The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[TigerForce]

you have been told time and time again but refuse to listen or acknowledge a thing so why should i bother answering.

Sheesh....now I'm a little kid being yelled at.....sheesh.

Keep your eyes open on December 15........Bradshaw will not be ours. Read the footy news a bit it does help.

 

[White Lightning]

hmm i think goody is saying after pick 50 very few players are taken and the success rate on those taken after 50 would be 1 in 4. it doesnt matter the size of the player taken after 50 they are all risks/speculative.

So going by this theory, The recruiters picked Webberley and/or Nason to be that 1 player out 4 that would make it. If that is the case, isn't that what recruiting is all about?

 

[the claw]

oh boy we are getting some beauties now?

like this:

Posted by: Disco08
Insert Quote

Why? He's played a forward so far and plenty of very successful forwards have been no taller than him and probably had nowhere near his leap. I thought you of all people wouldn't base everything on pure statistics.

or this:

Posted by: Disco08

If we include Taylor as an inclusion to our KP forwards and take the word from people at the Club80 function that we'll pick a young tall in the PSD we'll have added 4 out 8 "talls" to our main list. Is this enough?

or this:

Quote from: Disco08 on Today at 08:47:28 pm
I think another point that should be made is that on top of Astbury and Griffiths, Taylor is also basically an addition to our key forward stocks. He's 189 and possibly still growing - plenty of full forward have had successful careers at this height and all Taylor's junior footy has been as a key forward. FWIW he likens himself to Daryl White.

how can taylor be classed as a tall or a KPP - get real, apart from the fact that he is a skinny kid and we are talking genuine players with body size and strength to protect our skinny kids

lets not hide the facts,
we dont have enough talls - fact,
the club have chosen to draft smaller players who are believed to be a better chance at making it - regardless of our desperate need for talls - fact

thats a decision that i believe puts our junior players at risk and smacks of poor list management and after the last 5 years i thought they would have learned something

yep so many debates get mired in sheesh for want of a better word silliness. its easy to deflect from the problem. welcome tango to claws world. what the fools dont realise with this sort of deflection it just makes me more determined.

disco doesnt really believe taylor is a kp but just by suggesting it it adds weight to his argument .it deflects from what has been done all of a sudden we are debating taylor being a kpp which is a nonsense.
the king of defenders of all things richmond is disco. going by his comments one would have to conclude he has not even seen a highlight reel of taylor thats how nonsensical it is but thats where debates get dragged on this site.
on taylor im hoping we have a midfielder/forward that would be more likely.

and geez they must have rated dea real high they took him before taylor.
taylor wins hands down in all areas when it comes to footballers.

hands up all so called junior watchers based on ability and pedigree who would in his right mind take dea in front of taylor. just adds weight to the argument they took dea where they did because they were worried brissie had him in their sights.anyway thats a differnt story for a different thread.

 

[GoodOne]

That is my point, not all are going to make it. Not all can play in the forward line at one time, to me the spread forward isn't too bad. I think the mediums we have up forward are pretty good. I am much more worried about the talls down back.

I get the feeling Post will end up as a key backman. Bit early to start making predictions on Griffiths and Taylor. Morton plays tall but is not really a tall. Potentially could be left with just Reiwoldt. I agree though, our backline key position is pretty diabolical even if Thursfield and Post come on, pretty much no depth at this point in time.

 

[the claw]

Sheesh....now I'm a little kid.

got it in one wht a pleasant change.

 

[the claw]

So going by this theory, The recruiters picked Webberley and/or Nason to be that 1 player out 4 that would make it. If that is the case, isn't that what recruiting is all about?

yea they did well and good but it could just as easily have been a tall oh thats right there were only tall duds left after pick 35.

 

[GoodOne]

So going by this theory, The recruiters picked Webberley and/or Nason to be that 1 player out 4 that would make it. If that is the case, isn't that what recruiting is all about?

But our weakness isn't in the small department. One of them comes good, our nett result might be a marginal improvement in our list.

 

[Baloo]

I'm still trying to understand those that insist a risky tall should have been taken with a late pick.

So let me get this straight, bearing in mind my numbers are just hypothetical..

The recruiters feel there is a 25% chance Nason will make it as an AFL player.
The recruiters feel there is a 10% chance Panos (etc) will make it as an AFL player.

Because we need talls, we should have gone with the 10% chance instead of the 25% chance ? Does that sum up this argument ?

 

[White Lightning]

But our weakness isn't in the small department. One of them comes good, our nett result might be a marginal improvement in our list.

I think you're missing the point GO. Recruiters select players that they believe that will make it based on the talent pool they have in front of them at any given year. Sure they understand and try to accomidate the list needs, but if that particular type of players aren't there, then why pick that player over the ones the believe will have more success?

Small players can play in a variety of positions (other than KP ;D) as you would Know, so therefore as a coach you have more options.

Marginal improvement is better than no improvement.

 

[Phar Ace]

I'm still trying to understand those that insist a risky tall should have been taken with a late pick.

