View Full Version : Richmonds activity in the upcomming 'Super-draft'
Bentleigh
12 May 2006, 23:30
Alot has been said, for a few years not about the upcomming draft. Not only is it sposed to be of the highest quailty in its first half dozen picks but the deapth of potential good footballer is also apparently very impressive.
Infact knoblett Sheehan has made some wild claims about the quailty. The Hun recently stated as much up to 12 players would have gone higher than last seasons #1 draft pick Mark Murphy.
I recommend we continue this thread running right up untill draft day.
Fantastic report of the cream of the crop: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225797
Bit early to be talking Draft picks don't ya think?
Bentleigh
12 May 2006, 23:43
Bit early to be talking Draft picks don't ya think?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Bryce Gibbs has been a media whore years. I've been speaking about Mitchell Thorp for a long time now - since I first saw him a couple year ago.
In what is sposed to be such a strong draft were we, a rebuilding club its an important thread to have, me thinks.
jackson_rules
12 May 2006, 23:53
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Bryce Gibbs has been a media whore years. I've been speaking about Mitchell Thorp for a long time now - since I first saw him a couple year ago.
yeah i agree, its good to have a thread where we can talk and get to know abit about some players before we draft them
No point get excited.
In the past there were maybe 3-4 elite prospects and therefore only the clubs with the top-3 picks would get a Deledio or Cooney.
This year there might be 7-8 elite prospects. That means that a couple of extra teams get a very good player.
Aside from that it is no different to any other year. If anything it is looking like a draft that has some elite guys and then very little of interest in the 30s-40s.
That all translates as Richmond getting a good player with pick 5 which was going to happen no matter what anyway, and getting a player with pick 22 exactly the same as we would get any other year at pick 22.
The whole 'superdraft' image comes from the idea that more recruiting managers are confident of getting a good player with their first selections. In the past there were 1-2 confident recruiters, this year there are 10. That makes it a superdraft. Does NOT mean that we are any more likely to pick up more than 1-2 good players than any other year.
The superdraft thing is very over the top. Quite frankly you'd be hard pressed to find more than 3-4 midfielders in the whole of Victoria worth drafting for example.
Good thing we went for our midfielders already then
Good thing we went for our midfielders already thenYeah ... Buddy is really kicking on , who came in for Croad ?;)
Bentleigh
13 May 2006, 18:20
Round 1 Fri 31 Mar Western Bulldogs Docklands Stadium Loss 52-167
Round 7 Sat 13 May Sydney Docklands Stadium Loss 62-180
True Bents, but we are 3-4 and equal with teams like Geelong and St. Kilda ;)
U2 Tigers
14 May 2006, 00:38
True Bents, but we are 3-4 and equal with teams like Geelong and St. Kilda ;)
and effectively a game behind them.
But agree season not over yet.
Bentleigh
15 May 2006, 17:30
....
Depends a little on who is available. Hansen and Thorp are quite similar to Hughes. I'd take Gibbs ahead of either of them. Having a guy like Gibbs would make it harder to zero in on Deledio making The Brett even more lethal.
On the other hand Gumbleton would be a really good get. Schulz is the gorilla in the goal square, Hughes the mobile Ash Hansen / Tarrant type who leads out to the wings and covers acres. Gumbleton is the perfect guy to add to those two as a genuine CHF who would complement the other two.
Schulz-Gumbleton-Hughes would be a bit handy in 3-4 years time. Going to be very very hard to say no to that.
despite being contrary to one's natural instincts as a tigers supporter, i think the best (long term) outcome for our club this season would be a finish no higher than 12, thereby ensuring a top 5 pick in the draft. And, best case, the kids show enough in their game time (eg polo) to win us some games, gain experience and preview what they can do for the future.
I look at our list, and there has been a vast improvement (in potential) since the end of 2004. But the list we have isnt going to be good enough to challenge for a premiership IMO. We are still one good draft away i reckon from having a young list that is deep and talented enough to produce enough quality players.
We've done well in the last 2 drafts i think, but with another "good draft" (ie. picking up 2-3 more good quality kids) we will be really setting ourselves up for the future. By all accounts, the first 5-6 picks in this '06 are going to be stars. Whether its a KPP or Gibbs, if we can secure another young gun, and then a very solid player with pick 20'ish, i think we will be in a position to really look forward to things in a fwe years.
Just my thoughts.
Bentleigh
15 May 2006, 17:56
despite being contrary to one's natural instincts as a tigers supporter, i think the best (long term) outcome for our club this season would be a finish no higher than 12, thereby ensuring a top 5 pick in the draft.
Thats what we call 'Bentleigh-think'.
:thumbsu:
despite being contrary to one's natural instincts as a tigers supporter, i think the best (long term) outcome for our club this season would be a finish no higher than 12, thereby ensuring a top 5 pick in the draft. And, best case, the kids show enough in their game time (eg polo) to win us some games, gain experience and preview what they can do for the future.
I look at our list, and there has been a vast improvement (in potential) since the end of 2004. But the list we have isnt going to be good enough to challenge for a premiership IMO. We are still one good draft away i reckon from having a young list that is deep and talented enough to produce enough quality players.
We've done well in the last 2 drafts i think, but with another "good draft" (ie. picking up 2-3 more good quality kids) we will be really setting ourselves up for the future. By all accounts, the first 5-6 picks in this '06 are going to be stars. Whether its a KPP or Gibbs, if we can secure another young gun, and then a very solid player with pick 20'ish, i think we will be in a position to really look forward to things in a fwe years.
Just my thoughts.
Mate, you are spot on.
Great post.
despite being contrary to one's natural instincts as a tigers supporter, i think the best (long term) outcome for our club this season would be a finish no higher than 12, thereby ensuring a top 5 pick in the draft. And, best case, the kids show enough in their game time (eg polo) to win us some games, gain experience and preview what they can do for the future.
I look at our list, and there has been a vast improvement (in potential) since the end of 2004. But the list we have isnt going to be good enough to challenge for a premiership IMO. We are still one good draft away i reckon from having a young list that is deep and talented enough to produce enough quality players.
We've done well in the last 2 drafts i think, but with another "good draft" (ie. picking up 2-3 more good quality kids) we will be really setting ourselves up for the future. By all accounts, the first 5-6 picks in this '06 are going to be stars. Whether its a KPP or Gibbs, if we can secure another young gun, and then a very solid player with pick 20'ish, i think we will be in a position to really look forward to things in a fwe years.
Just my thoughts.
Will probably need to finish 16th to get Gibbs.
Will probably need to finish 16th to get Gibbs.
thats quite possible, but mojo's thread on the drafts & trading board, and other reports have this as a draft where the top 5-6 are all outstanding. IMO an outstanding KPP would probably be a better result for us anyway. Let Gibbs go one and a gun KPP slip down a position further so we can get him.
thats quite possible, but mojo's thread on the drafts & trading board, and other reports have this as a draft where the top 5-6 are all outstanding. IMO an outstanding KPP would probably be a better result for us anyway. Let Gibbs go one and a gun KPP slip down a position further so we can get him.
You'll get no argument from me. We already have a fair chunk of interstate kids and the go-home factor is always an issue.
lucas_hsv
15 May 2006, 19:08
You'll get no argument from me. We already have a fair chunk of interstate kids and the go-home factor is always an issue.
I don't think the 'go home' factor is much different to a vic kid wanting to go to a more succesful vic club. If the clubs doing well, the kid will more than likely stay, no matter where they're from, same goes for unsuccessful and leaving.
Thats what we call 'Bentleigh-think'.
Now that's what I call a paradox
understudy
15 May 2006, 22:32
A super draft is where you land someone like a Judd.
No one like Judd is this draft to be honest.
Bentleigh
15 May 2006, 22:49
A super draft is where you land someone like a Judd.
So there has only ever been 1 super draft?
And in that 'super draft' had a 4/5/6 of Polak/Clarke/Sampi?
No one like Judd is this draft to be honest.
Is there another player like Judd in the world? (Bar Deledio :) ) :confused:
By all accounts Gibbs/Gumby/Hansen/Seller and co. are as highly rated as any draft picks going around at this stage out from the day itself.
tomthetiger
15 May 2006, 22:51
An oximoron if you will.
Wally Matera
15 May 2006, 23:05
i think the best (long term) outcome for our club this season would be a finish no higher than 12, thereby ensuring a top 5 pick in the draft.
Your wish will be granted, dont worry. After Saturdays and the inury toll, there is no way in hell of us finishing above 12th.
understudy
15 May 2006, 23:15
So there has only ever been 1 super draft?
No draft pick has yet produced a premiership. If the eagles win this year it certainly would have been a super draft for them.
Netting a once in a generation player like a Carey or Judd is what I would describe as a super draft for a club.
Does this draft contain a once in a generation player like Judd, i think not.
Not sure when the next once in a generation player will come along but for the lucky club that lands him, it will be what I would describe as a super draft for that club.
Netting a once in a generation player like a Carey or Judd is what I would describe as a super draft for a club.
No that is a super pick. The quality of a draft can't be determined by one player.
Does this draft contain a once in a generation player like Judd, i think not.
Perhaps. KP forwards are still the big prize. Judd might be a once a generation player but Jon Brown wins matches too. Gumbleton, Sellar and Hansen are all rated in the Riewoldt class (at the moment). Gibbs is a superb midfielder who could be a star too.
tomthetiger
16 May 2006, 11:15
Reiwoldt class? if we recruit another player who cant kick for goal, i dont know what ill do...
understudy
16 May 2006, 12:01
No that is a super pick. The quality of a draft can't be determined by one player.
Perhaps. KP forwards are still the big prize. Judd might be a once a generation player but Jon Brown wins matches too. Gumbleton, Sellar and Hansen are all rated in the Riewoldt class (at the moment). Gibbs is a superb midfielder who could be a star too.
Fair enough. I guess what Im getting at is the quality of the draft isnt what counts for a club, its the quality of their picks and the players they get.
2001 was the last so called 'super draft' was it not? Certainly was for the eagles as they landed Judd in comparison to the saints who picked L Ball with a higher pick.
The draft is just like the lottery. About as accurate as futures trading.
Sitting around hoping we pick up the next Judd when we are just as likely to pick up the next Anthony Banik or Aaron Fiora.
True Thylacine
16 May 2006, 13:12
Are we that depressed that we need to be talking about the draft in Round 8? Its good to be prepared I know but FFS!
CoggaRules
16 May 2006, 14:30
Are we that depressed that we need to be talking about the draft in Round 8? Its good to be prepared I know but FFS!
round 8 vs Crows, what do you want to talk about?
How about we are coming up against the top side, that boasts the number 1 defence by a margin of 10 goals, at at ground that they have carved us up, every time.
Maybe we can help, if its going to rain, we need to send a couple of tigerhaeds to TD, jam the roof rollers so it doesnt close, make it an ice rink, then we might get lucky. ;)
tomthetiger
16 May 2006, 14:49
Only if they decide to forfeit. Otherwise, theyll smash us anyway :D
Fair enough. I guess what Im getting at is the quality of the draft isnt what counts for a club, its the quality of their picks and the players they get.
2001 was the last so called 'super draft' was it not? Certainly was for the eagles as they landed Judd in comparison to the saints who picked L Ball with a higher pick.
Saints had a super draft. Got Ball, Dal Santo and Maguire (Montagna might still be handy too. Very definition of a super draft - three key players in one draft. Anytime you get more than 3 good players you are doing well.
The 2001 draft is regarded as a super draft not simply because it had a couple of guns up the top. It is remembered because it was deep with talent.
