View Full Version : richmond quick fix e.g carlton of the 90s
blueboyyoung
22 Nov 2003, 12:40
it seems like richmond are going the quick fix they get nathan brown he will play for 5 years you could of got a good 10 year player then they get simon fletcher.
i just think there going the quick fix it want work im putting my money on them for the wooden spoon
thoughts
GhostofJimJess
22 Nov 2003, 12:55
I don't think you've delved too deeply in those thoughts, blueboy.
Gilmore, Roach, Jackson, Morrison, Hartigan, Tuck, Raines AND Archibald were also drafted by the Tigers, and with the exception of Morrison and Tuck, they're all pretty much raw 17 year-olds.
In fact, our first pick - Alex Gilmore - was eligible for the draft BY ONE DAY.
For the first time in quite a few years, it appears the Tigers have AVOIDED the "quick-fix".
Borgsta
22 Nov 2003, 13:09
yeah but the majority of these picks were after teams had stopped picking up players. Realistically how many of them can you expect to be good?
GhostofJimJess
22 Nov 2003, 13:54
Originally posted by Borgsta
yeah but the majority of these picks were after teams had stopped picking up players. Realistically how many of them can you expect to be good?
Richmond have no control over what other clubs decide to do with their picks.
And anyway, my rationale still stands, especially given that the Tigers first three picks were all 17 year-olds ... when every club was still in the game.
Crumden
22 Nov 2003, 14:06
Originally posted by blueboyyoung
it seems like richmond are going the quick fix they get nathan brown he will play for 5 years you could of got a good 10 year player then they get simon fletcher.
i just think there going the quick fix it want work im putting my money on them for the wooden spoon
thoughts
Carlton used their first 3 picks after their priority pick on recycled players, taking the total number of players they have obtained from other clubs to around 10. Seems a bit rich to then criticise Richmond for picking up two or three from other clubs.
Borgsta
22 Nov 2003, 14:13
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Richmond have no control over what other clubs decide to do with their picks.
And anyway, my rationale still stands, especially given that the Tigers first three picks were all 17 year-olds ... when every club was still in the game.
They also took 6 players after round 5.
The first pick was at 21, next 37 F/S and then 52 in the 4th round when only 10 (not 16) clubs partipated. I would be very surprised if more than 3 players become useful for Richmond.
Although Crumden is right, Carlton really cant talk about quick fixes.
bogan_blue
22 Nov 2003, 14:41
The reason why Carlton picked up Mott, Bowyer, Bannisster etc was we had no early draft picks anyway to draft quality young players in a fairly weak draft anyway besides Andrew Walker is going to be a star.
Getting Mott after getting rid of McKernan and Allan..desperate for a ruckman?
bogan_blue
22 Nov 2003, 14:56
Originally posted by pazza
Getting Mott after getting rid of McKernan and Allan..desperate for a ruckman?
Could have been worse, apparently they were keen on Ben Marsh.
Rather Mott that Allan or Marsh quite frankly
Mighty Blues
22 Nov 2003, 15:21
No point argueing! we all know carlton are and will always be better than the tiges!:D We picked up players at an average of 22 eyars old! thats not quick fix and they still have hope! Where as you guys nad the great Wayne Brittain take the dud Fletcher and last year FLeming. They have no hope! So any way good luck to the Tiges and just as an added note, Browny said he wanted to go to a club that will win a premiership while he is playing! Why would he choose the Tiges???????
Tigerbob
22 Nov 2003, 15:30
What a crock....
Richmond drafted very young, I think we assessed the position we were in and with the later picks we had, drafted players that still had another go in the U18's competition next year, who if left in that competition would be more talked about next year.
Overall Im happy, with only Morrison and Fletcher the disgarded players picked up by the club, and Morrison left Brisbane for more opportunities.
Alex Gilmour
Thomas Roach
Daniel Jackson
Brent Hartigan
Andrew Raines
Kyle Archibald
These players are all 17/18 years of age, hardly picking up rejects!!
Shane Morrison
Shane Tuck
Simon Fletcher
These are the mature age recruits, with Tuck being 21, Morrison 23 and Fletcher 25....
Next time research what your critisising, before looking stupid blueboytooyounggobacktobed.
scooter600x
22 Nov 2003, 16:40
Originally posted by Tigerbob
Andrew Raines
Didn't Raines get cut from the Brisbane rookie list?
footyman
22 Nov 2003, 17:46
Originally posted by scooter600x
Didn't Raines get cut from the Brisbane rookie list? That was his older brother Nick who got delisted by Brisbane.
