Miller

[Barnzy]

Your reasons are you reasons, the fact is that the brains trust have gone against your reasons. So it seems your reasons conflict their reasons. So the questions are relevant.

Brains trust haven't done anything official yet regarding Miller, all speculation. Hopefully they don't.

 

[thecotch]

I think the Miller decision is a good one purely from the point of view that he has a big strong body, a bit of mongrel, a bit of insurance, a foil for jack until we find another strong young forward or until griffiths can do the job. At 27 yo I don't think he's a risk and he can actually play a bit.

 

[Goldust]

I was sceptical of us targetting Miller, until I read the reasons why the Tigers wanted him ... to help develop the young forwards. Sounds ideal to me.
Anyone who thinks we don't need someone to shoulder the load a bit and help look after these youngsters is deluded.
Not lost on me that Griffiths played just five games before succumbing to injury, Vickery looked shot or worn out by about round 10 and Post clearly struggled with his development.
Beleive me, if it's all left to Jack, he'll be burnt out by the time he's 25.
Miller gives us an experienced and strong body - who if and when he should play at senior level - us likely to attract the second or third defender.
Me thinks, with his attack ont he ball, he is exactly the type of player Hardwick likes and can get plenty out of. Did anyone not see what he did with the likes of King, Edwards, Collins, Connors, even Graham?
He costs us nothing ... NOTHING!!! And he has a specific role!!

 

[TOOs_Finest]

Fair chance he'll be used to soak up a bit of that 92.5% of salary cap too I'm guessing. With Tambling having asked to be moved on, that's probably another 300k or so we need to pay to someone.

Always despised Miller, as he was another of those players that only ever played well against Richmond. Funnily enough, I have no uneasy feelings about picking him up as a mature rookie (if it eventuates).

With the sudden rise of JR8, without a lot of attention having been paid to the forward line, it seems our forward structure has started to take shape regardless. Having Miller available to play there if needed might help us sure things up a little whilst we work on the rest of our structure. It makes more sense to me to do this now than say with Bradshaw last year, since this year we pretty much know what we have to work with, having seen the likes of Jack and Posty for another year, and Griff/Astbury early signs.

 

[RFC_Official]

I'll give you a quick summary of the situation

If we get Miller he will be our mature age rookie listed player, not on our 'true' list.

He would come to the club as an insurance player and he would know that going into the season, the reality is that he would play most of the season at Coburg but also have the dual role as a coach.

We exposed Jack Riewoldt a lot last year and with Ben Griffiths having dual shoulder surgeries, Miler would offer great insurance.

But the most important thing is that this decision to recruit a mature age player comes from the top. Dimma has a long term plan both on and off the field, if Miller comes to the club he would be as a player who would also do a lot of development with the younger guys and possibly become a coach down the track.

Don't think of this as a band-aid solution and we are topping up, this would be a move for the future of our younger players.

 

[Slattery_20]

So much for youth! Whether or not the spot on the list is available, the spot in the 22 could be taken by a younger player.
All this hype about youth policies don't boil down to much. If an older guy is worth picking up, they will be, simple as that.

Kent wasnt taken as a mature age rookie dude.

Splitting hairs. 38th on the list or 40th.

He's not completely terrible, and you wouldn't have to give up much. Hints (to me) they don't have confidence in Griffits/Post etc to deliver in the near future.

Q: would mature age rookie be year-to-year deals only??? Could make a bit more sense, not being tied into anything long-term.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

I'll give you a quick summary of the situation

If we get Miller he will be our mature age rookie listed player, not on our 'true' list.

He would come to the club as an insurance player and he would know that going into the season, the reality is that he would play most of the season at Coburg but also have the dual role as a coach.

We exposed Jack Riewoldt a lot last year and with Ben Griffiths having dual shoulder surgeries, Miler would offer great insurance.

But the most important thing is that this decision to recruit a mature age player comes from the top. Dimma has a long term plan both on and off the field, if Miller comes to the club he would be as a player who would also do a lot of development with the younger guys and possibly become a coach down the track.

Don't think of this as a band-aid solution and we are topping up, this would be a move for the future of our younger players.

Thanks RFCO, I think this is pretty obvious to most (some?). I can't imagine people actually thinking we would recruit him to be a staple part of our forward line for the next five years, but ya just never know. From what you're saying, it would suggest the brains trust has spent some time with Miller to come to the conclusion that he can fulfil the role you describe.

Some people will still disagree with the concept, claiming it is just not necessary, etc. And fair enough, that is their right, and they may well be proven right in time. But at least we know that the cost is next to nothing.

PS: I'm sure this kind of feedback from within the club will be a HUGE hit on this board if we can get the odd trickle

 

[TOOs_Finest]

So much for youth! Whether or not the spot on the list is available, the spot in the 22 could be taken by a younger player.
All this hype about youth policies don't boil down to much. If an older guy is worth picking up, they will be, simple as that.


