Richmond 2012

[santa claws]

I can remember Cartankers doing exactly that same thing back in 2002/2003/2004...and it worked a treat for them too!......

2002...Drafted...
Mickey Martin(NM)... pick 84
Barnaby French(PA)... pick 16 lots of clubs have given up early picks for ready ruckmen in recent yrs.

2003...Drafted...
Glen Bowyer(HAWKS)... 63
Jordan Bannister(ESS)... 69
Adrian Deluca(PM)...72
Stephen Kenna(BOX HILL HAWKS)... 75
David Clarke(GEEL)... player for player trade beaumont. 50/50
Daniel Harford(HAWKS)... pick 51 mathew ball win carlton
Brett Johnson(HAWKS)... see harford.pick 51 two for one with an early 4th rounder. win carlton
Cory McGrath(ESS)... player for player murphy win carlton.
Digby Morrell(NM)... player for player mckernan.win carlton
Heath Scotland(COLL)... pick 35 ended up being brent hall win carlton.
David Teague(NM)...player for player. mckernan.
forced to trade for so many by concessions still they did okay considering the circumstances and the still used pick 2 in the nd. go compare this yr to what we did. we traded out of the first rnd and failed taking kids with some decent picks they out did us with their hands tied behind their backs.

2004...Drafted...
Callum Chambers(WCE)...pick 57 which wce used on b smith win carlton.
Troy Longmuir(FREO)... pick 67 toby stribling win carlton.

They must have been influential cos funnily enough North Melbourne in...

2005...Drafted...
Kasey Green(WCE)... they used 45 to get him sheesh 05 has proved to be one of the worst drafts of all time probably a win.
Tim Hutchison(PA)...pick 69
Jonathon Hay(HAWKS)... pick 18 max bailey loss .
Daniel McConnell(WCE)... picks 13 29 for mcconnel and 28 so basically 13.
this bit them hard sheesh pick 13 on an unproven kid.
Mark Powell(SWANS)... pick 59 brabazon 50/50
Jade Rawlings(Footscray)... 46 travis baird win.
would have thought at the time hay was maybe worth 18 north needed a kpd. i dont agree with trading out of such early picks as 18 and 13 and is in fact exactly what ive been saying we dont have to trade out of good picks to give mature players a chance.trading out of good picks is what has killed us in the past not getting mature players. with us its been mature players at the expense of kids what i espouse is mature players to help the kids kids take priority.
Short memories......

hmm id say the only time they lost was when they gave up early picks. and that wasnt often now was it. are we talking about giving up early picks maybe you are but im not.

lol that is so selective. how many yrs did carlton suffer from sanctions. how many times did they not use their early picks in the nd. what did you expect them to do just take kids after the 3rd round onwards including the rookie draft.
do you know the success rate for such picks.considering their circumstances they did okay.i would say they got more out of those retreads than they would have kids taken v late or rookied.

you cant see the difference between trading for players with your most valuable picks every yr, which is what richmond did compared to useing late nd picks or useing rookie picks or psd picks to get mature players to the club. i feel sorry for ya. because that is all that all one is saying. do you understand the concept of value adding id say not.

your nm example is an example of exactly not what to do but i can see why they would have a crack at hay,
mcconnell is just a poor decision.
my attitude to the situation is well known keep your early picks at all costs. and if you have two top picks like nm did with 13 and 18 surely you need to use one of them in the nd at the least.

i dont have issues with what carlton did they hardly had a choice and it didnt hurt them.
i do have issues with what nm did if you open your eyes you will see im not espousing we take mature players with our good picks.perhaps when we are a real challenger and a judd situation presents itself but not before.

none of this should detract from the very simple fact, taking 3 or 4 mature players cheaply would not do us any harm the opposite it can only help.

 

[SumTingWong]

How many successful rookie picks have you had recently?

IIRC King, Nahas and Miller are the only three in the last 5 years to have played any significant number of games. All into their 20s when you got them.

