The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Juffaricho]

...................And this is all good in ClawWorld?

02 wasted pick 4 on Tim Walsh dud bigger dud than JON
03 Traded for Steven Koops dud and Adam Morgan dud how many games between them for the Bullies that's right 11 for Koops and 14 for Morgan.
04 pick 6 Tom Willimas pick 6 too early he would have been around for their next rounder passed on Franklin too with their previous pick.
06 Everitt OK traded 2 picks for McDougall dud who was running that show Miller how many games McDougall for Bullies thats right 5.
07 Grant 192 80 kgs that's not a tall thats a coathanger traded two picks for Hudson could have got a ruckman in the PSD Steven King was available why trade.
08 Cordy another coathanger Welsh 188 89 not a tall
now 09 trade for Hall 32 isn't he retired who gave him a two-year contract

btw,you left out the trade for Peter Street, Rawlings in the PSD and Wells and Baird all gone all duds. The only half decent talls they have picked up is this period is Dale Morris.

Mate, I don't mind you ranting from time to time and it is the festive season so we all appreciate a good laugh but, seriously, if Richmond had done all of this you would be having conniption fits. Umpteen trades, a 30 year old in the PSD, an always injured CHB and two of the lightest footballers for their height in the AFL.

You're just taking the urine now.

The Dogs have wasted a lot of picks in the last 5 years........ since........... Wallace left. :hihi
Seeing a premium team does take 6-7 years to develop (with about 14 24-27 year olds in their prime) maybe Wallace was the genius. :cutelaugh

 

[shamekha]

3 of the last 4 drafts they have used first round picks on talls like i said they have used some handy picks on talls.

people keep telling me they have had no talls well in numbers they had 18 in 09. if you want to see the effort they have made in trying to fix their deficiency
02 they used a first rounder pick 4.
03 they went the other route and used picks 20 and 34 in trades for talls.
04 they used pick 6 on a tal;l another first rounder.
pick11 in 06 and traded picks 29 and 59 for mcdougall.
pick 5 in o7 and traded 30 and 38 for hudson.
pick 14 in 08 plus 31 took welsh in the psd
09 traded what for hall.
have not included any late picks rookies like oshea yep i think they have used up some decent picks in an attempt to fix their tall problems.5 first rounders in how many yrs.

And the reason they could use those picks on talls was because they already had a good midfield. We are trying to do both at the moment.

Getting elite mids that have the ball usage skills first is to me number 1 priority. With the ball coming in well forwards will develop better and quicker.

As for the list of big backman,, you seem to have changed your argument a tad. Did you check to see how many of those players are over 195cm hmmm and don't just come back with the i never wanted just 195+ KPD i just wanted them 95+kg argument.

We can all see that the whole side needs to put on weight.

As for how many talls we should have. It should be relative to the starting lineup that is planned by the coaching team. Just because Pelchen says it should be done one way doesn't mean there isn't any other ways. What if our new game plan isn't based on a traditional setup or should i say the setup YOU think they should have.

I don't like the, get as many talls as we can because 1 is bound to work argument, this is naive and all people that play a roulette wheel would testify to it going all pear shaped as well.

Playing percentages in AFL doesn't work.

It needs to be strategic to narrow the odds and then have a bit of luck. More like trying to pick a winner at the track.

 

[Juffaricho]

Interesting Stat......

Current Lists

Geelong:
Average Height = 188cm Average Weight = 89kg

St. Kilda:
Average Height = 189cm Average Weight = 87kg

Richmond:
Average Height = 187cm Average Weight = 81kg

We're Sticks.

 

[Rosy]

That's interesting Juffa. I'm not surprised because we've drafted a heap of lightweights in recent times. It's possibly by design but they haven't bulked up as much as some players at other clubs. Do you know how those lists compare age-wise?

 

[Disco08]

I reckon those numbers will be from the beginning of last season (aside from draftees obviously) anyway. The real test will be to see how much a few of our guys have bulked up by round 1.

 

[the claw]

...................And this is all good in ClawWorld?

02 wasted pick 4 on Tim Walsh dud bigger dud than JON
03 Traded for Steven Koops dud and Adam Morgan dud how many games between them for the Bullies that's right 11 for Koops and 14 for Morgan.
04 pick 6 Tom Willimas pick 6 too early he would have been around for their next rounder passed on Franklin too with their previous pick.
06 Everitt OK traded 2 picks for McDougall dud who was running that show Miller how many games McDougall for Bullies thats right 5.
07 Grant 192 80 kgs that's not a tall thats a coathanger traded two picks for Hudson could have got a ruckman in the PSD Steven King was available why trade.
08 Cordy another coathanger Welsh 188 89 not a tall
now 09 trade for Hall 32 isn't he retired who gave him a two-year contract

btw,you left out the trade for Peter Street, Rawlings in the PSD and Wells and Baird all gone all duds. The only half decent talls they have picked up is this period is Dale Morris.

