View Full Version : How Do You Like Burgatrons Picks?
Realistic Tiger
22 Nov 2007, 11:07
On the AFL site the Burgatron has been released and he has Richmond taking the following players:
2 – RICHMOND – TRENT COTCHIN
Northern Knights, VIC, Medium midfielder, April 7 1990, 185.1cm, 79.kg
18 – RICHMOND – TOM COLLIER
Tassie Mariners, TAS, Tall defender, March 25 1989, 192.3cm, 83.7kg
51 – RICHMOND – DARREN PFEIFFER
Adelaide, SA, Medium midfielder, September 28 1987, 183cm, 81kg
64 – RICHMOND – GUY RICHARDS
Collingwood, VIC, Ruckman, March 21 1983, 201cm, 98kg
If the draft was to pan out like this would you be happy with who Richmond would have added to the list after winning the spoon?
FWIW I don't mind who we have been given and would be rather happy if Saturday came out this way, gained 2 mid sized future midfielders, added another who could play at either CHB or RR as well as gaining some insurance for our ruck department.
Looking at the selections again I would much rather we took Putt at 51 then took either Collard or Pfeiffer at 64. Still gives us what we need
peternorth
22 Nov 2007, 11:11
On the AFL site the Burgatron has been released and he has Richmond taking the following players:
2 – RICHMOND – TRENT COTCHIN
Northern Knights, VIC, Medium midfielder, April 7 1990, 185.1cm, 79.kg
18 – RICHMOND – TOM COLLIER
Tassie Mariners, TAS, Tall defender, March 25 1989, 192.3cm, 83.7kg
51 – RICHMOND – DARREN PFEIFFER
Adelaide, SA, Medium midfielder, September 28 1987, 183cm, 81kg
64 – RICHMOND – GUY RICHARDS
Collingwood, VIC, Ruckman, March 21 1983, 201cm, 98kg
If the draft was to pan out like this would you be happy with who Richmond would have added to the list after winning the spoon?
if we get cotchin, would like a KPP with the second pick. dont know much about anyone except cotchin tbh
Take out Guy and I'm happy. Pfeiffer sounds like he is worth a shot. Maybe Neville in the ND and Pfeiffer in the PSD. I voted no, but I have no idea about any players from the U18s.
skybeau
22 Nov 2007, 11:28
I don't understand why we wouldn't take a junior ruckman if we can get Richards in the PSD, should we choose to take Guy.
Aside from that, I'd take Cotchin, Collier and Pfeiffer. Maybe add Putt in there and I reckon that'd be a good effort.
I'm only going on what I've read, but I'd be content with that.
Biggest question mark for me would be Pfeiffer..I'd rather a big guy ( Putt is down to go at 54 for example ).
If it did pan out that way, we'd want to go big in the rookie draft. 1 Ruck, 1 Ruck/KPP, 1 KPP, 1 Mid.
Tigertriumph
22 Nov 2007, 11:57
first 2 sound good if we dont get collier hope we get pears, not sure bout pfeffier and richards in nd betta off taking another young player hopefully a ruckman and take pfeffier in the rookie draft if his still eligible then with 64 take another kid instead of richards mayb another kpp or save it for the psd.
Tambling_30
22 Nov 2007, 11:59
I would be extremely happy with this outcome. Minus the Gay Richards i would be happy with Cotchin,Collier and Pfeiffer/Putt/Collard at 51. We wont be using our last pick. We will have a pick in the PSD and will probably take Richards which at the end of the day is what we are going to have to do. Im not to happy about it but we need a back up for Simmo, Graham and Patto if someone gets injured. We saw what happened last year with our Ruckman.
What would happen in this situation is that we would have collier play as a rebounding CHB and therefore we can use Polak at CHF.:thumbsu:
richcogs
22 Nov 2007, 12:08
Richards...so definete NO! I'm so ANGRY, when will we learn??????????
brown_2000au
22 Nov 2007, 12:37
Pears >>>>>> Collier at pick 18 and Putt>>>>>>>> Pfieffer then take either Pfeiffer or Richards in the PSD
Maybe
Pick 2- Cotchin
Pick 18- Pears
Pick 51- Putt
PSD- Richards
Rookie picks - Pfeiffer, Renton, Neville, Silvester
AxelF41
22 Nov 2007, 13:15
Just out of interest, it says on the AFL site that he has been doing the phantom draft for afl.com since 2000. Anyone got any of his previous predicitions from the last few years?