Splitting hairs. 38th on the list or 40th.

He's not completely terrible, and you wouldn't have to give up much. Hints (to me) they don't have confidence in Griffits/Post etc to deliver in the near future.

Q: would mature age rookie be year-to-year deals only??? Could make a bit more sense, not being tied into anything long-term.

Wow! You just don't get it

Mature age rookie is not even on the main list.

So we don't have confidence that a 20yo and a 21yo won't be major players in our forward line in the next 12-24 months. Now there's a head line.

Yes, you would imagine it's a year by year deal, but don't know for sure.

 

[_RT_]

Smart move by Hardwick and co, after watching Riewoldt get belted from pillar to post for the second half of the year as opposition teams just sat 2-3 players on him, Miller will at least provide some help if he plays. At the same time if Jack does go down with an injury we will still have a mature body to throw into the fray without having to rely on a bunch of kids who are still developing their bodies.

 

[mighty tiges]

I'll give you a quick summary of the situation

If we get Miller he will be our mature age rookie listed player, not on our 'true' list.

He would come to the club as an insurance player and he would know that going into the season, the reality is that he would play most of the season at Coburg but also have the dual role as a coach.

We exposed Jack Riewoldt a lot last year and with Ben Griffiths having dual shoulder surgeries, Miler would offer great insurance.

But the most important thing is that this decision to recruit a mature age player comes from the top. Dimma has a long term plan both on and off the field, if Miller comes to the club he would be as a player who would also do a lot of development with the younger guys and possibly become a coach down the track.

Don't think of this as a band-aid solution and we are topping up, this would be a move for the future of our younger players.

Mark Graham was also recruited "cheaply" as a mature back-up and onfield educator late in the 2004 draft yet the following young players were still available in the PSD and rookie draft:

PSD:
3. Eddie Betts (Carl)

Rookie Draft:
7. Josh Gibson (North/Haw)
16. Danyle Pearce (Port)
18. Clinton Young (Haw)
19. Dale Morris (WB)
20. Harry O'Brien (Coll)
26. Matthew Warnock (Melb)
38. Scott McMahon (North)
39. Ryan Crowley (Freo)
42. Heath Grundy (Syd)
60. Josh Drummond (Bris)


So while the same logic was applied to getting Mark Graham as a mature back-up/fill-in in 2004 as the Club is arguing now with Miller, it really was a short-term decision made at the expense of recruiting for the long-term when we were then and still are meant to be in full rebuild mode.

Furthermore as we have no vets we are able to promote two rookies at the start of 2011. I bet Miller will be promoted given he'll be naturally ahead of the other younger rookies and because Griffiths could miss round 1 due to coming back from his shoulder op. Why not play some younger tall and with a future instead of some washed-up 27 year old who will not be part of our next premiership.

If the Club wants a playing development coach at Coburg then employ Miller for that purpose alone. Any club in full rebuild mode should not be putting 27 y.o. back-ups on their playing list at all. Either a player is part of our future or not. If not then he shouldn't be on our playing list.

 

[Slattery_20]

If you were after half-backs that year you were in luck!!!

 

[Dustin Credible]

I'll give you a quick summary of the situation

If we get Miller he will be our mature age rookie listed player, not on our 'true' list.

He would come to the club as an insurance player and he would know that going into the season, the reality is that he would play most of the season at Coburg but also have the dual role as a coach.

We exposed Jack Riewoldt a lot last year and with Ben Griffiths having dual shoulder surgeries, Miler would offer great insurance.

But the most important thing is that this decision to recruit a mature age player comes from the top. Dimma has a long term plan both on and off the field, if Miller comes to the club he would be as a player who would also do a lot of development with the younger guys and possibly become a coach down the track.

Don't think of this as a band-aid solution and we are topping up, this would be a move for the future of our younger players.

Thank you, that is reassuring news.

 

[CoggaRules]

Mark Graham was also recruited "cheaply" as a mature back-up late in the 2004 draft yet the following players were still available in the PSD and rookie draft:

PSD:
3. Eddie Betts (Carl)

Rookie Draft:
7. Josh Gibson (North/Haw)
16. Danyle Pearce (Port)
18. Clinton Young (Haw)
19. Dale Morris (WB)
20. Harry O'Brien (Coll)
26. Matthew Warnock (Melb)
38. Scott McMahon (North)
39. Ryan Crowley (Freo)
42. Heath Grundy (Syd)
60. Josh Drummond (Bris)


So while the same logic was applied to getting Mark Graham as a mature back-up/fill-in in 2004 as the Club is arguing now with Miller, it really was a short-term decision made at the expense of recruiting for long-term when we were/are meant to be in full rebuild mode.

