The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Disco08]

Apologies if this thread is a bit of a dog's breakfast, but it's got discussions from 3 or 4 threads. Hopefully we can keep all talk on this topic to this thread from now on.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

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

you're obviously another satisfied supporter with the likes of McGuane, Rance, Moore, Polak, Thursfield toying with the oppositon forwards
2 Questions
Do you think we have enough talls?
Do you see our KD as adequate moving forward?

 

[the claw]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Its simple when it comes to Claw,s rationale.Its all an ego trip for him.He think,s he,s God,s gift to Recruiting. :hihi :hihi :hihi

pppfffttt have never claimed to be good at recruiting. i have claimed my record is better than the clubs not hard to do even ray charles with the use of his dog could have spotted better talent than the rfc over the yrs.

my main gripe has been stucture it has been ver since miller came to the club.

in 2002 we had just 9 talls on the list i wrote to miller about this and got told, yeah we are a few short but we have no need to worry the ones we have are quality.

its now 2009 and we have 12 talls and we are basically in the same boat as 2002. the talls we had in 2002 contained many duds few young talls established and the decent talls we had getting on. every yr these factors have remained right up to this moment.

im sick to death of telling people how we should go about building the talls up and im sick of going over and over what the structure should be.

heres a comparison essendon.basically went into rebuild a yr after us. they have maintained a list of talls numbering close to 19. not only have they had ther numbers but they have gone and used a lot of early picks on talls when so called quality mids were available to them.
atkinson r 08, bellchambers psd 08, daniher 39 07, fletcher f/s 92, gumbleton 2 06, hille 40 99, hooker 54 07,hurley 5 08, laycock 10 02, mphee 39 00, myers 6 07,neagle 39 05, pears 23 07, ryder 7 05, still 55 08, bock r 08, lovett-murray r 05, they had lloyd and lucas this yr to go with that lot.did they need more talls well they took carlisle at 24 this yr.

13 talls since 05. clearly they have focused on talls first. expended valuable picks on them and taken plenty. they continue to target talls with good picks.

wheres their midfield at. what picks have they expended on mids. you can bet from here on in they will target mids more and more melksham colyer their midfield is by no means elite yet they played finals this yr.

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

you're obviously another satisfied supporter with the likes of McGuane, Rance, Moore, Polak, Thursfield toying with the oppositon forwards
2 Questions
Do you think we have enough talls?
Do you see our KD as adequate moving forward?

you want 20 talls, but by Tango's math, that just leaves 26 to cover all remaining roles.

given he has 8 talls playing each week, this leaves 14 smalls/mids playing each week, with just 12 in reserve

he wanted 1.5 extra players for every tall, yet doesn't even have 1 in reserve for each of the smaller guys.

I can get Claw's request for 16 talls, but 20 seems to be robbing the midfield

 

[Tango]

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.

good post, you say 15 - 16 and i say a little more (i said 20) but lets say 18 we are still short
we dont have polak yet so cant count him so we have 13 probably between 3 - 5 short

also lets look at the talls,
thursty, mcgane and moore have all played a bit of footy but are all undersized and really is moore a tall or a medium?
rance is big but does he play like a tall and is he good enough
riewoldt and post will make it IMO but both are still young and skinny
simmonds is on 1 leg and will be lucky to see the season out
vickery, graeme and browne are raw but have something maybe 2 of the 3 will make it
Astbury and Griffiths are just kids and should be locked in the gym and play 2's until they are mentally and physically strong enough for afl - yes griffiths is 100kg but he is still a kid
gourdis is who knows where....

so how well placed are we for talls...
rucks we are ok - just (god help us if graeme gets injured)
defenders we are in trouble unless post plays CHB - thursty, mcguane and moore as gallant as they are need another big body and the jury is still out on rance
forwards we have 1 in Riewoldt if post plays back as vickery is a ruck and hard to see the 2 new kids doing much early on - gee we better hope griffiths come good quickly as astbury is a twig at the moment and gourdis ??