Ashley Hansen, Sam Mitchell, Campbell Brown, Andrew Welsh, David Rodan, Brad Miller, Dane Swan, Adam Schneider, Brian Harris amongst the names after pick 30.
Ashley Hansen, Sam Mitchell, Campbell Brown, Andrew Welsh, David Rodan, Brad Miller, Dane Swan, Adam Schneider, Brian Harris amongst the names after pick 30.Sadly there is one name that stands out there :rolleyes:
Bentleigh
16 May 2006, 15:13
The draft is just like the lottery. About as accurate as futures trading.
Sitting around hoping we pick up the next Judd when we are just as likely to pick up the next Anthony Banik or Aaron Fiora.
Bollocks.
Sadly there is one name that stands out there :rolleyes:
Would we get anything worthwhile for him?
Bentleigh
16 May 2006, 15:16
Saints had a super draft. Got Ball, Dal Santo and Maguire (Montagna might still be handy too. Very definition of a super draft - three key players in one draft. Anytime you get more than 3 good players you are doing well.
The 2001 draft is regarded as a super draft not simply because it had a couple of guns up the top. It is remembered because it was deep with talent.
Ashley Hansen, Sam Mitchell, Campbell Brown, Andrew Welsh, David Rodan, Brad Miller, Dane Swan, Adam Schneider, Brian Harris amongst the names after pick 30.
Geelong:
James Bartel,
James Kelly,
Charlie Gardiner,
Steve Johnson,
Gary Ablett Jnr,
Henry Playfair,
Matthew McCarthy,
David Johnson..
Sounds a decent draft to me.
Would we get anything worthwhile for him?
Nope. If we cut him tommorrow the best he could hope for would be an invite to preseason training somewhere.
Bentleigh
28 May 2006, 17:16
What I am meant to understand, the difference between pick #1 and pick #7 for eg. is a lot less than say in the 2005 or 2004 draft.
And with priority picks gone, I reckon its a pretty crap year to come bottom 4.
I'd like that to be true but im not so sure.
Hansen, Gibbs, Seller & Gumby sound really promising.
Who would we pick up at, say 6-12?
Im not sure if the like of Thorp, Selwood, Riewoldt, Leuenberger, Jetta, Benjamin, Houli are quite in the same class?
tomthetiger
28 May 2006, 17:22
Not Quite. But one of Thorp, Jetta, Houli would probably suit us.
Bentleigh
25 Jun 2006, 23:24
Mitch Thorp impressed me yesterday.
Looks a 'true CHF'.
Alot to like.
Bentleigh
25 Jun 2006, 23:28
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=251131
Bojangles17
25 Jun 2006, 23:38
The draft is just like the lottery. About as accurate as futures trading.
Sitting around hoping we pick up the next Judd when we are just as likely to pick up the next Anthony Banik or Aaron Fiora.
Im hearing ya 1980, bare in mind though that we have emerged from the "Beck" era. Of all the mindnumbing, boofheaded selections that were inspired by this bloke, we'd be lucky to field a competitive side for Bunyip. Would appear there's a little more science to it thesedays which is a leapfrog from studying the herald sun formguide come draft day which was the norm up until miller arrived. Heck, every time the U18 championships came around there was serious consideration amongst the fanatics to bundling up Beck and hiding him in the scoreboard at optus for the duration just in case he had any more stupid ideas....:p
Richtigerz
25 Jun 2006, 23:50
Scott Gumbleton - The guy is a gun.. I want him at Richmond next yr
Im hearing ya 1980, bare in mind though that we have emerged from the "Beck" era.
Beck deserves criticism but more often than not our blunders were inspired by the football department who'd trundle off to one under-18 championship match and decide that we needed Pettifer or Fiora.
When the footy department could be sidelined Beck showed a pretty good eye for talent in the later rounds.
The key we have have at the moment is that Miller is able to tell Wallace he can't just have his icecream (JON, Meyer, Tambling) without eating his broccoli (Polo, Pattison) too.
tomthetiger
26 Jun 2006, 01:43
Id prefer you didnt compare Polo to brocholli, but fair point.
Bentleigh
26 Jun 2006, 02:54
Id prefer you didnt compare Polo to brocholli, but fair point.
Apparently we'd trade him for Fiora.
Bentleigh
26 Jun 2006, 02:56
The key we have have at the moment is that Miller is able to tell Wallace he can't just have his icecream (JON, Meyer, Tambling) without eating his broccoli (Polo, Pattison) too.
No offence dude but I don't you have FA idea about how Richmonds most inner thoughts work.
If you really think Wallce wants to draft nothing but Meyer types but Miller has to interven 'now now Terry, we need a tough centerman and a ruck/kpp type' then you are talking crap.
He certainly has a history of doing so and you speak more crap on here than anyone. I don't think you should be pointing any fingers.
the ultimate masterstroke would be securing a first five pick from someone else during trade week. Extremely improbable but not impossible.
If one Greg Miller could grab that unlikely pick off someone it would mean one of the elite players, Gibbs, Hansen, Thorp, Sellar and Gumby in a tiger jumper. Anything else after that is a bonus really.
The draft order isnt really gonna change that much unless something drastic happens and looks to have taken its general form. The real fun now is Trade Week. Too early too run scenarios but we'll have a good idea around round 20 where teams are gonna finish up. interesting times.
Bojangles17
26 Jun 2006, 15:40
Beck deserves criticism but more often than not our blunders were inspired by the football department who'd trundle off to one under-18 championship match and decide that we needed Pettifer or Fiora.
.
You let him off the hook far too easy weaver, who says they were inspired by the football dept...who says that Beck didnt unequivocaly support his own beliefs that Hudson and Houlihan where the best HFF options bar none. The only .enterprise we saw from Beck was the constant thread in securing F/S at any cost. From Zantuck to Krakeour...."theyre ol man played the game"...hell that must be something...we only stumbled across Newman coz Beck thought it was son of Sam...:p
The key we have have at the moment is that Miller is able to tell Wallace he can't just have his icecream (JON, Meyer, Tambling) without eating his broccoli (Polo, Pattison) too.
lol this is one of the funniest things i have read. classic comment and such a home truth. well said.
