The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[IanG]

Where did I say we pick blindly? Why would they be blind picks if done by dedicated recruiting staff?

There has been the feedback coming from draft watchers that this draft was poor for talls. Our recruiters have also obviously made the assessment that there were no other KPPs worth picking late, therefore you're advocating that they pick players that they don't think are going to be AFL standard players in the blind hope that 1 will turn good despite their assessment, or as insurance.

 

[GoodOne]

How is development going to occur properly if 8 of them are paying in Coburg reserves and that side is itself unbalanced?

This wasn't a serious comment I hope.

Informed opinion will lessen the chance of picking a dud even at that late stage, I would have thought that was a given. As I said good luck requires good management.

Might be worthwhile checking how many success stories there are after Pick 50 percentage-wise. Good management would choose on a needs basis. The best you can do is pick for needs and have percentages do the rest. Informed opinion, whilst might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't unfortunately go very far at pick 50 and above (especially even more so considering the prospects were lessened by 30% this year). All players at this stage have glaring weaknesses which prevented them from being picked higher in the draft.

 

[GoodOne]

There has been the feedback coming from draft watchers that this draft was poor for talls. Our recruiters have also obviously made the assessment that there were no other KPPs worth picking late, therefore you're advocating that they pick players that they don't think are going to be AFL standard players in the blind hope that 1 will turn good despite their assessment, or as insurance.

Poor for talls? Yes at the top of the tree that is correct. Only 4 of top 20 were taller than 190cm. But 9 of the next 20, 7 of the next 20 after that, and 10 out of the last 31 live picks. 30 talls not including those who may still be growing. Seems to me the results don't agree with the ascertion that it was a weak draft for talls.

 

[Brodders17]

Brodders raises a good point, if we have 20 KPPs where are we going to play them all?

that wasnt me. i wouldnt object to 20 talls. its how we get them thats the issue.

 

[Brodders17]

disagree. teams for the most part go with guys they like. some selections will be influenced by list management, just like some early picks are influenced by list management.

Huh, thats what I said, influenced by list management, not who they perceive is best available at picks 50,60 and 70 because that's impossible to decipher. As I said its a lottery so the smart way is to pick for your list management needs, not who you decipher is best available rgardless of position.

my bad. i meant 'SOME selections' not 'SO selections'
ive edited my post.

 

[Brodders17]

YES - we are in a dire position
YES - especially instead of a Nason or a Dea or a Webberly
No one with sense can think we have the area covered
Lowly rated by people who many times get it wrong - given the status of our list I'd rather they get it wrong with a tall than a forward pocket or flanker

There is no end to this debate - many of us are of the opinion we have only 2 or 3 long term KPP currently on our list and we need to address it now. We are under no illusion that by selecting extra talls we would get a keeper. Th reality is most will fail.
The rest of you are satisfied the recruiters have done the right thing this year. The answer will become apparent in the years to come.

fair post. i do disagree tho that we should take talls regardless of how we rate them.
and tango seems to think though of us who dont object to our drafting strategy this year are happy with our talls.

 

[GoodOne]

my bad. i meant 'SOME selections' not 'SO selections'
ive edited my post.

k, I agree with what you say. Theoretically teams go for best available, which I think is more easily defined in your top picks but realistically needs still sway around in the back of the mind, and I always ask how do you truly define best available. Shouldn't needs be part of that evaluation of best available? Best available for one team could be totally different for another just based on needs. Becomes less obvious with later picks and is where picking for needs kicks in. There is no doubt that the hierarchy see our predicament in this area, they selected two talls with our 2nd and 3rd picks, the argument is whether we should have picked another. Based on other teams selections of talls I think we should have. But we're talking an extra player so I don't think there's a lot of difference in most people's opinions here. Said before if we pick up our fair share of tall rookies then I am pretty happy with the result. Will need to do the same again next year.

 

[the claw]

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?

there is little we can do about talls for next yr. with richo not going around the obvious short term fix is bradshaw. personally bradshaw and another psd pick on a tall kid. that woul;d mean delisting another player and it wont happen.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

fair post. i do disagree tho that we should take talls regardless of how we rate them.
and tango seems to think though of us who dont object to our drafting strategy this year are happy with our talls.

Hopefully the recruiters are right

After the rookie draft would love to get some actual feedback re their ratings of the talls not taken and maybe get some idea of the plan for our tall stocks over the next couple of years

 

[U2Tigers]

Geez a lot of pressure will be put on Jack and Vickery next year won't it.

As much as I liked Simmonds 2-3 years ago - it was around the groun I liked his game not up forward. And I doubt Simmo can get back to where he was.

Jack and Vickery will have a huge amount of pressure to go to next level - especially Jack.

this really worries me.

Graham and Browne - IMO can't pinch hit forward.

worrying signs of where our goals will come from in 2010 - Patto should have been kept for 1 more year.

I reckon Tuck should be trialled up front.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Geez a lot of pressure will be put on Jack and Vickery next year won't it.

