Certified Legendary Thread Deathriding Norf - "The Manlets"

[THE_GUN]

I would gift wrap pick #2 & #3 for Sheezel & McKercher

 

[Azzleberry]

Finally someone with a proper take.

You all seem to be of the belief that I think Richmond lost this trade. The 2 points aren’t mutually exclusive.

North needed a big man, and couldn’t waste another year waiting for one. They clearly got what they needed and ultimately, it was the right decision given the strength of the draft (especially the talls). North do not need more mids - Sheezel, Wardlaw, Kerch and FOS would all go pick one this year - that much isn’t a debate.

Richmond, get a top pick to use on a midfielder this year. They already had so many picks last year so naturally, moving one into this season made sense. It’s a huge win for Richmond who need to get more kids and mids in the door.

Both sides, would be extremely comfortable with the outcomes as it stands.

Also worth nothing that the 2x early second rounders we now have will either be used to trade up to a first round pick (if there’s someone we want on needs) or be traded for a mature prospect from another club.

So, once again, it’s a win-win.
It won’t be if Ludowyke or Schubert move into the top 4/5 - but that looks extremely unlikely.

It's laughable that you think Rawlings showed foresight that this was a shallow draft and hence the 2x r2 picks would be better suited to your needs.

The same bloke who pre draft and during the draft wanted so much for pick 2 that you couldn't split it. Carlton essentially gave up 12&14 for pick 3 which north could have got for pick 2. You could have taken 2 of Armstrong, Trainor, Whitlock(s), Faull etc but he was too stubborn.

Rawlings was also banking on our second rounder this year having extra value as the first pick of night 2 but that's unlikely as well.

Anyone trying to justify trading what is currently pick 3 for pick 27 and likely another pick 27 is reaching haaaaaaarrrrrddd

 

[Wrenny]

“Sheezel isn’t my cup of tea”

“I’d throw up if we burnt a number one pick on Mckercher”

Jesus - confirmed you haven’t objectively watched a solitary game of football.

What’s the point of sprouting that junk? Don’t have to carry on to get your point across.

Since you’ve opened this convo up - give me the U22s on the Richmond list that you rate above Mckercher and Sheezel so I can bump it into eternity.

 

[Kangaroosters]

It's laughable that you think Rawlings showed foresight that this was a shallow draft and hence the 2x r2 picks would be better suited to your needs.

The same bloke who pre draft and during the draft wanted so much for pick 2 that you couldn't split it. Carlton essentially gave up 12&14 for pick 3 which north could have got for pick 2. You could have taken 2 of Armstrong, Trainor, Whitlock(s), Faull etc but he was too stubborn.

Rawlings was also banking on our second rounder this year having extra value as the first pick of night 2 but that's unlikely as well.

Anyone trying to justify trading what is currently pick 3 for pick 27 and likely another pick 27 is reaching haaaaaaarrrrrddd

The only laughable bit here is your assumption that you have a better grasp on the draft, its strength and value, as well as trading etc. than the blokes who are paid to work and comment on it. Your rebuttal just lists 3 Richmond players that we could’ve picked so it’s hard to take it seriously given it’s just littered with bias.

All of these responses are embarrassing to a point. All triggered as though I came in and said ‘Richmond cooked it’ even though I’ve stated you won the trade. My only point was that North haven’t botched it like you think they have. But it seems, unfortunately, only a handful of your board are willing to have a genuine discussion about it.

Anyway, I’ll leave you to it as clearly not welcome.

 

[sabso]

The only laughable bit here is your assumption that you have a better grasp on the draft, its strength and value, as well as trading etc. than the blokes who are paid to work and comment on it. Your rebuttal just lists 3 Richmond players that we could’ve picked so it’s hard to take it seriously given it’s just littered with bias.

All of these responses are embarrassing to a point. All triggered as though I came in and said ‘Richmond cooked it’ even though I’ve stated you won the trade. My only point was that North haven’t botched it like you think they have. But it seems, unfortunately, only a handful of your board are willing to have a genuine discussion about it.

Anyway, I’ll leave you to it as clearly not welcome.

Mate take our second rounder and piss off.