I think that's where you should be looking pretty hard at re-treads or good state league players. Just think it cuts down a few of the risks

Three more. Kelvin Moore, Foley and Grimes. Do a little more research please.

 

[_RT_]

lol people dont like something up goes the barriers.
how many of our rookies have made it in the last 4 or 5 seasons. how many of the young late nd picks. this is what im on about surely there is less risk with a mature player and your also more likely to get some sort of contribution straight away.

how on earth could we overload on 25 plus yr olds. we could take 12 and get up to some sort of level on a par with other clubs in this age bracket.
whos asking for 12 and whos asking we sell the farm to get them.
all ive said is why not a warnock or similar type when all we have is rance at fb with no other real applicant for the role. sheesh ive had people use the oh but rance is only 21 22 excuse for his failings but those same people wont acknowledge the need for ready to go replacement just in case.

why is it alright to have miller but its not alright to do the same thing for other areas of the list that are lacking.
i will tell ya again 9 aged 25 or over on 26th march the start of the season. and a good percentage of thoe 9 are hacks.
hawthorn have about 19 almost half their list.
ffs gc have about 11 25 plus yr olds most of theirs are decent players unlike us.

why would we stick with mcguane hes a dud. there are players in the vfl wafl sanfl who are infinately better or potentially better.
sheesh the idea of every part of drafting/trading is to continually turn players over until you find some good ones.you are actually looking for upgrades that is the process.
what??? you cant grasp that simple concept. or you think mcguane is worth keeping over a player with enough afl attribiutes who has dominated at a lower level, sheesh talk about limiting your prospects.but hey with a whopping 9 players aged 25 or older you obviously think we have more than enough players in this bracket.

oh i know what it is. if you acknowledge that 9 25 plus yr olds is nowhere near enough then you have to acknowledge list management is shiizen and we cant do that now can we.

In the last 3 years we have added: Webberley Farmer Nason Roberts Miller Houli Grigg Derickx I.Maric Morris & A.Maric as mature aged recruits. Yet for some reason that just doesn't seem like it is good enough for you. How many more mature aged players did you want to recruit? BTW why do mature aged recruits have to be 25+. Why can't they be 20-25 like the majority of the players above are.

As for our list management being schizen, I'm confused. For years now you have been one of the most vocal when it came to suggesting that we need to rebuild and embrace the draft. So now that we have done that and we have cleared out most of the old deadwood from the list and replaced it with much younger options you're still not happy?

Since Hardwick took over at the end of 09, we have added 34 new players to the list, of those 34, 11 have been 20+. I'd suggest that having 1/3 of our new recruits being mature aged is a nice balance for a side that is rebuilding through the drafts, which means adding so many kids.

BTW you say we haven't added mature recruits for other areas besides Miller. Adding Maric & Dercikx to the ruck group proves that incorrect, as does the addition of Grigg Houli Webberley Maric Morris to our midsized group.

 

[Slattery_20]

Three more. Kelvin Moore, Foley and Grimes. Do a little more research please.

Kelvin and Foley were drafted in the last 5 years? Kel definitely would've been 2002 draft year, OTOH Foley came in about 04 or 05.

Also, I did say "significant number of games", rather than just "decent talent" or whatever.
Grimes looks a talent - so far - but he's played less than 10 games in two years.

EDIT: Or are we at crossed purposes, I meant 'picks taken in the last 5 years' rather than 'players on your list in the last 5 years originally taken from rookie picks' (in which case you could include Graham and, arguably, Browne).

 

[ize_]

Also Grimes and Moore weren't rookies.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

lol thats a good question.you never know with this lot.
id like two bob for every time ive heard tiger heads say a mature player like wilkes is shit. and so so many go on to make reasonable careers once they are given a chance.

Sorry santa but "reasonable" players aint gonna win us a premiership. That's a cold hard fact.

With Benny Gale at the helm, I'm very happy the direction of the current football department - ie, the recruiting department, the head coach and the development coaches, in producing the type of player/s required to carry out the game plan.

