The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[spook]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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.

Hi guys, long time lurker, first time poster.

The theory that talls take longer to develop, while true for ruckmen, is palpably false for key position players, especially forwards. Lockett kicked a ton and won a Brownlow at 21, Dermie and Jon Brown were premiership CHFs as teenagers, Longmire a Coleman Medallist at 19, Richo an immediate star at 18, Carey club captain at 21, Buddy won a Coleman and a flag at 21, alongside Roughy... the list goes on. These guys adapt quicker than little blokes because they already have the size to compete. Griffiths has the talent, if he gets his body right he'll be a star within three years. Ditto Post and Jack. Vickery and Browne might take a little longer and I don't think it would hurt us to take a look at a bloke like Brock McAuley in the PSD (22 y/o, 200cm ruck from Southport). Without having seen him, I've heard good reports and would be deciding between him and Barlow.

We are lacking depth of numbers in talls, so I'd expect to see 2-3 big guys taken in the PSD/rookie draft (hopefully Sean Tighe's among them), and we'll add another couple in next year's trade/draft. I can easily see us using our first pick on a mid again (unless there's a big bloke too good to pass up) and then our next couple on key position players. What is most important at this stage is getting quality on the list, in all areas, so I have no problem with the club picking guys they think have the best chance of making it, whatever position they play. Matt Dea might be the next Ken Hunter - would be a shame to ignore him for the next Robert Schaefer just because one's bigger than the other.

 

[GoodOne]

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.

Well this is what you said when we were discussing Dea

Plenty of players have developed on a flank before moving into the midfield.

So its not midfield now he's being earmarked for? Or? Outside ruck? Interesting concept for a 186cm player. Never know might become a trend-setting move. Key position at 186cm? I don't think so. So we're back to half back flanker, exactly what the club has publicly earmarked him for.

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.

Correct, you cant be sure. Now you're discussing midfielders again. I'm confused. Looks like you're confused too. But back to my point, a player who has had limited exposure as a youngster to playing football will rarely become a top midfielder. This is what I am referring to when I talk about percentages. I presume you are discussing Pendlebury. Pendlebury already had an excellent resume. Averaged 22 possessions in TAC, already had excellent disposal skills and was picked at #5 in the national draft. He's also 190cm, quite a bit taller than Dea. Pendlebury is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to late starters. He may prove to end up being one of the best of his ilk.

Once again, I wish Dea all the best and hope he settles in well, my original question was whether his type of player was the best choice based on our future needs.

 

[Leysy Days]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

we needed to start reaching for replacements in our spine

No No No.

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.

The greater risk will be if we dont get enough well rounded highly footskilled players into our team.

That is the point that has been lost in all this hyperbole. For decades our problem has stemmed from the simple fact our team has had deplorable footskills.
How many times have we lost games because we didnt have enough talls at either end, not many.

Now how many have we tried harder, got enough of the ball but continually turned it over whether coming out of defence or trying to find a simple leading target in the forward 50. Bloody millions.

For the first draft/trade period EVER. We have taken guys that are all reputedly & look to be good to elite by foot. With that vastly underestimated benefit of some long kicks amongst them - see Martin, Griffiths & Webberley.

Its a watershed for this club that leysy is dumbfounded it seems everyone has overlooked whilst they go on about some big doper bugger at pick whatever being overlooked.

Leysy's said it for years, but If we keep taking skilled by foot guys so long as they have generally rounded games whilst keeping a sembence of a spine we will rise. Make no mistake.

 

[Disco08]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Well this is what you said when we were discussing Dea

Plenty of players have developed on a flank before moving into the midfield.

So its not midfield now he's being earmarked for? Or? Outside ruck? Interesting concept for a 186cm player. Never know might become a trend-setting move. Key position at 186cm? I don't think so. So we're back to half back flanker, exactly what the club has publicly earmarked him for.

How about wing or half forward flanker? Tagger or lead up forward? Back pocket even?

Again, I didn't say he was earmarked for anything (regardless of your selective quoting). All I said was it's very hard to tell this early in a player's career, especially when they have as much development left as this kid obviously does.

The club has him set to develop as a rebounding defender. That doesn't mean they have his entire career mapped out as your initial statement made out.

Correct, you cant be sure. Now you're discussing midfielders again. I'm confused. Looks like you're confused too.