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

lets move this to the tall thread and i will answer it there

 

[Tango]

answering a post from another thread,

i think we need 20 talls NOW, once we establish enough quality within our tall stocks we can reduce this, its all about balance, when we have afew good quality talls with size and experience we can afford to carry less

right now we have 1 aging tall in simmonds
3 x experienced talls in mcguane, thursty and moore (if we class moore as a tall)
the rest of our talls are kids

that means we need to give them time to develop and they are prone to injury or loss of confidence if we smash them up too much too early

if we were a more balance list we wouldnt need to carry so many talls to cover injury or development, i still believe 18 is about right

 

[GoodOne]

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.

Why are we looking at Carlton as our yardstick on how we should be recruiting? Carlton have been just as an abysmal failure as us when it comes to onfield success. On top of it they have cheated their way through. Why don't we look at maybe a team like Adelaide who have managed to remain competitive over many years. They picked up Talia, Gunston, Craig in this draft, all talls. They already have Bock, Davis, Griffin, Hentschel, Maric, McKernan, Otten, Rutten, Sellar, Shaw, Stevens, Tippett and Young all over 190cm. So they had 13 talls and still chose 3 more in the draft. I envy the tall list they have built up. Some wont make it but they have enough to ensure that some will. The quality of the talls that they have compared to us is chalk and cheese. Look closely at the other very successful clubs and you'll notice a similar pattern.

EDIT: Sorry also missed Moran at 199cm, so make that 17 + rookies.

 

[Tiger74]

my main worry with that is if you are getting talls for the sake of talls, we are just going to keep spinning our wheels churning out guys

this draft was always going to be weak for the bigger blokes, and had been touted like that for some time. Why chase talls who you know will not cut if just for the sake of hitting a quota?

 

[the claw]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

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

you need one in reserve/development for each position including both ruckmen. in other words 16 players who you are reasonably confident of being solid afl players.
4 kpds 4 kpfs 4 ruckmen 2 third tall /running defenders 2 third tall forwards.
the last time i looked that left 14 players on the field one in reserve for each of these equals a total of 28. 28 plus 16 is 44. leaves a couple spare.

the thing is in finding 16 you are reasonably confident will be decent afl players you may need to load the list up with more initially.

this has been spoken about ad nauseum.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

you want 20 talls, but by Tango's math, that just leaves 26 to cover all remaining roles.

given he has 8 talls playing each week, this leaves 14 smalls/mids playing each week, with just 12 in reserve

he wanted 1.5 extra players for every tall, yet doesn't even have 1 in reserve for each of the smaller guys.

I can get Claw's request for 16 talls, but 20 seems to be robbing the midfield

Where did I say I want 20 talls?

I would like us to prioritise talls before taking a JON/Meyer/Polo/McMahon/Fiora/Pettifer - your run of the mill flanker/pocket type that is IMO a player that will have minimal impact on the long term success/failure of the side. Unless they have elite long kicking and elite endurance they offer little appeal IMO.

I would hate to see Nason/Webberly/Dea added to this list. Hopefully as leysy said the recruiters have done their homework and the elite footskills of Webberly will be useful. If Dea turns out to lack football IQ and footskills I'll be seriously peeved and I just wonder what Nason will add.

 

[Scoop]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

My last few posts before the draft on Fitzpatriick were very damning on him. Just ask SCOOP who was a fan of his.

Yep Bobby hated him. ;D

I think that Dea is a risk of sorts, no doubt about it. So is Fitzpatrick. But Fitzpatrick plays in the only spot that kicking doesn't have to be elite, the ruck. I haven't seen a big man be as athletic, mobile and covers as much ground. His ability to get over the ground reminds me of Naitanui but he is much more advanced in his natural footballing ability. They are both projects that will take time. I thought at 44 he was worth the punt. But we went big at 19, 35 so we went small/medium at 44. If we took Bastinac at 19 I think we go big at 44 and take Fitzpatrick.

But I don’t think that any tall we overlooked was really worthy of a pick at 44 or 51. From there it is a bit of a crap shoot so I will not worry about those picks.

But on Dea, he is no finished package. A lot of coaching needs to go into him. He has the tools but will need to learn the game more.

In fact I think Troy Taylor plays more AFL then Matt Dea in 2010.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

my main worry with that is if you are getting talls for the sake of talls, we are just going to keep spinning our wheels churning out guys

this draft was always going to be weak for the bigger blokes, and had been touted like that for some time. Why chase talls who you know will not cut if just for the sake of hitting a quota?

