Hilton

[Junkie]

yeah and they moved heaven and earth to change his mind too.

Not really, you cant keep someone there who doesnt want to be there. When he left Brisbane he was a 19 yo number 3 draft pick who had played 9 games in one season, so he was in pretty high demand at the time.

 

[1980]

I don't think we can carry both Chaffey and Hilton. Hilton is showing good signs for many of the same reasons that Chaffey looked good in the same role. However it is a luxury to have a veteran like that in such a fringe role. Chaffey has the edge in that he can play as a tagger.

Best games I've seen Hilton play were as a tagger. He got reported a lot, but I didnt mind that either...

 

[Yze#13]

F'arken hack.

2 somewhat decent games in the back pocket doesnt mean he shouldnt be cut.

******** him off to give Thursfeild, Hartigan, Jackson, Roach type a chance, someone whos going to be in our future.

******** you off, so we can have some decent discussion

 

[Truetiger]

We all know that Tigertime and Bentleigh are up there for the worst Richmond fans. I also think MVFC is right up there. As soon as they ******** off the better for everyone on here

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

Rory Hilton this is your life:

Average possessions per game: 12.64
Average marks per game: 3.48
Average tackles per game: 1.45
Average goals per game: 0.62

How many utilities have survived in the AFL for over 8 years with figures like that?

OK I'll play John,

Glen Archer

Average possessions per game: 13.15
Average marks per game: 3.8
Average tackles per game: 1.83
Average goals per game: 0.52

Chris Johnson

Average possessions per game: 13.8
Average marks per game: 3.9
Average tackles per game: 1.97
Average goals per game: 0.63

Mind you the above two haven't also had to contend with 2 knee recos, busted shoulder or detached retina - might have struggled a bit more otherwise

 

[JohnF]

You're not playing according to the rules Rob. I said how many UTILITIES have survived in the league with stats like that.

Glenn Archer's job isn't to pick up stats, and Chrish Johnson was on the verge of a delisting as a forward before he settled into a packpocket position.

Hilton has played the majority of his footy as a forward/part-time midfielder and his stats show just how mediocre he has been. Not many goals, and not many possies.

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

You're not playing according to the rules Rob. I said how many UTILITIES have survived in the league with stats like that.

Glenn Archer's job isn't to pick up stats, and Chrish Johnson was on the verge of a delisting as a forward before he settled into a packpocket position.

Hilton has played the majority of his footy as a forward/part-time midfielder and his stats show just how mediocre he has been. Not many goals, and not many possies.

Strongly disagree, Archer has played as a half back flanker, up forward and occasionally (even this season) through the middle. Johnson plays as running half back and like Hilton also played starvation corner and the middle. Hilton also played 2000 and 2001 predominantly as a half back with stints in the middle (I'd say abot 40 games or so). His forward play was basically after his shoulder injury in 2003 and 2004 and even then he was being played sparingly off the bench. Archer and Johnson are cream - to be anywhere near the ball park is a complement to Rory.

 

[JohnF]

Strongly disagree, Archer has played as a half back flanker, up forward and occasionally (even this season) through the middle. Johnson plays as running half back and like Hilton also played starvation corner and the middle. Hilton also played 2000 and 2001 predominantly as a half back with stints in the middle (I'd say abot 40 games or so). His forward play was basically after his shoulder injury in 2003 and 2004 and even then he was being played sparingly off the bench. Archer and Johnson are cream - to be anywhere near the ball park is a complement to Rory.

Archer has played a total of about 2 whole games on the ball. He has been a backman 90% of his career, and not a backman that is there to break free and pick up stats. Archer's real value is revealed in spoils, hip and shoulders, shepherds, instilling fear into the opposition. Rory is not in the same universe with him in any of these facets.

I don't remember Chris Johnson spending too much time in the middle. Maybe a few games in total on the wing and that's about it. He was always one of the unfittest players (until recent years where he hasn't played midfield either).

 

[TuskenRaider]

JohnF, you're not doing your argument any service by asking how many utilities have survived with stats like Rory's. The fact is they're never going to get as much of the ball as permanent midfielders.

You can't measure his worth by quoting stats all the time, otherwise you'd have to say Richardson isn't as good a player as someone like Tivendale.

Just as you said with Archer (whom I note you were not calling a utility), a utilities job isn't to pick up stats, but to plug holes here and there in the team and you'll find Hilton will be more versatile than just about anyone on your list. It's also about the hardest role to play as it's hard to be settled.

 

[ARES]

TuskenRaider, good post.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

There are at least 5 players that deserve to go b4 Hilton.

 

[CoggaRules]

Direct question for Cogga Rules - Do you think that a young running half back who has an average of 14 posessions, 1.4 tackles and has kicked 40 goals is in his first 55 games has done well?

To assist you, I will give you another benchmark. In his first 20 games Brett Deledio is averaging 14.57 possessions a game, averages 1.65 tackles and kicked 13 goals.

