2012 draft

[CHIMP MAGNET]

You just don't knock back big men as good as Grundy if they fall in your lap

Don't really understand the argument of taking a mid instead when you can always get decent mids in the 2nd round

Bizzare

 

[Tigerbob]

You just don't knock back big men as good as Grundy if they fall in your lap

Don't really understand the argument of taking a mid instead when you can always get decent mids in the 2nd round

Bizzare

Ain't it just.

 

[Calcium Man]

You just don't knock back big men as good as Grundy if they fall in your lap

Don't really understand the argument of taking a mid instead when you can always get decent mids in the 2nd round

Bizzare

Have never seen Grundy play, and the relative success of 1st round ruckman is pretty proven, Hale, Hmac, NicNat, Kruezer, Mcevoy, Luenberger etc... but i agree with RP on this one. Good ruckmen often come from anywhere in the draft, Goldstien, Maric, Cox, Jacobs, Jolly, Giles, Minson, Sandilands ect... They are a bit harder to predict because they are often still growing into their bodies.

Maybe in 3 years time we have to give up a 1st rounder to trade for a quality ruckman but at least it will be plug n play and he will be tapping it straight down O'Rourke, Wines, Vlastuin or whoever's throat who has had three years of midfield experience.

 

[theflea]

I hope your right magic because within the next 3 years I wouldn't be surprised if we see the retirement of 3 players , Tuck , Foley and newman , who are comfortably within our 7 best players .

newy imo is not in our top 7 players.

 

[THE_GUN]

You always take best available - And at Pick # 9 GRUNDY will be best available

As mentioned before you can get very very good mids at picks 29/31 and even pick #50, This year draft is jam packed with quality mids - Just have to be very good in selecting the gems.
Dayne Beams #29
Nat Fyfe #20
Liam Shiels # 34
Mitch Robinson #40
Rory Sloan # 44
Jack Redden #25
Jack steven #42

Grundy & Vickery can both Play Foward and Ruck

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

You always take best available - And at Pick # 9 GRUNDY will be best available

As mentioned before you can get very very good mids at picks 29/31 and even pick #50, This year draft is jam packed with quality mids - Just have to be very good in selecting the gems.
Dayne Beams #29
Nat Fyfe #20
Liam Shiels # 34
Mitch Robinson #40
Rory Sloan # 44
Jack Redden #25
Jack steven #42

Grundy & Vickery can both Play Foward and Ruck

The best of the inside mids will be gone middle of the 2nd round. , there are no more mids in this draft than any other despite all the wank by some that this is a super draft , hence most clubs are keen to snap them up early .
Of coarse there are going to be the exceptions where players from lower picks achieve , it happens with various types of players.
Jolly , Mumford , Jacobs , Maric all possibly within the top 7 ruckman within the comp yet all traded into their current clubs within the last few years .

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

You just don't knock back big men as good as Grundy if they fall in your lap

Don't really understand the argument of taking a mid instead when you can always get decent mids in the 2nd round

Bizzare

Out midfield : Cotchin pick 2 , Lids pick 1 , Martin pick 3 , Foley rookied , tuck mature aged , Conca pick 6 , Grigg trade ,
Not one player who we took in the ND as a young player , with a second or later round selection .
You want quality mids you take them early , this draft is no different .

 

[Slattery_20]

Out midfield : Cotchin pick 2 , Lids pick 1 , Martin pick 3 , Foley rookied , tuck mature aged , Conca pick 6 , Grigg trade ,
Not one player who we took in the ND as a young player , with a second or later round selection .
You want quality mids you take them early , this draft is no different .

I'd suggest that's indicative of the Tigers' late-draft recruiting over the last 5-8 years as much as anything else.

And this grand final the centre squares will include a pick 36 & a rookie on one side; and a pick 30, rookie, and a packet-of-chips trade on the other.
The brownlow was won by a guy picked up as a fat short CHF, just ahead of that same pick 36, and a pick 79 a couple back.

They all took a few years longer than the blue-chip, pick 1 types, but they got there in the end.

Many ways to skin a cat.


