-
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.
Shane Edwards
- Thread starter shamekha
- Start date
the club has gotten rid of most of the players ive written off i might add a lot later than i would have.shamekha said:
there is also a difference between righting of a player and swishing in time to upgrade on one.
lets see ive been posting on here since what 03 . 13th 16th 12th 9th 16th 9th and bottom 4 this yr sort of says theres plenty to right off dont you think.
oh thats right your one of those who think all rfc players has the sun shining out of his arse despite evidence to the contrary.yep one or two passable games is enough for people like you.
the claw said:
And from your position on the outer flank at Subiaco :-\ i dare say your opinion is SOOO worthy over everyone elses. i think not.
There are a lot of people posting on here that watch not only Richmond play almost every week but also watch the burgers regularly to see what the youngsters are doing. These peoples opinions i myself regard very highly.
They can see what happens behind the play, not just whats on the TV screen.
Claw is a genius. If he were an economist, he would say that he successfully predicted 12 of the last 5 recessions.
It's one thing to call for wholesale de-listings. As long as we acknowledge that the likes of Moore, Tambling, McGuane, Jackson are going to be ok and the club was right (and I was wrong)
It's one thing to call for wholesale de-listings. As long as we acknowledge that the likes of Moore, Tambling, McGuane, Jackson are going to be ok and the club was right (and I was wrong)
So which of those players do you think should be kept with the long term in mind of course i never do anything unless its with the long term in mind.shamekha said:
i named 19 players to go over a 3 yr period which of those do you disagree with. where do you think the list is at? how many do you think need to go? or are likely to go. i actually think theres as many as 28 who could be delisted or upgraded on in time. i have often said some of those 28 may well become core list players in time.
i would have thought 8 delistings this yr as being conservative, clearly you dont.
how many do you think needs to go, 3 4 god forbid 5 even.'
who do you think will be on the list in 3 yrs time? where do you think the club will be in 3 yrs time and why?
you clearly rate the list highly despite finishes of 16 12 9 16 9 and bottom 4 probably bottom 2 at the end of a 5 yr so called rebuild. where do you rate the list? what players do you rate highly and why. in moving forward please explain why we should keep those players you rate. please explain players strengths and weaknesses to me so i can understand why you like or dislike a player.
how about a rating system from you along pelchins lines cmon bud put up or shut up.
for starters can you explain why we should keep
simmonds bowden johnson pettifer pattison brown hughes raines jon and polak.
i will say my thoughts on who should go first yr or second does change. i think jackson has earnt a reprieve he may become a core list playera decent yr this yr does not mean hes arrived though.
i will make it easy for you we have 20 who come out of contract this yr from worst to best who do you delist/trade at yrs end.
thay are bowden brown hughes johnson pettifer simmonds pattison raines polak jon. currently they are the 10 i would delist /trade the others out of contract are
cotchin cousins deledio jackson rance morton mcguane richardson coughlan and putt. i would have thought the second 10 are pretty safe for one more yr at least but you may disagree cmon bud lets see what you think. im really looking forward to your run down on their strengths and weaknesses and why we should hang onto players. im also very keen to hear how long you think it will be before we firstly make finals regularly and when we will become a top 4 team. you cant have list managment without these things in mind.
cmon bud we are all waiting with bated breath.
shamekha said:
This was how i rated the list. i'll explain it from the bottom up.
White- i think we could throw him up for trade bait, he is young and still developing. He has improved and wants to succeed. i know his disposal can be suspect but deserves a chance if we can't trade.
Simmonds- i think he will retire.. if not should he should be told to.
Silvester- i would delist, he's 24 and will only ever be a fill in player unless there is massive improvement this year. He has been playing as a very good stopper this year for Coburg a true full back,, ala Presti at Collingwood.
Shulz - i would have a go at trading him again but as last year would keep him if we cant get a replacement of similar age.
Polak - Unfortunately he hasn't got over his accident he will retire.
Pettifer - When i wrote the original i was waiting/hoping to see improvement in his defensive game. Alas i think he got worse. Delist him now
JON - He is a hard one to work out. He shows flashes of brilliance and high skills at times for Coburg but no consistancy. I would try to trade but if we can't get one than i would perservere for another year.
King - i think we might be able to trade him but if not seeya later
Johnson - Has retired
Hughes - His head just isn't in it. He has the skill the build but just doesn't have the want to suceed. Trade or delist.
Gourdis - Has shown something this year at Coburg but i still have this vision in my head of him fumbling terribly at training one night. Just looked like he had no idea. But on the plus he looks the goods and as i said has played some good games for Coburg. Trade or rookie him again (if eligable)
Connors - i have run out of patience with him i would trade him for sure. Just not a team player, even at Coburg he keeps trying to do the individual stuff to the detriment of the team. trade or delist
Brown - i think he will/should retire
Bowden - Will retire for sure, i'd bet my left one on it.
