The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

On what basis do you make that claim?

Guess I can repeat it one more time. On the basis he was a late starter and his disposal needs a lot of work. He is quite dashing and looked to have strong hands, no doubt about that. Doesn't seem to lack courage either. But I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think he is high risk. I'd put him down as our x-factor pick this year.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

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 personally don't advocate the need for quite 20 talls. But Adelaide have 17 before the psd and rookie draft, so they will be close. Essendon have 16 before psd & rookie and a couple who you could almost class as talls at 189cm. Saints have 17 before psd & rookie. These are just 3 I've looked at. All these clubs have better performed talls than we have, means we should probably stock up with a couple more than other teams to end up with the status quo of AFL quality talls.

 

[IanG]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Guess I can repeat it one more time. On the basis he was a late starter and his disposal needs a lot of work.

Given the way we rated disposal this year I don't think its a high risk at all. Given the way we watched him multiple times under match conditions I don't think the fact that he is a late starter is much of a risk either, as I think Leysy said its not as though he just started playing footy this year its just that he only committed to it full time this year.

 

[torch]

i believe we need another CHF and CHB.

 

[spook]

You'd think if he's physically able Polak would play a fair bit of senior footy in 2010, if nothing else to protect the young 'uns now that Richo's gone.

 

[the claw]

people keep rating our talls. yet here are those same people siding with maisey saying there were no decent talls available after pick 40. they rate our talls and insist on putting them on the list of certainties. sheesh if footskills/smarts are a prerequisite moving forward how can anyone include mcguane rance gordis polak graham as being up to standard. seems to me arguments are being made to suit.
if we cant take talls because they lack in areas and are no part of the future how can we include talls on the list with the same weaknesses and say they are part of the future. you cant have it both ways people they are either up to scratch or they arent.

you have those 5 mentioned plus simmonds thats 6 who imo are likely not to be part of the future you then have just griffiths astbury post riewoldt thursfield and browne. none established and if we are serious there wil;l be a percentage who dont make it.
no one is thinking sheesh what if 2 or 3 of astbury post griffiths riewoldt thursfield and browne dont make it or cop serious injury.all of a sudden you dont have the numbers to put on the park again.

people are going oh yeah we will have 15 talls if we take rookies but people ignore constantly the fail rate and the true situation of where the talls are at.

answer this how many of our talls are people confident of becoming good solid afl players at worst. im aiming for 16 but i know to attain 16 you will have to go thru pain and accept your fair share of failures.how many of the current lot are people sure will be there in 3 yrs time.
where they are in 3 yrs time is the true indicator of where the tall list is at.you dont manage the list with now in mind you manage it with 3 to 5 yrs in mind.
we have few certainties and few in numbers. why is it so hard for people to do the simple thing and see what other clubs have done in an attempt to have good structure almost every other club has at one stage overloaded with talls and then pruned back.

if we are to take talls late we know a good percentage will fail probably 3 out of 4 but its the same for most types. plan for the failures so you can actually grow the tall list and not just tread water.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Given the way we rated disposal this year I don't think its a high risk at all. Given the way we watched him multiple times under match conditions I don't think the fact that he is a late starter is much of a risk either, as I think Leysy said its not as though he just started playing footy this year its just that he only committed to it full time this year.

Has played around 50 games of junior footy apparently. His disposal is the biggest concern, which is why I think he can be classed as risky. Definitely risky compared to other players with a more traditional football upbringing through junior ranks but good potential upside if he improves that area, thus the x-factor.

 

[the claw]

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.

actually i think 20 for now the next 2 or 3 yrs would be appropriate. as you find the neccesary quality it can be pruned back to the 16.

 

[the claw]

You'd think if he's physically able Polak would play a fair bit of senior footy in 2010, if nothing else to protect the young 'uns now that Richo's gone.

if disposal is rated so hjighly he should not be looked at.

 

[the claw]

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.

whilst agreeing with the first part in principal i have to say one could not possibly put a better spin on your take of our talls.

again if the club is prioritising kicking skills 5 are as good as gone and simmonds will retire. and thats just looking at one weakness.