Are you always this obnoxious in discussions goody?

I mentioned midfielders because, in trying to make your point, the players you mentioned and subsequently referred to were midfielders.

But back to my point, a player who has had limited exposure as a youngster to playing football will rarely become a top midfielder. This is what I am referring to when I talk about percentages. I presume you are discussing Pendlebury. Pendlebury already had an excellent resume. Averaged 22 possessions in TAC, already had excellent disposal skills and was picked at #5 in the national draft. He's also 190cm, quite a bit taller than Dea. Pendlebury is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to late starters. He may prove to end up being one of the best of his ilk.

As I already asked you - how many examples of late starters are there even playing in the AFL? As far as I can see, there is no absolute rule about how these guys should be assessed.

Once again, I wish Dea all the best and hope he settles in well, my original question was whether his type of player was the best choice based on our future needs.

And we're back to the original disagreement. I honestly can't see how you can make this type of judgment when we can't be certain what type of player Matt will become.

Even if we take it that rebounding defender is his long term position, surely we could use a quality player in this position? Who's our version of Sam Fisher, Andrew Mackie, Josh Drummond or Ryan Hargrave? Players who can shut down an opponent, read the play well and create attack from defense? These blokes are becoming increasingly important to their teams and having a quality option(s) in this role really helps create options and flexibility all over the ground. From the limited available vision there is of Dea, this seems to be exactly the type of player he is right now and given he sites Sam Fisher as his AFL comp, I think he sees himself as this type of player right now too.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

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.

I suppose we have to wait and see - have we really addressed our biggest list need though?

Could we have taken 2 of Temel/Tighe/Panos/Daw/Hartigan rather than Nason/Webberly? Maybe we will go 4 talls out of the last 6 picks.

Maybe they identified those guys are likely never to be up to it.

Panos looked OK in the limited vision I saw of him - nice hands, good size, good skills and moves well. There must be something about him all recruiters identified that will prevent him being an AFL player?

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

No No No.

The greater risk will be if we dont get enough well rounded highly footskilled players into our team.

That is the point that has been lost in all this hyperbole. For decades our problem has stemmed from the simple fact our team has had deplorable footskills.
How many times have we lost games because we didnt have enough talls at either end, not many.

Now how many have we tried harder, got enough of the ball but continually turned it over whether coming out of defence or trying to find a simple leading target in the forward 50. Bloody millions.

For the first draft/trade period EVER. We have taken guys that are all reputedly & look to be good to elite by foot. With that vastly underestimated benefit of some long kicks amongst them - see Martin, Griffiths & Webberley.

Its a watershed for this club that leysy is dumbfounded it seems everyone has overlooked whilst they go on about some big doper bugger at pick whatever being overlooked.

Leysy's said it for years, but If we keep taking skilled by foot guys so long as they have generally rounded games whilst keeping a sembence of a spine we will rise. Make no mistake.

But how far will we rise Leysy?

Will Webberly/Nason/Dea be integral to success?

Who do you see as our back 6 in 3 years time? The disposal of these guys along with defensive ability will go a long way to assisting an elite midfield achieve finals success. I see almost none of the exisiting back 6 ever being capable of elite football.

Currently we have King (terrible) Thursfield (good defender, limited offensive output) Polo (tries hard, disposal questionable, decision making questionable) Newman (poor defender, occassional good long kick), McGuane (see Polo and add undersized for role), Moore (ATM had one good year, undersized for key role, offensive qualities basically unknown).

Maybe Webberly will become a rebounding defender, Dea the same? Will they have the elite kicking of a Drummond, Hurn?

I respect Leysy's opinion but I think your respect for our key defenders (Moore/Thursfield/McGuane) is misplaced and will be found to be incorrect. I would suggest 2010 is a big year for determining these guys long-term future a KD with the club.

I look at the bulldogs as a great example of a club with elite footskills/midfielders/flankers being denied ultimate success because of a lack of quality talls, and this is something they have continually failed to address. I hope we don't end up with the same failed campaigns.

 

[White Lightning]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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.

