Dont we know how to draft tall players?

[_RT_]

Its not about quanity its all about quality

The only difference between our list and the Pies list is their established talls are currently better than ours. They have quite a high number of their talls that are yet to even play a game and like some of ours are no sure thing when it comes to being AFL quality down the track.

 

[Dr Tigris]

We didn't draft many talls until a few years ago, when Miller/Wallace lost power. Since then I am happy about our tall drafting. In threads past this has been discussed and we have about the average number of talls on the list compared to the rest of the AFL. Our problem is that we drafted mids and smalls, then talls in later drafts. Talls take longer so draft them first (in terms of draft years). We only started a proper rebuild about 3 years ago in terms of structure.

On rucks (this annoys me). People keep calling for more rucks. Teams play 1, maybe 2 rucks. You need a developing ruck, maybe 2. So 4 rucks on the list, like we have, is the max you should have. For many years West Coast had 2 rucks only. They had a great ruck and a backup. Why do this? Every ruck over 4 is a waste - they take the space of player that you can use. Even 4 is a lot, but not if you are trying to develop a decent ruck unit and need options. So we are going the development route, and are not sure we have a decent ruck in that group as yet. Rucks take years to develop, and so we should have taken them earlier to allow them time and space to develop. We should only recruit more rucks if we get rid of some. So trading for an established ruck means cutting 1-2 guys. Drafting a youngster means cutting. What I want to see is less rucks on our list - because when that happens we have a real AFL ruck set up.

 

[rammbo]

Id say cut browne and gus this year they r both in our top 6 worst players based on ability and potential on the list anyhow the two that replace them next year r bound to b an improvement. Im not saying we use any sub 50 picks on ruckmen either.

 

[Infamy]

Id say cut browne and gus this year they r both in our top 6 worst players based on ability and potential on the list anyhow the two that replace them next year r bound to b an improvement. Im not saying we use any sub 50 picks on ruckmen either.

Sorry but that is just crap
Any ruckman we take in the draft this year will not be ready to step straight into AFL level and ruck out a full game
Just look at Derrickx process so far this year as a case in point

Just let Graham & Browne develop, they are still very young for ruckmen, especially Browne. It's pretty normal for rucks to look unco when they are young and finding their way. I'm not saying we shouldn't draft another one, but cutting them both for the sake of it would just be a massive step backwards.

 

[City Search]

Sorry but that is just crap
Any ruckman we take in the draft this year will not be ready to step straight into AFL level and ruck out a full game
Just look at Derrickx process so far this year as a case in point

Just let Graham & Browne develop, they are still very young for ruckmen, especially Browne. It's pretty normal for rucks to look unco when they are young and finding their way. I'm not saying we shouldn't draft another one, but cutting them both for the sake of it would just be a massive step backwards.

Derickx has been struggling with a foot injury all year. Although I do still think he would not be at AFL level even if he was injury free.

 

[_RT_]

Id say cut browne and gus this year they r both in our top 6 worst players based on ability and potential on the list anyhow the two that replace them next year r bound to b an improvement. Im not saying we use any sub 50 picks on ruckmen either.

If we did that I've got no doubt that in 12 months time you would be one of the first on here complaining about the fact that we don't have any ruckman capable of running out a full game. Graham and Browne might not be that great now but not many ruckmen are in their first 50 games. Getting rid of them now would be 3 steps backwards.

It would also mean we would be putting a heap of faith in Vickery and the untried Derickx to get us through the year because the 2 young kids we replace Browne and Graham with will be nowhere near ready to be able to run out half a game let alone a full game.

 

[rammbo]

If we did that I've got no doubt that in 12 months time you would be one of the first on here complaining about the fact that we don't have any ruckman capable of running out a full game. Graham and Browne might not be that great now but not many ruckmen are in their first 50 games. Getting rid of them now would be 3 steps backwards.

It would also mean we would be putting a heap of faith in Vickery and the untried Derickx to get us through the year because the 2 young kids we replace Browne and Graham with will be nowhere near ready to be able to run out half a game let alone a full game.

i wasnt thinkn of replacing them with inexperience was more thinking at least one older surplus ruckman im not that stupid even if it appears so.

 

[_RT_]

i wasnt thinkn of replacing them with inexperience was more thinking at least one older surplus ruckman im not that stupid even if it appears so.

Fair enough, if we were going to get rid of them I'd only be chopping 1 and that would be only if we could land a ready to go number 1 ruckman who could come in and do the job from day 1. Otherwise I'd just continue on with what we've already got and hope that Vickery can step up and be the number 1 ruck that we plan for him to be sooner rather than later.

 

[rammbo]

Fair enough, if we were going to get rid of them I'd only be chopping 1 and that would be only if we could land a ready to go number 1 ruckman who could come in and do the job from day 1. Otherwise I'd just continue on with what we've already got and hope that Vickery can step up and be the number 1 ruck that we plan for him to be sooner rather than later.

All about improving the team ifs its only 1, browne has to go i feel, dont care that he is young hes just hasnt the talent its plain to see.