-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)
- Thread starter the claw
- Start date
Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44
Don't mind him Rosy.
Claw acts tough, but it is painfully obvious that he still acts like a 4 year old kid whose mother didn't get him the smarties he wanted at the shops.
Just get over it claw, please. You've never seen any of these guys play in the flesh, as most of us haven't, so can you for once have faith in the recruiters who viewed over 400+ games of junior football this year?
rosy23 said:
Don't mind him Rosy.
Claw acts tough, but it is painfully obvious that he still acts like a 4 year old kid whose mother didn't get him the smarties he wanted at the shops.
Just get over it claw, please. You've never seen any of these guys play in the flesh, as most of us haven't, so can you for once have faith in the recruiters who viewed over 400+ games of junior football this year?
Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44
1 gun centreman - great
2 genuine talls - great
the rest were flankers and a small fwd - not so great
we had 7 picks i believe and IMO we should have used 4 on genuine KPP
seeings as we picked nahas as a small fwd, brown as a ruck and farmer as a small defender
1 gun centreman - great
2 genuine talls - great
the rest were flankers and a small fwd - not so great
we had 7 picks i believe and IMO we should have used 4 on genuine KPP
seeings as we picked nahas as a small fwd, brown as a ruck and farmer as a small defender
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
It will take a few years before we have an A grade list of talls. What did you expect from this draft? Did you expect us to use all our picks on talls and the problem would be solved?
You're cutting off your arm if you only take talls. You would surely be ignoring a lot of better players simply to get some tall blokes in. With how even the draft is, if you continually overlook more talented players, in an extremist tall-only philosophy, you WILL be left behind. Forget about any process, if you constantly pick the less talented players available, in the hope of fixing your list structure in one draft, there's no way you'll catch up to the other clubs.
For you to suggest we need to spend quality and quantity on talls in this draft, it implies all our other areas must be excellent. All our other positions must be A-grade if we can afford to ignore them with so many picks.
My view?
We need improvement in all areas of our list, with a slightly greater need towards talls.
Therefore we should recruit consistently with a best available approach, but in close situations (preferably with early picks) go tall.
We did that and gave ourselves a good chance by spending high picks on talls, and late picks to cover other list needs.
Key point being - we need more than just a few talls to win a premiership! The rest of our list needs work to!
the claw said:
It will take a few years before we have an A grade list of talls. What did you expect from this draft? Did you expect us to use all our picks on talls and the problem would be solved?
You're cutting off your arm if you only take talls. You would surely be ignoring a lot of better players simply to get some tall blokes in. With how even the draft is, if you continually overlook more talented players, in an extremist tall-only philosophy, you WILL be left behind. Forget about any process, if you constantly pick the less talented players available, in the hope of fixing your list structure in one draft, there's no way you'll catch up to the other clubs.
For you to suggest we need to spend quality and quantity on talls in this draft, it implies all our other areas must be excellent. All our other positions must be A-grade if we can afford to ignore them with so many picks.
My view?
We need improvement in all areas of our list, with a slightly greater need towards talls.
Therefore we should recruit consistently with a best available approach, but in close situations (preferably with early picks) go tall.
We did that and gave ourselves a good chance by spending high picks on talls, and late picks to cover other list needs.
Key point being - we need more than just a few talls to win a premiership! The rest of our list needs work to!
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
I'm curious to know if Claw will be satisfied if we pick up another 3 talls in the PSD and Rookie draft? Going on your previous comments, this would support your quantity argument and would bring our number to 15, about average when looking at all clubs.
I'm curious to know if Claw will be satisfied if we pick up another 3 talls in the PSD and Rookie draft? Going on your previous comments, this would support your quantity argument and would bring our number to 15, about average when looking at all clubs.
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
in fact most who come up with comments show their angst at me often enoygh for me to know they do read my posts now they are either thick or being mischievious.
again read carefully nowhere have i said that.rockstar_tiger said:
in fact most who come up with comments show their angst at me often enoygh for me to know they do read my posts now they are either thick or being mischievious.
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
what i would like would have liked or got close to it.
4 nd picks on talls that is 4 of 7. 2 on mids 1 on a specialist position. mature tall psd if possible. two talls in the rookie draft.
that would give a total of 7 and all we would have done is tread water having delisted 7.
of those 7 im realisticenough to expect on 3 maybe 4 if we get lucky to make it.
the real scary part of all this is imo we have just one bonafide long term established tall player.
of the 12 we currently have 1 is 31 and in his last yr. one is thursfield whos had 5 yrs and is yet to eastablish himself properly.
one is mcguane who many rate as below standard. the rest are quite literally development types and going by the numbers we can expect 40 - 50% of those to fail. so even after the nd a realistic expectation on the talls is we have maybe 6 or 7 talls going forward only about 9 short of the goal.
even if we take 2 tall rookies and 1 in the psd the expectation is for just 1 of these three to end up half decent.to build up to standard with the numbers we require it will take many drafts.
bullus_hit said:
what i would like would have liked or got close to it.