[/quote]

Of course it is. Defenders are relying on team mates up the ground to create enough defensive pressure , if this is not happening, defenders are going to be in a position where they're are trying to cover more oppostions players than they can handle in D50. Our defenders last year were crucified coz their team mates did not work hard enough to support them.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

You also have to take into account that Francis Jackson would have a fair idea on who will be in next years draft as far as KPP,s are concerned.Fact of the matter was this years crop lacked depth after Butcher,Talia,Griffiths.So why pick a KPP for the sake of it.
Thats what a rookie spot is for.

 

[Tango]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

No No No.

The greater risk will be if we dont get enough well rounded highly footskilled players into our team.

That is the point that has been lost in all this hyperbole. For decades our problem has stemmed from the simple fact our team has had deplorable footskills.
How many times have we lost games because we didnt have enough talls at either end, not many.

Now how many have we tried harder, got enough of the ball but continually turned it over whether coming out of defence or trying to find a simple leading target in the forward 50. Bloody millions.




For the first draft/trade period EVER. We have taken guys that are all reputedly & look to be good to elite by foot. With that vastly underestimated benefit of some long kicks amongst them - see Martin, Griffiths & Webberley.

Its a watershed for this club that leysy is dumbfounded it seems everyone has overlooked whilst they go on about some big doper bugger at pick whatever being overlooked.

Leysy's said it for years, but If we keep taking skilled by foot guys so long as they have generally rounded games whilst keeping a sembence of a spine we will rise. Make no mistake.

Leysey, i dont disagree with you about the need for skill and drafting skilled players, but PLEASE explain why we need to draft flankers and small fwds when our tall players like thursty, mcguane, moore, rance all lack footskills and size and our key fwds in post, riewoldt (anyone else given vickery is a ruck) are young unproven and developing
id say we are more desperate for solid bodied and skilled players with height than we are for the same to fill our flanks or pockets. In fact i think we have enough small or medium sized players on our list to pinch hit in these areas whilst we concentrated on drafting additional talls until we found a couple that were good enough....

FFS we have all of cotchin, foley, deledio, tambling, collins, martin, cousins, nahas all with good skills, in addition to this we have the likes of jackson for size and edwards for depth all to fit into the side - IMO thats 10 players that will and could be part of a premiership side, thats not including a host of players left on our list that are small to mediums ranging from polo, connors, thomson, hislop, white, farmer and now taylor, Dea, and the 2 others we recruited.

we need at least 8 talls - 3 backs and 3 fwds and 2 rucks - out of 12 possibles that i can think of just to take the field let alone injury and form
1. Thursty - undersized and underskilled
2. Mcguane - same as above
3. Moore - undersized
4. Graeme - raw
5. Browne - even more raw
6. Post - has potential and size
7. Riewoldt - good
8. Vickery - will be good but raw
9. Rance - size but a long way to go and jury is out
now you can add the untested
10. Griffiths
11. Astbury
12. Gourdis

simmonds is not included as he has a year left

id say that is a pretty unbalanced list wouldnt you?

 

[seven]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Leysey, i dont disagree with you about the need for skill and drafting skilled players, but PLEASE explain why we need to draft flankers and small fwds when our tall players like thursty, mcguane, moore, rance all lack footskills and size and our key fwds in post, riewoldt (anyone else given vickery is a ruck) are young unproven and developing
id say we are more desperate for solid bodied and skilled players with height than we are for the same to fill our flanks or pockets. In fact i think we have enough small or medium sized players on our list to pinch hit in these areas whilst we concentrated on drafting additional talls until we found a couple that were good enough....

FFS we have all of cotchin, foley, deledio, tambling, collins, martin, cousins, nahas all with good skills, in addition to this we have the likes of jackson for size and edwards for depth all to fit into the side - IMO thats 10 players that will and could be part of a premiership side, thats not including a host of players left on our list that are small to mediums ranging from polo, connors, thomson, hislop, white, farmer and now taylor, Dea, and the 2 others we recruited.

we need at least 8 talls - 3 backs and 3 fwds and 2 rucks - out of 12 possibles that i can think of just to take the field let alone injury and form
1. Thursty - undersized and underskilled
2. Mcguane - same as above
3. Moore - undersized
4. Graeme - raw
5. Browne - even more raw
6. Post - has potential and size
7. Riewoldt - good
8. Vickery - will be good but raw
9. Rance - size but a long way to go and jury is out
now you can add the untested
10. Griffiths
11. Astbury
12. Gourdis

simmonds is not included as he has a year left

id say that is a pretty unbalanced list wouldnt you?

