Remove this Banner Ad

meyer, cass gone, petts stays

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

beaver fever said:
I think 6 players a year should be right on the money. Taking 3 kids in 3 of the last 4 drafts is just asking for trouble. It puts all of your eggs into the one basket and it means those picks selected have to succeed, otherwise it is a failed draft, ala 2005.
Click to expand...
I believe we tried to get more picks this year as in we shopped a few around to other clubs, but as no-one was really trading we got no real offers for anyone. On the flip side though we were able to snare a decent youngster in Thomson for a fair bit less than what we should have paid for him so that should be seen as a bonus.

You should be able to pick up 2 decent players out of those 6. In addition to rookie additions. That means we should be trading fringe players while they still have the currency. Danny Meyer case in point was asked about by Hawthorn, we said no we want to wait another year and by the end of this year his trade value was zero. I'd suggest Jay Schulz will be the same. Offered pick 28 last year and we said no, and it will be the wrong decision in my opinion. Yes sometimes it may not come off, but sheesh Port Adelaide managed to secure another draft pick by trading a fringe player and they delisted 6 players no worries. RFC persists with duds until they have no value and then we trade picks for fringe players. It hasn't worked for us in the past, and the ferals just lap it up and nod with a stupid smile and pat the brains trust on the back. All I have seen from that methodology used by the club is failure.
Click to expand...
The Meyer deal with the Hawks was a player swap more than a pick. They offer Tim Clark or Osbourne from memory. Clark has since been delisted by them and Osbourne was a fairly handy player in their premiership this year but last year wasn't seen as much chop. 12 months ago the club found out about Meyers hip injury and went about getting it fixed and gave him a 12 month contract to see if he could step up once fit. Unfortunately for him he wasn't able to. Schulz on the other hand was given the same 12 months and stepped up to become a fairly handy player for us, especially after Polak went down. His game against the Hawks in round 20 showed how valueable he can be 29 possies & 17 marks against a very good team. Thats not the only good game he had either. I just think that with Schulz we're just about to see the best of him. At 23 years old with 67 games standing 193cm & weighing 95kg he might just become that tall KP player we've been searching for to replace Richo once the big fella goes.


Yeah they have a good list and they delisted Armstrong. Reckon the RFC would have had the guts to delist someone like him? We have an injured and older version of armstrong, yet we hold onto him for depth. FFS these players have demonstrated they are not up to it, there is absolutely no point persisting with them. You say pick 74 is worse, well it has a 100% more chance of making it then half the duds on our list. We should be aiming to have 6 picks inside the top 80 every year.
Click to expand...
Who would you have traded this year, when no-one was trading picks, I mean R.Shaw went for pick 50-60 odd IIRC. None of the players you mentioned in your post were deemed worthy of a pick above that so how else were we meant to get 2 more pick inside the first 4 rounds without trading away a player you actually rate as worthy of being on the list?

You don't need to recruit superstars with every pick. Sheesh most lists only have a handful. They are rare. You need to pick solid 150-200 game players, they are right there to be found in the draft. From the 2004 draft we have Deledio as a superstar and I'd suggest Tambling, Thursfield and McGuane, maybe even Polo should have decent careers.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying we have to recruit superstars with every pick, but clearly you don't want to pick 'duds' to replace 'duds' either. As I said, there is no point making changes just so you're seen to be making changes. If CC & FJ were convinced that a player who we would take with picks above 74 were going to provide better service than those we already have then I'm sure we would have made more delistings than we have. However, it appears that they don't so we wont.
 
Rayzorwire said:
Unless you're privy to his medical report 1593, you have no idea that Meyer has genuinely recovered from his injuries - beyond a few late year performances with Coburg, which for all you know, he pulled up sore from. He may well have a chronic condition which is highly likely to degenerate further.

Unless you DO have his full medical report, you're totally unqualified (how unusual) to make your typical fact free sweeping assessment.

As for Pettifer, I'm buggered if I'm going to spend a lot of time defending him as a player, but the fact is he did have three consecutive pretty good seasons prior to last year. He has quite a few flaws which I personally doubt he'll ever overcome, but he's the right age to give us something in the future and he adds depth to the squad.

For all we know Brown may retire at the end of next year and we may be struck by injuries to our other small forwards in future years. Having Meyer in the stands with yet another injury isn't really going to help us much at that point is it?

Do you understand the difference between a knee reco which keeps a player with no track record of injuries out for a year, and a degenerative condition which makes it 98% certain a player will NEVER play regular AFL football?
Click to expand...

Are you privy to his medical report? You're the one that made the claim.

No you're not. And you call me fact free.

It was hip, last year it was his back, the year before his foot. What it has been is Meyer's attitude all along and you dont need a medical report for that. You just wanted to be (how unusual) clever and show everyone you thought of something no-one else thought of.

