The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[the claw]

Our PSD pick is basically the same as an ND pick (except for the fact we only have to give the recruit a one year deal) and it looks like only Melbourne will have a shot at a junior before us in the rookie draft.

for where the list is at i dont get all this angst with 2 yrs for kids.
1 how many kids taken anywhere last just 1 yr you have really made a blunder if this happens.
2 the only times it can hurt you is if you are (a)sailing close to the tpp and cant fit someone in because you have to go two yrs or (b) it prevents you from drafting kids to the list which in our case wont happen because we have an awful lot who need to go anyway.
anyway how many kids are we talking here 1 or 2 who get 2 yrs instead of one if that throws out list management they dont know their job.
finally you are assuming gc go all mature with 5 picks now that is being optimistic.

 

[Disco08]

It's been reported that GC have said that's what they're planning to do in a couple of the papers.

McKenna and Simpson lasted 2 years with the Cats and were better credentialed than any of the kids left in this pool. Obviously this year was a thinner pool than most, especially amongst the talls. If you're recruiting kids with obvious deficiencies it's got to be better to have the option of turning them over after one year if at all possible.

 

[the claw]

It's been reported that GC have said that's what they're planning to do in a couple of the papers.

McKenna and Simpson lasted 2 years with the Cats and were better credentialed than any of the kids left in this pool. Obviously this year was a thinner pool than most, especially amongst the talls. If you're recruiting kids with obvious deficiencies it's got to be better to have the option of turning them over after one year if at all possible.

yep i heard the same but how likely is it they will rookie their fair share of kids im sure.

and i disagree regardlesss of the type. big medium small.late nd psd or rookie few last just one yr. if you take em with a virw that you have an option to get rid of them after one yr because they are so deficient you have probably taken the wrong player.
one club rfc. every rookie pick we have used since 05 has lasted two yrs except clingan and collard.. i havent gone thru other clubs but i expect it to be similar.and those two failed not because of football ability but attitude.

just on a divert the taylor thread has had me thinking and i know i will get caned for saying this but it seems to me an awful lot of indigenous players just walk away or fail not because of talent but attitude.

 

[Disco08]

I think it's quite likely. They already have more than their fair share of kids and will need some mature age depth players. If they want to use their uncontracted players raid effectively now is the time to do it.

and i disagree regardlesss of the type. big medium small.late nd psd or rookie few last just one yr. if you take em with a virw that you have an option to get rid of them after one yr because they are so deficient you have probably taken the wrong player.

Sometimes these are the only players left. There's a finite pool of players who don't have glaring deficiencies every year and some years that pool is shallower than others. With a third of the group removed this year it seems likely this year could well be one of the very shallow ones.

There were a few teams who had obvious need for tall players yet all these guys got overlooked. I don't claim to know what they are, but there must be reasons for that.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

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.

Josey, your query made me look at recent drafts (I know I banged on about Bock, Rutten, Lake etc) and for all those saying recent recruiting much more sophisticated, no good tall players will be drafted late, etc etc I have looked at 2006/2007/2008 (not enough form) and I think it illustrates tall talent is available late:

2006 ND

Jessie White was taken at 79 in 2006 - had a good finish to 2009 would get a game for us, very promising looking versatile player
Justin Westhoff was taken at 71 in 2006 - had a very good start to his career, been poor of recent times - don't know if he's been injured or scars of 2007 GF
still raw - jury out about long-term prospects but has shown potential

Other talls taken in that draft before White - 2 Gumbleton, 3 Hansen, 4 Leunberger, 6 Thorp, 11 Everitt, 13 Reiwoldt, 17 Hampson, 19 Grigg, 24 Renouf, 28 Dawes, E Mackenzie 29, Tippett 32, Goldstein 37, J Kennedy 40 (father/son), T Hawkins 41 (father/son), Gill 64

Out of the above list, there may be only 2 or 3 guys taken before White on exposed form (IMO Reiwoldt one of them) - yet the recruiters apparently rated him the 18th best tall. Do you think they got it wrong? Surely they were considred to be scraping the bottom of the barrell at that stage.

