The Lack of Talls on Our List (Merged)

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

yes i understand your point and i have addressed it in another thread
its not just about who is good enough to make the strating 22, otherwise you would have no talls if you had 22 gun mids.

its about covering injuries and having big bodies to take the hits and protect the existing smalls and not having to play our developing talls too early or before they are ready

the way we are talking as if we are in the same situation as every other club and we can take our time and choose best available talent, we are not and can not, we were already short on talls now we are worse off in pure numbers - not talent

 

[Mr Brightside]

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

When we are talking 18 an 19 year olds I dont think it matters for the 2010 and even 2011 seasons, fact is we have taken Vickery, Post, Griffiths and Astbury in 2 drafts, all well credentialled to play key forward and fact is no matter how good they are they will probally all never play in the Forward line at the same time.

Astbury said last night he will probally play HFF to start

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

out of the 20 talls some will be mediums playing tall, which we already have in the likes of moore, mcguane and thurtsy so dont throw the % up

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

sure i understand, but out of interest how many talls or players that can play KP do you think we need on a list, given injuries and development?

i count we have 13 - is that enough IYO

 

[Phar Ace]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Good post FanTango

 

[Tango]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

rockstar this is exactly what you would do in a balanced list, but we are not balanced we are short now

what happens if we get injuries to talls, god forbid anything happens to riewoldt as he is our only genuine KPF thats had some time in the system (and still undersized)

sure we have Post who looks good, and Vickery who has potential and maybe even Astbury and Griffiths - but these guys are kids and should be left to develop in the 2s until they are ready physically and menatlly for the big posts, at least griffiths has the size and thats a good point

if we had another 2 or 3 big bodies as back up we wouldnt have to throw these kids to the wolves so early in their careers thats all im saying, and surely our postion is worse off than others

 

[Mr Brightside]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

sure i understand, but out of interest how many talls or players that can play KP do you think we need on a list, given injuries and development?

i count we have 13 - is that enough IYO

No doubt list stucture is a massive part of having substained success at AFL level, however I believe quality is more important then quantity..

At least 6 KPP of AFL standard, another 6 in development stage(1 to 4 year), 4 rucks, the key for me though is how many are of AFL standard and 50% of rookie list should always be KPP ......thats just a rough IMHO idea

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

so in just sheer numbers by your count we are 3 short of being avge

i think a little more than 3 but im biased towards talls, even so on this logic wouldt we be better off taking the last 2 picks on speculative talls in the ND rather than wait for rookies that we cant play unless we get a long term injury

my whole point is we should have taken 2 talls rather than a small fwd and a medium regardless of wheher these were better players or not after all its all a risk anyway isnt it?

 

[Tiger74]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

rather have guys who can kick than guys who are tall who cannot

we may need height, but we need accuracy by foot much more

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

out of the 20 talls some will be mediums playing tall, which we already have in the likes of moore, mcguane and thurtsy so dont throw the % up

The above 3 play as KPP's or 3rd talls, doesn't make a difference if they're "medium talls" or not - if you have 20 KPP's on your list you are unbalancing your list. You need 64% of your players to play a midfield role.

Do any of the above 3 players play a midfield role?

Right. Then using your methods of dedicating 45% of the list to talls, we will only have 55% of our list dedicated to competing against other club's midfielders.

How will our 55% of midfielders beat 64%+ of other clubs?

Also if most clubs have between 14-16 talls on their list, why should we have 20?

Valid questions.

 

[Tango]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

rather have guys who can kick than guys who are tall who cannot

we may need height, but we need accuracy by foot much more

agree with you 100%

BUT - there were big guys that can catch and kick still left on the table and i would rather have a big guy who can catch and kick at the moment than a small kid with good skills

 

[Mr Brightside]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

No doubt people have varied opinions on list structures, I was happy we took Griffiths at 19 as he is a "potential" star KPP and no doubt another solid mid would not be the diference between a flag and not as a star KF puts you well on the way......Im not sure if there is an exact number of KPP you should have on the list, I think the Dogs had a stack not long a go problem was they were all no good.......simple thing is must have the quality

 

[josey]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

No doubt people have varied opinions on list structures, I was happy we took Griffiths at 19 as he is a "potential" star KPP and no doubt another solid mid would not be the diference between a flag and not as a star KF puts you well on the way......Im not sure if there is an exact number of KPP you should have on the list, I think the Dogs had a stack not long a go problem was they were all no good.......simple thing is must have the quality

Yep agree.

We did drop a few talls this year, but really how much support did they provide.

Hughes, Schulz, Polak and Pattison played minimal games and obviously were not going to take us forward. The good KPP's do play at a young age. There is no reason that Griffiths, Post, Astbury, Riewoldt and Rance can't make an impact if they are good enough.

Time will tell.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

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.

Some pretty damning calls there Tigerbob - uninformed masses, garbage, nonsense....

I'd say our current talls list (KPP) is a garbage and a nonsense

The frustration for many of us stems from the fact we lack talls both in quantity & quality and have done so for many years - have a look at our main ND selections

1999 - S Homewood with Pick 39 - 1 in 5 picks
2000 - no talls drafted - 6 picks
2001 - no talls drafted - 4 picks
2002 - Schulz with pick 12 - 1 in 4
2003 - Morrison (a second-hand player with known issues) taken with our 4th pick (no 64) - we had 9 ND selctions and took one player over 190cm!!!