As much as I liked Simmonds 2-3 years ago - it was around the groun I liked his game not up forward. And I doubt Simmo can get back to where he was.

Jack and Vickery will have a huge amount of pressure to go to next level - especially Jack.

this really worries me.

Graham and Browne - IMO can't pinch hit forward.

worrying signs of where our goals will come from in 2010 - Patto should have been kept for 1 more year.

I reckon Tuck should be trialled up front.

For his contested marking and goal kicking?

 

[U2Tigers]

For his contested marking and goal kicking?

yeah and as an option - I would use the pre-season to at least try something.

 

[josey]

Where did I say we pick blindly? Why would they be blind picks if done by dedicated recruiting staff?

I would love someone from the club to provide some info on why we didn't go a tall or 2 late in the draft - if it was that they don't think there were any near good enough or that they are satisifed we have enough emerging talls.

I think they have done the wrong thing, you are satisfied and you have every right to support guys in paid positions with lots more information available to them than me.

Just out of curiousity BCL, who should we have gone for instead?

Bock, Lake or Rutten?

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Just out of curiousity BCL, who should we have gone for instead?

Bock, Lake or Rutten?

Why are you curious? Can't you read? You're a bit late aren't you? You having trouble understanding my position? A little thick are we? Do I need to type slower? Maybe in capitals? Would crayon be better?

As explained, I am not happy with certain selections made. It's not the guys they chose, it's the type they chose. I would have drafted more talls. The best tall they could identify with the information/materials at their disposal.

I am not saying we would get a Bock or Lake etc, in fact the chances of it are remote. But it is even more remote that Nason or Webberly or Dea will play CHB or FB

 

[GoodOne]

But it is even more remote that Nason or Webberly or Dea will play CHB or FB

You never know, Webberly on Nason's shoulder with a very long Richmond jumper should just about make the height of a KPP.

 

[josey]

Why are you curious? Can't you read? You're a bit late aren't you? You having trouble understanding my position? A little thick are we? Do I need to type slower? Maybe in capitals? Would crayon be better?

As explained, I am not happy with certain selections made. It's not the guys they chose, it's the type they chose. I would have drafted more talls. The best tall they could identify with the information/materials at their disposal.

I am not saying we would get a Bock or Lake etc, in fact the chances of it are remote. But it is even more remote that Nason or Webberly or Dea will play CHB or FB

Sorry. Did I hit a nerve?

Nason or Webberly may not play KPD, but I would suggest the recruiters believe they have more chance of playing AFL than any of the talls they were chosen before.

If you believe otherwise why don't you give us some names that will play FB or CHB at AFL level.

 

[feisty tige]

You never know, Webberly on Nason's shoulder with a very long Richmond jumper should just about make the height of a KPP.

It is funny because Ben actually seems taller in real life than of all of the photos I have seen of him in the papers. He seemed to be about the same height as Webbelry (179 Ben and 181 Webber) Maybe it is the hair? ;D

 

[IanG]

Poor for talls? Yes at the top of the tree that is correct. Only 4 of top 20 were taller than 190cm. But 9 of the next 20, 7 of the next 20 after that, and 10 out of the last 31 live picks. 30 talls not including those who may still be growing. Seems to me the results don't agree with the ascertion that it was a weak draft for talls.

How does that compare to previous years?
What percentage of those are players around 190 who are actually tall running players?
Why were players like Temel, Tighe, Grimes and Panos who were considered certainties not drafted then? The fact is most clubs if not all considered this a weak draft for KPPs.

 

[GoodOne]

How does that compare to previous years?
What percentage of those are players around 190 who are actually tall running players?
Why were players like Temel, Tighe, Grimes and Panos who were considered certainties not drafted then? The fact is most clubs if not all considered this a weak draft for KPPs.

Sorry mate, the stats on talls who were selected this year say otherwise. You're a clutching now. The reference to weak draft for KPPs referred to the top picks. This draft was also considered a weak draft overall yet 80+ odd players were drafted.

 

[Leysy Days]

Might be worthwhile checking how many success stories there are after Pick 50 percentage-wise. Good management would choose on a needs basis. The best you can do is pick for needs and have percentages do the rest. Informed opinion, whilst might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't unfortunately go very far at pick 50 and above

Oh dear. is that a serious post Goodone.

You are really suggesting that all the hundreds of thousands of dollars the every club puts into there recruiting is all to feel warm & fuzzy with little impact on changing results after pick 50. Hmmmm.

Leysy & his knowledge will go the exact opposite to yourself. Inside pick 30 especially, with the amount of info out there clubs will generally get themselves decent players with just a modicum of intelligence. It is in actual fact the picks after 50 & through the rookie draft that the "informed opinion" as you put it really comes into play. This is when the wheat from the chaff of recruiting teams comes to the fore.

But in your opinion we may as well do away with those departments at that stage & raffle players from a pool only if there in a pond of a certain size. No matter how dry that pond might be.

Some of the more crazy talk leysy's seen.