CC TIGER said:
Yeah and then relocate to Punt Road, change their jumper to black with a yellow sash and call them the Richmond Tigers......How many draft picks will we get again?? :hihi
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
3AW's suggested Tiger delistings
- Thread starter Tenacious
- Start date
Yeah and then relocate to Punt Road, change their jumper to black with a yellow sash and call them the Richmond Tigers......How many draft picks will we get again?? :hihi
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Yeah, it's still a pretty rare kid who can withstand the treatment a full or near full season in their first year. Even Kruezer was rested as I recall and he's the best big man in a long while. Rich has been outstanding but is now showing some strain and niggles. Lids efforts have been all the more remarkable really as he is on average 6-12 months younger than his draft year peers.
This game is brutal on the bodies of kids being hit by hardened men. But hey, they'll keep taking their chances while clubs keep putting them up there to do it :
You talk about no one being able to replace Richo, but you wont tell me exactly what Richo can offer the team next year. You want to keep him purely because we don't have anyone that can play in that position next year, and would rather develop the young guys in the ressies next year. So with Reiwoldt, Morton, Post, Vickery, Putt all having another year under their belt, you would rather we play Richo in the seniors and let them develop in the ressies?? Might as well keep Hughes then and play him for 22 games next year so we can develop the others at Coburg. What is the difference?? Do you think playing Richo will get us enough wins to make the finals?? The club has to start fresh, and players like Richo that have been part of the culture need to go so we can start fresh.CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
If you havn,t noticed we need a F/F and a CHF.frawleyudud said:
Morton and Jack as KPP,s.And you accuse me of clutching at straws lmao.
Post i,ll give you that he looks promising and no reason why he can,t be in the side along with Richo.
Like i said Vickery is at least 2yrs away and you can add Putt in that same basket.
Do we need a FF and a CHF for next year or the next 10 years?? You still haven't answered the question of what it is exactly that you believe will benefit the RFC from having Richo go on another year. Are Putt and Vickery 2 years away from playing senior footy or making a difference to the side? Would you rather we play Putt for 18+ games next year or only give him 2-3 games? I don't disagree that we need a CHF and FF, but considering the position this list finds itself in i just cannot see the logic of offering a 36 year another year purely and simply because we don't want to expose the younger guys to senior footy. The time has come to have a proper list rebuild, which means anyone that is not going to be in our next premiership side must be cut.CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
pppfffttt more utter dribble use your imaginarion it aint hard. i believe richo and bowden are both on the vets list only half their salary goes into tpp as it is. bowden gone richo off the vet list. deledio and cotchin along with a few others are out of contract you want to keep them from gc 17 you better offer offer them something decent. cousins salary will treble as far as i know we are sailing close to the tpp maximum crazy i know. there are currently 20 players coming out of contract 9 will be delisted we will have 3 extra rookies so 3 more salaries.pharace said:LMAO - we only have to get 92.5%. Is that all? And you think we are at 100% now. Geez, you'd hope not. But the difference is what$6-700K?
And you are part of the drive that thinks the 3AW list is still not enough to be rid off. There is probaly about 40% of of our salary cap minimum there. The first five are probably pushing $2M - give or take a Vet at 50%
The next part of the list could be be $2M, but you'd hope it was closer to 1.5M
Then some want to add another $500K for Tuck and Polo easily (and some).
So we take nine drafts and rookies then @ an average of about $100K ea? You want to give some guys a pay increase too on top a really crap year? I know some with contracts coming up will look for it - but here's the rub......
If you give it now to meet Salary Cap minimums, where do you go with that same player, let's say a Tambling when we are hitting form as a club in three years time :
Oh, and suddenly you up for targetting a decent uncontracted player - got an example of one and the $$$ you'd spend?
Credit where credit is due - at least you only want cut 9 in one year. I'd say from a Salary Cap minimum perspective, and without risking exceeding the the Salary Cap 3-4 years down the track, 7 is about as good as you can do - or perhaps 8 like in 2004 if you count a Ben Graham type which we seem really good at doing :
We would both agree that I'm sure that the folly of RFC was only taking 3 in 2005 - that was the breakdown of the start of a promising re-build programme! Here we go again ;D
if we get desperate delist mcmahon his salary will still go onto the tpp. hows that for imagination.
Robert Walls suggested delistings. He had the chance and stuffed the club so why listen to him. The days are gone when you could buy a flag from sa and put some muppet in charge of the club so Walls go back to what you do best sniping at people you have no respect for you
Its pretty obvious what Richo brings to the table.frawleyudud said:
If your serious about development you don't throw kids in the deep end before they are ready.I don't have a problem giving them a taste of it if its warranted however the rule of thumb is most KPP,s take at least 3yrs before they are ready.Just because they are on Richmond,s list doesn't make them any different.