So go ahead and show us the medical report proving you right
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

astro_toby said:
considering he is a players agent - i doubt that to be true

pretty sure he would know a hell of a lot more about a players potential than any of us
Click to expand...
Correct, but I'm also pretty sure the Richmond coaching staff would know even more than him. It's a real toughie, and I would have liked to have held onto Meyer, but we had to let someone go and obviously his body and attitude have let him down.
 
Ize Of The World said:
Correct, but I'm also pretty sure the Richmond coaching staff would know even more than him. It's a real toughie, and I would have liked to have held onto Meyer, but we had to let someone go and obviously his body and attitude have let him down.
Click to expand...

agree, and i also would have liked to held onto him.

one thing is for sure - the richmond coaching panel have put their balls / heads on the line with this one. From reading over a 100 posts of tiger supporters on this website, i dare say a majority felt he had a lot to offer still. And if football people like Liam Pickering and co are also making comments such as that, if Danny does proves those like right - the tiger coaching panel will have a lot to answer for.

Can't blame Greg Miller or Danny Frawley this time Tigs:o
 

Remove this Banner Ad

astro_toby said:
considering he is a players agent - i doubt that to be true

pretty sure he would know a hell of a lot more about a players potential than any of us
Click to expand...
Wonder if he is Meyers agent. Pickering certainly talks up his own guys whenever given the chance.
 
I feel a bit sorry for the likes of Wallace at times like this...If Meyer goes onto another list and doesn't make it, we won't praise whoever chopped him, rather bag the team that picked him up.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he wont make it.
i'm not bookmarking it as I (think anyway) that I'm gracious in victory.
If you want to bookmark it and, if I'm wrong, rub it in...feel free!
 
cormick said:
I feel a bit sorry for the likes of Wallace at times like this...If Meyer goes onto another list and doesn't make it, we won't praise whoever chopped him, rather bag the team that picked him up.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say he wont make it.
i'm not bookmarking it as I (think anyway) that I'm gracious in victory.
If you want to bookmark it and, if I'm wrong, rub it in...feel free!
Click to expand...
If he has been de-listed due to his body or mind's integrity than so be it. But if it is based on his skill-set I'll be buggered.
 
Ruanaidh said:
If he has been de-listed due to his body or mind's integrity than so be it. But if it is based on his skill-set I'll be buggered.
Click to expand...
Well he's got skill, but let's face it, he aint a world beater with any of them...solid kick, solid mark for his size (which isn't saying much), and a slight, although slight covers it, sense of the freaky.
Good on the kid if he can make it and I wish him all the best, but I just don't think he will, and Petiffer, next year aside, would, in my opinion, be more able to cover for injuries. Although he's on a fair bit of cash I would have thought, so wouldn't bat an eyelid if he too was delisted.
But I can't see what all the fuss is about (admittedly I did expect us to delist Petiffer ahead of Meyer and wouldn't have minded that way either), re. Meyer's delisting over Petts....
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

cormick said:
Well he's got skill, but let's face it, he aint a world beater with any of them...solid kick, solid mark for his size (which isn't saying much), and a slight, although slight covers it, sense of the freaky.
Good on the kid if he can make it and I wish him all the best, but I just don't think he will, and Petiffer, next year aside, would, in my opinion, be more able to cover for injuries. Although he's on a fair bit of cash I would have thought, so wouldn't bat an eyelid if he too was delisted.
But I can't see what all the fuss is about (admittedly I did expect us to delist Petiffer ahead of Meyer and wouldn't have minded that way either), re. Meyer's delisting over Petts....
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
Realistic Tiger said:
I believe we tried to get more picks this year as in we shopped a few around to other clubs, but as no-one was really trading we got no real offers for anyone. On the flip side though we were able to snare a decent youngster in Thomson for a fair bit less than what we should have paid for him so that should be seen as a bonus.
Click to expand...
Yeah you may be right regarding no takers, who can blame them when you have our fringe players up for grabs. It sucks that while all the other clubs were holding their picks, we were the first side to let go of ours. Thomson at pick 42 is probably the most he would have ever gone. It isn't a win-lose trade in the slightest. At 22 next year, he should be playing all 22 games if he is good enough to play AFL.

Realistic Tiger said:
The Meyer deal with.... Schulz on the other hand...he might just become that tall KP player we've been searching for to replace Richo once the big fella goes.
Click to expand...
You may be correct on Meyer, but you are off the mark on Schulz in my opinion. Since when did Schulz play KP? He played loose man in defense all year, with a few spurts as a 3rd tall forward. Suggesting he can replace Richardson at FF is a massive stretch.


Realistic Tiger said:
Who would you have traded this year, when no-one was trading picks, I mean R.Shaw went for pick 50-60 odd IIRC. None of the players you mentioned in your post were deemed worthy of a pick above that so how else were we meant to get 2 more pick inside the first 4 rounds without trading away a player you actually rate as worthy of being on the list?
Click to expand...
I would have put everyone up for trade except for Richardson, Simmonds, Deledio, Foley, Cotchin and Riewoldt. If Thomson can get pick 42, surely Polo could have got the same.

