- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,462
- 58,052
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
Comedy hour and I'm glad I didn't miss it. Lol
Player Watch #43: Todd Elton
- Thread starter Lukey D
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,462
- 58,052
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
When is your phone due to s**t itself again? Mate you shouldn't involve yourself in situations if you can't interpret them clearly.
Stop wasting people's time on here with silly one liners.
HumanMeatball
Brownlow Medallist
Ill do as I please I reckon old friend
the fact a significant amount more people have you blocked compared to me, means I'll probably pass on taking posting advice from yourself. Enjoy your night.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,462
- 58,052
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
So that makes you better?Ill do as I please I reckon old friend
Haven't you heard of the saying
"It's not quantity, but quality."
I say pity them if you're right.
i like em, gets straight to the point...
....
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8,816
- 8,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
And how many outside of Riewoldt (which FJ almost screwed up by trading away our pick to Freo for Polak+pick) and Rance?
Griffiths and Astbury taken in 2009, Astbury at pick 35 is a very good pick, Griffiths is a wasted pick considering what we could have taken.
Our success has come from trading in KPPs, we've wasted far to many picks on KPPs, pick 30(?) For McBean and the GCS compensation pick which was an early second round I believe for Elton.
Let's go through some of the drafts we'll start with 2010 and see where clubs have gotten best value out of there draft picks for KPPs.
2010 draft
Sam Day pick 3 (dud)
Daniel Gorringe pick 10 (dud)
Thomas Lynch pick 11 (gun)
Lucas Cook pick 12 (dud)
Seb Tape pick 13 (dud)
Matthew Watson pick 18 (dud)
Jack Darling (good player)
Scott Lycett pick 29 (dud)
Patrick McCarthy pick 34 (dud)
Now let's look at the same draft and see some gems in the later rounds, PSD and rookie draft.
Tom McDonald pick 53(decent defender)
Alex Johnson pick 57 (good defender cruelled by consecutive ACLs)
Alex Silvagni pick 109 promoted rookie (decent FB but limited)
Josh Jenkins pick 12 rookie draft (decent forward)
Tom Jonas pick 16 (decent defender but undersized for his role)
Jeremy McGovern pick 44 rookie draft (gun)
2011 is the same Jon Patton at pick 3 though, could be anything but at the moment is just a decent forward.
Interestingly probably the best KPPs (in terms of pick used/output) from 2011 were taken in the rookie draft, Sam Frost and Mark Blicavs, Sam Rowe pick 44 in the ND is decent value.
2012 same story, Lachie Plowman at pick 3, ok defender, still finding his feet but definitely not worth pick 3, Kristian Jaksch at pick 12 is a fail, Brodie Grundy at pick 19 good get, and again best value comes in the rookie draft, Matt Taberner pick 11 RD Callum Sinclair pick 12 RD Jack Frost RD.
I'm sure you get the point I'm trying to make, unless it's a good pick such as something in the top10, and it's a strong draft, it really is a gamble to pick KPPs with top picks, most of the quality big uys come from late ND picks or rookie picks, we wasted two good picks on McBean and Elton, and wasted many more prior to them, so it comes as no surprise with the club changing tactic and picking the smaller/medium guys who are a far less risk of not making it then these big guys, our own two most exciting prospects have come from late picks Garthwaite (pick 76 ND) and Mabior Chol (Rooke draft) you can even throw in Moore pick 12 in the RD as people were getting excited with his form in the VFL prior to injury.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 29,462
- 58,052
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- The Fanboi Farters
He misses the point though. Pretty well like you do most times.i like em, gets straight to the point...
First Sam Day is not a dud, by no means a star but was really starting to hit his straps last year before that shocking hip injury this year.
Second I've never said you cannot find very good tall defenders or rucks late, but it's bloody hard to find gun kpf outside the first 25 or so.
And you've also quoted 3 drafts that had they eyes picked out of them before hand, Dixon, May, Cameron and Hogan off the top of my head.
Any first round selection is a risk, hardly like Conca, Ellis, Vlastuin, Lennon and Ellis have set the world on fire. But let's be honest you've picked out 12 players in what about 3-400 selections over 3 drafts, for every Tom McDonald there are 3 Patrick McCarthy, Luke Mitchell, Joel Tippets.
But the other problem is we weren't even drafting them at any pick, Derrickx, Wright (not really KPP size), McKenzie, Soldo in 5 drafts 2010-2014.
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8,816
- 8,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I started from 2010 because that's when Hartley come over, and actually it's hard to find a gun forward with a top 3 pick let alone finding one with anything as late as pick 30, and yes, you're proving my point, the draft pools were shallow, even with gun picks clubs were drafting duds, the talent was just not there. You're basically having a sook that we didn't waste more good picks on duds.
Why is your cut off 2014? Is it because if you add Moore, Chol and Garthwaite it doesn't look as bad as you think it does?
And I really think you need to go have a look through those drafts and see really just how slim it was for good quality KPPs.
Also Conca, B Ellis and Vlastuin are fine selections, Conca the only surprising one at the time but he's had is injury issues and shown he's a very good footballer when given a proper run at it.
And you really have missed my point, a top3-5 pick will guarantee a good player, Hogan (mini draft) Patton, Boyd, Weitering etc, but if you don't have one of those picks it really is a lottery, Ben Brown was pick 47 in the ND and he's better then those I've mentioned, Tom Barrass in the 40s etc, better to take a gamble late in the draft then with early picks.
No I'm sick of FJ getting all the s**t and Blair getting off scott free. The guy is every bit at fault as FJ and needs to be moved on at the end of the year. IMO he has the most important position at the club.
Finding a KPF is bloody hard, they are either early picks or zone/father-sons/academy types. But it's impossible if you don't take the risk. FWIW I know full well that their was a chance Peter Wright would make it to 12 in 2014 and FJ wanted him if he made it, he was overruled and told it was a player type we didn't need (this was then overruled again by Dan).
I chose those years because 4 talls in 5 years is the reason we have a massive hole in our list for KPP. Yes we've improved the last two years but still only rookie picks and my bet is only Garthwaite makes it, but we also should have had a crack at Stewart or X.Richards as cover for Griff not hope comes good Elton.
To find an out and out gun KPP it takes risk and luck, you have to spend the pick on one when you get the chance or hope a f/s or academy comes along. Thats why I'm very happy we are targeting Schache
I was a bit harsh on them as they are all good players, but none a stars and are players we could live without. Conca is finished unfortunately. And yes apart from Grundy probably no one picked after BEllis and Vlas you'd rather but it was more to show a pattern that ended with Lennon and CEllis who i pray come good but a couple of guys who went after would look good in yellow and black right now.
No i get that the higher your picks the easier it is to access them but apart from McGovern the players after 25-30 (not rucks) are serviceable (although i'd take a serviceable CHF over elton) but no stars. There are plenty of duds and quite a few serviceable ones in that 5-25 (can push out to 30 occasionally) range have plenty of guys who challenge for AA selection or will in the future.
Cam McCarthy pick 13, Rory Lobb pick 29, Jack Reiwoldt 13, Daniel Talia 13, Jake Lever 14, Tom Lynch 10, Peter Wright 8, Schulz 12, R.Tarrant 15, Taylor 17, Rance 18, Trengove 22, Carlisle 24, Darling 26, Grundy 18 etc...
But my original point was that FJ cops a whack for being a poor recruiter (and he probably was average) but Blair and Hardwick came in and changed the type of player we targeted early and deserve a whack for poor list managment, especially failing to identify our lack of talls and not moving them on fast enough.
FWIW i also don't think you should draft tall for the sake of a tall like a Josh Battle or Patrick Kerr who are both very poor athletes, but guys like Durdin, McCarthy, Lever, Grundy should be priorities at our picks if available between 5-20 unless its a Dusty or Cotchin which it also rarely is outside a top 5 pick.
absolutely spot on.
like to add just one point as well.
There are only 60 - 75 kids taken in each nd ??? there would only be a dozen if your lucky who are genuine kpps if you need kpps and none are worth taking a punt on with a first rounder, then if you want to be able to target a decently credentialed one then you have to take a punt with a second or third rounder or risk missing out altogether.
Simple fact is, all of our tall eggs went into too few baskets we have largely ignored the problems that were there in fact we continue to do so.
So few get drafted and of those who do it is a high fail rate its why when you start a rebuild you load up on the talls.
Not many are prepared to say how many talls are needed that is Ruckmen/ Ruck/fwds, kpds, kpfs, third tall fwd, third tall def, are required on a teams list. personally the common sense number for a SETTLED LIST is 16 or 17. More if you are building because of the lack of numbers in each draft the time frame for talls to develop and the high hit miss ratio. Fmd we all go into these things with eyes wide open yet the same lame duck excuses are trotted out time after time.
Fmd you dont take less talls because of the failures you take more because you know there is a high fail rate.
