News Miller Elevated, No Rookie Taken

[Cathal Brugha]

I see your point but you have to remember that we may well have neglected our kp stocks a little which has also been affected by some injuries etc. . . But in the meantime we are developing an A grade midfield and that cannot be forgotten. We dont yet have all the pieces in the premiership puzzle but are getting closer. People laughed at Stewie Dew. . . .

Touche

 

[sante]

I wonder if we had rookied Pods last year if this same hysteria would have evolved?

I would also ask who we should have rookied instead of miller?

A promising KP tall who needs a few years in the system to develop.

Why would be play Miller ahead of Post/Vickery/Griffiths/Taylor? Isn't that slowing their development. Personally, I don't think Post can learn much more at Coburg, he needs to play AFL, why have Miller in his spot?

 

[_RT_]

the inference was not just on this yr either. and it was also about type.go ahead and do the usual shit and defend em at all costs.

you tell me if we have used the rookie draft well or not over the last 5 or 6 yrs.

and dont tell me your happy with miller or ffs hislop or the casserley balls up. oh thats right travis is another like howat been there done that lets do it again. only this time they didnt have the good sense to maybe think he might get 2yrs. yeah thats right its just a rookie spot.
yep you defend them its what you always do.

what was the actual use of the rookie draft again. jakobi miller and hislop and we failed to use a spot because of incompetence. ffs.
dont give me the shits and try and defend that.

I really wish you would make up your mind as to how you feel about this subject, you've had a bitch about us going out and getting older blokes like Miller but in the following you say you fully understand why we have done it:

i think even the most anti miller people will admit the list needs an injection of experience.
i think the real problem is in miller we have taken a very ordinary player to do a job at afl level. in many ways it is tantamount to the kingsley decision aagain.

clearly hardwick wanted richo to stay but the legs gave up.
then he rerookied polak clearly because of the need to have an experienced tall forward. well blind fred could have told him polak was a waste and when the polak experiment ultimately failed they went for miller aka kent kingsley mk2. right reasoning poor execution.

for sure im all for getting some experienced players but bloody hell lets get ones who can play well at the level and lead from the front or at the least perform a decent role.

yes i understand and fully back the reasoning of the club in getting a mature tall forward again blind fred can see the need.
what i am highly critical of is the player and his ability that they got.experience does not count for much if you cant play at the level.

as some have said he may well be the best tall forward we have atm and i stress atm, out side of jack. this just goes to show just how much development the others have to go thru.
griffiths may not play early in the season. taylor is still very undersized.
vickery has done sweet bugger all apart from two pre season games this yr and they are now attempting to turn him into a kpp.
the posty is coming off a very ordinary second season. yep logic said get a mature forward. the whole lot of our young kpps combined have played less than 100 games that includes jack whos played 70 odd.

So tell us Claws who should we have taken instead of Miller as that mature bodied KP type? Maybe we could have gone for Cam Cloke or Ash Hansen or Mitch Hahn or David Hale or Wade Skipper. They were about the only mature bodied former AFL players that were available at the end of last year.

Regarding the Casserley decision, we were fully aware that he had the drug issue hanging over his head when we were considering drafting him, its why we didn't actually commit to him outright and put him on the training squad, along with 2 other players, just in case things didn't turn out. As it is Casserley got became the first player to ever be rubbed out for 2 years for taking a couple of Sudafed, while Corrie and Keddall failed to step up and take advantage of an opening that was there for the taking. Again I'm not sure how the club can be labelled as incompetent when they gave themselves extra options. Incompetence would have been committing to Casserely as they had originally planned and then having him suspended while being a listed player.

 

[_RT_]

A promising KP tall who needs a few years in the system to develop.

Why would be play Miller ahead of Post/Vickery/Griffiths/Taylor? Isn't that slowing their development. Personally, I don't think Post can learn much more at Coburg, he needs to play AFL, why have Miller in his spot?

Miller is only going to play when they aren't available through injury or poor form. Right now we have both Griffiths and Post on the sidelines with LTIs

 

[CallMeAl]

A promising KP tall who needs a few years in the system to develop.

