SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:

morell wrote:If he could kick he would've been perfect for the second tall forward role*.

* if it existed in a Hinkley coached side

Disagree, when has he had two key forwards ( proper key forwards ) to work with?

2016 when Dixon arrived, Schulz went down with knee, back and ankle problems, so never really got to use them together.

Prior to that Hinkley had Schulz with either Westhoff or Butcher. So I'd say his game plan is tailored to what he has at his disposal and that will evolve as the list develops, namely Howard or Frampton.

Eddy - Doesn't work hard enough in the press to keep the ball in, he's good insurance, but that's it.

this is his 5th year in charge. is that enough to develop a second forward? I think it most definitely is.

The fact that none of your drafted tall forwards are getting games would be pretty concerning

You need to look deeper than just that.

Hinkley came to the club at the start of 2013. At that time we had just picked up Mason Shaw and in 2014 Mitch Harvey. Neither of them played an AFL game, neither of them looked like it and were both delisted at the end of 2015.

With neither of them coming along, Butcher not cutting it at AFL level and Schulz coming to the end of his career it was at that point we had to, simply had to make a key forward our target and that was Dixon. Coupled with the impending loss of Ryder after having him for one year we have had to start again in that regard.

Dougal Howard, who is coming back from a mid 2016 ACL, Todd Marshall, drafted last year and Billy Frampton ( more ruck/fwd than fwd/ruck ) who is 20 going 21 in his third year on the list are coming. More so than Shaw and Harvey ever looked likely to.

Also if Lobbe could actually ruck, Ryder would be your 2nd tall

MW wrote:Also if Lobbe could actually ruck, Ryder would be your 2nd tall

Very good point, ( I try to ) forget about him. If Lobbe was playing 2014 football then Ryder would be strolling around the F50 with Dixon.

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:Also if Lobbe could actually ruck, Ryder would be your 2nd tall

Very good point, ( I try to ) forget about him. If Lobbe was playing 2014 football then Ryder would be strolling around the F50 with Dixon.

IF my wife gave me sex every night I'd be happy.
Big f**king IF...... almost as big as Lobbe being a good ruckman

A touch off topic, but can I get a Port's fans view on Jackson Trengrove. He has been played out of position (IMO) for a number of seasons now, having to cover first for Ryder in the ruck last year, now as a tall option up forward. He is clearly a key defender, but has he been a victim of a lack of creativity in his game, in a time when defensive creativity has never been more prominent? I liken him to Talia at the club I support across town, a lock down defender who at times would rather worry about his man than the teams best interests, and until this year was really lacking in rebound creativity. He has worked on it, and by no means is he a polished ball user but he marks the ball more and uses it within his means now. Is that something Jackson could/should be doing or am I missing it? I had this discussion with the missus Saturday night because she was my only company watching the game and her answer didn't quite hit the mark so I thought I would turn to this thread..

human_torpedo wrote:A touch off topic, but can I get a Port's fans view on Jackson Trengrove. He has been played out of position (IMO) for a number of seasons now, having to cover first for Ryder in the ruck last year, now as a tall option up forward. He is clearly a key defender, but has he been a victim of a lack of creativity in his game, in a time when defensive creativity has never been more prominent? I liken him to Talia at the club I support across town, a lock down defender who at times would rather worry about his man than the teams best interests, and until this year was really lacking in rebound creativity. He has worked on it, and by no means is he a polished ball user but he marks the ball more and uses it within his means now. Is that something Jackson could/should be doing or am I missing it? I had this discussion with the missus Saturday night because she was my only company watching the game and her answer didn't quite hit the mark so I thought I would turn to this thread..

I want to know why he was persisted with up forward while the Port backline continued to be under the pump Saturday night.. Surely he could've gone to Hooker early in the game and curbed his influence.

Zartan wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:A touch off topic, but can I get a Port's fans view on Jackson Trengrove. He has been played out of position (IMO) for a number of seasons now, having to cover first for Ryder in the ruck last year, now as a tall option up forward. He is clearly a key defender, but has he been a victim of a lack of creativity in his game, in a time when defensive creativity has never been more prominent? I liken him to Talia at the club I support across town, a lock down defender who at times would rather worry about his man than the teams best interests, and until this year was really lacking in rebound creativity. He has worked on it, and by no means is he a polished ball user but he marks the ball more and uses it within his means now. Is that something Jackson could/should be doing or am I missing it? I had this discussion with the missus Saturday night because she was my only company watching the game and her answer didn't quite hit the mark so I thought I would turn to this thread..

I want to know why he was persisted with up forward while the Port backline continued to be under the pump Saturday night.. Surely he could've gone to Hooker early in the game and curbed his influence.

He's a defender every day of the week.
He should start and finish there.

If you're a key forward I reckon you'd rather stand Jonas or Clurey then have Big Jacko come to you.

Zartan wrote:

human_torpedo wrote:A touch off topic, but can I get a Port's fans view on Jackson Trengrove. He has been played out of position (IMO) for a number of seasons now, having to cover first for Ryder in the ruck last year, now as a tall option up forward. He is clearly a key defender, but has he been a victim of a lack of creativity in his game, in a time when defensive creativity has never been more prominent? I liken him to Talia at the club I support across town, a lock down defender who at times would rather worry about his man than the teams best interests, and until this year was really lacking in rebound creativity. He has worked on it, and by no means is he a polished ball user but he marks the ball more and uses it within his means now. Is that something Jackson could/should be doing or am I missing it? I had this discussion with the missus Saturday night because she was my only company watching the game and her answer didn't quite hit the mark so I thought I would turn to this thread..

I want to know why he was persisted with up forward while the Port backline continued to be under the pump Saturday night.. Surely he could've gone to Hooker early in the game and curbed his influence.

