The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Tango]

ok just to clarify, for those who think a small fwd and a utility were the right way to go instead of KPP

if riewildt gets injured whoplays FFWD

1. Vickery - hes a ruck and playing FFWD hurts his ruck development
2. Post - should be playing CHB or CHF so cant include him
3. Simmonds - god no
4. Browne, Graeme - no chance
5. Gourdis - hasnt played a game yet
6. Griffiths - injured and is a kid
7. Astbury - skinny kid
8. Moreton - too small
9. looks like its taylor - first year undersized - great work tigers
10. Tuck, Deledio, Mcguane, Moore - no thanks

Now compare that with if a small fwd pocket or flanker gets injured - WHO CARES
we have an abundance of players to fill those 2 positions

Now do the same with the key back positions (say thursty or mcguane) - same result

If this is not a reason for taking more risks at the bottome end of the draft on speculative KPP then i dont know what is.

 

[GoodOne]

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.

Leysy, do you ever actually read and understand posts? I never said that recruiters are not necessary after pick 50. I never related the 'fuzzy and warm' statement to the recruiters not being necessary.

The job of the recruiter is to pick the best possible recruits to the advantage of the club. You are basically telling me that recruiters can accurately judge to choose a small player over a tall player without taking into account the needs for the club ie best available. What a crock. After pick 50, teams will usually go for needs as they know that its really alot of hit and miss after this. There are only a certain number of elite sportsmen. Today with the much improved practises and the increased spotlight on youngsters, it is becoming rarer that elite sportsmen are falling through the cracks. Recruiters will invariably rely on needs over speculating that they have delivered the impossible by dissecting one player from the other , where those players have glaring weaknesses our require massive upside to become successful. Most will pick best available for the early picks (if it is clear) and a needs basis later in the draft.

 

[Juffaricho]

ok just to clarify, for those who think a small fwd and a utility were the right way to go instead of KPP

if riewildt gets injured whoplays FFWD

Yeah you're right..... if Riewoldt gets injured we would play that superstar we got at pick 60 in a weak draft.... you know the guy. ...He was the one who couldn't dominate against scrawny kids a few months ago in the TAC but over the summer he grew 10 inches put on 20lbs of muscle, suddenly became a one grab pack mark and grew a pair. : Bloody superstar that guy..... how everyone overlooked him... crazy. I knew he could step right in and destrpy those seasoned professionals.

 

[TOT70]

ok just to clarify, for those who think a small fwd and a utility were the right way to go instead of KPP

if riewildt gets injured whoplays FFWD

1. Vickery - hes a ruck and playing FFWD hurts his ruck development
2. Post - should be playing CHB or CHF so cant include him
3. Simmonds - god no
4. Browne, Graeme - no chance
5. Gourdis - hasnt played a game yet
6. Griffiths - injured and is a kid
7. Astbury - skinny kid
8. Moreton - too small
9. looks like its taylor - first year undersized - great work tigers
10. Tuck, Deledio, Mcguane, Moore - no thanks

Now compare that with if a small fwd pocket or flanker gets injured - WHO CARES
we have an abundance of players to fill those 2 positions

Now do the same with the key back positions (say thursty or mcguane) - same result

If this is not a reason for taking more risks at the bottome end of the draft on speculative KPP then i dont know what is.

If Riewoldt gets injured.....

Who do you propose should have been picked up to deal with this eventuality, should it occur? Thorp? Likely to be in the medical room himself. Bradshaw? 31, why bother? Cameron Cloke? A couple of tall juniors? They might still get onto the rookie list anyway but how would it be any different to having to expose Griffiths, Astbury or Taylor? They would be just as young, skinny, unproven and just as exposed as the three we did draft.

This is actually as argument for hanging on to at least one of Schulz, Hughes or Pattison. At least they would offer some insurance for Riewoldt.

This discussion is not really relevant until after the rookie draft has been completed but I would suggest that between Riewoldt, Gourdis, Simmonds, Polak, Post, Astbury, Griffiths, Taylor and the ruckmen, we will have reasonable coverage for the tall forward spots. I'm sure that at least one or two more talls, in addition to Polak, will find their way onto the rookie list in a fortnight anyway, making the discussion moot.

