The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Brodders17]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

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

very true. we might be in for a bit of pain next year with our KPs, but are drafting this year shouldnt be based round that.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Makes more sense, during a complete rebuild, to back what our recruiters felt are more likely to succeed.

What were the other options? Get PRE to pick the draftees? ;D

 

[GoodOne]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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.

Not at all. I have as much faith as I had 20 years ago ;D Sucker for punishment? You betcha.

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

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?

Bob surely you dont suggest we follow what everybody else does? just because no one else drafted a tall after X pick or how many talls were taken in this draft etc etc, surely you are a little smarter than that :-*

how many clubs delisted as many players as we did ?, and how many of them were talls or played KPP ?, how many talls does each club have on their list ?, and how many are developing or mature - surely this means more to a club when drafting than what has everybody else done???

we have been short on talls for 5 years and need to start catching up quick, this was an opportunity to balance out our list a little, regardless of how speculative or risky the choice was, given that most players after 40 are risky

off the top of my head we lost
1. Richo
2. Patto
3. Schulz
4. Bowden
5. Polak
6. Hughes
7. Putt

All talls or at least played KP (ie Bowden), we replaced them with 2, this is after we were already short of talls on our list before we delisted them.

Now i know most of these were duds or not AFL standard, it doesnt matter they were still taking a tall place on our list.

And i know we couldnt replace them all in one go but we should have taken at least 4 talls in the ND IMO regardless of how speculative they are/were, AND we should have a real crack at more in the PSD and Rookie draft

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Bob surely you dont suggest we follow what everybody else does? just because no one else drafted a tall after X pick or how many talls were taken in this draft etc etc, surely you are a little smarter than that :-*

how many clubs delisted as many players as we did ?, and how many of them were talls or played KPP ?, how many talls does each club have on their list ?, and how many are developing or mature - surely this means more to a club when drafting than what has everybody else done???

we have been short on talls for 5 years and need to start catching up quick, this was an opportunity to balance out our list a little, regardless of how speculative or risky the choice was, given that most players after 40 are risky

off the top of my head we lost
1. Richo
2. Patto
3. Schulz
4. Bowden
5. Polak
6. Hughes
7. Putt

All talls or at least played KP (ie Bowden), we replaced them with 2, this is after we were already short of talls on our list before we delisted them.

Now i know most of these were duds or not AFL standard, it doesnt matter they were still taking a tall place on our list.

And i know we couldnt replace them all in one go but we should have taken at least 4 talls in the ND IMO regardless of how speculative they are/were, AND we should have a real crack at more in the PSD and Rookie draft

But you fail to see that our recruiters, in their own opinions, didn't rate the talls that were left. Not talking about doing what everyone else was doing.

The talls left were not good enough, it has been said numerous times.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

We got Martin at 3.

Then used our next 2 picks on talls.

What's the problem? :hihi



Hypothetically, to get 2 good KPP's and maybe 1 okay KPP we could either:

- Spend 4 top 30 picks on talls, at the cost of getting 3 of 4 mediums right.

Or

- Spend 12 picks after pick 30 on talls, at the cost of getting about 6 of 12 mediums right.



So, you could either have:

- 2 KPP's or 3 midfielders with early picks (using 4),

or

- 2 KPP's or 6 midfielders with late picks (using 12).


Every draft pick is valuable. Can't afford to waste a lot to get a KPP. The posters supporting a "use all picks on KPP to eventually unearth a couple" philosphy are not thinking thouroughly enough yet.

We could even trade for a Fevola if we have to - it will cost less than sacrificing the ammount of picks you're advocating we waste!

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

im saying we were already short on talls and we lost 7 more this year - thats a poor state to be in
whether its a tall or a short its speculative after 40 odd, you must start to address your needs sooner or later
how do we know a panos or a temel or any of the other talls are going to make it or not - you dont but the same applies to the smalls
just maybe one or 2 of the talls make it and you get lucky maybe they dont

 

[Brodders17]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

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.

i guess we picked up the guys we did cos we rated them and didnt want to leave them for RD.
as you say time will tell.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

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.