True Thylacine
26 Jun 2006, 17:01
lol this is one of the funniest things i have read. classic comment and such a home truth. well said.
Dunno...I thought watching yesterday "what if we drafted Nephew of Spud"?
Now theres a conundrum.
The Dice Man
26 Jun 2006, 17:10
the ultimate masterstroke would be securing a first five pick from someone else during trade week. Extremely improbable but not impossible.
Indeed it would be a masterstroke and you have to ask yourself what we'd be prepared to trade to get that pick. I'd want to hold on to our first rounder as well.
There might be a few other clubs trying to trade up to a high pick as well, which would further lower teh value of whatever we attempt to trade.
I dont really like to speculate on who, as the players I wouldn't mind being traded wouldn't actually have any trade value:( (except maybe to North:D)
I think we'll have to be satisfied with the top 5 pick that we'll be getting for where we finish.
Harvey Leadpipe
26 Jun 2006, 17:32
I agree TDM, and considering the teams below us, they'd be holding onto their picks with white knuckles.
Maybe it's me being a Richmond supporter, and hence an eternal pessimist, but after having a go at the ladder predictor thread on the main board, I've got us finishing the season at 13th, leaving us with pick 4 (priority picks have moved this year haven't they?). So we'd be flat out trying to nail a higher pick, unless we hand Deledio to the Bombers or Carlton.
I agree TDM, and considering the teams below us, they'd be holding onto their picks with white knuckles.
Maybe it's me being a Richmond supporter, and hence an eternal pessimist, but after having a go at the ladder predictor thread on the main board, I've got us finishing the season at 13th, leaving us with pick 4 (priority picks have moved this year haven't they?). So we'd be flat out trying to nail a higher pick, unless we hand Deledio to the Bombers or Carlton.
Yep, priority picks (if any) this year will be between first and second rounds so won't affect the position of our first pick. Bottom sides would have been in for a gold mine had the old PP rules still been in place.
tomthetiger
26 Jun 2006, 17:54
I agree TDM, and considering the teams below us, they'd be holding onto their picks with white knuckles.
Maybe it's me being a Richmond supporter, and hence an eternal pessimist, but after having a go at the ladder predictor thread on the main board, I've got us finishing the season at 13th, leaving us with pick 4 (priority picks have moved this year haven't they?). So we'd be flat out trying to nail a higher pick, unless we hand Deledio to the Bombers or Carlton.
Are you serious? this morning I had the same idea, and was going to post it on these boards. Oh well, you know what they say, unconfident and pessimistic minds think a like.
soapyJNR
1 Jul 2006, 13:01
I think we may have an outside chance at Joel Selwood. The draft with him will be a little like a mexican standoff everyone wants him but are wary of the lack of footy he has played of late due to a "knee injury". Yeah sure like Juddy he is just getting his body ready for AFL footy and making sure he doesn't do something career threatening before the draft. He was all Australian at 16 year old in Under 18's last year.
He has avoided all the hype and fluff of the NAB Championships there have been many a player that have payed well in this week only to either not get drafted or not make it once drafted. P.Steinfort springs to mind....
Bentleigh
4 Jul 2006, 00:18
the ultimate masterstroke would be securing a first five pick from someone else during trade week. Extremely improbable but not impossible
Will not happen.
Simple.
tomthetiger
4 Jul 2006, 00:29
Not really fussed about who we get this year, considering it will be someone in the top 10. No point looking for a player to fit a position, we have long queues for just about every position on the ground! Just keep stocking up on the youngsters. We shouldnt however, need this years picks next year.
CoggaRules
4 Jul 2006, 00:34
I agree TDM, and considering the teams below us, they'd be holding onto their picks with white knuckles.
Maybe it's me being a Richmond supporter, and hence an eternal pessimist, but after having a go at the ladder predictor thread on the main board, I've got us finishing the season at 13th, leaving us with pick 4 (priority picks have moved this year haven't they?). So we'd be flat out trying to nail a higher pick, unless we hand Deledio to the Bombers or Carlton.
dont undersestimate the Aker factor. ;)
tomthetiger
4 Jul 2006, 00:57
Oh shutup...
With every win we have, I feel us slip further and further away from selecting a tall and closer and closer to selecting a Jetta/Collard
tomthetiger
4 Jul 2006, 13:34
Correct, unless we go for a ruckman.
tomthetiger
4 Jul 2006, 13:34
If Selwood is still there by our pick, and all the talls are gone, we should pick him.
Jetta / Collard would be mistakes - specialist HFFers. Selwood probably isn't our type of player - another Pettifer really. Can't see us getting too fussed over Leuenberger, not after opting for Pattison last year and overlooking Wood who is slightly better.
I don't see this draft as being the superdraft that most do. It is 2003 again. 6-7 top players and then a huge drop off to a bunch of solid types.
In that draft we ended up with pick 7 and decided to trade. This year if we have pick 6 it will be impossable to pry it out of our hands. If we had pick 10 I wouldn't be suprised if we shop it around.
Gumbleton, Hansen, Gibbs, Thorp are the ones that are good and ideal for us.
Selwood will be taken early but I wouldn't be too excited. Just a good HFF.
Sellar is Simmonds-type and would be OK as an understudy to Simmonds and an upgrade on Pattison.
Outside of those six I am not overly excited about too many. Just your normal mix of 20-30 guys with some talent.
True Thylacine
4 Jul 2006, 18:20
What do you make of Hislop Weav? Top age but looks a likely type to me.