Lake - 71, Fisher - 55, Bock - Rookie, Rutten - Rookie - elite defenders taken late, obviously not considered to be elite at the time?

You are basically saying it won't happen again? It definitley won't happen if you take a Nason at 71.

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Where did I say I want 20 talls?

I would like us to prioritise talls before taking a JON/Meyer/Polo/McMahon/Fiora/Pettifer - your run of the mill flanker/pocket type that is IMO a player that will have minimal impact on the long term success/failure of the side. Unless they have elite long kicking and elite endurance they offer little appeal IMO.

I would hate to see Nason/Webberly/Dea added to this list. Hopefully as leysy said the recruiters have done their homework and the elite footskills of Webberly will be useful. If Dea turns out to lack football IQ and footskills I'll be seriously peeved and I just wonder what Nason will add.

you were replying to a post discussing 20 talls being drafted

on the rest, you don't get much argument from me. Main reason I ain't freaking like some here is the priority on skills. If their assessments are right, we may be looking at getting 6 kids into the side who know how to use the ball very well. Fingers crossed, but its been a long time since we were not turnover kings - it would be nice to see some efficiency in our side - but as I said, fingers crossed the kids develop as hoped

Lake - 71, Fisher - 55, Bock - Rookie, Rutten - Rookie - elite defenders taken late, obviously not considered to be elite at the time?

You are basically saying it won't happen again? It definitley won't happen if you take a Nason at 71.

this is a very different draft to that one, massive chunk of 17 year olds taken out, and it was never being touted as a great draft (EQ only had the top three as being capable of getting in last years top 25 off memory)

 

[the claw]

let me add if say all 12 of the current lot of players make it and become solid afl players (me im allowing for at least 40% failure rate especially if we take the majority of talls late or rookie them) this means we need another 4 just to put us in a decent operating mode. to get another 4 decent players it will mean in all likelyhood we need to go thu 6 or 8.
you want at one time players who you are confident will be decent players to get the 16 you will need more than this number or rely heavily on the recuiters to get every single pick right which just wont happen.

the tall list should be at, no needs to be at 16 YOU ARE REASONABLY CONFIDENT ARE SOLID AFL PLAYERS AT LEAST. AND THAT IS A MINIMUM.

the question is how do we get the list to this point in one rebuild period, hardwicks tenure 3 yrs .

the other question that needs to be answered is how many talls on our list thus far can we categorically say are going to be genuine solid afl players at worst.

imo of those 12 we have 4 who are not up to it with some others who really need to dramaticaly improve. as such i treat the situation as us having only 8 talls on the list. at this stage there are only two im reasonably sure will be long term players. i have high hopes on others but its to early.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Yep Bobby hated him. ;D

I think that Dea is a risk of sorts, no doubt about it. So is Fitzpatrick. But Fitzpatrick plays in the only spot that kicking doesn't have to be elite, the ruck. I haven't seen a big man be as athletic, mobile and covers as much ground. His ability to get over the ground reminds me of Naitanui but he is much more advanced in his natural footballing ability. They are both projects that will take time. I thought at 44 he was worth the punt. But we went big at 19, 35 so we went small/medium at 44. If we took Bastinac at 19 I think we go big at 44 and take Fitzpatrick.

But I don’t think that any tall we overlooked was really worthy of a pick at 44 or 51. From there it is a bit of a crap shoot so I will not worry about those picks.

But on Dea, he is no finished package. A lot of coaching needs to go into him. He has the tools but will need to learn the game more.

In fact I think Troy Taylor plays more AFL then Matt Dea in 2010.

Exactly my feeling. To me Dea is a big risk and wouldn't have been unhappy to have taken on Fitzpatrick instead. What was your opinion of Vardy Scoop?