no the logic back then was to sell it as a mature back-up/fill in, while a mate was given a chance to get a milestone and play, he played how many games that year? That aint a back-up/fill in dude.
The thing is that Graham pulled his weight over that stretch, not bagging him personally, bagging the coach on his supposed "building" plan.
Again those that are going gaga need to get with the program. he is a mature age rookie, i.e. not on the list until someone gets injured or retires etc etc. i.e. insurance on that and bonus is protection and development of the kids at Coburg. FFS, wake up, the way fools are going on about it here, you would think we traded our 2nd rounder to pick him up and offered him 500K.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

Mark Graham was also recruited "cheaply" as a mature back-up late in the 2004 draft yet the following players were still available in the PSD and rookie draft:

PSD:
3. Eddie Betts (Carl)

Rookie Draft:
7. Josh Gibson (North/Haw)
16. Danyle Pearce (Port)
18. Clinton Young (Haw)
19. Dale Morris (WB)
20. Harry O'Brien (Coll)
26. Matthew Warnock (Melb)
38. Scott McMahon (North)
39. Ryan Crowley (Freo)
42. Heath Grundy (Syd)
60. Josh Drummond (Bris)


So while the same logic was applied to getting Mark Graham as a mature back-up/fill-in in 2004 as the Club is arguing now with Miller, it really was a short-term decision made at the expense of recruiting for long-term when we were/are meant to be in full rebuild mode.

From what I understand, each club is allowed one mature age rookie in addition to the usual rookie listed players. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If this is the case, then I think the Mark Graham analogy is somewhat misplaced. We can choose to have a mature age rookie, or we can choose not to have one. Having Miller as a mature age rookie will not affect which youngsters we pick up in the rookie draft.

 

[santa claws]

Kent wasnt taken as a mature age rookie dude.

sheesh kant kicksley was taken in the psd and as such went to the list proper.

lets see who did we have on the list when we went and goit him.
oh richo was there a 700 goal player who was how old again, hmm lets see graham polak a 23 yr old key forward. hmm jay schulz a 22 yr old key forward.
adam pattison a 21 yr old chf. hmm cleve hughes a 20 yr old kpf. to top it of we had just drafted jack. there was no need for a 28 yr old hack.

the circumstances this time around are very different

jack at 22 is the oldest kpf we have and he is the only established one we have.

if you cant see the different circumstances i feel sorry for ya. we have dire need for an experienced key forward weather that key forward should be miller or some one else i would gladly debate, but not the need.

we have taken miller for exactly the same reasons we went with polak the extra yr, and they are the same reasons why i advocated we take bradshaw last yr when the need was even greater.
i would not go get miller personally but i sure as hell see the process and the logic in getting him.

its my opinion that if thursfield goes we should trade for a mature fb we really should be looking for a mature ruckman the key is we dont take these players at the expense of nd picks.

 

[mighty tiges]

From what I understand, each club is allowed one mature age rookie in addition to the usual rookie listed players. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's incorrect. Each club is entitled to 8 rookies. Two of those are allowed to be used on mature rookies but you can have all 8 as young rookies if you wish.

 

[santa claws]

apologies cogga i misread what you posted.

 

[_RT_]

Mark Graham was also recruited "cheaply" as a mature back-up and onfield educator late in the 2004 draft yet the following young players were still available in the PSD and rookie draft:

PSD:
3. Eddie Betts (Carl)

Rookie Draft:
7. Josh Gibson (North/Haw)
16. Danyle Pearce (Port)
18. Clinton Young (Haw)
19. Dale Morris (WB)
20. Harry O'Brien (Coll)
26. Matthew Warnock (Melb)
38. Scott McMahon (North)
39. Ryan Crowley (Freo)
42. Heath Grundy (Syd)
60. Josh Drummond (Bris)


So while the same logic was applied to getting Mark Graham as a mature back-up/fill-in in 2004 as the Club is arguing now with Miller, it really was a short-term decision made at the expense of recruiting for the long-term when we were then and still are meant to be in full rebuild mode.

Furthermore as we have no vets we are able to promote two rookies at the start of 2011. I bet Miller will be promoted given he'll be naturally ahead of the other younger rookies and because Griffiths could miss round 1 due to coming back from his shoulder op. Why not play some younger tall and with a future instead of some washed-up 27 year old who will not be part of our next premiership.

If the Club wants a playing development coach at Coburg then employ Miller for that purpose alone. Any club in full rebuild mode should not be putting 27 y.o. back-ups on their playing list at all. Either a player is part of our future or not. If not then he shouldn't be on our playing list.

One big difference between Miller and Graham. One was taken with our last pick in the national draft, the other will most likely be taken with our last pick in the rookie draft. As such Miller isn't denying us the chance to go out and pick up kids as we would have taken a number of kids beforehand.