Funnily enough it was that exact scenario that triggered my thinking.. I also thought he was a decent match up for Daniher had the moe got off the leash, but yet he stayed forward..

I find he looks awkward as a forward as well the way he moves and presents - and kicks. If i was one of the forwards playing SANFL i reckon i'd be pretty dirty being overlooked for a defender.

He's a defender. All day every day. Put him at CHB and leave him there.

morell wrote:He's a defender. All day every day. Put him at CHB and leave him there.

For which club?

Hopefully Port but he is another where if a late first rounder was put on the table I would take it.

There are very few in the 25+ age category at Port that are untouchable IMO.

morell wrote:Hopefully Port but he is another where if a late first rounder was put on the table I would take it.

There are very few in the 25+ age category at Port that are untouchable IMO.

Jacko, and Boak, were the first boys to draw the line in the sand and stay put when they could have taken the go home factor. He's not going anywhere with an Adelaide Mrs and small ( very cute ) little girl.

That's all well and good but it doesn't help us win games and finals in 2018, 2019, 2020. We're a professional football club looking to win Premierships, not a social club looking to reward good blokes.

The senior group (drafted or recruited before Hinkley) at Port Adelaide haven't delivered. Don't get me wrong, they're still good footballers that can contribute so I would like to see them stay on but if trading them means we could improve our list, it's a thank you very much you're always welcome at Port Adelaide for life but it's good luck and see you on the flip side if it were me.

This is why we made the decision (which I loved) to stall contract offers until after the bye.

morell wrote:That's all well and good but it doesn't help us win games and finals in 2018, 2019, 2020. We're a professional football club looking to win Premierships, not a social club looking to reward good blokes.

True, but at the same time don't you think Port would want to keep him on, given as Booney said he and Boak stayed on while the ship was sinking.. that sort of commitment/loyalty doesn't exist anymore.. would be pretty ruthless to turn around now the club is on the improve and say thanks for sticking through the bad, now piss off for the good..

Zartan wrote:

morell wrote:That's all well and good but it doesn't help us win games and finals in 2018, 2019, 2020. We're a professional football club looking to win Premierships, not a social club looking to reward good blokes.

True, but at the same time don't you think Port would want to keep him on, given as Booney said he and Boak stayed on while the ship was sinking..

How does them staying on in 2012 help us win round 1 next year? They were rewarded for their loyalty with massive contracts. That's their reward. They don't get a pension as well. Unless, like a Hawthorn with Hodge, they win multiple flags and can guide the next crop on how to be a winner.

morell wrote:that sort of commitment/loyalty doesn't exist anymore.. would be pretty ruthless to turn around now the club is on the improve and say thanks for sticking through the bad, now piss off for the good..

Correct. And that's why Port have been in stasis for a decade and have critical leadership and cultural problems. Being nice people and giving nice contracts to nice footballers has ****ed us. We've turned into Adelaide. Urgh.

Look, I am not saying delist them, just if Port could move them on and it meant we could improve the list I would do it.

KT said that there would be a heap of re-signings post the China trip.....whats happening?

morell wrote:

Zartan wrote:

morell wrote:That's all well and good but it doesn't help us win games and finals in 2018, 2019, 2020. We're a professional football club looking to win Premierships, not a social club looking to reward good blokes.

True, but at the same time don't you think Port would want to keep him on, given as Booney said he and Boak stayed on while the ship was sinking..

How does them staying on in 2012 help us win round 1 next year? They were rewarded for their loyalty with massive contracts. That's their reward. They don't get a pension as well. Unless, like a Hawthorn with Hodge, they win multiple flags and can guide the next crop on how to be a winner.

morell wrote:that sort of commitment/loyalty doesn't exist anymore.. would be pretty ruthless to turn around now the club is on the improve and say thanks for sticking through the bad, now piss off for the good..

Correct. And that's why Port have been in stasis for a decade and have critical leadership and cultural problems. Being nice people and giving nice contracts to nice footballers has ****ed us. We've turned into Adelaide. Urgh.

Look, I am not saying delist them, just if Port could move them on and it meant we could improve the list I would do it.

7 days ago you were the premiership favourites, now you want to trade out your list...strange.

Dutchy wrote:KT said that there would be a heap of re-signings post the China trip.....whats happening?

Never said when, just post-China

MW wrote:

morell wrote:

Zartan wrote:

morell wrote:That's all well and good but it doesn't help us win games and finals in 2018, 2019, 2020. We're a professional football club looking to win Premierships, not a social club looking to reward good blokes.

True, but at the same time don't you think Port would want to keep him on, given as Booney said he and Boak stayed on while the ship was sinking..

How does them staying on in 2012 help us win round 1 next year? They were rewarded for their loyalty with massive contracts. That's their reward. They don't get a pension as well. Unless, like a Hawthorn with Hodge, they win multiple flags and can guide the next crop on how to be a winner.

morell wrote:that sort of commitment/loyalty doesn't exist anymore.. would be pretty ruthless to turn around now the club is on the improve and say thanks for sticking through the bad, now piss off for the good..

Correct. And that's why Port have been in stasis for a decade and have critical leadership and cultural problems. Being nice people and giving nice contracts to nice footballers has ****ed us. We've turned into Adelaide. Urgh.

Look, I am not saying delist them, just if Port could move them on and it meant we could improve the list I would do it.

7 days ago you were the premiership favourites, now you want to trade out your list...strange.

Keep drinking the koolaid.

Most intelligent Port fans know there are some problems with the list... and again, I don't want to trade them out unless the goods coming back are considerable overs. Pittard and Trengove shouldn't be untouchable for the right price.

My preference would be to keep just about everyone and leverage the draft