So let me get this straight, bearing in mind my numbers are just hypothetical..

The recruiters feel there is a 25% chance Nason will make it as an AFL player.
The recruiters feel there is a 10% chance Panos (etc) will make it as an AFL player.

Because we need talls, we should have gone with the 10% chance instead of the 25% chance ? Does that sum up this argument ?

Nah Big Bear, the recruiters are like punters, they always think they will beat the odds, and if they don't, who wants them anyway. But seriously, do you really think recruiters think that way?

 

[Baloo]

Nah Big Bear, the recruiters are like punters, they always think they will beat the odds, and if they don't, who wants them anyway. But seriously, do you really think recruiters think that way?

No, the numbers were hypothetical really, but I'm sure late picks are weighted to the extent where a pick being an AFL player isn't a given but they see enough to think he's worth the punt over another player. I'm just trying to simplify the argument here because for the life of me, and I've read most of these posts, I just can't see the logic in the "should have taken a tall" side of the argument. Normally I can see both side but this one seems illogical to me.

 

[GoodOne]

I'm still trying to understand those that insist a risky tall should have been taken with a late pick.

So let me get this straight, bearing in mind my numbers are just hypothetical..

The recruiters feel there is a 25% chance Nason will make it as an AFL player.
The recruiters feel there is a 10% chance Panos (etc) will make it as an AFL player.

Because we need talls, we should have gone with the 10% chance instead of the 25% chance ? Does that sum up this argument ?

Not really, because at this stage of the draft, you are kidding yourself if you think you can accurately gauge a 10% chance as opposed to a 25% chance. The chances of a quality player making it in the AFL for a competitive club, especially as a mature age recruit is very low. So you ,ay as well pick for needs in case they do come good.

 

[GoodOne]

I think you're missing the point GO. Recruiters select players that they believe that will make it based on the talent pool they have in front of them at any given year. Sure they understand and try to accomidate the list needs, but if that particular type of players aren't there, then why pick that player over the ones the believe will have more success?

Small players can play in a variety of positions (other than KP ;D) as you would Know, so therefore as a coach you have more options.

Marginal improvement is better than no improvement.

They can play in a variety of positions therefore also easier to find. The particular type of player was there. I quoted the percentage of talls selected in an earlier post. Simply put, we should have stacked up on talls, not smalls who we already have alot of in our squad. Get the spine happening int he window of opportunity that is our midfield maturing and we have a competitive chance. Fail to recruit enough talls that will make it and our window of opportunity is once again lost. 4 or 5 year window. If we don't address our tall situation soon its gone. Hopefully we will pick a couple more talls in the PSD and rookie draft and continue on with a few more tall draft picks next year. After that its going to take too long for the tall players to develop within the window of opportunity.

 

[Baloo]

Not really, because at this stage of the draft, you are kidding yourself if you think you can accurately gauge a 10% chance as opposed to a 25% chance. The chances of a quality player making it in the AFL for a competitive club, especially as a mature age recruit is very low. So you ,ay as well pick for needs in case they do come good.

OK, the numbers were hypothetical and an attempt to make it a bit easier to understand. But if they felt there was a better chance for one to make it as an AFL than the other, it really wouldn't matter what size they were. The only time I think size would matter is if it's a borderline decision or fairly close.

With regards to the window, if our recruiters are good and we have an abundance of AFL grade smalls and mids, surely we can use them to trade and fill the gaps. If we get the talls they believe won't make it, we're still without talls and missed out on the smalls/mids as well.

 

[IanG]

I'm replying to a few posts fro overnight here.

And I thought collingwood supporters were thick

Is that really necessary?

It seems his point was short term thinking which is always at the expense of the long term. I thought most supporters were sick of that.

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

How is Bradshaw an option 3-5 years down the track?

My point has always been in this thread that our recruiters have made an assessment that any KPP prospects at pick 71 aren't going to be an option for 3-5 years.

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

re Temel why did no=one take him then?

Re Tassie or the VFL cause there was no-one available obviously.

In other words, pot luck instead of addressing the list structure.

How is picking the best available pot luck? ISTM that blindly picking a KPP that they've assessed as not being up to it, as you want, is the very definition of pot luck.

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

So why complain about them not picking KPPs this year when the pickings are thin and waiting until next year when the stock is meant to be much better?

brodders, yes you are right, i believe we should have used this draft to address our structure issues in the short term at possibly the expense of the long term better player

Why?

but why not take a risk on temel, mcdonald, grimes, panos etc etc

We still have the rookie and PSDs.

so are you telling us all nason webberley dea are quality. shhesh if nason and webberley are not speculative i dont know what is.
it seems its okay to take speculative smalls who dont fit a lit need but its not alright to take a speculative tall who does fit list needs.
to top it off these arent kids we are taking but 20 21 yr olds. :

this thread has come to those who defend the club no matter what and those who think list management coul;d have been better.