Why would be play Miller ahead of Post/Vickery/Griffiths/Taylor? Isn't that slowing their development. Personally, I don't think Post can learn much more at Coburg, he needs to play AFL, why have Miller in his spot?

Post - interupted pre season due to injury/ Doesn't work hard enough?

Vickery - Unlikely miller will play instaed of, but along side.

Griffiths - Injured, not playing at all at the moment

Taylor - different role completely. Doesnt have the bulk at this stage.

 

[TheProwler]

A promising KP tall who needs a few years in the system to develop.

Why would be play Miller ahead of Post/Vickery/Griffiths/Taylor? Isn't that slowing their development. Personally, I don't think Post can learn much more at Coburg, he needs to play AFL, why have Miller in his spot?

Yeah okay who?

We will play Miller while griffiths is injured, surely you don't want to play griff with an injured shoulder?

 

[santa claws]

I really wish you would make up your mind as to how you feel about this subject, you've had a bitch about us going out and getting older blokes like Miller but in the following you say you fully understand why we have done it:

So tell us Claws who should we have taken instead of Miller as that mature bodied KP type? Maybe we could have gone for Cam Cloke or Ash Hansen or Mitch Hahn or David Hale or Wade Skipper. They were about the only mature bodied former AFL players that were available at the end of last year.

Regarding the Casserley decision, we were fully aware that he had the drug issue hanging over his head when we were considering drafting him, its why we didn't actually commit to him outright and put him on the training squad, along with 2 other players, just in case things didn't turn out. As it is Casserley got became the first player to ever be rubbed out for 2 years for taking a couple of Sudafed, while Corrie and Keddall failed to step up and take advantage of an opening that was there for the taking. Again I'm not sure how the club can be labelled as incompetent when they gave themselves extra options. Incompetence would have been committing to Casserely as they had originally planned and then having him suspended while being a listed player.

whats so hard to understand. i see the need for an experienced player or two but i dont see the need for an experienced dud. an ordinary player who they drafted to supposedly play most of the yr at coburg what a joke. if you are gunna take an experienced player you want them to play and you definately want them to be up to standard. did they learn nothing from polak.
either our kids are not ready to play and we need an experienced player or two or they are ready and we dont need an experienced fill in at all.
if it is the former ffs that experienced player must be competent and consistent at the level. if not play what you have dont take experience at all and persevere and manage your kids carefully.

if as most would agree we need a couple of experienced players in some critical areas ie ruck kp you want them playing and capable of playing well.

i think all of those players you mentioned would offer more on field than miller.if i had to choose one it would be hale as we need to bolster both ruck and kp.bloody hell josh fraser would have been a better fit than miller.

 

[Mr Budda Bing]

Miller is going to rip it to shreads.

His missus is a stunner by the way.

Miller can play. I'm pro Miller

 

[_RT_]

whats so hard to understand. i see the need for an experienced player or two but i dont see the need for an experienced dud. an ordinary player who they drafted to supposedly play most of the yr at coburg what a joke. if you are gunna take an experienced player you want them to play and you definately want them to be up to standard. did they learn nothing from polak.
either our kids are not ready to play and we need an experienced player or two or they are ready and we dont need an experienced fill in at all.
if it is the former ffs that experienced player must be competent and consistent at the level. if not play what you have dont take experience at all and persevere and manage your kids carefully.

if as most would agree we need a couple of experienced players in some critical areas ie ruck kp you want them playing and capable of playing well.

i think all of those players you mentioned would offer more on field than miller.if i had to choose one it would be hale as we need to bolster both ruck and kp.bloody hell josh fraser would have been a better fit than miller.

As bad as you like to say Miller is you don't play nearly a decade and a key role in a side that played finals every year between 04 & 06 if you're a dud, it just doesn't happen like that Claws.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

Post - interupted pre season due to injury/ Doesn't work hard enough? Thus probably unavailable Rd 1

Vickery - Unlikely miller will play instaed of, but along side.

Griffiths - Injured, not playing at all at the moment

Taylor - different role completely. Doesnt have the bulk at this stage.