And it should be an increasingly important area for Richmond, in the next few years. Not going to be getting pick 1 & 3 & 6s as far as I can see, the cheap trades have been good but need to keep getting quality recruits all the way down the draft as well.

 

[CHIMP MAGNET]

Out midfield : Cotchin pick 2 , Lids pick 1 , Martin pick 3 , Foley rookied , tuck mature aged , Conca pick 6 , Grigg trade ,
Not one player who we took in the ND as a young player , with a second or later round selection .
You want quality mids you take them early , this draft is no different .

Not sure what your point is there? That FJ is unable to draft quality mids in the 2nd round like Beams, Hannebery, Parker, Redden, Sloane? That there are no quality mids in the 2nd round? Or that we don't have enough cream?

Would agree that FJ doesn't seem able to pull a midfielder of any quality outside a top ten pick. Don't agree that you need to take mids early to get a good one. Don't agree that we don't have the cream, and a compliment of B graders from the 2nd round would achieve the same result you're after. If our recruiters are up to it is another argument.

If we had pick 3 i could agree with you on passing up Grundy as the quality of mid at that pick is worth it. Pick 9, have to take the elite KP if he slides. They're like hens teeth and we could get a mid of equal or near-equal value in the first round next year and again still achieve the same result.

Just my two.

 

[Put a Lids on it]

I wouldn't be against getting backman Plowman with 9 will be a star, Morris, Dea, Helbig and Houli to get more time in the midfield. Then grabbing next best 2 mids in the draft is something I would strongly consider. Hopefully we might still be able to nab a Graham, Simpson, Hrovat etc... wouldn't be against Nelson at 50 if the field is a bit thin by then.

 

[richoatthedisco]

I'd suggest that's indicative of the Tigers' late-draft recruiting over the last 5-8 years as much as anything else.

It is. Let's go back 8 years and look at picks post-20.

2004: 36 McGuane (KPP), 52 Limbach (KPP), Graham (OLD/SHIT).
2005: 24 Hughes (KPP), 40 Casserly (HBF/INJ)
2006: 26 Edwards (HFF/MID), 58 Connors (DRUNK), 60 Peterson (AWOL), 73 Collins (Grigg)
2007: 51 Putt (202cm flanker)
2008: 26 Post (LMID), 58 Hislop (DUD)
2009: 35 Astbury (KPP) (19 Griffiths KPP), 44 Dea (HBF), 51 Taylor (HFF/IBF/WBC), 67 Webberley (MIDget), 71 Nason (MIDget).
2010: 30 Batchelor (HBF), 47 Helbig (MID), 51 McDonald (KFC), 63 Derickx (RUCK)
2011: 26 Elton (KPP), 55 Arnot (MID)

Not many mids taken, which explains our low rate of success with them. But Edwards has become a good player, Helbig looks like he will and Arnot was doing well in the VFL until injured. To say we can't draft good mids with later picks or is willfully ignorant.

 

[Spanish_Fly]

It is. Let's go back 8 years and look at picks post-20.

2004: 36 McGuane (KPP), 52 Limbach (KPP), Graham (OLD/SHIT).
2005: 24 Hughes (KPP), 40 Casserly (HBF/INJ)
2006: 26 Edwards (HFF/MID), 58 Connors (DRUNK), 60 Peterson (AWOL), 73 Collins (Grigg)
2007: 51 Putt (202cm flanker)
2008: 26 Post (LMID), 58 Hislop (DUD)
2009: 35 Astbury (KPP) (19 Griffiths KPP), 44 Dea (HBF), 51 Taylor (HFF/IBF/WBC), 67 Webberley (MIDget), 71 Nason (MIDget).
2010: 30 Batchelor (HBF), 47 Helbig (MID), 51 McDonald (KFC), 63 Derickx (RUCK)
2011: 26 Elton (KPP), 55 Arnot (MID)

Not many mids taken, which explains our low rate of success with them. But Edwards has become a good player, Helbig looks like he will and Arnot was doing well in the VFL until injured. To say we can't draft good mids with later picks is accurate.

I corrected your post there.

The fact that only one of our current midfield rotation (Jackson) was drafted by us at post pick 20 says it is unlikely that we will get good mids with these picks this year (hope I'm wrong, fingers crossed) Helbig and Arnot are unproven as yet.