 

[santa claws]

And here finally, is Santa's most accurate post ever

Santa.... while you believe you are always right, perhaps you fail to understand that most people who post on here also believe they are right. Why would people post stuff they didn't believe? Believing in something doesn't make it true....

ahh ive been meaning to get back to this. you cant comprhend i was called a smart arse and though in not typing exactly it was pretty clear i was saying mo bigger SMART ARSE than any one else.
sheesh theres a difference between thinking your right and being proven right most of the time. now surely even you can understand the difference.

 

[santa claws]

Sorry santa but "reasonable" players aint gonna win us a premiership. That's a cold hard fact.

With Benny Gale at the helm, I'm very happy the direction of the current football department - ie, the recruiting department, the head coach and the development coaches, in producing the type of player/s required to carry out the game plan.

wont they id disagree. but all the same reasonable or average players have to be better than duds. you dont think we have no duds surely not.
adam maric has been awfully ordinary yet he already looks a better propisition than any of the small forwards we have. sheesh i maric is no world beater but alredy shown hes a massive upgrade on graham.
would we have got anything from say gibson turner a rookie we took this yr or a young ruckman in the rookie draft.
forget about premierships for now we are miles away. its about raising the bar enough just to be competetive and maybe sneak into finals if every single thing goes our way.
houli is an average player but hes a better option than players we cut because of his foot skills.webberly is ordinary in the extreme but he was an upgrade on players we had. but thats alright because the club took these players they must be more than average.

i see your happy with recruitment well i wouldnt be not just yet. the head coach well pretty hard to critice a bloke whos main job thus far has been to clean out players, he hasnt done much else yet. im sure we are all happy hes at least done that much. development coaches what development its no better or worse than at any other club and that can be debated both ways.

what about list management which is central to this discussion. what about that no mention of it i see. as usual the usual lot are happy before anything looking like a smidgeon of success has been achieved.

i will ask you just like i will ask everyone. is 9 players aged 25 or over enough and when one considers how ordinary most of them are where does it leave us in two yrs time when they are gone.. also when you look at the mostly ordinary bunch of players coming thru from the next tier below that is the 22 to 24 age group it will take 5 yrs or more to get enough senior experienced player in to our mature ranks to make us a decent finals side.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

wont they id disagree. but all the same reasonable or average players have to be better than duds. you dont think we have no duds surely not.
adam maric has been awfully ordinary yet he already looks a better propisition than any of the small forwards we have. yup, an improvement sheesh i maric is no world beater but alredy shown hes a massive upgrade on graham. yup, another improvement
would we have got anything from say gibson turner a rookie we took this yr or a young ruckman in the rookie draft.
forget about premierships for now we are miles away. 3-4 more seasons away its about raising the bar enough just to be competetive and maybe sneak into finals if every single thing goes our way.
houli is an average player but hes a better option than players we cut because of his foot skills.yup, another improvement webberly is ordinary in the extreme but he was an upgrade on players we had. agree. but thats alright because the club took these players they must be more than average.

i see your happy with recruitment well i wouldnt be not just yet. the head coach well pretty hard to critice a bloke whos main job thus far has been to clean out players, he hasnt done much else yet. oh c'mon how do you measure culture, it's not found in the stat books. Hasnt done much 'cause Dimma's coached 44 games. 44 FFS! im sure we are all happy hes at least done that much. development coaches what development its no better or worse than at any other club it's a start, again, it's only been 44 games and that can be debated both ways.

what about list management which is central to this discussion. what about that no mention of it i see. as usual the usual lot are happy before anything looking like a smidgeon of success has been achieved.

i will ask you just like i will ask everyone. is 9 players aged 25 or over enough Our average age is 22years 252 days, so unless you have a time machine, youre gonna have to wait for the kids to have birthdays like the rest of us. and when one considers how ordinary most of them are where does it leave us in two yrs time when they are gone.. also when you look at the mostly ordinary bunch of players coming thru from the next tier below that is the 22 to 24 age group it will take 5 yrs or more to get enough senior experienced player in to our mature ranks to make us a decent finals side. The more telling stats are that we have six 100-game players (Cats have 14, Pies 10, Hawks 14, Saints 15) and we have the 15th youngest side in the league. We have to bide our time and get games into these kids, there are no short cuts - Cats, Saints & Pies proved that. Hawks MAYBE were the exception in '08 but they've struggled since (4 years later and it may be their year barring injuries)

my responses in bold santa

 