I just don't get it... why do people not understand this?!?

As bad as you like to say Miller is you don't play nearly a decade and a key role in a side that played finals every year between 04 & 06 if you're a dud, it just doesn't happen like that Claws.

Apparently experienced key forwards are falling of trees around here... I sense the name Bradshaw about to be tossed around

 

[NQTIGER]

I just don't get it... why do people not understand this?!?




Apparently experienced key forwards are falling of trees around here... I sense the name Bradshaw about to be tossed around

Yeah we can get him just in time for his 42 birthday, hey maybe we can even convince the cho to come out of retirement.

Those experienced key forwards are everywhere....lol

 

[Rayzorwire]

But there is a development angle in that Miller playing allows Vickery/Post & Jack to get used to playing in that 3 tall system.

*Any* three talls allows for that, with the bonus that they'll actually play football together in the future. Griffiths didn't do a lot in his games, but we apparently had a decent enough structure seeing we won every game he was in the side.

He is a 3rd tall that in all likelihood will sit in a pocket and be the get out of jail long option that will allow us to attack the square if we can't hit up Jack or Vickery on the lead. As I've said countless times its the same role we're going to play Griffiths in.

Third tall forward and third tall back are always best used as development positions, the only time they should be used for a veteran is if they're a really good player and that side is strongly in contention. Neither applies here.

Gourdis will continue on down back, you don't simply throw away 18 months of development just because the fans aren't happy with Miller coming in.

Playing a few games in the forward pocket isn't going to erase everything he's learned overnight, if there's no spot for him in the backline ATM it doesn't hurt one iota to trial him in a few games up forward. With his pace and size he makes an ideal utility, why pigeon-hole him and not have a proper look at what he can do in a few roles? Last year he was half discussed as a ruck prospect, left to run free and show his athleticism in a forward/ruck role he could surprise like Graham surprised most last year. If a defender or ruckman goes down we have a much better replacement than swinging Miller back there.

Derickx is a ruckman and I'd suggest that like Browne he will spend most of the year at Coburg developing.

I'd like to see Browne learning to strongly carry 80-90% of the ruck at Coburg, this is the player he'll need to become. Derickx is athletic enough and provides a strong enough contest to play a forward/ruck role rather than being pigeon-holed as a ruckman. I'd suggest that from what we've seen we know his strengths are his agility and ability to lay a tackle, he's a big lad and can take a grab - he needs to learn the forward role to succeed as a ruckman, it's a much better development option than playing Miller.

They are more ready because they have actually played 6-12 games against actual opponents,

It doesn't fit with the development model we used last year with guys like Astbury and Griffiths, they were raw as hell and lacked full size but we judged them ready enough because they needed games, that was our mantra last year, pump as many games into the kids as possible.

That's my point, our focus has changed, Hardwick's recent interview about expecting to win more games than last year further confirms it.

If Miller succeeds in the role and it buys us a win or two extra (which to be honest, would require performances which exceed his best over a couple of recent seasons), fair enough, that's the coach's right, I just don't think that it's the right move to play him even if it does work out as well as the coaching staff hope.

I don't think its about giving us a better chance of winning...I have no doubt that they will be given precedence over Miller in the lineup, unless their form isn't good enough to warrant a spot.

That's the same as 'results over development,' just phrased differently.

 

[docko911]

I don't quite understand why last year DH was so insistent upon playing only 1/2 talls up forward and a host of short people. We had the exact same number of talls as we do this year with miller replacing polak. He avoided playing talls during a development year where they were requiring development.

So here we are the next year and all of a sudden there seems to be a necessity to play 3 talls, even though last year this was avoided at all cost, and because we only have 4/5 (if taylor is included) tall forwards on our senior list we have to elevate a 27yo dud to play.

Now if DH was planning on using 3 talls this season why did he not draft at least one more young tall forward and/or get one on the rookie list. IMO it seems all to convenient that Brad Miller is a back-up for only 4 talls into 3 spots considering one has known shoulder issues. Seems like his mate Craig must've helped him get into a position where he would be guaranteed many AFL games.

