Rate our list!!

[_RT_]

sorry, but the whole point of a rebuild is to weed out the players that won't take us anywhere. out of these 2 i can only see White in our team next year. But some days he plays horrible. While others he might be alright but not great.

I agree but my point is any kid we draft is signed for 2 years therefore drafting 2 kids we take with say picks 90 & 100 are tied to us regardless of how poorly they perform. White and King aren't superstars and I'm not suggesting that they will be either, but they have shown a bit of improvement under Hardwicks coaching, so why not give them another 12 months and see if the improvement they have shown can continue. If it doesn't then they get delisted at the end of next year along with anyone else who hasn't shown something and we've lost nothing as the odds that pick 90-110 will turn out to be a good player aren't that great.

Another thing is the pro-tanking brigade talk about playing the odds with regards getting the best value out of low picks, why shouldn't that apply to all out picks?

 

[santa claws]

I agree but my point is any kid we draft is signed for 2 years therefore drafting 2 kids we take with say picks 90 & 100 are tied to us regardless of how poorly they perform. White and King aren't superstars and I'm not suggesting that they will be either, but they have shown a bit of improvement under Hardwicks coaching, so why not give them another 12 months and see if the improvement they have shown can continue. If it doesn't then they get delisted at the end of next year along with anyone else who hasn't shown something and we've lost nothing as the odds that pick 90-110 will turn out to be a good player aren't that great.

Another thing is the pro-tanking brigade talk about playing the odds with regards getting the best value out of low picks, why shouldn't that apply to all out picks?

ogmon name one club who drafts kids on a one yr basis other than rookies.if you are drafting kids that are that speculative in the nd that theres a chance you may want to get rid of them after one yr you are not doing your job properly.

bloody hell late picks rookies etc are taken late because of obvious deficiencies in their games you are taking them with eyes wide open in the knowledge that it will take time to develop them. i will say it again if we are taking kids on a one yr basis or with a one yr attitude we have it horribly wrong.

one other thing the consensus is 7 to 10 to go this yr there is enough on the list to go before any kid we take this yr. it will take more than one draft to get rid of the duds.

 

[coke_zero]

I agree but my point is any kid we draft is signed for 2 years therefore drafting 2 kids we take with say picks 90 & 100 are tied to us regardless of how poorly they perform. White and King aren't superstars and I'm not suggesting that they will be either, but they have shown a bit of improvement under Hardwicks coaching, so why not give them another 12 months and see if the improvement they have shown can continue. If it doesn't then they get delisted at the end of next year along with anyone else who hasn't shown something and we've lost nothing as the odds that pick 90-110 will turn out to be a good player aren't that great.

Another thing is the pro-tanking brigade talk about playing the odds with regards getting the best value out of low picks, why shouldn't that apply to all out picks?

Both have had some good form lately. But i would rather Foley and Webberley running around rather than those 2. I Can see White being good depth and when we start climbling up the ladder he will improve with us. But King is only in the team right now for hardness. As i have said before if he does anything then its a bonus.

 

[_RT_]

all i can say is failure by this club to turn over players who are severely lacking in areas of the game has cost us enormously. after five yrs of wallace we find ourselves on the bottom of the ladder still. one of the principal reasons hanging onto a myriad of players just like white and king who are clearly below standard.

Is it possible that the lack of development under TW is the reason why King & White are labelled as below standard?

you can also ask what possible harm can be done in delisting these blokes. in 26yo kings case how many small defenders do we have.
in whites case how many mids.

King isn't playing as a small defender, since coming back into the side he has played as a tagger and has done a pretty handy job of shutting down guys like Davey Dal Santo Pearce Rodan Hurn. As for White, him being in the side might just be allowing Deledio to play the HB role. Despite having 2 games in the last 6 weeks where he had a combined 12 possessions he has played 6 straight, 7 counting this week. Like I said before, guys like King and White aren't going to be superstars but like every other good side they could develop into grunts that allow out matchwinners to go about doing what they do best.

look at the list of names below there are some there who we have taken who are just as good as white what have we to lose.at worst we are likely to find a player on par with white that is someone we will ultimately have to delist or off load for a pick like we did raines who was also a late pick.

So we're going to delist White, a player rated by you as below standard to get one who at worst will be no better than White. Isn't it better to stick with the devil you know rather than hope that a late round pick might turn out to be the same. Like I said before there is no harm in holding onto him for a year and seeing if the improvement he is showing under Hardwick can continue?

so just what have we to lose in not delisting we cost ourselves the opportunity to find at least a core list player.
i know lets just sit on our hands and do nothing just like we always have and look where it has got us.

You talk about making sure we get the most possible value out of every pick, what value are we going to get out of taking a kid with pick 90+, odds are we get another White.

sheesh white is in his 5th yr hes a small hes poorly skilled makes to many poor decisions and for a mid does not find enough of the ball.its a constant rate him against his peers and tell me we should keep him.

As I said before any chance that the lack of development TW put into the group might have sometihng to do with him being so 'poorly' skilled and unable to make good decisions. I'm not sure if you saw Sundays game but he made quite a few good decisions and displayed reasonable skills, especially that goal he set up for Nason in the 3rd quarter

since wallace to now we have used just 9 or 10 nd picks past pick 50 or 4th rounders onwards. herein lies one big part of our problems right now.but in fairness to those in charge not a lot of players are taken after pick say pick 60 in the nd each yr.

Exactly, so why should we delist an extra 2 players so we can take 4 players after pick 60 this year.

to me a way of finding an improvement on white would be simple it may or may not work but we do what we did this yr with taylor webberley nason all three have good skills and have footy smarts.they all have attributes white does not. all taken 4th rnd onwards.