Will it be the end of the world if Riewoldt is out for a while and we get games into several of our young forwards? I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[TigerForce]

ok just to clarify, for those who think a small fwd and a utility were the right way to go instead of KPP

if riewildt gets injured whoplays FFWD

1. Vickery - hes a ruck and playing FFWD hurts his ruck development - YES gotta learn to kick goals.
2. Post - should be playing CHB or CHF so cant include him - YES gotta learn to kick goals
3. Simmonds - god no - YES done it before / good solid mark
4. Browne, Graeme - no chance - maybe not
5. Gourdis - hasnt played a game yet - is a FF
6. Griffiths - injured and is a kid - YES gotta learn to kick goals.
7. Astbury - skinny kid - YES gotta learn to kick goals.
8. Moreton - too small - owns the goals
9. looks like its taylor - first year undersized - great work tigers
10. Tuck, Deledio, Mcguane, Moore - no thanks - McGuane was a FF and has good mark and leap
- Tuck good kick
- Lids has done it before / huge success rate

Now compare that with if a small fwd pocket or flanker gets injured - WHO CARES
we have an abundance of players to fill those 2 positions

Now do the same with the key back positions (say thursty or mcguane) - same result

If this is not a reason for taking more risks at the bottome end of the draft on speculative KPP then i dont know what is.

 

[davidrodan]

Whether Jack gets injured or not we are prolly not going to be challenging next year
So finding someone who can play FF now is not really a problem

Finding FF/CHF options for the future is a priority
A Jack injury could lead to opportunity for someone else

 

[IanG]

ok just to clarify, for those who think a small fwd and a utility were the right way to go instead of KPP

if riewildt gets injured whoplays FFWD

6. Griffiths - injured and is a kid
7. Astbury - skinny kid
10. Tuck, Deledio, Mcguane, Moore - no thanks

If this is not a reason for taking more risks at the bottome end of the draft on speculative KPP then i dont know what is.

So you think Griffiths and Astbury are kids and presumably won't be up to it in their first year yet you want to draft more kids who will also not be up to it? Others have said it but what you are arguing for is for us to draft Bradshaw.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

ok just to clarify, for those who think a small fwd and a utility were the right way to go instead of KPP

if riewildt gets injured whoplays FFWD

1. Vickery - hes a ruck and playing FFWD hurts his ruck development
2. Post - should be playing CHB or CHF so cant include him
3. Simmonds - god no
4. Browne, Graeme - no chance
5. Gourdis - hasnt played a game yet
6. Griffiths - injured and is a kid
7. Astbury - skinny kid
8. Moreton - too small
9. looks like its taylor - first year undersized - great work tigers
10. Tuck, Deledio, Mcguane, Moore - no thanks

Now compare that with if a small fwd pocket or flanker gets injured - WHO CARES
we have an abundance of players to fill those 2 positions

Now do the same with the key back positions (say thursty or mcguane) - same result

If this is not a reason for taking more risks at the bottome end of the draft on speculative KPP then i dont know what is.

It's amazing reading the reponses to a post like this - I don't think people are understanding the point you make

And then to say we have reasonable forward coverage if Reiwoldt isn't there... :

Tigerforce - your response would have to be the most rose-coloured analysis I have ever read. Surely our results conflict with your assessments? Would love to read some of your thoughts on our amazing backline

We recruited Schulz, Hughes & Pattison early in the draft - donuts. (I suppose it was the clubs fault they didn't develop?). We have actually received better output in a KP from later picks McGuane/Thursfield/Moore

I think many are just assuming Griffiths & Astbury are 100 plus gamers and that Post will rotate bewteen CHB & CHF at will and that we can get a good KPP next year or the year after

Oh, that's right, that was the past, in the future we will draft all good players and we will develop them so well because it's all changed

 

[TigerForce]

Tigerforce - your response would have to be the most rose-coloured analysis I have ever read. Surely our results conflict with your assessments? Would love to read some of your thoughts on our amazing backline

What results? pre-Hardwick? Is Wallace still the coach?

In a rebuilding year of 2010 (and 2011), tell me why it's important for us to cover a 'prediction' of Jack's injury?

To say that Vickery, Post, Astbury, Griffo and Gourdis are not good enough for FF is ridiculous. The time to gain experience is now whether we win or lose....who cares...we're rebuilding. Simmo, Tuck, Morton and especially Lids (FFS!) have and can kick goals.

 

[IanG]

It's amazing reading the reponses to a post like this - I don't think people are understanding the point you make

What point is that?

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Some people are forgetting that every single move Hardwick makes is the one which gives us the best chance to win a premiership.

Not to give us the best possible chance of winning every game in 2010.

If Riewoldt gets injured - so what!

We give Post experience up there, or Griffiths.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

What point is that?

And I thought collingwood supporters were thick

 

[Big Cat Lover]

What results? pre-Hardwick? Is Wallace still the coach?