Tambling_30
22 Nov 2007, 13:41
Just out of interest, it says on the AFL site that he has been doing the phantom draft for afl.com since 2000. Anyone got any of his previous predicitions from the last few years?
:thumbsu: I would like to know aswell.
beaver's army
22 Nov 2007, 14:57
I dont mind it but dont like richards. would rather get a young beanpole in the draft and give him time to develop.
voted yes
I have had working relationships with Matt in the past. He is extremely commited to his job and does his research...
He puts these together by assuming the clubs wants and needs and is very close to the mark each year.
Obviously he is never going to get things spot on, but he is relatively close for each club.
He gives us a fairly good prediction to entertain...
Good on ya Matt :thumbsu:
Just out of interest, it says on the AFL site that he has been doing the phantom draft for afl.com since 2000. Anyone got any of his previous predicitions from the last few years?
Search it under Google...
His proper name is Matt Burgan. Type in that and phantom draft and the year... should come up with something.
Check out drafts and trading search too. I came accross his last years one in there the other day.
Weaver has also put forward phantom drafts a few years in a row.... check his out too. :thumbsu:
Curious that Richards nominated for the draft.
If Richmond had told him they'd take him in the PSD, I'd assume he wouldn't have.
Possible reasons.
1) He doesn't want to go to Richmond ( unlikely considering he's training with us ).
2) Richmond told him he wasn't a sure thing.
So either Richmond doesn't believe we need to recruit a mature ruckman, have another ruckman in mind or didn't want to commit.
I'm troubled by the idea of not getting another mature ruckman with Simmo already having a truncated pre-season due to injury.
Either way, I can't see us taking Richards at 64...If he's still available then, then fair chance he'll be there for the PSD...Better to keep your options open.
TigerGlory
22 Nov 2007, 15:57
I have never believed in something this strongly before. Seriously, we do NOT want Richards.
Our ruck division is fine. Simmonds was almost AA two years ago, and simply was restricted by injury. Pattison improved dramatically from this years experience. We also have Graham in reserve, and at the worst Polak.
I'd much rather draft a young ruckmen, or at the worst, grab Welsh in the draft. As a big HFF, he'd be handy with Deledio, Richo, Brown, Pettifer in the forward line.
At best, it'd be great if Rutten was still out of contract.
Tigerrific
22 Nov 2007, 16:32
Happy with that and happy with Richards. I never want to see Richo, Polak or Tuck in the ruck ever again:thumbsd:
Ancient Tiger
22 Nov 2007, 16:34
If Collard was good enough for pick 31 just a year ago in last years "deep" draft, what's wrong with picking him up at 51 this year. He will be still very young with an extra preseason under his belt. Rated by Weaver as being better than Jetta, I would rather a potential matchwinner with a bad attidude (which you can change) than a poor player (that you can't change) with a good attitude. For all those moaning that we need more talls I'd say yes, but only if they are going to be champs not chumps! I cannot see players like Hyde winning us a premiership, so he will eventually need to be replaced. Collard would be a fantastic replacement, with more upside than anybody else in the draft. If we can slowly replace all our "bottom six" players with guys that could even be part of our "top six", we will be on the way to having a premiership side.
richmond fanatic
22 Nov 2007, 16:39
We're not going to be using pick 67, so relax folks, we wont get Richards.
2. Cotchin
18. Collier or Pears
51. Putt
Pick 1 PSD- Pfeiifer
And id be happy
I have never believed in something this strongly before. Seriously, we do NOT want Richards.
I agree, we don't want him, but sadly, we need a big, mature body to go into the ruck and he seems to be the best available.
Our ruck division is fine. Simmonds was almost AA two years ago, and simply was restricted by injury. Pattison improved dramatically from this years experience. We also have Graham in reserve, and at the worst Polak.