The assumption here is that all these players are going to make it. That none are going to get injured. At least 3-4 are not going to make it if you're being realistic about it. Do we wait to see whether they make it or not? It's too late then. We are in an enviable position. We have immense quality of midfield stock now in my opinion. Deledio is 22. They way I see it any KP youngster will take at least 4 years to develop to a consistent standard. That takes us to 26 years old for Deledio. We need to ensure we have a number of talls to compete for positions so that we can pick the best developers. We cannot afford to wait too long to find out and reload as thats another 3 or 4 years.

As long as we do pick up a couple of the leftover talls as rookies and continue to select a bias for talls for the next year or two, then I am satisified we are doing our best to address the situation. Just a pity that we managed to get ourselves into this position in the first place. Still infuriating that we can have a Schulz on our list for 8 years.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

That's fair enough and it's easy to understand why :hihi

But it would be extremely wasteful to fill up on average KPP's hoping we'll eventually unearth a couple of good ones.

What if we spent every pick on midfielders (high success rate) and then trade a first rounder for a gun KPP in his prime? Fevola didn't cost that much considering the amount of picks we're talking about using to unearth KPP's. Not to mention all the good medium players we would miss out on.

We should be efficient with our draft picks. Use statistics to our advantage. Pick a few KPP's early, we'll use less picks and get a couple of good ones. If we still don't have enough, at least we know we have a gun midfield and only need to trade for a gun KPP if that's what is required.

I think we're only looking at talls if we think they're a high chance of making it. Eg. we overpaid for Post because we believed he would make it.

Not a bad philosophy IMO.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

But you fail to see that our recruiters, in their own opinions, didn't rate the talls that were left. Not talking about doing what everyone else was doing.

The talls left were not good enough, it has been said numerous times.

What was your opinion on Fitzpatrick Tigerbob?

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

The assumption here is that all these players are going to make it. That none are going to get injured. At least 3-4 are not going to make it if you're being realistic about it. Do we wait to see whether they make it or not? It's too late then. We are in an enviable position. We have immense quality of midfield stock now in my opinion. Deledio is 22. They way I see it any KP youngster will take at least 4 years to develop to a consistent standard. That takes us to 26 years old for Deledio. We need to ensure we have a number of talls to compete for positions so that we can pick the best developers. We cannot afford to wait too long to find out and reload as thats another 3 or 4 years.

As long as we do pick up a couple of the leftover talls as rookies and continue to select a bias for talls for the next year or two, then I am satisified we are doing our best to address the situation. Just a pity that we managed to get ourselves into this position in the first place. Still infuriating that we can have a Schulz on our list for 8 years.

No the assumption here was that we picked talent that we think will have the best chance to make it.

Francis has said, the talls that were left were not good enough. That should be end of argument. The same people crying for us to take talls that were not even drafted would be the same that grab their pitch forks and hurl abuse at the club when they do not make it.

What was your opinion on Fitzpatrick Tigerbob?

Glad we stayed away.

Cannot kick, is average above his head for a tall, makes poor decisions and has serious question marks with his health.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Glad we stayed away.

Cannot kick, is average above his head for a tall, makes poor decisions and has serious question marks with his health.

So a vast change to your opinion a couple of months ago?

An interesting one, I would see whats on the board before selecting him.
He will take a lot of development but could be the pick of the draft. A tantalising prospect. Everything you have said about him is true.

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

So a vast change to your opinion a couple of months ago?

An interesting one, I would see whats on the board before selecting him.
He will take a lot of development but could be the pick of the draft. A tantalising prospect. Everything you have said about him is true.

That's correct.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

im saying we were already short on talls and we lost 7 more this year - thats a poor state to be in

How many were in our best 22?

And keep in mind Richo hasn't been a permanent KPP since 2007.