All clubs manage to grow a decent list of talls but there has been one very obvious exception to this. Yep you guessed it us and its all down to list management.
Have to ask over the yrs under this regime how many kpps have we even rookied. People going crook about useing top picks on talls which in our case is not so,
if 2010 is the start point, a point where numbers were low and quality was questionable in a big way.forget about about rookies you have to ask what heve we even done in the nd.
nd
63 derickx mature ruckman
26 elton
31 McIntosh who was taken as a mid according to the club.
33 mcBean a young ruckman or 200cm kpp take your pick lol. was asking why at the time and still am.didnt we have Vickery and Griffiths who were the same type 200cm ruck /fwd types.
77 McKenzie sheesh finally another genuine kpp alas it was not to be.
67 Broad a running defender who just happens to be tall.
72 Garthwaite a 192 cm tall defender hardly kpp size but a tall at least.
thats our investment thru the nd of talls yet alone kpps.
It is not defensible yet bolkes like MT try to defend the investment.
Fair dinkum there are just two conclusions to be had.
1/ we dont see the need and have done nothing about it
2/ we are incompetent.
either way its not good. how long has those so called list managers been running things.
if 2010 is the start point, a point where numbers were low and quality was questionable in a big way.forget about about rookies you have to ask what heve we even done in the nd.
nd
63 derickx mature ruckman
26 elton
31 McIntosh who was taken as a mid according to the club.
33 mcBean a young ruckman or 200cm kpp take your pick lol. was asking why at the time and still am.didnt we have Vickery and Griffiths who were the same type 200cm ruck /fwd types.
77 McKenzie sheesh finally another genuine kpp alas it was not to be.
67 Broad a running defender who just happens to be tall.
72 Garthwaite a 192 cm tall defender hardly kpp size but a tall at least.
thats our investment thru the nd of talls yet alone kpps.
It is not defensible yet bolkes like MT try to defend the investment.
Fair dinkum there are just two conclusions to be had.
1/ we dont see the need and have done nothing about it
2/ we are incompetent.
either way its not good. how long has those so called list managers been running things.
To Calcium Man, MightyTiger, Mopsy and co. I appreciate your insight. What about this year? What do you really think the club wants to do now that it's staring us in the face? Is it Schache or bringing in a KPF from another club or the draft? Both?
Your kidding yeah !! Which list are you considering to be the best example if we take into consideration 193 to be the height for KPP
14-15 max
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8,816
- 8,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I think the club has been well aware of our lack of KPF or lack of quality ones, what they seem to have done is take a far more conservative approach after wasting two second round picks and most drafts genuinely being very shallow on good KPPs in the early/mid draft picks.
With the introduction of free agency it is far easier to fill gaps that a club may have in the team, this year there is Reid available and a handful of other forwards available, without any inside knowledge I think the club will place its focus in the Schache basket, if we land him our future is pretty much secured post Riewoldt era if we can develop this kid into a quality footballer. I also think the club will look to bring in a ready made KPF, the likes of Riewoldt, Rance Cotchin etc have maybe 3-5 good years left of quality football, Schache is one for the future, but even they wouldn't be silly enough to think a 21-22 year old KPP having second year blues will be good enough to hold down the CHF spot and play good consistant football.
lol just goes to show the ignorance of some.this has been done so many times.
Genuine tall widely regarded as a bloke 190cm and above.
been going on for at least 10 yrs about the numbers needed in each area and most clubs actually meet the criteria.
It is very simple and logical.
4 kpds, 4 kpfs, two tall defenders two tall fwds two ruckmen two ruck/fwds.
normal structure for sides is
two kpds some play three in our case Rance, Astbury with two in the ressies say a junior and one in development.
Most sides play at least one tall defender usually a slightly smaller mobile type who offers flexability and run in our case Grimes. so you want one in the ressies developing
repeat the process with fwds.
similar with ruckmen one on game day one developing in the twos. ruck/fwd the same.
Looking at a side in early development then look at carlton atm they would have to have 19 20 talls on their list a lot will fail but this is allowed for with the numbers it allows for longer development time the difficulty in aquiring talls and the high fail rate.
Ask yourself how many genuine mids do we or other teams play on game day the answer would be around 7 thru 9 the logical answer to that would be to have 16 18 genuine mids on your list thru all spectrums of development that is junior, development, mature and vets.further more clubs also have genuine tall mids to go with their otther talls.
It still leaves 10 spots for specialist flankers some of whom can rotate thru the middle.
16 17 talls on your list it is easily done and does not affect your ability to look after the other areas of the list.