Simmo is injured at the moment and wont be back to full training until well into the new year.
Patto did remarkably well, but every week he was beaten up by bigger, stronger opponents. It says a lot for his heart that he kept going back for more, but really, we should try and avoid having this happen again!
Graham is years away.
I'd much rather draft a young ruckmen,
Nobody said we can't do that too, indeed, we should do that too, but anyone we draft will be at least 3-4 years off. Long term, I'd like us to rookie a ruckman every year or two...Most wont make it, but if we get one every 4-5 years from that, it'll be a great use of a 'cheap' pick.
Richmond 2014
22 Nov 2007, 16:45
I would be extremely happy with this outcome. Minus the Gay Richards i would be happy with Cotchin,Collier and Pfeiffer/Putt/Collard at 51. We wont be using our last pick. We will have a pick in the PSD and will probably take Richards which at the end of the day is what we are going to have to do. Im not to happy about it but we need a back up for Simmo, Graham and Patto if someone gets injured. We saw what happened last year with our Ruckman.
What would happen in this situation is that we would have collier play as a rebounding CHB and therefore we can use Polak at CHF.:thumbsu:
That would be great but it will take Collier/Pears a few years to get in shape to be a CHB, dont want to put the pressure on him yet, let him find his way into afl for his first year
Pick 2: Cothcin
Pick 18: Pears
Pick 51: Pfieffer/Collard (dont know sh** about them but they were high draft picks)
Pick 67: Richards (no choice, at least he has had game experience and doesnt need time)
PSD: No idea
Rookie: CHF, CHB, Neville, Howat (i rate him, just needs to be disciplined)
we get 3 midfielders
2 CHB
2 mid/forwards
1 lanky unc ruckman
what more could we want
marco polo
22 Nov 2007, 16:50
#2 - Cotchin
#18 - Collier/Pears
Also, fantastic to read Veszpremi is being looked at closely by the Tiges, so hopefully he falls to #18!
#51 - Putt
#67 or PSD - Pfeiffer
:thumbsu:
Interesting to see Dave Gourdis (who we are apparently very keen on) slipping much lower than many people had him in their phantom draft's (#5-#20), so he could be in the mix at our #18. If he somehow manages to slide to #51 i will be doing catwheels for the next year.
oh and at the bottom of the page there a few people's comments, some with Matt's replies. One man asked how sure he was that Cotchin was coming to Tigerland?
Matt Burgan says ...
G'day Matt,
I am certain Richmond will select Trent Cotchin at No.2 and I don't think the Tigers will take Sampi.
TigerGlory
22 Nov 2007, 16:55
I agree, we don't want him, but sadly, we need a big, mature body to go into the ruck and he seems to be the best available.
Not at all. Its not like we are going to go out and win 22 games with Richards in the side. Seriously, we are in a re-building phase, and should be taking full advantage. Draft and blood as many kids as possible, so we will never have to draft duds like Richards ever again.
Simmo is injured at the moment and wont be back to full training until well into the new year.
He'll still be alot better off than he was last year. Even playing half the game, Patto is still good enough with his experience.
Patto did remarkably well, but every week he was beaten up by bigger, stronger opponents. It says a lot for his heart that he kept going back for more, but really, we should try and avoid having this happen again!
I disagree, i thought he was starting to get very good come the end of the season. His last 4 or 5 games, he was very good. He might not be tall, but he gives a great contest, and despite what you may think, started to grab a truckload of possesions and give some decent supply.
Graham is years away.
Not necceserily, he played some good footy with Coburg this year, and would be a fine backup.
Nobody said we can't do that too, indeed, we should do that too, but anyone we draft will be at least 3-4 years off. Long term, I'd like us to rookie a ruckman every year or two...Most wont make it, but if we get one every 4-5 years from that, it'll be a great use of a 'cheap' pick.
Thats what we should be doing. While our kids are still developing, we should be bringing more and more into the club and letting them band together as a team. The imports thing does not work. Hawthorn did the right thing and played kids for two years and they are pretty solid now. We tried to remain competitive and groom kids at the same time, it simply dosent work. You finished 9th or 10th for a couple of years, but end up bottoming out anyway, and we end up right back where we started.