Realistic Tiger said:
I'm not saying we have to recruit superstars with every pick, but clearly you don't want to pick 'duds' to replace 'duds' either. As I said, there is no point making changes just so you're seen to be making changes. If CC & FJ were convinced that a player who we would take with picks above 74 were going to provide better service than those we already have then I'm sure we would have made more delistings than we have. However, it appears that they don't so we wont.
Click to expand...
Replacing duds with new players, sure they may turn out to be duds themselves, but you can't find out unless you try. Like I said 6 picks, should be able to find 2 players. 3 ND picks will only net you 1 player, or as 2005 proved, none. The only player from 2005 that played a decent amount of games was White, and he was a PSD pick. Late picks should be given much more value than proven duds.

By the way, it looks like WC will now take 4 ND picks.
 
beaver fever said:
Yeah you may be right regarding no takers, who can blame them when you have our fringe players up for grabs. It sucks that while all the other clubs were holding their picks, we were the first side to let go of ours. Thomson at pick 42 is probably the most he would have ever gone. It isn't a win-lose trade in the slightest. At 22 next year, he should be playing all 22 games if he is good enough to play AFL.
Click to expand...
Here's hoping Thomson does come in and play all 22 and along the way makes the deal look like a very smart move on our behalf.


You may be correct on Meyer, but you are off the mark on Schulz in my opinion. Since when did Schulz play KP? He played loose man in defense all year, with a few spurts as a 3rd tall forward. Suggesting he can replace Richardson at FF is a massive stretch.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is that big a stretch, they were grooming him as a future FF before the move to the backline. Perhaps that was part of his education, learning what backmen do to stop forwards getting the ball in dangerous areas might also help Schulz learn how forwards still get to those dangerous areas when backmen are trying to stop them.

I would have put everyone up for trade except for Richardson, Simmonds, Deledio, Foley, Cotchin and Riewoldt. If Thomson can get pick 42, surely Polo could have got the same.
Click to expand...
Seeing as trade week was incredibly quiet, who is to say we didn't do just that. We could have had everyone you mentioned in the earlier post on the table, but again it seems unless clubs were going to get a real bargain i.e Shaw to Sydney for pick 50-60odd or were going to pick up O'Keefe they just weren't interested in trading high picks. Carlton were the only club who went our and whored their picks to get a player they believed they desperately needed. Despite their belief that Kruezer is their future 10 year champion ruckman they went out and recruited Warnock. We are just as desperate for a ruckman to support Simmonds and yet resisted the urge to trade for Seaby because early picks this year are just too valuable.


Replacing duds with new players, sure they may turn out to be duds themselves, but you can't find out unless you try. Like I said 6 picks, should be able to find 2 players. 3 ND picks will only net you 1 player, or as 2005 proved, none. The only player from 2005 that played a decent amount of games was White, and he was a PSD pick. Late picks should be given much more value than proven duds.

By the way, it looks like WC will now take 4 ND picks.
Click to expand...
Again we're adding 4 new players to the roster this year, with the extra money we've spent on recruiting and talent identification this year I believe we will get 2 quality kids with the first 2 picks, we've also picked up a kid taken the spot before Meyer in the 04 draft for a 3rd round pick, which as I said earlier will hopefully be proven as a smart move by CC.

The only reason I think the club is holding on to a few players that they probably shouldn't is because just maybe they might be worth something to the GC or WS sides in 2010-2011 when they enter the drafts with a heap of early picks. Perhaps the idea is to offer up some of them for a early pick then when these sides are looking for established players to come in. McGuane and Raines could be perfect candidates.
 
The problem RT, is that like everyone always points out, the players you draft are unknowns. You are assuming the first 2 players we pick will be good players, but it is risky. They both need to come on, otherwise it will be a failed draft. Taking 3 ND picks is just not enough.
 
AS I said with the club spending more money on recruiting now than when Wallace first took over I have more confidence that we will land a couple of quality kids with our first 2 picks, hence the reason the club chose to hold onto them rather than chase after a ready made. Until it is clear they have stuffed up this draft I'll support them in their choices, after all no point hanging them out to dry saying we've stuffed up when the draft hasn't even happened yet.
 
No you won't, you will accuse anyone that rips the club's choices as being hindsight kings. Just like every other yes man here does.

My biggest grip with the club are the processes and systems they use regarding long-term list management. Taking the minimum amount of drafts picks and trading picks for fringe types every year, does not say to me, "Long-term list management", it says "half-arsed list management".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Tigerbob
    • Like
    • Love
    • Wow
David Teague Gone!
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
241
Views
10K
GoTigers2015
GoTigers2015

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom