Marshall ?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2532
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 171 times
- Been thanked: 382 times
Marshall ?
I see many calling for him to be our ruck in round 1. Look I hope he turns out a beauty, he looks big and athletic but some reality please
He played 38% of the game v Melbourne. He needs lots of physical development yet. You could see him tiring in that Melbourne game and when he did Gawn completely got hold of him.
Playing a full game against the big men Martin, Jacobs etc he will be ragdolled. Maybe against Cats with Zac Smith but not the monsters.
Fqf
He played 38% of the game v Melbourne. He needs lots of physical development yet. You could see him tiring in that Melbourne game and when he did Gawn completely got hold of him.
Playing a full game against the big men Martin, Jacobs etc he will be ragdolled. Maybe against Cats with Zac Smith but not the monsters.
Fqf
" A few will never give up on you. When you go back out on the field, those are the people I want in your minds. Those are the people I want in your hearts."
— Coach Eric Taylor - Friday Night Lights
— Coach Eric Taylor - Friday Night Lights
- Linton Lodger
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm
- Has thanked: 86 times
- Been thanked: 256 times
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16965
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3612 times
- Been thanked: 2885 times
Re: Marshall ?
I think this is more a response to where we are at with rucks
Longer is a superior tap ruckman that doesn’t do enough around the ground
Hickey is in badform/fitness and is hopeless in the ruck but can be great around the ground
Pierce nobody knows if he really exists or if the club pretended to draft made up player to pocket the extra money
And this ruck issue has dragged on for years with the c,Ossetia we have to a viable solution being Gilbert and Bruce as back up which is not working.
Add in to this that fans want to see something new and Marshall actually looks promising
Longer is a superior tap ruckman that doesn’t do enough around the ground
Hickey is in badform/fitness and is hopeless in the ruck but can be great around the ground
Pierce nobody knows if he really exists or if the club pretended to draft made up player to pocket the extra money
And this ruck issue has dragged on for years with the c,Ossetia we have to a viable solution being Gilbert and Bruce as back up which is not working.
Add in to this that fans want to see something new and Marshall actually looks promising
- parkeysainter
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2017 2:59am
- Location: Brighton Beach Mansion
- Has thanked: 84 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Marshall ?
Agree with everyone regarding Marshall and Longer and Hickey.
s***...could we steal a ruckman from someone else at the end of this year that can do everything?
s***...could we steal a ruckman from someone else at the end of this year that can do everything?
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4916
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 335 times
- Been thanked: 483 times
Re: Marshall ?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But the trade of McEvoy isn't looking as prudent as it did at the time. McEvoy has developed into a quality ruckman. Something we desperately need. We traded him for some mids (Dunstan I think) and one other. In any event it appears you can only look at trades/draft picks 5 years down the track. We're 5 years on and I reckon the hawks won that trade comfortably
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: Thu 01 May 2008 6:30pm
- Location: Mentone
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 265 times
Re: Marshall ?
We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.Moods wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But the trade of McEvoy isn't looking as prudent as it did at the time. McEvoy has developed into a quality ruckman. Something we desperately need. We traded him for some mids (Dunstan I think) and one other. In any event it appears you can only look at trades/draft picks 5 years down the track. We're 5 years on and I reckon the hawks won that trade comfortably
McEvoy is better than what we have now but still well off the best ruckmen in the league.
One year will be our year
- Impatient Sainter
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4089
- Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2016 3:30pm
- Has thanked: 2622 times
- Been thanked: 1078 times
Re: Marshall ?
Has the makings of a good mobile ruckman but needs to seriously hit the gym and increase his strength and size.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2189
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2015 7:09pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 201 times
Re: Marshall ?
I am not saying that he should be our 1st ruck, but our 2nd ruck alternating between the interchange and forward line.
Think of me long enough to make a memory.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16965
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3612 times
- Been thanked: 2885 times
Re: Marshall ?
McEvoy to me is one of the great misunderstoods in a positive way (for him)longtimesaint wrote:We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.Moods wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But the trade of McEvoy isn't looking as prudent as it did at the time. McEvoy has developed into a quality ruckman. Something we desperately need. We traded him for some mids (Dunstan I think) and one other. In any event it appears you can only look at trades/draft picks 5 years down the track. We're 5 years on and I reckon the hawks won that trade comfortably
McEvoy is better than what we have now but still well off the best ruckmen in the league.
I don't know that I saw anything from him at Hawthorn to suggest that he was any better there than he was with us.