Bentleigh
4 Jul 2006, 18:56
Looking at the current ladder:
8: Richmond - 7
9: Port Adelaide - 6
10: Fremantle - 6
11: Geelong - 5
12: Brisbane - 5
13: Hawthorn - 5
14: Kangaroos - 4
We could finsh as low as 14th, not totally unlikly. I think Port, Freo, Geelong & Bris all have a realistic chance of wining at least 2 more games than us on the run home.
Round 14 Sat 8 Jul Port Adelaide Football Park -
Round 15 Fri 14 Jul Melbourne MCG -
Round 16 Sat 22 Jul Sydney SCG -
Round 17 Sat 29 Jul St Kilda MCG -
Round 18 Sat 5 Aug Western Bulldogs MCG -
Round 19 Sat 12 Aug Brisbane Docklands Stadium -
Round 20 Sun 20 Aug Carlton Docklands Stadium -
Round 21 Sat 26 Aug Essendon MCG -
Round 22 Sat 2 Sep West Coast MCG -
Our next 5 games are tough and we finsh with the Weagles at home. All in all I see us with pick 5-9.
Now - Weaver my pessimisitic friend, I would jump at a Gibbs/Gumby/Hansen/Thorp type, but they look like going before our pick.
You say Jetta and co. is only a HFF but by all accounts he is a hughly talented lads, if not the most talented in the draft pool. Im sure you were saying similar comments to about young Tambling but IMO he is every bit a midfeilder who can play forward.
You talk down about Pettifier but for mine the lad is now, from the last 1 & 1/2 seasons has grown to be one of the very top liner HFF's running around in the AFL, top teir. Of course if we landed Selwood I'd hope he doesn't take so long to hit his traps but from Mojos write up of him he sounds a player I'd love to have in the Yellow and Black.
Simmonds IMO is the #2 ruckman in the league. If Sellar is that type then I'd be very happy. I see it intersting how much he has dropped. Pre-Championship many people had him a top 2 and indeed the potetnial #1 pick. Pattison & Seller of the next 15 years, learning from Troy is a mouth watering young ruck bridage feeding our fleet like super quick up and comming midfeild.
We have a plethroa of good young players comming though the ranks. If we can add another seriously good couple players with our first and secound round selections then I'll be more than happy to start thinking we can give finals a good shake in 2007 (more so if Cogs/Thusty/Newman and co. are fit for Round 1) and onwards in the future.
Chin up. :)
tomthetiger
4 Jul 2006, 22:03
We dont need anymore half forward flankers though. A talented Utility/KPP would be the only thing we're close to 'needing', but those will be gone, as Weaver mentioned. Whoever we pick, wont be done so with next years plans in mind. Basically, we'll probably look at the 5 possible picks, and which type we have the least of, as to backup our stocks for the next 3-4 years. Thats my opinion anyway.
Bentleigh
4 Jul 2006, 23:55
Weaver is the only person I've heard call Selwood a 'flanker'. Everyone else seems to rate him as an outstanding midfeilder.
Jetta may not be top of our needs list, yet a Hurley, Collard, Hislop, Leuenberger, Tippett, Benjamin etc. might be fancyed by the club.
It'll be intersting to keep an eye on the draft board & where we finsh leading up to draft day.
Darth_Tiger
5 Jul 2006, 01:03
weaver thinks everyone is a flanker :D
tomthetiger
5 Jul 2006, 01:11
Plus, sees Tambling as a 'Fleming' type, :)
Bentleigh
5 Jul 2006, 01:31
He reckons Plough would jump at the chance to trade Polo for Fiora..
tomthetiger
5 Jul 2006, 01:38
He would jump away from the proposal! but thats all.
Weaver is the only person I've heard call Selwood a 'flanker'. Everyone else seems to rate him as an outstanding midfeilder.
And Kayne Pettifer was a Larke Medal winning centreman, and Rory Hilton was the stand-out ruck-rover in his draft year.
I have compared him to Crawford. He doesn't have top-end speed or skills. The thing that makes Crawford is his superb work-ethic. Without it Selwood is not much different to Pettifer.
As for what every one else says? I offer my opinion, not the opinion of everyone else. Perhaps when Bents actually gets to a game and watches them play he might do the same?
Jetta may not be top of our needs list, yet a Hurley, Collard, Hislop, Leuenberger, Tippett, Benjamin etc. might be fancyed by the club.
Hurley won't be drafted and certainly not by us. Benjamin maybe, but not early after taking JON this year. Tippett is a big lumbering 19 year-old with 2 years of footy experience - let someone else take that risk. Leuenberger? We are hardly a club with a game plan using a tap ruckman. Jetta is an overrated receiver. Collard has talent but isn't top-10 material.
He reckons Plough would jump at the chance to trade Polo for Fiora..
I think you really missed the meaning of that comment
If you look at it statistically, the amount of wins for each position (going from ladders from 1999-2005) are as follows:
8 = 11.78
9 = 11.07
10 = 10.5
11 = 9.92
12 = 8.71
13 = 8.071
14 = 5.78
15 = 4.92
16 = 3.35
Which means that we are pretty much out of the race for a bottom five placing (we play essendon and carlton in the run hom and brisbane in Melb)
IMO we will finish on ten wins, placing us in the position of 10-11 or picks 6 or 7.
Now Selwood and Gibbs will be in the top 7, surely. That leaves 4-5 KPP.
Hansen, Gumbleton, Sellar, Thorp, Riewoldt Looks like the rankings of the top five KPP. Richmond with a position of 10th or 11th could easily pick up either Thorp or Riewoldt.
Our first pick should be a KPP. The second round will giv us a chance to pick up a Fielding or a Schmidt, but our first pick (Idealy in the top seven) should be focused on securing one of the seven mentionned above.
I can't see us beating the bulldogs, the saints, power, the eagles, the demons or Sydney (in Sydney). Most likely we will finish in one or picks better than last year in pick 6-7. I hope we don't do what we did last year and spot some aboriginal wingman and grab him. We as a club really need to address the lack of quality KPP at this club. Just having Pattison and Hughes doens't cut it, especially as Cleave isn't actually a KPP, more of a floating down to the wings and taking marks aka Tarrant type.
