Jolly

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by ugg
Pretty big lad at 200cm and 100kg. Will give us options next year but definitely the club was thinking ahead and he will be Ball's replacement when he retires.

"thinking" I doubt it.
Sure we needed a first rank ruckman to be ready by 2005, but we needed an outside midfielder in 2004 and a centre half back in 2002 and neither of those outstanding needs have been met.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by stellation
I'm happy about it, if only because it means we actually traded!

Which I am afraid may be WHY we acquired him.

Standard corporate behavior, it's better to be seen doing something (even if useless or counterproductive) than to be perceived as doing nothing.

Rarely makes for a good result though.

[dendol]

Originally posted by sharpie
I'm happy enough we got him. In the circumstances I dont think it matters that we perhaps over-paid for his services.

We needed a ruckman that could play next year. If we'd drafted a young ruckman with pick 15 he would not have been ready for seniors for at least 2 years. By that stage Ball would be well and truely gone, leaving us with Doyle and hoping that Erickson can continue his development.

Picking up Jolly ensures that we have a ready to go ruckman, who can also potentially provide us with 10 years service. We havent had to put in the time, money and effort developing him from a raw skinny beanpole, and we get him well before he should hit his prime.

To me it seems we got everything you want from a young draft pick without having to do the hard stuff getting them ready for senior football. And there's a lot less guess-work with a 23 yo who's played 50 games than an untried youngster who may never be good enough for seniors, regardless of where he's taken in the draft.

Well said - I agree with all of that. There would have been no guarantee that we could have picked up a ready-to-go, young, promising ruckman after next season when Ball retires, so I think pick #15 is a fair enough price to pay.

[dendol]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Which I am afraid may be WHY we acquired him.

Standard corporate behavior, it's better to be seen doing something (even if useless or counterproductive) than to be perceived as doing nothing.

Rarely makes for a good result though.

I dont think this is the case if Jolly had already come up in discussions mid-season. Its obvious that the retirement of Ball was going to be either this year or next, so I dont think this trade was done "for the hell of it" at all.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

"We started our quest for a ruckman around mid-season and Darren Jolly was one of the first names to come up in our internal discussions," Roos said.


SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN RETROSPECTIVE SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN

[dendol]

Originally posted by Newbie
They should have hold out until the last minute on Friday if there is nothing else in mind. Why sealed the deal today given the price? Very strange indeed.

Jolly was sought after by a few clubs - Carlton being one. Im going to go out on a big fat limb here and say that the price we paid for Jolly will work out to be helluvalot more value than the two draft picks Geelong is going to cough up for Ottens.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Ruckman
"We started our quest for a ruckman around mid-season and Darren Jolly was one of the first names to come up in our internal discussions," Roos said.


SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN RETROSPECTIVE SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN

Maybe so, but do you really think this trade is really so bad? We needed a ready made ruckman, didnt we? We got one.

[dendol]

Originally posted by Ruckman
"thinking" I doubt it.
Sure we needed a first rank ruckman to be ready by 2005, but we needed an outside midfielder in 2004 and a centre half back in 2002 and neither of those outstanding needs have been met.

Where was the CHB and elite midfielder coming from? They have to actually WANT to uproot and move to Sydney for us to even get a look-in. Seeing as there was no real quality midfielder to pickup this year - Crawford, Bruce, Johnstone, Notting et al were never real options - I dont see how fulfulling our other pressing need (ruck stocks) is so much of a bad thing.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by sharpie
Maybe so, but do you really think this trade is really so bad?

Yes, I do.
Surprisingly I am actually feeling "angry" at this trade.

Originally posted by sharpie
We needed a ready made ruckman, didnt we? We got one.

Is he any more ready made than Doyle? I do not believe so, I feel some peoples rating of Jolly is dependant on the "grass is greener" effect.

Sure we needed a first rank ruckman to be ready by 2005, but we needed an outside midfielder in 2004 and a key backman for centre half back in 2002 and neither of those outstanding needs have been met.

[cruiser]

This board amazes me. People complained about Sydney trying to get Ottens because of the cost in player payment, traded players and draft picks and now people are complaining about the Jolly trade. Jeeze, he only cost us one draft pick! So what. If Sydney had used that pick in the draft it might easily have been a dud. Jolly is 22, 200cm and 100 kg with some experience already under his belt. Seems like a bloody good deal to me and none of you have lost your favourite Swans player/s for him.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Yes, I do.
Surprisingly I am actually feeling "angry" at this trade.

I'm not sure how you could be 'angry'. It gives us a reasonable ruckman who we can use straight away next year. Pick #15 isn't a huge amount to pay.

Is he any more ready made than Doyle? I do not believe so, I feel some peoples rating of Jolly is dependant on the "grass is greener" effect.