So no im not kidding and id say by your response you need to open your eyes.you need to understand you need numbers not just for a starting 22 but essentially the numbers for a reserves side as well.
- Oct 15, 2008
- 2,824
- 5,065
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Fulham FC, Real Madrid
i went to the pre-game function with my TTT shirt on - you probably ignored meWas at the Gabba as well - how come you didn't say hello!
You would have also seen big Elton lose in the body on body contests at ground level AGAINST much smaller players - Rich was one I think. He can halve a contest in the air if not pushed off the line, but on the ground he has no core which amazed me. He has to handball, can't kick for nuts (so far at least). Has no tank - can't do repeat hit ups. And still we can say he's not the worst
Your stuck in the 80's and 90's mate these days 190cm are midfielders and not KPP , I would consider anybody thats below 193cm a kpp any longer with midfielders now 190/192 cm tall
If you are to say 190cm+ we currently have 16 on our list and if you add lennon who supposedly now is 190 we have 17
5 KPF - 193+
5 KPF - 193 +
3 Ruckman
2 Utility types 193+
15 players that are kpp / Ruck / Utility types in todays game are more than enough,Its all about speed and flexibilty these days
your living in the 80's with your structure and the days of 190cm kpp are over they are now midfielders / flankers
Has to be Schache, guy was top 2 pick for a reason and showed it in year one.
But thats not enough, Elton, Griff, Maric and Hampson should be moved on. Hampson will keep his spot virtue of no other rucks and one of Elton and Griff will be kept depending on if Griff retires.
But we need to target either a KPP in the first round or trade for a young developing KPP like Himmelberg, Kieran Collins, Jake Kolodjashnij, Jake Lever (Dreaming though), Sam Durdin, Daniel McStay, Hugh Goddard, Aliir Aliir and Peter Wright (Dreaming as well).
If you can get Reid via FA that helps as well but i don't see the point targeting best 22 KPD when we already have Rance, Astbury and Grimes. A guy like Trengove cost 6-700k to get across from Port and he won't play VFL, so you break up Astbury and Rance who are forming a great partnership to accomodate him, which seems stupid to me.
We also need to target another ruck late in the draft or as a rookie, personally I like the idea of ruckman who are 21-22 and been getting it done at state level, not sure who the current crop is but think Rory Lobb and Darcy Cameron from the past. Otherwise trade for Darcy Cameron (that'll please THE_GUN) or one i like (know his family so i am biased) is Oscar McInerney on the rookie list at the Lions who is 204cm, moves like a midfielder and killing it at NEAFL like he did VFL (http://www.aflplayerratings.com.au/Ratings/Player/124965/Oscar-MCINERNEY). If we got one of those two or something similar who could dump Hampson as well and still rookie another younger ruck.
Tango67
Club Legend
- Oct 9, 2013
- 1,799
- 3,044
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I agree with what is being said here although as some one rightly pointed out a KPP is above 193 not 190.
the other thing to note is it's not just a pure numbers game, if the tall player
is not there at your pick you can't pick one just because your weak in that area, however sometimes you need to load up on your weaknesses to try and get 1 or 2 right.
history suggests that obtaining a quality spine and supporting that with hardworking players is the secret to sustained success.
if you look at our unsuccesfull periods i would argue that our spine has lacked genuine class.
Agree with most except the Jackson Trengove point you made.
Jackson Trengove can play CHB.and also would do a lot better job than Griffiths at CHF as well as give a chop out in the ruck.
I been going on about Darcy Cameron for 3 years and he would have been perfect for Richmond and He would currently be getting games ahead of Griffiths ,Elton and giving support to Nank - All this on $70,000 a year
oh i see so we dont actually differentiate between a tall and a kpp nowdays.
Did i say that 190cm makes you a kpp, dont believe i did, i said it makes you a tall
Lol a 190 plus mid would be considered a tall mid.
a bloke like stringer at 192 is a tall but he aint a kpf thats for sure.
Again where do we make the distinction Garthwaite is 192 and Mcintosh is also 192 but they arent kpp height by your own words. But does that mean they are not tall players. Seems in your little world it does mean they are not tall because there are some tall mids going around at that height.
You cant make that distinction wow.
So lets get this straight your here having a go at me and telling me im allowing for too many talls 16 because that will stop us obtaining enough players with speed and flexability, yet your allowing for 15 talls, 5 kpfs and 5 kpds and two utilities above 193cm. and three genuine rucks. and to top it off dont think players between 190cm and 192cm are genuinely tall.