RichosGuns
22 Nov 2007, 17:52
I think it will be:
- Cotchin
- Pears/Collier
- Putt/Rockliffe
- PSD: Guy Ricards
- Rookie: Silvester, Pfeiffer, two others
Watch this space!
RichosGuns
22 Nov 2007, 17:57
#2 - Cotchin
#18 - Collier/Pears
Also, fantastic to read Veszpremi is being looked at closely by the Tiges, so hopefully he falls to #18!
#51 - Putt
#67 or PSD - Pfeiffer
:thumbsu:
.
Veszpremi is a gun, I agree with you Macro. However, if we take Cotchin at #2, we simply can't afford to take another small mid with #18. I think he will be taken around the mid 20's. This is why I think we should have traded Schultz for the speculated mid 20's pick so that we could potentially take Veszpremi, Pat Dangerfield, Andy Otten or perhapes even Jack Grimes
Of course in hindsight, we shouldn't have traded for McMohan because we could have got him in the PSD for nothing. But considering the amount of players that were still unsigned at that point, it was a fair call by the club
carmi99
22 Nov 2007, 17:57
#2 - Cotchin
#18 - Collier/Pears
Also, fantastic to read Veszpremi is being looked at closely by the Tiges, so hopefully he falls to #18!
#51 - Putt
#67 or PSD - Pfeiffer
:thumbsu:
Interesting to see Dave Gourdis (who we are apparently very keen on) slipping much lower than many people had him in their phantom draft's (#5-#20), so he could be in the mix at our #18. If he somehow manages to slide to #51 i will be doing catwheels for the next year.
oh and at the bottom of the page there a few people's comments, some with Matt's replies. One man asked how sure he was that Cotchin was coming to Tigerland?
Matt Burgan says ...
G'day Matt,
I am certain Richmond will select Trent Cotchin at No.2 and I don't think the Tigers will take Sampi.
Anyone that had Gourdis as low as 5 has rocks in there head.
marco polo
22 Nov 2007, 19:28
Veszpremi is a gun, I agree with you Macro. However, if we take Cotchin at #2, we simply can't afford to take another small mid with #18. I think he will be taken around the mid 20's. This is why I think we should have traded Schultz for the speculated mid 20's pick so that we could potentially take Veszpremi, Pat Dangerfield, Andy Otten or perhapes even Jack Grimes
Of course in hindsight, we shouldn't have traded for McMohan because we could have got him in the PSD for nothing. But considering the amount of players that were still unsigned at that point, it was a fair call by the club
Couldn't agree more. That extra 2nd round pick would be looking good now...
Whilst I agree that we should definately take a KPP such as Collier/Pears with #18, i wouldn't be unhappy at all if we snared Veszpremi (Personally, i love the way Vez and Patty Dangerfield go about it, i rate them both very highly)
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out on Saturday
Tambling_30
22 Nov 2007, 19:41
I dont know if anyone listened to SEN after 4:30 but Matt Burgan was on and was talking about Cotchin, he said he is coming to tigerland and said that we love him and that we already know what he is capable of. Wallace apparantely loves him. Heard he had a medical with us last week and got the all clear. I think we will be getting Cotchin. Im so excited and happy.
tiger trooper
22 Nov 2007, 20:09
in a perfect (but realistic) world i would go,
2. cothin
18. vespersemi
51. putt (or hopefully bellchambers but doubt it)
67. A big bodied rookie... a long term project perhaps dont who tho.
PLEASE EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why do we need richards?
patto is doing beautifully, and with simmo hopefully bak up he will no doubt get some valuable support and grow. FOr a rookie to carry the ruck load the whole year (albeit with a bit of help from non-ruckman) was an acheivement. Patto is looking good.
Gus had 2 games so cant really comment.