Oh crap, there have been good reasons given. And no I'm not saying Nason and Webberly are automatically quality thats you putting words in peoples mouths yet again. You just want to criticise the club yet again and are going to lok pretty silly if we take 2-3 talls in the PSD and rookie drafts. I thought you wanted to use te rooie drafts for speculative picks? Thats what you were saying when you complained about us using it for depth players 2 years ago.

there wasnt a tall kid worth taking with pick 71 in a shallow draft. well there certainly wont be a tall kid worth taking in the psd or rookie draft then will there.

The point is we can have a better look at them. Surely you would agree that this is a good idea.

Don't ND recruits get an automatic 2 years, whereas PSD and RD picks can be punted after 1?

If we (and it looks like everyone else) were of the opinion that the talls in this draft were substandard and those that remained late were speculative at best, wouldn't picking them in the PSD and RD be a smart move? We do have pole position in both given Melbourne are taking McDonald and the Gold Coast are using their RD picks to get some more experienced players onto their list.

In the end will it matter whether we fill our quota of talls in the ND, PSD or RD?

Exactly, and thats exactly what claw has wanted us to do in the past.

hmm what difference would giving a couple of talls or smalls webberley nason a go in the nd not as if they will stop us cleaning out the numerous duds that are there already.

What difference does choosing the talls in the PSD or rookie drafts as opposed to the ND make? It gives us more flexibility if it becomes clear that they are not going to work out. Smart List mgt, something I thought you were in favour of.

yep so many debates get mired in sheesh for want of a better word silliness. its easy to deflect from the problem. welcome tango to claws world. what the fools dont realise with this sort of deflection it just makes me more determined.

What crap. 1 year you want the rookie draft to be used for speculative picks, the next year when it loooks like the club is actually doing that you insist that the ND be used for those picks. You chop and change to suit your agenda of criticising the club at every turn. Its tiresome.

I'm still trying to understand those that insist a risky tall should have been taken with a late pick.

So let me get this straight, bearing in mind my numbers are just hypothetical..

The recruiters feel there is a 25% chance Nason will make it as an AFL player.
The recruiters feel there is a 10% chance Panos (etc) will make it as an AFL player.

Because we need talls, we should have gone with the 10% chance instead of the 25% chance ? Does that sum up this argument ?

Yep, very succintly put.

OK, the numbers were hypothetical and an attempt to make it a bit easier to understand. But if they felt there was a better chance for one to make it as an AFL than the other, it really wouldn't matter what size they were. The only time I think size would matter is if it's a borderline decision or fairly close.

Especially looking at drafts in the longer term (next year) when better KPP prospects are supposed to be available.

 

[shamekha]

In any case. of all thats been written its the midfielders that win you the games. Its a better strategy to get this right first, than we can look at the speculative talls.

We have quite a few youngsters down there training, to prove their worth to the club and be picked up in the PSD. This is good. We get to trial them and then make a decision. As for Bradshaw get over it, he's going to Sydney,

if someone can tell me what Hardwick's structure for the forward line will be i would be very thankful as then i would be able to consider opinions on how many talls we need.

It seems someone had a few to drink last night while blogging this thread.. hmmm

Oh well. Life goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

was it who said that then madcow a poster on bf . seems a good excuse to justify why we took so few talls.

Nope.I don,t holdup BF poster,s as gods like Barnzy ;D
Listening to various interveiws from those in the know from within the industry.It was pretty common knowledge.But i forgive you.You do live in Perth and WA is a fair bit behind us.Here,s a scoop for ya mate.KB just announced his retirement from Footy. ;D :hihi :hihi :hihi

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Answer the question:

Why is Bradshaw important for us in 2010?

TF.Claw is to clever for his own good.By wanting Bradshaw he,s actually acknowledging that this years KP crop is exactly what the experts were saying.

 

[josey]

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.

Thanks for the response BCL. I appreciate the civility.

You make fair points IMO, and I certainly agree with you on the need to improve the quality of talls on our list. I suspect the majority of posters here on PRE do as well.

As you say, it is the position of many that we need to back the recruiters. The reason I think this way is simply that no one here on PRE has the depth of knowledge that they have to realistically challange their choices. Some have seen a lot of various leagues and developed favourites but I imagine no one the depth of research that the professional recruiter has available.

A lot of the justification for speculating on talls is based on past drafts where gems have been uncovered late. I would be interested in whether this has happened in the last few years. IMO recruiting methods are improving radically each year and I suspect the chance of finding real quality late in the draft is diminshing each year. The late picks all have deficiencies and maybe, just maybe the recruiters believe the talls that are left this year have deficiencies that are insurmountable.

It is a funny discussion really. We won't really know the answers for 2-3 years which I guess gives us time to bang on about a lot more nonsense until then.

 

[Hayfever]

TF.Claw is to clever for his own good.By wanting Bradshaw he,s actually acknowledging that this years KP crop is exactly what the experts were saying

Rubbish. He's acknowledging realities like losing Richo earlier than expected after cleaning out our forward stocks of those not up to standard....... and the need to take pressure off the tall youngsters we do have faith in like Riewoldt, Vickery and Post.