We lost 7 KPP's - none of which played KPP in our best 22 - and gained 2 KPP's with high picks and surely extra with rookie picks.

The way I see it is we've lost nothing from our best 22 and gained 2 potential KPP's with relatively high picks. That's a step forward.

 

[GoodOne]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

That's correct.

Fair enough, had you not actually seen him play when you first made those comments? Just interested, as your opinion seems to have vastly changed.

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

its all about balance and depth, i believe you need 8 talls to play every week, 3 backs, 3 fwds and 2 rucks and we have 2 teams both afl and developing reserves (coburg) that means you need at least 16 playing plus back up for injuries so lets say 20 genuine talls on your list (includes ruck)

we have

1. Thursty
2. Mcguane
3. Rance
4. Moore
5. Post
6. Gourdis
7. Graeme
8. simmonds
9. Vickery
10. Browne
11. riewoldt
12. Griffiths
13. Astbury

my list says 13 forgive me if ive missed a few, that means we are short 7 talls in an ideal world, given that gourdis is speculative, moore is undersized, browne and vickery are developing, simmonds is past it and astbury and griffiths havent even done a pre season? - that smacks of trouble

guys will get injured or lose form and confidence, when you dont have the sheer numbers to back these guys up thats when undersized or under developed players who should be learning and developing in the reserves are asked to play in KEY POSITIONS too early and get hurt, bashed or lose development time - LET ALONE the effect it has on mids and smalls who miss out on protection from the bigger guys

that is just an unbalanced position we are in because of previous recruitment strategy, it has nothing to do with who we drafted this year or their ability but it is a wholistic approach to the development of the team and squad in general.. it is a structural flaw that needs addressing for the long term even if you have to use lesser quality but bigger bodies who are robust enough to handle the requirements to help you out in the short term

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Jack Riewoldt alone is as good as any forward West Coast or Geelong had in their premiership years.

Hopefully we can find a big KPP up forward to compliment him. But regardless of where a club is at, you need a bit of luck to get one.

Sure wouldn't be helping the club if we waste all of our picks on Putt's and Limbach's. That's sacrificing our future depth of the team - something that gets more and more important every year.

We NEED more quality mediums too. Yes, they're easier to find. But mids are more efficient with late picks, so why not fix this area with late picks and dedicate early ones to talls? That way, we'll end up with a handful of good quality talls and a deep selection of mids... instead of a handful of quality talls and little depth.

At worst we'll be in the Bulldogs' position and we'll have to trade for a KPF.
Hey, that's still top 4 for several years.

If they gave up 25% of their mids (and B. Hall) for a shot at some speculate KPP's, would they be in a better position going into 2010? Or is the midfield boost + Barry Hall a better outcome?

 

[Tigerbob]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Fair enough, had you not actually seen him play when you first made those comments? Just interested, as your opinion seems to have vastly changed.

If you looked a little harder in my posts on the junior board you would see I changed my opinion on him gradually over time.

Call it more research and better vision on more numerous games if you will. My comments at the time were just on the National Carnival if memory serves me correctly. It happens.

My last few posts before the draft on Fitzpatriick were very damning on him. Just ask SCOOP who was a fan of his.

My opinions on most draftees have changed since the start of the year. Except on Martin and Griffiths. ;D

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

its all about balance and depth, i believe you need 8 talls to play every week, 3 backs, 3 fwds and 2 rucks and we have 2 teams both afl and developing reserves (coburg) that means you need at least 16 playing plus back up for injuries so lets say 20 genuine talls on your list (includes ruck)

20 talls on a list of 44?

8/22 positions on the ground are talls. That's 36%
14/22 are smalls. That's 64%

Therefore, it makes sense for your list to be composed of 36% talls and 64% smalls.

Yet you want to make it unbalanced, so it is 45% tall and 55% small.

Why is that?

Wouldn't our 55% smalls get easily beaten by other club's 64%+ of smalls???