The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Disco08]

I should have prefaced the 10 games a year thing by saying players that were drafted 9 or more years ago should have reached 100 games. A career of 65 games hardly sounds like a valuable player to me. And Hall would have to considered borderline if you ask the question 'did he really contribute anything to his team during his career?'

IMO that leaves '98 as either 1 or 2 out of 11, either way not good odds. That was a particularly bad year for talls late though.

As to the pedantic part of this discussion - if you look at it logically, probable (or 'likely) must mean greater than a 50% chance. Anything less is 'unlikely'. Half of that must therefore be 'very unlikely' and a quarter of that 'extremely unlikely'.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

I should have prefaced the 10 games a year thing by saying players that were drafted 9 or more years ago should have reached 100 games. A career of 65 games hardly sounds like a valuable player to me. And Hall would have to considered borderline if you ask the question 'did he really contribute anything to his team during his career?'

IMO that leaves '98 as either 1 or 2 out of 11, either way not good odds. That was a particularly bad year for talls late though.

As to the pedantic part of this discussion - if you look at it logically, probable (or 'likely) must mean greater than a 50% chance. Anything less is 'unlikely'. Half of that must therefore be 'very unlikely' and a quarter of that 'extremely unlikely'.

Agree with most of that,

 

[Big Cat Lover]

I should have prefaced the 10 games a year thing by saying players that were drafted 9 or more years ago should have reached 100 games. A career of 65 games hardly sounds like a valuable player to me. And Hall would have to considered borderline if you ask the question 'did he really contribute anything to his team during his career?'

IMO that leaves '98 as either 1 or 2 out of 11, either way not good odds. That was a particularly bad year for talls late though.

As to the pedantic part of this discussion - if you look at it logically, probable (or 'likely) must mean greater than a 50% chance. Anything less is 'unlikely'. Half of that must therefore be 'very unlikely' and a quarter of that 'extremely unlikely'.

In regards to using higher selections on talls, it is still a bit of pot luck how good they will be - listed below are the best performed talls from entire draft and not so good talls from the 1st round

1998 -
GOOD - Bolton 33, Fevola 38
BAD - R Fitzgerald 4, C Lamb 13
UGLY - M Vance 6

1 in 5 1st round talls good - Longmuir

1st Choice - Longmuir - good

1999 - pretty successful year for recruiters
GOOD - Fraser 1, Pavlich 4, Brown 30 (F/S), Glass 11, McPharlin 10
BAD - L Brown 5
UGLY - D Roach 7, D Hayne 16

4 in 7 1st round talls good, although Brown would have gone 1st round also

1st choice - Fraser - good

2000 - other than first 2 a shocker
GOOD - Reiwoldt 1, Kosi 2 (Petrie 23 & Richards 27 the only other decent talls in entire year although Bock & Rutten went in rookie draft)
BAD - McDougall 5
UGLY - Livingstone 4, Angwin 7, J Davies 17

2 in 6 1st round talls good

1st choice - Reiwoldt - good

2001 -
GOOD - Lake at 71, Hale 7
BAD - Polak 4, Brooks 15

1 in 3 1st round talls good

1st choice - Polak - bad

2002 -
GOOD - McIntosh 9, J Brennan 3
BAD - N Smith 15
UGLY - Laycock 10, Schulz 12

2 in 5 1st round talls good

1st choice - Brennan - OK

2003 -
GOOD - T Chaplin 15 , S Fisher 55, B Hudson 58
BAD - R Murphy 12
UGLY - K Bradley 6

1st choice - Bradley - Shocker

1 in 3 1st round talls good

2004 -
GOOD - Roughead 2, Franklin 5,
BAD - Messen 8, Pattison 16, Willits 19

2 in 7 or 4 in 7 1st round talls good depending on your rating of Williams/Wood although arguable at this stage they are not good players.

1st Choice - Roughead - good

Williams at 6 and Wood at 18 jury still out I think

For those thinking we will be OK for future talls by using higher picks on them in future years should be mindful that only 13 of 36 1st round selections made on talls between 1998 and 2004 have turned out to be good AFL players.

The actual 1st choice tall has turned out to be a good player in 5 of the 7 years IMO. J Brennan tyou could argue has underperformed to his talent.