The "small/mids" taken around White include Andrew Collins at 73, Josh Hill at 61, Robert Gray at 55. Who would we select now if we could take one of those 4 with what we know and where our list is at - I would argue we would take Jessie White. (even though we all love Collins and I rate Gray, Hill - meh)

2007 ND

Cale Hooker was taken at 54 in 2007 - I would prefer him to a McGuane/Polak/Rance in a key defensive post
Taylor Walker was taken at 75 in 2007 - looks a fair forward prospect

Other talls taken in 2007 - Kreuzer 1, J Grant 5, Myers 6, Henderson 8, R Tarrant 15, Taylor 17, Rance 18, T Notte 20, Pears 23, M Westhoff 33, Daniher 39, Simpson 44, Putt 51, Josh Smith 62, T McNamara 66, Bradley 69

Hooker (rated 14th best)/Walker (18th) would both be top 6-7 of that group on exposed form.

Small/mids taken around Hooker/Walker - Brad Dalzieel was taken at 52, Kyle Cheney at 53, Carig Bird at 59 & Jaxon Barham at 61 - I would take Hooker/Walker before any of the smalls/mids, given the state of our list

2008 - not many games played by a lot of players drafted after 50 so hard to know at this stage

Given the above players I would say yes, recruiters do get it wrong and yes you can still get good tall players late in the draft. The biggest thing is you must select them.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Josey, your query made me look at recent drafts (I know I banged on about Bock, Rutten, Lake etc) and for all those saying recent recruiting much more sophisticated, no good tall players will be drafted late, etc etc I have looked at 2006/2007/2008 (not enough form) and I think it illustrates tall talent is available late:

2006 ND

Jessie White was taken at 79 in 2006 - had a good finish to 2009 would get a game for us, very promising looking versatile player
Justin Westhoff was taken at 71 in 2006 - had a very good start to his career, been poor of recent times - don't know if he's been injured or scars of 2007 GF
still raw - jury out about long-term prospects but has shown potential

Other talls taken in that draft before White - 2 Gumbleton, 3 Hansen, 4 Leunberger, 6 Thorp, 11 Everitt, 13 Reiwoldt, 17 Hampson, 19 Grigg, 24 Renouf, 28 Dawes, E Mackenzie 29, Tippett 32, Goldstein 37, J Kennedy 40 (father/son), T Hawkins 41 (father/son), Gill 64

Out of the above list, there may be only 2 or 3 guys taken before White on exposed form (IMO Reiwoldt one of them) - yet the recruiters apparently rated him the 18th best tall. Do you think they got it wrong? Surely they were considred to be scraping the bottom of the barrell at that stage.

The "small/mids" taken around White include Andrew Collins at 73, Josh Hill at 61, Robert Gray at 55. Who would we select now if we could take one of those 4 with what we know and where our list is at - I would argue we would take Jessie White. (even though we all love Collins and I rate Gray, Hill - meh)

2007 ND

Cale Hooker was taken at 54 in 2007 - I would prefer him to a McGuane/Polak/Rance in a key defensive post
Taylor Walker was taken at 75 in 2007 - looks a fair forward prospect

Other talls taken in 2007 - Kreuzer 1, J Grant 5, Myers 6, Henderson 8, R Tarrant 15, Taylor 17, Rance 18, T Notte 20, Pears 23, M Westhoff 33, Daniher 39, Simpson 44, Putt 51, Josh Smith 62, T McNamara 66, Bradley 69

Hooker (rated 14th best)/Walker (18th) would both be top 6-7 of that group on exposed form.

Small/mids taken around Hooker/Walker - Brad Dalzieel was taken at 52, Kyle Cheney at 53, Carig Bird at 59 & Jaxon Barham at 61 - I would take Hooker/Walker before any of the smalls/mids, given the state of our list

2008 - not many games played by a lot of players drafted after 50 so hard to know at this stage

Given the above players I would say yes, recruiters do get it wrong and yes you can still get good tall players late in the draft. The biggest thing is you must select them.

Not sure why you have Bradley on the list as he would be classed as a reject.,but anyway all your example proves is that there is maybe 2 or 3 who may make it out of not only 5 others you have mentioned but all the other Tall kids that missed out all togeather.A pretty average strike rate don,t you think?

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Not sure why you have Bradley on the list as he would be classed as a reject.,but anyway all your example proves is that there is maybe 2 or 3 who may make it out of not only 5 others you have mentioned but all the other Tall kids that missed out all togeather.A pretty average strike rate don,t you think?

Are you a collingwood supporter as well?

Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

Do you think the recruiters got it right with their ratings of the talls in those years?

Do you think every club would you take Jessie White higher than 79 given his performances to date? He was rated the 18th best tall in that draft - do you think that has proven to be correct?

Do you think it is possible to select good tall players later in the draft? You actually don't need to answer that because every draft shows it to be true.

Do you think we need talls more than flankers?

