Priority Picks

[Patrick Bateman]

What's the thought process for the remaining FIVE games?

The Freo game in round 19 looks a 'gimme' which will give us FIVE wins .. Another and we lose the Priority Pick which we desperately need.

Melbourne is vulnerable and we're half-a-chance.

What's the thinking here, fellow ferals?

I say 'tank' and get the pick.

 

[CJH]

I can never tolerate defeat! I would much rather see us win the last 5 games and teach our players how to win.

I am not sure how vulnerable Melbourne are! They did go within a whisker of running down Port Adelaide at Football Park - which is some feat in itself - and did play some excellent football in that last quarter.

Fremantle haven't won a game outside of Perth all year and surely we aren't travelling that bad as to let them break their duck!

Hawthorn have won a few more games than us - this only serves to hide the fact that they are probably travelling just as badly as what we are. This game is a definite chance.

Adelaide in Adelaide? We will probably get smashed!

Sydney at Stadium Australia? They are pretty crap and we would have to have a 50% chance of saluting on this game as well.

While trying to win every game, I would expect that we should be able to win 2 - 3 of our last 5. This may not be enough to lift us beyond 15th but will disqualify us from a priority pick.

To my way of thinking, this is preferable to tolerating defeat!

 

[TigerGar]

Tank It

Yeah I agree, TANK IT, play competetively but lose gallantly as per Bomber game.
We have nothing to gain from this season except for those priority picks.
Hopefully they can be used to get future champion players not has been DUDS !!!

 

[TheFoxhat]

Even if we get those picks what's to say they're going to be any better........
Look what happened when we had them .
No 1 pick Richard Lounder ---- Dud
No 1 pick Anthony Banik ------ Nearly as bad.

Others to come & go are .
Simon Eastaugh ... Mathew Clarke...& the list go's on...

 

[oh_my_hat]

Tank it!!

 

[Richmondfan#1]

I'm with CJH - DON'T TANK THE REST OF THE SEASON!

We're better than that as a club.

 

[Rodan#18.]

Half and half.

I agree we need the picks...but I strongly agree with Rich. Fan # 1 and CJH too.

But we'll be cheering the feats of Wells and Schammer (or whoever)long after the dissapointment of losing r 20 in year 2002 is forgotten.

Freo is a walk up win.
melb Syd and Haw are possibles.
Forget Adelaide.

I don't think tanking comes into it. Tanking insinuates that we have some control over our alteratives. As though we make a decision to lose. Like playing Clinton King.

Our engine room is young...but we're running them in.

Look out for Richmond.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I guess I'm secretly hoping (well, not secretly any more I guess!!) that we go 5 wins or under for the draft. Especially when you see the quality of the last few years of Top 5 - Fraser, Reiwoldt, Ko****schie, Judd, Hodge etc ... How would it be getting a crack at TWO of them.

But there is no way you could convince the current Richmond players to roll over on purpose i.e tank it on the field. They would be contributing to their own delisting, as the new players would have to replace someone.

If we're gonna tank it, it's got to come from the selection table. They have to name blokes like Krakouer, McGrath, Taylor, Mills etc..., in the senior team, and rest "injured" players like Campbell, Otto, Gas, Staff and Bowden. That would do it, AND give some senior experience to these Coburg boys.

Spud could also "experiment" with left-field type positionings, like having Pettifer one-out at full forward, or AK in the ruck, or Tivvers at full back etc...

Realistically, though, I thought the signs were real good on Friday night, and I'm seriously expecting us to win 3 games on the way home possibly even 4. I cannot see us winning less than 2.

We'll beat Melbourne
We'll beat Freo
We'll beat Hawthorn
Doubtful on Crows
We'll beat Sydney

8 wins 14 losses .... and a deplorable %

 

[Redford]

I can't believe it's even being thrown up as a consideration. "Tanking it" is for losers and would only perpetuate an already weak minded culture at Richmond. The real question is whether Richmond has, for once, the guts to clean out its list properly (and not just the obligatories like King, Hudson, Homewood etc.) to get some early round draft picks and then use them wisely enough - as TheFoxhat suggests.