The strike rate does look better for 2005, given Ryder, Kennedy, Clark all taken in 1st round whilst 2006 could be a shocker - Gumbelton, Thorp, Henderson, Reid, Everitt, Brown could all be first round misses.

What this shows is that you really need the first tall picked in the draft to increase the chance of getting a good player - not brain surgery I suppose.
However with compromised drafts coming up we are relying on a bit more of a numbers game to build the tall depth. I think they should have started the numbers game this year.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Permission to train list

They are tall running types. That's the way they play. If we selected them, the same naysayers would be saying they aren't big enough to be true KPP.

Don't throw facts in front of people's arguments mate. I am finding this all too funny. :hihi

They're growing youngsters already 190+ cm. Great potential for key positions and what better than a key position who can also run. Adelaide know that you need a number of good quality key position talls to achieve results and are ensuring they don't leave themselves short (pardon the pun) by having to few potentials on their list. Would you like to evaluate all the talls on their list, all 19 of them and then tell me how close we are to them in quality and quantity of talls?

 

[Tango]

Gee Adelaide have 19 talls on their list? why so many, especially when they have good quality in rutten, bock, tippet etc

they have learnt their lesson, they have had good running sides and good midfields for years, i wonder why they are stocking up on talls?

 

[IanG]

Re: Permission to train list

They're growing youngsters already 190+ cm. Great potential for key positions and what better than a key position who can also run.

That doesn't follow, they are the same height as Cale Morton and he is never going to be a KPP.

Gee Adelaide have 19 talls on their list? why so many, especially when they have good quality in rutten, bock, tippet etc

they have learnt their lesson, they have had good running sides and good midfields for years, i wonder why they are stocking up on talls?

You've just read that those players of 190/191 are actually tall running players so they cannot be treated as KPPs like you are doing.

 

[linuscambridge]

Interesting consensus on here that we need somewhere between 12 and 20 talls in order to field a team with about 8 to 10, and yet we have one genuine small forward in Nahas and people generally think we are well and truly covered for that position.

I might start my own thread about "The Lack of Smalls on Our List" and waffle on for 20 or so pages quoting ad nauseum player types like Chapman, Milne, Riolli, and bemoaning the fact we haven't used any high draft picks seeking a small forward in decades, and all good premiership contenders have some quality in that position.

I tend to think we need some quality all over the field (perhaps we have enough flankers) and with key talls in such demand, the leftovers must have been truly terrible for the recruiters not to rate them a chance. Better to get them down to training and see if they are really as bad as they look and whether they are worth a punt in the PSD or rookie draft.

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Permission to train list

They're growing youngsters already 190+ cm. Great potential for key positions and what better than a key position who can also run. Adelaide know that you need a number of good quality key position talls to achieve results and are ensuring they don't leave themselves short (pardon the pun) by having to few potentials on their list. Would you like to evaluate all the talls on their list, all 19 of them and then tell me how close we are to them in quality and quantity of talls?

They don't play a true KPP style. They are not genuine KPP. Pretty simple. Watch them. They are your typical Adelaide recruits. Tallish running types. They love those types. With good success. I liked Shaw a lot too. But he ain't a KPP.

Also, of course we need more KPP on our list. We need more of everything. Our list is/was a absolute disaster. The main deficiency was that we lacked players with above average kicking and decision making skills. We addressed that this draft and took 2 players, Griffiths, Astbury for KP needs.

If you want to include Shaw and Gunston, why not include Troy Taylor (189cm) for us? He plays more of a KP way than Shaw!

We are not going to be able to fix our list completely in the one draft. No way known. What we did do though is bring kids with above average kicking and decision making skills this draft. To me, that was vital. No matter how many KPP you have, if you can't hit them or break a zone, or if you succumb to pressure and your skills go down the drain, they are of little use.

This argument that we should take inferior players just because they are tall, is the biggest joke of an argument I have heard for some time and shows me that no matter what some Richmond supporters just complain no matter what. If we did take Temel or Panos instead of Webberley and Nason, in two years time when Panos and Temel were shown to be not up to the grade, you blokes would criticise the club for not seeing what EVERYONE else saw.

 

[Scoop]

It is pretty clear that no one learnt anything from Cleve Hughes.

Temel and Panos are second or third rate at best. They will go to the VFL/SANFL and have Adrian Bonaddio type footballing lifes.