If we finish last with the PP this year we'll get picks 4, 27, 29, 46, 63 & 79 if we delist/retire 6 players i.e. Simmonds Cousins McMahon Polo Thomson & Hislop. Thats 2 picks at 60+ which is the equal to picks 70+ when you add in GWS and their dozen kids.

then throw in the rookies there is ample opportunity to pick up a player late. its got to be better than hanging onto known below standard under performers. especially if there are blokes in your system who can do the roles of those going without losing anything or to much.

As you said, we might just end up with players that are no better than White & King, what is the point of that?

and isnt it typical of some dragging out the old they all have to be champions line.

The way some people go on about how we need more quality to be any chance of being a good side is it any wonder. As mentioned King & White aren't going to be champions, but they could be the grunt types that every good side has that allows the matchwinners to perform their roles better.

personally ive only ever commented on players in regards stengths weakness and performance.
players fall into the following categories for me and im sure barnzy is similar.

development,
below standard, white king.
core list which is the minimum you want in your players.
good/very good
elite.
its based on how pelchen goes about it.

Given Hardwick has taken the whole group back to basics would it be fair to say that the majority of the group would be in the development phase, even those that have been around for 4-5 years especially when you consider that there was practically no development over the TW era that was unless they were a player that was already in the very good/elite range.

 

[Reckoner Tiger]

this thread has become the exact opposite of what mr magic wanted haha...
probably a good thing, the original concept was bad

 

[NQTIGER]

Is it possible that the lack of development under TW is the reason why King & White are labelled as below standard?

King isn't playing as a small defender, since coming back into the side he has played as a tagger and has done a pretty handy job of shutting down guys like Davey Dal Santo Pearce Rodan Hurn. As for White, him being in the side might just be allowing Deledio to play the HB role. Despite having 2 games in the last 6 weeks where he had a combined 12 possessions he has played 6 straight, 7 counting this week. Like I said before, guys like King and White aren't going to be superstars but like every other good side they could develop into grunts that allow out matchwinners to go about doing what they do best.


So we're going to delist White, a player rated by you as below standard to get one who at worst will be no better than White. Isn't it better to stick with the devil you know rather than hope that a late round pick might turn out to be the same. Like I said before there is no harm in holding onto him for a year and seeing if the improvement he is showing under Hardwick can continue?


You talk about making sure we get the most possible value out of every pick, what value are we going to get out of taking a kid with pick 90+, odds are we get another White.

As I said before any chance that the lack of development TW put into the group might have sometihng to do with him being so 'poorly' skilled and unable to make good decisions. I'm not sure if you saw Sundays game but he made quite a few good decisions and displayed reasonable skills, especially that goal he set up for Nason in the 3rd quarter

Exactly, so why should we delist an extra 2 players so we can take 4 players after pick 60 this year.

If we finish last with the PP this year we'll get picks 4, 27, 29, 46, 63 & 79 if we delist/retire 6 players i.e. Simmonds Cousins McMahon Polo Thomson & Hislop. Thats 2 picks at 60+ which is the equal to picks 70+ when you add in GWS and their dozen kids.

As you said, we might just end up with players that are no better than White & King, what is the point of that?


The way some people go on about how we need more quality to be any chance of being a good side is it any wonder. As mentioned King & White aren't going to be champions, but they could be the grunt types that every good side has that allows the matchwinners to perform their roles better.



Given Hardwick has taken the whole group back to basics would it be fair to say that the majority of the group would be in the development phase, even those that have been around for 4-5 years especially when you consider that there was practically no development over the TW era that was unless they were a player that was already in the very good/elite range.

RT i agree with youon those points and it is possible that a lot of our current and past delisted players lacked development/coaching under wallace.

But we still need high end picks.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

I think the two most talented and best players on your list are Dustin Martin and Trent Cotchin by quite a long way

Hold onto those guys for dear life. They will be the foundation of Richmonds next good side in a few years.

Would love them both at Hawthorn, particuarly Cotchin

 

[_RT_]

[/b]

RT i agree with youon those points and it is possible that a lot of our current and past delisted players lacked development/coaching under wallace.

But we still need high end picks.

I'm not saying that we don't need them, my arguement is why do we have to slam on the handbrake when it comes to developing our players to get them. Play the kids like we have been doing i.e. trying to win games, and if it means we miss out on pick 27(the priority pick) because we win more than 4 games, what damage is it going to do to us long term. We're fielding the youngest side in the comp every week, unlike previous years where we were riding the coattails of guys like Richo Bowden Simmonds Johnson & Brown to win games. Wins this year are being achieved with the foundation our future.

Anyway, I've had enough of this, I'm going to sit back over the next 10 games and see what unfolds, by seasons end one group is going to be happy and the other group isn't, because the reality of the situation is there isn't much we as supporters can do about what the clubs decides to do.

 

[Bazzar]

King isn't playing as a small defender, since coming back into the side he has played as a tagger and has done a pretty handy job of shutting down guys like Davey Dal Santo Pearce Rodan Hurn.

Add to that, under Wallace his main focus was the man first, then the ball. The way he ponced around arms out, chest pumped trying to maim and kill everyone, he thrived on it. But it put so many off-side.

But the interesting thing is, Dimma as we all know wants the hard tough football from all the players, but it’s obvious he won’t tolerate Kingies style of hard undisciplined football, and after back to back suspensions it’s safe to say the law has been layed down, and he has responded by changing and reinventing his game.

His last 4 games have been very team orientated, and also gone is the risk taking. If he keeps it up he will be coming second to only to Jack in this years Most Improved Award at the JD Medal Awards.