Doyle owes us.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Lets say he has spent 30% of his time on the ground (which is far more accurate). Then he ends up with 18 possies which is excellent compared to other ruckmen.

I know 3 of his games were 35, 61 and 63(?) mins, out of 120ish.

Any Jollys ave poss. is only 8.6, not that much more.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by ScottH
I know 3 of his games were 35, 61 and 63(?) mins, out of 120ish.

Any Jollys ave poss. is only 8.6, not that much more.

And unlike some of the other teams, the coches don't expect that much from our ruckmen as far as possessions go - their focus is on contests (not sure I agree, but this is what they want). With us not using our ruckmen to play through (like a Cox or Sandilands for instance), they aren't going to get that many possessions anyway.

[Dave]

Originally posted by BarneyG
All bark, no bite.....

yeah, that's me...

[rook]

So if you had a choice of all the no 1 ruckmen in the competition from each club you would still take Doyle?

rook

[BarneyG]

Originally posted by Dave
yeah, that's me...

lol

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by rook
So if you had a choice of all the no 1 ruckmen in the competition from each club you would still take Doyle?

rook

But Doyle isn't the number 1 ruckman at the Swans.

[rook]

the way everyone is going on about him you would think he was.......thats my exact point he is injury prone so we wont miss him, get another draft pick and hopefully someone who is going to a 100 gamer.

rook

[hammo]

I think rook and Barneyg must be aliases used by Paul Chambers.

A few points:

1. Doyle's games played is directly linked to his injuries
2. Jason Ball averaged 8.8 possessions a game last year - no one is criticising his contribution, in fact he helped deliver the semi final.
3. Clark and Biglands average 8 disposals for the Crows - and probably play far more minutes than Doyle.

Before mouthing off about Doyle perhaps you should nominate who should take his position. The club would be negligent in the extreme to delist a ruckman of his size and skills wthout giving him a decent crack at establishing himself.

[Ajn]

This is rubbish...Doyle won the ruck when played against Cox or mostly Lynch. He is our best number two option and has the ability to kick a few. He is not in debt at all

go bloods!

[rook]

Davis Lover......read my post, if he is number 2 ruckmen then get rid of him get another draft pick....the odds are he will break down again

Cox would destroy him, thats why Cox is rated so highly by the AFL players, thats why they selected him as the number 1 ruckman in the comp. Lynch has only been good at full forward and was picked for that reason......he was always the number 3 ruckman behind Cox and Gardner and thats fact due to knowing the person who drafted him

[Plugger46]

Originally posted by rook
the way everyone is going on about him you would think he was.......thats my exact point he is injury prone so we wont miss him, get another draft pick and hopefully someone who is going to a 100 gamer.

rook

Why would we get rid of him now? He's finally stringing some games together and looking like he'll make it. We'd be foolish to give him away now after putting so much time into him.

[Zlatorog]

Doyle doesn't owe us anything. He'll be put on the spot the same way players like Fitzy were before him. Now that he's fit, he'll be judged by the same criteria as any other fit player. No honeymoon for him because of injuries, the way footy is played today there are no other options. He needs to step up very quickly. He's probably catching the last train of opportunities. Good luck to him.

[hammo]

Originally posted by rook
Davis Lover......read my post, if he is number 2 ruckmen then get rid of him get another draft pick....the odds are he will break down again

Yep that makes sense... trade a current ruckman with his best football still ahead of him and draft an untried rookie who will take 5 years to develop, if at all.

[SimonH]

Does RWO have an 'ignore' function?

Anyhoo, stats are a part of an argument about the quality of a player relative to other players. But anyone who bases an argument entirely on them believes that Nick Stevens was a better player in 2006 than Daniel Kerr, i.e. is an absolute fool.

The Donk has grown into his role as 2nd ruck over the weeks since he returned, and played exactly the role that the team needed from him against the Weagles.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, we already have on our senior list 2 ruckmen-- one drafted in 2003 and one rookied in 2004-- who are on the 'developing young ruckman' track. Neither has debuted. Draft an 18yo ruckman in the 2006 draft, and we can expect to see his debut, if we ever see it, in about 2010. The alternatives at the end of 2006 are not Donk or draft. The alternatives are Donk or trade; or alternatively, if we want to go back to having 5 ruckmen on the senior list, Donk and trade.

There's nothing wrong with having a player who knows that he's playing for his career. Friday is the biggest stage of his career, and it's do or die. If he does the job that he's in the team to do, and stays on his feet, there's no reason why we wouldn't have him back in 2007. Go Donk!

[hammo]

Originally posted by SimonH
Does RWO have an 'ignore' function?

I think it does but RWO is regularly hijacked by posters who come on the scene and try to create controversy then disappear just as quickly. I predict rook and his mate BarneyG will be no different.