While I may vary on a few picks that we made, the process, the concept and the style of footballer we took is completley justifable. We now know we have a mandate and put a much higher value on kicking skills, the ability to have football smarts and decision making skills.

If the Hardwick era is to go pear shaped it will not be because of our skill level, something that we could never say in the past. And I for one couldn't be happier about it.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Permission to train list

They don't play a true KPP style. They are not genuine KPP. Pretty simple. Watch them. They are your typical Adelaide recruits. Tallish running types. They love those types. With good success. I liked Shaw a lot too. But he ain't a KPP.

Also, of course we need more KPP on our list. We need more of everything. Our list is/was a absolute disaster. The main deficiency was that we lacked players with above average kicking and decision making skills. We addressed that this draft and took 2 players, Griffiths, Astbury for KP needs.

If you want to include Shaw and Gunston, why not include Troy Taylor (189cm) for us? He plays more of a KP way than Shaw!

We are not going to be able to fix our list completely in the one draft. No way known. What we did do though is bring kids with above average kicking and decision making skills this draft. To me, that was vital. No matter how many KPP you have, if you can't hit them or break a zone, or if you succumb to pressure and your skills go down the drain, they are of little use.

This argument that we should take inferior players just because they are tall, is the biggest joke of an argument I have heard for some time and shows me that no matter what some Richmond supporters just complain no matter what. If we did take Temel or Panos instead of Webberley and Nason, in two years time when Panos and Temel were shown to be not up to the grade, you blokes would criticise the club for not seeing what EVERYONE else saw.

I still maintain there is no proof that recruiting is such a fine art that future ability is easily identified and quantified.

Frankly, it's laughable how optimistic the bio's of all the draft picks are. It appears we've only recruited great kicks and great decision makers. Funny how they all slipped past other recruiters if they stood out so much. The truth is more than half of them are likely to be gone in 5 years time or at least have many of us calling for their heads

Have you read any of my posts quoting previous years drafts? I'm not potting any particular teams recruiting staff, I'm merely pointing out it is an inexact science. Please explain how so many experts can get it so wrong?

Go through the draft history. Polak - 4, Livingstone 4, McDougall - 5, Bradley - 6, Vance - 6, Angwin - 7, Roach - 7, Messen - 8, Laycock - 10, Schulz - 12, Pattison 16. It's not 'ike they were all in the RFC development system so posters could bang on about poor development ala Pattison, Hughes, Schulz etc. Different clubs, different systems, same results. As claw would say - DUDS

Look at the stats. Less than 40% of talls selected in 1st round are making the grade.

I understand the % of talls, drafted in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds, that make it would reduce accordingly. However there are some that do make it. You may need to speculate on 3-4 talls to get one. But chances are you will get one.

I'm not advocating throwing a dart at a board but surely there were 2-3 talls in Aus that could be future AFL players that provide more long-term value than a Nason or Webberly?

I think we are really putting a lot of pressure on our recruiting department to get all their tall picks right over the next 2-3 years.

Tigerbob - do you think after the rest of the drafts are over you can get some info on how badly the talls like Temel, Panos etc were rated and how close we were to taking a tall in front of a Nason or Dea or Webberly?

I'd love someone from the club to explain how they rate the current crop of talls, where they see them in 3-5 years and what sort of recruiting policy they will have over the next 2-3 in regards to talls. Is there someone I could email at the club to get some idea on these issues. Do they discuss those things at Club 80 get togethers?

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Permission to train list

I still maintain there is no proof that recruiting is such a fine art that future ability is easily identified and quantified.

Frankly, it's laughable how optimistic the bio's of all the draft picks are. It appears we've only recruited great kicks and great decision makers. Funny how they all slipped past other recruiters if they stood out so much. The truth is more than half of them are likely to be gone in 5 years time or at least have many of us calling for their heads

Have you read any of my posts quoting previous years drafts? I'm not potting any particular teams recruiting staff, I'm merely pointing out it is an inexact science. Please explain how so many experts can get it so wrong?

Go through the draft history. Polak - 4, Livingstone 4, McDougall - 5, Bradley - 6, Vance - 6, Angwin - 7, Roach - 7, Messen - 8, Laycock - 10, Schulz - 12, Pattison 16. It's not 'ike they were all in the RFC development system so posters could bang on about poor development ala Pattison, Hughes, Schulz etc. Different clubs, different systems, same results. As claw would say - DUDS

Look at the stats. Less than 40% of talls selected in 1st round are making the grade.

