The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Brodders17]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

FB: Rance
CHB: Post/ Astbury
CHF: Riewoldt
FF: Griffiths/ Gourdis
Ruck: Vickery/Browne

They are the talls we have added in the last 4 drafts. for the first time in a long long time we have the makings of an good spine.
we still need the numbers.

 

[Hayfever]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Bradshaw might work but my preference would be to stick to kids!

We must take Bradshaw..... otherwise Punt Road will be renamed Neverland Ranch

 

[Barnzy]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

We must take Bradshaw..... otherwise Punt Road will be renamed Neverland Ranch

I see you constantly spitting this out, we must take Bradshaw...why? How old is he? 30? How many years does he have left? Haven't you learn from the past that taking twilighters and mature age players hasn't worked? We won't being doing anything in the next 2-3 years so he would be a total waste. Rather take a kid who might actually be around in the future.

 

[Hayfever]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

I see you constantly spitting this out, we must take Bradshaw...why? How old is he? 30? How many years does he have left? Haven't you learn from the past that taking twilighters and mature age players hasn't worked? We won't being doing anything in the next 2-3 years so he would be a total waste. Rather take a kid who might actually be around in the future.

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it.

 

[richo_richo man]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

I see you constantly spitting this out, we must take Bradshaw...why? How old is he? 30? How many years does he have left? Haven't you learn from the past that taking twilighters and mature age players hasn't worked? We won't being doing anything in the next 2-3 years so he would be a total waste. Rather take a kid who might actually be around in the future.

Agree with this Barnzy - wasted pick if we go Bradshaw - he's no answer and NOT THE FUTURE

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Players 191 or over

Tigers - 12 (1 rookie)
Dogs - 14 (1)
Cats - 13
Saints - 17 (3)
Crows - 19 (1)


Obviously we need to go tall with our PSD pick. Thorp if Beavis is keen otherwise the best of the leftover kids like Grimes. Add a couple more in the rookie draft and more again next year and the structure starts to take shape. At least Cameron/Jackson have shown they realise the problem and used all but one of our 08 and 09 picks in the first 3 rounds on talls.

I convinced myself yesterday we need to go tall in the PSD and the rookie draft because of list needs. We effectively have PSD 1 pick, that’s actually decent real estate and it has to be invested in an extra tall, preferable KPP but ruck would be ok.

Btw D do you have all the clubs?

 

[Tigers_06]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

While we only have 12 talls on the list I think the more important stat is the age breakdown of our talls. As it stands we have 11 talls aged under 24.

Adelaide have 19 with 15 under 24.
Brisbane have 12 with 5 under 24.
Carlton have 12 with 8 under 24.
Collingwood have 14 with 9 under 24.
Essendon have 15 with 11 under 24.
Fremantle have 15 with 9 under 24.
Geelong have 13 with 7 under 24.
Hawthorn have 13 with 11 under 24.
Melbourne have 15 with 11 under 24.
North have 12 with 8 under 24.
Port have 16 with 11 under 24.
Saints have 17 with 11 under 24.
Sydney have 12 with 7 under 24.
West Coast have 15 with 11 under 24.
Western Bulldogs have 14 players with 11 under 24.

It should also be pointed out that in a number of these sides their talls include a few midfielders that are 191cm or taller, whereas our talls are made up completely of rucks and KPPs. When looking at that table it would seem that our position isn't as bad as some would like to believe. Heading into the next couple of compromised drafts, I would much rather be in our position than say the Lions, Swans or Cats who don't have that many talls kids to fall back on and will most likely have to trade for or reach for talls in the drafts.

 

[cagedtiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

okay the draft is done and where do we sit in the tall stakes.

griffiths - shoulder op wont play a game next yr more than likely.
astbury - 18 yr old if we are lucky he might get a game or two.
simmonds - 31 yr old in his last yr.
thursfield - borderline player needs to stake his spot this yr. depending on weight development likely 3rd tall only.
mcguane - dud.
riewoldt - needs 7 kg progressing nicely will have to play kp rerady or not.
post - sheesh 2nd yr player under normal circumstances if he played more than 12 14 games you would be more than happy.
graham - dud.
rance - 3rd yr player needs to start showing a bit is in the iffy category because of skills..
vickery - very undersized but talented ruckman should be nursed but will be thrown in.
browne- a genuine ruckman who has size still very raw a huge ask to expect him to play a significant role this yr.
gourdis - on the rookie list and likely to stay there with his skills.

thats it people now go compare to all other lists.

