The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Tango]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

yes rockstar we agree,

all im saying was that we should have picked up a panos or a temel as late speculative picks even if they were for depth purposes instead of a small fwd - we should have delisted gilligan if we wanted another small fwd

a big bodied tall means more to the club at the moment than a HBF or a small fwd

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

what i am saying is it doesnt matter what our succes rate is or was and it doesnt matter how good or how much potential the player has now or in the future

tall players are a key ingredient in the structure and spine of a club not just the starting 22, and i believe we simply dont have enough on our books regardless of the talent available

you cant build a solid structure without enough spine or support - simple numbers say we dont have enough to cover injury and development

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

simple mathematics says we dont have enough talls and we havent done enough to address it now, forget about the past

we will be forced to play undersized and underdeveloped or underskilled players in the key posts because we dont have enough back up on our list

this not only affects the development of the new tall kids but also the development of the new smalls

who is there on our list to protect the smalls, this has been the problem for years and we wonder why our kids development have stalled or potential champions like deledio or tambling have struggled in their early years

even the KPP we have now are either skinny or lack hardness at the man or should i say aggressiveness or are still developing - and this has been the case for years

 

[TigerMasochist]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

All this angst over us not taking a truckload of talls regardless of their talent or lack of.
Article in todays Hun reports that the Carlscum recruiting manager had to front the board to explain his lack of tall selections.
Now Carlscum have mids like Judd, McLean,Gibbs, Murphy assisted by Carazzo, Yarran and yada yada yada regular second string midfielders. They took four mid size players with their selections purely because the recruiting manager claims the talls were not up to standard required. He claimed that the elite talls always go early, after that in matching up the available talls against best available player, best available was taken every time.
No talls for Carlscum, they need them as much or more than we do and bypassed Talia with their first pick because they reckoned their mid choice was the better player.

 

[peggles]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

so how is drafting a few more speculative young KPPs late in the draft supposed to address that problem of protecting our underdeveloped talls etc??

 

[Hayfever]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

They might redraft Clokey ;D

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

peggles,

big bodies, more of them and more depth to cover injuries

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

thats why they got smashed in the finals, 1 tall - stop FEV stop the scum
they lost a couple of talls thru injury in the season and couldnt cover them
now they are forced to pinch hit with Judd at FFWD

 

[TigerMasochist]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

agree with you 100%

BUT - there were big guys that can catch and kick still left on the table and i would rather have a big guy who can catch and kick at the moment than a small kid with good skills

Geez! Steamee Cleavage could catch and kick. Couldn't do anything else and look how far he went, all the way up to flamin QLD locals to get a game.
Sixteen clubs bypassed certain tall players because sixteen clubs believe the kids that were bypassed either don't have sufficient talent or work ethic /attitude to cope at AFL level.
Denham from the Australian scoffed at suggestions that Temel would be drafted. Barely rated him a rookie selection because the recruiters told him the kid was lazy and had no commitment for the work required to reack AFL standard, said he'd be lucky to last the first week of preseason training if selected.

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

cleaver was as soft as butter

and many scouts and reporters have made mistakes before and you only need to read this forum to be reminded of the big ones

look what they said about buddy, and m.clarke etc etc

i guess we will have to rely on simmonds and polak to provide some muscle and size

 

[The_General]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

Could this thread be split, or somehow taken back to Ben Nason?

 

[TigerMasochist]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

yes rockstar we agree,

all im saying was that we should have picked up a panos or a temel as late speculative picks even if they were for depth purposes instead of a small fwd - we should have delisted gilligan if we wanted another small fwd

a big bodied tall means more to the club at the moment than a HBF or a small fwd

So why do you think none of the other fifteen clubs bothered to pick up the talls that we avoided? Carlscum need talls just as much as us and went four mids zero talls and they had Talia staring them in the face. Crows picked him up at thirteen.

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

fair point, maybe ill start a new thread on talls

 

[Tango]

Do we have enough talls on our list and should we have drafted more

ok i started this thread to have the tall debate here so i wont distract from the individual players we drafted
good luck to those guys and i hope they make it

my argument all along has been we behind the rest of the leaugue in talls from a qty and quality point of view
and i believe we should have addressed this more this draft to help adjust the balance, i agree that perhaps some of the talls may not have been as good a player as others but i believe our needs was far greater than any other clubs

get some balance back and have a few more options and chances, and have a little more injury protection in the key posts and we could then target the next few drafts like everyone else, a more balanced approach

as it is now we will still go into next years draft short of KPP and we will need to take more then, at least next season we know will be a developing year and if we could drafted more talls this year we could of had a year up our sleeve to play and look at some of these talls

 

[Tango]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

why did 6 clubs pass up Dan Rich last year when everyone thought he was a gun - and he is
why did 2 teams pass on Judd
why did 2 teams pass on Buddy
why did we take fiora over pav
why did saints take so many retreads

each club has its reasons on why they did what they did, some get it right and some get it wrong
its a lottery, all im saying is we are worse off for talls because of sheer numbers and nearly all of our talls are kids (except a few) so what one club does is totally their own choice and have their reasons for doing it

as our club has done for the last 5 years (not addressed its tall needs)

the last year and this they have started and good on them, i just think we needed to bite the bullet and go harder with our speculative picks

 

[Disco08]

Re: Do we have enough talls on our list and should we have drafted more

Appreciate that Tango, but I think claw's thread will do. I'll try and get all the relevant discussion into this thread when I get a chance.