 

[IanG]

answer this how many of our talls are people confident of becoming good solid afl players at worst. im aiming for 16 but i know to attain 16 you will have to go thru pain and accept your fair share of failures.how many of the current lot are people sure will be there in 3 yrs time.
where they are in 3 yrs time is the true indicator of where the tall list is at.you dont manage the list with now in mind you manage it with 3 to 5 yrs in mind.

If we take 3-4 this year in total as part of all drafts and we take 4-5 next year, given the crop is supposed to be better, is that not managing for the future?

actually i think 20 for now the next 2 or 3 yrs would be appropriate. as you find the neccesary quality it can be pruned back to the 16.

With 16 all clubs are going to have developing talls on their list some of which aren't going to make it. We can't have 16 mature talls all of whom are deserving of a senior game.

You've also got to remember we are essentially 1 short of where we expected to be given Richo's unexpected retirement.

Also from what I've read about Hardwick's game plan players like Thursfield and McGuane are going to be more stay at home, therefore we need runners with good kicking skills. Its a matter of juggling the different priorities across 2-4 drafts.

 

[Brodders17]

whilst agreeing with the first part in principal i have to say one could not possibly put a better spin on your take of our talls.

again if the club is prioritising kicking skills 5 are as good as gone and simmonds will retire. and thats just looking at one weakness.

disagree. i could have put a lot better spin on the talls. i barely tried.

the 5 i assume you are talking about are polak, rance, gourdis, mcguane and graham.
polak: i assume he is there as the big body. he can play ff. how good he can play is open to debate but at least can provide a marking option.
gourdis: i have never seen play so cant rate him.
graham: i give him a chance of being a decent ruck. he has improved a lot. his kicking efficiency is good, his kicking is ok.
rance: it remains to be seen if his kicking will improve as he adjusts to the speed of afl. reportedly his junior kicking was ok. it also remains to be seen if he can play as a KPB.
mcguane: my view on mcguane is that he is required until we have better options. i doubt he will ever be AA but he is capable of competing with KPFs. unless he goes to the gold coast i think he will be around for a few years at least.

as said i agree we need to keep recruiting and turning over talls until we have the quantity of quality. this will take a few years.

 

[Tango]

disagree. i could have put a lot better spin on the talls. i barely tried.

the 5 i assume you are talking about are polak, rance, gourdis, mcguane and graham.
polak: i assume he is there as the big body. he can play ff. how good he can play is open to debate but at least can provide a marking option.
gourdis: i have never seen play so cant rate him.
graham: i give him a chance of being a decent ruck. he has improved a lot. his kicking efficiency is good, his kicking is ok.
rance: it remains to be seen if his kicking will improve as he adjusts to the speed of afl. reportedly his junior kicking was ok. it also remains to be seen if he can play as a KPB.
mcguane: my view on mcguane is that he is required until we have better options. i doubt he will ever be AA but he is capable of competing with KPFs. unless he goes to the gold coast i think he will be around for a few years at least.

as said i agree we need to keep recruiting and turning over talls until we have the quantity of quality. this will take a few years.

now ive read it this about sums it up
1. Polak is a dud even before injury, he has no footskills and cant play FFWD, he is not a physivcal player so cannot provide a big body at contests or protect our kids - if you are relying on him look out
2. gourdis - u have never seen him play coz he never has, if u r relying on a guy yet to play a senior afl game as a KPP - look out
3. graeme is ok but dont say his kicking is good, he is an avge ruck with good size not much moore
4. rances kicking is woeful, he plays a running back and yet to show he can play a KPP, has the size but the jury is still out - if you are rlying on him look out
5. mcguane - ive always liked him but he is poor by foot, undersized and is really a 3rd tall option to compliment your main KP defenders - if you are relying on him to fill a key post look out

therefore i beilieve that these 5 are speculative at best, polak is not even on our list yet, in addition to this we have vickery and browne who are developing kids and simmonds who is injury prone and in his twighlight

in the fwd half we have 1, yes 1 recognised and maturing tall fwd in riewoldt and he is undersized at the moment
in addition we have post who looks good but is still a kid and the 2 new untried talls in griffiths and astbury

if ANYONE on this site can come on here and say that this is a healthy state of talls then they are kidding themselves