 

[Azzleberry]

The only laughable bit here is your assumption that you have a better grasp on the draft, its strength and value, as well as trading etc. than the blokes who are paid to work and comment on it. Your rebuttal just lists 3 Richmond players that we could’ve picked so it’s hard to take it seriously given it’s just littered with bias.

All of these responses are embarrassing to a point. All triggered as though I came in and said ‘Richmond cooked it’ even though I’ve stated you won the trade. My only point was that North haven’t botched it like you think they have. But it seems, unfortunately, only a handful of your board are willing to have a genuine discussion about it.

Anyway, I’ll leave you to it as clearly not welcome.

I didn't just list Richmond players- I listed talls taken between picks 12&30 that you would have surely targeted had you split pick 2. It just so happens Richmond took 4 of them whilst other teams went for mids.

Do I think I've got better draft knowledge? No. But I guarantee you that Blair Hartley and team are miles ahead of Rawlings which is what I based it on.

 

[Rich01]

The discourse regarding North’s decision making is curious considering how widely reported it is that this draft is extremely poor.

Don’t think it’s far fetched at all to suggest Whitlock goes top 10 this year (in the open draft - not incl. academy etc.)

That’s a possibility.

But if North offered Whitlock and a second rounder this year would a club pony up pick three?

I think they would be laughed out of the room.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That’s a possibility.

But if North offered Whitlock and a second rounder this year would a club pony up pick three?

I think they would be laughed out of the room.

Surely that wouldn't matter to North. They had to take their best avenue to getting the best key position prospect they could, within reason. They should comfortably be able to convert one of their young gun mids into a key position player at some future point before they can realistically contend, and it would be with that in mind that they took O'Sullivan at 2.

I think fans get stuck on who is "winning" trades. List Managers of rebuilding teams would just be thinking their best and quickest way to build a balanced and talented list before contending.

This deal clearly suits us, but ultimately it will likely suit the Roos as well, which is why they did the deal.

Look at it another way, the Roos pick is likely to slide to pick 5 or 6 by draft night. Would we take pick 5 or 6 in the 2025 draft for Thomas Sims + say pick 28 2025 right now? Possibly, but you are not just snatching it out of their hand, you would be thinking carefully about it and it is not necessarily straightforward. And when the deal was struck North would have thought pick 5 or 6 was about the best case scenario for that pick. They'd have projected it as having an expected value of about pick 7 on draft night, in a weak draft. Are we selling Sims and pick 28 for pick 7 in this draft? I'd be really starting to hesitate at that point.

 

[Coach_Required]

North fan comes into an oppo thread that's death riding his own team and wonders why majority of posters disagree with his thoughts LOL

North botched it last year; they traded their 2nd round pick for a bulldog's midget and then had to sell off a future 1st rounder to obtain 2 second round picks (one of which a future 2nd) just so they could draft a key forward after the top rated key forwards were already taken.

Telling us that giving up a future 1st because that player would possibly be top 10 this year isn't the flex he thinks it is especially when they could have kept that future 1st all along.

 

[tiger_tough]

I'm not sure it is clear. Whitlock is not a big man, he's a tall boy. Despite his height he projects as a third tall. A good one. But a back pocket.

We're laughing that with the next pick we took Tom Sims - who is a proper big man in the making. He'll kick 8 on Whitlock one day.

As for 'Kerch' going pick 1 beyond debate? Wasn't your board calling him McShitmypants a few weeks ago?

(Yes. Yes, it was.)

 

[richoatthedisco]

You told me you swallowed. I feel deceived.

 

[tiger_tough]

You told me you swallowed. I feel deceived.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Surely that wouldn't matter to North. They had to take their best avenue to getting the best key position prospect they could, within reason. They should comfortably be able to convert one of their young gun mids into a key position player at some future point before they can realistically contend, and it would be with that in mind that they took O'Sullivan at 2.

I think fans get stuck on who is "winning" trades. List Managers of rebuilding teams would just be thinking their best and quickest way to build a balanced and talented list before contending.

This deal clearly suits us, but ultimately it will likely suit the Roos as well, which is why they did the deal.

