The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Tango]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

perhaps, but we are a long way behind others in the tall and spine dept, others can afford to overlook this because they have some quality already or they have depth

IMO we lack quality and depth in our talls and we should have made more of an effort in this area regardless of how speculative they were

a solid tall to fill a hole in our team means more to us than a better than avg small or medium - IMO at the moment

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

we are a team without a recognised FFwd, i cant understand why this area wasnt targeted with at least 2 speculative picks as opposed to a small fwd - regardless of how good he is
granted we took griffiths but how long till he plays and astbury may play back

there is no point having a great sterio in the ferrari (fwd pocket) if the engine, suspension or braking is sh!te

to me this was a wasted opportunity and i would rather park a temel or a panos in our goalsquare than a small fwd

Griffiths (2nd round) and Astbury (3rd round) we got with our early picks.

Both will play forward. Both are great talents and provide us structure. I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from with this type of garbage post.

Finally if Panos or Temel are so wanted by the uninformed masses on here, why were they not taken in the draft by any of the 16 clubs.

I am absolutely amazed with some of the nonsense on here at the moment in regards to taking average talls.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

This is all fine and dandy . But I am more intersted in hearing from you and claw as to what your ideas are in regards to structure, game plan and philosophies. I mean both you and Claw after this idea of drafting all these talls yet I hear nothing about how you would implement them in your stratergies. After all players are drafted to suit the coach's plans and ideas.

All I am advocating is that we have enough talls in our system to realistically end up with some quality players. It's a strategy that almost every club has, and every successful club who has ever been near a premiership has quality down their spine. Would have thought the strategy is pretty simple. And yes I have explained my reasoning (contrary to your claim otherwise), I would rather see us build up our tall KP brigade as soon as possible to coincide with the maturity of our midfield and top up with the flankers we need. KPPs are a dime a dozen, flankers are much more easily found. Would have personally just liked to have seen a top up of an extra tall over an x-factor flanker with foot skills that require an immense amount of work.

Would have thought the coach's plans are to address the key position issues we've had for a few years now. But of course I could be wrong.

Just throwing up the ideas and discussion points, some are taking this a bit too personally.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Just out of curiosity which tall would you have chosen after Pick 40 if you were in Francis' position?

Personally I would have probably preferred Vardy at 35 and then picked up Astbury if still available at 44. Reckon Dea would have been available later, although others seem to think that Richmond knew exactly who other teams were going to pick later on. Could have also considered Fitzpatrick or Craig as tall options.

I'm not trying to be critical, just think history has shown that we've relied on one or two KPPs coming good and when that hasn't happened its put us back years.

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

what it shows is how hard it is to get good KPP so therefore you need to go to the well more often or take them with your first round picks - one or the other

we seem to do neither and we keep sticking our head in the sand and say oh well no talls or not enough talls of quality so we didnt take them and took a bettr small instead

that logic has got us no where and seems like we are just on the merry go round

i agree that martin was clearly the best choice and the first pick should go to best player, however we needed to address our talls after that, we took 2, we took 4 speculative picks on mediums or smalls and i believe this is where we failed to address our second biggest flaw or need (outside of skill) and thats size and structure

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Agree

I'll second that agree, not much good being tall if that's all you've got going for you.

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

what it shows is how hard it is to get good KPP so therefore you need to go to the well more often or take them with your first round picks - one or the other

we seem to do neither and we keep sticking our head in the sand and say oh well no talls or not enough talls of quality so we didnt take them and took a bettr small instead

that logic has got us no where and seems like we are just on the merry go round

i agree that martin was clearly the best choice and the first pick should go to best player, however we needed to address our talls after that, we took 2, we took 4 speculative picks on mediums or smalls and i believe this is where we failed to address our second biggest flaw or need (outside of skill) and thats size and structure

Ummm again we used two early picks on Key Position players.

Port Adelaide and Adelaide were the only ones to take talls earlier than us.

After that, count how many talls were taken in the draft.

Also how many of these juniors have you seen?

 

[Tango]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

exactly goodone, spot on
regardless of how good Dea, Taylor, and the other 2 are they dont address our lack of KPP
who the hell is our FFWD and CHF (griffiths will hopefully address this in the future and maybe post) but then that asks who is our FB and CHB in the future

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

tigerbob,
i have not seen any of these kids play live and therefore i have not commented on any of their actual ability or lack of it, what i am saying is we lack genuine talls and i dont think we did enough to address the issue

the players we picked may turn out to be good players and i hope they do but it means we still have the same undersized and or underskilled KPP playing in key spots that perhaps they shouldnt be

and i repeat i value good sized KPP highly and agree they are harder to get and develop but when you are starting from so far behind from previous recruiting strategies and have so few on our list that do then we will not be able to improve consistently acroos the board, we will improve in skill and midfield strength but not have the spine to support it.

tell me who is our FFWD next year, better still who is CHF, CHB and FB in your opinion?

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Because we don't believe they will make it. I'll say again why should we draft talls for the sake of having more talls if they're assessed to be not up to AFL standard? Draft them next year when there will reportedly be more available.

You see, I just don't believe we didn't pick talls because we didn't think they would make it. In that position of 40+ it all comes down to needs as it's really a very speculative end of town in terms of who will make it and who won't.

