The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[spook]

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

He'll be a target, not a distributor. If he's ok he'll play the role Richo would have. Our young key forwards are going to cop it next year.

On another note, not sure how you can question the selection of 'b' grade Griffiths and Astbury then ask why we didn't subsequently take blokes rated lower than them. Shallow draft, dearth of quality talls. If we take two in the rookie/PSD and get three-five in a stronger draft next year we're up to 20. Plenty of little blokes to cut too: Kingy, McMahon, White, Thomson and Hislop are far from safe. First priority at this stage is quality.

 

[spook]

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 don't think anyone would disagree with that. At least two of our first three picks in PSD/rookie shoud be talls.

 

[spook]

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.

The only way to address this complaint is to trade for established AFL talls, or Zac Dawsons.

i have never been "on the tall bandwagon before" in fact if you search my posts i was against talls in wallaces early years

Wow, you had it wrong. What makes you think you're right now? What part of "four of our five round 1-3 picks over the past two years were talls" tells you RFC doesn't think talls are imprtant?

 

[spook]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

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.

Most of those blokes were recruited AFTER Adelaide built a solid mid-sized core. Rutten and Hentschel were rookies. Davis, McKernan, Sellar, Shaw, Gunston, Talia, Craig and Young have barely played a game between them. Griffin is a reserve ruck, Stevens a foot soldier. Leaves Bock, Rutten, Tippett, Maric as regular proven talls. Adelaide makes and wins finals because it has 22 big, strong, fit, skilled, commtted team players out there every week.

 

[Juffaricho]

Geez after reading all this thread... I have a headache.

One thing never changes. Top teams are full of high quality not quantity. In order to get a high quality team you need high quality recruiting staff who do a high quality job in picking recruits with a high quality skillset (developed or not). Then high quality coaches develop players in a high quality training environment and blended with a high quality game plan you get a high quality team. Voila!

If you take the quantity approach, that is just pick players because of there sizes or positions you suspect they will play, even if the rest of your program is high quality (coaching, development etc.) you will still come unstuck because of the restrictions on the quantity of players allowed on a team list. Quite simply, if you skew your recruiting in one direction (e.g. on getting extra talls, smalls, mids etc. then the odds show you will lose out elsewhere.)

The way the draft works (poor performing teams get access to top picks) the only way you can become undone is by continuously not taking the highest quality talent.

Something I am suprised noone has raised here is the fact that if you take the best talent (even if it is another small or midfielder) and develop it, you can always trade it in 2 years if you have too many flankers, mids etc. something other teams have done extremely well and Richmond have been atrocious at.

The Tiger Stock market performance over the past decade has been shocking.... buying high and selling low.

I have faith that the recruiters did not value the talls left over. So now instead of worrying about whether that was the correct decision or not I prefer to see if we have any smalls or mids who we can put extra value into this season that we could trade for a tall we did rate that was taken last year or for an extra draft pick that we can use on a tall we rate next year.

At the end of the day quality can always be exchanged for quality but crap will always be crap.

It is a hell of a lot easier to fill your list with quality smalls and mids (and the occasional tall when it comes along) and then trade those excessive quality smalls, mids for the talls you need (Barry hall at pick 70 something or Daniel Bradshaw in a PSD) to get your shot at the premiership than just pick every tall in Australia but have a list that is 3/4 full of crap.

 

[Hayfever]

It's pointless arguing what should or should not have been done in the past. What is relevant now is who is available, what out list needs are and who we can get.......in other words we have to balance list needs with best available, subject to what we can afford.

That is why Bradshaw has to be a real option. We can get him and we can afford him. I do not accept that he is locked into going to Sydney. He's a professional footballer who understands the risks of the draft. If we choose him and pay him well I have no doubt he will give us his best efforts. I don't know if RFC wants him or has identified a better option in PSD2 as they play their cards much closer to their chests these days. In spite of what some people say I reckon they will have done plenty of homework.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

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.

Your thoughts really do have momentum don't they?

I have no idea whether Panos, Temel, Daw or John Smith from toowomba will be good afl players. Of course our paid staff would have more idea than I do about who may or may not make it. Like most on this site I have an opinion about our list and players

I struggle to understand how the recruiting staff can identify a forward pocket from the SANFL reserves as worth picking but cannot find one KPP in Australia who may be worth selecting before him. If we are lucky, Nason will average around 10 possessions and just under 2 goals a game. I don't see him making a difference.

I do however think we will get nowhere with the likes of McGuane, Polak, Moore, Thursfield playing the more important KPP. It is not impossible to get quality defenders late in the draft or in the rookie draft. Do I know who they are? Of course not. But if our recruiters can spot a SANFL reserves FP surely we can spot a potential KPP somewhere in australia?

Maybe the recruiters are instructed on what to look for and KPP were not a priority? I don't think that is the case.
Maybe the club is happy with our tall stocks? That is unlikley.
Maybe they did an exhaustive search and there is not one KPP in Australia that was worth drafting in front of Ben Nason or Webberly? That is what you and many others are proposing - I think the past drafts show that recruiters can be wrong and IMO, given our list, we should be taking risks on talls.

 

[IanG]

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.

Well you'll have no trouble answering my questions then.

 

[IanG]

At the end of the day quality can always be exchanged for quality but crap will always be crap.

Extremely well said. Its ironic that some on here criticising us for not taking enough talls want us to take players our recruiters have assessed as not being up to it, IOW to pick blindly, yet are huge critics of our recruiting performance over the years. Our recruiters can't win.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Your thoughts really do have momentum don't they?