Look at it another way, the Roos pick is likely to slide to pick 5 or 6 by draft night. Would we take pick 5 or 6 in the 2025 draft for Thomas Sims + say pick 28 2025 right now? Possibly, but you are not just snatching it out of their hand, you would be thinking carefully about it and it is not necessarily straightforward. And when the deal was struck North would have thought pick 5 or 6 was about the best case scenario for that pick. They'd have projected it as having an expected value of about pick 7 on draft night, in a weak draft. Are we selling Sims and pick 28 for pick 7 in this draft? I'd be really starting to hesitate at that point.

North ended up in a problematic position. They had a great midfield, OK backs, but shallow group of young KPFs. So prior drafting leads to current drafting - der statement. Plus North struggled to bring across a good young KPF through trades etc.

Last year they picked out one of the talls as who they wanted. Unfortunately for North it was a very very deep year for talent so other clubs didn't want to trade into this year - until the RFC did the trade for a fairly late pick. North got their man.

But why wouldn't clubs trade into a guaranteed 2025 top 5 pick? Well I'd guess 2 reasons. 1) North looked like getting much better, and we see them doing that without winning as many games as they might have. So 'guaranteed top 5' might have been seen as 'likely top 10' - very different value in this years highly compromised and weaker draft. 2) As said this year is seen as a highly compromised and weaker draft. So comparing a guaranteed player you value as top 10 in this year's draft to the possibility of a top 10 pick (say 8) in this year's draft that might slide to about 13 in a weaker draft is a losing proposition.

So North made the trade knowing that if they fulfilled their potential they'd probably get a good return on it. We made it knowing that we already had a great haul and knowing that there is a big chance we'd get a top 5 pick and so a shot at a potential A grader. Good trade by both teams - on the face of it.

I reckon we're likely to win overall, from a neutral point of view. But if Matt Whitlock is a good KPF North fixes a massive structural problem, which is well worth the trade.

 

[Rich01]

Surely that wouldn't matter to North. They had to take their best avenue to getting the best key position prospect they could, within reason. They should comfortably be able to convert one of their young gun mids into a key position player at some future point before they can realistically contend, and it would be with that in mind that they took O'Sullivan at 2.

I think fans get stuck on who is "winning" trades. List Managers of rebuilding teams would just be thinking their best and quickest way to build a balanced and talented list before contending.

This deal clearly suits us, but ultimately it will likely suit the Roos as well, which is why they did the deal.

Look at it another way, the Roos pick is likely to slide to pick 5 or 6 by draft night. Would we take pick 5 or 6 in the 2025 draft for Thomas Sims + say pick 28 2025 right now? Possibly, but you are not just snatching it out of their hand, you would be thinking carefully about it and it is not necessarily straightforward. And when the deal was struck North would have thought pick 5 or 6 was about the best case scenario for that pick. They'd have projected it as having an expected value of about pick 7 on draft night, in a weak draft. Are we selling Sims and pick 28 for pick 7 in this draft? I'd be really starting to hesitate at that point.

It’s an interesting take.

The reality is we got Sims with a pick we had after the traded pick. And next on our board was Alger if we had have kept the pick.

Would you take CDT or Grij for Alger and a second?

That’s the question you would need to answer. Because that’s what we lost (until we traded back in to get Jasper).

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It’s an interesting take.

The reality is we got Sims with a pick we had after the traded pick. And next on our board was Alger if we had have kept the pick.

Would you take CDT or Grij for Alger and a second?

That’s the question you would need to answer. Because that’s what we lost (until we traded back in to get Jasper).

How do you know our next two highest rated players at pick 27 were Sims and Alger? Sims is highly likely but Alger we would have no idea, Richmond does not publish its draft rankings.

So Sims is the best player to judge it by. And clearly North rated Whitlock above Sims. So are we trading a player we rate marginally ahead of Sims +28 for a pick expected to land at around 7 in a weak looking draft? To me that is the best question to ask to put yourself in North's position. The deal clearly suited us down to the ground but this doesn't mean it wasn't the best move available to North.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

North ended up in a problematic position. They had a great midfield, OK backs, but shallow group of young KPFs. So prior drafting leads to current drafting - der statement. Plus North struggled to bring across a good young KPF through trades etc.

Last year they picked out one of the talls as who they wanted. Unfortunately for North it was a very very deep year for talent so other clubs didn't want to trade into this year - until the RFC did the trade for a fairly late pick. North got their man.

But why wouldn't clubs trade into a guaranteed 2025 top 5 pick? Well I'd guess 2 reasons. 1) North looked like getting much better, and we see them doing that without winning as many games as they might have. So 'guaranteed top 5' might have been seen as 'likely top 10' - very different value in this years highly compromised and weaker draft. 2) As said this year is seen as a highly compromised and weaker draft. So comparing a guaranteed player you value as top 10 in this year's draft to the possibility of a top 10 pick (say 8) in this year's draft that might slide to about 13 in a weaker draft is a losing proposition.

So North made the trade knowing that if they fulfilled their potential they'd probably get a good return on it. We made it knowing that we already had a great haul and knowing that there is a big chance we'd get a top 5 pick and so a shot at a potential A grader. Good trade by both teams - on the face of it.

I reckon we're likely to win overall, from a neutral point of view. But if Matt Whitlock is a good KPF North fixes a massive structural problem, which is well worth the trade.

Perfect summary Dr T. Also there is a preference to get the kid in a year earlier so there is a slight discount for that as well.
Clubs don't just do stupid things for no reason. When they do something stupid there is always a reason!

 

[ShereKhan]

The discourse regarding North’s decision making is curious considering how widely reported it is that this draft is extremely poor.

Don’t think it’s far fetched at all to suggest Whitlock goes top 10 this year (in the open draft - not incl. academy etc.)

I think your problem with this assertion is that almost every single 'expert' in this space pre-draft rated Jack Whitlock as the clear top-pick of the twins. Jack went pick-33. Maybe other teams agreed with North that M Whitlock was superior, but nobody picked him when they could - Dattoli, Hannaford, Hynes and Oliver were all preferred to MWhitlock.

Maybe North would rate him top-10 this year - nobody else would.

 

[ShereKhan]

Finally someone with a proper take.

You all seem to be of the belief that I think Richmond lost this trade. The 2 points aren’t mutually exclusive.

North needed a big man, and couldn’t waste another year waiting for one. They clearly got what they needed and ultimately, it was the right decision given the strength of the draft (especially the talls). North do not need more mids - Sheezel, Wardlaw, Kerch and FOS would all go pick one this year - that much isn’t a debate.

Richmond, get a top pick to use on a midfielder this year. They already had so many picks last year so naturally, moving one into this season made sense. It’s a huge win for Richmond who need to get more kids and mids in the door.

Both sides, would be extremely comfortable with the outcomes as it stands.

Also worth nothing that the 2x early second rounders we now have will either be used to trade up to a first round pick (if there’s someone we want on needs) or be traded for a mature prospect from another club.

So, once again, it’s a win-win.
It won’t be if Ludowyke or Schubert move into the top 4/5 - but that looks extremely unlikely.

Inexplicably in the last 2 x MSD North have taken smalls. Could've had J Blight and Archie May. Archie May is 198cm, and in his second game had 13-touches, 6 marks and 2-goals - May had shown plenty in the VFL for Richmond and in the WAFL. Blight was dominating the WAFL. Both huge guys with good hands.

North took a 175cm small forward.

I honestly don't understand why North wouldn't secure at LEAST one of Blight or May - huge guys with loads of upside to fill a list need. Small forwards are a dime a dozen - go and get an Owies, or Butler, or Higgins, or Ginnivan..... the list goes on.

North wouldn't want Blight or May to be superior players to Whitlock, that's for sure.

 

[Truetiger]

That’s a possibility.

But if North offered Whitlock and a second rounder this year would a club pony up pick three?

I think they would be laughed out of the room.

In regards to Whitlock, it’s still too early to say for sure whether he’ll become a good player. Well done to Richmond for securing the early pick from North. However, it’s too soon to determine who has truly won that deal.

