Dr.SHERRIN wrote:
zeecfc wrote:
Rumour on BigFooty from a very reliable poster with a great source is ....
There's no such thing.
that poster posts more accurate Blues mail than everyone on any of the forums combined
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Hampson v Jacobs http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28698 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Siegfried [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hampson v Jacobs |
There seems to be some discussion over whether Hampson or Jacobs should be the second ruckman. More importantly, there is the question of whether we should trade one of our 4 ruckmen, and if so, which? I'll start the ball rolling... I think we should trade one. Four is too many, when Kreuzer comes back, we will have 2 potential quality ruckmen languishing in the twos. At the moment, both Hampson and Jacobs have currency, they've both played seniors this year. And we know ruckmen get over the odds in a trade. GC needs a senior ruckman who can play straight away. Hampson - athletic, quick, built, imposing body. Tap work average, work around the ground average. Has some forward lead and mark potential. This is his most attractive quality, and I believe the reason he is in the team over Jacobs. Not a natural footballer, doesn't have a football brain (background soccer). Jacobs - natural footballer, with a football brain. Tap work ok, needs to be better. Work around the ground is good, significantly better than Hampsons. Knows where to go, gets involved, links well, takes marks, uses it well. Hasn't shown an ability to clunk marks forward and kick goals, but has done so for the 'Ants, so it may be there. IMHO, Jacobs is the better long term option. Natural footballer, not a project player,and we have too many project-type players already. If he can take a few marks forward and kick a few, he wins hands down. Trade Hampson. I would also draft another ruckman this year with a lower pick, if there is a suitable one around. I think we should always have an oversupply of ruckmen...develop them all, trade the least useful for over the odds return. |
|
| Author: | zeecfc [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Rumour on BigFooty from a very reliable poster with a great source is .... Quote: Carlton and Port have an in principle agreement that they will facilitate a trade to get Sam Jacobs to Port in 2011. Sam Jacobs, whilst he would have liked the have stayed, has conceded he will have 3 ruckman infront of him at the start of next year, and will return to his homestate of SA, his club of choice being Adelaide.
Carlton is waiting for an answer from Salopeks management to see if he will be returning home to VIC, as they are keen to involve him in the deal. |
|
| Author: | Blue Blood Believer [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
zeecfc wrote: Rumour on BigFooty from a very reliable poster with a great source is .... Quote: Carlton and Port have an in principle agreement that they will facilitate a trade to get Sam Jacobs to Port in 2011. Sam Jacobs, whilst he would have liked the have stayed, has conceded he will have 3 ruckman infront of him at the start of next year, and will return to his homestate of SA, his club of choice being Adelaide. Carlton is waiting for an answer from Salopeks management to see if he will be returning home to VIC, as they are keen to involve him in the deal. WTF!!!!! Abort mission abort mission we are in danger for paying overs (again) on a bloke with injury problems. See: Brock Mclean |
|
| Author: | zeecfc [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Nothing has been agreed and Adelaide is still a choice. However the most important part is Sauce asked for a trade and signalled Port his preferred destination as he'll be no.1 ruck and have more $$$ potential |
|
| Author: | DocSherrin III [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
zeecfc wrote: Rumour on BigFooty from a very reliable poster with a great source is .... There's no such thing. |
|
| Author: | Big Kahuna Boot [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
..even with the way surgeries are going, i still think it's silly to expect Krooz to just step into a ruck position next year.. ..ergo, trading 1 ruck this off-season will effectively leave us with 2, and a recovering Krooz.. ..cop an injury, and we're screwed.. |
|
| Author: | Rexy [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Big Kahuna Boot wrote: ..even with the way surgeries are going, i still think it's silly to expect Krooz to just step into a ruck position next year.. ..ergo, trading 1 ruck this off-season will effectively leave us with 2, and a recovering Krooz.. ..cop an injury, and we're screwed.. Maybe Jacobs is out of contract. If he is and he sees himself getting limited senior opportunity at Carlton you can't blame him for walking, if that's indeed what he wants. |
|
| Author: | Big Kahuna Boot [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Rexy wrote: Big Kahuna Boot wrote: ..even with the way surgeries are going, i still think it's silly to expect Krooz to just step into a ruck position next year.. ..ergo, trading 1 ruck this off-season will effectively leave us with 2, and a recovering Krooz.. ..cop an injury, and we're screwed.. Maybe Jacobs is out of contract. If he is and he sees himself getting limited senior opportunity at Carlton you can't blame him for walking, if that's indeed what he wants. ..true, if He wants out, good luck to him.. ..but that's not neccessaily the debate on here.. |
|
| Author: | Virgin Blue [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hammer or Sammy ?? |
Not sure why ppl say we should move Sammy on and not hammer. I know it's just vfl but Sammy looked great yesterday and let's face it hammer still has a loooooong way to go. I'd be shopping both around and c what the best offer is. Gold coast might give up a decent pick for hammer. Mind u I think we need proven talent ESP kpp |
|
| Author: | CK95 [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/newsar ... fault.aspx Quote: The ruck tandem will also come in for scrutiny after Ratten felt Shaun Hampson failed to pull his weight as Robbie Warnock battled Fremantle giant Aaron Sandilands.