Mate, I don't mind you ranting from time to time and it is the festive season so we all appreciate a good laugh but, seriously, if Richmond had done all of this you would be having conniption fits. Umpteen trades, a 30 year old in the PSD, an always injured CHB and two of the lightest footballers for their height in the AFL.

You're just taking the urine now.

nowhere have i mentioned the quality of their picks. if you followed the debate disco targeted one comment the inference being they had not made much of an effort in drafting talls. and compared them to us. the reply is the one your scoffing at.

the fact that a highly rated recruiter has found it hard to get quality talls into a list just backs up my comments about how hard it is to grow the tall list.
i find it odd that statements like wb have no talls or are short funny they have had plenty of talls in their system and they continue to hunt quality with first rnd picks. imo they are expending valuable picks in an attempt to find some quality kpfs.

and this will get comment for sure but imo brad johnson is past it and has been for 3 yrs. now playing him as a kp was lunacy playing hahn at chf is lunacy and depending on minson to play primarily forward well stupidity no wonder they havent made a gf their whole forward structure has been makeshift.
eade had to bite the bullet and play at least one tall kid forward preferably two.eades comments that they dont have a kpf to play forward to me is an indictment on himself. the everitt situation sort of sums it up.
5 yrs and they dont have a young kpf ready to step up, like i said i reckon hes been as bad as wallace in this area. hes almost been forced to go out and get hall because they have failed to develop or draft a couple of decent kpfs but like i said in fairness to the dogs they have used some pretty handy picks in trying to rectify this. they have also used good numbers yet still fail in this area.

 

[Disco08]

nowhere have i mentioned the quality of their picks. if you followed the debate disco targeted one comment the inference being they had not made much of an effort in drafting talls. and compared them to us.

I didn't infer they hadn't made an effort at all. You praised them for using good picks in trying to address their need for talls and I was just interested to see if you thought Richmond's efforts were worthy of equal praise given the picks they've used on talls since Jackson and Cameron arrived.

 

[Tigers of Old]

and this will get comment for sure but imo brad johnson is past it and has been for 3 yrs. now playing him as a kp was lunacy

Agree that playing him as a KPP is lunancy(or desperation), disagree he's been past it for three years although there were definite signs of decay last year.

 

[IanG]

i find it odd that statements like wb have no talls or are short funny they have had plenty of talls in their system and they continue to hunt quality with first rnd picks. imo they are expending valuable picks in an attempt to find some quality kpfs.

I find it odd that you don't criticise their recruiters for wasting these picks on KPPs who probably will never be a fundamental part of the spine of the team like Grant and Everitt. The fact that they haven't got the KPPs they should is not an indication that quality KPPs are hard to find, its more an indication that they wasted a large number of their picks on KPPs who carried a large amount of risk but with little corresponding reward (with the exception of Tom Williams who has a lot of potential while still being a risk). Contrast that with what Jackson and Cameron appear to be doing, which is trying to build up our KPP stocks while not compromising in terms of risk/reward ie. if we do take a risk it has to be with a player with a large upside. If this means we take 1 less KPP in a draft so be it especially when it can be made up in the following draft which has more KPPs.

 

[Jason King]

I would be interested in statistics of the clubs in terms of players starting weights vs their current weights? I dont think statspeople get paid enough to look into that

 

[the claw]

And the reason they could use those picks on talls was because they already had a good midfield. We are trying to do both at the moment.

na i disagree first rnd picks must go on best available depending on the player available even your second rnd picks. i have never deviated from this my first two picks this yr morabito and bastinac.

a couple of other points being talls do take longer to develop and you do have more misses with them,and you can get good mids more easily later. ive even pointerd out on this site that most of the better talls taken in recent yrs have been taken 2nd and 3rd rounds something we did this yr.

As for the list of big backman,, you seem to have changed your argument a tad. Did you check to see how many of those players are over 195cm hmmm and don't just come back with the i never wanted just 195+ KPD i just wanted them 95+kg argument.

pppfftt never have i changed my argument i have for yrs been spouting that 190cm is generally reagarded as genuine tall. though there are obvious variations to this. for us i would like at least one kpd at around the 195cm mark its a big ask asking 190cm players to man up on 195+ cm kpfs.even harder if they lack mass. ive used plenty of 190cm players as an example of size croad michael spring to mind. this has always been the case you just read what you want..
ive even gone so far to say it seems the better kpds have been between 190 195.

and no you are wrong many on here still believe thursfield mcguane moore are adequate when it comes to size.some are even advocating that players much over 90kg are a thing of the past what rubbish.