If you think Richmond's list problems are going to be solved in 1 draft year you really aren't offering anything insightful - just more of your chronic negativity. Your analysis of the new talls is to say - they are 18 and unlikely to play next year is really sticking your neck out - I am sure everyone read that part and said 'wow who would have thought - you know he is right'.

We have just seen Richmond complete the greatest clean out in their modern times and begin the recruiting process all over again - any success hinges on picking the right young players and their development plan over the next 3-5 years.

All your post reveals is the talls that survived the cull won't carry us alone - and the new talls will be too young to do anything straight away - well done genius.

 

[Rfc4Ever]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

While we only have 12 talls on the list I think the more important stat is the age breakdown of our talls. As it stands we have 11 talls aged under 24.

The issue is that most of the other clubs have more established KPP. We have more players either untried or potential KPP with limited experience.

Thats where we are, a rebuilding phase where recruiting/development will be vital the next few years.

I hope we go a KPP kid in the PSD (Grimes maybe) and a young ruck/KPP in the RD along with more mids.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

well that's rightwe have 7 more spots left on the list: 1 on the pain and 6 rookie spots. But two of the rookie spots will go to Polak and O'Reilly the irish recruit.

Hence we'll have 1 PSD pick and 4 rookie picks.

On that note, it's good to see that as it stands, Melbourne only has 3 spots left: 1 PSD and 2 Rookie. they've already committed to Joel McDonald for PSD and have apparently told Meeson and Newton that they'll rookie them. Hence we essentially have the top 2 live picks from now on (pick 2 in the PSD, all the rest are committed, and pick 7 of the rookie draft, GC has top 5 of rookie draft but word is they'll take mature players so they can compete in the VFL next year)

the Irish lad is an international rookie, they are counted outside the rookie list.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

The paper today (Jon Ralph) says that Richmond will go for a kid in the PSD.

 

[davidrodan]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

You've lost me David - why are we delisting and relisting players.
Reality is we'll take one PSD and 4 rookies, re rookie Polak and rookie the irish bloke I suppose.
I'd prefer two more picks to say Macmahon and Tuck who dont offer much.

Bradshaw might work but my preference would be to stick to kids!

If we delist someone we are confident no-one will take in the rookie draft then we are effectively moving our last rookie pick up near our first PSD pick
this bypasses GC who have the first 5 picks in the rookie draft

I don't think it'll happen and Bobby mentioned that it wasn't in the clubs plans
Interesting idea though

 

[Bill James]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

We must take Bradshaw..... otherwise Punt Road will be renamed Neverland Ranch

For people under 30 its already never land and why, because for 2 decades we have recurited "Bradshaws" instead of kids.

 

[Barnzy]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

The paper today (Jon Ralph) says that Richmond will go for a kid in the PSD.

Good, good. :clap

 

[gehring]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

I have not read anything about the biggest "surprise" in the draft, that is the non selection of Panos!
He was very high in most phantom drafts, had an excellent U18 series, tall, mobile and looks the goods in the highlights package.
Burgatron had him dropping but I do not think anyone had him missing out altogether.
Was there a flaw only the recruiters knew or was there a hint of 'if nobody has picked him yet we do not want to be the bunny who picks up a slider even if we do not know why others do not want him.'
That leads on to the ND - if Richmond had have picked him at 35 most would have said well done. Now is he a smelly fish and it would be 'brave' to pick him up in the ND. Funny world. Hope the kid gets rookied and shows some of the talent he (to me) obviously has.

 

[hellenictiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

I dont think our talls are that bad, they are young. They definitely dont compare to any other team, but the fact that they are all young is good.

Post and Vickery need to develop, they are still kids.
Grifiths looks like a decent young player, his highlights remind me a bit of Tom Hawkins.
Rance can develop into a very good young player, his disposal is questionable, but he is good enough.
Astbury looks like he can hold down a key position and kick very well. I even think he miight play as a floater across half back.
Thurstfield maybe had a few off field problems but if he is fully fit then he can become a solid defender, but he definitely needs to be beef up this year.
McGuane, I think he might be squeezed out if his disposal doesnt improve.
Reiwoldt is a good player, probably not big or good enough to be the number one go to man, but he can kick a bag.