SO why do we need guy richards at all.??????????
bigstyletiger
22 Nov 2007, 20:50
[quote=Ancient Tiger;9526040]If Collard was good enough for pick 31 just a year ago in last years "deep" draft, what's wrong with picking him up at 51 this year. He will be still very young with an extra preseason under his belt. Rated by Weaver as being better than Jetta, I would rather a potential matchwinner with a bad attidude (which you can change) than a poor player (that you can't change) with a good attitude. For all those moaning that we need more talls I'd say yes, but only if they are going to be champs not chumps!
I disagree. Let's be honest we have had a massive problem for the past 6 years and that is a culture of mediocrity. I hope we are in the process of changing this. Attitude is one hundred percent important. A talented team with poor attitude is rubbish. Yes you can turn a player around - Steve Johnson - but if you don't you are in danger of infecting other players - look at West Coast. Yes quality side but so many problems. Why draft kids with poor attitude.
I would also like to point out that you can't have 36 best 22 players on your list as you will never be able to hold your list together and you wont be able to pay them. You do need some guys like Hyde. He is an honest player who might be really good for the culture of the club. Im sick of a poor culture. I want a good football club not a talented football club with bad attitude.
Draft Trent Cotchin and some good defenders and we will be more than competitive. Oh and I saw Richo running the other day. He looks as fit as ever. What a gun!
YellowandBlackBlood
22 Nov 2007, 21:12
[quote=Ancient Tiger;9526040]If Collard was good enough for pick 31 just a year ago in last years "deep" draft, what's wrong with picking him up at 51 this year. He will be still very young with an extra preseason under his belt. Rated by Weaver as being better than Jetta, I would rather a potential matchwinner with a bad attidude (which you can change) than a poor player (that you can't change) with a good attitude. For all those moaning that we need more talls I'd say yes, but only if they are going to be champs not chumps!
I disagree. Let's be honest we have had a massive problem for the past 6 years and that is a culture of mediocrity. I hope we are in the process of changing this. Attitude is one hundred percent important. A talented team with poor attitude is rubbish. Yes you can turn a player around - Steve Johnson - but if you don't you are in danger of infecting other players - look at West Coast. Yes quality side but so many problems. Why draft kids with poor attitude.
I would also like to point out that you can't have 36 best 22 players on your list as you will never be able to hold your list together and you wont be able to pay them. You do need some guys like Hyde. He is an honest player who might be really good for the culture of the club. Im sick of a poor culture. I want a good football club not a talented football club with bad attitude.
Draft Trent Cotchin and some good defenders and we will be more than competitive. Oh and I saw Richo running the other day. He looks as fit as ever. What a gun!
I really don't care what the "culture" is as long as we have success. I think most Tiger supporters would swap the weagles recent on field success with ours in a heart beat even if that meant having some of their recent bad press. I also did not take AT's slant on things the way you did. I think he meant that a good club that is heading for success would be able to change a players attitude around and get the best out of them. It is much more difficult to make a champion out of a hacker.
I also disagree with the attitude that a team can't afford 36 best players and that you need average players to pad out the list. You will never win a premiership with that attitude in the recruiting staff. The fact is, that it is nigh impossible to get that many top liners into a team. At least if you aim for that you may be able to get 13 or 14 of them which will form the core of a successful team. Aiming to pad out a team eventually means that the team only ends up with half as many top liners which then puts a big dent into the teams depth (remind you of someone?). Injuries to one or two of them then makes you completely noncompetitive (a la Tigers circa 2007).
Mr Anderson
22 Nov 2007, 21:13
I am certain Richmond will select Trent Cotchin at No.2[/B] and I don't think the Tigers will take Sampi.
I recall at the 2005 draft Richmond were certain to draft Jarryd Roughead at #4, too - had a physical, came to the draft BBQ...
Is there any chance that the Blues will select Cotchin at #1, given all the hype about him being the best player in the draft? It's not like they don't need him despite Judd... Judd, Cotchin, Stevens, Murphy couldn't be much different to Judd, Kerr, Cousins, Embley? I guess the flaw is Kreuzer = Cox in this scenario.
