How you rate our draft?

[tugga]

you still dont read. medhurst has had two hauls of 50 goals a haul of 40 and a haul of 35. not bad returns for a sml forward dont you think but hey hes a dud when compared to king white and nahas.

i believe medhurst did most of that while at a shit club in freo.
davis has kicked 20 or more goals in 8 of his 11 seasons. kicking 31 in yr 3 and yep while the returns are nothing special the simple fact remains he has out performed our players quite easily. yet hes a dud and white nahas and king are not. talk about blinkered.

white is 24 and in yr 6 just what has he done again. does he have better skills than davis and medhurst. nahas is 23 is puny has shocking skills for a player of his ilk when hardwick says we lack polish hes talking about the whites and and kings and nahas's of the team.

king is how old oh thats right 27 hes gone form failure in defense to failure in the midfield to a defensive forward fantastic.

im big enough to admit that jake performed a decent role lats yr in the back half of the season he deserved to be retained in front others that does not mean we should not be looking for better.

now ive answered your questions without playing silly buggers heres one for you.

thus far have betts davis medhurst performed better than white king and nahas.

I am not advocating that White,King and Nahas are very good. I have not said this at all in any thread. I am arguing your stance that you think the others are so much better.
In answer to your question, then yes, over Medhurst's and Davis' 10-year careers (or thereabouts) they have had the time to outperform Nahas, King and White.

 

[santa claws]

Reimers shows potential buthas not done any more than what white,king or nahas has so far ................................... so the answer is NO

Buchanan .......................... Again glimpses but nothing special & if im looking to replace the 3 players you mentioned on our list would certainly have to be with better than Buchanan.

Byrnes ............................ playing in a champion geelong outfit that has players like chapman,bartel,ablett,selwood,enright etc etc etc he looked ok at best ............... but put him in the richmond team & you would be the first person to hang him claw

So the answer is NO buchanan,byrnes,reimers are no better than king,white,nahas.

They are not proven players ................ Far from it actually

Hope that anwered your question

first im not looking to replace players with names ive mentioned.

and i agree with reimers. and buchanan who i mistook for schnieder, have done little.
it was a bit of a stretch. the point being made though is they probably are on par with the three richmond players i mentioned.reimers certainly has better skills.

on byrnes i would disagree. he has not been able to break into the geelong side regularly.. the only two full seasons hes played hes kicked 32 and 35 goals. not to bad imo.i think byrnes a definate upgrade on what we have.and better player than his teammate stokes.
im happy to concede the point though.

what about the 3 we were debating davis medhurst betts.

and again shouldnt we be aiming above the ordinary.
every player debated in the main has been ordinary with posters saying hell no not at richmond but those players in the main have done more or at the very least as much and have better skills than the players they want to keep.

if eddie betts is a dud so is white, if medhurst is a dud so is king if if davis is a dud so is nahas. if based on performance and skill set these types are duds then surely so are king white and nahas.

 

[santa claws]

Santa what you must understand is this, most tiger supporters will agree with you that all 3 nahas,white,king will need to be upgraded within the next 3 years but not all at once & some of the players you have put foward are just as rubbish as the players you want to get rid off.

As i mentioned in a previous post the club has recruited some replavements such as taylor,mcdonald,hicks but will possible take another 2-3 in the next 2 drafts.

Davis,medhurst,reimers,byrnes,buchanan are not any better claw, we would be replaceing trash with rubbish & you would be the first to complain about recycling other teams cast offs.

Replace with kids under 21 who have talent

bloody hell its like pulling teeth.

who the hell is saying we should go get davis reimers medhurst byrnes buchanan. im not putting them up as replacements how many times does this have to be said before it sinks in.

all thats been said is as a comparison they have in the main outperformed nahas white and king. just like just about every single sml forward in the comp has.
im not saying go get em, im saying hey look most dont rate these players yet they are on a par or better than ours.
what im saying is we should be looking for a didak or rioli not a davis which is exactly what our 3 are leon davis ordinary below standard.

and i disagree white and nahas can and should have gone.
as already stated it is not written in stone that you have to play a sml forward while you are looking for a decent one. we have medium sized options and mids who can pinch hit there in the short term. morton and cotchin should most certainly rotate thru there.

if in charge i would be looking to play hicks but i have doubts that because of his size hes ready to stand up.i would most definately be looking to play the unproven kid in front of the known duds though.

 

[santa claws]

I am not advocating that White,King and Nahas are very good. I have not said this at all in any thread. I am arguing your stance that you think the others are so much better.
In answer to your question, then yes, over Medhurst's and Davis' 10-year careers (or thereabouts) they have had the time to outperform Nahas, King and White.

why thank you for your honesty. so those hacks duds and down right useless players are better than those we have.