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

so you are saying that griffiths and astbury will fill our 2 fwd KPP spots next year?

we better hope no one gets injured then especially given griffiths history???

or do you suggest that simmonds and polak will fill these spots - i hope not

all im saying is we should have had more than 2 options to fill our key posts considering we have an abundance of smalls or meds at the club and this has nothing to do with the skills or attributes of the guys we picked

 

[Brodders17]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

Would have personally just liked to have seen a top up of an extra tall over an x-factor flanker with foot skills that require an immense amount of work.

who is an x-factor flanker with bad footskills?

Just throwing up the ideas and discussion points, some are taking this a bit too personally.

agree. on both sides.

Reckon Dea would have been available later, although others seem to think that Richmond knew exactly who other teams were going to pick later on.

so you think you know who others would take but our recruiters wouldnt? a tad hypocritical.

I'm not trying to be critical, just think history has shown that we've relied on one or two KPPs coming good and when that hasn't happened its put us back years.

history prob suggests that successful KPs are just as likely to come from the rookie draft as late ND picks.

 

[Tango]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

who is to say any of the kids after 40 make it??? this is the whole point its all about chance, a lucky dip (with some informed judgement but still a chance)

when you are so short in 1 particular area (talls) you should try and improve your chances by taking more picks
if they dont make it then you delist them and try again

you cant fill a lot of holes when you only take 2 talls - even if they both make it

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

to me this was a wasted opportunity and i would rather park a temel or a panos in our goalsquare than a small fwd

How long did S.Jurica last in the AFL?

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

so you think you know who others would take but our recruiters wouldnt? a tad hypocritical.

No I don't think I KNOW, as I don't think Richmond KNEW. Where's the hypocrisy in that? That's the point. Some have suggested that we pick a player in a certain spot based on the belief that they were going to get picked up by another team before your next pick. I don't believe this to be true personally. I believe the club picked players based on a belief of needs.

 

[Baloo]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

What I am struggling to understand is why people are saying we should have got more talls. If our recruiting team felt none of the talls would become adequate AFL players, why waste a pick on them ? Surely it makes more sense to pass on them rather than have a stable of Putts on our list.

Drafting is an inexact science. Sure one of the handful of talls may turn out to be decent but how many would we have to churn through before finding that diamond in the rough ? Makes more sense, during a complete rebuild, to back what our recruiters felt are more likely to succeed. It's easier to trade for the odd list hole here or there down the track than it is to have so many deficencies that we don't know where to start.

 

[Brodders17]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

so you are saying that griffiths and astbury will fill our 2 fwd KPP spots next year?

we better hope no one gets injured then especially given griffiths history???

or do you suggest that simmonds and polak will fill these spots - i hope not

all im saying is we should have had more than 2 options to fill our key posts considering we have an abundance of smalls or meds at the club and this has nothing to do with the skills or attributes of the guys we picked

maybe theyll be adventurous and play reiwoldt as a KPF. radical i know.
are you suggesting that they should have picked up KPFs with late picks in the ND so they could be our KPFs next year?

we are in a spot of bother next year for talls. unless we take experienced KPs this was always going to be the case. drafting talls late in the ND wouldnt change that.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

history prob suggests that successful KPs are just as likely to come from the rookie draft as late ND picks.

well don't agree there. Think there are far more tall players historically chosen as rookies than after Pick 50. But if so why not grab talls as late ND picks AND rookie list. Doesn't need to be exclusive, does it?

Anyway think we're getting off topic, there's no hard-n-fast rules which is why we have healthy debating. Time will tell how the selections go. That will be the true test of success no matter how much we banter.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

You see, I just don't believe we didn't pick talls because we didn't think they would make it. In that position of 40+ it all comes down to needs as it's really a very speculative end of town in terms of who will make it and who won't.

So you believe that we did think there were talls available who would make it, but we chose to ignore them in favour of mids? Just clarifying. If so, you'd have to assume the club has no idea what it is doing.

If we finish our rebuild and lack any sought of tall stock, I'd be worried. The club isn't that negligent to have no kind of mid/long-term drafting plan. unless I misinterpreted your post, you really have low expectations of the club, and think we are still a basketcase.

We're doing alright now. It's safer to have faith these days.

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

tell me who is our FFWD next year, better still who is CHF, CHB and FB in your opinion?

Did we draft for next year, or for the future? I am confused.

To answer your question, Will Thursfield will be our Full Back next season, Luke McGuane our CHB and our Full Forward/CHF could be at any one time, Jack Riewoldt, Tyrone Vickery or Jayden Post.

In the future I see Vickery, Griffiths, Astbury and Riewoldt being our tall forward options. Pretty damn impressive if you ask me.

In the backhalf I see Jayden Post, Alex Rance, Will Thursfield and possibly Luke McGuane being our defensive structure. In the next draft we may address a tall defender.

What we need more than anything else is quality on our list, quality that can use the ball at an elite level and have elite decision making abilities. What we have heard extensively is that is what we have got this draft.

This process isn't gonna happen in one draft. This is draft number one. Also we have a PSD pick, and 4 rookie spots available.