The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Disco08]

Can you please provide some actual support for your statement? Like some names? Go through and identify the talls taken and tell me say less than 10% of them make it and I will agree with the very unlikely part.

Why 10%? Why not 20%, or 25%, or 30%? That still fits easily into the 'very unlikely' category, especially if you compare it to the success rate within the first 3 rounds.

Jesse Smith and Cale Hooker while promising, are far from 'making it' too. Collins, Gray and Hill also haven't done anything to prove they belong in the category of long term AFL player just yet. When these guys are 26 and have 100 games under their belts come back to me.

10 games a year since being drafted would seem reasonable to me for someone who's made a reasonable contribution to their club(s). If we look at drafts are old enough to have let the draftees develop, the evidence is pretty clear:

1998 - 2 players out of 36 meet this criteria, neither of them talls. 21 out of 46 in the frist 3 rounds qualify.
1999 - 7/40 (1) & 26/47
2000 - 8/27 (1, Wakelin who was already established) & 25/47
2001 - 5/23 (2) & 24/51
2002 - 5/25 (1) & 18/44
2003 - 5/21 (2) & 20/49

If we include the PSD and rookie drafts the numbers are predicatably even worse.

 

[Scoop]

First and foremost we need guys all over the park that can kick accurately & long.

Before this draft only Lids has that ability to clear the lines with his kicks. Having a multitude of players that can do this is getting more & more vital to teams combatting zones, flooding etc. Martin hopefully adds to this. We also attempted to fix this crucial need by taking Webberley. Whether he is up to taking the leap in grade he needs remains to be seen, but even if we picked for needs he certainly is one that we plumped for with the late picks you speak of that has tried to address this glaring weakness.

Bingo. And the ability to kick accurately & long is the only way to beat rolloing zones and clusters. Agree with all of what Leysy is putting forward of late. Strange times indeed.

 

[Tango]

[

Nason is a fantastic field kick. Penetrating, accurate and precise. On both feet too. Don't discount him from your discussions when talking about elite kicks.
[/quote]

TB - if nason is as good as you say he is "elite kicks"- refer to your comments above
did these skills develop over the last few years or has he always been elite, if the latter what is stopping this kid from being drafted initially and playing senior SANFL football? and why didnt anyone else draft him if he is so elite?

 

[Tango]

Re: Permission to train list

its not just about bulking players up, players like thursty and mcguane that rely on their athleticism may lose this and speed by bulking up, it also has a tendancy to add to injury - just ask james hird, which we cant afford in our KPP

we still need to recruit kids of genuine size at 18 YO that have the speed and fleaxability to match their size

 

[Tango]

Re: PSD & Rookie picks wish list

my beef has never been about taking Griffiths at 19 or his ability to make it or not, in fact i am happy that we did,
my issue is that we took Nason at 71 instead of a temel or panos or any other tall

i still stand by the fact that we should have taken some tall insurance at least for 2 years until our tall list improved, adding a temel or a panos or whomever was left late in the draft at the expense of a similar risky small with maybe more upside was no more risk than nason who couldnt play senior footy in the SANFL - for whatever reason

 

[Disco08]

So, say they take Grimes in the PSD and Thompson/Panos/Temel/Daw at RD7 and RD 23 (or another tall if they're all gone by then) will you be appeased?

 

[RedanTiger]

So, say they take Grimes in the PSD and Thompson/Panos/Temel/Daw at RD7 and RD 23 (or another tall if they're all gone by then) will you be appeased?

Surely it's not that hard to work out what posters are talking about.

We could have taken Grimes at pick 67, Panos etc at 71 and then picked the next best for PSD 2. We have given up the first six spots in the rookie and then another 16 for your second rookie pick.

 

[Tango]

if we were to get 3 or 4 of those talls yes i would be but will they still be there for us? and i dont think so - thats the issue, we dont control the rookie draft like we did the late ND, GC and others have picks as well (yes GC have mentioned they will target older players - i hope they do)

we know we have the first live pick at the PSD - but this should be used for best available (if a tall so be it)

we could have taken 2 talls already - the best remaining 2 talls late in the ND and settled our list structure imbalance to some degree leaving us to take a couple of smalls in the PSD or rookie draft

if we get the best of the talls great, its just a far more risky way of picking the eyes out of the remaining talls

 

[Disco08]

Disagree that the best available policy is appropriate for the PSD. IMO it's the best place to address list needs if you're not planning on taking a mature player.

Glad to hear that you do see the chance the club can still address the situation. I think they deserve a little credit in that they've used 4 of their 5 highest picks in the last two drafts (where logically and statistically long term players are far more likely to be picked) on good tall options.

Surely it's not that hard to work out what posters are talking about.