 

[THE_GUN]

first im not looking to replace players with names ive mentioned.

and i agree with reimers. and buchanan who i mistook for schnieder, have done little.
it was a bit of a stretch. the point being made though is they probably are on par with the three richmond players i mentioned.reimers certainly has better skills.

on byrnes i would disagree. he has not been able to break into the geelong side regularly.. the only two full seasons hes played hes kicked 32 and 35 goals. not to bad imo.i think byrnes a definate upgrade on what we have.and better player than his teammate stokes.
im happy to concede the point though.

what about the 3 we were debating davis medhurst betts.

and again shouldnt we be aiming above the ordinary.
every player debated in the main has been ordinary with posters saying hell no not at richmond but those players in the main have done more or at the very least as much and have better skills than the players they want to keep.

if eddie betts is a dud so is white, if medhurst is a dud so is king if if davis is a dud so is nahas. if based on performance and skill set these types are duds then surely so are king white and nahas.

Yes claw i do agree with this as far as i am concerned whit,nahas,king all should be traded or delisted in 2 years time unless they really come on in leaps and bounds but all the players you mentioned are just as bad as ours & if your not wanting to replace our with these whats the point mentioneing them.

In regards to byrnes he kicked 32 & 35 playing in a dominant geelong outfit , i would struggle to see him kicking half these numbers playing for richmond.

mcdonald,hicks,taylor ................ will hopefully be better than all these players

 

[MightyTiger]

Gee all this complaining about a couple of fringe players.

santa for some reason you like to play Mr Obvious, everyone knows those 3 players are fringe to serviceable at best, the only thing people are disputing with you is that if these said players were to improve there game as small forwards then we would be stupid to delist them.

 

[_RT_]

it happens, we can only really talk about what has been and that aint to good.what has gone before suggests it wont happen.

and as some have implied on here davis medhurst betts have only had the odd good yr does that make them good footballers.
geez how would they be raving if say matt white had kicked 25 38 and 42 goals over the last 3 yrs as betts has done. yet they dont rate him hes a dud but the likes of white king and nahas are not. talk about hypocrisy.

i dont want medhurst at richmond yet twice in his career hes kicked 50 goals and 40 once. it doesnt really make him a good player but it makes him a better performer than white king or nahas.

not so much you rt but people on here want a little bit each way. well you too.
if they stick the boots into betts medhurst davis and others they cant sit back and treat worse performers with kid gloves just because they play in their team.

with our small forward what is the aim. mediocrity or class.

I'd like to ask Claws, would you still dismiss Nahas if he had played 120 games and kicked 165 goals playing as a small forward like Betts has?

I mean when you compare their careers this is how they stack up:
Nahas - 33 games 34 goals(1 per game) 13.4 disposals 3.5 marks 4.2 tackles
Betts - 120 games 165 goals(1.4 per game) 11.4 disposals 2.7 marks 3 tackles.

Looking at raw figures there isn't much between the 2. Yet because he seemed to struggle this year, most of us, me included have sunk the slippers in. What ever happened to giving players 3 years in the system before a definite call was made about them?

 

[Rayzorwire]

...most of us, me included have sunk the slippers in. What ever happened to giving players 3 years in the system before a definite call was made about them?

He's not a junior, he was mature age RT, so from that perspective it was very disappointing that it was hard to argue he hadn't gone backwards last year. Rather than going from a 60% ready small forward to the 75-90% ready to shine small forward we've been crying out for, he looked still at 60% or worse.

Hence the slipper - he earned it and has a lot of work to do changing anyone's mind, he's lucky to be still contracted.

 

[tugga]

why thank you for your honesty. so those hacks duds and down right useless players are better than those we have.

Look, I am also not happy with certain parts of our playing stocks. But by bringing in McDonald, we have one more chance to address it and hopefully get it right. As long as we are turning the list over to find better options, then it's good isn't it? As far as I can tell, other than Byrnes, not one of the players you mentioned have played in a premiership side. (did you mention Rioli? He has, but he is a given and would walk into all 18 clubs' lists.) An even spread is required. We have addressed our midfield stocks and have gotten that right I reckon. We have addressed key forwards with Jack, Griff, Post. Other than Jack, time will tell whether the other two can contribute. Defence is being addressed with Astbury, Gourdis, Grimes. Rucks are being addressed with Vickery and Dericksx (or however you spell his name). The one area we have not addressed is small forwards, but McDonald was a step in that direction. Whether or not he is any good remains to be seen.