In a rebuilding year of 2010 (and 2011), tell me why it's important for us to cover a 'prediction' of Jack's injury?

To say that Vickery, Post, Astbury, Griffo and Gourdis are not good enough for FF is ridiculous. The time to gain experience is now whether we win or lose....who cares...we're rebuilding. Simmo, Tuck, Morton and especially Lids (FFS!) have and can kick goals.

I know I, and I think Tango, are actually looking 3-5 years down the track when our midfield is at its peak. We are suggesting that our long-term prospects long dim, given not all recruits will make it

 

[Tango]

So you think Griffiths and Astbury are kids and presumably won't be up to it in their first year yet you want to draft more kids who will also not be up to it? Others have said it but what you are arguing for is for us to draft Bradshaw.

[/quot

griffiths is currently injured so i guess its fair to let him get fit first before we throw him in
astbury by all accounts is a skinny kid and needs 2 years in the gym - throw him in and he will get smashed
whats wrong with picking a temel, big body takes pack marks - yes he may have attitude and training problems but so did mitch clarke and buddy, why not use a guy like him as a bulky battering ram until a kid like astbury builds up or a griffiths gets over his injuries, this allows a post to play CHB or CHF

why not take a big bodied fwd from tassie, or the vfl or the afl just to ease the pressure on our kids

all im saying there must have been at least 2 option, temel is one surely there was another
instead we speculated on a small fwd and a basketballing utility - both may turn out stars and i hope they do but they are as big a risk as a temel or panos and neither offer the flexability or lists needs that the talls do

 

[GoodOne]

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.

In other words, pot luck instead of addressing the list structure. Tell me come pick 50,60,70 you can sit there going, well this is the best available player at pick 70. He'll be the most likely to make it. Reality it ain't. Go for the needs, then if they do come good you've addressed your weakness. These small pocket players are much easier to come by then a decent KPP. Would have thought that Richmond's past recruiting efforts are living proof of this. We've picked up some handy flankers in our time, it has helped our team diddly squat, because its not handy flankers that win premierships.

 

[Brodders17]

I know I, and I think Tango, are actually looking 3-5 years down the track when our midfield is at its peak. We are suggesting that our long-term prospects long dim, given not all recruits will make it

i basically agree with you on our talls situation. I disagree with you on our drafting strategy, but happy to leave it where our discussion has gotten to, but

tango keeps referring to next year, and seems to be saying we should have drafted more talls to cover next year. that is where i disagree, and i think thats ians point too. tango hasnt answered the question of how the problems we will have next year should have been solved.

edit: tango has now answered the question. and it seems to be we should have drafted with a focus on the short term.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

i basically agree with you on our talls situation. I disagree with you on our drafting strategy, but happy to leave it where our discussion has gotten to, but

tango keeps referring to next year, and seems to be saying we should have drafted more talls to cover next year. that is where i disagree, and i think thats ians point too. tango hasnt answered the question of how the problems we will have next year should have been solved.

edit: tango has now answered the question. and it seems to be we should have drafted with a focus on the short term.

OK - I think we are pretty clear where we stand

I'm not concerned about results next year, I'll just be happy that at the end of it we can say goodbye to McMahon and a few others and get a few more kids in the system

 

[Leysy Days]

instead we speculated on a small fwd and a basketballing utility - both may turn out stars and i hope they do but they are as big a risk as a temel or panos

IYO only Tango, not in our recruiters.

Certainly not in leysy's either if your referring to Temel & Panos. Both are way too slow to be a chance from what leysy's seen & heard.

 

[Brodders17]

In other words, pot luck instead of addressing the list structure. Tell me come pick 50,60,70 you can sit there going, well this is the best available player at pick 70. He'll be the most likely to make it. Reality it ain't. Go for the needs, then if they do come good you've addressed your weakness. These small pocket players are much easier to come by then a decent KPP. Would have thought that Richmond's past recruiting efforts are living proof of this. We've picked up some handy flankers in our time, it has helped our team diddly squat, because its not handy flankers that win premierships.

totally disagree. of course you can say that 'flanker' with good skills, good agility, reasonable smarts and good courage has a better chance, a lot better chance even, of making a difference to the team than a 'tall' with average skills, average mobility, limited strength and little footy smarts, or even a tall with 1 or 2 good attributes, but other failings. of course you can.

 

[Tango]

brodders not if the smll fwd or the flanker cant get a game because we have similar players
whereas the tall stocks are so lean there is more chance of playing and filling a role