I understand the % of talls, drafted in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds, that make it would reduce accordingly. However there are some that do make it. You may need to speculate on 3-4 talls to get one. But chances are you will get one.

I'm not advocating throwing a dart at a board but surely there were 2-3 talls in Aus that could be future AFL players that provide more long-term value than a Nason or Webberly?

I think we are really putting a lot of pressure on our recruiting department to get all their tall picks right over the next 2-3 years.

Tigerbob - do you think after the rest of the drafts are over you can get some info on how badly the talls like Temel, Panos etc were rated and how close we were to taking a tall in front of a Nason or Dea or Webberly?

I'd love someone from the club to explain how they rate the current crop of talls, where they see them in 3-5 years and what sort of recruiting policy they will have over the next 2-3 in regards to talls. Is there someone I could email at the club to get some idea on these issues. Do they discuss those things at Club 80 get togethers?

If you want to email anyone just email the club directly. You can find their email addresses on the website.

Would they give you that information, probably not. Why should they, it is confidential. Plus drafting is not over yet. We still have two more to go. If we do net four talls in the next two drafts, what will all you people say then?

Just by pure common sense you would say the club didn't rate the talls remaining in the draft. We took two we rated extremely highly and I think we missed one other from what I have been told.

If we had pick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (as we had 7 draft picks) would we have still taken two or three talls? I mean, the first 7 players whom were judged to be the best players in the land were all smaller types. Scully, Trengove, Martin, Morabito, Cunnington, Rohan and Sheppard. A tall didn't come into play till pick 8(Butcher). The next was at Pick 13(Talia). The next, it was us at 19(Griffiths). After Astbury at 35, I ask how many true KPP were actually taken, that were not rookie elevations? What does that tell you about the quality of the talls remaining? Would we have "reached" for Butcher even though we didn't rate his skill level? Or "reached" for Talia or Grifffiths in expense of the talented Rohan? Our football club needed the best players possible to come into our squad. We needed help everywhere.

You can throw stats at me all you like, sound reasoning shows me that we made the correct decisions, as SCOOP says by taking what we believed to be the better players with more of a chance at establishing themselves as top line footballers. Also with the added bonus of being highly skilled and great decision makers.

I suppose everyone's argument is blunt until we see how the likes of Panos, Temel, Grimes etc do go in the league. If they do get drafted at all. What if Nason and Webberley become consistent, top line footballers? I'm backing the club, with Damiens and Francis' thinking on this.

 

[Disco08]

Any chance of telling us who that might be bob? PM will be fine. ;D

 

[Tigerbob]

Any chance of telling us who that might be bob? PM will be fine. ;D

Sorry mate, I refuse to divulge any info I hear from the club from here on in.

 

[Tango]

:stopwar

Disco, just lock the thread and we will all move on as the tribe have spoken

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Permission to train list

If you want to email anyone just email the club directly. You can find their email addresses on the website.

Would they give you that information, probably not. Why should they, it is confidential. Plus drafting is not over yet. We still have two more to go. If we do net four talls in the next two drafts, what will all you people say then?

Just by pure common sense you would say the club didn't rate the talls remaining in the draft. We took two we rated extremely highly and I think we missed one other from what I have been told.

If we had pick 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (as we had 7 draft picks) would we have still taken two or three talls? I mean, the first 7 players whom were judged to be the best players in the land were all smaller types. Scully, Trengove, Martin, Morabito, Cunnington, Rohan and Sheppard. A tall didn't come into play till pick 8(Butcher). The next was at Pick 13(Talia). The next, it was us at 19(Griffiths). After Astbury at 35, I ask how many true KPP were actually taken, that were not rookie elevations? What does that tell you about the quality of the talls remaining? Would we have "reached" for Butcher even though we didn't rate his skill level? Or "reached" for Talia or Grifffiths in expense of the talented Rohan? Our football club needed the best players possible to come into our squad. We needed help everywhere.

You can throw stats at me all you like, sound reasoning shows me that we made the correct decisions, as SCOOP says by taking what we believed to be the better players with more of a chance at establishing themselves as top line footballers. Also with the added bonus of being highly skilled and great decision makers.

I suppose everyone's argument is blunt until we see how the likes of Panos, Temel, Grimes etc do go in the league. If they do get drafted at all. What if Nason and Webberley become consistent, top line footballers? I'm backing the club, with Damiens and Francis' thinking on this.