Second round and beyond is just picking what has been missed and filling our needs (i.e. ruckman, defenders, another KPP? midfielder? Pretty much one of everyhting would be good.) The later round s are harder to tell because they are more based on what other clubs do and take than everyhting. For example if all the ruckmen and good KPP are taken, you are forced to take something else.
Darth_Tiger
5 Jul 2006, 19:29
i couldnt see us beating collingwood either. wont surprise if we get more wins than that.
i couldnt see us beating collingwood either. wont surprise if we get more wins than that.
First game without Coughlan, IMO injuries will start to take their toll.
Also, most of our matches (5, and one agaist 9th placed away) are against top eight sides and none of those will want to drop any of them. Each match will be a struggle, but IMO I can't see us winning more than 3-4.
I think that Wallace will realise that there is no point finishing 9th on 11-11, we need to protect our picks. I'm not saying we should tank, but in reality with our percentage, we are not going to make he finals IMO.
metallichris
5 Jul 2006, 20:27
If we beat Port Adelaide...
...we WILL make the finals.
If we beat Port Adelaide...
...we WILL make the finals.
Big if though, Richmond doesn't play well in Adelaide.
metallichris
6 Jul 2006, 00:58
Big if though, Richmond doesn't play well in Adelaide.
We did last year.
We did last year.
we should of rolled em last year
Beck deserves criticism but more often than not our blunders were inspired by the football department who'd trundle off to one under-18 championship match and decide that we needed Pettifer or Fiora.
When the footy department could be sidelined Beck showed a pretty good eye for talent in the later rounds.
The key we have have at the moment is that Miller is able to tell Wallace he can't just have his icecream (JON, Meyer, Tambling) without eating his broccoli (Polo, Pattison) too.
Beck does deserve some credit for the 2000 draft. The first 5 picks are senior regulars and should all play 100+ games for the club.
#9 Kayne Pettifer
#25 Mark Coughlan
#40 Chris Hyde
#41 Andrew Krakouer
#55 Chris Newman
#57 Steven Sziller
#75 Robert Powell
Bentleigh
6 Jul 2006, 17:21
And Kayne Pettifer was a Larke Medal winning centreman, and Rory Hilton was the stand-out ruck-rover in his draft year.
I have compared him to Crawford. He doesn't have top-end speed or skills. The thing that makes Crawford is his superb work-ethic. Without it Selwood is not much different to Pettifer.
A 19 year old Crawford sounds good to me.
As for what every one else says? I offer my opinion, not the opinion of everyone else. Perhaps when Bents actually gets to a game and watches them play he might do the same
I don't have enough interst in junior football to go to the effort to get to a game.
You can continue reporting like you do.
Bentleigh
6 Jul 2006, 17:23
If you look at it statistically, the amount of wins for each position (going from ladders from 1999-2005) are as follows:
8 = 11.78
9 = 11.07
10 = 10.5
11 = 9.92
12 = 8.71
13 = 8.071
14 = 5.78
15 = 4.92
16 = 3.35
Which means that we are pretty much out of the race for a bottom five placing (we play essendon and carlton in the run hom and brisbane in Melb)
IMO we will finish on ten wins, placing us in the position of 10-11 or picks 6 or 7.
Now Selwood and Gibbs will be in the top 7, surely. That leaves 4-5 KPP.
Hansen, Gumbleton, Sellar, Thorp, Riewoldt Looks like the rankings of the top five KPP. Richmond with a position of 10th or 11th could easily pick up either Thorp or Riewoldt.
Our first pick should be a KPP. The second round will giv us a chance to pick up a Fielding or a Schmidt, but our first pick (Idealy in the top seven) should be focused on securing one of the seven mentionned above.
I can't see us beating the bulldogs, the saints, power, the eagles, the demons or Sydney (in Sydney). Most likely we will finish in one or picks better than last year in pick 6-7. I hope we don't do what we did last year and spot some aboriginal wingman and grab him. We as a club really need to address the lack of quality KPP at this club. Just having Pattison and Hughes doens't cut it, especially as Cleave isn't actually a KPP, more of a floating down to the wings and taking marks aka Tarrant type.
Second round and beyond is just picking what has been missed and filling our needs (i.e. ruckman, defenders, another KPP? midfielder? Pretty much one of everyhting would be good.) The later round s are harder to tell because they are more based on what other clubs do and take than everyhting. For example if all the ruckmen and good KPP are taken, you are forced to take something else.
From what I understand Riewoldt is not in the same class as Hansen, Gumbleton, Thorp,
Evens Sellar rating appears to have dropped.
From what I understand Riewoldt is not in the same class as Hansen, Gumbleton, Thorp,
Evens Sellar rating appears to have dropped.
Subjective. Riewoldt could easil fall to us, and IMO Riewoldt looks like a good player. All I'm saying is that Richmond would do better to draft a Thorp/Riewoldt than a Selwood, in which we have plenty of.
Plus, Gumbleton and Hansen will go in the top three, so forget about those, we have to pick the best player from our position, that means players like Thorp and Riewoldt
Bentleigh
6 Jul 2006, 23:02
Subjective. Riewoldt could easil fall to us, and IMO Riewoldt looks like a good player. All I'm saying is that Richmond would do better to draft a Thorp/Riewoldt than a Selwood, in which we have plenty of.
Plus, Gumbleton and Hansen will go in the top three, so forget about those, we have to pick the best player from our position, that means players like Thorp and Riewoldt
Incorrect.
Same could have would have been said last year but the top shelf KPP we rated were all gone. Instead of going for a Clark we went for JON who we thought was the better prospect.
I have not been impressed with Riewoldt. I'd jump at Thorp however.
If Selwood really is the outstanding midfielder after Gibbs / a 19 year old Crawford type I'd be more than happy to take him with out first pick rathering than taking a 2nd rate tall.
