List Mgmt. 2021 draft pool.

[Lore]

 

[Marcel Proust]

Simple turning 29, hawks wanting a first-rounder and he's on 700K+ we don't have the cap.

And why wouldn't we take Andrew if on the board?

 

[AstuteTiger]

And why wouldn't we take Andrew if on the board?

Pretty sure I explained it, we have 4 rucks why do we need 5?
Would you take Rachele or Andrew over Hobbs or Ward?

EDIT: The way it's looking at the moment likely one of Hobb or Gibcus will fall to our pick. I still expect Andrew to go to GWS
Rachele is a classy player, but id go Johnson over him if available.

 

[Marcel Proust]

It strikes me as a bit weird to take Tarrant. Not Mitchell - then claim we are drafting for the short term.

 

[AstuteTiger]

It strikes me as a bit weird to take Tarrant. Not Mitchell - then claim we are drafting for the short term.

Lol who said we drafting for the short term? Wanting players to make an immediate impact as a Hobbs would, is still drafting for the future.
Tarrant takes Astburys place on the books so to speak, Tarrant is not on the same money as Mitchell.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Lol who said we drafting for the short term? Wanting players to make an immediate impact as a Hobbs would, is still drafting for the future.
Tarrant takes Astburys place on the books so to speak, Tarrant is not on the same money as Mitchell.

You want an immediate impact yet overlook Mitchell with hawthorn paying his wage. Yet Andrew will take too long apparently

 

[Marcel Proust]

I expect RFC to take the best available player with our first pick in the ND, which has pretty much been the MO for the club under Matt Clarke.

This is regardless of positional need, or positional surplus.

We took Bolton in 2016 (no real need for a small forward).

Took Higgins in 2017 (definitely did not have any need for a small forward).

Samson Ryan last year, despite a fairly large contingent of ruckmen already on the list.

So wouldn’t surprised if we pick up someone like Rachele or Gibcus (maybe even Mac Andrew) if available if deemed best available (I have them both ahead of Ward and Hobbs personally).

We then address need with later picks (CCJ and Balta come to mind). What I do wonder is whether the first two FRP are best player available and then the later seconds are used for need. Or does 15 get used for need?

Tigers needed everything in 16' you could safely argue.

Higgins was sposed to be a mid.

Ryan wasn't near best left at that pick

 

[AstuteTiger]

You want an immediate impact yet overlook Mitchell with hawthorn paying his wage. Yet Andrew will take too long apparently

An immediate impact which Hobbs will provide and is also looking to the future.
Hawks would look to pay some of his wage and still cost a first rounder, plus 500K in wages. The tigers didn't want to entertain this, heck no club did.

Are you saying Andrew will make an immediate impact? he will literally take 2-3 years and we have 4 rucks on our books.
Andrew will be a gun but is he a need for us? Id take a mid, key back before a ruckman.

 

[guruisatiger]

Which is why I've been reading up on someone like Sonsie

Would love him at Richmond don't care if its 9 or 17

 

[guruisatiger]

Pretty sure I explained it, we have 4 rucks why do we need 5?
Would you take Rachele or Andrew over Hobbs or Ward?

EDIT: The way it's looking at the moment likely one of Hobb or Gibcus will fall to our pick. I still expect Andrew to go to GWS
Rachele is a classy player, but id go Johnson over him if available.

Do Richmond see Andrew as future ruck?
Or future KPP who can help out in the ruck ??

 

[RockJobster0312]

The club as I hear want Hobbs, first and foremost we need more inside mids. We ain't going to pick Andrew or Rachele over a Hobbs or Ward.
We have 4 rucks on our books, Nankervis, Soldo, Ryan, Collina. Andrew is 2-3 years away. We are still in our window, dimma and Co will look for players who can make an immediate impact.

Of course, if Hobbs and ward are off the table we would look at gibcus, rachele, but if Johnson is available i would take him over andrew or rachele.
Gibcus being the best defender will be a tough call as he and Balta could set us up for the next decade in defence.

Obviously it goes without saying that how I rate players and how the club rate players aren’t going to be the same. I won’t be at all disappointed if Ward or Hobbs are taken by RFC ahead of Rachele, Gibcus or Andrews. i will back in the clubs ability to rate and rank players above my own (that is of course unless I am proven right in five years).