As much as we dont like it our drafting from 2nd round on has so far been poor, or our developement has been. Slattery is correct in his summation. Time may prove that the latest crop buck this trend but at this point they are all unproven.

 

[theflea]

edwards is definately part of our rotation. otherwise correct.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I'd suggest that's indicative of the Tigers' late-draft recruiting over the last 5-8 years as much as anything else.

And this grand final the centre squares will include a pick 36 & a rookie on one side; and a pick 30, rookie, and a packet-of-chips trade on the other.
The brownlow was won by a guy picked up as a fat short CHF, just ahead of that same pick 36, and a pick 79 a couple back.

They all took a few years longer than the blue-chip, pick 1 types, but they got there in the end.

Many ways to skin a cat.


And it should be an increasingly important area for Richmond, in the next few years. Not going to be getting pick 1 & 3 & 6s as far as I can see, the cheap trades have been good but need to keep getting quality recruits all the way down the draft as well.

Good point Slatts and sort of backs my point , we have the blue chip mids now entering their prime , I don't want to wait 3 years , IMO we need to get players around our blue chip players who are more than the equal to any other sides .
Picking up players now who are longer term prospects is in somewhat wasting these players in their prime. Maric is more than an adequate no. 1 ruckman , whilst I think Vickery will be a more than adequate forward ruk or the next 3 years before he ales over from Maric . That the Is the time to draft another ruckman type and move them into the developing role which Vickery is currently undertaking .
We have enough talls who should be coming into their own to play CHF , that I am more than certain of , we just need to develop them properly .

 

[Slattery_20]

Good point Slatts and sort of backs my point , we have the blue chip mids now entering their prime , I don't want to wait 3 years , IMO we need to get players around our blue chip players who are more than the equal to any other sides .
Picking up players now who are longer term prospects is in somewhat wasting these players in their prime. Maric is more than an adequate no. 1 ruckman , whilst I think Vickery will be a more than adequate forward ruk or the next 3 years before he ales over from Maric . That the Is the time to draft another ruckman type and move them into the developing role which Vickery is currently undertaking .
We have enough talls who should be coming into their own to play CHF , that I am more than certain of , we just need to develop them properly .

I don't even know what you're saying ?
Who have you really got that you're going to waste? Foley, Maric and...? No-one else that I can see.

Silly to start chasing the quick result now, IMHO. Not when you're still 3-4 wins out of the 8.

 

[Dr Tigris]

RP - I absolutely get what you are saying. But if Grundy is what people reckon he is then you have to take him if available. He is capable of being a mid + ruck. However those guys go early. Our number 1 need is more midfield depth, then it is guys that can do a job and pinch hit in the midfield. We look like getting a very good one at 9, and that is great.
However, (to other posters) the chance of A grade mids afte the first round are low. You've done well if you get a solid B grader. If we could draft 1 A and 1 B grade mid our depth would be much better. To me this is what RP is saying, go for the most important thing we need, then worry about rucks later. In fact, there is a trend to trade for rucks in premiership teams - Jolly-Coll, Mumford-Syd, Ottens-Geelong. A pick around 17 isn't of a lot of value in drafting a ready made player when teams are in the window to win the whoel deal, but can get a good ruck. There is a really solid theory that you trade for rucks and draft for others. Only problem with that is that if you can develop your own it frees up list spots and draft picks.

 

[CHIMP MAGNET]

I don't even know what you're saying ?
Who have you really got that you're going to waste? Foley, Maric and...? No-one else that I can see.

Silly to start chasing the quick result now, IMHO. Not when you're still 3-4 wins out of the 8.

Can't work it out either.

Batchelor came in as a 2nd rounder and contributed immediately. Can't that happen again?

Matty Rendell has said Grundy will play games in his first year like Nic and Kruz, wont need the standard development because he is already competing well against men in the SANFL. Just can't see how taking him would waste our blue chip players. Even if he took the standard time, our blue chip players are all yet to hit their prime bar Lids who is just entering, and there is still the opportunity to surround them with b-graders from the 2nd round onwards. Then of course there is the fact that we want to be up there for a long time, not just have one crack at it with one group. Need to keep the conveyor belt rolling.