Incorrect.
Same could have would have been said last year but the top shelf KPP we rated were all gone. Instead of going for a Clark we went for JON who we thought was the better prospect.
And that was a mistake IMO, we should have picked Clark.
I have not been impressed with Riewoldt. I'd jump at Thorp however.
If Selwood really is the outstanding midfielder after Gibbs / a 19 year old Crawford type I'd be more than happy to take him with out first pick rathering than taking a 2nd rate tall.
I have been impressed with Riewoldt, secondly, Selwood is just many of the HBFs around, not a player you would waste a top ten pick on when we already have many of them aready.
We will get a second rate player regardless, stop making stupid assumptions. To get a really god player we need to finish bottom four, not going to happen. Therefore, we are forced to pick a second rate player anyway. Thirdly, I'd rather pick a god KPP that we need than another HBF which we don't need. Pick to our weaknesses, which are KPP. Anyone who says that Richmond has good KPP is deluded, incredibly biased, or both.
Bentleigh
7 Jul 2006, 00:09
Just having Pattison and Hughes doens't cut it, especially as Cleave isn't actually a KPP, more of a floating down to the wings and taking marks aka Tarrant type
Schultz?
And that was a mistake IMO, we should have picked Clark.
Big strong buzzling CHF who seems to have lots of talent compared to a athletic flanker type. I also thought there was better options than JON but it matters not what we think.
Club picked the player they saw as 'best' over a 2nd teir KPP.
No season we wouldn't do it again. More so when you look at Wallace drafting history top 15 picks: Meyer, Tambling, JON..
I have been impressed with Riewoldt, secondly, Selwood is just many of the HBFs around, not a player you would waste a top ten pick on when we already have many of them aready.
Reiwoldt has looks average IMO. I wonder how we'd talking about him if he had a different sir ane.
Selwood is a half back flanker now eh? Funny that.
From all accounts I'd be more than happy to 'waste' a top 10 pick on hm
We will get a second rate player regardless, stop making stupid assumptions. To get a really god player we need to finish bottom four, not going to happen.
* Gibbs
* Selwood
* Hansen
* Gumby
* Sellar
* Thorp
11th would get as a 'first rate' player.
Therefore, we are forced to pick a second rate player anyway. Thirdly, I'd rather pick a god KPP that we need than another HBF which we don't need. Pick to our weaknesses, which are KPP. Anyone who says that Richmond has good KPP is deluded, incredibly biased, or both.
I'd rather a top line midfeilder than a 2nd rate KPP.
If you think a Jack Rewoldt is going to help out the KPP stocks then 'deluded' is a good word to weild.
metallichris
7 Jul 2006, 00:22
Schultz?
Scheeyouultsze.
Thirdly, I'd rather pick a god KPP that we need than another HBF which we don't need. Pick to our weaknesses, which are KPP. Anyone who says that Richmond has good KPP is deluded, incredibly biased, or both.
But you are failing to recognise that our game plan is a KP free zone. A big bloke in either goal square, a mobile ruckman and a stand-by utility on the bench.
At the other spots we can improvise. Brown at FF, Pettifer at CHF, Bowden at CHB. Deledio and Tuck can play tall.
If we have a blue-chip big bloke available to us (Hansen, Gumbleton) then we will take him because they are rare and we still need to find a couple.
We won't be taking an ordinary KPP player. We will take the good midfielder over the average KPP. Safe in the knowledge that if we need some KPP filler we can get one in the 3rd round.
Why spend a top-10 pick on an McGuane, Hall, Limbach type when you can spend pick 50?
A 19 year old Crawford sounds good to me.
You ever actually read stuff before you selectively quote? Crawford is a poor kick and poor decision maker. He would have been a very ordinary footballer but for his supreme work rate and dedication.
Selwood has some raw talent but is no home-run selection. If he doesn't find the dedication he will pretty much follow Pettifer's example of a guy who traded on potential for 5 years before finally deciding to get fit enough to play.
I don't have enough interst in junior football to go to the effort to get to a game.
Just an interest in recycling other people's opinions as your own?
CoggaRules
7 Jul 2006, 09:57
You ever actually read stuff before you selectively quote? Crawford is a poor kick and poor decision maker. He would have been a very ordinary footballer but for his supreme work rate and dedication.
poor kid, he was born a little to late, this kind of CV would have made him a special for the tigers first pick under Spud. ;)
Beck does deserve some credit for the 2000 draft. The first 5 picks are senior regulars and should all play 100+ games for the club.
#9 Kayne Pettifer
#25 Mark Coughlan
#40 Chris Hyde
#41 Andrew Krakouer
#55 Chris Newman
#57 Steven Sziller
#75 Robert PowellAnd 2-3 years after that draft everyone was bitching and moaning about how poorly we did. Just goes to show that 5-6 years gives a better indication of how well you've done.
The 5 still on our list have played a combined 390 games for us.
Schultz?
Oh FFS, IT'S S-C-H-U-L-Z! SPELL IT RIGHT TO F***ING ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
And anyway, Schulz the saviour of Richmond's KPP problems? Don;t make me laugh, Schulz is a mediocre forward at best, at worst he is a bumbling embarrassment
Big strong buzzling CHF who seems to have lots of talent compared to a athletic flanker type. I also thought there was better options than JON but it matters not what we think.
Club picked the player they saw as 'best' over a 2nd teir KPP.
A second tier player to Gumby is still a good player. The Selwoods of this world will come, lets cash in on the bupmer crop of KPP of this year, instead of picking yet another HBF/wingman.
No season we wouldn't do it again. More so when you look at Wallace drafting history top 15 picks: Meyer, Tambling, JON..
Remember what Mojo said? He clearly outlined the flaws of this strategy.
Reiwoldt has looks average IMO. I wonder how we'd talking about him if he had a different sir ane.