GhostofJimJess
22 Nov 2003, 22:04
Originally posted by Borgsta
They also took 6 players after round 5.
The first pick was at 21, next 37 F/S and then 52 in the 4th round when only 10 (not 16) clubs partipated.
Fair enough, but only one pick had actually been passed on up until that stage, and that was by Melbourne the very previous pick (51). If you want to split hairs on this, I'll call you on saying the Tigers "took 6 players after round 5", when it was actually after Round 4 ?
Originally posted by Borgsta
I would be very surprised if more than 3 players become useful for Richmond.
So now you're saying that what Richmond has done will not be a "quick fix" ?! I'm confused.
Anyway, I would be very surprised if more than 3 players become useful to any club out of one single draft.
Rodan#18.
23 Nov 2003, 07:36
David Clarke (Geelong),
Daniel Harford (Hawthorn),
Brett Johnson (Hawthorn),
Jon McCormick (rookie),
Cory McGrath (Essendon),
Digby Morrell (Kangaroos),
Heath Scotland (Collingwood),
David Teague (Kangaroos)
Andrew Walker (Bendigo Pioneers)
Ricky Mott (Fremantle rookie)
Glen Bowyer (Hawthorn)
Jordon Bannister (Essendon)
Adrian DeLuca (Port Melbourne)
Stephen Kenna (Box Hill Hawks)
Nick Stevens(Collingwood...urr Port)
Yeah Blueboyyoung, your club really cleaned up the under 18 talent pool didn't they ? No quick fixes there. A real investment in Carltons future this mob.
The wooden spoon will be Navy Blue. Be proud.
:D
TheSheik
23 Nov 2003, 10:51
Bear in mind Rodan, that we have had no low draft picks for two years apart fro mthe Priority Pick we used to pick up Andrew Walker. We could not trade into the first two rounds either so what other methods do you propose we use to changeover our poop list ????
It's not the way I'd like to see the club go but given the penalties we had to get through, I think the club has done pretty well to improve the list overall and reduce the average age dramatically.
scooter600x
23 Nov 2003, 10:59
Apparently Carlton were concerned about the "must be contracted for 2 years" rule with regards to rookies.
They thought the kids left by then were crap and didn't want them on their list for 2 years.
Recycled players can be given 1 year deals.
Blue Fury
23 Nov 2003, 18:47
Fair go Rodan#18 Apart from Harford who is only 26yr the rest of the players are relatively young. It would be fair to say that most of that list haven’t be given a real go at their previous clubs. For most of the players this will be their final chance at AFL and with a bit of luck 50% of them will still be there in 3-5 years. I think Melbourne is a monty for the spoon.
scooter600x
23 Nov 2003, 23:03
Originally posted by Blue Fury
For most of the players this will be their final chance at AFL and with a bit of luck 50% of them will still be there in 3-5 years.
If they are, it will be a dark 3-5 years for the Blues.
Captain Blood
24 Nov 2003, 07:53
Originally posted by Borgsta
yeah but the majority of these picks were after teams had stopped picking up players. Realistically how many of them can you expect to be good?
Ever hear of a player by the name of James Hird who was picked up in the draft one year arrounf the number 70? And the list is endless. Just because you go in the top 20 doesn't auutomaticcally mean the rest are duds, unlike yourself.
Captain Blood
24 Nov 2003, 07:54
Originally posted by bogan_blue
The reason why Carlton picked up Mott, Bowyer, Bannisster etc was we had no early draft picks anyway to draft quality young players in a fairly weak draft anyway besides Andrew Walker is going to be a star.
Bogan, you are the biggest knob posting on Bigfooty. How many times do you contradict yourself.
Get off or shut up.
Blue Fury
24 Nov 2003, 10:19
Originally posted by Captain Blood
Ever hear of a player by the name of James Hird who was picked up in the draft one year arrounf the number 70? And the list is endless. Just because you go in the top 20 doesn't auutomaticcally mean the rest are duds, unlike yourself.
Your spot on, but teams which have an established core of senior players can take that risk and pick a couple of kids late. Carlton is still building its core list and can't afford to speculate with to many young kids at the moment. I would have loved for the blues to pick a couple of extra young 17-18 year old, but it was never going to happen.
bogan_blue
24 Nov 2003, 12:20
Right now I would have Carlton's list over Richmond's.
Rodan's an overrated hack (too fat, too slow) Gassy's got a crook knee, Richo's a whiny b!tch and most of their young players (Nicholls, Newman, etc) are unco.