 

[The_General]

ok, I think that, if we look at a match day, we should have 7 out of 22 players as "talls".

A FB, CHB, CHF, FF, Ruck, and Interchange rucks and utility tall.

That's 1 in 3 who should be a "tall".

If we apply that to our list, I'd imagine 15-16 talls would be adequate, if we take into account rookies.

We have:
Thursfield, Rance, McGuane, Moore
Reiwoldt, Post, Griffiths, Astbury
Simmonds, Graham, Browne, Vickery

Which is 12.
If we take into account, Gourdis and Polak (to be rookied if available), that's 14 out of the list that are tall. Pretty close to the 15-16 I mentioned above.
The quality is obviously the question. Graham and Simmonds look to be doubtful beyond 2010.
I would think that of the forwards and backs, we'd keep 3 out of the 4. Moore is also more a third tall, so KP defenders are a worry. If Griffiths or Astbury don't rise to the occasion, the key forwards look sick.

Getting another tall in the PSD would probably help. Maybe Grimes. However, we really need to get someone with an outside chance of playing AFL, with good skills. No point taking another Limbach just because you can.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

Time to move on.....pre 05 and even 05 itself was a disater is now irrelevent, FJ is not responsible for before that, and CC is 2 years into the gig and Dimma is a virgin, bad mistakes were made as we all know, its about to be 2010 and Tiger time starts now, and the men now in charge should be only judged on what happens now

On the now, I say they didn't go tall enough - don't get carried away with pretty profiles, the chances of the guys drafted this year playing 100 games are poor. It's likley Nason, Webberly, Dea will not make it. And if Nason does make it, what difference will he really make?

If you ignore the past you are doomed to repeat it

In the same period (1999-2006) we took 8 talls in 44 picks, the basket case Dockers took 9 talls in 29. They still can count Pavlich, McPharlin, Thornton, Murphy & Mundy on their list. L Brown is still on a list and Polak likely to be on a list.

The Western Bulldogs, a team suffering from poor KPP depth, actually took 12 talls in 39 selections between 1999-2006. Of those, only Lake (Pick 71), Williams & Everitt remain on the list - a 3 in 12 (25%) strike rate. And I did not include players like Hahn, Hargrave, R Murphy in that 12 even though they regulalry play the KP.

Why couldn't we get a Bock or Rutten or Lake or Petrie if we gambled with a couple of extra tall picks?

 

[Big Cat Lover]

ok, I think that, if we look at a match day, we should have 7 out of 22 players as "talls".

A FB, CHB, CHF, FF, Ruck, and Interchange rucks and utility tall.

That's 1 in 3 who should be a "tall".

If we apply that to our list, I'd imagine 15-16 talls would be adequate, if we take into account rookies.

We have:
Thursfield, Rance, McGuane, Moore
Reiwoldt, Post, Griffiths, Astbury
Simmonds, Graham, Browne, Vickery

Which is 12.
If we take into account, Gourdis and Polak (to be rookied if available), that's 14 out of the list that are tall. Pretty close to the 15-16 I mentioned above.
The quality is obviously the question. Graham and Simmonds look to be doubtful beyond 2010.
I would think that of the forwards and backs, we'd keep 3 out of the 4. Moore is also more a third tall, so KP defenders are a worry. If Griffiths or Astbury don't rise to the occasion, the key forwards look sick.

Getting another tall in the PSD would probably help. Maybe Grimes. However, we really need to get someone with an outside chance of playing AFL, with good skills. No point taking another Limbach just because you can.

But you might get a Lake (71), a Fisher (55), a Bock (rookie) or a Rutten (rookie). You definitely won't get one if you go for a 180/69 kg flanker/pocket

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

i think you need 3 tall backs - 2 KPP and a 3rd tall with run and carry ability
i think you need 3 tall fwds - 2 KPP and a 3rd tall thats an athlete
2 rucks

still think you need 8 talls a game

ideally you want a replacement for each position and some reserves - thats how i get 20
give me an athletic and good skilled tall over a good skilled small anyday

by that logic, if your team need 8 talls with 12 in reserve, your team also needs 14 smalls/mids, with 21 in reserve. Last time I checked, lists did not allow for 55 players