This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Dangles wrote:The bottom line is that's it better to have two quality ruckmen on your list. Because if you only have the one and he gets injured you're screwed.
Correct weight.
You'd have to be mad to trade one of 2 ruckman. Hawthorn have at least 3. The concept of trading some quality for a good pick is a good idea. However, when there are only 2 Ruckman then that idea is less than satisfactory.
Get an extra draft pick at what cost? To pick another Ruckman given the team would be one Ruckman down?
This isn't that complicated . A best 22 only requires one ruck. We currently have two able to fit that bill. Maybe both can play together maybe not, but it's possible the best position for both is first ruck.
If there was a player we desperately wanted and we needed to give up a quality player then Witts is our most tradeable and valuable asset. Of course, we still need a backup to Grundy, so we would either need to trade for a mature ruck content to play as second fiddle or see if one can be got in free agency.
Overall we'd be far more inclined to keep Witts than trade him given how promising a player he is and the amount of development we've put in. A trade would only happen under very specific circumstances (we could find a good backup ruck and there was a quality player we desperately wanted).
This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble.
Member 7167 wrote:This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble.
Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion.
Shoved it up a few critics arses today, big rethink on us now, to say the least, very strong victory over a strong team, real team effort, but speccial mention to clokey, oxley, langdon, swannie, pendles, and taylor adams was terrific, jesse had a red hot go too. Now for a rest, and if we could win two out of our next four we are well on our way
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
Member 7167 wrote:This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble.
Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion.
it's only unworthy to those who don't get what you are saying.
Dangles wrote:The bottom line is that's it better to have two quality ruckmen on your list. Because if you only have the one and he gets injured you're screwed.
Correct weight.
You'd have to be mad to trade one of 2 ruckman. Hawthorn have at least 3. The concept of trading some quality for a good pick is a good idea. However, when there are only 2 Ruckman then that idea is less than satisfactory.
Get an extra draft pick at what cost? To pick another Ruckman given the team would be one Ruckman down?
This isn't that complicated . A best 22 only requires one ruck. We currently have two able to fit that bill. Maybe both can play together maybe not, but it's possible the best position for both is first ruck.
If there was a player we desperately wanted and we needed to give up a quality player then Witts is our most tradeable and valuable asset. Of course, we still need a backup to Grundy, so we would either need to trade for a mature ruck content to play as second fiddle or see if one can be got in free agency.
Overall we'd be far more inclined to keep Witts than trade him given how promising a player he is and the amount of development we've put in. A trade would only happen under very specific circumstances (we could find a good backup ruck and there was a quality player we desperately wanted).
Que? I demand a drug test
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Member 7167 wrote:This is not rocket science guys. You need more than 1 ruck unless you can guarantee that your main ruck will never get injured and that simply is not reality
If Grundy and Witts continue to develop they will both be in the top 22 long term if they both stay fit. Witts will be the main ruck and Grundy who is a lot better at ground level and is much more versatile will play relief ruck and will spend significant time in the forward line.
As I have said many time, if they both continue to develop and stay fit as a ruck duo we will be the envy of the AFL. The potential outcome is worth the investment and gamble.
Absolutely, and this is almost certainly what will happen. The alternative though is not so ridiculous as to be unworthy of discussion.
it's only unworthy to those who don't get what you are saying.
On the contrary, it is a very easy idea to understand - for all of us. Just the idea in the range of ideas is not the best or the smartest.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Dangles wrote:The bottom line is that's it better to have two quality ruckmen on your list. Because if you only have the one and he gets injured you're screwed.
Correct weight.
You'd have to be mad to trade one of 2 ruckman. Hawthorn have at least 3. The concept of trading some quality for a good pick is a good idea. However, when there are only 2 Ruckman then that idea is less than satisfactory.
Get an extra draft pick at what cost? To pick another Ruckman given the team would be one Ruckman down?
This isn't that complicated .
Wouldn't think so but some appear to be really struggling.
Back to the game: Goldy tres ordinaries and Seedy very poor again, Tooves quiet but his opponent was even more quiet so all good there, Fas also quiet but kept working so that's also good.
Last edited by roar on Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. A best 22 only requires one ruck. We currently have two able to fit that bill. Maybe both can play together maybe not, but it's possible the best position for both is first ruck. 