 

[tugga]

whats so hard to understand. i see the need for an experienced player or two but i dont see the need for an experienced dud. an ordinary player who they drafted to supposedly play most of the yr at coburg what a joke. if you are gunna take an experienced player you want them to play and you definately want them to be up to standard. did they learn nothing from polak.
either our kids are not ready to play and we need an experienced player or two or they are ready and we dont need an experienced fill in at all.
if it is the former ffs that experienced player must be competent and consistent at the level. if not play what you have dont take experience at all and persevere and manage your kids carefully.

if as most would agree we need a couple of experienced players in some critical areas ie ruck kp you want them playing and capable of playing well.

i think all of those players you mentioned would offer more on field than miller.if i had to choose one it would be hale as we need to bolster both ruck and kp.bloody hell josh fraser would have been a better fit than miller.

You were asked foir an alternative to Miller.
You didn't respond.
Typical.

 

[nut]

The Miller Decision smells of CC..... After all he is the list manager.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

The way i see it is that big Derickx could provide the tigers that third tall option up forward...with the added bonus of pinch hitting in the ruck...

That way you get games into required young players...ie...TV, JReiwoldt, big Dx...and avoid compromising player development...

If as all reports on here are correct that BMiller is indeed such an ordinary performer then the only difference between the two is millers AFL experience...

At least big Dx has shown he can take a great contested pack mark...

And finally i'd prefer big Dx up forward than JFraser who is a tad injury prone...

 

[TheProwler]

The way i see it is that big Derickx could provide the tigers that third tall option up forward...with the added option of pinch hitting in the ruck...

Anyone except Miller eh

What is everyone afraid of? Do some expect Miller to suddenly become a star and take a kids spot for the next five years? He is to fill a role as a forward target while a recuperating Griffiths is sidelined and if another kid is injured help out in that role too. I just can't understand the paranoia over this bloke, it's sad and laughable at the same time.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Anyone except Miller eh

What is everyone afraid of? Do some expect Miller to suddenly become a star and take a kids spot for the next five years? He is to fill a role as a forward target while a recuperating Griffiths is sidelined and if another kid is injured help out in that role too. I just can't understand the paranoia over this bloke, it's sad and laughable at the same time.

LOL...did you not get past my post's first line then...?!?!?..

 

[NQTIGER]

Anyone except Miller eh

What is everyone afraid of? Do some expect Miller to suddenly become a star and take a kids spot for the next five years? He is to fill a role as a forward target while a recuperating Griffiths is sidelined and if another kid is injured help out in that role too. I just can't understand the paranoia over this bloke, it's sad and laughable at the same time.

And if he does is that a bad thing?

sheesh, we have become so 17 year old focused on here that we cant open our eyes and minds.

 

[_RT_]

*Any* three talls allows for that, with the bonus that they'll actually play football together in the future. Griffiths didn't do a lot in his games, but we apparently had a decent enough structure seeing we won every game he was in the side.

There is one problem with that though, we don't currently have 3 young talls that we can play up forward due to injury or poor form or not ready physically. Griffiths is at least 6-10 weeks away from resuming, Post has suffered another injury set back and it rumoured to be out 6 weeks, Taylor currently weighs 83kg can't expect him to play KPF at that weight.

Third tall forward and third tall back are always best used as development positions, the only time they should be used for a veteran is if they're a really good player and that side is strongly in contention. Neither applies here.

It also applies when the kids you want to play aren't capable of playing due to injury or poor form and you want to be able to retain the structures you want the team to play in. Down back we're going to be playing Rance in the 3rd tall spot to allow him to develop his game. Up forward the plan is to play Griffiths & Post in that 3rd tall role but as discussed earlier they are both injured or recovering from injury. When they are ready to go I have no doubt that they will be in the line up as long as their form warrants it.

Playing a few games in the forward pocket isn't going to erase everything he's learned overnight, if there's no spot for him in the backline ATM it doesn't hurt one iota to trial him in a few games up forward. With his pace and size he makes an ideal utility, why pigeon-hole him and not have a proper look at what he can do in a few roles? Last year he was half discussed as a ruck prospect, left to run free and show his athleticism in a forward/ruck role he could surprise like Graham surprised most last year. If a defender or ruckman goes down we have a much better replacement than swinging Miller back there.

