The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[TigerMasochist]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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.

Hmmm! Richo, Bowden, Gaspar, Stafford, Kellaway not a lot wrong with the quality of the older talls who had a full career at AFL level. The problem is created with a lack of quality tall replacements who have all failed while the good ones got old and faded away.
You defeat your own argument Claw by insisting on grabbing another truckload of poor quality talls then relying on hope, prayer or miracles to procure an elite tall. Talls take longer than smalls to grow into the size and mass of their bodies, they're unco pelicans in their first couple of years.
Quality talls are rightly priceless so clubs are prepared to give talls a bit longer to develop, hence they get stuck with shitetrucks for to long when they recruit cheap and nasty talls.
Simple rule of thumb for talls, only grab the good ones as kids or be prepared to pay overs for an established tall.

 

[Streak]

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.

I'd be interested to know too. I was amazed he didn't get picked up.

 

[Rfc4Ever]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

I'd be interested to know too. I was amazed he didn't get picked up.

Would be happy with him PSD. Him or Grimes.

 

[GoodOne]

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.

We wont be taking Bradshaw. Flies in the face of our youngster strategy. Believe he is lock, stock and barrelled for Swans. Notice how no-one took Ball? It's just not the done thing, taking an older player against his wishes.

 

[The tooth]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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

The best thing is we can have them down to Punt Rd to train and have a real good look

 

[Tiger74]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

The best thing is we can have them down to Punt Rd to train and have a real good look

they have done this for the past few years - run a "rookie camp" where a bunch of prospects train at the club prior to the rookie draft

 

[The tooth]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Back onto the topic of this thread, don't be surprised to see us fast track players including some from this draft. We simply might have to. With a number of talls being delisted/traded), we will be looking to plugs these gaps immediately. And although it probably won't assist us short term, but if we are forced to get game time into kids immediately this will help us in 3-4 yrs time when we hopefully have a number of guys from this year and last with 50+ games in them.

 

[cagedtiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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.

Let me see if I understand this correctly - to get context of this dimwitted thread you have created I need to go back and read all your past posts. The title of this thread clearly suggest whoever created it was hopeful that after this 1 draft (that is 3 days after :whistle) the tall situation would not look grim anymore - either way you are simplistic or antagonistic - I'll let you choose.

 

[MB78]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

I know he is not 190cm but everything I read about Troy Taylor indicates that he will play tall in the forward line.

I have said it on other threads we need to look at Panos, Thompson, Grimes, Daw, Temel or Darmody.

We should be able to get at least 2 of the above.

 

[peggles]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

having a look at melbourne's tall forwards, or the lack of. Man they're in much deeper strive in the forwardline than we are anyday.

 

[Baloo]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Not sure if it was Evo or Leysy in the draft chat, but they called right very early (during the 1st round I think) saying Panos would not get drafted.

I guess he's another that the keyboard experts got completely wrong.

 

[shamekha]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Did we miss the point with not drafting more talls? i think not, it was widely known that there wasn't many quality talls in this draft and yet we still used pick 19 to draft the best available (albiet with an injury) but still the most talanted and also our 3rd pick on a tall that they have been watching closely.
i think they made the correct decision. Instead of drafting all talls that by reports weren't of quality his year they can now take them to the draft camp and have a decent look and chose best left.

By the way, would we want them playing Coburg reserves for 2 years on a salary like what happened with Putt? Probably not a good idea. Whos to know, there may be some awesome talent next year that they have there eye on. If we finish near bottom again we get early choice again and get the best available tall.

There is a bloke called Jack Darling. Hope we draft him. Will be top ten next year.

 

[IanG]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

There is a bloke called Jack Darling. Hope we draft him. Will be top ten next year.

Already gone to GC from all reports he would have been probably top 5 this year.

 

[shamekha]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Already gone to GC from all reports he would have been probably top 5 this year.

Was just an example

 

[Mr Brightside]

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. how many 1st year KPP have an impact
astbury - 18 yr old if we are lucky he might get a game or two.Same
simmonds - 31 yr old in his last yr.Dont agree re keeping him, however will no doubt play a role with kids development
thursfield - borderline player needs to stake his spot this yr. depending on weight development likely 3rd tall only.Boderline my ass, got stiched up by Fev in a qtr, otherwise once TW was gone was hardly beaten by class players, i.e Porplyzia, Ideal world super 3rd tall, however can play on most types
mcguane - dud.think your some of Thirsty is more accurate to Luke, however after 2010 we will know
riewoldt - needs 7 kg progressing nicely will have to play kp rerady or not.You may be right re weight, however I think Jack will work on more on strength an agility rather then mass weight, super 3rd tall
post - sheesh 2nd yr player under normal circumstances if he played more than 12 14 games you would be more than happy.Hope we see signs at both ends from Post, should play last half of year at the least
graham - dud.Unless Rucks are outstanding Cox like , not that fussed
rance - 3rd yr player needs to start showing a bit is in the iffy category because of skills..Huge year , I think we will have a fair idea if he isgoing to be very good in adefensive manor or not , seems to come natural to run of an carry like modern day backs
vickery - very undersized but talented ruckman should be nursed but will be thrown in.Like to see him spend a lot of time forward
browne- a genuine ruckman who has size still very raw a huge ask to expect him to play a significant role this yr.agree
gourdis - on the rookie list and likely to stay there with his skills.Very intresting talent

thats it people now go compare to all other lists.