Funny that Bradley the dud reject was taken in front of Walker? Right now, I'd take Walker every time. Recruiters must get it wrong sometimes.

 

[Brodders17]

Josey, your query made me look at recent drafts (I know I banged on about Bock, Rutten, Lake etc) and for all those saying recent recruiting much more sophisticated, no good tall players will be drafted late, etc etc I have looked at 2006/2007/2008 (not enough form) and I think it illustrates tall talent is available late:

2006 ND

Jessie White was taken at 79 in 2006 - had a good finish to 2009 would get a game for us, very promising looking versatile player
Justin Westhoff was taken at 71 in 2006 - had a very good start to his career, been poor of recent times - don't know if he's been injured or scars of 2007 GF
still raw - jury out about long-term prospects but has shown potential

Other talls taken in that draft before White - 2 Gumbleton, 3 Hansen, 4 Leunberger, 6 Thorp, 11 Everitt, 13 Reiwoldt, 17 Hampson, 19 Grigg, 24 Renouf, 28 Dawes, E Mackenzie 29, Tippett 32, Goldstein 37, J Kennedy 40 (father/son), T Hawkins 41 (father/son), Gill 64

Out of the above list, there may be only 2 or 3 guys taken before White on exposed form (IMO Reiwoldt one of them) - yet the recruiters apparently rated him the 18th best tall. Do you think they got it wrong? Surely they were considred to be scraping the bottom of the barrell at that stage.

The "small/mids" taken around White include Andrew Collins at 73, Josh Hill at 61, Robert Gray at 55. Who would we select now if we could take one of those 4 with what we know and where our list is at - I would argue we would take Jessie White. (even though we all love Collins and I rate Gray, Hill - meh)

2007 ND

Cale Hooker was taken at 54 in 2007 - I would prefer him to a McGuane/Polak/Rance in a key defensive post
Taylor Walker was taken at 75 in 2007 - looks a fair forward prospect

Other talls taken in 2007 - Kreuzer 1, J Grant 5, Myers 6, Henderson 8, R Tarrant 15, Taylor 17, Rance 18, T Notte 20, Pears 23, M Westhoff 33, Daniher 39, Simpson 44, Putt 51, Josh Smith 62, T McNamara 66, Bradley 69

Hooker (rated 14th best)/Walker (18th) would both be top 6-7 of that group on exposed form.

Small/mids taken around Hooker/Walker - Brad Dalzieel was taken at 52, Kyle Cheney at 53, Carig Bird at 59 & Jaxon Barham at 61 - I would take Hooker/Walker before any of the smalls/mids, given the state of our list

2008 - not many games played by a lot of players drafted after 50 so hard to know at this stage

Given the above players I would say yes, recruiters do get it wrong and yes you can still get good tall players late in the draft. The biggest thing is you must select them.

a couple of points.
white had an ok year. from his draft, on exposed form i would definitely take leunberger, riewoldt, tippett, kennedy and hawkins. about equal are hansen, hampson, grigg, mckenzie, and goldstein. gumby, dawes and renouf have been injured, and possibly thorp goes into that category. that leaves gill, mature recruit who has been delisted and everitt. the recruiters seem to have got that draft about right for talls. and there were a lot. a good year for talls as i reckon was noted before the draft.
westoff was drafted as a 21yr old.

in 2007 walker was a NSW scholarship pick, so the crows got him automatically with their last pick. hooker has started ok.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Are you a collingwood supporter as well?

Do you understand the point I am trying to make?

Do you think the recruiters got it right with their ratings of the talls in those years?

Do you think every club would you take Jessie White higher than 79 given his performances to date? He was rated the 18th best tall in that draft - do you think that has proven to be correct?

Do you think it is possible to select good tall players later in the draft? You actually don't need to answer that because every draft shows it to be true.

Do you think we need talls more than flankers?

Funny that Bradley the dud reject was taken in front of Walker? Right now, I'd take Walker every time. Recruiters must get it wrong sometimes.

Tell me this what is better?
Paying a speculative Tall a 2yr wage adding upto 150G or the very same kid on half the wage on the Rookie list?Remember we are talking the scraps at the bottom end of the draft.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Tell me this what is better?
Paying a speculative Tall a 2yr wage adding upto 150G or the very same kid on half the wage on the Rookie list?Remember we are talking the scraps at the bottom end of the draft.

Why don't you answer my questions? Because the answers are obvious?

You simply won't admit late picks can be good players despite evidence to the contrary.

If the speculative tall turns out to be Jessie White - great choice. If turns out to be Nick Gill - not so great. But worth the risk IMO.

I'm not saying we would definitely get a good player, just that it has been possible historically, that recruiters are not always right and that our list demands we take those risks sooner rather than later.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Why don't you answer my questions? Because the answers are obvious?

You simply won't admit late picks can be good players despite evidence to the contrary.

If the speculative tall turns out to be Jessie White - great choice. If turns out to be Nick Gill - not so great. But worth the risk IMO.

I'm not saying we would definitely get a good player, just that it has been possible historically, that recruiters are not always right and that our list demands we take those risks sooner rather than later.

The answers are obvious?Maybe in hindsight but clubs don,t have that luxary do they?They go on what they have seen and make a judgement.As for the chance of finding a good one,While yes there is a chance the fact is the chances are slim.That is why mid/HFF,s are taken late because unlike Talls,if a Mid doesn,t quite make it as a mid for a reason there are other options for him.HFF,BP etc.A tall is a Tall and nowhere to hide.

 

[IanG]

If the speculative tall turns out to be Jessie White - great choice. If turns out to be Nick Gill - not so great. But worth the risk IMO.

What about the fact that next years draft is supposed to be better for talls and we might be restricting our choices next year.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

What about the fact that next years draft is supposed to be better for talls and we might be restricting our choices next year.

How many picks will we have? Where will they be?

You may be right - after the PS & Rookie drafts would love some detailed feedback from those involved each choice was made.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

The answers are obvious?Maybe in hindsight but clubs don,t have that luxary do they?They go on what they have seen and make a judgement.As for the chance of finding a good one,While yes there is a chance the fact is the chances are slim.That is why mid/HFF,s are taken late because unlike Talls,if a Mid doesn,t quite make it as a mid for a reason there are other options for him.HFF,BP etc.A tall is a Tall and nowhere to hide.

Exactly - they're never going to get them all right - more reason to take take multiple talls when you have such a weak tall list

Chances even slimmer if you don't take them

Fact is recruiters get it wrong and we have serious tall concerns that haven't been addressed. The longer it is left, the more pressure there is on every selection to make the grade - as we have seen before, even high draft picks don't make it

It seems to me many are worshipping at the feet of our apparently "new" recruiting department. Hope they justify the praise.

 

[Baloo]

It seems to me many are worshipping at the feet of our apparently "new" recruiting department. Hope they justify the praise.

Worshiping ? Hardly. I think most are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt here. We'll see how they go. I'm confident they know we needs more talls but if they felt the talls left weren't with a spot on the main list and they had identified other players with more chance of making it, that's what they went with.

Sounds like sensible recruiting to me. Why recruit a tall kid when you don't think he'll make it. It just makes no sense at all.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Worshiping ? Hardly. I think most are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt here. We'll see how they go. I'm confident they know we needs more talls but if they felt the talls left weren't with a spot on the main list and they had identified other players with more chance of making it, that's what they went with.

Sounds like sensible recruiting to me. Why recruit a tall kid when you don't think he'll make it. It just makes no sense at all.

Sensible recruiting has not been a catch phrase at Richmond so grant me some doubt hey?

 

[Baloo]

Glass half full, glass half empty.

We've got a new team in place, with new direction and a coach not creaming for light weight flankers who can't kick. We've also thrown a fair bit of money at them (thank you Gold Coast). I'm prepared to wipe the slate clean and give them a fresh start.

 

[IanG]

Exactly - they're never going to get them all right - more reason to take take multiple talls when you have such a weak tall list

Chances even slimmer if you don't take them

Chances are slim if you take players you don't expect to make the grade.

Fact is recruiters get it wrong and we have serious tall concerns that haven't been addressed.

Haven't been addressed? Griffiths is the big power forward we need we've got Astbury to probably play more of a CHF role with Post to move into the back half. Have we still got issues with the number of talls? Yes. But they are addressing the issues and will probably continue to do so in the PSD and rookie drafts and next years draft. I will condemn them myself if they don't.

 

[GoodOne]

Tell me this what is better?
Paying a speculative Tall a 2yr wage adding upto 150G or the very same kid on half the wage on the Rookie list?Remember we are talking the scraps at the bottom end of the draft.

What's the difference between paying a speculative tall or a speculative short? Or do only the speculative talls require a 2 year wage in the National Draft?

 

[GoodOne]

What's the difference between paying a speculative tall or a speculative short? Or do only the speculative talls require a 2 year wage in the National Draft?

PS generally speaking I dont think you can make judgement on a speculative tall youngster in just one season.