I will assume that your reason for keeping Richo would be to allow the kids to develop in the ressies, rather than pushing them into the seniors straight away. Apart from the kids we take in this years draft the rest of our KPP have been around for 2-3 years minimum. I am not suggesting we throw any KPP talls we draft this year straight into the side in 2010 and expect them to play 22 rounds of footy. I am suggesting we need to get maximum game time into players like Reiwoldt, Putt, Post, Vickery etc. While Richo is around these guys will always struggle to develop their own games due to Richo's demanding nature. Going by your theory, we may as well just replace Hughes with Richo and let him play 22 games while the young guys develop at Coburg and hope everything clicks for him. Which one would you choose?? Richo who is 37 next year with dodgy hammies, or Hughes who although i doubt it very much, may just turn his career around under a new coach??CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Like it or not mate.Fact of the matter is we do not have anyone in the very near future to be capable of what Richo would bring to the table even at the age of 35 next year.frawleyudud said:
the simple fact is richo will be 35 at the start of next season we need to be looking to the future, the harsh reality is in effect we have just 2 long term kpfs in the system .CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
as much as i would like to totally clean out and start afresh richardson is needed next yr.
another thing is because of the state of the list and the way list management has happened we dont have much choice other than to throw kids in the deep end. the thing is richo will be there to take the heat of them hopefully.
nerxt yr we will be looking for jack to play 22 games if injury and form permit there is no one else. post well we are gunna have to be more careful with him but we need 15 games from him there is only richo left.
as much as i hate it i think we may need to go out and get 1 an experienced ruckman 2 take a punt on an experienced forward.
i have no doubt graham, hughes, mcguane, pattison, polak, schulz, silvestor have to go richo has one more yr and theres serious concerns over putt gourdis even rance. the trick is how do you get rid of them all if need be, but keep some sort of onfield structure god knows we have little of that now. we do need to be capable of going into games and at least be competetive we do need to be capable of looking after the young players with some big bodies around them.
some will go crook at this sheesh go crook about it but the more i look at the situation the more i believe we need to take recycled players in critical areas.
all those late picks you go on about madcow well some should be used on recycled players.
one thing for sure we basically cant keep going around with the same players we have to change the changes have to be done with youth as the cornerstone but also with a view to properly developing that youth and just as importantly protecting it.
to me our picks on youth should go like this. 3 20 36 52 68. hopefully we may trade into a pick between 35 and 50.so thats 6 picks on youth. we take an older type in the psd key forward or ruckman perhaps. we promote two rookies thats nine delistings we take 3 new rookies. and then whith late nd picks we target 23 25 yr old wafl sanfl vfl players who we think can perform a role.
now to the distasteful bit but i feel we are forced to go this route. we can sound stkilda out about god forbid mcguire or hawthorn about boyle. we could have a crack at someone like sam jacobs a ruckman who cant get a game at carlton and isnt likely to. at the very least its something different they may continue to be duds but they will give us a short period to properly develop our young talls. they will greatly improve structure it could well be all we are doing is replace duds with duds but if one works out it is a win.
so all up 9 kids and 3 or 4 mature bodies.
finally what talls will be left after this yr.
imo the talls who will survive a cull and be given one more yr are. older types richo, schulz, thursfield, mcguane, , and younger types rance,post,graham, vickery, browne, putt,and gourdis. remember the last 4 are very much development types and probably should not even be considered for games at this stage of their careers.with this in mind it leaves just 7 talls to pick from for a season who we can expect some sort od half decent output from.
ya know looking long term 3 or more yrs i can only see 5 talls in the system who you can reasonably say they will make it or are at least servicable afl players. just 5. projecting forward i would expect at least 10 with a couple probably in veteran status and the 4 in development. we have had 8 yrs of nothing as far as structure goes. it will probably take another 5 yrs to get it where it needs to be.
so who goes pattison hughes simmonds polak silvestor.
Claw. I'd rather keep Patto and rotate him through the ruck with Graham whilst Browne, Vickery - maybe Putt - and any other young ruck we may pick as a rookie this year gain experience than invest in some one else's discards like Jacobs. Same with some of our other talls - I'd keep Polak and Silvestor for another year to take some of the heat off the youngsters. At least they display the right attitudes - unlike Hughes and Schulz. But agree with you in principle.
step 1 - ignore everything media says.
step 2 - go through each player on list and make a decision based on performance and what they can offer in the future.
9 out of 10 media people take a superficial view without doing the required research. Alot of them just say things to get attention. Walls and Shaw are amongst the worse.
Heard Buckley say that when things are bad they are never as bad as media makes out and when things are good they are never as good as media makes out.
I reckon the media view should be totally disregarded
step 2 - go through each player on list and make a decision based on performance and what they can offer in the future.
9 out of 10 media people take a superficial view without doing the required research. Alot of them just say things to get attention. Walls and Shaw are amongst the worse.
Heard Buckley say that when things are bad they are never as bad as media makes out and when things are good they are never as good as media makes out.
I reckon the media view should be totally disregarded