Flimsy argument to support the fact someone has their heart already set on certain mid me thinks.

All moot because Grundy will be gone and we'll hit up a solid middy.

 

[THE_GUN]

I can understand where RP is coming from, But Grundy is top 3 talent and at pick 9 you just dont let that quality go by.

There are no guarantees that the mid will become a gun or a grader as some seem to believe(lets not forget tambling experiment and there are alot that come under the same umbrella.

When Rp talks about not letting the current stars go to waste and striking now, what would happen if in 2 years time we are top 4 and challenging for a flag make it to the prelim and Maric goes down ???

Who replaces him to feed the ball to our mids ? Even if we dont take Grundy or he is gone by the time pick #9 comes along - I really would love to take L.McBean with #29/#31 as we really need another quality ruckman to be ready in 2-3 years time similar to McEvoy - Bellchambers atm

 

[theflea]

if we suggest that teams generally go best available, especially in the top 10, why do we think grundy will be available and teams above us in the picking order will go needs based? it just wont happen.

 

[THE_GUN]

if we suggest that teams generally go best available, especially in the top 10, why do we think grundy will be available and teams above us in the picking order will go needs based? it just wont happen.

There is your answer just there !

The chances are probably 5% that he will be available, just making small talk until the real thing

 

[FootyIcon4]

There is no way Grundy gets past Port so nobody should be losing any sleep over whether to pick him. Diplomatic speel over

 

[THE_GUN]

There is no way Grundy gets past Port so nobody should be losing any sleep over whether to pick him. Diplomatic speel over

Port wont take him, They have other more pressing needs atm and also have 3 reasonable Rucks
GWS,MELB,DOGS- if Minson goes

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Can't work it out either.

Batchelor came in as a 2nd rounder and contributed immediately. Can't that happen again?

Matty Rendell has said Grundy will play games in his first year like Nic and Kruz, wont need the standard development because he is already competing well against men in the SANFL. Just can't see how taking him would waste our blue chip players. Even if he took the standard time, our blue chip players are all yet to hit their prime bar Lids who is just entering, and there is still the opportunity to surround them with b-graders from the 2nd round onwards. Then of course there is the fact that we want to be up there for a long time, not just have one crack at it with one group. Need to keep the conveyor belt rolling.

Flimsy argument to support the fact someone has their heart already set on certain mid me thinks.

All moot because Grundy will be gone and we'll hit up a solid middy.

Well your wrong , I'll admitt I am a huge of Wines , however would prefer we pick mids . The fact the majority of our talls and in particular our developing ruckman , in Vickery , went down IMO is severly clouding people's judgement of the amount of talls we have on our list .

 

[CHIMP MAGNET]

Well your wrong , I'll admitt I am a huge of Wines , however would prefer we pick mids . The fact the majority of our talls and in particular our developing ruckman , in Vickery , went down IMO is severly clouding people's judgement of the amount of talls we have on our list .

No I think i'm right

Nothing clouding my judgement, if you'd prefer to pick mids that's all you had to say, not concoct an argument as to why taking an elite tall would be detrimental. Because it's not. Are you sure Mr. Wines is not clouding your judgement?

I'd prefer to pick mids too – but you have to take best available and if that's a tall, it's a tall, and you rejig and get your mids later. As has been pointed out, the top sides are awash with excellent mids not taken early.

Also, i'm not convinced that we have the quality in talls on our list - but that's another debate.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

No I think i'm right

Nothing clouding my judgement, if you'd prefer to pick mids that's all you had to say, not concoct an argument as to why taking an elite tall would be detrimental. Because it's not. Are you sure Mr. Wines is not clouding your judgement?

I'd prefer to pick mids too – but you have to take best available and if that's a tall, it's a tall, and you rejig and get your mids later. As has been pointed out, the top sides are awash with excellent mids not taken early.

Also, i'm not convinced that we have the quality in talls on our list - but that's another debate.

That's a reflection of their whom have been empowered to look after our drafting , incidentally which has remained relatively unchanged , as you said another debate , which we might agree on .