As for how many talls we should have. It should be relative to the starting lineup that is planned by the coaching team. Just because Pelchen says it should be done one way doesn't mean there isn't any other ways. What if our new game plan isn't based on a traditional setup or should i say the setup YOU think they should have.

how many talls are needed has nothing to do with pelchen it common sense and its worked on what most other clubs do to gain depth and quality.but i suppose we dont need to learn from others what is successful and works.

teams starting line ups no matter the game plan or style vary very little when it comes to talls.. most sides go into games with 3 3 2 that is 3 tall defenders 3 tall forwards and 2 ruckmen it can vary at times.some may only take one ruckman in. some may take only 2 forwards in but it never varies by much the norm is 3 3 2. to get depth and have cover you need 2 of each that is 16 talls at various stages of development . that is a minimum, its plain old common sense.it leaves 32 places for those mids you so like.
i also believe you need a minimum of 12 who can play at the top level with the other 4 in development those other 4 i would want to be reasonably confident they will make the grade.

the simple fact is if you make up numbers with late picks and rookie picks you will initially have to take more than 16 talls not unless you are bob or maisey and think every single pick we use is going to make it. again common sense.


[/quote]

I don't like the, get as many talls as we can because 1 is bound to work argument, this is naive and all people that play a roulette wheel would testify to it going all pear shaped as well.

Playing percentages in AFL doesn't work.

It needs to be strategic to narrow the odds and then have a bit of luck. More like trying to pick a winner at the track.

lol you may not like it but it is what clubs have done. i have pointed out sides who have had as many as 22 talls on their lists at one time they are playing the percentages. playing percentages is strategic when done right a blind man can see that.

sheesh look at the smalls we took this yr is that not the same thing oh but thats right thats different every small is gunna make it. :

 

[IanG]

lol you may not like it but it is what clubs have done. i have pointed out sides who have had as many as 22 talls on their lists at one time

Which sides?

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Dogs

2006 - 11 - Everitt (KPP)

2007 - 5 - Grant, arguably more of a running tall than KPP. He's 20 and 6 months and still 80kg.

2008 - 14 - Cordy (ruck), 31 - Roughead (ruck/KPF)

For picks inside the first 3 rounds ("handy picks"), that's all they've spent on talls.

Tigers

2006 - 13 - Reiwoldt (KPF)

2007 - 18 - Rance (KPD)

2008 - 8 - Vickery (ruck, KPF), 26 - Post (KPP)

2009 - 19 - Griffiths (KPF), 35 - Astbury (KPP)

That makes the score 6-4 as far as I can tell. I can't be bothered to check them all but I wonder if any team has spent as many good picks as we have on talls over the last 4 years.

That is OK if you look at the last 4 years, if you go back further disco our recruiting of talls was almost non-exisitent. Negligent.

It has definitely started to be addresssed but it should never have become so dire with proper management.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

I find it odd that you don't criticise their recruiters for wasting these picks on KPPs who probably will never be a fundamental part of the spine of the team like Grant and Everitt. The fact that they haven't got the KPPs they should is not an indication that quality KPPs are hard to find, its more an indication that they wasted a large number of their picks on KPPs who carried a large amount of risk but with little corresponding reward (with the exception of Tom Williams who has a lot of potential while still being a risk). Contrast that with what Jackson and Cameron appear to be doing, which is trying to build up our KPP stocks while not compromising in terms of risk/reward ie. if we do take a risk it has to be with a player with a large upside. If this means we take 1 less KPP in a draft so be it especially when it can be made up in the following draft which has more KPPs.

Hindsight is great isn't it?

So the answer to recruiting talls is that simple - good recruiting strategies to minimise the risk? So what went wrong with the following top ten draft picks that have so far been less than impressive - Gumbleton, Williams, Thorp, McDougall, Angwin, Livingstone, Polak, Walsh, Laycock, Bradley, Messen, Reid.

Is that poor recruiting or do you think there is a slice of luck as well? Maybe not all top ten draft picks are gonna make it? Maybe the guy who goes at 40 will be better than the guy at 4?

I just cross my fingers that our guys continue with the great strike rate of recent times with the talls

 

[Disco08]

That is OK if you look at the last 4 years, if you go back further disco our recruiting of talls was almost non-exisitent. Negligent.

It has definitely started to be addresssed but it should never have become so dire with proper management.

Agreed mate. I just can't see the point of continually whinging about something that occurred so long ago and was instigated by people no longer associated with the organisation.