Simmonds may only have 1 year on his contract but he may get a new contract at season end.
Who know's, he may play for another 3 years

Might need to add Polak to that list as well

 

[Scoop]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

No No No.

The greater risk will be if we dont get enough well rounded highly footskilled players into our team.

That is the point that has been lost in all this hyperbole. For decades our problem has stemmed from the simple fact our team has had deplorable footskills.
How many times have we lost games because we didnt have enough talls at either end, not many.

Now how many have we tried harder, got enough of the ball but continually turned it over whether coming out of defence or trying to find a simple leading target in the forward 50. Bloody millions.

For the first draft/trade period EVER. We have taken guys that are all reputedly & look to be good to elite by foot. With that vastly underestimated benefit of some long kicks amongst them - see Martin, Griffiths & Webberley.

Its a watershed for this club that leysy is dumbfounded it seems everyone has overlooked whilst they go on about some big doper bugger at pick whatever being overlooked.

Leysy's said it for years, but If we keep taking skilled by foot guys so long as they have generally rounded games whilst keeping a sembence of a spine we will rise. Make no mistake.

Agree with all that, the biggest query I have after the draft is that we took Griffiths over Bastinac. I think that Bastinac will play 150 games plus of AFL and will be a Nick Stevens type player. Not blessed with pace but just runs all day and is super smart with the ball in his hands.

As Leysy points out these are the types that we lacked. That is my biggest question mark over the draft. It is not that I don't rate Griffiths I just think at the pick Bastinac is the safter bet of being a very good AFL footballer. If the call was between Balck, Carlsie and Grifftiths we made the right call. I just think that with what we lack, Bastinac was a massive answer but regardless I love the direction we took overall.

Make no mistake we took some risks but I can see why we went the way we did. I think under the Hardwick mantra we may finally see the death of the glass half full type who tries hard but turns it over.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Simmonds may only have 1 year on his contract but he may get a new contract at season end.
Who know's, he may play for another 3 years

Might need to add Polak to that list as well

Are you saying that improves the quality?

Polak - strong hands, questionable disposal, LMID all he is capable of, better options for that position
Simmonds - useful on his day, past his best, undersized ruckman

Hopefully we ignore sentiment and Polak

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

For the first draft/trade period EVER. We have taken guys that are all reputedly & look to be good to elite by foot. With that vastly underestimated benefit of some long kicks amongst them - see Martin, Griffiths & Webberley.

Its a watershed for this club that leysy is dumbfounded it seems everyone has overlooked whilst they go on about some big doper bugger at pick whatever being overlooked.

Dont know why you're dumbfounded. I think very few have overlooked this fact. It is great that we have focused on players with excellent disposal skills and some long kickers as well. Good by foot should be a minimum for the majority of your players. This should be the drafting norm, not the exception, and most of us are sick of the King / Raines / McGuane / McMahon types. This is very refreshing. However this does not mean that you ignore your deficiencies in player management in other areas for the sole sake of having players who are elite kicks. On the whole we recruited well imo, my main question is on Dea who looks quite dashing but definitely has disposal deficiencies from the bits and pieces I've seen in the highlight reels. If we were going to pick someone with weaker disposal skills I would have preferred to risk it on one of the talls still available. at that pick

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Simmonds may only have 1 year on his contract but he may get a new contract at season end.
Who know's, he may play for another 3 years

Might need to add Polak to that list as well

There is no way in the world Simmonds will play another 3 years. There's no guarantees in life but thats one I'd be willing to bet my bungalow at the back of our house on.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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.

Of course it is. Defenders are relying on team mates up the ground to create enough defensive pressure , if this is not happening, defenders are going to be in a position where they're are trying to cover more oppostions players than they can handle in D50. Our defenders last year were crucified coz their team mates did not work hard enough to support them.

I think therein lies the problem. We are asking 3 small bodied talls to take on the key positions whereas ideally you'd have at least one, or more likely two bigger builds as choices for game day. From what we hear Thursfield has built up immensely. He is really the only one out opf those 3 I have confidence in realistically taking on a key position role. Moore to me is a great third tall who can also create run out of the backline. McGuane, well everything he does is overshadowed by his poor disposal even when under no pressure. He's really not AFL material in my view.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

You also have to take into account that Francis Jackson would have a fair idea on who will be in next years draft as far as KPP,s are concerned.Fact of the matter was this years crop lacked depth after Butcher,Talia,Griffiths.So why pick a KPP for the sake of it.
Thats what a rookie spot is for.