Given we're in a development year, I don't believe you should go stuffing around with players development for a few weeks by shifting them around from 1 spot to another. Ideally we should be settling them in the one position and allow them to continue on with their development.

I'd like to see Browne learning to strongly carry 80-90% of the ruck at Coburg, this is the player he'll need to become. Derickx is athletic enough and provides a strong enough contest to play a forward/ruck role rather than being pigeon-holed as a ruckman. I'd suggest that from what we've seen we know his strengths are his agility and ability to lay a tackle, he's a big lad and can take a grab - he needs to learn the forward role to succeed as a ruckman, it's a much better development option than playing Miller.

Derickx was recruited as a ruckman, in his first year surely its ideal to have him actually learn how to play as an AFL ruckman. Once he has that down pat then we can worry about adding more strings to his bow.

It doesn't fit with the development model we used last year with guys like Astbury and Griffiths, they were raw as hell and lacked full size but we judged them ready enough because they needed games, that was our mantra last year, pump as many games into the kids as possible.

Last year Astbury didn't debut until round 4 after he has shown some good form at Coburg, Griffiths didn't debut until round 10 again it took a few games at Coburg before he was put in. This year will be the same we will continue to pump games into kids but we won't be simply giving them games because they are kids. They will be made to earn their spots which will only enhance their development. Or perhaps you prefer us to simply gift kids games and have them learn that they don't have to work hard to get a game at AFL level.

That's my point, our focus has changed, Hardwick's recent interview about expecting to win more games than last year further confirms it.

Of course he is going to expect to win more games. Its only natural after he has had a season to put his gameplan into effect. Perhaps you would have preferred if he come out and say we expect to stagnate or even worse go backwards in our second year.

If Miller succeeds in the role and it buys us a win or two extra (which to be honest, would require performances which exceed his best over a couple of recent seasons), fair enough, that's the coach's right, I just don't think that it's the right move to play him even if it does work out as well as the coaching staff hope.

Surely you don't believe that Miller will be the difference in whether we win games or not. Again all Miller will be doing is allowing us to play the structure and gameplan that we want to play, if that means we win then surely that can be taken as a sign that we're on the right track as far as the gameplan is concerned.

That's the same as 'results over development,' just phrased differently.

Surely you don't think the best way to develop players is to play them when form doesn't warrant selection. If Post or Griffiths or Vickery are running around getting 3-4 touches a game, how does that help them develop? Surely you want to see them out there and actually having an impact on the game. If they aren't then they should be sent back to Coburg and taught that if you want to play you need to perform at a consistently high level.

 

[_RT_]

I don't quite understand why last year DH was so insistent upon playing only 1/2 talls up forward and a host of short people. We had the exact same number of talls as we do this year with miller replacing polak. He avoided playing talls during a development year where they were requiring development.

So here we are the next year and all of a sudden there seems to be a necessity to play 3 talls, even though last year this was avoided at all cost, and because we only have 4/5 (if taylor is included) tall forwards on our senior list we have to elevate a 27yo dud to play.

Now if DH was planning on using 3 talls this season why did he not draft at least one more young tall forward and/or get one on the rookie list. IMO it seems all to convenient that Brad Miller is a back-up for only 4 talls into 3 spots considering one has known shoulder issues. Seems like his mate Craig must've helped him get into a position where he would be guaranteed many AFL games.

You're right we did avoid playing talls last year. I mean Astbury only played 17 including a handful up forward, Vickery played 14, Post played 7, Griffiths played 5 until injury ended his season.

We currently have Riewoldt Vickery Post Griffiths & Westhoff as young KPFs (all are under 23). All expect Westhoff are physically ready to play at AFL level, Westhoff is listed as 85kg. Of the 4 that are ready Griffiths is still a good 2-3 months away given we've decided to take our time with him. That leaves only 3 tall forward options available. Miller gives us another option for that period that Griffiths is out. To put it another way, if all the youngsters were right to go I find it highly unlikely that Miller would be in contention for a spot.

