Rank our forwards

[Infamy]

i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it.  yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.

Ever thought it may be that our key forwards are very young and as such won't be able to play out a full season holding down the position?
Given all ruckmen are going to have to develop an extra position, I see no reason why we can't develop Vickery as a forward while he grows into his body, he always reminded me of Spida Everitt as a youngster anyway and he was very handy up forward

[tony_montana]

having a laugh. we took vickery at 8 because we desperately needed a quality ruckman. we were going to be patient and develop him.
what has changed  not the rule change surely. we are still in need of a high quality ruckman yet all of a sudden vickery is a forward. its so funny no its mute talk about head in the sand stuff. is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed  that says oops no hes not a ruckman but a forward.
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it.  yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.

is no one even  going to question this. talk about sheep what dimma and those gods in charge do and say must be good.

stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover   ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem?  ??? talk about a misinformed beatup  

[Smokey]

stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover   ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem?  ??? talk about a misinformed beatup  

 

Yep.   

[mat073]

I am pretty sure that when Richmond drafted Vickery he weighed 89 kgs....Now two years later he is 95 kg.

Surely that is a step in the right direction.Maybe in 2014 after he turns 24 he might be over 100 kg and able to compete with the big boys.

[the claw]

having a laugh. we took vickery at 8 because we desperately needed a quality ruckman. we were going to be patient and develop him.
what has changed  not the rule change surely. we are still in need of a high quality ruckman yet all of a sudden vickery is a forward. its so funny no its mute talk about head in the sand stuff. is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed  that says oops no hes not a ruckman but a forward.
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it.  yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.

is no one even  going to question this. talk about sheep what dimma and those gods in charge do and say must be good.

stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover   ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem?  ??? talk about a misinformed beatup  

as usual ferals dont see..

the point being made is if vickery plays as a forward what do we do with taylor griffiths post.
i see you think we can play all of jack vickery griffiths taylor and post in the one team.
let vickery be a ruckman develop him at coburg where he belongs in performing the ruck role atm. let the genuine forwards play in their positions. common sense says you would rather see all of post jck griffiths and taylor play as a kp in front of vickery.

common sense says vickery is the one ruckman on the list who may be quality the others are plodders.
the whole idea of drafting vickery was to try and find a RUCKMAN OF QUALITY of the cox ilk. instead we are hell bent on playing battlers in the role and to top it off by playing vickery as a forward stop the development of a real kpp. when vickery is ready bring him in as a ruckman bloody hell we really need to find a quality ruckman and we sure as hell need to play our genuine kpfs.

if we are so hell bent on finding a support ruckman in the interim  play griffiths or post in the role.

[Infamy]

Vickery was never going to be a Cox (midfielder) type, he was always a ruckman/forward

[the claw]

Vickery was never going to be a Cox (midfielder) type, he was always a ruckman/forward

what rubbish he was drafted for his run and agility .  but your right he was drafted primarily as a ruckman who could go forward and perhaps kick a goal or two just like all ruckmen are expected to.

here we have atm 3 talls who are physically ready to go jack 195/93. griffiths 198/98 post 195/95 these blokes dont desperately need to bulk up to compete they are there already. all can mark.

take a look at vickery still undersized lacking ticker ave just 8 possesions a game and takes about 1.7 marks a game. and you people want to place him as a permanent forward in whos place, its laugable.
you people want to load up the forward line with dinosaurs with little or no regard to run and pace in the forward half.not a mention. just sheep following the line of the club.

[Penelope]

I think hardwick has decided that with the new interchange rules you want your ruckmen to also be forwards (or backs?) rather than resting on the bench.

For what it's worth i agree about him playing at coburg, he doesn't seem ready yet.

I gather the thinking is that you don't get as physically punished as a forward (or anywhere else) as you do in the ruck. I'd imagine he'd only do short stints in the ruck, being more of a forward that has runs on the ball.

I'd reckon he'd more than likely be competing for a spot with the likes of post rather than playing along side him. Derickx, possibly, as well.

Griffiths seems to be earmarked long term as FF. I couldn't see him rucking with the shoulder problems he has had.

But don't confuse what people say they think should/will happen with what Hardwick actually does.

[tony_montana]

having a laugh. we took vickery at 8 because we desperately needed a quality ruckman. we were going to be patient and develop him.
what has changed  not the rule change surely. we are still in need of a high quality ruckman yet all of a sudden vickery is a forward. its so funny no its mute talk about head in the sand stuff. is no one asking why we took vickery at 8. what all of a sudden has changed  that says oops no hes not a ruckman but a forward.
i know what it is but ferals dont want to hear it.  yep lets play all of post riewoldt griffiths taylor and now vickery as forwards. geez i reckon we have been there done that.

is no one even  going to question this. talk about sheep what dimma and those gods in charge do and say must be good.

stop thinking you are the only one that sees "the truth" and that everyone else is blinded like a first time lover   ....As you are perfectly aware (and have even stated on another site you hypocrite) Vickery is still an undersized ruckman and another preseason or 2 way from legitimately being able to ruck against the big boys. Thus playing him as more of a forward than ruckman this year eases the physical load on him and allows him to develop his body without gettin banged up AND he can still ruck in small bursts which is pefect for where hes at.. So whats the problem?  ??? talk about a misinformed beatup  

as usual ferals dont see..

the point being made is if vickery plays as a forward what do we do with taylor griffiths post.
i see you think we can play all of jack vickery griffiths taylor and post in the one team.
let vickery be a ruckman develop him at coburg where he belongs in performing the ruck role atm. let the genuine forwards play in their positions. common sense says you would rather see all of post jck griffiths and taylor play as a kp in front of vickery.

common sense says vickery is the one ruckman on the list who may be quality the others are plodders.
the whole idea of drafting vickery was to try and find a RUCKMAN OF QUALITY of the cox ilk. instead we are hell bent on playing battlers in the role and to top it off by playing vickery as a forward stop the development of a real kpp. when vickery is ready bring him in as a ruckman bloody hell we really need to find a quality ruckman and we sure as hell need to play our genuine kpfs.

if we are so hell bent on finding a support ruckman in the interim  play griffiths or post in the role.

Its called rotating all those young developing fwds throughout the season brightspark, bc common sense suggests not all of them will be playing in the same fwd line each and every week... common sense suggests they will all at some stage need to go back to coburg for development in the twos for extended periods this season, so once again in the name of common sense whats the problem?