Jon

[Ando_4]

The bizzare thing in this is that you insist we need Deledio as a permanent midfielder despite him never having done it in juniors, not have the body for it, and possesing all the skills and class. What makes Deledio a candidate for ruck-rover that precludes JON?

I thought Lids WAS a ruck rover in his junior days.
If he wasn't where on earth did he play to garner the rep he did?

 

[Calcium Man]

Usually i try to avoid this type of bull**** complaining about JON, Tambling, Meyer and Casserly and the other similar players but im so smashed and didnt do as well as i hoped to night that im gonna weigh in. This crap that they are all outside midfielders is bull****. What they are is under weight. What they will become is unknown. Deledio and tambling are both exeptional around stoppages from what i have observed yet they are classed as outside mids, reality is these they have the ability to play both inside and outside with some muscle and experience. And whose to say the same cannot be said about JON, Meyer, Casserly and edwards.

While it would be nice to pick a Mclean or Jones. These guys are just lucky selections and have come on very well. Whereas guys like pettifer, Johnstone, robert murphy, giansircusa, gilbee, scott thompson, embley, both selwoods, malceski, o'keefe and burgoyne have take 4 or 5 pre seaons to really make an impact. And you could probably name many others. So why dont we give our guys the same amount of time before we write them off.

Gibbs is meant to be one of the best no. 1 picks eva but so far i would say joel selwood looks far more comfortable in the big league. That doesnt mean Selwood is a better player just means he has adjustd quicker!!!

 

[Weaver]

I thought Lids WAS a ruck rover in his junior days.
If he wasn't where on earth did he play to garner the rep he did?

First season on HBF. Second season he played a lot of wing and even full forward. He played some time in the middle but was rarely fulltime, and never really stood out as a 30-touch type. He played exactly like he has done for us so far.

 

[Weaver]

While it would be nice to pick a Mclean or Jones.

The other problem is that people seem to think that the draft is like shopping at Myers. You decide what you want and pick one off the shelf. Excepional inside midfielders are rare. Good big blokes are rare. Tall athletic types with electric pace are rare.

When things are scarce you have to buy them early or miss out.

In contrast it is pretty easy to stock up with Newman, Hyde, Foley, Hartigan, White, Connors inside mids late in the draft.

2002 - We traded first-round for an inside mid in Kane Johnson.

2003 - We traded for an elite midfielder / forward in Nathan Brown. Colin Sylvia, Brock McLean, Beau Waters were unavailable to us (we didn't have an early enough pick).

2004 - Deledio, Tambling, Polo. Addressed the centre-square. We could have passed on Tambling for Jordan Lewis but that is hindsight talking. Polo looks a good 2nd choice.

2005 - We took JON instead of Higgins, Hurn or Jones. That would be the first year that you could be critical. The only year we had an opportunity to get a good inside guy and didn't take the chance.

Yes it would be nice to have another elite inside guy, but that doesn't make the player exist on draft day - and doesn't mean that we have the pick to use on him.

 

[lids2004roar]

the big possesion games arent there yet but ill take 20 possies and 3 goals resting forward from him anyday gun player

good try though

He played some time in the middle but was rarely fulltime, and never really stood out as a 30-touch type.

Would just like to take the time to say that for I think the first time in his career Deledio got 30 possessions the other day against Collingwood! I heard he played a combo of HBF and midfield.




Weaver thank you heaps for your posting, I love reading what you have to say on the kids as you are one of the very few who actually have the real knowledge on them to give you more credibility.

As for inside mids vs outside mids I think we just don't have many kids who currently play inside (but could eventually), and we have heaps of inside mids in the 22+ age bracket. Kane Johnson is our captain and we paid a lot for his services. Shane Tuck is the standard work horse who will give you 22 chances to turn a piece of play into a goal each week. Nathan Foley is a clearance king with speed. Dean Polo is the young inside mid we want in the developing phase. As for other kids, Connors plays inside and out, Edwards has exceptional defensive pressure, Meyer to my knowledge has been described as a potential inside mid before and Tambling can certainly win his own ball.

If you are one of the ones screaming to put Howat on the list while also screaming for more inside midfielders than have a look at what you're saying.