[_RT_]

i will ask you just like i will ask everyone. is 9 players aged 25 or over enough and when one considers how ordinary most of them are where does it leave us in two yrs time when they are gone.. also when you look at the mostly ordinary bunch of players coming thru from the next tier below that is the 22 to 24 age group it will take 5 yrs or more to get enough senior experienced player in to our mature ranks to make us a decent finals side.

If we had 12-15 average 25-30 year olds on the list, you would be the first one to start jumping up and down complaining about how we should be a much younger side and should be cutting all these older average types.

The simple fact is that like everyone else you are going to have to wait until our talented youngsters have a few birthdays and get to 25 to address the problem. Taking short cuts and going out recruiting a bunch of sub standard 25 will be just reverting back to the same old mistakes that we have done in the past. Now given one of your favoured lines is that we have to learn from our past mistakes, surely this time Hardwick and co should be allowed to see the job through the way they feel is best.

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

know lets throw piva wright in there as the next cab off the rank. when rance gets hurt or in all likelyhood fails as a fb just throw the rookie in.

did Rance not own Jono Brown last year or was i dreaming

 

[Ferdinand Lewis]

If we had 12-15 average 25-30 year olds on the list, you would be the first one to start jumping up and down complaining about how we should be a much younger side and should be cutting all these older average types.

The simple fact is that like everyone else you are going to have to wait until our talented youngsters have a few birthdays and get to 25 to address the problem. Taking short cuts and going out recruiting a bunch of sub standard 25 will be just reverting back to the same old mistakes that we have done in the past. Now given one of your favoured lines is that we have to learn from our past mistakes, surely this time Hardwick and co should be allowed to see the job through the way they feel is best.

yes we we do have em (last 20 years) they are list cloggers.

when we dont have them they are important back up players who balance the list and stand by for ill form and injury

 

[SumTingWong]

Also Grimes and Moore weren't rookies.

Kelvin Moore 2003 Rookie Draft selection no.3

Grimes was from the preseason draft

 

[SumTingWong]

Kelvin and Foley were drafted in the last 5 years? Kel definitely would've been 2002 draft year, OTOH Foley came in about 04 or 05.

Also, I did say "significant number of games", rather than just "decent talent" or whatever.
Grimes looks a talent - so far - but he's played less than 10 games in two years.

EDIT: Or are we at crossed purposes, I meant 'picks taken in the last 5 years' rather than 'players on your list in the last 5 years originally taken from rookie picks' (in which case you could include Graham and, arguably, Browne).

Yeah you didn't say that they had to be drafted in the last 5 years....but that doesn't matter.
Don't include Graham or Browne...they're crap.

Can I still include Grimes even though he was taken in the preseason draft?
My point is that means that 6 of our starting 22 (assuming everyone was actually fit) would have been taken from the rookie draft (plus one preseason you mentioned). You wouod have to include Grimes....he will be a player and is IN NO DOUBT in our starting 22 atm. And yes I know none of these have become world beaters but they still make the starting 22.... so I don't think our picks via this system have been as bad as what people say.

 

[Slattery_20]

Yeah you didn't say that they had to be drafted in the last 5 years....but that doesn't matter.
Don't include Graham or Browne...they're crap.

Can I still include Grimes even though he was taken in the preseason draft?
My point is that means that 6 of our starting 22 (assuming everyone was actually fit) would have been taken from the rookie draft (plus one preseason you mentioned). You wouod have to include Grimes....he will be a player and is IN NO DOUBT in our starting 22 atm. And yes I know none of these have become world beaters but they still make the starting 22.... so I don't think our picks via this system have been as bad as what people say.