If this did happen, I assume Tigers take Kreuzer at #2, (and NO GUY RICHARDS...) how would the other picks look then? Or is this totally beyond the realms of possibility? (before you jump in, I have no idea who will take which player, I am just genuinely interested in what those who do have some idea think)
Crumden
22 Nov 2007, 22:38
Is this kid Simpson any good? Good enough for pick 18? Or any chance he'll slide to 51? Looks like he is already a man-mountain. I reckon if we get a ruckman in the draft (and it seems we have our eyes on a couple), its game over for Richards. Couldn't see us adding 3 ruckman to the list, unless one was on the rookie list.
22 – WEST COAST – DAWSON SIMPSON
Murray Bushrangers, VIC, Ruckman, February 17 1989, 205.9cm, 104.9kg
Simpson looms as the first surprise pick. West Coast is seriously considering him at this number in what looms as a specific selection given that it is the club’s final pick in this year's draft. With only two ruckman on its list – Dean Cox and Mark Seaby – the club is eager to bolster its stocks. Although the placement of Simpson is a matter of debate among recruiters, he has also been linked with Collingwood, Richmond, Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs. Chris Mayne is another to watch out for at No.22.
Bio: Developing big bodied player who is a fierce competitor and good overhead. Vic Country U18 representative this year. From Barnawartha FC.
polakthetiger
22 Nov 2007, 23:28
Is this kid Simpson any good? Good enough for pick 18? Or any chance he'll slide to 51? Looks like he is already a man-mountain. I reckon if we get a ruckman in the draft (and it seems we have our eyes on a couple), its game over for Richards. Couldn't see us adding 3 ruckman to the list, unless one was on the rookie list.
I was thinking the same thing earlier today..but thinking about it, he probably wouldn't be up to it for a few years, so would be a big risk for a pick 18. Pick 51 more like it...but 204cms and reported good o'head:thumbsu: Ruck contest..kick behind the play..in a few years he will be bigger..ouch!
I wouldnt waste a spot on the mainlist on a young Ruckman. They need at least 3-4 years before coming on. Rookie list one instead.
I'm the Juggernaut
23 Nov 2007, 15:44
Heard Miller on SEN say they wouln't use all the draft picks
I wouldnt waste a spot on the mainlist on a young Ruckman. They need at least 3-4 years before coming on. Rookie list one instead.
so just because they dont play in the first couple of years its not worth drafting young talented ruckman :o
why should clubs draft luenberger and kreuzer in the main draft when theirs guns like angus graham on offer as rookies :rolleyes:
tigerboyz
23 Nov 2007, 17:44
I'm happy with the first 3 picks but the 4th pick sucks.:thumbsd:
so just because they dont play in the first couple of years its not worth drafting young talented ruckman :o
why should clubs draft luenberger and kreuzer in the main draft when theirs guns like angus graham on offer as rookies :rolleyes:
if kruezer or luenburger dropped to pick 18 i'd draft them but what in hells chance is there of that happening rolly eyes?
Angus is coming along alot better than you think.
Based on Bugo order I would have
Cotchin -Mid
Gourids - KPP
Putt -Ruck
Rockliff Mid Forward
Pfeiffer Rookie
I would be happy with these picks
Bengal Tiger
23 Nov 2007, 20:48
Burgatron is a loser.
He gets more wrong than he gets right.
But sucking you guys in year after year earns him a living and a reputation.
Thank ALLAH that he is not Richmond's recruiting manager, or anyelse's for that matter.
I'll go one step further...........ABSOLUTE TOSSER.
RichosGuns
23 Nov 2007, 21:16
We will have 3 picks and take Richards in the PSD, this is almost certain I reckon
tigertiger
24 Nov 2007, 06:05
Burgatron is a loser.
He gets more wrong than he gets right.
But sucking you guys in year after year earns him a living and a reputation.
Thank ALLAH that he is not Richmond's recruiting manager, or anyelse's for that matter.
I'll go one step further...........ABSOLUTE TOSSER.
why dont you tell us what you really think
tigertiger
24 Nov 2007, 06:06
We will have 3 picks and take Richards in the PSD, this is almost certain I reckon
if we were certain to take him in the PSD then why would he nominate for this draft?