Good points. Anyone know early on who some of the candidates are for next year? The best will obviously be taken by GC early, so you'd have to be very lucky to strike a Kreuzer.

 

[cooltiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

the goo will be a star

 

[the claw]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

No No No.

The greater risk will be if we dont get enough well rounded highly footskilled players into our team.

That is the point that has been lost in all this hyperbole. For decades our problem has stemmed from the simple fact our team has had deplorable footskills.
How many times have we lost games because we didnt have enough talls at either end, not many.

Now how many have we tried harder, got enough of the ball but continually turned it over whether coming out of defence or trying to find a simple leading target in the forward 50. Bloody millions.

For the first draft/trade period EVER. We have taken guys that are all reputedly & look to be good to elite by foot. With that vastly underestimated benefit of some long kicks amongst them - see Martin, Griffiths & Webberley.

Its a watershed for this club that leysy is dumbfounded it seems everyone has overlooked whilst they go on about some big doper bugger at pick whatever being overlooked.

Leysy's said it for years, but If we keep taking skilled by foot guys so long as they have generally rounded games whilst keeping a sembence of a spine we will rise. Make no mistake.

i dont see anyone advocating we take talls who cant kick. you failed to answer why webberley when we already took farmer in the trade period how many small defenders do you want. ditto with nason why. we took taylor at 51 and have morton gilligan nahas in the system. why not a tall who can kick not as if there wasnt any available.
and going by that rant can i assume you desperately want to see the back of mcguane sheesh dumb poor kick and undersized to go with it.

tell me maisey just how you would go about building up the tall stocks. i keep on saying it but people dont want to hear.
the numbers say a good percentage of the young talls we have taken in recent times wont make it.including some of the earlier picks in all likelyhood.
the development talls we have are, graham, post, rance, riewoldt, vickery, browne, gourdis,griffiths, astbury. the numbers tell us that in all likelyhood 4 of these players will fail. the only two in that lot im currently prepared to say will make it are jack and vickery.

i have to say if you expect every pick we take to make it you are being unreasonable all clubs take punts on players what are late picks and rookie picks for. tell me maisey what do you think of astburys pace and agility.you rip into a bloke like nathan brown because he lacks agility but are rapped we took astbury you want it every which way.

heres an angle for ya ben griffiths already 199 and 98 odd kg with his size you would expect him to totally dominate at junior level but he hasnt. people asked the question on hurn and rich about upside because of their size i dont see it here why is that.
i have to say nearly everything ive seen on griffiths he has had to get the ball in space will he get that space at afl level.im not knocking the guys taken but sheesh please tell me at what stage you would build the tall list. you dont want em early you dont want em late when do you want em.

decent kicks/decion makers in our team maisey would go like this.
farmer thursfield newman

moore post tambling

collins cousins martin

taylor riewoldt cotchin

connors ****** morton

simmonds deledio foley

vickery nahas thomson jackson

you have your team of decent kicks apart from 4 foley, nahas, thomson, jackson. they arent diabolical. in fact i would be happy to go with that team for rnd 1 the only trouble is we dont have a ff havent included griffiths because he will be recovering from injury we may not have him for 12 months
ya know your not the only one who goes mad about footskills but you presume when talking talls we want to take talls who cant kick. mate at some stage we have to address the tall situation. atm we are just treading water and skirting around the edges.
mate learn the lessons from those who are successful no team makes finals yet alone wins premierships without structure.some have even done well with what you call gorillas.
like well rounded footballers its well rounded teams that win gfs.

 

[the claw]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Moore/McGuane/Thursfield are actually quality talls in small bodies

no they are not period.

kel moore who has many fine attributes has delivered just one good yr. injury has been his biggest problem. he is not big yet we keep on asking him to play where he will get hurt and it happens.

mcguane sheesh why do we fall in love with those who have a go but lack in most other areas. i suppose because we have had so few who have a real dip i suppose.

thursfield while i agree hes a fins stopper we get nothing else out of him. quality how about a solid citizen.an undersized one at that.

 

[the claw]

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

here here well said.