Jolly

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
So he's filling the same role for Melbourne as Doyle does here! That sound like a reasonable definition of untried to me.

He is filling a similar role, but if we kept Doyle and added Jolly, then we could have a tandem ruck combination that is quite potent.

As for North, I think North's primary ruck is going to be Hale. Thompson's no sping chicken, yes he's younger that Rocca and McK but only a little. On the other hand that's their problem.

Again, I think the tandem ruck is a possibility, plus Rocca and Thompson in the forward line could be quite formidable. I think McKernan is effectively finished.

I suppose I should put mu faith in Roosy but I may be coming down with silly season nerves that we'll get nobody or worse yet a liability that will cost us.

Yep - I'm a bit worried we will either get no one, or trade for someone who adds little, or trade away someone useful (I don't care about the loyalty issue, it's the effectiveness issue that concerns me).

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]He is filling a similar role, but if we kept Doyle and added Jolly, then we could have a tandem ruck combination that is quite potent.

I disagree with you, I'm a fan of the big guys but I don't believe a tandem ruckman approach works well at all, unless . . . .

At least one of the ruckmen has another string to his bow
(eg Mead can snaffle goals at Port, Keating ditto at Brisbane)

OR

One ruckman is learning the caper (eg Doyle here and Jolly at Melbourne)

I am concerned that a Doyle/Jolly combo is neither of these but the sort of combination we had with Stafford and Ball, where Ball took the #1 ruck spot and Stafford made an ill fated attempt to provide a marking target up forward.

[NMWBloods]

Both could actually be quite effective tall forwards. Putting a 200cm guy in the goal square would be a very useful boost to our forward line. Jolly kicked 24 goals in 19 games in 2003, as well as averaging 14 hitouts per game.

[barry]

Really depends on how Roosey want to structure the ruck:

1) Not so tall, but versitile:
Ball, Goodes, Ottens

2) Tall, tap specialists, and occational FF's:
Doyle, Jolly, Simmonds

If we are thinking of option 1, then trading away Doyle is ok. Otherwise option 2 with the addition of Jolly or Simmonds cheaply is easier to achieve.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Both could actually be quite effective tall forwards. Putting a 200cm guy in the goal square would be a very useful boost to our forward line. Jolly kicked 24 goals in 19 games in 2003, as well as averaging 14 hitouts per game.

I sincerely hope your right (recently Doyle's efforts up forward haven't been great) the problem with a 2m guy in the goal square is that in order to be effective he needs to be capable of movement (Doyle post knee is far less effective than he was pre knee). A static target is a gift for defenders (especially while umpires allow them to sweep arms).

A also agree with "barry" (except he needs to swap the group he's put Ottens into)

[liz]

Originally posted by barry
Really depends on how Roosey want to structure the ruck:

1) Not so tall, but versitile:
Ball, Goodes, Ottens

2) Tall, tap specialists, and occational FF's:
Doyle, Jolly, Simmonds

If we are thinking of option 1, then trading away Doyle is ok. Otherwise option 2 with the addition of Jolly or Simmonds cheaply is easier to achieve.

Isn't it better to have a couple from each group to give the team / squad maximum flexibility?

If we are thinking longer term, Erikson, if he makes it, will fit into the second category, though he is amazingly agile below his knees for someone 2m tall. A player like Earl Shaw -were we to draft him - would probably fit more into the first category.

[barry]

Originally posted by liz
Isn't it better to have a couple from each group to give the team / squad maximum flexibility?

I'd say its better to go one or the other, as then the midfield setups wont change with the ruckman.

I'd like to see tap ruckmen, so our midfielders get first use of the ball for once. IMO Doyle will become a very good ruckman in time.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by liz
Isn't it better to have a couple from each group to give the team / squad maximum flexibility?

If we are thinking longer term, Erikson, if he makes it, will fit into the second category, though he is amazingly agile below his knees for someone 2m tall. A player like Earl Shaw -were we to draft him - would probably fit more into the first category.

Absolutely, the last thing you want is to be forced into playing a Saddington in the ruck (it's unfair on the player and it's just beg the opposition to take control of stoppages)

The problem is that while you have spave for 38 or 42 players in the squad . . . on game day it's only 22 and with every extra ruckman you have in a team (if they can only ruck), that's one less runner or whatever you have on the bench to help you cover problems or provide the legs needed to run out a match.

[stellation]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Both could actually be quite effective tall forwards. Putting a 200cm guy in the goal square would be a very useful boost to our forward line. Jolly kicked 24 goals in 19 games in 2003, as well as averaging 14 hitouts per game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, sticking a beanpole in the goal square to bomb it long to just makes me icky! I don't care if it works!

[NMWBloods]

I'd be happy if we did that. After all, the concept worked brilliantly for Brisbane.

[dendol]

Originally posted by stellation
I've said it before and I'll say it again, sticking a beanpole in the goal square to bomb it long to just makes me icky! I don't care if it works!

whats wrong with resting a ruckman at FF? It stretches the defense, especially if they are smaller defenders. I personally hate it when the opposition sends their ruckman to rest up forward because our defense seems even smaller.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by stellation
I've said it before and I'll say it again, sticking a beanpole in the goal square to bomb it long to just makes me icky! I don't care if it works!

But a beanpole in the square is the perfect way to remove the opposing teams number one backman. Imagine the damage you could do with BGBH roaming in a true CHF position, Mickie and ROK running off the beanpole into opposite pockets, with Schneider, Buchanan, Bevan and Davis fufilling crumbing roles in rotation.

The ability to plunk one or even two really tall players who can mark and goal into your F50, really gives other teams major headaches. And with our teams poorer kicking skills (where the ball often flies too high) taller players may well take more marks in the F50.

[Reggi]

Originally posted by barry
Really depends on how Roosey want to structure the ruck:

1) Not so tall, but versitile:
Ball, Goodes, Ottens

2) Tall, tap specialists, and occational FF's:
Doyle, Jolly, Simmonds

If we are thinking of option 1, then trading away Doyle is ok. Otherwise option 2 with the addition of Jolly or Simmonds cheaply is easier to achieve.

Whilst Ottens has shown in the past that he is a good mark, I would have thought Simmonds is more Athletic and mobile

[Captain]

I feel that we might be giving up too much for Jolly.

He is a second string ruckman that struggled to support White last year. Based on this I would give up nothing more than a third round pick.

[hammo]

The Ottens deal with Geelong could still collapse and we would be ready to pounce.
Jolly would be a good trade as we do need to boost our ruck stocks. If brisbane can have 3 quality rucks there is no reason why we shouldn't.
I can't see how we will get a quality midfielder. That is the most disappointing thing for me.