Well, I did actually

How many successful rookie picks have you had recently?

IIRC King, Nahas and Miller are the only three in the last 5 years

Drafts from 8 or 9 years ago are not "recently", IMHO anyway.
But we digress...

I was just illustrating, that the kids you've taken in the rookie draft haven't been a gold mine for you, in recent times.
When you've gone with older guys, you've largely done better.

You can argue Grimes should be in there with that lot if you want, I don't think it changes the picture drastically - given both Cus and Houli were older guys and both have offered more (to date).

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Well, I did actually

Drafts from 8 or 9 years ago are not "recently", IMHO anyway.
But we digress...

I was just illustrating, that the kids you've taken in the rookie draft haven't been a gold mine for you, in recent times.
When you've gone with older guys, you've largely done better.

You can argue Grimes should be in there with that lot if you want, I don't think it changes the picture drastically - given both Cus and Houli were older guys and both have offered more (to date).

Young players who are overlooked by the ND are placed rookie lists as they are deemed longer term project players so I think it's only natural that your not going to alot from them in the short term .

 

[Slattery_20]

Young players who are overlooked by the ND are placed rookie lists as they are deemed longer term project players so I think it's only natural that your not going to alot from them in the short term .

Sure, and that definitely goes for Graham & Browne, well and truly in the "work in progress" basket.
The rest of the kids you've rookied in the last 5 years have been delisted already. All of 'em!


I just don't think there's *that* many good kids in any given talent pool, and once you're past the main draft, PSD, and the first handful of rookies, you're going to be pushing the odds waaaay out.
That, IMHO, is where there is better returns on somewhat known quantity, older guys.

(That said, I do like the look of Turner).

 

[SumTingWong]

Sure, and that definitely goes for Graham & Browne, well and truly in the "work in progress" basket.
The rest of the kids you've rookied in the last 5 years have been delisted already. All of 'em!


I just don't think there's *that* many good kids in any given talent pool, and once you're past the main draft, PSD, and the first handful of rookies, you're going to be pushing the odds waaaay out.
That, IMHO, is where there is better returns on somewhat known quantity, older guys.

(That said, I do like the look of Turner).

Really? Based on what?

 

[santa claws]

How many players do you bring in from other clubs a year? Last two seasons we have gone with Grigg/Houli, followed by Maric/Morris (Morris is mature age from lower league, same basket IMO).

The club would be very, very mindful when making these decisions. You overload on these types who don't cut it, and we all know what the fallout will be like from the Tiger faithful, and probably rightly so.

Some of the names thrown up for mature age KPDs, well we may as well just stay with McGuane, seriously. Gee it's easy to talk underachievers up from other clubs, lower leagues, and get away with it. Sheesh

as many as you need we went after mccarthy as well but port got him clearly the club thought they hadnt taken to many they also chased a mature kpd but missed out.

griig every man and his dog thinks him an upgrade. houli in skills was an upgrade. maric looks an upgrade well lets face it noone could be as bad as graham.
morris well the jury is well and truly out, but hes a type we needed a type to perform a role that a kid just couldnt do.
a maric is an upgrade how could he be worse than nason or any of the other smalls we have.
the point is yes we have some mature recruits from other clubs and minor leagues but we should have more mature players in our system if we wish to be competetive.the point being made is it will take ages for list transition to happen because of the likely failure of so many in critical age categories.

what are people so scared of they are all mature recruits who cost not too much. if they work out why not more. how many of our rookies have even made a contribution yet alone made it or been an upgrade on duds we have on the list proper.
and please dont insult my intelligence by saying if we had 15 mature players who were average id be jumping.
im suggesting every player we take or trade for must be an improvement on a player we have cut and perform a role within the team.


we dont have enough mature players in our system. we dont look like having too many coming thru in the next few yrs as most i would rate as ordinary at best.
the majority of mature players we do have imo are likely to be gone over the next few yrs. thus in two or three yrs time we will be in the absurd situation we are now in or worse.

