by Brodlach » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:48 am
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
by valleys07 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:03 am
Dutchy wrote:But could have picked up Brett Eddy a year earlier and saved $650k a year
by Booney » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:33 am
by Booney » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:00 pm
by Dutchy » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:23 pm
valleys07 wrote:Dutchy wrote:But could have picked up Brett Eddy a year earlier and saved $650k a year
And a 2016 forward line consisting of Brett Eddy and an injured Jay Schulz would have seen us end up where?
I agree with you on the fact that long term deals are becoming more of a frequent occurrence, and some B grade players are the beneficiaries of said deals. Are Port orphans here, or is it going to become industry trend?
Facts are that we could not have convinced Dixon to cross to us without dangling a carrot. Current form is suggesting we overpaid, and it might very well end up being the case, but it is a trade that Port Adelaide absolutely had to make.
It is worth noting that our issues up forward are as much coaching related & list management, as performance.
Hinkley went hard for Ryder at the end of 2014 to support Schulz, with the opinion of the general football public strongly believing Port were destined for at least a Grand Final appearance in 2015. Lobbe in the space of 6 months forgot how to play football, leaving Ken with no option but to play Ryder in the ruck and our forward line back to a Schulz lead structure, so when Dixon indicated he was interested in a move to us, we absolutely had to go for it to give Ken a crack at a 2-3 tall forward line
2016 was over before it began courtesy of ASADA, and when Lobbe, Carlisle and Schulz were done before round 6, we were down to 1 key forward, 1 key back and no recognised ruckman. But- instead of Hinkley playing the likes of Butcher to at least give Dixon support, he persisted with Dixon as the lone target, a structure he has gone on record multiple times saying he didn't want, and consequently had gone through two trade periods trying to fix.
Point is, for the first time since 2014 (touch wood), we might just get to see Port play to the structure Ken has wanted us to line up with since that Preliminary Final. Time will tell if Dixon and Eddy can work in sync, and Charlie can find himself in more 1 on 1 contests. What I want to see as a Port fan, and no doubt the coaching staff want to see it too, is our midfielders having the time and space to assess the most lopsided match up in our favour when entering our 50, rather than heading to Dixon literally 1 in every 3 entries.
by Dutchy » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:26 pm
Brodlach wrote:That talk about Eddy is clutching at straws Dutchy.
by Booney » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:46 pm
Dutchy wrote:valleys07 wrote:Dutchy wrote:But could have picked up Brett Eddy a year earlier and saved $650k a year
And a 2016 forward line consisting of Brett Eddy and an injured Jay Schulz would have seen us end up where?
I agree with you on the fact that long term deals are becoming more of a frequent occurrence, and some B grade players are the beneficiaries of said deals. Are Port orphans here, or is it going to become industry trend?
Facts are that we could not have convinced Dixon to cross to us without dangling a carrot. Current form is suggesting we overpaid, and it might very well end up being the case, but it is a trade that Port Adelaide absolutely had to make.
It is worth noting that our issues up forward are as much coaching related & list management, as performance.
Hinkley went hard for Ryder at the end of 2014 to support Schulz, with the opinion of the general football public strongly believing Port were destined for at least a Grand Final appearance in 2015. Lobbe in the space of 6 months forgot how to play football, leaving Ken with no option but to play Ryder in the ruck and our forward line back to a Schulz lead structure, so when Dixon indicated he was interested in a move to us, we absolutely had to go for it to give Ken a crack at a 2-3 tall forward line
2016 was over before it began courtesy of ASADA, and when Lobbe, Carlisle and Schulz were done before round 6, we were down to 1 key forward, 1 key back and no recognised ruckman. But- instead of Hinkley playing the likes of Butcher to at least give Dixon support, he persisted with Dixon as the lone target, a structure he has gone on record multiple times saying he didn't want, and consequently had gone through two trade periods trying to fix.
Point is, for the first time since 2014 (touch wood), we might just get to see Port play to the structure Ken has wanted us to line up with since that Preliminary Final. Time will tell if Dixon and Eddy can work in sync, and Charlie can find himself in more 1 on 1 contests. What I want to see as a Port fan, and no doubt the coaching staff want to see it too, is our midfielders having the time and space to assess the most lopsided match up in our favour when entering our 50, rather than heading to Dixon literally 1 in every 3 entries.
Good post, understand why they did it, but a massive risk IMO, which could end up holding you back for another period. How much of the cap would him and Ryder be taking? Thats going to put the squeeze on the other key players on the list, especially with few retirements on the horizon.
by stan » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:16 pm
Dutchy wrote:Brodlach wrote:That talk about Eddy is clutching at straws Dutchy.