Other then Richo's retirment we simply got rid of KPP who were not up to it, for what ever reason. In 2 drafts we have added 3 highly credntialled talls, 1 who as a bonus can play ruck an forward, another who can play fwd or back, an the other has a much preffered spot , however looks to be able to play any key post, on top of this we have added a genuine sized key utility, a mid size forward who can play out of FF, we have also added another ruck in Browne and Im sure we will add another Ruck on to the rookie list as well as keeping Polak on the cheap and as handy insurance.

Agree with you on your list structure thoughts , however I am happy to have passed on Hughes an co and not just simply replaced them with players with glaring deficiences just because there KPP. Frank has taken KPP kids who he sees as potential stars as well as continued too added class to other areas of need.

Quality not quanity

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

It's not about next year. Who cares if Griffiths won't play every game?

As long as we get it right in 3-4 years time. By then we'll have another 7-8 talls going through the system. We're not doing that bad, nobody said our list was meant to be complete after 1 draft. We are in this position because we delisted a lot of under performing talls. That's a good thing - and part of the process.

Claw, I've always respected your opinion, but right now I can see the club actually doing the right things, sticking to the right philosophies (many that you have had for years)... these critisisms after the draft sound like you're digging a lot deeper than before to find negatives. That's a good thing long-term I guess, better than before when all these negative sounding hypothesis' were scarily true....

If it is generally accepted that talls take longer to develop, how are we supposed to compete when our midfield is at it's peak in 3-5 years time? Especially considering the compromised nature of the oncoming drafts.

Unless we are going to trade for some quality talls, in 3-5 years time we may really struggle to convert on the midfield advantage you would assume we will have.

The only thing I don't agree with claw on is Graham - I saw something in a coupole of games to make me believe he can be a player.

And for those who mention Polak as our CHB you must not have watched any of the games where he played one on one in the backline - scarily bad. It is why he rarely played CHB despite his physical suitability to the role. LMID was all he could do, I hope we do not rookie him.

 

[bullus_hit]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

With another 5 players to be drafted in the PSD and Rookie draft I think we can get the balance right. 2 more players, possibly Panos and Grimes would round out a well balanced recruiting effort in my opinion. Maybe even throw in a junior ruck or project player like Daw and things begin to look really healthy. I think some people need to settle down given we haven't even finalised the list for next year.

 

[TT33]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

I have always liked Daniel Bradshaw as a player, he is very versatile & imo has been treated shabbily by the blions over quite a time. I years past I would have loved to have him in a Tigers jumper. 3 or 4 years ago he would have been ideal. But NOT NOW.
We are at the start of yet another REBUILD, now is the time to do it properly, Not by using other clubs cast offs, albeit reluctantly on the blions part.

A lot of posters are bleating about us keeping Simmons on the list, but imo he is a much better fit to our needs than Bradshaw. We have some young kpp's but our ruckstocks are still a little bit too raw.

So therefore I say we do not need [or want] Bradshaw.

 

[the claw]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Other then Richo's retirment we simply got rid of KPP who were not up to it, for what ever reason. In 2 drafts we have added 3 highly credntialled talls, 1 who as a bonus can play ruck an forward, another who can play fwd or back, an the other has a much preffered spot , however looks to be able to play any key post, on top of this we have added a genuine sized key utility, a mid size forward who can play out of FF, we have also added another ruck in Browne and Im sure we will add another Ruck on to the rookie list as well as keeping Polak on the cheap and as handy insurance.

Agree with you on your list structure thoughts , however I am happy to have passed on Hughes an co and not just simply replaced them with players with glaring deficiences just because there KPP. Frank has taken KPP kids who he sees as potential stars as well as continued too added class to other areas of need.

Quality not quanity

we basically agree except on the last sentence. imo its a combination of both quality and quantity that is needed to turn the tall structure around.
im prepared to go thru 4 talls to find one with late picks psd and rookie picks. if you take just one or two talls late every yr you could go yrs before you get a decent tall.in fact in the main this is what has happened at the club for so so long.even when useing early picks regularly talls seem to have a higher fail rate. you dont want early picks to fail but you can certainly plan for late picks rookie picks to have a high fail rate. we used picks 19 and 35 on talls fantastic im not complaining here i am thinking though if we took the right players with these picks. the numbers say though one of these two picks may fail

to get to the required number of talls needed at the required standard you have no real choice but to do both, target quality and load up late.i dont have a problem with picks failing but i do have a problem with us hanging onto players for to longthat to me is the real problem.

mate im just useing the lessons from other clubs who have in the main gone thru high numbers of talls to find a core of 16 or so..

 

[17]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Claw, I can see your point - would also like to see more talls join the list.
But we are only part of the way through this years process.
Lets reserve some judgement until after the rookie draft, where they may pick up more.
Your other point about process and seemingly a criticism about Francis falling in love with Dea to the exclusion of potentially less risky more worthy types is only going to be proven either way in a few years time.
I also retain a nagging doubt about our list managers / recruiters prowess in this caper and really this is a huge year for them - if Astbury and Dea don't come up, our list is in more trouble than the early settlers; starting so far behind, with corrupted drafts to come.