blueboys101 wrote:
have to see over a few games or a good year before we start jerking each other off, show me the other games this year where krueze has dominated... none of course.
Jerking each other off,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Teeheehee !!!
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pick 1 http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=31883 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | dadadadada [ Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pick 1 |
... then just watch the replay |
|
| Author: | frosty [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Good point. Just watching the replay now. Let's see if they leave him there. |
|
| Author: | Heavs [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Totally worth a new thread. |
|
| Author: | teknodeejay [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
I'd also like a thread on why Gibbs went pick 1 please. |
|
| Author: | ThePsychologist [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Then go watch the replay of Cotchin's game at the weekend. There are arguments for both but it is not clear cut. My opinion is I would always go for a mid over a ruckman. You only need one good ruckman plus class mids can make all the difference. But when it comes down to it we now have Kruezer and nothing will change it. |
|
| Author: | baz_baz [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
ThePsychologist wrote: Then go watch the replay of Cotchin's game at the weekend. There are arguments for both but it is not clear cut. My opinion is I would always go for a mid over a ruckman. You only need one good ruckman plus class mids can make all the difference. But when it comes down to it we now have Kruezer and nothing will change it. Kruez is a ruckman and a mid |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
for me its never been why choose Kruise its given we chose Kruise why @#$%&! choose Warnock and Hampson? They should have been happy with Kruise and Jacobs but no we overloaded Kruise, Hampson, Warnock and Jacobs was poor management in my humble and ignorant view. They were not to foresee the use of 1 ruck and a forward/ruck were they? Or did they think Kruise and Hammer would become forward rucks? - either way - oops! We have Kruise and do not need Warnock we might be able to develop Hammer to become the forward/ruck but then with other more mobile blokes around him - not another ruckman! Or Caboult/Mitchell becomes that forward/ruckman to relieve Kruise but where oh where were we ever going to need Warnock and Kruise and Hammer when we already had Jacobs? |
|
| Author: | ThePsychologist [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
baz_baz wrote: ThePsychologist wrote: Then go watch the replay of Cotchin's game at the weekend. There are arguments for both but it is not clear cut. My opinion is I would always go for a mid over a ruckman. You only need one good ruckman plus class mids can make all the difference. But when it comes down to it we now have Kruezer and nothing will change it. Kruez is a ruckman and a mid People say that but its not close. Yes he is good around the ball and the ground for a "ruckman" but the reality is he is not even close to a mid. |
|
| Author: | baz_baz [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
ThePsychologist wrote: baz_baz wrote: ThePsychologist wrote: Then go watch the replay of Cotchin's game at the weekend. There are arguments for both but it is not clear cut. My opinion is I would always go for a mid over a ruckman. You only need one good ruckman plus class mids can make all the difference. But when it comes down to it we now have Kruezer and nothing will change it. Kruez is a ruckman and a mid People say that but its not close. Yes he is good around the ball and the ground for a "ruckman" but the reality is he is not even close to a mid. Nup...don't agree. His clearance handballs are consistently good. His push work to clearance is also good and capably shown good leg speed on the occassions he gets it on the outside. Great combination is Kruez |
|
| Author: | club29 [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 5:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Providing he is playing on the oppositions ruckman he can be considered a midfielder. Up against a proper midfielder like Pendlebury, Swan, Thompson, Dangerfield etc he would get murdered. He does have the tools to embarrass an opposition ruckman with his mobility. THe oppo dude would want to rip him apart in the hit outs to balance out what he will lose around the ground. |
|
| Author: | Hornet [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
The best way to develop ruckmen is through the rookie draft imo ...and then there's Kruezer & NicNat |
|
| Author: | baz_baz [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
club29 wrote: Providing he is playing on the oppositions ruckman he can be considered a midfielder. Up against a proper midfielder like Pendlebury, Swan, Thompson, Dangerfield etc he would get murdered. He does have the tools to embarrass an opposition ruckman with his mobility. THe oppo dude would want to rip him apart in the hit outs to balance out what he will lose around the ground. Like i said he is neither purely one or the other. He is just a gun combination |
|
| Author: | Michael Jezz [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Jolly isn't that great a ruckman anymore and he never was the wide bodied ruckman that kreuzer has problems with. Let's see over the next few weeks |
|
| Author: | aerodyte [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
[youtube]4TxRwxaR2mg[/youtube] This is what I think of when I think of Kruezer; pure brute force followup work. It lead to a free kick, but that's not as important as the intent. Also love how he immediately gets up and races after Jolly. No other ruck in the comp does it quite the same way. Nic Nat followsup, no doubt, but in a different style. Question is can he keep this up over the course of a long season plus finals? It's gotta be brutal on the body. |
|
| Author: | blueboys101 [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
have to see over a few games or a good year before we start jerking each other off, show me the other games this year where krueze has dominated... none of course. |
|
| Author: | Outback Blue [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
blueboys101 wrote: have to see over a few games or a good year before we start jerking each other off, show me the other games this year where krueze has dominated... none of course. Jerking each other off,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Teeheehee !!!
|
|
| Author: | Kouta [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
blueboys101 wrote: show me the other games this year where krueze has dominated... none of course. Richmond v Carlton 9 Matthew Kreuzer (Carl) 6 Andrew Carrazzo (Carl) 5 Marc Murphy (Carl) 4 Trent Cotchin (Rich) 3 Bryce Gibbs (Carl) 3 Kade Simpson (Carl) Carlton vs Collingwood 9 Judd (Carl) 6 Carrazzo (Carl) 5 Murphy (Carl) 4 Scotland (Carl) 3 Kreuzer (Carl) 2 Gibbs (Carl) 1 Betts (Carl) I guess Kreuzer needs to grow a mullet or be a red haired giant to be noticed... |
|
| Author: | Megaman [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Yep can't believe we went and drafted Hampson when we knew we were drafting Kreuzer the next year 
|
|
| Author: | limestone [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 8:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Megaman wrote: Yep can't believe we went and drafted Hampson when we knew we were drafting Kreuzer the next year
|
|
| Author: | CK95 [ Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: For those that still have not worked why Kruezer went pi |
Considering how shit we were back then, that comment is not far off the mark 
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|