 

[richoatthedisco]

He's not a junior, he was mature age RT, so from that perspective it was very disappointing that it was hard to argue he hadn't gone backwards last year. Rather than going from a 60% ready small forward to the 75-90% ready to shine small forward we've been crying out for, he looked still at 60% or worse.

Hence the slipper - he earned it and has a lot of work to do changing anyone's mind, he's lucky to be still contracted.

I'd say that's the only reason he's still around. As for recruiting small forwards, I give you:

The D-Mac.

 

[captain blood 17]

I'd say that's the only reason he's still around. As for recruiting small forwards, I give you:

The D-Mac.

It's time to get on board the D Mac train for sure. This kid will be a ripper.

 

[_RT_]

He's not a junior, he was mature age RT, so from that perspective it was very disappointing that it was hard to argue he hadn't gone backwards last year. Rather than going from a 60% ready small forward to the 75-90% ready to shine small forward we've been crying out for, he looked still at 60% or worse.

Hence the slipper - he earned it and has a lot of work to do changing anyone's mind, he's lucky to be still contracted.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a fair bit of work to do but I also think its a bit much to expect Nahas, at 22 years of age, to become a 75-90% ready to shine small forward playing for a side that started the season 0-9 and only won 6 games for the season.

Its only the real special small forwards that can do things like that and I think we all realise that Nahas isn't one of them. Thats why I asked why not give him one more season to see if he can turn it around and become that small forward that we're looking for. Given the way Dimma swings the axe, I'm pretty sure that if he doesn't show something more this year his name will be amongst the list of players who are moved on.

 

[santa claws]

Look, I am also not happy with certain parts of our playing stocks. But by bringing in McDonald, we have one more chance to address it and hopefully get it right. As long as we are turning the list over to find better options, then it's good isn't it? As far as I can tell, other than Byrnes, not one of the players you mentioned have played in a premiership side. (did you mention Rioli? He has, but he is a given and would walk into all 18 clubs' lists.) An even spread is required. We have addressed our midfield stocks and have gotten that right I reckon. We have addressed key forwards with Jack, Griff, Post. Other than Jack, time will tell whether the other two can contribute. Defence is being addressed with Astbury, Gourdis, Grimes. Rucks are being addressed with Vickery and Dericksx (or however you spell his name). The one area we have not addressed is small forwards, but McDonald was a step in that direction. Whether or not he is any good remains to be seen.

macdonald is a medium i thought we were talking smalls. but to be fair yep i understand where your coming from. to me macdonald will enable us to not be forced into playing the likes of cotchin and morton for big chunks of games in the forward line.that is if he works out. hes big bodied and i have already pencilled him for games at the start of the season.

i mentioned the davis medhursts of this world to show that players who generally are not rated have done more than our blokes.

i believe i also mentioned porplyzia knights garlett ablett chapman didak schnieder milne and others but it seems no one wants to compare ours to them. would be pointless anyway.

we need to aim for the didak standard not the davis type.

finally im going to stir up another can of worms while we are talking smls.people talk about how good our recruiting has been but it has been poor when it comes to smls.
since jackson came 05 the smalls taken.
white, clingan, peterson,edwards,king,collard howat, nahas gilligan, cousins, nason, webberley, roberts, farmer, hicks. already its one area under jackson and to a lesser degree cameron that has failed abysmally.
roughly 15 smalls taken in the period and apart from cuz not one high quality recruit. but that is understandable when one looks at where most have been taken. only edwards with a decent pick and he looks the best of the lot.

 

[tugga]

macdonald is a medium i thought we were talking smalls. but to be fair yep i understand where your coming from. to me macdonald will enable us to not be forced into playing the likes of cotchin and morton for big chunks of games in the forward line.

i mentioned the davis medhursts of this world to show that players who generally are not rated have done more than our blokes.

i believe i also mentioned porplyzia knights garlett ablett chapman didak schnieder milne and others but it seems no one wants to compare ours to them. would be pointless anyway.

we eed to aim for the didak standard not the davis type.

Agreed 100%.

 

[santa claws]

I'm not saying he doesn't have a fair bit of work to do but I also think its a bit much to expect Nahas, at 22 years of age, to become a 75-90% ready to shine small forward playing for a side that started the season 0-9 and only won 6 games for the season.