My point was that the recent history of our drafting indicates that the club will take best players available with its first
pick. Regardless of position.

To my mind, this is the correct strategy when it comes to drafting. You can have the most balanced list in the comp, but at the end of the day, talent trumps all. Take talent and make it work. Again, the most talented player as the club rates may be Hobbs, or Ward or someone else.

I also see Andrew as a forward/ ruck more so than a ruck/forward. That’s on the basis that it seems his best attribute is ability to read the ball in the air and take it at its highest point (similar to CCJ). Best way to exploit that trait is playing primarily forward.

Tigers needed everything in 16' you could safely argue.

Higgins was sposed to be a mid.

Ryan wasn't near best left at that pick

Higgins was the most talented available. He was a small forward (and played that way by the club during his time at the club) that could one day transition to the midfield. But make no mistake, he wasn’t drafted as a midfielder but as a player.

In terms of Ryan, that may be what your view (and to be fair, it would be the view of most including so called ‘experts’ within the industry), but it clearly wasn’t the clubs view. It viewed Ryan as the best player available at the pick, and took him regardless of the fact that we didn’t at all need another ruck. Which is really my point I guess.

 

[AstuteTiger]

Do Richmond see Andrew as future ruck?
Or future KPP who can help out in the ruck ??

I dare say a ruck first, key forward 2nd.

 

[SumTingWong]

The club as I hear want Hobbs, first and foremost we need more inside mids. We ain't going to pick Andrew or Rachele over a Hobbs or Ward.
We have 4 rucks on our books, Nankervis, Soldo, Ryan, Collina. Andrew is 2-3 years away. We are still in our window, dimma and Co will look for players who can make an immediate impact.

Of course, if Hobbs and ward are off the table we would look at gibcus, rachele, but if Johnson is available i would take him over andrew or rachele.
Gibcus being the best defender will be a tough call as he and Balta could set us up for the next decade in defence.

From what you hear? Posters on this site with a great track record of good information have told me that Hobbs is not someone we are looking at with our first pick.

 

[Phar Ace]

You want an immediate impact yet overlook Mitchell with hawthorn paying his wage. Yet Andrew will take too long apparently

Try not to make it personal Marcel - AT does make the calls!

 

[Grrr]

From what you hear? Posters on this site with a great track record of good information have told me that Hobbs is not someone we are looking at with our first pick.

It that is so, then perhaps a similar sort in Ward as well as they are similar types and rated much the same. Perhaps they don't rate them as highly or they are looking for something else, maybe taller or maybe x factor or maybe your good information is wrong. Clubs throw out a lot of curve balls this time of year.

 

[DeLaCon]

Sonsie is a player who often goes missing for long periods of time in games according to what Ive heard. Dont see us picking him to be honest.

 

[AstuteTiger]

From what you hear? Posters on this site with a great track record of good information have told me that Hobbs is not someone we are looking at with our first pick.

From what I hear, well I used to work at the membership dept so I do know people in the know. Now, if we had pick 4, I believe we would go, Callaghan.
It seems to be Callaghan, Hobbs/Ward as the 3 main mids after Daicos and Jason Horne Francis

If Hobbs is available at our pick 7 (9) he will be a tiger. I guess that would dismiss what you have just stated to me about posters on here saying he's not on our radar.

 

[SumTingWong]

From what I hear, well I used to work at the membership dept so I do know people in the know. Now, if we had pick 4, I believe we would go, Callaghan.
It seems to be Callaghan, Hobbs/Ward as the 3 main mids after Daicos and Jason Horne Francis

If Hobbs is available at our pick 7 (9) he will be a tiger. I guess that would dismiss what you have just stated to me about posters on here saying he's not on our radar.

Agree. I'm fascinated by the absoluteness of people's sources.

 

[DoItForCaptBlood]

The club as I hear want Hobbs, first and foremost we need more inside mids. We ain't going to pick Andrew or Rachele over a Hobbs or Ward.
We have 4 rucks on our books, Nankervis, Soldo, Ryan, Collina. Andrew is 2-3 years away. We are still in our window, dimma and Co will look for players who can make an immediate impact.