I await your considered judgement

yes, he has done very well, but there is a variable that you havent taken into account, do you know what that one is?
We are kind of in the year 2005 and looking forward to 2006, so we kind of need to talk about the nows that are happening and not compare the thens to the nows when its quite clear that the draft, in regards to the top, say 5 picks, has become a pretty exact science. I wonder if back then when ror was selected no. 1 what was the beep test, jump on the spot test, etc etc results? Or maybe that just came into the fray only in the recently?
I will give yo my view in a nutshell as to my 50/50 stance on ror, and its all to do with the make up of the tigers and what we havent got that we need, and what we have a lot of that we have had a lot of in recent years.
Speedy defenders!!!!!!!! You are talking ror as a defender? then we will have Gas, Chubba, Rayzor & Ror , thats 4 man, so who is going to man up on the good fast players that are part of good sides forward lines?

 

[IDGAF]

For all the debate it comes down to this .

What would you rather ...

Axe Hilton and draft someone at around 60 - 70 ....

Or keep him ???

Weaver says we are not improving our list by hanging on to a player like him , but how often does a player taken at that end of the draft add a bit of punch to your playing stocks ?

I know people are going to start giving examples and there are a few there but it dosn`t happen very often .

Stick with Rory . He has worked hard enough and i reckon he deserves a bit of a break . Still has a bit to offer

 

[Weaver]

Hilton has played the majority of his footy as a forward/part-time midfielder and his stats show just how mediocre he has been. Not many goals, and not many possies.

Hilton had two good years 2000-2001, yet somehow the fact that he has barely played since is considered a reason for keeping him

2000-2001 he averaged 17 touches and kicked 32 goals in 35 games.
2002-2006 he averages 12.3 touches and has kicked 39 goals in 55 games.

In has taken him 6 years of work to equal the output of his two good years.

 

[peejay]

Hmmmm.

 

[CoggaRules]

For all the debate it comes down to this .

What would you rather ...

Axe Hilton and draft someone at around 60 - 70 ....

Or keep him ???

Weaver says we are not improving our list by hanging on to a player like him , but how often does a player taken at that end of the draft add a bit of punch to your playing stocks ?

I know people are going to start giving examples and there are a few there but it dosn`t happen very often .

Stick with Rory . He has worked hard enough and i reckon he deserves a bit of a break . Still has a bit to offer

I will take a stab at explaing what I think weaver is trying to say.
I will use parts of your post as examples IG.
Do you discount the fact that we are not improving our list keeping a player like ror? If so, then he has been on our list, that needs to be improved, for 5 years? so how can it be improving a list when he has been part of that list?
You ask how often do you find a player at the end of a draft?
I most definetely can say this for sure and certain, you will find one, more often, than if you didnt select one.

 

[Weaver]

Weaver says we are not improving our list by hanging on to a player like him , but how often does a player taken at that end of the draft add a bit of punch to your playing stocks ?

One way to look at the debate is Hilton v pick 70. Another is to look at is as Hilton v keeping Kel Moore.

Also keeping Hilton (in my opinion) won't make the team better long term (and I don't care much about the next 2 years) but getting a kid MIGHT improve us. If footy is blackjack we have a hand of 14 and the dealer is showing a 10 ... we can't afford to sit. We have to make some aggressive moves to get better.

Also a team can improve by freeing up roles in the team. Axing Fleming let Chaffey go into the tagging job (slight improvement), axing Zantuck gave Hilton his chance (and Thursfield). Moving Campbell to HFF has allowed Tuck to take his spot in the midfield and have a top season. I basically think we need Hilton's spot on the field for our kids.

In a way I think of this not so much as sacking Hilton, but making his role redundant. There is no spot for a 26 year old, slow backpocket who doesn't take one of the oppositions best 2-3 forwards. The job shouldn't exist. If it does then yes give it to Hilton. But I think for the long-term benefit of the club we need to spend 2006 giving Roach, Raines, Gilmour, Archibald, Hartigan, Thursfield, Polo and Jackson their shot. I'd rather give them 3-4 games each in the BP.

 

[IDGAF]

One way to look at the debate is Hilton v pick 70. Another is to look at is as Hilton v keeping Kel Moore.

Also keeping Hilton (in my opinion) won't make the team better long term (and I don't care much about the next 2 years) but getting a kid MIGHT improve us. If footy is blackjack we have a hand of 14 and the dealer is showing a 10 ... we can't afford to sit. We have to make some aggressive moves to get better.

Also a team can improve by freeing up roles in the team. Axing Fleming let Chaffey go into the tagging job (slight improvement), axing Zantuck gave Hilton his chance (and Thursfield). Moving Campbell to HFF has allowed Tuck to take his spot in the midfield and have a top season. I basically think we need Hilton's spot on the field for our kids.

In a way I think of this not so much as sacking Hilton, but making his role redundant. There is no spot for a 26 year old, slow backpocket who doesn't take one of the oppositions best 2-3 forwards. The job shouldn't exist. If it does then yes give it to Hilton. But I think for the long-term benefit of the club we need to spend 2006 giving Roach, Raines, Gilmour, Archibald, Hartigan, Thursfield, Polo and Jackson their shot. I'd rather give them 3-4 games each in the BP.

