North has found success with throwing Ziebell forward at various times and backing him one on one with an opponent, with reasonable success. Likewise Richmond with Martin.
Could we look at mixing our forward line around at times by doing the same thing with Gibbs. He's strong one on one, clean overhead and has a good goal sense.
We need to think outside the square more often!
North has found success with throwing Ziebell forward at various times and backing him one on one with an opponent, with reasonable success. Likewise Richmond with Martin.
Could we look at mixing our forward line around at times by doing the same thing with Gibbs. He's strong one on one, clean overhead and has a good goal sense.
We need to think outside the square more often!
Always been a fan of rotating Gibbs forward but with our midfield in decline we are forced to play him onball more often.....Gibbs is more like Deledio when he plays forward and
leads well and makes good position. Ziebell is a good contested mark and Martin of course is mr Dont argue and like a Bull when its one on one and impossible to stop.
Tom Bell has been the one Mick has tried forward looking for the dont argue style to kick some goals...its worked once to good effect but generally our delivery and Bell's nous
hasnt made it work often enough.
You need that variety though and the mid who can mark the footy and get one on one near the goals is a feature of the game now...Nat FYfe is another who plays onball but is super dangerous when going forward
with his marking ability....
North has found success with throwing Ziebell forward at various times and backing him one on one with an opponent, with reasonable success. Likewise Richmond with Martin.
Could we look at mixing our forward line around at times by doing the same thing with Gibbs. He's strong one on one, clean overhead and has a good goal sense.
We need to think outside the square more often!
I think most including MM would agree with you, yet it is purely necessity that has dictated Gibbsy's role to date rather than idealism. We need blokes like Bell, Buckley, Cripps, Docherty even Walker and Everitt to excel in their roles consistently. Gibbs shifting through the midfield as a forward flanker is "All Australian."
I think Gibbs is fairly weak overhead personally.
Just on Martin, to think we could have picked him up for 600k instead of Daisy, still young with his career ahead of him.
The horse has bolted and spilt the milk Carrots.
Yep. What a steal that would've been though!
Yep. What a steal that would've been though!
Yes, it would have been nice.
I'm still p*ssed at myself for not pushing him as a draft choice when he was bottom aged: he'd won the Pio's B & F and looked reasonable. I know I don't have any say with WH or any other recruiter, but if I'd made enough noise I could have ....
Spilt milk and in my own back yard. If I keep that up I'll start believing I can actually influence our recruiting. What an insane thought. >:D
I think Gibbs is fairly weak overhead personally.
Just on Martin, to think we could have picked him up for 600k instead of Daisy, still young with his career ahead of him.
What would you have been willing to trade for him? Given Daisy didn't require a trade.
I think Gibbs is fairly weak overhead personally.
Just on Martin, to think we could have picked him up for 600k instead of Daisy, still young with his career ahead of him.
What would you have been willing to trade for him? Given Daisy didn't require a trade.
The first rounder we got for Betts? That we gave up for Daisy? If not enough then throw in Hampson. So no Docherty I guess.
Yep. What a steal that would've been though!
Yes, it would have been nice.
I'm still p*ssed at myself for not pushing him as a draft choice when he was bottom aged: he'd won the Pio's B & F and looked reasonable. I know I don't have any say with WH or any other recruiter, but if I'd made enough noise I could have ....
Spilt milk and in my own back yard. If I keep that up I'll start believing I can actually influence our recruiting. What an insane thought. >:D
Stranger things have happened Crash!! :P
If you go back to the Thomas thread I called it.....Martin for 600k>>>>>Daisy. Of course back then I thought we'd only need 600k for Daisy.
In hindsight emtwenty, would you now take Martin over Daisy?
Another thing to ponder emtwenty, no one wanted him so with a 4 year 600k deal bounty put on him, we may have got him free in the PSD. Now that is the kind of shrewd operating that's required to be a successful club. In that scenario we lose Betts but gain Martin and keep two first rounders! I can guarantee if you that was the case, all in here would be laughing at Daisy and his form, not sticking up for him. :))
I think Gibbs is fairly weak overhead personally.
Just on Martin, to think we could have picked him up for 600k instead of Daisy, still young with his career ahead of him.
What would you have been willing to trade for him? Given Daisy didn't require a trade.
The first rounder we got for Betts? That we gave up for Daisy? If not enough then throw in Hampson. So no Docherty I guess.
We were never getting a first rounder for Betts. We would've got what St Kilda got for Dal Santo. And that would never have got Richmond to give us Martin. If you were Richmond would you have traded Martin for a pick in the 20s? I doubt it.
In hindsight emtwenty, would you now take Martin over Daisy?
It wasn't a choice. One was a free agent. The other was a trade. It was never a case of one of the other.
On the Gibbs thing. Ratten played him off half back, we screamed for him to play midfield. Now he plays midfield we think maybe he should play forward. OP is right, he could be a half decent forward, but we only have one of him.
On Daisy I'm keeping my powder dry until I see him do a full pre season. I think from the clubs point of view he has exceeded expectations this year.
Gibbs played some great footy as a HF in 2011 until he got injured in the final.
I think Gibbs is fairly weak overhead personally.
Just on Martin, to think we could have picked him up for 600k instead of Daisy, still young with his career ahead of him.
What would you have been willing to trade for him? Given Daisy didn't require a trade.
The first rounder we got for Betts? That we gave up for Daisy? If not enough then throw in Hampson. So no Docherty I guess.
We were never getting a first rounder for Betts. We would've got what St Kilda got for Dal Santo. And that would never have got Richmond to give us Martin. If you were Richmond would you have traded Martin for a pick in the 20s? I doubt it.
This has been discussed before and you've been proven to be wrong by LLT so I don't know why you are saying that again. Age was the factor in the Saints getting less for Dal. Betts would have got us a first rounder according to the system.
Meanwhile, Eddie Betts went to Adelaide for $2M over four years; I know who I'd rather have in my team both in terms of contribution and ability to pay for a competent key forward.
Fair enough, but Eddie Betts was not and is not an option, he left Carlton and went to Adelaide.
If it came down to Thomas or a compensation pick for Betts I'd take Thomas any day of the week, St Kilda got pick 13 for Goddard.
Goddard got a first rd pick for the saints because Essendon are paying him 800k for 4 years. We weren't going to get that for Eddie. We would got a second rd pick after ours AT BEST.
Why not? 500k is the trigger for a first round pick and he got more than that at the same number of years so it's a first rounder.
No it's not. If it was St Kilda would've got one for Dal Santo.
You do know the dollar amount for compo picks aren't published?
Straight off the AFL's free agency page:
COMPENSATION
A club that has a net loss of players transferring to/from other clubs as free agents in one transfer period is entitled to compensation via National Draft picks allocated by the AFL.
The compensation formula produces a points rating for players based on:
1. The new contract of the free agent;
2. The age of the free agent.
Thanks for that. I was just chatting to a work colleague and apparently that is a new tweak and wasn't in the original compensation criteria when FA was introduced.
Selective memory maybe?? :P
In hindsight emtwenty, would you now take Martin over Daisy?
It wasn't a choice. One was a free agent. The other was a trade. It was never a case of one of the other.
No there was a choice, we could have gone after one via trade, or one via FA, but either one was going to cost us a first rounder that we got for Betts and BOTH were available. Then of course there's the ridiculous 750k we threw at Mick's son, that would've got us Martin via the PSD as no one else would've been willing to pay that, just like every club laughed at us when we offered it to Daisy.
So, in hindsight which would you choose?
Gibbs played some great footy as a HF in 2011 until he got injured in the final.
But not as a marking target.