In your opinon. Well, Riewoldt must be good enough to ranked in the top ten by Mojo, so I doubt he is average. Plus you said yourself that you don't go to see any games, so where is your inside knowledge? I like to base my opinon on someone who knows more than anyone here, Mojo.
I'd still talk about Riewoldt, even if he didn't have a famous relative. Skill shines out no matter who you are.
Selwood is a half back flanker now eh? Funny that.
Yes, that's what he is called, he is a flanker.
From all accounts I'd be more than happy to 'waste' a top 10 pick on hm
* Gibbs
* Selwood
* Hansen
* Gumby
* Sellar
* Thorp
11th would get as a 'first rate' player.
Yes, which we should use to get someone like Thorp or Riewoldt. And show me these "all accounts".
I'd rather a top line midfeilder than a 2nd rate KPP.
Selwood is not what we need, and secondly, we should pick to our needs, not what someone has told us that is good.
If you think a Jack Rewoldt is going to help out the KPP stocks then 'deluded' is a good word to weild.
He would help our KPP stocks better than some flanker, that's for sure.
The Dice Man
7 Jul 2006, 19:54
And 2-3 years after that draft everyone was bitching and moaning about how poorly we did. Just goes to show that 5-6 years gives a better indication of how well you've done.
The 5 still on our list have played a combined 390 games for us.
A successfull KP player from that draft would have been the cherry on top. It is interesting that at this stage you'd call that draft an overall success, but the lack of a KPP really stands out.
I dont know who went before Pettifer or Cogs, but there wouldn't be too many Id trade em for.
Bentleigh
8 Jul 2006, 01:15
You ever actually read stuff before you selectively quote? Crawford is a poor kick and poor decision maker. He would have been a very ordinary footballer but for his supreme work rate and dedication.
Selwood has some raw talent but is no home-run selection. If he doesn't find the dedication he will pretty much follow Pettifer's example of a guy who traded on potential for 5 years before finally deciding to get fit enough to play.
From what I hear of young Joel Selwood I'd be more than happy with he at Tigerland giving Gibbs/Hansen/Thorp/Gumby are gone come our pick and he not.
Just an interest in recycling other people's opinions as your own?
Taking others opinions and judging which would be best, of greatest value at my club next season.
Bentleigh
8 Jul 2006, 01:28
Oh FFS, IT'S S-C-H-U-L-Z! SPELL IT RIGHT TO F***ING ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
And anyway, Schulz the saviour of Richmond's KPP problems? Don;t make me laugh, Schulz is a mediocre forward at best, at worst he is a bumbling embarrassment
Intersting to see comments on Schultz, that you have written him off at his age.
I get the feeling you'd be the first to get on board is the "mediocre at best" player becomes more than that.
A second tier player to Gumby is still a good player. The Selwoods of this world will come, lets cash in on the bupmer crop of KPP of this year, instead of picking yet another HBF/wingman.
Unless you can give me a in deapth review/analysis of the drafts KPP bar-Hansen/Thorp/Gumby/Sellar then I cannot beleive you, as I think you are wrong.
Remember what Mojo said? He clearly outlined the flaws of this strategy.
No I don't. Nor do I think of Mojos comments as bible.
Wallace has drafted Meyer/Tambing/JON and co. over other types. No reason he will not continue to do it.
In your opinon. Well, Riewoldt must be good enough to ranked in the top ten by Mojo, so I doubt he is average. Plus you said yourself that you don't go to see any games, so where is your inside knowledge? I like to base my opinon on someone who knows more than anyone here, Mojo.
I'd still talk about Riewoldt, even if he didn't have a famous relative. Skill shines out no matter who you are.
Riewoldt has looked average according, from my people at Oakliegh. Slow. More so when you compare him to a Gumby/Hansen.
I was not impressed what what I've seen on the lad on ABC either.
Yes, that's what he is called, he is a flanker.
The title 'elite midfielder' has also been heard.
Yes, which we should use to get someone like Thorp or Riewoldt. And show me these "all accounts".
From all accounts, and again the games I've seen
Thorp > Rewoldt.
He's in another class and shouldn't be compared.
Selwood is not what we need,
We don't need anything. There are many areas we could inprove. Going by the readings on Selwood he'd look good on our list.
and secondly, we should pick to our needs
Some would say we should pick to what is best avaible. More so when you are going to choose an average KPP to make up for missing a A-Grade KPP, overlooking a potential very good mid in the process.
, not what someone has told us that is good.
Unless you go and watch dozens of kids games you are always going to going off what people have said rather than 1st hand.
philhawk
8 Jul 2006, 01:58
Subjective. Riewoldt could easil fall to us, and IMO Riewoldt looks like a good player. All I'm saying is that Richmond would do better to draft a Thorp/Riewoldt than a Selwood, in which we have plenty of.
Plus, Gumbleton and Hansen will go in the top three, so forget about those, we have to pick the best player from our position, that means players like Thorp and Riewoldt
Wouldn't be suprised to see Reiwolt slip down to Richmond's pick Richo, but I feel that you severely under-rate Thorp. From what I saw of him at the carnival, he looks Top 4 material to me. :thumbsu:
soapyJNR
8 Jul 2006, 10:21
[QUOTE=Weaver]Selwood has some raw talent but is no home-run selection. If he doesn't find the dedication he will pretty much follow Pettifer's example of a guy who traded on potential for 5 years before finally deciding to get fit enough to play.[QUOTE]
OK I will be a little less cryptic.
Selwood knows that he is going to be drafted that is why this year he has been focussing on getting his body right. He had more to gain by getting his body right than spending a week playing 3 games for Vic Country which he did last year and made the All Australian team. What would he of gained? Individual glory?
As I said before he has looked at what Chris Judd did the year prior to being drafted and has seen the advantage to being physically ready. Dedication is not the problem with the kid. He plays on a HBF simply as this is where the modern game is controlled not ruck rover or centre like it used to.