone say we're interested), Kelly and Patton. I'm assuming that only one would be possible due to cap space. I'm also assuming that the GWS deals wouldn't be too great, or we'd have already jumped at them. The two GWS deals are my view of what would be required to get the deal done. So here are five possibilities:
- Do nothing, take Melbourne's 2017 2nd. Take #1, #20 and #41 to the draft. Have a huge crack in 2017 when team is more proven at players, either via FA with lots of cap or using our 1st/2nd and extra 2nd to trade.
- Rockliff trade described by Fogdog as a possibility. Get Rockliff and #19 for #29 and #41. Have picks #1, #19, #20 in the draft + Rockliff. Shuts us out of targeting players for several seasons and we'd be paying heaps to Rocky, but huge ability to set up for the future in picks and one of the best contested players going around. Only area of weakness is talls, which could be targeted in the 2016/2017 drafts.
- GWS1 - Kelly. Trade #1 for Kelly as the base. Go in with #20, #41 as picks + Kelly.
- GWS2 - Patton. Trade #1 & #20 for Patton and #5. Go to draft with #5, #41
- Motlop - very speculative and no rumour around. But could do #20 for Motlop. Then go to draft with #1, #41 + Motlop. Did finish 2nd in the B&F in a pretty crappy 2015 Geelong team, getting when he's cheap. Probably low enough salary if renegotiate years 2-3 that doesn't preclude some targeting of other players in future years.
You can probably also overlay a Stewart for #59 on any of those options, which would help with the tall depth we probably still need.
I would actually turn down trading the pick #1 for the Rockliff deal. Get him AND a “Mc”, plus two chances at good talent around the Langford/Laverde/Zerrett picks. Oh yeah, that would be good.
So - for now - I’m off the “trade #1 pick” bandwagon and onto the “get Rockliff for peanuts + a pick upgrade” bandwagon.
How would others lean?
I love your posts! You allow me to avoid mainstream garbage media and still have plenty of food for thought…
So my view is Rockliff all the way! Maybe I am biased living in Brisbane and having followed him closely in matches but he is A+ in tackles, clearances and contested footy… too say no in the hope (and I think outside hope) that a gun young kid leaves somewhere next summer is way too risky.
Our list is on the cusp. Generally in life to go one step beyond great and seperate yourself you have to take a risk.