Of course, if Hobbs and ward are off the table we would look at gibcus, rachele, but if Johnson is available i would take him over andrew or rachele.
Gibcus being the best defender will be a tough call as he and Balta could set us up for the next decade in defence.

I agree with your evaluation here, but totally ignores RJ's point of 'taking best available'. IF the club goes this route, the top 10 are rated by the club obviously in order of priority, regardless of position. At pick 9 on the night, whichever player is there as per the list order is taken.
The argument of 'need' is not considered for this 1st pick with this decision. Not saying it's right or what the club will do, simply the process.

So if Andrew is ranked by the club as 9th best, he is selected on that basis rather than the player at 10, without considering Rachelle or Johnson are still there as mids. Again not saying Andrew is ranked higher, just using them as examples to the process.

Then if we follow the process and go 'need' for 15, Andrew being a tall, now we need best mid @ 15, and visa versa if we go a mid @ 7, with the possibility of two mids if a rated tall @15 is not available in the 1st round.
So then we just need to know how we rank 9 players to know the player we select

 

[Rioli2Rioli]

From what I hear, well I used to work at the membership dept so I do know people in the know. Now, if we had pick 4, I believe we would go, Callaghan.
It seems to be Callaghan, Hobbs/Ward as the 3 main mids after Daicos and Jason Horne Francis

If Hobbs is available at our pick 7 (9) he will be a tiger. I guess that would dismiss what you have just stated to me about posters on here saying he's not on our radar.

I think you might be under selling Rachele here

 

[AstuteTiger]

Agree. I'm fascinated by the absoluteness of people's sources.

I guess nothing is 100% assured, just stating what I've heard. In saying that, if Callaghan was on the board I think we'd go him instead.
Still, a lot to play out.

 

[sregit]

From what I hear, well I used to work at the membership dept so I do know people in the know. Now, if we had pick 4, I believe we would go, Callaghan.
It seems to be Callaghan, Hobbs/Ward as the 3 main mids after Daicos and Jason Horne Francis

If Hobbs is available at our pick 7 (9) he will be a tiger. I guess that would dismiss what you have just stated to me about posters on here saying he's not on our radar.

So are you the person who kept rooting up my membership package?

 

[AstuteTiger]

I think you might be under selling Rachele here

How so? If Hobbs or ward or gibcus were available, would you pick one of them or Rachele? Curious to hear your thoughts on that.
If those 3 weren't available and Rachele was, would I be disappointed no, but id rather go Johnson over Rachele.

 

[AstuteTiger]

So are you the person who kept rooting up my membership package?

Lol I haven't worked there for years now, so it wasnt me promise!

 

[AstuteTiger]

I agree with your evaluation here, but totally ignores RJ's point of 'taking best available'. IF the club goes this route, the top 10 are rated by the club obviously in order of priority, regardless of position. At pick 9 on the night, whichever player is there as per the list order is taken.
The argument of 'need' is not considered for this 1st pick with this decision. Not saying it's right or what the club will do, simply the process.

So if Andrew is ranked by the club as 9th best, he is selected on that basis rather than the player at 10, without considering Rachelle or Johnson are still there as mids. Again not saying Andrew is ranked higher, just using them as examples to the process.

Then if we follow the process and go 'need' for 15, Andrew being a tall, now we need best mid @ 15, and visa versa if we go a mid @ 7, with the possibility of two mids if a rated tall @15 is not available in the 1st round.
So then we just need to know how we rank 9 players to know the player we select

Well, articulated, I wasn't disagreeing with him i was just stating that why would we take Andrew or Rachele over Hobbs, ward, gibcus.
I personally believe one of them (Hobbs or Gibcus) will fall to our pick. Now if Hobbs, Ward and Gibcus are off the table and Andrew, Rachele, Johnson were available id still go, Johnson who is rated a top 10 pick. If the club rate Andrew higher than Rachele or Johnson, so be it.

 

[guruisatiger]

I dare say a ruck first, key forward 2nd.

if thats true it will take a long time for him to develop
if its the other he could develop in 2 years