Our ruck stocks are questionable. But I think ruckmen are players that come and go in football clubs. Most teams at the top trade for a key ruckmen rather than develop one. Ottens, Gardiner, Jolly and Hudson have all been traded into a team later on in their development. But Graham did show a bit, even though he dropped dead during one of his best games.

 

[the claw]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Listen dude usually I'm with you on most rants but this one is just flogging a dead horse. WE ALL KNOW THIS. Yoo don't like Griffiths. Stiff sh!t. The NEW regime felt that the quality talls had dried up after 35. Tough titty. Yes yes I think the club need to go tall PSD and tall rookies if possible. We also need upgrades in most other positions, right?! And you don't like Dea, etccccccc yaddaaaaaaaaaa. I mean, just this once, give it a rest, huh?

i dont dislike griffiths at all or dea. i just think we had better options available at those picks. anyway you will have your wish ive had my rant on the draft ive said its a bit cheeky to be making comment on players ive seen little of. what i will be solely focusing on is our structure and list management hence this thread.

and if im allowed i think we should now take bradshaw they will rookie polak it seems. there are a fair few talls who didnt get taken i hope we rookie a couple.
personally i would drop mcmahon from the list and go 2 picks in the psd. i still think we should have looked after list needs and gone a tall at pick 67 or 71.

If you think Richmond's list problems are going to be solved in 1 draft year you really aren't offering anything insightful - just more of your chronic negativity. Your analysis of the new talls is to say - they are 18 and unlikely to play next year is really sticking your neck out - I am sure everyone read that part and said 'wow who would have thought - you know he is right'.

We have just seen Richmond complete the greatest clean out in their modern times and begin the recruiting process all over again - any success hinges on picking the right young players and their development plan over the next 3-5 years.

All your post reveals is the talls that survived the cull won't carry us alone - and the new talls will be too young to do anything straight away - well done genius.

lol the old you arent going to fix list problems in 1 draft. hmm lets look ,no i dont see me saying that anywhere do you. in fact ive regularly stated the opposite. funny here you are going mad because i mention the perilous state of the tall list and how few we will take into next season and how few are established when the rfc have just delisted traded retired 7 talls from an already small number and replaced them with 2 talls.. what i am in fact saying is we wont have any structure, if we dont take some retreads to help out in the short term something that goes against everything i have preached for yrs.
ive often said over 3 or 4 yrs we may have to build the numbers up to over 20 22 talls on the list to find the players we need to attain the balance and get badly needed depth. na i think i will just keep on going on about the talls thank very much.

 

[the claw]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

FB: Rance
CHB: Post/ Astbury
CHF: Riewoldt
FF: Griffiths/ Gourdis
Ruck: Vickery/Browne

They are the talls we have added in the last 4 drafts. for the first time in a long long time we have the makings of an good spine.
we still need the numbers.

richo, silvestor, schulz, pattison,polak, putt,hughes, gourdis,bowden, gaspar,hall, kingsley, knobel.kellaway limbach stafford.
now thats a list of the talls we have turned over in the last 4 yrs. it goes to show just how hard it is to grow the list when it comes to talls. those 8 you mention actually has us going backwards in numbers or treading water when it comes to growing this area.
i will give em some credit they at least are starting to use some decent picks on talls in the draft. but we are not getting enough thru our system that will allow for the failures.
we load up to 16 or so talls many of them late or rookie picks or speculative and before you know it a good percentage fail and we are back to where we are at this minute.in other words we dont allow for failure in our managment. at some stage over a two three yr period we will have to really load up with talls to break this cycle.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

we load up to 16 or so talls many of them late or rookie picks or speculative and before you know it a good percentage fail

...yet when we use top 20 picks on talls (or pick 2 big KPP's in the top 35), you critisise the club and say we should have picked up more later.

So what should we do? Pick them up late to get enough sheer numbers? You said we only have 12, and we should have picked more, if I am not mistaken.

But to do this, we would need to pick some late in the draft - but above you are saying that will lead to failure?

If we pick them up early, we get critisised, don't pick them up late, we get critisised - and if we DO pick up late as well we get critisised - what the hell CAN we do?!!

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

This time round the 2010 rebuild has better talls to work with, younger kids who have the ability to play in more than one position, compared to the 2005 rebuild Terry Wallace managed.