Gee I don't know Einstein
Good third option up forward. Who will kick our goals if Jack goes down. U? It seems only a few of us have a clue on here, urself and that BJ fella are not 2 of them unfortunately.
Pick 50 is definitely worth a gamble and we could've had better picks had we traded out
Pretty petty to go for an individual attack simply because I disagree with you. But anyway -
We have the current listed at third forward (and this DOES NOT include resting ruckam - which will play a greater role next season with capped rotation):
Edwards, Elton, Griffiths, Knights (maybe) and McBean. My question to you is in two parts. Given the hypothetical situation above, if Jack does go down, is Karnezis more qualified than any of the above to step up? I remind you that this happened once last year, and whilst it was against GWS, we still kicked our highest score of the season. By a long way. By the way, this is someone who has played midfield in the Brisbane 2's for 3 years, and has played a total of how many games for Brisbane? Which has a fairly suspect forward line already. Keep in mind, McGuane (who wasn't in our best 22 come the end of the year) when up there to fill a role that Karnezis couldn't get a regular game in - at a worst side.
Second, whats the cap hit for us? Its obvious we are tight with the cap, and the fact that Karnezis would cost more to us in a dollar sense than pick 50. The reason Collingwood can pick up Adams, Jesse White and Karnezis? They lost approximately $2 million from their cap when they lost Shaw, Thomas, Didak, Johnson and Jolly. We have lost McGuane, but have re-signed Martin and Conca, whilst also grabbing Hampson and saving ourselves space to re-sign Ellis, Vlastuin etc in the coming years. We are also coming off signing in the last 18 months, Cotchin, Deledio, Riewoldt, Rance and Chaplin.
Now because you called me Einstein, heres what I'm going to do. Anyone worth there salt in a counter argument will bring up my avocation for Hampson at pick 28 come 32. And you should say something like "RFC have set a precedent of trading picks for players - and Karnezis at 50 odd is as good - if not better than Hampson at 32" Which in theory, would be a good counter-argument, however, the reality of that situation is ruckman now a-days are a different than almost any other position on the ground. Firstly and foremostly, there has generally been one ruckman with a pseudo-ruckman who rests forward and then pinch hits in the ruck. A vast majority (we are talking roughly 60% of all substitutions not made due to injury) is for the second ruckman halfway through the third quarter. Now again, remember that the cap has come in at 120, about 15 rotations below the league average. What does this mean? It means there will be forced "resting" of players in the forward half. This is why a second ruckman is important (what happens if Maric goes down? You ruck Vickery and who relieves him and how does our forward structure look?). Hampson, whilst not a perfect second ruckman for this role, can service it in the short to medium-term. Giving players like McBean, Griffiths and Elton time to develop. What I am saying is that experienced developed ruckman have more currency (justifiably) than a third tall.
Now, the counter-argument to that is why not keep the pick and develop a ruckman at that pick - or alternatively, develop a player for that position currently on our list. The players we have (I'd argue maybe 2, but I did list 3) are McBean, Griffiths and Elton. All of whom are not ready to help this team which 1.5 extra games and get us top 4 yet. Unless you move one forward, and make Vickery the third tall. But again, I do not think they are ready yet. Also, the currency for rucks in the AFL come draft time are not great. Grundy was a steal at 19 no doubt, but he slid to 19 for a reason. Very few teams are willing to take a ruckman in the first round because of the development that is required for them to compete in the AFL, let alone for a team that is looking to be top 4 and play Finals.
Ultimately, that's what it comes down too. Money and need. If we don't need them, or it is fiscally a poor move, then don't do it.