And picking up Simon Fletcher ...
pfft.
Richmond and Carlton would be lucky to finish in the top 8. Richmond, for all their aggressive recruiting, only really gained Brown. Carlton gained a whole heap of decent players and they may be a match for a few teams, but i'd be suprised if they finished above 12th. Mind you, Carlton needed a major list improvement and that's what they got. They had plently of dud players who have now been flushed out, and while you could argue that they have brought in a lot of duds to replace them, its an improvement. What more can you do in an off season than improve your list? Richmond, however, gave up on a great player at pick 6, just for someone who is going to give them 5 more years and will never spearhead them towards a premiership.
In a few years, clubs like St Kilda, Geelong, Fremantle, and the doggies, who invested in youth for long-term gain, will be walking over Carlton and Richmond. Carlton did the best thing, Frawley wanted to save his arse.
itsintheblood
24 Nov 2003, 12:40
Originally posted by bogan_blue
Right now I would have Carlton's list over Richmond's.
Rodan's an overrated hack (too fat, too slow) Gassy's got a crook knee, Richo's a whiny b!tch and most of their young players (Nicholls, Newman, etc) are unco.
And picking up Simon Fletcher ...
pfft.
You carlton supporters are truely insane. You call David Rodan too slow? Is your brain in slow motion when you watch footy? You call him fat? I'd say whitnall is definately on the side of the titanic with his yearly visits to the fat farm. Rodan is one of the most electrifying youngsters in the AFL when he goes on one of his runs. Whitnall on the other hand is spent just flying up for a mark. Sorry did I say flying for a mark? I forgot elephants don't fly.
Admittedly Billy Nichols and Simon Fletcher won't be my two favourite players on the list but every team (apart from Brisbane) has players which could be put in the "ordinary" basket. We could put the whole carlton team in the "average" basket aside from Nick Stevens. I can see a replica collingwood team here from a few years ago when Buckley stood out amongst a team of duds. Make some room in your cutley draw mate. A few more spoons on the way for you!!.
Don Logan
24 Nov 2003, 13:42
Carlton's depth is abominable.
Remember since last season you have lost your last two B&F winners which will impact more than you think.
bogan_blue
24 Nov 2003, 13:51
Originally posted by Don Logan
Carlton's depth is abominable.
Remember since last season you have lost your last two B&F winners which will impact more than you think.
Our gap between our best and worst players is not as bad as Richmond's, for every Ottens or Coughlan, they seem to have twice as many Billy Nicholls, or Houlihans etc.
Yes Mckay's loss will hurt, but not Mckernan, he did practically nothing all year and frankly Carlton got a great deal for him.
Don Logan
24 Nov 2003, 13:53
You don't know that as a fact but it IS a fact you don't have your premier (in your Match Commitee's eyes) players saddling up in 2004.
itsintheblood
24 Nov 2003, 14:34
Originally posted by Don Logan
You don't know that as a fact but it IS a fact you don't have your premier (in your Match Commitee's eyes) players saddling up in 2004.
If you listen to all these carlton supporters it's actually quite funny they think they'll improve dramatically with the players they've picked up. They have no ruck division to speak of and no backline and if Barney Rubble in the ruck goes down injured who's going to take over?
itsintheblood
24 Nov 2003, 14:35
Originally posted by bogan_blue
Our gap between our best and worst players is not as bad as Richmond's, for every Ottens or Coughlan, they seem to have twice as many Billy Nicholls, or Houlihans etc.
Yes Mckay's loss will hurt, but not Mckernan, he did practically nothing all year and frankly Carlton got a great deal for him.
You dont have a gap between your best and your worst because you dont have a best to compare your worst with in the first place!!! Pretty hard to compare duds with duds!!!
Crumden
24 Nov 2003, 15:06
Originally posted by bogan_blue
Our gap between our best and worst players is not as bad as Richmond's, for every Ottens or Coughlan, they seem to have twice as many Billy Nicholls, or Houlihans etc.
Actually, ATM both teams have the same number of Houlihans.
Blue Fury
24 Nov 2003, 17:12
Everybody knew Carlton had an ordinary list and accordingly they finished second last. My question is what is Richmond’s excuse for only winning a couple of more games then us. The Blues have overhauled their list, what have the toothless Tigers done?
Crumden
24 Nov 2003, 19:09
Originally posted by Blue Fury
The Blues have overhauled their list, what have the toothless Tigers done?
So far in the trade and draft we have added 10 new players to the list and will add at least another one in the PSD. That is a fairly substantial change to the list in any one season.