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

actually i think 20 for now the next 2 or 3 yrs would be appropriate. as you find the neccesary quality it can be pruned back to the 16.

thank you, exactly what i am saying

 

[IanG]

if ANYONE on this site can come on here and say that this is a healthy state of talls then they are kidding themselves

No-one is saying that. The question is primarily whether we should have drafted more KPPs this year and how may talls should there be on our list.

Most who are questioning the drafting of more KPP this year if there were none left that we thought could become AFL players, are saying it will have to be made up next year and the year after probably.

 

[Tango]

If we take 3-4 this year in total as part of all drafts and we take 4-5 next year, given the crop is supposed to be better, is that not managing for the future?

if we do that we will still be in the position we are now as surely simmonds, polak and most likely gourdis will be gone
so we suggest we are 3 - 5 talls short now - depending on how many you think we need (includes the 2 we took)
we add another 2 to get your 4 this year - so say we are still down 1, we lose simmonds and polak next year and potentially 1 if not 2 others and we are back to where we are - on the cusp of just having enough talls and nearly all of them kids, undersized or developing - and so the merry go round continues

 

[IanG]

if we do that we will still be in the position we are now as surely simmonds, polak and most likely gourdis will be gone
so we suggest we are 3 - 5 talls short now - depending on how many you think we need (includes the 2 we took)

If we take just 1 more tall in the pre-season and rookie drafts then we will be 1 short of the ideal 16 assuming Polak is re-rookied.

 

[Tango]

No-one is saying that. The question is primarily whether we should have drafted more KPPs this year and how may talls should there be on our list.

Most who are saying why draft more KPP this year if there were none left that we thought could become AFL players are saying it will have to be made up next year and the year after probably.

well its about having enough guys that have the size and strength to play a specialised role within your squad to allow for injury and development of similar type players.

i believe we are short of these types (KPP) and the ones we have are either not suitable or speculative and or developing - which means we are further behind than most clubs who already have recognised talls and developing replacements if we dont address this quickly our new talls and smalls will suffer and wont develop quickly enough.

i have never been "on the tall bandwagon before" in fact if you search my posts i was against talls in wallaces early years suggesting the modern game was more about run and carry and less likely to go down the tall path, even to the extent of suggesting wallace was changing the way the game was being played - i have seen and learnt over the last 5 years that this is not the case as even the best and most skilled sides like the dogs failed at the pointy end of the season due to lack of tall targets and there is still a definate need for tall strong specialists in these positions.

Its all about the spine, ours is weak, small, young and developing, i now believe that this is more critical to get right than any other area within our club (our mid strength has improved and so has our skill), considering our new coach has suggested he wants to change our game plan from run and carry to a long kicking direct approach i dont think our recruiting team have done enough to cater for this.

 

[IanG]

Its all about the spine, ours is weak, small, young and developing, i now believe that this is more critical to get right than any other area within our club (our mid strength has improved and so has our skill), considering our new coach has suggested he wants to change our game plan from run and carry to a long kicking direct approach i dont think our recruiting team have done enough to cater for this.

You don't know anything about our long term strategy to say this. I'll say again, if our recruiting team didn't think any more of the available talls are going to be AFL standard players given our information at the time then I'm happy with that and happy with a strategy that would see us strengthen this area over the following 2 years when the pool is stronger.

 

[Brodders17]

if ANYONE on this site can come on here and say that this is a healthy state of talls then they are kidding themselves

i dont think anyone is claiming our talls are in a healthy state. the debate we are having is what we should have done this draft.

you say we should have taken more talls. others including myself say we were right to take who we took, assuming we did so bc we believe they were best available. if we took smalls over better talls for list management i would be concerned.

you also go on about our list of talls for next year. how would you have gone about solving that problem?