Its only the real special small forwards that can do things like that and I think we all realise that Nahas isn't one of them. Thats why I asked why not give him one more season to see if he can turn it around and become that small forward that we're looking for. Given the way Dimma swings the axe, I'm pretty sure that if he doesn't show something more this year his name will be amongst the list of players who are moved on.

hmm where did i read smalls by 20 mediums by 22 and talls by 24. its a souind general rule imo.
nahas is 23 a small he shoiuld have clicked yrs ago. so we ask why hasnt he.
in all honesty its not his age that screams not good enough especially for the role hes asked to play. its his tools or attributes. and for a sml at 23 he is not likely to get em. why hasnt he made it pretty simple really to small not quick enough some will argue that one and his skills are not clean.imo will always be a battler.

 

[THE_GUN]

]macdonald is a medium i thought we were talking smalls[/B]. but to be fair yep i understand where your coming from. to me macdonald will enable us to not be forced into playing the likes of cotchin and morton for big chunks of games in the forward line.that is if he works out. hes big bodied and i have already pencilled him for games at the start of the season.

i mentioned the davis medhursts of this world to show that players who generally are not rated have done more than our blokes.

i believe i also mentioned porplyzia knights garlett ablett chapman didak schnieder milne and others but it seems no one wants to compare ours to them. would be pointless anyway.

we need to aim for the didak standard not the davis type.

finally im going to stir up another can of worms while we are talking smls.people talk about how good our recruiting has been but it has been poor when it comes to smls.
since jackson came 05 the smalls taken.
white, clingan, peterson,edwards,king,collard howat, nahas gilligan, cousins, nason, webberley, roberts, farmer, hicks. already its one area under jackson and to a lesser degree cameron that has failed abysmally.
roughly 15 smalls taken in the period and apart from cuz not one high quality recruit. but that is understandable when one looks at where most have been taken. only edwards with a decent pick and he looks the best of the lot.

sorry claw but you do realise that didak is 184cm & knights is actually 187cm whilst dean mcdonald is also 184cm

whilst you say that we are talking about smalls & mcdonald is a medium your giving examples of mediums

Which is it ????

 

[MightyTiger]

hmm where did i read smalls by 20 mediums by 22 and talls by 24. its a souind general rule imo.
nahas is 23 a small he shoiuld have clicked yrs ago. so we ask why hasnt he.
in all honesty its not his age that screams not good enough especially for the role hes asked to play. its his tools or attributes. and for a sml at 23 he is not likely to get em. why hasnt he made it pretty simple really to small not quick enough some will argue that one and his skills are not clean.imo will always be a battler.

Since when was this the general rule?

 

[_RT_]

hmm where did i read smalls by 20 mediums by 22 and talls by 24. its a souind general rule imo.
nahas is 23 a small he shoiuld have clicked yrs ago. so we ask why hasnt he.
in all honesty its not his age that screams not good enough especially for the role hes asked to play. its his tools or attributes. and for a sml at 23 he is not likely to get em. why hasnt he made it pretty simple really to small not quick enough some will argue that one and his skills are not clean.imo will always be a battler.

So a small gets until they're 20, which means that they would have had in most cases 3-4 years in the system after being drafted as 17-18 year olds. Nahas was drafted as a 21 year old and has been in the system for 2 seasons in that time he has averaged similar numbers to what Garlett has over his 2 year career. The main difference being Garlett has kicked 17 more goals playing mainly FP while Nahas has spent a bit more time up the ground.
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...d1=3191&tid2=4&pid2=3189&type=A&fid1=C&fid2=C

Sometimes I wonder with our supporters, they rave about players from opposition clubs, who for the most part play in much better teams, while criticising our own for not setting the world on fire while playing in a struggling team. For example you're talking Betts up now, I'd assume, on the back of his form the last 3 years where he kicked 25, 38 & 42 goals, yet in his first 3 seasons he struggled to kick more than 20 goals(kicked 19, 20 & 21) despite playing 19, 21 & 17 games in each of those seasons.

Using your general rule above, Betts should have been cut after 3 seasons because he wasn't producing any more than what Nahas has in his first 2 years. Its only in the last 3 years as the Blues have climbed off the bottom of the ladder than he has actually started to put up what you would consider decent numbers for a permanent small forward.

 

[Morro]

Being a small forward is all about opportunities, and Santa lets be honest, our forwards get less than anyone these days.

 

[Spluff]

why hasnt he made it pretty simple really to small not quick enough some will argue that one and his skills are not clean.imo will always be a battler.

I don't even...