4 nd picks on talls that is 4 of 7. 2 on mids 1 on a specialist position. mature tall psd if possible. two talls in the rookie draft.
that would give a total of 7 and all we would have done is tread water having delisted 7.
of those 7 im realisticenough to expect on 3 maybe 4 if we get lucky to make it.
the real scary part of all this is imo we have just one bonafide long term established tall player.
of the 12 we currently have 1 is 31 and in his last yr. one is thursfield whos had 5 yrs and is yet to eastablish himself properly.
one is mcguane who many rate as below standard. the rest are quite literally development types and going by the numbers we can expect 40 - 50% of those to fail. so even after the nd a realistic expectation on the talls is we have maybe 6 or 7 talls going forward only about 9 short of the goal.
even if we take 2 tall rookies and 1 in the psd the expectation is for just 1 of these three to end up half decent.to build up to standard with the numbers we require it will take many drafts.
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
I agree with this. I think we are going to have to recruit a tall or two at some stage as our midfield/KPP development timetable is a little skewed. One option is to develop many midfielders and trade them for needs somewhere down the track.
Big Cat Lover said:
I agree with this. I think we are going to have to recruit a tall or two at some stage as our midfield/KPP development timetable is a little skewed. One option is to develop many midfielders and trade them for needs somewhere down the track.
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
Pretty hard to argue against that. Unless of course people want to continue with what I think is a futile position that Moore/McGuane/Thursfield are actually quality talls in small bodies and it's not their fault we have a terrible defensive record it's really everyone else up the fields fault and once that gets sorted these 3 will really tear the Reiwoldt's, Franklin's, Brown's, Fevola's, Tredrea's of the comp new ones.
I suppose the next couple of years will tell the tale of whether we have the right guys for the key defensive posts
the claw said:
Pretty hard to argue against that. Unless of course people want to continue with what I think is a futile position that Moore/McGuane/Thursfield are actually quality talls in small bodies and it's not their fault we have a terrible defensive record it's really everyone else up the fields fault and once that gets sorted these 3 will really tear the Reiwoldt's, Franklin's, Brown's, Fevola's, Tredrea's of the comp new ones.
I suppose the next couple of years will tell the tale of whether we have the right guys for the key defensive posts
Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44
I think you can be more sure with a person newish to footy and without the impeccable disposal skills of the other players mentioned. It's all about percentages. It's a fact in many many sports around the world that those kids that start and grow up with the sport at a very young age are the most successful. The percentages are with these types of players. That's all I am saying. The recruiters have made the decision as they obviously see some x-factor and great potential growth. They don't appear to have earmarked him as a midfielder as you suggest though. We have Dea now so I am just as keen as everyone else to see him improve and make an impact at the Tigers in whatever role he is earmarked for..
Disco08 said:
I think you can be more sure with a person newish to footy and without the impeccable disposal skills of the other players mentioned. It's all about percentages. It's a fact in many many sports around the world that those kids that start and grow up with the sport at a very young age are the most successful. The percentages are with these types of players. That's all I am saying. The recruiters have made the decision as they obviously see some x-factor and great potential growth. They don't appear to have earmarked him as a midfielder as you suggest though. We have Dea now so I am just as keen as everyone else to see him improve and make an impact at the Tigers in whatever role he is earmarked for..
Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44
I would have preferred to take the next 2 best KPP in the ND and looked for my flanker or small fwd in the PSD not the way you are suggesting
i still believe we are a while off playing in a GF so we should keep searching and taking risks on developing talls at the expense of a small fwd or flanker and play a resting mid in both positions if needed, get the structure right then fill the pockets and flanks, we are so far behind in structure we cant afford to do it in a balanced approach (which is the normal way) and i think this is what Claw is trying to allude to in his push for talls.
the more more talls you take the more chance of finding 1 or 2 that will make it - no guarantees just better odds
i would rather play a non specialist mid in a specialist flank or pocket than a non specialist KPP in a Key position - if that makes sense
peggles said:
I would have preferred to take the next 2 best KPP in the ND and looked for my flanker or small fwd in the PSD not the way you are suggesting
i still believe we are a while off playing in a GF so we should keep searching and taking risks on developing talls at the expense of a small fwd or flanker and play a resting mid in both positions if needed, get the structure right then fill the pockets and flanks, we are so far behind in structure we cant afford to do it in a balanced approach (which is the normal way) and i think this is what Claw is trying to allude to in his push for talls.
the more more talls you take the more chance of finding 1 or 2 that will make it - no guarantees just better odds
i would rather play a non specialist mid in a specialist flank or pocket than a non specialist KPP in a Key position - if that makes sense
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
I don't see anybody disagreeing with the opinion that we are still rebuilding our tall stocks.