We could have taken Grimes at pick 67, Panos etc at 71 and then picked the next best for PSD 2. We have given up the first six spots in the rookie and then another 16 for your second rookie pick.

But clearly the club (and 15 other clubs including a few who need talls nearly as much as we do) decided these guys weren't the right type to be taking in the ND. They can still get their quota of talls while taking what they saw as preferable options late in the ND.

You guys all want to keep harping on about what should have been done. It's history. I even agree with you that I would have taken a tall (Grimes) ahead of Nason at 71, but there's no point saying this over and over and over.

 

[Tango]

SO YOU AGREE DISCO - WOW

if more people agreed to few things maybe we wouldnt have to keep on it over and over

this has been the whole point, pick 71 FFS, if we couldnt take a risk at a tall then the club musnt think we have a problem with talls, its got nothing to do with the players left or available

Nason <<< than any remaining tall at 71 IMO

 

[Baloo]

if more people agreed with me maybe I wouldnt have to keep on it over and over

there you go, fixed that line for you Tango

 

[josey]

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).

By looking at this list, what do these guys have in common.

Obviously they all have the ability to play KD, however there is a decent enough gap in the amount of time they have individually taken to develop to rule out the ability to choose them at 18 year olds on ability alone.

IMO what they all have is very good speed and agility for big men. They also all have an excellent competitive nature.

So while it may have been difficult to identify their abilty to develop into quality key defenders, it would have been more than possible to measure their speed and agility. By watching them play at junior level it would also have been fairly easily to gain a good understanding of their competitiveness.

My point is, so while we did not choose a couple of speculative talls perhaps those available did not have the basic attributes required to be competive at AFL level. These basic attributes are easily measurable and perhaps is the reason why no one chose to pick the likes of Temel and Panos.

 

[Disco08]

this has been the whole point, pick 71 FFS, if we couldnt take a risk at a tall then the club musnt think we have a problem with talls, its got nothing to do with the players left or available

Mate, I disagree. The best way to address a list deficiency is to spend premium picks on the type of player you need. The club has done this both of the last two years so IMO they're not only aware of the situation but are clearly doing their best to alleviate it.

We are never going to fix the problem by picking the leftovers. We might find one or two serviceable types or even a very good player at some point but you need multiple quality options to really contend.

Nason <<< than any remaining tall at 71 IMO

What if Nason goes on to become a 100 game back pocket or midfielder? Honestly, you simply can't make this call right now.

SO YOU AGREE DISCO - WOW

Not sure why you're suprised. I've said this a number of times. I'm just trying to point out why I think all this handwringing is premature and a little OTT.

 

[josey]

What if Nason goes on to become a 100 game back pocket or midfielder? Honestly, you simply can't make this call right now.

Of course you are right Disco.

Tango has become a little caught up in his own rhetoric.

 

[Tango]

if nason does go on and become a 100 game player then fantastic and good on him and good on the club for the pick as well

the issue is how bad do people think our tall stock is, some on here think its ok, some think its not great and we can improve over time and others think its desperate and need desperate measures (me :hihi)

(ie) take more risks than normal on needs basis (talls) late and deep in the draft

i believe in this strongly and will keep on defending my belief whilst others keep defending theirs,

in fact i believe our structure has been poor for 10 years and this has been a major reason for the clubs lack of success and development of its juniors and as a result of this we should be doing more to try and catch up

structure, structure, structure - one of the most important things in any building program

 

[Tango]

Re: Permission to train list

some good points,

it would be interesting to see or compare what their height and weight was when drafted to see if they had some size then or if it all came on over years of training

 

[Disco08]

You don't think picking talls in the first three rounds where the likelihood of finding a long term player is roughly 3 times greater than thereafter is a more prudent method of trying to fix the imbalance?

 

[bowden4president]

Re: Permission to train list

I hope that the bulk of the bulking up is directed into the appropriate bulking up location that requires bulking up.

I understand the bulk of you post and i concur

 

[Tango]

yes i do, but i also feel that we are far worse off than any other club for talls and back up talls given the recent delisting and retirements, let alone the drafting failure from previous years

as a result of what i believe is our dire situation in the tall dept, we should have taken far greater risks than we normally would have to get some balance and depth back in that dept, and at the risk of picking more risky type (we also should have bought the bullet with mcmahon and king but thats another issue altogether)

the reason for doing this later in the ND draft is other clubs will takes risks on rookie talls, we need the talls more than them and should have taken the best available at the time of the ND rather than after rookie picks are done - thats all my argument is

 

[Disco08]

Fair enough. I'm not as concerned about the lack of speculative talls taken because I don't see them as anywhere near as valuable as the kids taken earlier. In fact, if they find that players like Nason and Webberley fill a need that enables them to use early picks on talls again next year then I think they'll have been picks very well used.