 

[Rodan#18.]

Originally posted by Redford
(and not just the obligatories like King, Hudson, Homewood etc.)

welcome aboard Redford....!

One question for you all...what is wrong with Homewood. methinks nothing ! OK we're sick of carrying key position kids that never make the grade...(chalmers, Steinfort, eastaugh, Smith never played a game )

But we've only got 9 talls as it is...he's young tall and lightning quick...and his Wiz campaign showed that he would be OK. he didn't indicate that he'll win a Brownlow next year...but he'll be OK...keep him.

our talls....

Staff nearly 28
Rich....turning 28
Chubber (AK) nearly 27
Gaspar....27 next year
Holland....26 next year
------------------------------

Ottens...23
hall.....22
Vardy.....23
homewood....21 next year.

We need to get some young talls soon.....ie : Clokes and McGhies.
Our early picks need to go on the obvious 3 midfielders to put pressure on Coughlan, Fiora and Rodan. Then get the talls.

Either draft them, trade them or father/son them...

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Homewood

I agree - Let Homewood get on the park and show us what he's got.

BTW, Those Cloke boys are like draught horses apparently, making Ben Holland look like Bruny Surin

 

[CJH]

IMHO, I wasn't that impressed with Homewood in the Wiz Cup. Did some things that suggested that he didn't have the smarts for the game.

As for giving him a go - that will have to wait for next year as his shoulder is rooted and he is under rehab!

 

[Redford]

Tough, well-skilled midfielder/on-baller types should be our priority at the moment, but yeah, another good up and coming young tall would be a bonus, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, Homewood is not going to be that player.

I've seen him play a number of VFL games. He's very athletic, but his kicking is mediocre - at best. He struggles to keep the ball low, spooning it up in the air all the time, a trait which Ben Holland ("the draught horse") sometimes struggles with as well.

In one game against Carlton at the 'G' a couple of years ago Homewood (or "Dagwood" as I prefer to call him), kicked the ball directly to a Carlton player 3 times in a row when kicking out from full back ! And now, to make matters worse, he appears injury prone.

Nothing against the guy, but I can tell you that when Beck picked him up at no.39 in the 1999 National Draft, the Collingwood recruiting staff could not believe it.......

 

[TheFoxhat]

Re: Homewood

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman
I agree - Let Homewood get on the park and show us what he's got.

BTW, Those Cloke boys are like draught horses apparently, making Ben Holland look like Bruny Surin

Don't even think about getting any of the Cloke Bros as this is another fine F*** up the club has made.
They Probably won't even Mc Ghie as they changed the Father / son rule elegability

 

[GhostofJimJess]

The new father-son rule comes in 2003 foxhat, so we'll get the older version of McGhie if we want him.

As for King and Hudson, Redford, they won't be part of any cleanout - they're both contracted for 2003. so unless they can be traded, they are on our list for next year too.

That's a relatively young bunch of talls we've got Rodan. Most clubs would have at least two of their talls on the wrong side of thirty.

And i wonder if Justin Ko****schie know s that BigFooty won't accept his name ... at least the way I spell it !!!!

 

[Dean3]

Hudson

It's nothing more than a hunch, Ghost, but I wouldn't be surprised if Husdon retires at the end of this season.
Maybe that's just wishful thinking...but he was making some retirement noises a few weeks ago.

 

[Redford]

Well Casper, most contracts (particularly for middle level players like Hudson and King) are heavily dependent on the number of senior games that they play.

In Hudson’s case, the club has already told him he does not figure in their plans for next year. Therefore, with the reality of very few (or no) senior games next year, he is a certainty to retire i.e. no actual need to trade him exists. His wife indicated he was on the verge of retirement on Fox Footy this week.

In King’s case, it’s all about the art of player management – something Richmond is just downright appalling at. (As just one of many, many examples, anyone with half a brain could have negotiated a better deal than the one we ended up with re: Daffy and having to pay out most of his salary for this year.)