 

[santa claws]

sorry claw but you do realise that didak is 184cm & knights is actually 187cm whilst dean mcdonald is also 184cm

whilst you say that we are talking about smalls & mcdonald is a medium your giving examples of mediums

Which is it ????

by god your right.
lets just say those two i assumed were smalls and if you have a look didak is listed at various heights 182 in 07. 184 08 184 09 185 10.

im inclined to go with 182cm people just dont grow very much after 18 and by 22 your growth is usually done.from 04 to 07 he was listed at 182cm. in o7 he was 24yrs of age.
anyway just look at him does he look a small to you. does he play like a small.
but lesson lerarnt it does pay to check. it seems you can assume nothing but with didak am i wrong.
knights well to be honest i have never looked at his height just the way he plays and looks has had me assume hes a small lesson learnt.

anyway shoot me i got something wrong.didak i will argue but beg forgiveness over knights.

 

[santa claws]

So a small gets until they're 20, which means that they would have had in most cases 3-4 years in the system after being drafted as 17-18 year olds. Nahas was drafted as a 21 year old and has been in the system for 2 seasons in that time he has averaged similar numbers to what Garlett has over his 2 year career. The main difference being Garlett has kicked 17 more goals playing mainly FP while Nahas has spent a bit more time up the ground.
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...d1=3191&tid2=4&pid2=3189&type=A&fid1=C&fid2=C

Sometimes I wonder with our supporters, they rave about players from opposition clubs, who for the most part play in much better teams, while criticising our own for not setting the world on fire while playing in a struggling team. For example you're talking Betts up now, I'd assume, on the back of his form the last 3 years where he kicked 25, 38 & 42 goals, yet in his first 3 seasons he struggled to kick more than 20 goals(kicked 19, 20 & 21) despite playing 19, 21 & 17 games in each of those seasons.

Using your general rule above, Betts should have been cut after 3 seasons because he wasn't producing any more than what Nahas has in his first 2 years. Its only in the last 3 years as the Blues have climbed off the bottom of the ladder than he has actually started to put up what you would consider decent numbers for a permanent small forward.

no you still miss the point. im not talking betts up at all. but even his returns when still relatively young of 19 21 and 17 goals a game when carlton were struggling is better than any return that our boys have produced.

simply put if you dont rate betts i cant see how you can rate our lot.
one point you are totally missing is i dont rate betts either ive said it ad nauseum and am getting sick of having to repeat myself.what im saying is not rocket science.

you want your cake and eat it too. on one hand betts is crap despite performing better than our lot yet on the other hand our lot are okay depite having performed worse than betts. how can that be.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Santa's right, we have no small forwards worth a pinch of shit at this stage, unless King can repeat his late season form for a full year, then four more years. Even then we still need another couple. I have no hope for Nahas but Hicks has promise. Crucially he is lightning fast, whether he makes it will come down to his finishing, which needs some polish.

 

[tugga]

Santa's right, we have no small forwards worth a pinch of shit at this stage, unless King can repeat his late season form for a full year, then four more years. Even then we still need another couple. I have no hope for Nahas but Hicks has promise. Crucially he is lightning fast, whether he makes it will come down to his finishing, which needs some polish.

You are not bothered that Hicks is the size of a garden gnome?

 

[santa claws]

So a small gets until they're 20, which means that they would have had in most cases 3-4 years in the system after being drafted as 17-18 year olds. Nahas was drafted as a 21 year old and has been in the system for 2 seasons in that time he has averaged similar numbers to what Garlett has over his 2 year career. The main difference being Garlett has kicked 17 more goals playing mainly FP while Nahas has spent a bit more time up the ground.
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...d1=3191&tid2=4&pid2=3189&type=A&fid1=C&fid2=C



Using your general rule above, Betts should have been cut after 3 seasons because he wasn't producing any more than what Nahas has in his first 2 years. Its only in the last 3 years as the Blues have climbed off the bottom of the ladder than he has actually started to put up what you would consider decent numbers for a permanent small forward.

im not even going to attempt to explain the 20 22 24 principal because i can see you will just be silly about it. suffice to say we are not talking about players reaching full potential at those ages

so garlett in just yr 2 kicks 39 21 as you say almost as a permanent fp.
also he manages 12.25 possesions a game. to top it off he does not have obvious skill deficiency like nahas and while still skinny looks like he has some scope to improve his size.

nahas a mature player older than garlett also in yr 2 you would expect him to have a bigger impact than garlett kicks 13 13 with a little time in the midfield. yet despite the extra freedom manages just 12.5 possesions agame.
to top it off hes skinny and looks to have little scope for improvement size wise and has such obvious skill deficiency and lack of pace its not funny.

tell me oh great defender of all things mediocre who would you prefer. all you do is make excuses for mediocrity. you are not seriously going to debate performance when it comes to these two.

39 21 is a good performance by any standard regardless of the pathetic excuses used in regards he played in a good team. so carlton are a really good team now. you keep on defending them rt no matter what.