He was an average ruck that had a great ability to drop behind the play and take contested marks... which was always his strength
He got a chop out in the ruck from that former North Ruckman (whose name escapes me) and played in the most dynamic and dominant midfield of the current era that covered up his deficiencies and made people think he was a superb player when he was okay at best for the majority of his career.
Minus one quarter in a Grandfinal vs WCE (IIRC) where he was great, he's always been an average to mediocre ruck but an excellent drop behind play player. Vertainly not a player that would help us with where we're at.
We have made plenty of mistakes over time but that is definitely not one of them
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30092
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1234 times
Re: Marshall ?
Trade was fora pick (Dunstan) and "Steak Knives". Savage has been in our top 4 players in virtually every game since coming back into the side last year. And looking at his form to date in AFLX and the JLT he looks like staying in our best players this year..Moods wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But the trade of McEvoy isn't looking as prudent as it did at the time. McEvoy has developed into a quality ruckman. Something we desperately need. We traded him for some mids (Dunstan I think) and one other. In any event it appears you can only look at trades/draft picks 5 years down the track. We're 5 years on and I reckon the hawks won that trade comfortably
At almost 28 last year Big Ben had a very good year last season, his best. Mind you last year was a pretty average year for ruck competition with Gawn, Nic Nat and Mummy all injured.
But his first 3 at the Hawks were nothing to rave about. Steady at best. Dropped at times.
Now would Big Ben make an real difference if we still had him? I suspect not.
In 2 years time will he at his best which is when we will need our ruckman to be? Maybe, maybe not....
Personally I think that this trade has been a fair one for both StKilda and the Hawks.
Last edited by saintsRrising on Mon 12 Mar 2018 7:10pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30092
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1234 times
Re: Marshall ?
No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
Acres was a different pick.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Marshall ?
Correct SRS, we got pick #17 which ended up #18 (drafted Dunstan) and Savage as the steak knives.saintsRrising wrote:No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
Acres was a different pick.
At this stage the Hawks win but we may break even or win over the journey.
No idea how trading a quality person who was well liked at the club affected the other players at the time.
Not our worst trade but not a great trade either given we traded #25 & #41 in the same draft to the Lions for Longer.
We may well have got Dunstan with #25 and traded #41 to Hawks for Savage so if you look at Longer for McEvoy we definitely lose.
A bit like the Stanley trade, I though #21 was a pretty good return (probably overs) but its how you use the pick that counts.
Goddard may make it but at this stage he has a long way to go.
Getting #21 for Stanley makes #17 & Savage for McEvoy look a pretty good trade for the Hawks.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- Drake Huggins
- Club Player
- Posts: 906
- Joined: Wed 04 Oct 2017 4:28pm
- Location: The G.G. Huggins Stand
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Marshall ?
As they nearly always do. Our trade of the century won't look so good when O'Meara starts tearing it up, either. We did OK out of it gaining Nick Coffield, but it will end up being a draw at best, if Long and Battle don't turn out to be guns. Battle maybe. Long? Long odds.Moods wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But the trade of McEvoy isn't looking as prudent as it did at the time. McEvoy has developed into a quality ruckman. Something we desperately need. We traded him for some mids (Dunstan I think) and one other. In any event it appears you can only look at trades/draft picks 5 years down the track. We're 5 years on and I reckon the hawks won that trade comfortably
"Is this the right room for an argument?"
"I told you once."
"No, you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"Listen, an argument isn't just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says, it's a series of statements designed to support a particular conclusion."
"No, it isn't."
"Oh, I've had enough of this."
"No you haven't"
"Oh shut up."
"I told you once."
"No, you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"Listen, an argument isn't just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says, it's a series of statements designed to support a particular conclusion."
"No, it isn't."
"Oh, I've had enough of this."
"No you haven't"
"Oh shut up."
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16965
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3612 times
- Been thanked: 2885 times
Re: Marshall ?
I'm just not a big fan of this concept...Drake Huggins wrote:As they nearly always do. Our trade of the century won't look so good when O'Meara starts tearing it up, either. We did OK out of it gaining Nick Coffield, but it will end up being a draw at best, if Long and Battle don't turn out to be guns. Battle maybe. Long? Long odds.Moods wrote:Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But the trade of McEvoy isn't looking as prudent as it did at the time. McEvoy has developed into a quality ruckman. Something we desperately need. We traded him for some mids (Dunstan I think) and one other. In any event it appears you can only look at trades/draft picks 5 years down the track. We're 5 years on and I reckon the hawks won that trade comfortably
Unless you think it's a bad trade at the time e.g. overpaid, how can the trade be bad if you pick the wrong player
If we trade Mav Weller for pick 1 and take a dud with that pick... it's still hardly a bad trade
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30092
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1234 times
Re: Marshall ?