“I thought Shaun was really down on his game,” he said. “He didn’t really assist with some of Robbie’s pressure that he put on and allowed Sandilands to really get into the game. “[Sam] Jacobs had around 30 hit-outs and kicked three goals and was close to best on ground [in the VFL], so it will be one that will be talked about at match committee.” |
|
| Author: | jt [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Hampson was TERRIBLE on the weekend. Warnock at least broke even with Sandilands, but Hampson got smashed. Whenever he was on contesting against Sandilands, Sandi would be able to smash it out of the pack or even grab possession... |
|
| Author: | The Normal One [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
We'll be making a mistake trading Jacobs IMO. Plenty of people complain about kick outs, well if I had the stats, games where Kreuzer or Sauce have played I would tip that our kick out clearance rate would be high. Why? As a get out target both are very good overhead marks and can be relied upon to take the mark or provide a contest. I may be old fashioned, but a ruck mans role is still to direct taps to advantage, make space for his mids through bullocking and blocking, fill space defensively and maybe pinch a goal up forward. How many of these things does Hammer do well? |
|
| Author: | club29 [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Rafalution wrote: I may be old fashioned, but a ruck mans role is still to direct taps to advantage, make space for his mids through bullocking and blocking, fill space defensively and maybe pinch a goal up forward. How many of these things does Hammer do well? How many do any of rucks do? THe answer to the Jacobs or Hampson thing changes every week. The one who doesnt play on a gun afl standard ruckman has the advantage. Id stick with hampson. I reckon he is going to be a gun when he gets up around the hundred games, thickens out in the legs and gets smarter about his game. Hampson struggled against Sandilands and was soundly beaten. Sauce had a blinder against Woods and the Yank after getting done by Hawkins and Blake the week before. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
truthfully I feel 1 will go but the thing for me is I no longer care which of Jacobs or Hammer goes (if one does) I have always seen the potential in Hammer and still feel he could be a ripper in 2/3 years but I can see that Sammy could also just get better and better and become a great back up who could take on the no 1 ruck mantle if ever we need him to. |
|
| Author: | Crusader [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
dannyboy wrote: but I can see that Sammy could also just get better and better and become a great back up who could take on the no 1 ruck mantle if ever we need him to. Good call that. Hampson might be a gun ruck/forward once we've invested 5 years in him, but Sauce is an excellent stop-gap ruckman now. |
|
| Author: | Peter Sherry [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
You could probably make an argument to keep both or to let either one go but I would think the club would prefer not to put any additional pressure on Kreuzer next year and play him mainly as a forward. Then the list really only has a choice of 3 rucks for the season. So it would be a gamble to trade and go into a season without one of them and it would depend upon the potential payback from any trade. If we were to trade one of them to Port I would not take Salopek. Injury prone hasn't played a full season in the last 6 years and is more of an outside player and not what we need from a midfielder as I don't think he wins enough of his own ball. I suppose it would depend upon what other players Port may offer up or if there 1st draft pick was on the table to see if any trade was feasible. Butcher plus a second or third round pick? With Westhoff and Schultz the Power have their two key forward posts and down back it's Carlile Chaplin and Pettigrew so they may be willing to give up a young key position prospect. I'm not sure they would be willing or able to give up much else. Hampson is a lot more mobile than Jacobs but as a tap ruckman and a marking target and contributing to the centre clearances and boundary throw ins then Jacobs is in front. However at this stage with a compromised draft the club must look to see what is available and depending upon the offer may be willing to trade either. |
|
| Author: | cecil89 [ Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Not sure if there is any validity in the Jacobs back to SA rumour, but it appears Jonathon Griffen is looking to move back to Perth. So that leaves the crows with Maric, Sellar & Moran. While Port has Brogan, Trengove & Lobbe. If i was at either of those clubs i'd be nervous about my ruck stocks for 2011. Each of the SA teams may find themselves being quite desperate to find a ruckman & may be prepared to offer up good value in return for Jacobs. |
|
| Author: | kots1234 [ Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
There are a few different issues here to address. - Hampson v Jacobs? - Who to involve in a trade? - Should we continue with 4 rucks in 2011? Here's my take: Hampson v Jacobs? This is a tough one and probably will continue to be for years to come. Jacobs is the more accomplished ruckman at present. He has better footy smarts and if we are focusing on the ruck position then he is ahead of Hampson. However Hampson probaby has the better 'potential'. Dangerous word 'potential', but if we are looking at versatility and the ability to play key forward or even back then Hampson gets the nod. Who to involve in a trade? If the speculation has any truth to it then you definately look at moving on Jacobs (if one is in fact to be traded). If he has asked to be considered for a trade back to SA, whilst Hampson has shown a reluctance to move and wants to stay at CFC, then you have to look at trading Jacobs. With our ruck stocks looking deep then you probably want to persist with the 'potential' factor of Hampson and his ability to play forward or back, rather than a Jacobs who is solely a ruckman. Not to mention that he would arguably be considered 3rd in line behind Krueze and Warnock. Should we continue with 4 rucks in 2011? Simple answer is yes. But here's the thing - yes we need 4 rucks on our list. But we do not need 4 senior ruckman who want the mantle of no.1. If we do look at trading out Jacobs then he must be replaced by a young developing ruckman through the ND or PSD. And for those that think that Jacobs is not worth much then you seriously need to think again. Ruckman are at a premium at the moment. And from now until trade week there will certainly be at least 2 or 3 other clubs enquire about Jacobs services which will lift his profile (and $$ value) even more. If it is to be Port as speculated, then we should be insisting on their round 1 pick (#16). Nothing less will do IMO.... |
|
| Author: | get rid of the hacks [ Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Dr.SHERRIN wrote: zeecfc wrote: Rumour on BigFooty from a very reliable poster with a great source is .... There's no such thing. that poster posts more accurate Blues mail than everyone on any of the forums combined
|
|
| Author: | Punter22 [ Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hampson v Jacobs |
Now's the time to cash in. Supply and demand. The rest of the league has seen enough of all of the ruckmen on our list. A ruck needy team will, as they always have, pay overs for a ruckman they feel they can plug into their 22. So let's strike while the iron is hot. There's too many deficiencies in our list to have the luxury of those four guys in the one position. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|