The heat comes from the critisism in the original post which implies we shouldn't have this problem. It will take years to rectify the mistakes of the past. We made a good start with Vickery/Post and hopefully continued it with Griffith/Astbury and then at least one more good one from some rookies or PSD. If we get 5 genuine talls over 2 drafts, we are on our way. If we get 4 then that's still bloody good. We just need another 4-5 over the next two drafts, and as hard as it sounds, we need to sit tight and wait...
2008 + 2009 drafts have both allowed us to claw back to the pack, providing Griffiths and Astbury turn out as expected from where they were picked up.
The bright side is our midfield is starting to look dangerous
Next year we will have a great midfield... Deledio, Cousins, Cotchin, Martin and Tambling. Three of those 5 are genuine stars, 1 (Martin) will be a genuine star from Round 1 I'd expect, and if Tambling improves he'll go from good core player to good player with matchwinning moments.
We're not even mentioning good honest players like Jackson in our starting midfield, and I completely forgot about Foley who is a bit of a wildcard. The Tiges could find themselves winning a lot more games than they plan if this group performs.
I don't see anybody disagreeing with the opinion that we are still rebuilding our tall stocks.
The heat comes from the critisism in the original post which implies we shouldn't have this problem. It will take years to rectify the mistakes of the past. We made a good start with Vickery/Post and hopefully continued it with Griffith/Astbury and then at least one more good one from some rookies or PSD. If we get 5 genuine talls over 2 drafts, we are on our way. If we get 4 then that's still bloody good. We just need another 4-5 over the next two drafts, and as hard as it sounds, we need to sit tight and wait...
2008 + 2009 drafts have both allowed us to claw back to the pack, providing Griffiths and Astbury turn out as expected from where they were picked up.
The bright side is our midfield is starting to look dangerous
Next year we will have a great midfield... Deledio, Cousins, Cotchin, Martin and Tambling. Three of those 5 are genuine stars, 1 (Martin) will be a genuine star from Round 1 I'd expect, and if Tambling improves he'll go from good core player to good player with matchwinning moments.
We're not even mentioning good honest players like Jackson in our starting midfield, and I completely forgot about Foley who is a bit of a wildcard. The Tiges could find themselves winning a lot more games than they plan if this group performs.
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
agreed RT, we do have the makings of a good midfield and some depth as well, however the issue as i said on another thread is that we are so far behind in structure (genuine quality spine) that we should be doing more in that area at the expense of flanks and small fwds etc
you can only play 5 mids in their specialist positions and then the other mids start moving to the flanks - which i like, so this essentially means that the specialist flank position is becoming more redundant in the modern game, you can also get away with a resting tall or resting mid in the fwd pocket.
so i believe we really only need 1 small fwd and 1 small back pocket defender and maybe 1 specialist running defender on the flank (in a premiership side) - yet all of these positions are easier to obtain than genuine class in your spine which takes longer to develop and harder to obtain.
I believe that claws argument is valid and that we should have taken more talls in the ND so therefore had more chances at success rather than opt for mediums or smalls - these can always be added later or pinch hitted with a resting mid
You cant pinch hit with your structure and spine, FB, CHB, R, CHF, FF are all specialist positions that need to be filled with class or solid citizens, until we have these positions covered at the right quality or std we wont be good enough to challenge the better teams.
normally teams recruit in a balanced approach, as phantom has shown us in his height related and positional analysis in the past, yet we are so far behind in the most critical area IMO - structure and spine at a quality level that we cant take this balanced approach, we needed to start reaching for replacements in our spine
the risk will be we develop a sensational midfield and when they peak they dont have the KPP to support or cap off their dominance.
there is no guarantees that taking more talls for the sake of talls will solve the problem, but the more you take the better the chances are of finding the quality to fill the voids.
i have the confidence in our coach and recruiting team but believe perhaps there should have been more focus on the spine and structure than what was taken.
agreed RT, we do have the makings of a good midfield and some depth as well, however the issue as i said on another thread is that we are so far behind in structure (genuine quality spine) that we should be doing more in that area at the expense of flanks and small fwds etc
you can only play 5 mids in their specialist positions and then the other mids start moving to the flanks - which i like, so this essentially means that the specialist flank position is becoming more redundant in the modern game, you can also get away with a resting tall or resting mid in the fwd pocket.
so i believe we really only need 1 small fwd and 1 small back pocket defender and maybe 1 specialist running defender on the flank (in a premiership side) - yet all of these positions are easier to obtain than genuine class in your spine which takes longer to develop and harder to obtain.