Maybe he's not better than Doyle, however from now on we have 2 reasonable young ruckmen plus one experienced for next year. If Erikson becomes good over time, he will be able to slot into the team in the future without needing to be rushed in.

I can't how our team is hurt by this - if anything we must get at least a little better with a more solid ruck group.

Sure we needed a first rank ruckman to be ready by 2005, but we needed an outside midfielder in 2004 and a key backman for centre half back in 2002 and neither of those outstanding needs have been met.

Absolutely we need these things and it's disappointing we couldn't get them, but doesn't exclude us from doing this trade and achieving at least one aim.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Yes, I do.
Surprisingly I am actually feeling "angry" at this trade.



Is he any more ready made than Doyle? I do not believe so, I feel some peoples rating of Jolly is dependant on the "grass is greener" effect.

Sure we needed a first rank ruckman to be ready by 2005, but we needed an outside midfielder in 2004 and a key backman for centre half back in 2002 and neither of those outstanding needs have been met.

But we also needed a ruckman, right? Where else were we going to get one from? If it was a choice of picking up a young ruckman in the draft with pick 15 in a skinny draft or picking up a guy who has 50 games under his belt, I know which one I'd take. We needed a ruckman who can play next year, and he fits the bill.

He may not be any more ready than Doyle, but now we have 2 young ruckman who are ready for seniors. Add Ball to this plus another developing in the background in Ericksen, and I think we now have a healthy ruck division. By no means is it fantastic at the moment, but if Doyle and Jolly can further develop, we have the basis of a strong ruck for 5 years to come, at least.

As for a quality CHB, who over the last few years could we have traded for that has been available?

As for the midfielder, who last year was available? Who, for that matter, has been available this year? I dont think we have passed up an opportunity to get these types. They just have not been available, and if this is the case, then it is nothing to be angry about. It is out of our control. And as far as the midfielder goes, instead of opting for a quick fix (or perhaps because we were unable to get a quick-fix), Roosy has gone for youth in the last few years hoping we can develop our own class - Willhoughby, Schmidt, McVeigh, etc still have plenty of development left in them.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Looking at his stats for just 2004 is a bit misleading because of the way Melbourne play. They run Jeff White for over 100 min per game as he works best that way. Doesn't matter who their backup ruckman is, that's their strategy and it works for them.

Consider his 2003 stats when he had more game time:

19 games
24 goals
7 disposals per game
14 hitouts per game

They are good stats indeed, particularly the fact that he is a Ruckman/Forward who averaged over a goal a game.

Also, Ruckman take a bit longer to mature, particularly when you have a bloke like White who doesn't like coming off the ground for a rest, which always turns out detrimental to the team due to late season injuries - a la White against Essendon in the Elim against Essendon this season, clearly struggling with leg injuries.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by Captain
You guys are so one eyed it's a joke.

The guy couldn't get a game at Melbourne! It's not like they are flush with ruck stocks either.

Just because he is a ruckman doesn't make him gold.

If Ball, Doyle and Goodes are fit, I struggle to see how Jolly will get a game.

Ah, Jeff White won the Melb B & F, All-Australian Ruckman and polled high in the Brownlow..... Does Melbourne's Ruck stocks have to be Len Thompson, Gary Dempsey, Simon Madden and back-ups in John Nicholls and Jack Dyer ?!!

Fact - Ball is getting old, his limited Rucking ability has diminished with age and he is retiring at the end of 2005, Doyle is a unco-ordinated donkey and Roosy refuses to play Goodes in the Ruck whether fit or unfit.

As per first paragraph with White's credentials, Jolly never got a look-in this season. Although, Jolly did excell in 2003 when White was injured as indicated by NMWBloods stats for that season in a previous post.

On this occasion Captain, those comments have made you Captain Stupid !!

[cressakel]

Originally posted by Newbie
The position in the rookie draft is irrelevant. Once getting to this level, it is very much the same whether if you goes 1st or 30rd.

Getting Jolly is right thing to do. But not for the first pick.

Since when we have the luxury to trade our first pick for some backup option, presumably Ball will still be our first ruck and Doyle is our second option.

The way we are playing, we are not carrying three ruckmen into any game.

Our list lacks talent and spending the first pick for our third ruck option is way way way above any logical sense.

Jolly will be a first round draft pick for a FIRST RUCKMAN, due to the following -

1. Jolly is supposedly (from a Melb fan) a hard at it player/ruckman, something we need due to not too many hard at it/mongrel type players at the club.
2. When he has been given game time with White out injured, he has excelled.
3. Ball is getting old, is only a bit part Ruckman anyway and struggles with injury.
4. Doyle is a donkey.
5. Roosy refuses to play Goodes in the Ruck whether fit or unfit.