All good points

The only other factor that i would like to add to the pro-Hilton view is the existence of the very well documented lack of mid-aged players on our list , which will also be compounded at the end of this season with the retirement of about 800 games roughly in Cambo , Stafford and Graham . His hard , experienced head and body may come in handy for another year or 2....

Either way , i won`t be cutting up my membership and slashing my wrists if he does get the chop . I think there are pretty good arguements both ways but i do think that giving his spot to one of the many third year players that should be either making it or breaking it next year is pretty sound logic Weaver .

Be interesting to see what the brainstrust decides

 

[jezza]

All good points

The only other factor that i would like to add to the pro-Hilton view is the existence of the very well documented lack of mid-aged players on our list , which will also be compounded at the end of this season with the retirement of about 800 games roughly in Cambo , Stafford and Graham . His hard , experienced head and body may come in handy for another year or 2....

Either way , i won`t be cutting up my membership and slashing my wrists if he does get the chop . I think there are pretty good arguements both ways but i do think that giving his spot to one of the many third year players that should be either making it or breaking it next year is pretty sound logic Weaver .

Be interesting to see what the brainstrust decides

Given how much publicity this lack of mid-20's players has received lately, I would expect us to be targeting at least one this draft/trade period, and the future of someone like Hilton may largely depend on how well we go at picking up someone else.

 

[Truetiger]

Given how much publicity this lack of mid-20's players has received lately, I would expect us to be targeting at least one this draft/trade period, and the future of someone like Hilton may largely depend on how well we go at picking up someone else.

That's right we will only keep Hilton on if we don't get a better player in the trade or draft. That said yes Hilton had 1 last chance in staying with us and he has done very well in the last month or so. But I don't want to see Hilton standing in the way of a young up and coming player.

 

[Wally Matera]

Though he played very well yesterday and has been playing well for the past couple of weeks, probably saved his career>

thoughts?

ahh... no thanks. Sounds harsh based on last couple of weeks, but life wasnt meant to be easy.

He is not in our best 22, we're kidding ourselves if we think he is.

 

[CoggaRules]

Given how much publicity this lack of mid-20's players has received lately, I would expect us to be targeting at least one this draft/trade period, and the future of someone like Hilton may largely depend on how well we go at picking up someone else.

have heard around the traps, but the traps are not that reliable, but they are not that unreliable too, that you might be surprised a little come trade time, I will say nothing more. And the surprises have all to do with who we offer too.
dont want to start anything but I heard it and pass it on. Again it might be pie in the sky stuff, but who knows.

 

[silence ofthe Robert]

Hilton had two good years 2000-2001, yet somehow the fact that he has barely played since is considered a reason for keeping him

2000-2001 he averaged 17 touches and kicked 32 goals in 35 games.
2002-2006 he averages 12.3 touches and has kicked 39 goals in 55 games.

In has taken him 6 years of work to equal the output of his two good years.

I think your maths is a bit askew Weaves. First 2002 to 2005 is less than 4 years play. Secondly he has only played 34 games since 2001 and I doubt he has kicked more than 15 goals in that time. Your point is valid - seeing he appears not to be able to get on the park and with littles scope for improvement why keep him - fair enough. My view is that when he has played he has been OK to quite good and if he can stay fit and focussed he may actually play better footy in the future. Secondly he is playing good footy now and can be used in a number of positions, is only 26 so should have a few good years left and provides the experienced hard mature body with footy smarts the club needs. Interesting decision for the coaching staff. I think Rory deserves a go based on his effort to get back and his good performances on game day.

 

[JohnF]

JohnF, you're not doing your argument any service by asking how many utilities have survived with stats like Rory's. The fact is they're never going to get as much of the ball as permanent midfielders.

You can't measure his worth by quoting stats all the time, otherwise you'd have to say Richardson isn't as good a player as someone like Tivendale.

Just as you said with Archer (whom I note you were not calling a utility), a utilities job isn't to pick up stats, but to plug holes here and there in the team and you'll find Hilton will be more versatile than just about anyone on your list. It's also about the hardest role to play as it's hard to be settled.

Utilities are meant to get more fo the ball than your pretty much permanent shut down defenders like Glenn Archer or your permanent forwards, and even more so in the case of key backmen and key forwards. Utilities spend a fair amount of time on the wing, on the ball, up forward, and up back.

As for Richardson not being as good as Tivendale, of course I can give you a statistical basis to back that up. Just look how many marks and contested marks Richo takes next to Tivendale. Just look how many goals per game Richo kicks next to Tivendale. And in terms of possessions, he wouldn't be that far behind Tivendale, and given that Richo is a permanent forward and Tivendale is pretty much a permanent midfielder, it speaks volumes for how far apart they are.

 

[TuskenRaider]

You know I was talking about disposals, which is pretty much what you were talking about - not marks/contested marks, goals etc. I'm not an idiot - of course Richardson's a better player than Tivendale - that was my point. But you're changing your tact slightly.

And once again I think you underestimate the difficulty of a utility's role.

 

[Weaver]

I think your maths is a bit askew Weaves. First 2002 to 2005 is less than 4 years play. Secondly he has only played 34 games since 2001 and I doubt he has kicked more than 15 goals in that time.

If I was any good at Maths I wouldn't have ended up in IT