some one please tell me kyal horsley would not be a better option than jackson even if he fails to make the grade. please explain to me why he not a better option than a rookie.

people absolutely rubbish wilkes but he is an infinately better option thn mcguane with attributes that should allow him to play on big key forwrds and at fb an area we have only a battling rance.he has attributes mcguane doesnt have or thursfield for that matter. if not wilkes then warnock or austin what was there to lose.
as much rubbish as he cops he would actually be an upgrade on players we have.

some one asked why 25yo plus rt i think. i will also add its logical to take players age from the start of the eason or kick off. that date is 26 of march.

theres four basic categories and 25 plus is the age where you have well and truly established yourself as a good consistent player at the least.also are mature enough to lead from the front.

18 - 21 rookies or early development. learning the ropes buildin a body for the game. no real expectations and certainly not expected to be leaders.

22 - 24 development players it includes talls who may be a fair way away or players who have had lots of injury it will also include good to v/good established players. yes some could be classified as leaders deledio is one.

25 - 27 established footballers consitent players of all types at or near their prime the ones who are the prime movers.

28+ the veterans been there done that but obviously their best is soon to be behind them. another group of leaders.

22 -24 yo
175 - 179 smalls.
nahas - average m

180 to 184cm sml mediums

edwards - below standard. m
houli - average footballer. m
webberley - vfl player. d
white - below standard f

185 - 189cm mediums

connors - below standard. d
deledio - elite. u
morris - untried skills look iffy. d

190 - 194cm

grigg - average at best. m
rance - average and limited to date. d

195 - 199

riewoldt - v/good elite at times. f
post - below standard to date make or break season imo. d

200cm +
derickx - well totally unproven just as much chance he will fail as there is he will make it. r
graham - below standard. r

thats our list of 22 thru 24 yr olds. 14 players 9 could be gone in two or 3 yrs time and thats being kind.

just when are all these kids going to come thru to give us adequate numbers in the 25yo + age bracket. or have 100 games behind them. age and games played are linked together. talk about one, your in a way including the other.

i thought list management was all about looking at where your list may be at in 3 or 4 yrs time.
whos likely to be there who you need to upograde on and what holes are in the list

finally if you have a decent set of criteria for taking mature players you will likely get more right than wrong. this cant be said for rookies or even late nd picks where the fail rate is very high.

 

[santa claws]

the rookie draft came into being in 1997. we have used 54 picks give or take one or two since then.
you can all work the success rate out for yourselves.

if you have a list full of kids its common sense to take mature types. i dont know how many times ive had to say this but the key is keep your decent dnd picks religously but take a punt on mature players late nd psd or rookie.
its when you regularly trade good picks for mature players that problems happen.

the success rate of mature players in the last 4 or 5 yrs is actually very good. and usually even failed mature types offerd some thingwhich is more than can be said for most rookie picks.
its a balancing act but weather its young rookies or mature players have a set of criteria for each group and if they meet that criteria take them.

when is a good time to trade an early pick for a player and when is it not.

 

[_RT_]

Claws we couldn't have replaced Jackson and McGuane with Horsley and Wilkes as they are contracted, unless of course you wanted us to outlay $400-600k to pay them out.

 

[partycorolla]

my responses in bold santa

I think Tigers of old.... you meant we have the 15th oldest list not the 15th youngest....

 

[Groupie_]

Been having terrible dreams of consecutive losses and media scrutiny lately!

I honestly think we wont play finals this year. 2013 we will but not this season.