I believe that claws argument is valid and that we should have taken more talls in the ND so therefore had more chances at success rather than opt for mediums or smalls - these can always be added later or pinch hitted with a resting mid
You cant pinch hit with your structure and spine, FB, CHB, R, CHF, FF are all specialist positions that need to be filled with class or solid citizens, until we have these positions covered at the right quality or std we wont be good enough to challenge the better teams.
normally teams recruit in a balanced approach, as phantom has shown us in his height related and positional analysis in the past, yet we are so far behind in the most critical area IMO - structure and spine at a quality level that we cant take this balanced approach, we needed to start reaching for replacements in our spine
the risk will be we develop a sensational midfield and when they peak they dont have the KPP to support or cap off their dominance.
there is no guarantees that taking more talls for the sake of talls will solve the problem, but the more you take the better the chances are of finding the quality to fill the voids.
i have the confidence in our coach and recruiting team but believe perhaps there should have been more focus on the spine and structure than what was taken.
Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44
Agree totally. Flankers are the easier spots to fill. We were already underweight for tall players before Richo, Schulz, Hughes, Patto and Polak were delisted. We picked up 2 talls in the ND and with say 2 as rookies and Polak also coming back, we're back to the same quota as this year. No improvement on numbers at all. I guess the Tiger trust are putting their faith in most of Reiwoldt, Post, Vickery, Graham, Browne coming good.
Tango said:
Agree totally. Flankers are the easier spots to fill. We were already underweight for tall players before Richo, Schulz, Hughes, Patto and Polak were delisted. We picked up 2 talls in the ND and with say 2 as rookies and Polak also coming back, we're back to the same quota as this year. No improvement on numbers at all. I guess the Tiger trust are putting their faith in most of Reiwoldt, Post, Vickery, Graham, Browne coming good.
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
as some have pointed out there are still 2 drafts to go. we will add about 6/7 players to our list. shouldnt our list structure be looked at then, not halfway through the drafts.
also as some have pointed out there are many KP prospects still left. if we rate these the equal to the few that went late, and rate the mediums we took considerably higher than the mids left now havent we done the right thing? added the best possible players, while still (hopefully-assuming we do take KPs now) addressing a list need.
as some have pointed out there are still 2 drafts to go. we will add about 6/7 players to our list. shouldnt our list structure be looked at then, not halfway through the drafts.
also as some have pointed out there are many KP prospects still left. if we rate these the equal to the few that went late, and rate the mediums we took considerably higher than the mids left now havent we done the right thing? added the best possible players, while still (hopefully-assuming we do take KPs now) addressing a list need.
Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44
I didn't say they'd earmarked him for a midfield role. You asked me what roles I thought he could play in the future and I said any outside ruck and key positions because at this point he has a lot of developing to do and IMO none of us, including Matt or the Richmond coaches, can be sure of how it will turn out.
I still don't see how you can be sure just because a player has less experience and good but not elite skills. Relatively few midfielders have elite skills and one of only recent examples of a basketballer becoming a footballer I can remember is now one of the better midfielders going around. You talk about percentages but how many examples do we have of people in Matt's situation? Not enough to make percentages even remotely useful I'd suggest.
GoodOne said:
I didn't say they'd earmarked him for a midfield role. You asked me what roles I thought he could play in the future and I said any outside ruck and key positions because at this point he has a lot of developing to do and IMO none of us, including Matt or the Richmond coaches, can be sure of how it will turn out.
I still don't see how you can be sure just because a player has less experience and good but not elite skills. Relatively few midfielders have elite skills and one of only recent examples of a basketballer becoming a footballer I can remember is now one of the better midfielders going around. You talk about percentages but how many examples do we have of people in Matt's situation? Not enough to make percentages even remotely useful I'd suggest.
Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.
One thing to keep in mind, we are not trying to build the team in one draft.
As people already know this years draft was pretty bleak as far as talls were concerned. Next years draft, even with GC taking players shapes as a better draft for talls. Do you not think it wise to get what we can out of this draft and leave it till next year to get best tall available again.
i prefer we rookie some speculative talls this year on 1 year contracts and if they show something all well and good but it means they won't be on a 2 year deal and we're again stuck with players we don't want.
Next year we again head into the draft with a similar strategy as we did this year. Get the best available talls and then rookie other talls to see if they stand up. Safer option and if they don't show anything then out they go.
One thing to keep in mind, we are not trying to build the team in one draft.
As people already know this years draft was pretty bleak as far as talls were concerned. Next years draft, even with GC taking players shapes as a better draft for talls. Do you not think it wise to get what we can out of this draft and leave it till next year to get best tall available again.
i prefer we rookie some speculative talls this year on 1 year contracts and if they show something all well and good but it means they won't be on a 2 year deal and we're again stuck with players we don't want.
Next year we again head into the draft with a similar strategy as we did this year. Get the best available talls and then rookie other talls to see if they stand up. Safer option and if they don't show anything then out they go.