Jackson started 4 years ago, Cameron 2. To me they're the only time frames worth discussing.

 

[Leysy Days]

and no you are wrong many on here still believe thursfield mcguane moore are adequate when it comes to size.some are even advocating that players much over 90kg are a thing of the past what rubbish.

is that pointed at leysy. If it is leysy has waisted a lot of time posting with you. Leysy repeats for the 100th time. Key position players who arent agile are a thing of the past. If they come with size great. But Kicking skills & agility are the two pre-requisites that are non-negotiable. Got it now?

Why do you think Panos & Temel were always going to slide down the draft order. For that very reason & leysy told everyone about it beforehand on here. Lucjily our club didnt fall into the trap of drafting them.

the simple fact is if you make up numbers with late picks and rookie picks you will initially have to take more than 16 talls not unless you are bob or maisey and think every single pick we use is going to make it. again common sense.

Leysy has 5800 posts. If you can point out anywhere this has been alluded by leysy he will bow down. Facts are if we get 5 good long-term players from our 14 picks this year the recruiting staff will have done an excellent job.

Are those points easy enough for you to understand without you bringing up misinformed points in the future?

 

[Disco08]

Ah the joys. ;D

 

[IanG]

Hindsight is great isn't it?

So the answer to recruiting talls is that simple - good recruiting strategies to minimise the risk?

I didn't say that, I said in the particular case of the Bulldogs their woes can be blamed mainly on poor recruiting, and that our priorities on the risk/reward matrix appear to be more reasonable. You will note that despite Gumbleton's injury woes the bombers have been better at rebuilding their KPP stocks than the Bulldogs just for example.

 

[shamekha]

na i disagree first rnd picks must go on best available depending on the player available even your second rnd picks. i have never deviated from this my first two picks this yr morabito and bastinac. Both are midfielders which best available tend to be and backs up what the club has done

a couple of other points being talls do take longer to develop and you do have more misses with them,and you can get good mids more easily later. ive even pointerd out on this site that most of the better talls taken in recent yrs have been taken 2nd and 3rd rounds something we did this yr. i don't necessarily agree here. Elite mids can be just as hard to get

pppfftt never have i changed my argument i have for yrs been spouting that 190cm is generally reagarded as genuine tall. though there are obvious variations to this. for us i would like at least one kpd at around the 195cm mark Here you are backing up what i said about wanting the 195+ player its a big ask asking 190cm players to man up on 195+ cm kpfs Scarlet, Maguire and Croad did OK.even harder if they lack mass. ive used plenty of 190cm players as an example of size croad michael spring to mind. this has always been the case you just read what you want..
ive even gone so far to say it seems the better kpds have been between 190 195.

and no you are wrong many on here still believe thursfield mcguane moore are adequate when it comes to size.some are even advocating that players much over 90kg are a thing of the past what rubbish.
how many talls are needed has nothing to do with pelchen it common sense and its worked on what most other clubs do to gain depth and quality.but i suppose we dont need to learn from others what is successful and works.

teams starting line ups no matter the game plan or style vary very little when it comes to talls.. most sides go into games with 3 3 2 that is 3 tall defenders 3 tall forwards and 2 ruckmen it can vary at times.some may only take one ruckman in. some may take only 2 forwards in but it never varies by much the norm is 3 3 2. to get depth and have cover you need 2 of each that is 16 talls actually 8+6=14 at various stages of development . that is a minimum, its plain old common sense.it leaves 32 places for those mids you so like.
i also believe you need a minimum of 12 who can play at the top level with the other 4 in development those other 4 i would want to be reasonably confident they will make the grade.

the simple fact is if you make up numbers with late picks and rookie picks you will initially have to take more than 16 talls not unless you are bob or maisey and think every single pick we use is going to make it. again common sense.


lol you may not like it but it is what clubs have done. i have pointed out sides who have had as many as 22 talls on their lists at one time they are playing the percentages. playing percentages is strategic when done right a blind man can see that.i don't think you can just say a team had 22 talls because some of those players may have been running flankers

sheesh look at the smalls we took this yr is that not the same thing oh but thats right thats different every small is gunna make it. :

i would love to know where you have and how you have come to your plan for success. You mention you keep notes. Why? So you can win debates on an internet forum. lol plaease help

 

[lamb22]

I didn't say that, I said in the particular case of the Bulldogs their woes can be blamed mainly on poor recruiting, and that our priorities on the risk/reward matrix appear to be more reasonable. You will note that despite Gumbleton's injury woes the bombers have been better at rebuilding their KPP stocks than the Bulldogs just for example.

You do realise this is a Richmond FC supporters website?

Poor old Bullies and their crap team :