So in 28 ND picks from 1999-2003 we selected 3 KPP and one of those was a 22 yr old with pace issues....so really, 2 pick in 5 years on a KPP. In some ways Schulz is a raving success for playing as many games as he has.

2004 - Pattison (16) McGuane (36) Limbach (52) - 3 talls in 8 picks - 2 not real genuine talls and one classic in betweener - not one good one between them
2005 - Hughes with 24 - 1 in 3 picks - Hughes now gone
2006 - Reiwoldt with 12, 1 in 5 picks on a tall, success at last
2007 - Rance with 18, 1 in 3 (Putt picked as a ruckman) - big queries on him as a KPP - at least he has the body
2008 - Post with 26 - 1 in 3 - Post looks promising but long way to go
2009 - Griffiths with 19, Astbury 35 - 2 in 7 (not incl elevation of Nahas/Browne which would mean 2 in 9). Griffiths has some queries, Astbury maybe taken earlier than expected by some

Overall we have picked 12 talls in 57 ND selections since 1999 and have 6 still on the list. Average just over 1 in 5 picks on talls.

Out of those 11, you could argue Reiwoldt has star quality whilst too early to tell for Rance, Post, Griffths, Astbury.

Leave out the last 3 years and we have retained 2 talls from 8 tall selections (25% strike rate) between 1999-2006 - and IMO McGuane will be gone within 2 years also.

In that 1999-2006 talls we could have taken include Pavlich, Glass, Hunter, McPharlin, Bock , Rutten, Petrie, Hansen, Waite, Thornton, Lynch, Merrett, Staker, Bolton, Patfull, Firrito, Dawson, Fisher, M Johnson, Franklin, Roughead, Egan, Carlile, Patfull, Gilham, Tippett

Yes, we would have had to give up taking a Deledio or Tambling to get a Franklin or Roughead but if we had gambled on a few more talls in the drafts between 1999-2006 we may have landed a Hunter or Fisher or a Petrie or Tippett or Merrett. Yes we have landed Trent Hotton or Aickland or William Morrison.

I will look at a few other sides drafting records over the same period for comparison but the only way you will get keepers is to use multiple selections.

Please note that Griffiths & Astbury are in no way guaranteed to become good players. Remember how happy the club and most supporters were we were with Hughes at 24? Schulz was picked at 12, Pattison at 16. Where are they? We used many of our early picks on talls but no success.

IMO that 1999-2006 recruiting period is a serious indictment on those recruiters purely on the lack of talls drafted, regardless of the players selected.

Claw has long advocated you need at least 16 talls on the list and you need to turn them over to find good ones - these statisitics seem to support his views don't you think?

 

[josey]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

out of the 20 talls some will be mediums playing tall, which we already have in the likes of moore, mcguane and thurtsy so dont throw the % up

I suspect you might be having a bet each way here.

IMO there is no need to have 20 talls on your list. Normally you would play with 5 KPP and two ruckmen. Where do the rest get a game?

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Re: talls after the draft. still looks grim.

To get those big bodies we can do one of two things:

- Recruit a steady range of KPP's over the following years and wait.

- Recruit recycled KPP's, and have less KPP's for the future.

IMO we don't have a choice... the next couple of years we'll have to play young KPP's and just keep drafting them. We won't have the luxery of big bodies until we reach our peak.

But ah well, at least it will be an obvious area we need to get right. If we had 1-2 star KPP's then there'd be less incentive to find some new ones right away.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

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?

Not true - Hughes - 24, Schulz - 12, Pattison - 16 - early picks, all gone.

As I posted elsewhere, bewteen 1999-2006 we had a 25% hit rate on KPP with our ND selctions.

If that continues, we can expect at best only 2 of Griffiths, Astbury, Post, Rance and Reiwoldt to make it. If we are lucky.

 

[Tango]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

i think you need 3 tall backs - 2 KPP and a 3rd tall with run and carry ability
i think you need 3 tall fwds - 2 KPP and a 3rd tall thats an athlete
2 rucks

still think you need 8 talls a game

ideally you want a replacement for each position and some reserves - thats how i get 20
give me an athletic and good skilled tall over a good skilled small anyday

 

[Mr Brightside]

Re: Ben Nason Pick 71

Time to move on.....pre 05 and even 05 itself was a disater is now irrelevent, FJ is not responsible for before that, and CC is 2 years into the gig and Dimma is a virgin, bad mistakes were made as we all know, its about to be 2010 and Tiger time starts now, and the men now in charge should be only judged on what happens now

 

[josey]

Re: Matthew Dea taken at pick 44

Not true - Hughes - 24, Schulz - 12, Pattison - 16 - early picks, all gone.

As I posted elsewhere, bewteen 1999-2006 we had a 25% hit rate on KPP with our ND selctions.

If that continues, we can expect at best only 2 of Griffiths, Astbury, Post, Rance and Reiwoldt to make it. If we are lucky.

A liitle mischevious to use the period of 99-06 as comparison for our recruits since 06.

It has been flogged to death here on PRE that our recruiting resources were terrible for that period. You could almost say that if were able to get a success rate of 25% with our threadbare recruiting department, the current resources should be able to give us at least 50%.