I have no idea whether Panos, Temel, Daw or John Smith from toowomba will be good afl players. Of course our paid staff would have more idea than I do about who may or may not make it. Like most on this site I have an opinion about our list and players

I struggle to understand how the recruiting staff can identify a forward pocket from the SANFL reserves as worth picking but cannot find one KPP in Australia who may be worth selecting before him. If we are lucky, Nason will average around 10 possessions and just under 2 goals a game. I don't see him making a difference.

I do however think we will get nowhere with the likes of McGuane, Polak, Moore, Thursfield playing the more important KPP. It is not impossible to get quality defenders late in the draft or in the rookie draft. Do I know who they are? Of course not. But if our recruiters can spot a SANFL reserves FP surely we can spot a potential KPP somewhere in australia?

Maybe the recruiters are instructed on what to look for and KPP were not a priority? I don't think that is the case.
Maybe the club is happy with our tall stocks? That is unlikley.
Maybe they did an exhaustive search and there is not one KPP in Australia that was worth drafting in front of Ben Nason or Webberly? That is what you and many others are proposing - I think the past drafts show that recruiters can be wrong and IMO, given our list, we should be taking risks on talls.

Id rather take a risk with a Tall as a Rookie than late in the ND.Inparticular this year as its been vindicated by not just Richmond but all clubs.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Id rather take a risk with a Tall as a Rookie than late in the ND.Inparticular this year as its been vindicated by not just Richmond but all clubs.

How can it be vindicated until we actually see them play?

 

[Rosy]

It is a hell of a lot easier to fill your list with quality smalls and mids (and the occasional tall when it comes along) and then trade those excessive quality smalls, mids for the talls you need (Barry hall at pick 70 something or Daniel Bradshaw in a PSD) to get your shot at the premiership than just pick every tall in Australia but have a list that is 3/4 full of crap.

Might be ok in theory Juffa but not so easy in practice. There are very few trades done each year and most clubs aren't willing to give too much up. If the player was good enough to attract a trade of the value we'd want we'd probably keep him anyway.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Extremely well said. Its ironic that some on here criticising us for not taking enough talls want us to take players our recruiters have assessed as not being up to it, IOW to pick blindly, yet are huge critics of our recruiting performance over the years. Our recruiters can't win.

And it's rubbed off on the team...

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Might be ok in theory Juffa but not so easy in practice. There are very few trades done each year and most clubs aren't willing to give too much up. If the player was good enough to attract a trade of the value we'd want we'd probably keep him anyway.

Well said

Wouldn't be boasting about gettig a past it FF with questionable discipline and committment issues

Bradshaw definitely past his best also

Doubt you would get a gun KPP or top draft pick without giving up a Deledio

 

[Juffaricho]

Might be ok in theory Juffa but not so easy in practice. There are very few trades done each year and most clubs aren't willing to give too much up. If the player was good enough to attract a trade of the value we'd want we'd probably keep him anyway.

Well, just this year Fevola, Hall & Bradshaw are 3 pretty handy KPP's who anyone could have had if the deal was right. Also, Seaby and Mumford were two rucks who were happy to move. And don't forget Lachlan Henderson at 196cm was shifted for the right deal.

My point is there are always experienced KPP's coming out of contract, or playing interstate and wanting to come home and if you have more quality on the list it is easier to negotiate with clubs than having crap. Also if you have more quality on your list, senior KPP's like Hall and Bradshaw are more likely to be attracted to a club where they will get their final shot at a premiership and be an integral part of the team.

 

[Juffaricho]

Well said
Wouldn't be boasting about gettig a past it FF with questionable discipline and committment issues
Bradshaw definitely past his best also
Doubt you would get a gun KPP or top draft pick without giving up a Deledio

And I doubt you would get a Top KPP at pick 50. As I said, I don't care who they take. As long as they believe they were the best player available. If they are wrong, fine, there record tells the story and they will be sacked. But the minute you start passing on best available player you are playing with fire.

The reality is the majority people here who are arguing about which player should have been taken are being ridiculous..... however arguing about the system... best available player vs picks to suit is the real issue. And FWIW I am a best available player guy because at the end of the day.... quality is quality and can be traded for quality... but crap is crap.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

How can it be vindicated until we actually see them play?

It,s was well known that this year,s crop of talls didn,t have the depth as in previous years.Have a look at the picks around Nason.Either Rookie elevations or Mids.Like i said if your going to gamble then do it via the Rookie system,Thats what its there for.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

And I doubt you would get a Top KPP at pick 50. As I said, I don't care who they take. As long as they believe they were the best player available. If they are wrong, fine, there record tells the story and they will be sacked. But the minute you start passing on best available player you are playing with fire.

The reality is the majority people here who are arguing about which player should have been taken are being ridiculous..... however arguing about the system... best available player vs picks to suit is the real issue. And FWIW I am a best available player guy because at the end of the day.... quality is quality and can be traded for quality... but crap is crap.

Most are arguing about the system

So you are saying its a good chance Nason & Webberly will be quality?

How many forward pockets get traded for quality KPP? How many flankers?

As you say, the record will tell the story

 

[IanG]

So you are saying its a good chance Nason & Webberly will be quality?

Obviously our recruiting staff have assessed it to be a better chance than the remaining KPPs on offer. Like Capo said if they've assessed the remaining KPPs to be a big risk the smart thing to do is to take a couple up as rookies or in the PSD after they've been able to have a better and closer look at them. You're surely an advocate of smart recruiting.

 

[Juffaricho]

So you are saying its a good chance Nason & Webberly will be quality?

Not at all. Like most people I wouldn't have a clue about these guys. I'm saying that it is obvious the recruiters took a "best available player" approach over a "pick for needs" method because it is obvious that if they rated any talls even close to those small guys they would have picked them because of our needs. Therefore I am happy with the system. And I applaud the club for taking the "best player available" approach. As for whether the recruiters ratings of who the best available players were was accurate....time will tell.