Raines - To explain why i would keep him. He shows great heart when he plays, he takes them on and what i think you miss about his poor disposal is when he stuffs it up it is because there is nothing up field for him to kick to so he has to give off a stupid little handball to a player close to him so all the players that he has attracted to himself are close enough to turn there attention to the receiver of the ball.
Pattison is needed at the moment he is our second most experienced big man and the experience he has playing will bode well for a player who is still very young for a big guy.
i place a lot of blame on the players looking so bad with poor disposal and such on the game plan Richmond have been playing. Time after time players like Raines and Tambling were breaking the lines only to have no-one to kick to, they then get caught or have to stop and go side ways. This is something that you can't see on the TV. Also we have a very inexperienced forward line that as yet are to learn the right places to lead into. This leads to a breakdown.
i wonder why you follow the tiges. i am yet to see a positive word written on your behalf since 2003. You have become such a cynical old thing haven't you.
i do believe you would have delisted our top 5 in the Jack Dyer medal this year.The core of the team at the moment is young, very young and without and without our 6 30+ players we have the youngest team in the AFL. Players you want to delist are still young especially McGuane who i think is doing a fantastic job.
Let me know if i missed anything.
shamekha, how on earth can you possibly justify keeping McMahon ("he's still young"), he's a proven dud, bloody useless dishrag that can't kick, won't go in for the hard ball, poor decision maker etc etc.
The bulk of your listings I don't disagree with, but McMahon!!!!!!
The bulk of your listings I don't disagree with, but McMahon!!!!!!
Yep Shamenka,
Good analysis - you give good logical arguments to your position and that is what this site is all about. I personally lean to the Claw model, many people believe he is overly negative. I disagree, if I may speak for him, he just doesnt want to see the same mistakes made again. And the only way this can be done is by upgrading every player on the list that is not good enough to be a premiership player for this club. And if that means a few more years on the bottom (but on the right track) then so be it.
I think you are a little generous and I would take much more of an axe to it.
But Massai is right - there is no redeeming qualities for Jordy. He is an out and out dud and should be top of the (de)list with the oldies and King.
Good analysis - you give good logical arguments to your position and that is what this site is all about. I personally lean to the Claw model, many people believe he is overly negative. I disagree, if I may speak for him, he just doesnt want to see the same mistakes made again. And the only way this can be done is by upgrading every player on the list that is not good enough to be a premiership player for this club. And if that means a few more years on the bottom (but on the right track) then so be it.
I think you are a little generous and I would take much more of an axe to it.
But Massai is right - there is no redeeming qualities for Jordy. He is an out and out dud and should be top of the (de)list with the oldies and King.
didnt answer most of my questions but at least you had a go at it and i take my hat off to you for that.
the way i read it you have 8 to 10 possibles to go this yr yet you have a go at me because i want to get rid of 8 one way or the other.
i have 28 on the entire list that at this point in time i would like us to improve on it does not mean though that 8 or 10 will go. i have 8 to 10 i have no problem with cutting NOW. the other 18 get a chance to prove themselves some are in the gun though becuase the only thing saving them is a contract.
and im not asking for the club to delist 10 and load up with mostly late picks and rookies. im asking we go out of our way to aquire picks along these lines, ppick 2 or 3 . 17 19 35 51 67. pick 2 psd.
promote nahas and browne known quantities and im hopeful of trading into a pick somewhere between 25 and 50. thats 10 players gone at least 3 new rookies and you have 10 new playerswithout doing anything outside the ordinary.
we clearly disagree on on how many ordinary players we have and we disagree about the overall quality of the list but we do agree it seems getting rid of 8 this yr would not be a bad thing. not enough for my liking but acceptable.
with this being the case what i dont understand still is what you have against my post.
the way i read it you have 8 to 10 possibles to go this yr yet you have a go at me because i want to get rid of 8 one way or the other.
i have 28 on the entire list that at this point in time i would like us to improve on it does not mean though that 8 or 10 will go. i have 8 to 10 i have no problem with cutting NOW. the other 18 get a chance to prove themselves some are in the gun though becuase the only thing saving them is a contract.
and im not asking for the club to delist 10 and load up with mostly late picks and rookies. im asking we go out of our way to aquire picks along these lines, ppick 2 or 3 . 17 19 35 51 67. pick 2 psd.
promote nahas and browne known quantities and im hopeful of trading into a pick somewhere between 25 and 50. thats 10 players gone at least 3 new rookies and you have 10 new playerswithout doing anything outside the ordinary.
we clearly disagree on on how many ordinary players we have and we disagree about the overall quality of the list but we do agree it seems getting rid of 8 this yr would not be a bad thing. not enough for my liking but acceptable.
with this being the case what i dont understand still is what you have against my post.
i forgot about him.... 
i think when it comes to McMahon he is a dilemma, i just think with a new coach, as with Connors (they both need a good kick up the :-X) they may improve their defensive side, as much as he appears to kick some shockers he does have pretty good foot skills. He has had a lot of stuff going on off the field and i lean towards giving him another go if we can't get a quality junior. i've been just as frustrated with him as everyone, especially when we played the bulldogs - he was atrocious.