 

[Brodders17]

as has been said at the moment we have 13 talls, 14 if you include polak. we will probably enter next season with 16/17 talls.
of those simmonds and polak will prob be gone at the end of 2010. maybe gourdis. we draft another 4 talls. we are then up to 17/18 talls on the list. from there we replace tall with tall and our numbers are good. the quality will depend on how we draft.

unless we take experienced talls our list of afl ready KPs/rucks will be short for another 2/3 years, regardless of how many late ND talls we take.

to me an ideal number of talls includes 4 KPDs, plus at least 2 3rd tall types, those who can play on a tall if needed but can also play HBF, like a moore type, 4 ruckmen and 4 KPFs, plus again at least 2 other marking forwards, like morton or maybe taylor. these 12 talls all need to capable of playing senior footy. 2 more young but able KPs would be ideal, probably like post last year. guys who can play if needed, but best left on a flank or in the vfl. then depending on the age of your senior KPs another 1-3 'project' KPs. and a project ruck.
so ideally i reckon between 15-18 true talls, plus a few 3rd tall options for each end.

my take on our list for next year:
KPDs:Thursfield, mcguane, rance, post, moore- i think we have enough options. imo mcguane and moore are at an acceptable base standard. post and rance are yet to be proven. i would rather moore as a 3rd tall, but he may be needed as a KPD for the moment. would like another KPD drafted.
Rucks: Simmonds, Vickery, Graham, Browne- if Browne can play capable 2nd ruck when needed, and Simmonds stays mostly fit we have the numbers here. would like a rookie pick ruck.
KPFs: Riewoldt, Polak- this is obviously where we are in most immediate trouble. imo Riewoldt can well and truely hold down 1 spot. the other spot will be filled by the likes of polak, or a ruck, or Post. maybe gourdis will be worth a game at some point. we have griffiths and astbury for the future. another KPF is also needed.

so i guess out of our 5 draft picks left i would like to see 3 talls picked. if the quality isnt there i guess it aint there tho. at least rookie picks are cheaper and only get 1 year contracts.

thats my take on talls. fwiw.

 

[IanG]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Exactly my feeling. To me Dea is a big risk

On what basis do you make that claim?

as has been said at the moment we have 13 talls, 14 if you include polak. we will probably enter next season with 16/17 talls.
of those simmonds and polak will prob be gone at the end of 2010. maybe gourdis. we draft another 4 talls. we are then up to 17/18 talls on the list. from there we replace tall with tall and our numbers are good. the quality will depend on how we draft.

Its been said we will take another tall with our PSD, along with Polak that makes 15 on the list. I agree 16 is the ideal so we are almost there. To those saying we should have 20 talls if thats right why does no other club have that many?

I would also hope that we would look at rookieing another ruckman which would bring us up to 16.

 

[Scoop]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Exactly my feeling. To me Dea is a big risk and wouldn't have been unhappy to have taken on Fitzpatrick instead. What was your opinion of Vardy Scoop?

I thought Vardy was going to end up a bit like Adam Pattison, not big enough to be a number one ruck but not enough footballing ability to hold down a KP full time. I think he will be a much better player then Pattison and will be a number 2 ruckman. Vardy can just drift in and out of games though. Doesn't play with enough aggresion and doesn't use his bulk at all. I was happy to pass on him.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

You are basically saying it won't happen again? It definitley won't happen if you take a Nason at 71.

Not much after pick 71.Mostly Rookie upgrades.So i don,t think we missed on much by taking Nason.

72. Sam Jacobs •••••••••••••••••Carl

73. Jesse O'Brien ••••••••••••••••Bris

74. Brodie Martin •••••••••••••••Adel

75. Josh Thomas •••••••••••••••••Coll

76. Shane Thorne ••••••••••••W Bull

77. Will Johnson •••••••••••••••••St K

78. pass•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Rich

79. Greg Broughton •••••••••••Frem

80. Cruize Garlett •••••••••••N Melb

81. pass •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Syd

82. Daniel Stewart •••••••••••••Port

83. Aaron Joseph •••••••••••••••Carl

84. Bryce Retzlaff ••••••••••••••••Bris

85. Simon Buckley ••••••••••••••Coll

86. Liam Picken•••••••••••••••W Bull

87. Zac Dawson •••••••••••••••••St K

88. Wade Thompson ••••••••••Port

89. Robin Nahas ••••••••••••••••Rich

90. Kristin Thornton •••••••••••••Syd

91. Matt Maguire ••••••••••••••••Bris

92. James Mulligan •••••••••W Bull

93. Luke Miles ••••••••••••••••••••St K

94. Andrew Browne ••••••••••••Rich

95. Pearce Hanley •••••••••••••••Bris