 

[santa claws]

no the logic back then was to sell it as a mature back-up/fill in, while a mate was given a chance to get a milestone and play, he played how many games that year? That aint a back-up/fill in dude.
The thing is that Graham pulled his weight over that stretch, not bagging him personally, bagging the coach on his supposed "building" plan.
Again those that are going gaga need to get with the program. he is a mature age rookie, i.e. not on the list until someone gets injured or retires etc etc. i.e. insurance on that and bonus is protection and development of the kids at Coburg. FFS, wake up, the way fools are going on about it here, you would think we traded our 2nd rounder to pick him up and offered him 500K.

yep it was a mistake taking graham for just one yr. the need was for a quality big bodied key defender.
our list for 04 had the speculative 18 yr old archibald. the 28 yr old gaspar, 24 yr old hall who was injury prone, 29 yr old third tall option andrew kellaway,22 yr old luke weller in the psd out of desperation and we had just rookied moore who at the time was not considered a kpp.

we had enough older kpps to show the kids the ropes for a short while. what we lacked was a couple of youngsters of quality taken in the nd.

instead we ended up with 32yo mark graham and we took him knowing he would be there just one yr. yep under miller list management was nonexistant.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

We need to bring back the mid-season draft for these kind of top-up players.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

That's incorrect. Each club is entitled to 8 rookies. Two of those are allowed to be used on mature rookies but you can have all 8 as young rookies if you wish.

Cheers, thanks for clarifying

Have we normally had a full list of rookies in the past?

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Mark Graham was also recruited "cheaply" as a mature back-up and onfield educator late in the 2004 draft yet the following young players were still available in the PSD and rookie draft:

PSD:
3. Eddie Betts (Carl)

Rookie Draft:
7. Josh Gibson (North/Haw)
16. Danyle Pearce (Port)
18. Clinton Young (Haw)
19. Dale Morris (WB)
20. Harry O'Brien (Coll)
26. Matthew Warnock (Melb)
38. Scott McMahon (North)
39. Ryan Crowley (Freo)
42. Heath Grundy (Syd)
60. Josh Drummond (Bris)


So while the same logic was applied to getting Mark Graham as a mature back-up/fill-in in 2004 as the Club is arguing now with Miller, it really was a short-term decision made at the expense of recruiting for the long-term when we were then and still are meant to be in full rebuild mode.

Furthermore as we have no vets we are able to promote two rookies at the start of 2011. I bet Miller will be promoted given he'll be naturally ahead of the other younger rookies and because Griffiths could miss round 1 due to coming back from his shoulder op. Why not play some younger tall and with a future instead of some washed-up 27 year old who will not be part of our next premiership.

If the Club wants a playing development coach at Coburg then employ Miller for that purpose alone. Any club in full rebuild mode should not be putting 27 y.o. back-ups on their playing list at all. Either a player is part of our future or not. If not then he shouldn't be on our playing list.

For such a long post that is incredibly irrelevant.

 

[mighty tiges]

Cheers, thanks for clarifying

Have we normally had a full list of rookies in the past?

Off the top of my head I don't believe we ever have as financially we didn't have the money for a full list of rookies. The Club had to set up the rookie club 5 years ago to fund the couple per year we did have. This year though we had the full compliment.

 

[santa claws]

on average over the last 5yrs 8 players have been taken in the psd thats 0.5 players per club per yr.

last yr 72 players were taken as rookies many mature. thats 4.5 rookie picks per club including mature rookies.
in 09 74 rookies were taken for a similar average.
in 08 62 rookies were taken for an average of slightly less than 4 per club.
07 62 rookies taken
06 57 rookies were taken
05 55 rookies were taken

going by this the average amount of rookies being taken each yr by clubs is slightly under 4 without looking to closely into it these figures include older players.

given gws are going to pick the eyes out of the rookie draft if we use 4 picks it could be argued to many for this yr only
we will have westhoff, contin, orielly, and hicks filling our list with miller it will still leave another 3 spots to fill we dont want to many kids in the rookie draft this yr.

theres nothing wrong with mature rookies personally rather than wait to the rookie draft this yr i would use late nd picks.

 

[Wally Matera]

I'll be glass is half full on this one. So l am agreeable to this move.

Whilst l'm ok with us picking him up as a mature aged rookie, l will be pissed if come the rookie draft he is the first rookie called out.

Too many good young kids that slip through the draft and l think we should be using our first 2 selections on kids that could be an Axel - not mature aged players.

I like the comparison to Leigh Brown, but we're in a very different stage to the Pies and for all the pissing in Leroys pockets, the bloke is still a filthy dud.

It grates on me that he is a premiership player.