 

[PLSC]

The other problem is that people seem to think that the draft is like shopping at Myers. You decide what you want and pick one off the shelf. Excepional inside midfielders are rare. Good big blokes are rare. Tall athletic types with electric pace are rare.

When things are scarce you have to buy them early or miss out.

In contrast it is pretty easy to stock up with Newman, Hyde, Foley, Hartigan, White, Connors inside mids late in the draft.

2002 - We traded first-round for an inside mid in Kane Johnson.

2003 - We traded for an elite midfielder / forward in Nathan Brown. Colin Sylvia, Brock McLean, Beau Waters were unavailable to us (we didn't have an early enough pick).

2004 - Deledio, Tambling, Polo. Addressed the centre-square. We could have passed on Tambling for Jordan Lewis but that is hindsight talking. Polo looks a good 2nd choice.

2005 - We took JON instead of Higgins, Hurn or Jones. That would be the first year that you could be critical. The only year we had an opportunity to get a good inside guy and didn't take the chance.

Yes it would be nice to have another elite inside guy, but that doesn't make the player exist on draft day - and doesn't mean that we have the pick to use on him.

so you say it would be "nice" to have another elite inside guy but to me its a must for a team not just a luxury

tall athletic types who can run are nice to have guys who can actually win the ****ing ball and do something with it are crucial imo

your post also highlights the fact that for a rebuilding side we have had a crap number of picks to choose from so instead of saying we cant do this or that on draft day how about we actually bite the bullet and get some options instead of making excuses about why we couldnt do things

 

[santa claws]

The other problem is that people seem to think that the draft is like shopping at Myers. You decide what you want and pick one off the shelf. Excepional inside midfielders are rare. Good big blokes are rare. Tall athletic types with electric pace are rare.

When things are scarce you have to buy them early or miss out.

In contrast it is pretty easy to stock up with Newman, Hyde, Foley, Hartigan, White, Connors inside mids late in the draft.

2002 - We traded first-round for an inside mid in Kane Johnson.

2003 - We traded for an elite midfielder / forward in Nathan Brown. Colin Sylvia, Brock McLean, Beau Waters were unavailable to us (we didn't have an early enough pick).

2004 - Deledio, Tambling, Polo. Addressed the centre-square. We could have passed on Tambling for Jordan Lewis but that is hindsight talking. Polo looks a good 2nd choice.

2005 - We took JON instead of Higgins, Hurn or Jones. That would be the first year that you could be critical. The only year we had an opportunity to get a good inside guy and didn't take the chance.

Yes it would be nice to have another elite inside guy, but that doesn't make the player exist on draft day - and doesn't mean that we have the pick to use on him.

2002 we down traded picks picks 2 18 32 and traded torney for picks 12 28 41 and johnson. even if getting johnson was the right thing to do which it wasnt, miller went on to take schulz pick 12 based on 1 international game. used pick 41 and 47 on hacks in fleming and billy nichols. wasted pick 28 chasing the big name player in blumfield, picked sipthorp with pick 62 he lasted one whole yr, all this coming of a 14th place finish where we won just 7 games with an abysmal percentage. surely he had to be looking to the future. and if not he got it wrong.

2003 you say we traded for an elite midfielder and certain players werent available to us. well that yr we once again finshed bottom 4. 13th in fact. winning just one game of our last 14. if this result after the yr before didnt tell miller we had to rebuild nothing would.
with an existing list that was terrible miller proceeded to trade away picks 6 20 and 21. those certain players you mention above were indeed available to us but we took the quick fix route..
the club traded 6 and 20 on browny most people would say this was the right thing to do i said at the time and i still say now because of where the list was at it was wrong. we then drafted a skinny very much bottom end outside player in gilmore with pick 21.took another skinny feel good pick in roach at 37. speculated on jackson with our next pick at 53 a kid who played hardly any footy and then used our next pick on a bloke who was never up to it in morrison. not one long term 10 yr player amongst them. luckily or good drafting i dont know a bit of both i suppose we had 3 picks in the 70s hartigan tuck and raines at least these 3 are still on the list but iw ould hate to have to build a good side with picks in the 70s. to round this draft of miller took fletcher and archibald i suppose the luck ran out with these 2.