Okay then i give up, how can one argue with that sort of stupidity.
By the way 16 talls leave 28 spots for other needs 15 talls leaves 29 spots for other needs how many menadues do you want, your talking speed and flexability arent ya..
At the end of the day you are allowing for 2 more of the less mobile usually slower kpp types than me but one less ruckman.
I do have this right your splitting hairs over one extra tall on the list and 3cm or 1inch in old speak to what constitutes a tall.
Let me ask you is Callum Moore a tall or a kpp. To me hes a tall but not a kpp even though he is 193cm. there are distinctions to be made, IN THIS CASE ACCORDING TO YOU HES KPP HEIGHT BUT, it wont be his height that will determine if he becomes a kpp but size and strength.
Apologies for the caps.
Finally it would be rather foolish would it not if you include blokes like Grigg or Lennon in your tall stocks when clearly one is a flanker and the other a mid.
But in saying that i looked at four clubs the two premiership favorites and the bottom teams in rebuild
190cm plus players including mids and flankers
Adelaide 19
Gws 18
Brisbane 23
Carlton 21.
Call it what you like bud 80's 90's thinking but it seems plenty of clubs thing the same way. maybe you need to look a bit closer at what is happening eh.
As i have already pointed out i was NOT arguing specific height for a kpp, the gun managed to bring that up. i was not debating about kpps specifically but what is a genuinely tall player. surely you would agree a player between 190cm and 193cm is a genuine tall and can play quite comfortably as a third tall.
I also dont believe i said it was a purely numbers game i just made the point that very few talls are taken or are available in each draft an awful lot are indeed taken in the second and third rounds.sometimes if there is a need you may have to pay overs to get em into your system.
Lastly i agree part of the whole list management debate concerning talls has been not just the numbers invested in but the quality or lack there of.
Sorry Mopsy but you have totally lost the plot !!
" when you start a rebuild you load up on the talls.
Not many are prepared to say how many talls are needed that is Ruckmen/ Ruck/fwds, kpds, kpfs, third tall fwd, third tall def, are required on a teams list. personally the common sense number for a SETTLED LIST is 16 or 17. More if you are building because of the lack of numbers in each draft the time frame for talls to develop and the high hit miss ratio."
You are clearly indicating KPP & Ruckman - Certainly not 190cm Midfielders
You tangled up in your own web - Get some sleep and stop drinking
" when you start a rebuild you load up on the talls.
Not many are prepared to say how many talls are needed that is Ruckmen/ Ruck/fwds, kpds, kpfs, third tall fwd, third tall def, are required on a teams list. personally the common sense number for a SETTLED LIST is 16 or 17. More if you are building because of the lack of numbers in each draft the time frame for talls to develop and the high hit miss ratio."
You are clearly indicating KPP & Ruckman - Certainly not 190cm Midfielders
You tangled up in your own web - Get some sleep and stop drinking
Your taking the piss arent ya.no one can be that stupid.
mate you misinterpreted what was being said and your so pathetic you cant admit it.
i have never at any time over the last 10 yrs not included what is deemed by just about every one third tall options yes that means fwds and backs.
Those third tall options are blokes like Garthwaite McIntosh even Grimes they play tall have genuine height but they are not kpps. As i said its amazing you can not make a simple distinction between a tall player and a kpp.
And your right i was clearly indicating tall fwds/def and ruckmen not specifically kpps that was you jumping in feet first.
If you actually took time to read peoples posts you would see in many on this subject i have broken down this debate into the following there should be no misunderstanding
KPF, Tall fwd, KPD, Tall defender, Ruckmen, Ruck/FWD. Never a mention of tall mids.
I have even put our players into their right categories to make it simple.
As stated if you actually read peoples posts or took the time to see what has been said you would not come wading in to people and looking plain foolish.
Oh and yes when rebuilding you load up on talls i gave two examples in Carlton and Brisbane but hey way to ignore peoples posts again.
Just maybe you go find a plot before you start accusing people of losing it because mate you have nfi.
My thought is if you're getting Schache you can't get Reid or Trengove (can take either one of those two without Schache), Schache needs to come down and slot straight into the AFL side to learn and improve, languishing in the VFL will not help him. Neither Trengove or Reid are coming to be anything other than best 22.
I used to think three talls worked but not convinced anymore, its the law of diminishing returns 2 makes us better but a third doesn't improve us enough to outweigh the loss of forward half pressure and speed by dropping on Rioli, Castagna, Butler and Bolton.