 

[Drunken Wookie]

roos shat themselves when we kept crossing talls of their draft preference list and had to sell the farm just to nab someone. media and fans wouldve savaged them if they missed out on drafting a recognised tall when it was widely agreed to be a list weakness. shouldve split the FOS pick, couldve got a very good midfielder and trainor and had a top 3 pick this year.
Instead they took FOS who wasn't really a need, a gangly defender who will take ages to come on if at all and a second rounder next year probably in the 50's.

 

[Rich01]

In regards to Whitlock, it’s still too early to say for sure whether he’ll become a good player. Well done to Richmond for securing the early pick from North. However, it’s too soon to determine who has truly won that deal.

I hope Whitlock turns out to be a gun for North. And North are banking on this to be the case. They rated him at 12 on their board which is ballsy but shows where they believe he can get to.

But there is no way we would’ve picked both Sims and Whitlock had we held that pick.

And I’m mighty happy with Sims (and wouldn’t swap him for Whitlock).

The place to be this year is in the top 10 in the open draft and this trade has allowed us to do so. It will give us one of Grij, Greeves or CDT.

It’s an out and out win for us and undetermined outcome for North at this stage.

 

[Drunken Wookie]

I hope Whitlock turns out to be a gun for North. And North are banking on this to be the case. They rated him at 12 on their board which is ballsy but shows where they believe he can get to.

But there is no way we would’ve picked both Sims and Whitlock had we held that pick.

And I’m mighty happy with Sims (and wouldn’t swap him for Whitlock).

The place to be this year is in the top 10 in the open draft and this trade has allowed us to do so. It will give us one of Grij, Greeves or CDT.

It’s an out and out win for us and undetermined outcome for North at this stage.

if that's the case rawlings is a full-blown crackhead.

 

[Truetiger]

if that's the case rawlings is a full-blown crackhead.

It’s too early to call, but what happens if he becomes one of the better forwards in the game in the years to come? Then would look like a good move. Cant just base it on a few games either. Re investigate this in a few years lol

 

[ShereKhan]

The only laughable bit here is your assumption that you have a better grasp on the draft, its strength and value, as well as trading etc. than the blokes who are paid to work and comment on it. Your rebuttal just lists 3 Richmond players that we could’ve picked so it’s hard to take it seriously given it’s just littered with bias.

All of these responses are embarrassing to a point. All triggered as though I came in and said ‘Richmond cooked it’ even though I’ve stated you won the trade. My only point was that North haven’t botched it like you think they have. But it seems, unfortunately, only a handful of your board are willing to have a genuine discussion about it.

Anyway, I’ll leave you to it as clearly not welcome.

Unfortunately you have to question the Roos list mgt team, and not even in hindsight.

2024 was a super strong KPP draft, all the way into the second round. Everybody knew this....everyone.

North traded out picks #25 for Daniel when they already had: Fisher, McKercher, Scheezel capable of the 'loose' half-back role. M Whitlock was almost certain to be available at #25 - nobody had him rated a first rounder.....he wasn't even invited to night one.

So if M Whitlock was their man, WTF would you trade pick-25 for a small half back?

Then there's bypassing Blight, Gray, Archie May in consecutive MSD's in favour of smalls.

And keeping #2 to take FOS was interesting. FOS never seemed like a 'must-have' as a draftee. Highly talented but never prolific or utterly dominant at junior level - and not a glaring need in regards to list composition for the Roos. Why Roos wouldn't trade 2 for a couple of later picks in a KPP heavy draft is probably not going too age well.

They've got FOS, Caleb Daniel, Whitlock and pick-30.

with just a tiny bit of creativity and not even in hindsight, they should have:

Tauru, Armstrong, Whitlock and pick-4.

So it's FOS and Daniel.....or.....Tauru, Armstrong and pick-4.

I think most people had a better grasp of the draft, its strength and value than a list mgt team who traded out #25 for Caleb Daniel.

 

[Rich01]

It’s too early to call, but what happens if he becomes one of the better forwards in the game in the years to come? Then would look like a good move. Cant just base it on a few games either. Re investigate this in a few years lol

North are hoping he becomes a key defender.