The club should let King know his playing prospects are the same as Hudson’s. He would be more than happy, therefore, to have his name used in trade talks where the playing and earning opportunities at another club would be greater. This, of course, presumes that other clubs would actually be interested in him on the current terms of his contract, but when middle tier players are told they have a limited future at their club, you would be amazed just how flexible they suddenly become in terms of being traded, new contracts etc.

Being contracted does not (or should not - coz' we are talking about Richmond here !) necessarily mean that you can not be offloaded.

 

[CJH]

Re: Hudson

Originally posted by Dean3
It's nothing more than a hunch, Ghost, but I wouldn't be surprised if Husdon retires at the end of this season.
Maybe that's just wishful thinking...but he was making some retirement noises a few weeks ago.

His father, Peter, was quoted a while back as saying that the writing was on the wall for Paul. I woudn't be surprised if he retired - maybe on or around the Hawthorn game. A chance to go with some dignity!

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Redford


...

In King’s case, it’s all about the art of player management – something Richmond is just downright appalling at. (As just one of many, many examples, anyone with half a brain could have negotiated a better deal than the one we ended up with re: Daffy and having to pay out most of his salary for this year.)

...

I'm not so sure about that! I was under the belief that since Daffy and Stafford were on comparable contracts anyway, they just swapped with each club picking up the tab of their player.

For that matter, it will be interesting to see what happens with Stafford now - whether he would be willing to take a pay cut?

 

[Redford]

I have not heard anything to the effect that the Swans were paying Stafford’s salary. Even if they were, it is still a big net loss for us because we gave away our no.17 pick as well.

 

[CJH]

No, no, no! Other way around! We pay Stafford and the Swans pay Daffy!

I guess we knew that we had a highly paid player who had next to no hope of being fit enough to get out on the ground. In this respect, we have had a net gain with Stafford.

Longer term, I do take you point about the loss of the first round pick! Geelong (who ended up with the 17th pick) picked up James Kelly who does seem to be quite a likely player. The way this kid moves does remind me a bit of James Hird - always with time to do whatever he wants!

 

[Redford]

A few days after the trade period ended, Brayshaw came out and advised that Richmond was sponsoring a proportion of the first of the two remaining years on Daffy’s contract. Sydney would then get lumped with the second year entirely i.e. 2003

Richmond needed cap relief badly so it could pay for the ridiculous sums that they are now paying Gaspar and Holland, that they had to get Daffy off their cap somehow. This may be where you are getting confused.

Sydney had the room in its cap for Daffy but it did not want to pay him the $350k or so that he was on. So, Richmond said it would make a cash re-imbursement to Sydney for a proportion of that salary in the first year. All Richmond was interested in at the time was getting the CAP relief.

So, in other words, Richmond gets rid of Daffy’s salary ‘coz he is no longer contracted to the club and reduces the pressure on its CAP. Sydney has Daffy’s contract and thus his salary within THEIR CAP.

However, Richmond had to re-imburse Sydney with cash to get them do so.

And in any case, you are missing the point because even if Sydney were actually paying for his salary, we have still given them a 17th round draft pick plus a player, for only one player in return - and even then, the question as to whether Stafford is worth a no.17 pick is highly debateable as well !

Clearly, because of the salary cap pressure, the deal was an absolute shocker!

 

[RichmondTiger5]

Originally posted by Richmondfan#1
I'm with CJH - DON'T TANK THE REST OF THE SEASON!

We're better than that as a club.

well said Kat,toally agreed.I sort can't belive that some of you think we really should tank games .COME ON TIGERS!!!! lets have a few more wins befor the season ends.we haven't won since round 8 agiast West Coast eek: and it's now round 18 .Go Tigers Eat E'm Alive!! beat thoes Demons we need a win.I would so love to see Richmond win agian it feels like so long since we last won.

Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
I guess I'm secretly hoping (well, not secretly any more I guess!!) that we go 5 wins or under for the draft. Especially when you see the quality of the last few years of Top 5 - Fraser, Reiwoldt, Ko****schie, Judd, Hodge etc ... How would it be getting a crack at TWO of them.

with last years draft been such high quality I have heard that this years draft is going to be so exellcent.