One or two Blues fans seem to be basing their assessment of Richmond's entire drafting strategy on the fact that we drafted Fletcher with pick 79. IMO Fletcher was a questionable choice at best, but the majority of our picks we used on kids.
bogan_blue
30 Nov 2003, 14:56
Originally posted by Crumden
So far in the trade and draft we have added 10 new players to the list and will add at least another one in the PSD. That is a fairly substantial change to the list in any one season.
One or two Blues fans seem to be basing their assessment of Richmond's entire drafting strategy on the fact that we drafted Fletcher with pick 79. IMO Fletcher was a questionable choice at best, but the majority of our picks we used on kids.
Yes but once again you gave up a first draft pick (which basically are the most valuable draft commodotie) for a player who can be very hot or cold (Brown)
I am confident Carlton has a list that talent wise, is stronger than Richmond, Melbourne, Geelong etc ?
One-eyed Tiger
30 Nov 2003, 18:04
We'll just have to wait and see.
I'm confident we've got a better list than Carlton and will finish higher.
Having said that I'd be more confident if we had Pagan at the helm instead of Spud.
Penetrator
30 Nov 2003, 19:34
Tiger supporters are you going to buy memberships this year and get back on the BANDWAGON or go missing like last year ????
We finished 16th last year but at least we had 34000 members.
How many finals have you been in the last 20 years ??? hahahahaha
Originally posted by bogan_blue
Yes but once again you gave up a first draft pick (which basically are the most valuable draft commodotie) for a player who can be very hot or cold (Brown)
I am confident Carlton has a list that talent wise, is stronger than Richmond, Melbourne, Geelong etc ?
With Richmond's past history of top 10 draft picks (off the top of my head I can think of Pat Steinfort, Justin Murphy, Anthony Banik, Kane Pettifer and Aaron Fiora), I am more than happy with Richmond giving away pick 6 to pick up Brown.
Anyway, in the words of Matt Burgen (I think), Alex Gilmore at pick 21 is a "cracker" of a pick.
itsintheblood
1 Dec 2003, 15:02
Originally posted by Penetrator
Tiger supporters are you going to buy memberships this year and get back on the BANDWAGON or go missing like last year ????
We finished 16th last year but at least we had 34000 members.
How many finals have you been in the last 20 years ??? hahahahaha
How many finals have you been in without cheating and rorting the salary cap??? NONE!!!!
Well that list of players looks better than the entire Tige list!!
Have my money on Carlton over Richmond when they meet next year. :D :D
itsintheblood
2 Dec 2003, 08:49
Originally posted by mjm28
Well that list of players looks better than the entire Tige list!!
Have my money on Carlton over Richmond when they meet next year. :D :D
I'll take as much as you like loser.
Name your bet.
Originally posted by itsintheblood
I'll take as much as you like loser.
Name your bet.
Don't be so confident. Even in the worst two years of our entire histroy, we still managed to beat you. Richmond are the only team that can't claim that they've beaten Carlton at their lowest point. Even if you're still better than us.
bogan_blue
3 Dec 2003, 14:46
Originally posted by Thrawn
Don't be so confident. Even in the worst two years of our entire histroy, we still managed to beat you. Richmond are the only team that can't claim that they've beaten Carlton at their lowest point. Even if you're still better than us.
The upside of Carlton's list is stronger than Richmond's IMO.
When Campbell, Richo and Gasbag retire in around 3 years time, what is left ?
Ottens, Coughlan, that's about it.
bogan_blue, as you have just admitted that you think Campbell, Gaspar and Richo are irreplaceable players, I certainly hope this isn't a sign you are leaning towards Richmond as your next club.
GhostofJimJess
5 Dec 2003, 21:32
Originally posted by tro-boy
With Richmond's past history of top 10 draft picks (off the top of my head I can think of Pat Steinfort, Justin Murphy, Anthony Banik, Kane Pettifer and Aaron Fiora), I am more than happy with Richmond giving away pick 6 to pick up Brown.
How convenient that you overlook Darren Gaspar, Brad Ottens, and Kane Johnson in your summary of Richmond's use of Top 10 draft picks ....
Gaspar was picked up as an uncontracted player in the PSD while Richmond traded for Johnson
the gap between the blues best and worst is not as big as the tigers because all the blues players are equally crap.
Originally posted by blaise
the gap between the blues best and worst is not as big as the tigers because all the blues players are equally crap.
I'm sure Anthony Koutoufides is just as bad as Anthony Franchina.