I think you are confused. We did not trade JOM for the picks that became Long, Battle and Coffield.Drake Huggins wrote: As they nearly always do. Our trade of the century won't look so good when O'Meara starts tearing it up, either. We did OK out of it gaining Nick Coffield, but it will end up being a draw at best, if Long and Battle don't turn out to be guns. Battle maybe. Long? Long odds.
The Hawks also traded not just the pick No.10 gained from us for Jaeger O'Meara, but also its own 2017 second-round pick to Gold Coast. But again this is irrelevant to what we gave up and gained.
Effectively we swapped Long, Battle and Coffield for one of Bowes, Florent or Jy Simpkin. And I am more than happy with that.
How well JOM goes or does not goes is completely irrelevant.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- Drake Huggins
- Club Player
- Posts: 906
- Joined: Wed 04 Oct 2017 4:28pm
- Location: The G.G. Huggins Stand
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Marshall ?
What? Pick 10 was used to secure O'Meara. How you can say he wasn't critical to that trade? 10 to the Hawks . The future first rounder, 25 and 39, which we used on Long and Battle. So Battle Long and Coffield for Florent for us. JOM to Hawks. Simple. I think you're the one who is confused or deluded as to what it cost us.
"Is this the right room for an argument?"
"I told you once."
"No, you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"Listen, an argument isn't just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says, it's a series of statements designed to support a particular conclusion."
"No, it isn't."
"Oh, I've had enough of this."
"No you haven't"
"Oh shut up."
"I told you once."
"No, you didn't."
"Yes, I did."
"Listen, an argument isn't just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says, it's a series of statements designed to support a particular conclusion."
"No, it isn't."
"Oh, I've had enough of this."
"No you haven't"
"Oh shut up."
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Marshall ?
It is impossible to argue this trade was heavily weighted in our favor given the point value system which landed us (from memory) about 1,000 points in front.Drake Huggins wrote:What? Pick 10 was used to secure O'Meara. How you can say he wasn't critical to that trade? 10 to the Hawks . The future first rounder, 25 and 39, which we used on Long and Battle. So Battle Long and Coffield for Florent for us. JOM to Hawks. Simple. I think you're the one who is confused or deluded as to what it cost us.
Other clubs were touting the AFL should not have allowed it to proceed as it was so one sided.
The secondary issue that is in no way related to the trade value is our recruiting staff and their ability pick AFL players with these picks.
Personally I have never seen Battle as having the goods to be an AFL player (looking forward to be wrong) and was hoping to see a little more from Long given he was a relatively mature age draftee.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10424
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 713 times
Re: Marshall ?
confused we are even arguing this great trade - picks 10 and 68 for 23, 36, and what became pick 8 (2017). O'meara wasn't coming to the Saints, so as said, likely we'd have got Florent or Simpkin (if we'd have picked one).
the mcevoy trade was also a great trade. worked out for both clubs - ben was much maligned on here for being a plodder who lost almost all his ruck duels. did alright around the ground. hickey's 2016 was a much better year than mcevoy ever gave us. at the hawks he has been a journeyman - in as a result of no competition. would be doing much the same for us and still being criticised. I'll take savage and dunstan over him any day.
the mcevoy trade was also a great trade. worked out for both clubs - ben was much maligned on here for being a plodder who lost almost all his ruck duels. did alright around the ground. hickey's 2016 was a much better year than mcevoy ever gave us. at the hawks he has been a journeyman - in as a result of no competition. would be doing much the same for us and still being criticised. I'll take savage and dunstan over him any day.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- parkeysainter
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2017 2:59am
- Location: Brighton Beach Mansion
- Has thanked: 84 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Marshall ?
