Marshall ?

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Post Reply
terry smith rules
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2483
Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
Location: Abiding
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 349 times

Marshall ?

Post: # 1713446Post terry smith rules »

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


" 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
User avatar
Linton Lodger
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713447Post Linton Lodger »

He's a likely type, but I wouldn't rush it.


User avatar
skeptic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 16407
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
Has thanked: 3394 times
Been thanked: 2655 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713450Post skeptic »

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


User avatar
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 ?

Post: # 1713452Post parkeysainter »

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?


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
Moods
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 4755
Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
Has thanked: 309 times
Been thanked: 414 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713465Post Moods »

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


longtimesaint
Club Player
Posts: 1855
Joined: Thu 01 May 2008 6:30pm
Location: Mentone
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713468Post longtimesaint »

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
We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
McEvoy is better than what we have now but still well off the best ruckmen in the league.


One year will be our year
User avatar
Impatient Sainter
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 4082
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2016 3:30pm
Has thanked: 2620 times
Been thanked: 1076 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713469Post Impatient Sainter »

Has the makings of a good mobile ruckman but needs to seriously hit the gym and increase his strength and size.


Bruce G McAbee
Club Player
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2015 7:09pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713487Post Bruce G McAbee »

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.
User avatar
skeptic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 16407
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
Has thanked: 3394 times
Been thanked: 2655 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713496Post skeptic »

longtimesaint wrote:
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
We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
McEvoy is better than what we have now but still well off the best ruckmen in the league.
McEvoy to me is one of the great misunderstoods in a positive way (for him)

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


User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30034
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 700 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713500Post saintsRrising »

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
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..

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....
User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30034
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 700 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713501Post saintsRrising »

longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.

Acres was a different pick.


Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
User avatar
Joffa Burns
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7081
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
Has thanked: 1871 times
Been thanked: 1570 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713510Post Joffa Burns »

saintsRrising wrote:
longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.

Acres was a different pick.
Correct SRS, we got pick #17 which ended up #18 (drafted Dunstan) and Savage as the steak knives.
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.
User avatar
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 ?

Post: # 1713519Post Drake Huggins »

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
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.


"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."
User avatar
skeptic
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 16407
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
Has thanked: 3394 times
Been thanked: 2655 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713527Post skeptic »

Drake Huggins wrote:
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
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.
I'm just not a big fan of this concept...

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


User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30034
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 700 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713529Post saintsRrising »

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.
I think you are confused. We did not trade JOM for the picks that became Long, Battle and Coffield.

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....
User avatar
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 ?

Post: # 1713548Post Drake Huggins »

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."
User avatar
Joffa Burns
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7081
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
Has thanked: 1871 times
Been thanked: 1570 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713562Post Joffa Burns »

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.
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.
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.
User avatar
desertsaint
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10281
Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
Location: out there
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 675 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713565Post desertsaint »

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 starting point of all achievement is desire. "
User avatar
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 ?

Post: # 1713567Post parkeysainter »

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.
God we cleaned up on that O'Mera trade. Hunter Clark thank you very much Hawks. :D Plus you add our own pick in Coffield...good times when they both come on. They look the goods already and senior footballers.

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
longtimesaint
Club Player
Posts: 1855
Joined: Thu 01 May 2008 6:30pm
Location: Mentone
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713571Post longtimesaint »

saintsRrising wrote:
longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.

Acres was a different pick.
Not really as we received pick 18 (Dunstan) and pick 19 (Acres) as part of the McEvoy trade.
We gave up pick 24 in that trade but we were unlikely to get Acres for that pick.


One year will be our year
User avatar
desertsaint
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10281
Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
Location: out there
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 675 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713582Post desertsaint »

longtimesaint wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:
longtimesaint wrote: We did a lot better than that _we got Dunstan, Acres and Savage.
.
No the trade was for the Pick used to get Dunstan and Savage.

Acres was a different pick.
Not really as we received pick 18 (Dunstan) and pick 19 (Acres) as part of the McEvoy trade.
We gave up pick 24 in that trade but we were unlikely to get Acres for that pick.
i think the acres trade was seperate - pick 19 for our picks 24 and 59.


"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
User avatar
desertsaint
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10281
Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
Location: out there
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 675 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713584Post desertsaint »

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?


"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30034
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 700 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713626Post saintsRrising »

desertsaint wrote:
i think the acres trade was seperate - pick 19 for our picks 24 and 59.
You are correct.

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....
User avatar
groupie1
Club Player
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun 18 Jun 2006 4:21am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713633Post groupie1 »

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
Completely agree with your observations but I still think we should go with him for no. 1...
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
User avatar
SaintPav
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 18163
Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
Location: Alma Road
Has thanked: 1457 times
Been thanked: 1829 times

Re: Marshall ?

Post: # 1713636Post SaintPav »

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.


Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Post Reply