Can we use this guy to torture enemy soldiers in case we have a future war? I mean, the stupidity in this guy would justify insanity if locked in a room together.
I would think that most clubs would have given away a first rd draft pick for Nathan Brown, so to say we just gave away another first rd pick is nonsence. The securing of Brown was a major coup, one that Collingwood and Carlton both tried and failed to acheive.
As for quality of list, the photo in the paper yesterday showed up how much quality the blues have added - Nick Stevens, Andrew Walker and possibly Heath Scotland. The rest we will call Poly Filler - just covering the cracks
mightybaggers
12 Dec 2003, 21:35
The securing of Brown was a major coup, one that Collingwood and Carlton both tried and failed to acheive.
Don't know who your sources are mate, but Brown actually approached Carlton and we didn't see him as a priority, or did we ever make an attempt to make him a navy blue.
My source.....a bloke called Nathan Brown, plays footy a bit, you may have heard of him
bogan_blue
16 Dec 2003, 13:13
Originally posted by Tivva
My source.....a bloke called Nathan Brown, plays footy a bit, you may have heard of him
He is soft and inconsistent, not worth a first round draft pick.
We'll take our luck with Nick Stevens in the PSD thanks, cost us nothing and we got a young gun in Walker.
Captain Blood
16 Dec 2003, 13:36
Originally posted by bogan_blue
He is soft and inconsistent, not worth a first round draft pick.
We'll take our luck with Nick Stevens in the PSD thanks, cost us nothing and we got a young gun in Walker.
Are you still here? Thought you would be on the streets celebrating.
Soft??????? The last time Nick Stevens got his kness dirty was after his Under 10 pie night when EVERY kid jumps in the mud for fun.
Nathan Brown is Glenn Archer compared to Nick Stevens
bionicsasquach
16 Dec 2003, 16:29
Originally posted by Crumden
Actually, ATM both teams have the same number of Houlihans. Now this, i like:D :D
bionicsasquach
16 Dec 2003, 16:33
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm sure Anthony Koutoufides is just as bad as Anthony Franchina.
Can we use this guy to torture enemy soldiers in case we have a future war? I mean, the stupidity in this guy would justify insanity if locked in a room together. another good one:D :D
bionicsasquach
16 Dec 2003, 16:45
Now think about this, Every thread that evr concerns richmond points out that we only have so many talented players. which is fair enuf we don't exactly have stars oozing from everywhere but if u consider the players who everyone always points out they actually cover most divisions, but we definately need to acquire more talent in both the midfield (which was 2 years ago considered our weakest point) and our forward line, which is exactly what brown is available to do. he can attempt to cover both problems while we attempt one last crack with established players, once this lot move through then i am sure we will rebuild but why would we do it too early and waist a possible crack at glory. Trust me in no way am i saying we are premiership favourites but as we consistenly prove in bursts, we can play excellent football. hopefully this year is will be consistent. My only problem with trading pick 6 is that we missed out on Tenace, i thought he would have gone by then, and he was what we needed more than any other player in the draft.
Originally posted by Penetrator
Tiger supporters are you going to buy memberships this year and get back on the BANDWAGON or go missing like last year ????
We finished 16th last year but at least we had 34000 members.
How many finals have you been in the last 20 years ??? hahahahaha
yawn - this is type of response is so boring - but then again you are new here.
itsintheblood
18 Dec 2003, 13:03
Originally posted by mightybaggers
Don't know who your sources are mate, but Brown actually approached Carlton and we didn't see him as a priority, or did we ever make an attempt to make him a navy blue.
Now tell me why Nathan Brown would wanna go from a team that only won 3 games to a club that is full of rejects? I think your sources are bit dodgey son. He stated from day one that Richmond was his choice. You recruited Harford cause Brown wasnt a priority!!!
Orangewhip
18 Dec 2003, 15:48
Originally posted by itsintheblood
Now tell me why Nathan Brown would wanna go from a team that only won 3 games to a club that is full of rejects? I think your sources are bit dodgey son. He stated from day one that Richmond was his choice. You recruited Harford cause Brown wasnt a priority!!!
Harford was traded as part of a package. Pagan was after Brett Johnson. Harford came as an extra with the Hawks paying half his wage.
Brown was never a true priority. We were after Harvey, Power and Stevens. We got Stevens.
Richmond have a great club song.
Nonsence, Brown was as much a priority for Carlton as Harvey, Stevens et al..
Brown told the blues thanks but no thanks after he realised that the blues had nothing to offer in a trade with the bullies.