This all makes sense, I suppose the ratings are self-explanatory. If they didn't rate players they would de-list them, if they rated them highly they would draft them if available.

Will see if I can get a response after drafting done and dusted.

Too early to say the correct decisions have been made IMO

 

[Disco08]

Agreed BCL, either way we need to wait and see how the rest of our picks pan out before casting judgment on list structure issues.

:stopwar

Disco, just lock the thread and we will all move on as the tribe have spoken

Nah, I think this is a worthwhile discussion, especially given there's so little to whinge/talk about until the next drafts.

 

[TigerForce]

Nah, I think this is a worthwhile discussion, especially given there's so little to whinge/talk about until the next drafts.

Get ready for claw's round 2 then.

 

[the claw]

Re: David Astbury our third pick

Based on the highlight reel he should of been top 10, tall, agile, strong, great contested mark, nice vision lovely weighted kick. TAC Cup stats indicate he doesnt get much of the ball though...

I back Francis on this one though, his picks on talls have looked pretty good to date...(& I dont count Cleve as a FJ pick)

i do count him a fj pick. talls since.
05 hughes pick 24 gone,
06 pick 13 riewoldt keeper.
07 rance pick 18 50/50. putt 51 gone,
08 gourdis psd 30/70. vickery pick 8 development. post pick 26 development.
09 griffiths pick 19 development. astbury pick 35 development.
does not include psd picks on kingsley or the trade for polak in 06 one would think he had some say in these two. what he had to say is anyones guess perhaps the club went against his wishes.
the only other tall we have taken is graham thru the rookie draft. atm hes a 30/70 chance.

05 and 06 are probably far enough back to make some sort of judgement on those talls taken. i read it one hit one miss for those yrs so hes running at 50%. the other yrs sees all other talls in development with 07 looking shaky what with putt gone and serious question marks over rance.
i dont trust to any of them. for me jackson is finding his way hes getting by and learning as he goes i hope at the end of 2012 2013 we can all say hes done very well.

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: David Astbury our third pick

i do count him a fj pick. talls since.
05 hughes pick 24 gone,
06 pick 13 riewoldt keeper.
07 rance pick 18 50/50. putt 51 gone,
08 gourdis psd 30/70. vickery pick 8 development. post pick 26 development.
09 griffiths pick 19 development. astbury pick 35 development.
does not include psd picks on kingsley or the trade for polak in 06 one would think he had some say in these two. what he had to say is anyones guess perhaps the club went against his wishes.
the only other tall we have taken is graham thru the rookie draft. atm hes a 30/70 chance.

05 and 06 are probably far enough back to make some sort of judgement on those talls taken. i read it one hit one miss for those yrs so hes running at 50%. the other yrs sees all other talls in development with 07 looking shaky what with putt gone and serious question marks over rance.
i dont trust to any of them. for me jackson is finding his way hes getting by and learning as he goes i hope at the end of 2012 2013 we can all say hes done very well.

What about Vickery and Post?

Riewoldt, Vickery and Post look really good.

Rance was a good get at that stage of the draft, I still think he will make it, so does Hardwick.

He was in the job for 5 minutes in 2005, Greg Miller still has rights to that draft so a bit harsh on him to judge Hughes.

Gourdis was a PSD pick who was known as a risk and would need development, if you saw any Coburg games you would have seen the strides he has made, not bad for a kid picked that late.

Griffiths and Astbury look fantastic so far, and I expect them to make a big impression on our football club.

I think he has done extremely well. We'll see in the near future though won't we.

 

[Scoop]

Re: David Astbury our third pick

Our forward structure doesn't concern me too much long term. Short term we will struggle to kick scores but the long term view is looking ok.

I still think that Riewoldt is going to be A grade elite. He will kick 60-70 a year for 5 plus years if his body holds out. Post looks likely to have the ability to take a contested pack mark more so then Jack. The biggest question mark I have on Post is his pace. Not sure I saw much of it last year but he has the ability to get off the ground in a hurry so I assume he can translate that into short burst pace.

For me we really need a bit of class and poise in the back half, hopefully Astbury can provide that or release Post to go to CHB.

The one thing Astbury does bring to the table is that he opens up the structure of the side a lot more if he makes the grade.