2004 probably the only draft we have traded for early picks and used them in the last 20 yrs.i for one wanted franklin but had doubts about attitude tambling was highly rated and i was happy to get him. after these 2 picks imo we got the draft wrong we had an opportunity to get inside onballer kpp and a young ruckman and in the main ignored all these list needs until later in the draft.pre season we finally did something right by securing simmonds and at no real cost although miller was up to his usual antics in getting marsh and weller sheesh.

2005 i agree with you there was some good inside and kpp available and once again we took a very skinny hbf who didnt have huge stats although he has talent. the biggest diappointment for me this draft was we used just 3 nd picks.

2006 was happy with most choices we took in the draft but we took a huge risk in down trading pick 8 and we got lucky. but we still took extremely skinny kids in the main. in a draft that was laden with good kpp to only get one was very disappointing.

anyway i think in a way we are saying the same thing. in the main if you want exceptional inside mids.tall athletic types with electric pace or good big kpp you do have to get in early. its just you make it sound like we didnt have the opportunity to take these types when in effect we have decided not to take these types of players for various reasons right or wrong.

 

[lids2004roar]

2006 was happy with most choices we took in the draft but we took a huge risk in down trading pick 8 and we got lucky. but we still took extremely skinny kids in the main. in a draft that was laden with good kpp to only get one was very disappointing.

The top KPPs were Gumbleton, Hansen, Thorpe, Riewoldt, Reid, Sellar.

Leuenberger is ruck and Sellar is that awkward in between type.


How many of these players did you expect we would get?

 

[Darth_Tiger]

2002 we down traded picks picks 2 18 32 and traded torney for picks 12 28 41 and johnson. even if getting johnson was the right thing to do which it wasnt, miller went on to take schulz pick 12 based on 1 international game. used pick 41 and 47 on hacks in fleming and billy nichols. wasted pick 28 chasing the big name player in blumfield, picked sipthorp with pick 62 he lasted one whole yr, all this coming of a 14th place finish where we won just 7 games with an abysmal percentage. surely he had to be looking to the future. and if not he got it wrong.

2003 you say we traded for an elite midfielder and certain players werent available to us. well that yr we once again finshed bottom 4. 13th in fact. winning just one game of our last 14. if this result after the yr before didnt tell miller we had to rebuild nothing would.
with an existing list that was terrible miller proceeded to trade away picks 6 20 and 21. those certain players you mention above were indeed available to us but we took the quick fix route..
the club traded 6 and 20 on browny most people would say this was the right thing to do i said at the time and i still say now because of where the list was at it was wrong. we then drafted a skinny very much bottom end outside player in gilmore with pick 21.took another skinny feel good pick in roach at 37. speculated on jackson with our next pick at 53 a kid who played hardly any footy and then used our next pick on a bloke who was never up to it in morrison. not one long term 10 yr player amongst them. luckily or good drafting i dont know a bit of both i suppose we had 3 picks in the 70s hartigan tuck and raines at least these 3 are still on the list but iw ould hate to have to build a good side with picks in the 70s. to round this draft of miller took fletcher and archibald i suppose the luck ran out with these 2.

2004 probably the only draft we have traded for early picks and used them in the last 20 yrs.i for one wanted franklin but had doubts about attitude tambling was highly rated and i was happy to get him. after these 2 picks imo we got the draft wrong we had an opportunity to get inside onballer kpp and a young ruckman and in the main ignored all these list needs until later in the draft.pre season we finally did something right by securing simmonds and at no real cost although miller was up to his usual antics in getting marsh and weller sheesh.

2005 i agree with you there was some good inside and kpp available and once again we took a very skinny hbf who didnt have huge stats although he has talent. the biggest diappointment for me this draft was we used just 3 nd picks.

2006 was happy with most choices we took in the draft but we took a huge risk in down trading pick 8 and we got lucky. but we still took extremely skinny kids in the main. in a draft that was laden with good kpp to only get one was very disappointing.

anyway i think in a way we are saying the same thing. in the main if you want exceptional inside mids.tall athletic types with electric pace or good big kpp you do have to get in early. its just you make it sound like we didnt have the opportunity to take these types when in effect we have decided not to take these types of players for various reasons right or wrong.

all that just makes me angry. damn it our club has the worst recruiting effort in the history of the game. and that isnt looking at the 20 years preceeding that which is even worse. dont get me wrong, i am pretty happy with the last 3 drafts but before that is abysmal. freaking frawley - bring back the danny frawley thread i wanna abuse him some more!!!