Same for Harvey, Power and Stevens. The only reason the Blues got Stevens was the Pies wouldn't offer up anything decent in trade.
However, well done Blues for getting Stevens for nothing..
Borgsta
20 Dec 2003, 16:32
Originally posted by itsintheblood
He stated from day one that Richmond was his choice.
Day 1, please! He stated Richmond was his choice on day 1 after he had been wined and dined by other clubs. Dont delude yourself.
mightybaggers
20 Dec 2003, 18:04
Nonsence, Brown was as much a priority for Carlton as Harvey, Stevens et al..
why don't you just observe what was said by orangewhip regarding Brown, power, harvey, stevo........ as that is exactly spot on from what orangewhip said and will save a pointless argument.
What??
Orange Whip wrote that Brown was never a true priority for the blues, and that they were into Stevens, Harvey.....
My point was that Brown was a big priority for the blues but they couldn't get him.
You even wrote that Brown approached Carlton.....what crap..
mightybaggers
22 Dec 2003, 21:21
errrr.................
read it again
yelse tivva
Mighty, I am reading but not understanding what you are saying.
If you can provide me with a better explanation so I can get my fried tiger mind around your point I will reload and respond.
As it is Xmas, I am in a cheery mood and want to have a frutifull discussion with my fellow man
Cheers
Tivva:D
mightybaggers
24 Dec 2003, 07:00
haha............ ok
what i was saying was that Orangewhip is spot on regarding Carlton's priorities leading upto trade week. Stevens, Harvey, Power were all huge priorities, but Nathan Brown was not considered amongst that elite group. Yes that is what Orangewhip said and i told you too take note of his post into fact because that was the true scenario. Brown would of been great for the blues, but we showed little interest and if he was too become a blue it would only be via the Pre-season draft where Stevens was available.........
The reason why Brown wasn't chased by Carlton is because Pagan didn't think he was committed enough, and he wouldn't address our needs where Stevens would.
Ausgard
24 Dec 2003, 09:09
Originally posted by mightybaggers
haha............ ok
what i was saying was that Orangewhip is spot on regarding Carlton's priorities leading upto trade week. Stevens, Harvey, Power were all huge priorities, but Nathan Brown was not considered amongst that elite group. Yes that is what Orangewhip said and i told you too take note of his post into fact because that was the true scenario. Brown would of been great for the blues, but we showed little interest and if he was too become a blue it would only be via the Pre-season draft where Stevens was available.........
The reason why Brown wasn't chased by Carlton is because Pagan didn't think he was committed enough, and he wouldn't address our needs where Stevens would.
Also Brown is more of a "Larrikan" sort of person while Nick Stevens takes a more "professional" approach to things like dealing with the media and stuff like that (this is my impression at least)
All things considered equal I know which type of player Denis "Rules with an Iron First" Pagan would want
Fair enuff Mighty....
My understanding of things was that the blues had discussions with Brown early on but were out of the race as Brown didn't want to go into the PSD, where as you pointed out was the only chance of getting Brown.
As to the value of Brown v Stevens, will get back to you in Ocotober 2004.
Merry Xmas
Tivva
bogan_blue
25 Dec 2003, 16:11
Obviosly Carlton will get far more value through Stevens simply because he cost us nothing (IN THE PSD) whereas Richmond gave up a 1st rnd draft pick which they could have used on a Bradley, Tenace or Raphael Clarke ...
Which club is better off ...
Carlton with Walker and Stevo or Richmond with Nat Brown.
When evaluating players like Brown v Stevens, I would only base it on their onfield exploits.
To take into account what the club gave up for him etc.... IMO becomes a pointless argument as it unfairly judges a player on areas which are out of their control.
Steven's and Brown's value will come through helping their teams win games of footy. Come Rd 1 noone will give a s**t what a particular player cost and what was possibly given up for him.
wrennyboy
5 Jan 2004, 20:57
it seems like richmond are going the quick fix
Greg Miller initially said that he wanted a ballanced list. We have a balance of Young Draftees, Middle age and veterens now and along with that a mix of talls and smalls. If we didnt pick up Morrison and fletcher etc we wouldnt have a ballanced list and they would have no afl experience. We wouldnt want kids coming to play whenever we have an injury. Although it is tempting that we could have 7 guns out on the feild in a few years but greg miller has brought balance to the Richmond List. Nathan Brown is the most valueble out of Rawlings and Stephens as he can play Back Flank,Midfield or Forward Quite well. Rawlings is overrated