It was an option and he had been spoken about for a few years now, now he has been promoted to the senior list and will follow his progress with interest. If he kicks more goals than Dixon this year the heat will really be on.
by Dutchy » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:50 pm
by Jim05 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:59 pm
Booney wrote:Dutchy wrote:valleys07 wrote:Dutchy wrote:But could have picked up Brett Eddy a year earlier and saved $650k a year
And a 2016 forward line consisting of Brett Eddy and an injured Jay Schulz would have seen us end up where?
I agree with you on the fact that long term deals are becoming more of a frequent occurrence, and some B grade players are the beneficiaries of said deals. Are Port orphans here, or is it going to become industry trend?
Facts are that we could not have convinced Dixon to cross to us without dangling a carrot. Current form is suggesting we overpaid, and it might very well end up being the case, but it is a trade that Port Adelaide absolutely had to make.
It is worth noting that our issues up forward are as much coaching related & list management, as performance.
Hinkley went hard for Ryder at the end of 2014 to support Schulz, with the opinion of the general football public strongly believing Port were destined for at least a Grand Final appearance in 2015. Lobbe in the space of 6 months forgot how to play football, leaving Ken with no option but to play Ryder in the ruck and our forward line back to a Schulz lead structure, so when Dixon indicated he was interested in a move to us, we absolutely had to go for it to give Ken a crack at a 2-3 tall forward line
2016 was over before it began courtesy of ASADA, and when Lobbe, Carlisle and Schulz were done before round 6, we were down to 1 key forward, 1 key back and no recognised ruckman. But- instead of Hinkley playing the likes of Butcher to at least give Dixon support, he persisted with Dixon as the lone target, a structure he has gone on record multiple times saying he didn't want, and consequently had gone through two trade periods trying to fix.
Point is, for the first time since 2014 (touch wood), we might just get to see Port play to the structure Ken has wanted us to line up with since that Preliminary Final. Time will tell if Dixon and Eddy can work in sync, and Charlie can find himself in more 1 on 1 contests. What I want to see as a Port fan, and no doubt the coaching staff want to see it too, is our midfielders having the time and space to assess the most lopsided match up in our favour when entering our 50, rather than heading to Dixon literally 1 in every 3 entries.
Good post, understand why they did it, but a massive risk IMO, which could end up holding you back for another period. How much of the cap would him and Ryder be taking? Thats going to put the squeeze on the other key players on the list, especially with few retirements on the horizon.
Butcher, Schulz and Carlile would have been middle-to upper middle wage bracket.Stewart and O'Shea middle-to lower.Mitchell and Colquhoun base.
I would have estimated the first three 250k+, the next two 150k+ and the last two base. On those numbers that was a bit over $1.1-1.3 we dropped off the cap last year. No trades in 2016 so only base wage / rookies on board.
So if we freed up $1.1-1.3 and brought in 6 base / rookies under / on $100k, that would be anywhere from $500k-$800k ( or more ) that we're "up" depending on how much Butch, Schulz and Carlile were getting. I'll add Monfries to the list, his 1 year deal would be nothing compared to his first deal with us.
by Wedgie » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:27 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Lightning McQueen » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:25 am
Wedgie wrote:Thank Christ the season is starting, hopefully it distracts Rucci from his ongoing cause of promoting Koch v Hinkley which wasnt even an event almost two months ago when they said what they said. Yet another non article in the paper today.
by am Bays » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:29 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:Wedgie wrote:Thank Christ the season is starting, hopefully it distracts Rucci from his ongoing cause of promoting Koch v Hinkley which wasnt even an event almost two months ago when they said what they said. Yet another non article in the paper today.
I wonder if even he reads his own shit.
by amber_fluid » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:30 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:Wedgie wrote:Thank Christ the season is starting, hopefully it distracts Rucci from his ongoing cause of promoting Koch v Hinkley which wasnt even an event almost two months ago when they said what they said. Yet another non article in the paper today.
I wonder if even he reads his own shit.
by Wedgie » Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:44 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by stan » Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:07 am
Wedgie wrote:Had my first look at Powell-Pepper last night. Wow, super impressive at his age. Power supporters must be very excited.
by wristwatcher » Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:51 am
by Booney » Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:27 pm
by Wedgie » Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:30 pm
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by Booney » Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:32 pm
Wedgie wrote:Had my first look at Powell-Pepper last night. Wow, super impressive at his age. Power supporters must be very excited.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |