The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[keepa lids onit]

my opinion is when ur picking late ND picks or rookie picks, your hoping the players you pick turn out to be GOOD players. the research and stats say most likely these kids will not make it.
whats the difference if they are tall or short, they still have pretty much the same probability of making it.
thus based on that, and unless we have identified some good talent that every other club missed and they slipped thru to rookies, i would rather take players based on club needs. take some chances on players who, if they make it, will help the structure and deficiencies.

if you take a mid and he makes it good, but will he be able to surpass our current mids. tough.
if we take a tall and he makes it, he fills a need on our list and we win.
as rookies you dont know what will eventuate so rather take that chance and hope we get a FB, CHF etc....

 

[the claw]

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.

what new team jackson 05 and cameron 07 but been around for yrs.

 

[the claw]

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.

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.

well im an optimist when it comes to thjis you well misery doesnt go far enough. ;D

 

[keepa lids onit]

Re: Permission to train list

im not gonna go thru every clubs lists and look at each players heights.........
as a guide to make my point i used 195cm. also a weight of around say 95kg.
what im saying is that we need at least a couple of this type of player on our list for at least one of our two KPD spots.
maguane and moore are too skinny and short, and although some their size/height can make it as a KPD, they dont look like they will. thursty has shown glimpses at FB, but he is constantly fighting aginst his height weight disadvantage.
who else do we have to fill these holes?
astbury maybe.
post could, but he has shown good early signs as a leading strong marking fwd (which is also something we need).

we have our 192cm third tall backs. we dont have our 195cm KP backs, and we should have at least a couple, if not more on our list as options.

 

[Baloo]

what new team jackson 05 and cameron 07 but been around for yrs.

You think there are only 2 of them ? Management has changed as well.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: Permission to train list

we have our 192cm third tall backs. we dont have our 195cm KP backs, and we should have at least a couple, if not more on our list as options.

Of all the first choice key backs in the top 4 defensive teams last season - i.e St Kilda, Collingwood, Geelong & Adelaide.

Only the strong & mighty Zac Dawson is 195cm or more.

There are also no 194cm or more first choice key defenders in those teams.

Seems to leysy having extra height is a nice thing to have, but being able to play the position well is far far more important than a bit of height not much longer than your thumbnail.

 

[Smoking Aces]

Re: Permission to train list

Some of the key backs in the comp;

* Brian Lake 195cm 104kg

* Craig Bolton 190cm 87kg

* Nathan Bock 193cm 90kg

* Matthew Scarlett 192cm 94kg

* Daniel Merret 196cm 104kg

* Sam Fisher 192cm 92kg

* Dustin Fletcher 198cm 100kg

* Darren Glass 192cm 93kg

* Simon Prestigiacomo 193cm 96kg

* Stephen Gilham 192cm 92kg

So the big monster full back is almost non-existent in the comp. Apart from 3 all of the competitions key backs are in the height range of 192-193cm. And up around 92-93kg. Our 2 key backs for the moment in Thursfield and McGuane (I have assumed Post will be playing up forward) are both 191cm so they are there abouts in the height department however they are lacking in weight. At around 86kg they need to add on at least another 6kg.

So by picking up Grimes (192cm) in the PSD he will give us another option down back along with Rance (193cm).

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Permission to train list

Of all the first choice key backs in the top 4 defensive teams last season - i.e St Kilda, Collingwood, Geelong & Adelaide.

Only the strong & mighty Zac Dawson is 195cm or more.

There are also no 194cm or more first choice key defenders in those teams.

Seems to leysy having extra height is a nice thing to have, but being able to play the position well is far far more important than a bit of height not much longer than your thumbnail.

Leysy makes a good point - look at the CHB/FB combo's of good sides - super players

Do you think McGuane, Thursfield & Moore can be the equal of a Rutten/Bock, Dawson/Fisher, Scarlett/Taylor?

Do you think they play the position well?

I don't.

How do our defensive numbers stack up against theirs?

Poorly.

Do you see any of our 3 a Glass, Bock, Scarlett, Lake, Taylor, Merret, Fisher, Gilham?

I don't.

We need to upgrade.

 

[skiptomystu]

Re: Permission to train list

I can see Thursfield quite easily eclipsing Gilham, Merrett and Taylor.

 

[Smoking Aces]

Re: Permission to train list

I can see Thursfield quite easily eclipsing Gilham, Merrett and Taylor.

Agree. I think we will see a much improved Thursfield next year. The way the old coaching staff were developing Thursfield did the kid no favours whatsoever.

 

[tigerdave]

Re: Permission to train list

Agree. I think we will see a much improved Thursfield next year. The way the old coaching staff were developing Thursfield did the kid no favours whatsoever.

Well said.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: Permission to train list

Leysy makes a good point - look at the CHB/FB combo's of good sides - super players

Do you think McGuane, Thursfield & Moore can be the equal of a Rutten/Bock, Dawson/Fisher, Scarlett/Taylor?

Do you think they play the position well?

I don't.

How do our defensive numbers stack up against theirs?

Poorly.

Do you see any of our 3 a Glass, Bock, Scarlett, Lake, Taylor, Merret, Fisher, Gilham?

I don't.

We need to upgrade.

No going to get involved going over old ground Big Cat. But leysy goes along with others suggesting that Thursfield can be the equal of most key backs.

He doesnt have the attacking capabilities of Fisher (who they free up anyway) Bock or Scarlett. But he can definately fill a key defensive pole for us in the future ILO.

Time will tell whether any of Post, Rance, McGuane, Moore or Astbury can fill the other. For a host of various reasons these guys might or mightn't.
That why leysy has suggested we could do with drafting another.

But ONLY if, after the recruiting dept have done all there homework they deem someone might be capable of playing it.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Permission to train list

No going to get involved going over old ground Big Cat. But leysy goes along with others suggesting that Thursfield can be the equal of most key backs.

He doesnt have the attacking capabilities of Fisher (who they free up anyway) Bock or Scarlett. But he can definately fill a key defensive pole for us in the future ILO.

Time will tell whether any of Post, Rance, McGuane, Moore or Astbury can fill the other. For a host of various reasons these guys might or mightn't.
That why leysy has suggested we could do with drafting another.

But ONLY if, after the recruiting dept have done all there homework they deem someone might be capable of playing it.

OK - I'm a fan of Thursfield and hope he has a big year

Go Windies hey?

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: Permission to train list

OK - I'm a fan of Thursfield and hope he has a big year

Go Windies hey?

yes mate. Go Big Benn. ;D

 

[GoodOne]

my opinion is when ur picking late ND picks or rookie picks, your hoping the players you pick turn out to be GOOD players. the research and stats say most likely these kids will not make it.
whats the difference if they are tall or short, they still have pretty much the same probability of making it.
thus based on that, and unless we have identified some good talent that every other club missed and they slipped thru to rookies, i would rather take players based on club needs. take some chances on players who, if they make it, will help the structure and deficiencies.

if you take a mid and he makes it good, but will he be able to surpass our current mids. tough.
if we take a tall and he makes it, he fills a need on our list and we win.
as rookies you dont know what will eventuate so rather take that chance and hope we get a FB, CHF etc....

Exactly what I've been saying. We have our mids covered. Deledio/Cotchin/Tambling/Martin all top of the draft picks. Add Collins, Foley, Thomson, Edwards all as potential midfielders or depth players. Most of these players have already cemented spots in the team. The next most important position is the key position area. Who do we have as having cemented their spot in the team. I'd count Thursfeld and Reiwoldt as probables but not definites. The rest still have much to do to prove themselves. We need the tall timber depth to complement our maturing midfield. At these picks you need to pick on needs not inexact guesses on who is best available.

 

[Brodders17]

this thread should top blings in no time.

i think a summary for those joining late is:
on the left we have those who think we should draft players who we think have the best chance of improving our team, players with the best chance of becoming afl footballers, players who will improve our footskills. they also think a measured approach to building our list of talls is the right way to go. most also acknowledge we will probably have some short term pain with KPs but dont think we should be drafting for the short term.

on the right we have those who think we should add as many talls as possible, regardless of how we rate them or how we rate the smalls we miss. some of those also think that regardless of how we rate players, regardless of what attributes they have, all late picks have an equal chance of succeeding at afl level. some also think we should have drafted more speculative talls late in the ND to provide protection for the young talls we already have on our list. some also seem to think that our list of smalls needs little improvement.

does that about cover it?

 

[Big Cat Lover]

this thread should top blings in no time.

i think a summary for those joining late is:
on the left we have those who think we should draft players who we think have the best chance of improving our team, players with the best chance of becoming afl footballers, players who will improve our footskills. they also think a measured approach to building our list of talls is the right way to go. most also acknowledge we will probably have some short term pain with KPs but dont think we should be drafting for the short term.

on the right we have those who think we should add as many talls as possible, regardless of how we rate them or how we rate the smalls we miss. some of those also think that regardless of how we rate players, regardless of what attributes they have, all late picks have an equal chance of succeeding at afl level. some also think we should have drafted more speculative talls late in the ND to provide protection for the young talls we already have on our list. some also seem to think that our list of smalls needs little improvement.

does that about cover it?

Pretty biased summary - so "your" side is measured and thoughtful and the other side basically haphazard and negligent?

Let's leave it that some feel the list in such a state that a needs based approach is required rather than a best rated approach and the club appears to have gone down the best rated approach path - in 3-5 years results should enable some judgement of the success of this approach

Will be a pretty boring site when we win a flag and have nothing to argue about

 

[Disco08]

You can only really argue that the club ignored needs if it doesn't add another 3 or 4 talls with its remaining picks.

 

[linuscambridge]

You can only really argue that the club ignored needs if it doesn't add another 3 or 4 talls with its remaining picks.

You could potentially argue that the club ignored mediocrity.

 

[Brodders17]

Pretty biased summary - so "your" side is measured and thoughtful and the other side basically haphazard and negligent?

Let's leave it that some feel the list in such a state that a needs based approach is required rather than a best rated approach and the club appears to have gone down the best rated approach path - in 3-5 years results should enable some judgement of the success of this approach

Will be a pretty boring site when we win a flag and have nothing to argue about

biased?? maybe a little.

i agree with most of the rest of what you said. except there will always be plenty to argue bout on here. premiership or not.