God we cleaned up on that O'Mera trade. Hunter Clark thank you very much Hawks. Plus you add our own pick in Coffield...good times when they both come on. They look the goods already and senior footballers.desertsaint wrote:confused we are even arguing this great trade - picks 10 and 68 for 23, 36, and what became pick 8 (2017). O'meara wasn't coming to the Saints, so as said, likely we'd have got Florent or Simpkin (if we'd have picked one).
the mcevoy trade was also a great trade. worked out for both clubs - ben was much maligned on here for being a plodder who lost almost all his ruck duels. did alright around the ground. hickey's 2016 was a much better year than mcevoy ever gave us. at the hawks he has been a journeyman - in as a result of no competition. would be doing much the same for us and still being criticised. I'll take savage and dunstan over him any day.
McEvoy trade was good too. We got both Savage and Dunstan who are now good regulars and play small positions. Both sides won from that.
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: Thu 01 May 2008 6:30pm
- Location: Mentone
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 265 times
Re: Marshall ?
Not really as we received pick 18 (Dunstan) and pick 19 (Acres) as part of the McEvoy trade.saintsRrising wrote:No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
Acres was a different pick.
We gave up pick 24 in that trade but we were unlikely to get Acres for that pick.
One year will be our year
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10424
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 713 times
Re: Marshall ?
i think the acres trade was seperate - pick 19 for our picks 24 and 59.longtimesaint wrote:Not really as we received pick 18 (Dunstan) and pick 19 (Acres) as part of the McEvoy trade.saintsRrising wrote:No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
Acres was a different pick.
We gave up pick 24 in that trade but we were unlikely to get Acres for that pick.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10424
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 713 times
Re: Marshall ?
if anyone's hunting for a what if trade - we got longer and 48 for our 25 and 41.
Merret went 26. Aliir Aliir went 44, Ben Brown went 47. we traded 48 for bruce though. So not terrible, and what odds we would have picked either of them?
Merret went 26. Aliir Aliir went 44, Ben Brown went 47. we traded 48 for bruce though. So not terrible, and what odds we would have picked either of them?
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30092
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1234 times
Re: Marshall ?
You are correct.desertsaint wrote:
i think the acres trade was seperate - pick 19 for our picks 24 and 59.
You can view it as one large trade if you wish, but you have to factor in all the picks swapped and not just it all being for Ben.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
- groupie1
- Club Player
- Posts: 1274
- Joined: Sun 18 Jun 2006 4:21am
- Has thanked: 16 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
Re: Marshall ?
Completely agree with your observations but I still think we should go with him for no. 1...terry smith rules wrote:I see many calling for him to be our ruck in round 1. Look I hope he turns out a beauty, he looks big and athletic but some reality please
He played 38% of the game v Melbourne. He needs lots of physical development yet. You could see him tiring in that Melbourne game and when he did Gawn completely got hold of him.
Playing a full game against the big men Martin, Jacobs etc he will be ragdolled. Maybe against Cats with Zac Smith but not the monsters.
Fqf
Reasoning:
1/ Our ruckmen are s***, lets face it
2/ If Membrey, Bruce and McCartin all play, Bruce can do a good amount of ruck work
3/ If, which I hope doesn't, they persist selecting that dude who hasn't taken a mark since 2008 and has never been able to kick - what's his name again? Oh, yeah, Gilbert... he can also do some tappin'.
4/ Not difficult to establish a game plan where you have 3 rucks: Marshall covers the center, Bruce the front and Carlisle/Logan/Brown/Gilbert in D. What you lose in terms of having a FT big bodied ruckman, you gain plenty on the ground, and basically create an extra player.
5/ spirit of risk-taking and moving forward. Sure... bring in Longer against the particularly big brutes, but there are plenty of teams without a genuine experienced ruckman that is a monster and THAT IS ALSO OFFENSIVELY THREATENING: Gawn, Nic Nat, Ryder, Jacobs... - top of my head those are the only 4 ruckman for whom I'd want Billy Longer in the team. (Genuine top of my head - I may have missed someone). I wouldn't worry about McEvoy and the Hawks, NM are also young in the ruck and not a strong team, Sandilands will out-tap anyone anyway, Richmond, Geelong, Bulldogs have seen success without a true star ruckman.
6/ If it doesn't work, go back to Plan A
7/ We'll appreciate having Marshall play 20 games by the time 2019 rolls around.
Gordon Fode couldda been Plugga
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18998
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1593 times
- Been thanked: 1999 times
Re: Marshall ?
Love the way Marshall moves and you can just see he’s got something special.
Have to be realistic though, he’s not quite there yet to play week in, week out. They need to give him 8-10 games this year.
Have to be realistic though, he’s not quite there yet to play week in, week out. They need to give him 8-10 games this year.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.