i think when it comes to McMahon he is a dilemma, i just think with a new coach, as with Connors (they both need a good kick up the :-X) they may improve their defensive side, as much as he appears to kick some shockers he does have pretty good foot skills. He has had a lot of stuff going on off the field and i lean towards giving him another go if we can't get a quality junior. i've been just as frustrated with him as everyone, especially when we played the bulldogs - he was atrocious.
the claw said:
Your judgement on Edwards is from a very narrow view. If you could have seen the improvement he has been going through at Coburg you would realise what others, as well as me, see in him. He was just always being played out of position when he was brought into the Richmond side.
I just think you need to give some players a bit more time, players mature at all different times but you are expecting 21 yo's to play with the maturity of 26 yo's.
And i place a lot of the blame on the coaching of these younger players. Remember, the one i will never speak of again, had what is now the core group of talent at the bulldogs, but couldn't use them properly or didn't recognise them and failed with that club as well.
Just gotta love this plastic anal ysis / ranking of players.Matiger said:
Time and time again people insist on delisting or sacking every player on our list that is classed as being incapable of WINNING us a premiership.
HELLO hello hello is there anybody in there? Is there any one at all?
Not everyone on a clubs list can be a Johnathon Brown, Nick Riewoldt or Chris Judd, Gary Ablett jnr.
Contrary to the beliefs of certain elitist wishfull dreamers every premiership club in the history of Australian rules football and probably every other TEAM sporting code has comprised of elite players, ordinary players and some even mediocre players.
Depending on the size of the team playing the sport and the dollar restrictions applied, it's guaranteed teams will have mediocre and average players to support and supplement the elite players on the team.
It's balancing and blending your team that will give you a competitive chance of winning a premiership.
The system does not allow any one team to own all the players good enough to win a premiership.
Yep. You are right of course you cant have a team of Abletts etc. All of the equalisation process put in place by the league prevent this. Any reading of premiership sides show that there will be some average players in there.
The problem is that we have exactly zero elite players. No real matchwinners. Until we get said matchwinners we need to upgrade alot of this list. I mean we cant even trade for anything good because most of our players have no real currency.
The problem is that we have exactly zero elite players. No real matchwinners. Until we get said matchwinners we need to upgrade alot of this list. I mean we cant even trade for anything good because most of our players have no real currency.
well hello once again defenders of the unimaginable just refuse to grasp basic list requirements. and basic requirements of players..TigerMasochist said:
no one is asking for a list chock full of elite footballers having our fair quota in relation to other sides would be nice though, when we talk about upograding players its always been along the lines of chronic weakness. or as is the saying glass half full players. we have to many.
we have just 1 elite plyer depending on the individual 2 to 4 very good players and maybe half a dozen core players. how hard is this to grasp.
we have to many in the aged group which means theres no longevity we have to many in the below standard group and we have to few in the development group to take over.
we have had such low finishes for so long because we have had too many who lack basic skill set requirements what other reason is there.we overrate our own all the time and it shows.
i take it you rate highly the jacksons mcguanes kings mcmahons edwards whites hughes thursfields etc etc etc of the club we dont need to do better than these types after all they are delivering us bottom 4 placings.we can look forward to the future with simmonds cousins brown richardson johnson and bowden that is the way to go bring on the premiership in 2011. sheesh.
contrary to what you think noone here is advocating we attempt to get 46 elite footballers. all we ask is the majority are a little more than glass half full. you do know the type we want. blokes who can at the very least kick a ball half decently have some sort of footy brain have some size would be a good start .
if you dont want to upgrade onplayers who regularly take you to bottom 4 finishes i have to ask when are you going to be keen to upgrade.
yep they could be ive already stated jackson has earnt another season and if he can string 2 or 3 seasons together like this one he may earn the right to be called a core list player. all clubs have them and if they can do a consistent job thats fine. my gripe has been this is his 6th yr up until now what we have got has not been good enough and one decent yr does not make a career.TOO CHEF said:
when i compare mcguane to other genuine kpds well im looking for something more. atm hes a needed commodity and hes done okay and he could well stay im not righting him of hence neither luke or jacko are on my list of delistings this yr.they both next yr if they improve may not be on my upgrade list. i still maintain though what jackson is offering us is the minimum we should be expecting from our players.
hmm again on luke to me we still need to find a genuine big stong imposing fb. the backline is undersized to me there is only one place in the side for either thursfield or mcguane.
the club needs 6 tall defenders. yes 6. it takes into account development and injury. to claws way of thinking we have just 3 tall defenders 4 if you include silvestor. 5 if yopu include moore. sothere is space for mcguane . to me luke is a part of a backline of average kpds that is not being derogative its just an assesment and rating of our kpds. i could well be wrong i often am but im never backward in expressing my opinion.