Which young KPF, who can step up and play from round 1, would you have preferred we drafted in place of Miller?

 

[Goldust]

OF course we can pump game after game into the younger brigade, but you run the risk of damaging them in the process.
I would argue that Griffiths - the same Griffiths three quarters of people on here rave about - was done a disservice by being given games before his body was able to cope. He played five games, and let's be honest had little effect on things, and he was out injured within five weeks and won't be ready for round one, two, three, whenever, even though the season finished in September last year and his finished in late July or early August.
No qualms with Miller shouldering the workload to protect these youngsters!!!

 

[_RT_]

OF course we can pump game after game into the younger brigade, but you run the risk of damaging them in the process.
I would argue that Griffiths - the same Griffiths three quarters of people on here rave about - was done a disservice by being given games before his body was able to cope. He played five games, and let's be honest had little effect on things, and he was out injured within five weeks and won't be ready for round one, two, three, whenever, even though the season finished in September last year and his finished in late July or early August.
No qualms with Miller shouldering the workload to protect these youngsters!!!

Exactly Goldy, by all means play the kids, but it should only happen when the kids are ready to go physically as well as performance wise.

Its interesting over the course of summer there were some posters on here saying that guys like Vickery and Post should be played at Coburg until they came out and absolutely dominated at that level. Now that Miller is in the mix for a senior spot the opinions change and the kids should be played regardless.

 

[santa claws]

You were asked foir an alternative to Miller.
You didn't respond.
Typical.

i believe i did answer when i said any experienced player we take needs to be a competent and consistent player up to the level. if ones not there dont take an experienced player at all and persevere and manage carfully the young players we have.use the rookie spot on a kid.

ive been adamant about the need for taking QUALITY experience in this area who wanted bradshaw but got yelled down who suggested we go after fev.
younger promising ruckmen ive advocated taking are jacobs two yrs before he got traded to adelaide, moran and mumford.
as said im not against taking mature players we need a few but only if they can play.

what is the difference between taking miller and kingsley. none they are both ordinary footballers.
cameron has been at the club since 07 and still we are forced to stuff around with our tall players. it was the area that should have been seen to first.
and for sure weather people want to hear it or not our list management could have been better.

 

[_RT_]

i believe i did answer when i said any experienced player we take needs to be a competent and consistent player up to the level. if ones not there dont take an experienced player at all and persevere and manage carfully the young players we have.use the rookie spot on a kid.

ive been adamant about the need for taking QUALITY experience in this area who wanted bradshaw but got yelled down who suggested we go after fev.
younger promising ruckmen ive advocated taking are jacobs two yrs before he got traded to adelaide, moran and mumford.
as said im not against taking mature players we need a few but only if they can play.

what is the difference between taking miller and kingsley. none they are both ordinary footballers.
cameron has been at the club since 07 and still we are forced to stuff around with our tall players. it was the area that should have been seen to first.
and for sure weather people want to hear it or not our list management could have been better.

There is a major difference between the role that Miller will be playing and the role Fev or Bradshaw would have been playing. Miller will most likely sit in a pocket or push up to a flank and try to drag his opponent away from Jack and/or Vickery. With either Bradshaw or Fev they would have forced Jack to play in the pocket or on the flank and they would be expecting Jack to be the one who dragged his opponent away from them.

Now while Bradshaw was a PSD pick and wouldn't have cost nothing in terms of trading for him he would have cost us the ability to select Grimes who was the kid we took in place of him. Now I ask you who is more important to our future Bradshaw or a young KP prospect in Grimes?

With Fev the cost would have been even greater, he cost the Lions Henderson(young KPF and pick 12), would have cost us something similar, perhaps pick 19(Griffiths) and another young player. Again I ask who is more important Fev for 1-3 years or Griffiths and another youngster who could be part of the side for a good decade?

These are the types of things you have to consider when you decide to chase experienced players to fill gaps in your list. Do you pay top $ to get quality or do you go bargain basement and get a body that can allow you to still put real development into the kids and at the same time protect them, rather than the kids protecting them.