 

[PHX]

Good job Claws. Good detailed recap.

Pity its a shambles. 2002-03 makes me very angry.

 

[PLSC]

The top KPPs were Gumbleton, Hansen, Thorpe, Riewoldt, Reid, Sellar.

Leuenberger is ruck and Sellar is that awkward in between type.


How many of these players did you expect we would get?

brown brothers, mckenzie, hampson, goldstein, renouf, currie

would of loved any of these guys

love your work santa i wish i could be stuffed writing all that but you did a good job!

 

[santa claws]

The top KPPs were Gumbleton, Hansen, Thorpe, Riewoldt, Reid, Sellar.

Leuenberger is ruck and Sellar is that awkward in between type.


How many of these players did you expect we would get?

you miss the point. with pick 8 we were always going to get one of them. by down trading to 13 we more or less conceded we would get none of them.
on leuenberger what would you give up for a ruckman like cox only more agile and athletic and are we in dire need of a ruckman or not. and 12 months ago sellar was touted as a possible no 1 pick. i for one wont be jumping on the bag james sellar bandwagon the kid has serious talent.
also something alot of people dont tend to focus on is the fact at 42 our 3rd round pick we traded away there was some serious talent still available. and although pleased to get connors at 58 i think i would have used pick 58 on jarryd allen who went at 59 and hoped connors was still there at pick 60.

 

[lids2004roar]

We didn't concede defeat by getting pick 13, someone was bound to slip. About 12 players could have gone top 5. Two of those topline KPPs dropped to picks 13 and 14 so GM's instincts were pretty good.

Would we have picked Connors with pick 42?

 

[roostertalk]

2002 - We traded first-round for an inside mid in Kane Johnson.

In hindsite Weaver do you think this was a good move, in my time here never really been discussed in great length, have it on reasonable authority if we didnt get Kane, Steve Salopek would be a tiger. Given our current situation do you believe we've benefited aswell as we could of hoped for from kane, or we'd be much better off now with a developing inside midfielder about to hit his prime?

 

[santa claws]

We didn't concede defeat by getting pick 13, someone was bound to slip. About 12 players could have gone top 5. Two of those topline KPPs dropped to picks 13 and 14 so GM's instincts were pretty good.

Would we have picked Connors with pick 42?

millers own words they were over the moon to get riewoldt at 13 they didnt think he would last to then. he also didnt rate sellar and if riewoldt wasnt there they were going to take hislop to me that reads like they werent planning on taking a tall with their first pickthey gave up on getting the tall they wanted.as i said it was concievable we would not have taken any tall at all this draft.

well rounded mids aside the biggest hole in the list is kpd especially fb i would not of hesitated in taking mckenzie with pick 26 even though i think edwards was a good pick.

the way i see ti we were prepared to forgo a tall first round even though we ended up with one. we overlooked a very good one in mckenzie second rnd. overlooked allen an all australian who came runner up in the cannons b and f a 193cm tallwho can play forward and back. we then continued to take skinny hbf types and this trend continued into the rookie draft. like i said one tall in this draft was extremely disappointing.
it seems theres no real plan in place to overcome list deficiencies other than lets draft one from another club as the need arises.

 

[lids2004roar]

millers own words they were over the moon to get riewoldt at 13 they didnt think he would last to then. he also didnt rate sellar and if riewoldt wasnt there they were going to take hislop to me that reads like they werent planning on taking a tall with their first pickthey gave up on getting the tall they wanted.as i said it was concievable we would not have taken any tall at all this draft.

Hmm I think you just may be right. If so, then Miller believed that:

Polak + Hislop > Riewoldt

We ended up with Polak + Riewoldt so it was an unexpected win.

I don't care how it came about but I'm sure glad we have won a drafting decision for once!

 

[Weaver]

so you say it would be "nice" to have another elite inside guy but to me its a must for a team not just a luxury

You can't recruit a dozen guys in a single year. We are rebuilding by stages and need to recruit for all areas. You yourself have bemoaned not spending early picks on KP players, and also wanted a ruckman.

We have limited picks and have added Polo, Foley and Connors. We are addressing the inside midfield.

tall athletic types who can run are nice to have guys who can actually win the ****ing ball and do something with it are crucial imo

They are also rare. You name all the good elite starting inside kids that we could have had and then we will look at who we missed.

You can't recruit blokes who don't exist.

your post also highlights the fact that for a rebuilding side we have had a crap number of picks to choose from so instead of saying we cant do this or that on draft day how about we actually bite the bullet and get some options instead of making excuses about why we couldnt do things

Name them. Instead of harping on about all the dozens of standout ruck-rovers me missed taking ... name them. Name all the guys we missed and should have had instead.

 

[Weaver]

all that just makes me angry. damn it our club has the worst recruiting effort in the history of the game. and that isnt looking at the 20 years preceeding that which is even worse. dont get me wrong, i am pretty happy with the last 3 drafts but before that is abysmal. freaking frawley - bring back the danny frawley thread i wanna abuse him some more!!!

Sorry mate but this is the type of thing that gets me angry. Someone picks out our picks alone and then people read that and jump up and down.

Take the time to actually look at things in perspective and you will see our recruiting is about the same as everyone elses. And that is the problem. Not that it is bad - just that if you start behind and do as well as everyone else - you stay behind.

For example 'wasting' a pick on Gilmour. And trading away picks 6 and 20 for Brown.

McLean and Sylvia were gone by pick 6. So they couldn't have been our inside midfielder as PLSC imagines. Who could we have gotten at 6?

6. Bradley- yeah rock in defence problem solved
7. Tenace - just the stickman we don't want apparantly
8. Raph Clarke - monster that kid, got on a footy field yet?
9. David Trotter - David who?
10. Ryley Dunn - overhyped and always injured
11. Beau Waters - now he would have been good.
12. Ryan Murphy - stickman forward
13. Stanton - wingman, stickman
14. Watts - still rubbish
15. Chaplin - ain't no inside guy
16. Willoughby - back in the SANFL
17. Morrison - back in the pub
18. Spaanderman - avoided a criminal conviction at least
19. Mundy - a gem, but no inside mid
20. Sam Butler - another gem, but no inside guy. Tall skinny, running HBF actually.


Who else could we have had if we hadn't taken Gilmour?

21. Gilmour (gone)
22. Thurley (gone)
23. Moody
24. C. Jones (gone)
25. H. Miller (gone)
26. D. McConnell (traded, still struggling)
27. A. Campbell (22yo 1 game)
28. Nash (21, 9 games)
29. Schmidt (21, 2 games)
30. Symes (22, 13 games)
31. Kreuger (gone)
32. B.Shaw (gone)
33. Adcock
34. Peel (gone)
35. Hall (gone)

Moody and Adcock are the only two on that list that have done much yet. Moody at HFF and Adcock in the backpocket. Considering we get Tuck, Hartigan and Raines later we didn't too bad.

The point that I am trying to make is that simply because we want an inside midfielder doesn't mean one materialises.

We will get 100 elite games from Nathan Brown. So far the majority the clubs that are ****ting all over us in that draft have next to nothing to show for their efforts.

Sure someone like Waters would have been great to have. But the moment you are in that pick-range, in that draft, you had a what? 1 in 20 chance of getting a match-winner?

A 95% chance of match-winner in Brown or a 5-10% chance of being the club that gets someone at 6 or 21?

Oh just imagine if we had picked Waters and Adcock they cry ... just as likely that we had Willoughby and Schmidt. Then where would we be?

 

[footy4eva]

Sorry mate but this is the type of thing that gets me angry. Someone picks out our picks alone and then people read that and jump up and down.

Take the time to actually look at things in perspective and you will see our recruiting is about the same as everyone elses. And that is the problem. Not that it is bad - just that if you start behind and do as well as everyone else - you stay behind.

For example 'wasting' a pick on Gilmour. And trading away picks 6 and 20 for Brown.

McLean and Sylvia were gone by pick 6. So they couldn't have been our inside midfielder as PLSC imagines. Who could we have gotten at 6?

6. Bradley- yeah rock in defence problem solved
7. Tenace - just the stickman we don't want apparantly
8. Raph Clarke - monster that kid, got on a footy field yet?
9. David Trotter - David who?
10. Ryley Dunn - overhyped and always injured
11. Beau Waters - now he would have been good.
12. Ryan Murphy - stickman forward
13. Stanton - wingman, stickman
14. Watts - still rubbish
15. Chaplin - ain't no inside guy
16. Willoughby - back in the SANFL
17. Morrison - back in the pub
18. Spaanderman - avoided a criminal conviction at least
19. Mundy - a gem, but no inside mid
20. Sam Butler - another gem, but no inside guy. Tall skinny, running HBF actually.


Who else could we have had if we hadn't taken Gilmour?

21. Gilmour (gone)
22. Thurley (gone)
23. Moody
24. C. Jones (gone)
25. H. Miller (gone)
26. D. McConnell (traded, still struggling)
27. A. Campbell (22yo 1 game)
28. Nash (21, 9 games)
29. Schmidt (21, 2 games)
30. Symes (22, 13 games)
31. Kreuger (gone)
32. B.Shaw (gone)
33. Adcock
34. Peel (gone)
35. Hall (gone)

Moody and Adcock are the only two on that list that have done much yet. Moody at HFF and Adcock in the backpocket. Considering we get Tuck, Hartigan and Raines later we didn't too bad.

The point that I am trying to make is that simply because we want an inside midfielder doesn't mean one materialises.

We will get 100 elite games from Nathan Brown. So far the majority the clubs that are ****ting all over us in that draft have next to nothing to show for their efforts.

Sure someone like Waters would have been great to have. But the moment you are in that pick-range, in that draft, you had a what? 1 in 20 chance of getting a match-winner?

A 95% chance of match-winner in Brown or a 5-10% chance of being the club that gets someone at 6 or 21?

Oh just imagine if we had picked Waters and Adcock they cry ... just as likely that we had Willoughby and Schmidt. Then where would we be?

weaver, you have done your homework.
well thread closed, you have settled this arguement

 

[Calcium Man]

Sorry mate but this is the type of thing that gets me angry. Someone picks out our picks alone and then people read that and jump up and down.

It is fun to have a go at fralwey tho! I will say that under TW we have a vision of where we want to go. And i think that has made Millers job easier. Under Frawley i dont think miller would have had any idea as to where our team was headed.

 

[Weaver]

In hindsite Weaver do you think this was a good move, in my time here never really been discussed in great length, have it on reasonable authority if we didnt get Kane, Steve Salopek would be a tiger. Given our current situation do you believe we've benefited aswell as we could of hoped for from kane, or we'd be much better off now with a developing inside midfielder about to hit his prime?

In Kane Johnson we got a guy with premiership experience, we got a guy who has gone on captain the club. We got a guy who whatever you think of his B+F win has certainly earned three top-3 finishes in the B+F.

Coughlan's B+F in 2003 was in part due to the arrival of Johnson. They formed an awesome 1-2 punch. No longer was Coughlan lone-ranger.

Adding players on the fringes doesn't make you much better. Adding core players does.

Johnson's arrival as the number-1 midfielder made things easier for everyone else. All the other midfielders shuffled down a spot in the pecking order. They all look better as a result. Polo, Howat, Foley and the other midfielders benefit from Johnson taking the opposition's number-1 guy.

Without him there Polo has to do it, then Newman is playing on a better player ... then Tambling is playing on Stanton instead of Winderlich. (That is why Coughlan's loss hurts us more than his 20 touches - everyone now has to play on a better guy than otherwise).

I don't understand the criticism of playing Johnson as a tagger. Most have finally realised that our midfield is rubbish and its worst feature is its unaccountability and lack of 1%ers. Make sense to me to have your leader and most experienced guy leading the charge to actually lay tackles and play on a bloke.

The Salopek comparison is a good one. When you recruit Salopek you are commiting to a 4-year development program. He has played 47 'apprenticeship' games as he learns his craft. You do that so you get 8 years (?) of top footy x 20 games = 160 'elite' games.

In contrast we take almost no risk and get 120-ish elite games and club captaincy from Johnson.

All you really miss out on in getting a Johnson are those 4 years between Salopek (21 and ready to go now) and Johnson 25 when he came to us.

Is the risk on draft day worth those 4 seasons of footy?

 

[lids2004roar]

Johnson's arrival as the number-1 midfielder made things easier for everyone else. All the other midfielders shuffled down a spot in the pecking order. They all look better as a result. Polo, Howat, Foley and the other midfielders benefit from Johnson taking the opposition's number-1 guy.

Would just like to hear your opinion about the impact of making Johnson tagger has on our other mids. As you said, he used to get the opposition's best tagger every week. Now he takes their best mid and their best tagger moves onto Deledio or Tuck. It is probably best for the team, but would we be better off having Johnson attacking so Deledio doesn't get tagged? Maybe Polo, Hyde or Newman to be our tagger.

 

[Weaver]

Would just like to hear your opinion about the impact of making Johnson tagger has on our other mids. As you said, he used to get the opposition's best tagger every week. Now he takes their best mid and their best tagger moves onto Deledio or Tuck. It is probably best for the team, but would we be better off having Johnson attacking so Deledio doesn't get tagged? Maybe Polo, Hyde or Newman to be our tagger.

Perhaps but as things stand our tackling, chasing, manning-up, pressureing, blocking and every other measure / indicator of midfield pressure is by far the worst in the league. At least Johnson can do it. Hopefully it is an example others will follow ... and then maybe Johnson can go go kick chasing again.

Scenario 1

Johnson v Holland (tagging)
Deledio v Buckley

Scenario 2

Deledio v Holland (tagging)
Buckley v Johnson (tagging)

I suppose it is horses for courses (and Johnson was released a few times last year).

For round 1 I'd guess that blanketing Nick Stevens and Heath Scotland would be 30% of the task of taking down the Blues ... so I'd expect him to tag one or other of them.

 

[Darth_Tiger]

Sorry mate but this is the type of thing that gets me angry. Someone picks out our picks alone and then people read that and jump up and down.

you misunderstand me weaver. your comments are fair and you make really valid points however my anger is more directed at the debarcle of the whole 25 years of crappy recruiting which put us behind the 8 ball to start with and the fact that frawley not only traded away draft picks but went for recycled duds such as fletcher, houlihan, nichols etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

i am angry at the inability of a richmond brainstrust to realistically look at our list and realise that it doesnt cut it and go for youngsters 2 or 3 years before we did because we had boneheads in charge like frawley and geishen. i am also angry at the unprofessionalism of the club and its inability to develop players due to these coaching regimes. i wonder how many richmond 'duds' in another coaching environment would have gone on to be stars.

the only thing that makes me happy now is that we finally do seem to be on the right track.

 

[Weaver]

you misunderstand me weaver. your comments are fair and you make really valid points however my anger is more directed at the debarcle of the whole 25 years of crappy recruiting

I agree with you ... and anyone with long memories will remember me being incadescent with rage over the decisions we were making at the trade / draft table. If I am known for anything it is surely a near pathalogical hatred for HFFers ... and we were trying to corner the market

I first got interested in recruiting 10-12 years back because we were so bad. I was driven to it by frustration.

i am angry at the inability of a richmond brainstrust to realistically look at our list and realise that it doesnt cut it and go for youngsters 2 or 3 years before we did because we had boneheads in charge like frawley and geishen.

Absolutely dead-set, 100% agree. That 2001 finals team was rubbish. That was the time to rebuild, not top-up. We needed a strong, footy-smart leadership ... we screwed ourselves right then and there.

Double whammy of having to trade Daffy for Stafford (for cap reasons) and picking up Hudson - leaving ourselves with 1 pick in the top-60 of the super strong Ball-Hodge-Judd draft.

i am also angry at the unprofessionalism of the club and its inability to develop players due to these coaching regimes. i wonder how many richmond 'duds' in another coaching environment would have gone on to be stars.

I agree with that too. I wish we hadn't wasted so many picks on coach's favourites, duds and mate's-recommendations.

It is unpalatable hear - but Greg Beck when given the liberty to make his own selections found some good players. It was when the match committe got involved that things got worse than abysmal.

the only thing that makes me happy now is that we finally do seem to be on the right track.

I suppose that is what I was trying to say in my typical overblown way.

Blaming our current state of affairs on Miller is pure bias. Whether or not we have the right kids time will tell. But our recruiting in the last four drafts follows a plan, is systematic, balanced and has been quite clever with trades (in particular) and in recycling (in the main).

I get a bit cranky when the current crew get accused of creating the problem ... as they frantically bail water in an attempt to fix the holes that the cloven-hooted Spud farmer stamped into our row boat.