Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
2.95 sec for 20m and a level 13.9 beep test sounds OK.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
If we're looking for players talented enough to get us into the finals next year, wouldn't we be better off looking at mature age rookies who can come in as depth to cover injuries, than underdeveloped project kids who in all likelihood are a long way off competing at the highest level? I think that makes far more sense. As I said, that is largely what the rookie list is for these days. Injury cover with players who can come straight in, and a few project kids (small forwards and KPDs are usually the goods).
Nope we've just taken the best available player at each pick. Kid or mature ager. I'm very happy.
Is this post meant to be as silly as it sounds?
there was actually a rumour floating around a while ago that we might draft him again
No I don't think so, unless barely making finals is as high as you're hoping to go. With the stage Richmond are at you need to be finding the talented juniors to build a team that can push towards finals in the future and then when you get there start topping your depth up. Recruiting players that were only depth at mediocre teams will not help you push into a premature finals spot.
We took 4 very talented players in the national draft. Beyond that is was weak and lacked depth. Why continue to draw from it when you don't rate the prospects? We saw these mature age types as the best available players so we took them. These types of players will help us push into a finals spot because they provide depth.
.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but it sounds like another deluded supporter in the pre-season. Can you tell me why these blokes weren't getting a game/were de-listed from Melbourne, Essendon, Kangaroos etc? Or why Adelaide got no compensation for Knights?We took 4 very talented players in the national draft. Beyond that is was weak and lacked depth. Why continue to draw from it when you don't rate the prospects? We saw these mature age types as the best available players so we took them. These types of players will help us push into a finals spot because they provide depth.
Now if Ivan gets injured, we can bring in O instead of Gus. If Riewoldt goes down we can play A. Edwards, who is no gun but will provide more than McGuane or the still raw Elton. If Tuck or Foley are out we can play Lonergan instead of Webberley. If we lose Knights, which is a possibility, or Martin, we have able back up in Pettered and no long have to rely on the likes of Matt White or Addam Maric. All of these moves are huge upgrades in depth. This year losing Ivan, Riewoldt, Tuck and Martin and replacing them with Gus, McGuane, Webberley and Addam Maric for extended periods would have seen us finish bottom 4 or 5. Next year we'll have some genuine level of coverage across all positions, and it only cost us rookie spots and pick 74 in the case of Edwards.
The point is that they are better than the depth players we had on our list last year, as I outlined in my last post. We saw value in them as role players who can come in if need be. We also saw them as better options than the kids who were available in the rookie draft, as did most clubs looking at the way they shied away from the later rounds. It's all nonsense til this time next year when we can really judge anyway, but you will notice that the vast majority of Richmond supporters fully expected this to happen and are glad it did. I know you are a knowledgeable poster and you know your Tigers, but I am happy to back Tiger supporters and the club on this one, many of who, including me, know our team better than 99% of opposition posters.
The point I am making is that you are not at the stage to be recruiting for depth. You do not have enough quality in your best 22, that is the area you need to be recruiting for. These are wasted picks who will be off the list by the time you're playing finals.
I'm not defending Richmond's recruiting nor equating the magnitude of the 'spuds' Richmond picked up but puzzled we didn't take more kids, e.g. taking a promising teenager at pick 71, such as Colquhuon whom you rate highly.
I guess we just disagree about our stage of development then. IMO we have about 2-3 players in our best 22 who need replacing long term, others just need a couple more years development before they reach their peak. I realise we didn't have the injury crisis that you guys had last year but our problem was that whenever someone was injured, they had to be replaced by the likes of McGuane, White and other russet burbanks. Next year will be a different story.
I'm not so sure. Bell and Curnow obviously would've been on the senior list but it's cheaper to have them as nominated rookies. That's two of the five already with Dale also showing a lot for a first year rookie and gaining senior selection.Maybe.
I'm questioning the logic of squeezing 5 mature players into 2 nominated rookie spots. The probability being the majority of those 3-5 year players will be cut next year, along with a handful of also-rans in the 21-25yo age group.
I guess it was a particularly weak draft from the U18...
We took 4 very talented players in the national draft. Beyond that is was weak and lacked depth. Why continue to draw from it when you don't rate the prospects? We saw these mature age types as the best available players so we took them. These types of players will help us push into a finals spot because they provide depth.
Now if Ivan gets injured, we can bring in O instead of Gus. If Riewoldt goes down we can play A. Edwards, who is no gun but will provide more than McGuane or the still raw Elton. If Tuck or Foley are out we can play Lonergan instead of Webberley. If we lose Knights, which is a possibility, or Martin, we have able back up in Pettered and no long have to rely on the likes of Matt White or Addam Maric. All of these moves are huge upgrades in depth. This year losing Ivan, Riewoldt, Tuck and Martin and replacing them with Gus, McGuane, Webberley and Addam Maric for extended periods would have seen us finish bottom 4 or 5. Next year we'll have some genuine level of coverage across all positions, and it only cost us rookie spots and pick 74 in the case of Edwards.
"Goddess" 