Terrible, terrible first up draw! F the afl for doing that! :/

**** I hope I'm wrong!

 

[santa claws]

I think Tigers of old.... you meant we have the 15th oldest list not the 15th youngest....

which is my point we have a very young list with the majority of our better players in the 18 - 21 age group.
there is plenty of room for more mature aged recruits rather than rookies or late nd picks on kids when you consider we have just 9 players in the leadership 25 plus age bracket.

it becomes even more important to take mature players ( ones who are a likely upgrade on players we have,not hard to do. or can perform a role we lack in) when one considers the majority of players in both the 25 plus age bracket are long term under achievers, and the majority in the 22 - 24 age bracket, the ones we expect to take over in the next two or three yrs are very ordinary in the main. we are likely to be looking for upgrades on most of them as well.
if we replace them all with kids we will wait a damn long time to get enough kids into the critical games played age brackets to challenge.
weather people want to acknowledge it or not we are very much in a value add phase of recruiting and development.
yes we use early picks on quality kids but we have to also vigorously target older players.

players with good attributes for afl who may not be getting a go at another club or older players from minor leagues who also have good attributes for afl and have done really well at the lower level.
how many of our older players have ever gone back to vfl and regularly dominated it doesnt happen.
set the criteria understand where the list deficiencies are and where the lack of depth lies and go out and give as many as possible older players a go who meet the criteria.
people dont grasp that builing the list is not getting 10 kids in one draft and expecting them to be quality and make it. you go out and if your lucky each draft get 2 players of quality. the process is then all abut improving the list in steps. ie replace the dud with an ordinary player then replace the ordinary player with a good player. gradually over a period of time imroving the overall standard of the list.
.
what did we get out of the following players. lets say the last 4 or 5 yrs.

orielly, jakobi,contin,hicks, westhoff, heslin, gilligan, browne, gourdis all young rookies or psd picks in recent yrs.
not one player and only really browne still there. him being a big ruckman who needs time.

its interesting that we havent taken a kid in the last 5 yrs past pick 51 until this yr with arnott at 55. yet we take them in the rookie or psd draft.this is mindboggling. pick 51 is a third rounder and a decent pick imo.

older players we have taken the last 5 yrs with late nd picks are hislop 58, webberley 67, nason 71, derickx 63 .pretty slim pickings.

what have we got out of the older player we have taken with late nd rookie picks or traded cheaply for in recent yrs.

thompson, hislop, nahas,farmer, webberley, nason, derickx, grigg,houli, king morris, maric.
theres also i maric not cheap at pick 35 morton at 35 and mcmahon at 19.these last 3 i have issues with.
not a lot to write home about with that lot but what has to be considered is who did they replace were they an upgrade. what list deficiency do they cover. what attribute had us take them and where was is the list at when we took them.
an example is morton and mcmahon. we had something like 15 18 players who were aged 25 plus we had another 8 or 10 in the 22 thru 24 age bracket and the rest 18 - 21 with few of quality.all early picks had to go on kids but we traded 19 and 35 away on questionable players and they were not players who were to perform a role that is important.

ivan maric. well the issue for me is/was the pick, but at least ivan fills a need. we have no decent ruckmen he also is a mature body, experienced, and a definate upgrade on what we had. yep he ticked a lot of boxes.

for me the downside the pick. 35 to me was a lot to pay for a bloke who had achieved very little at his previous club.was happy to get him but not with that pick.
ffs i would have been happy with ben hudson for nothing thats how desperate our ruck situation was. what i dont understand is why we didnt take a genuine young ruckman.
obviously in taking a 26 yo in maric we can have little faith in graham or derickx at age 24 making the grade. the likely outcome for both graham and derickx is they will be delisted. surely we should be planning for that scenario.

they amaze me well cameron does anyway. they come out and say we wanted lycett but wce beat us to the punch.
what does that say.
it says they recognise the need for another young ruckman on the list but then do nothing about it once the player was gone.
there were any number of young ruckmen we could have taken last yr and 2011 when we wanted lycett and took none.we havent even rookied one.

i dont get it we can all see graham is likely to not make it derickx isnt even playing as a ruckman vickery has been developed as a forward and even if we wanted him to play ruck with his size still 2 or more yrs away from it.
it leaves browne and he is coming from the rookie list we all know the success rate of rookies about 1 in 6 make it. at richmond it would be less.

anyway i see im flogging a dead horse with most. absolutely wasting my time.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Been having terrible dreams of consecutive losses and media scrutiny lately!

I honestly think we wont play finals this year. 2013 we will but not this season.

Terrible, terrible first up draw! F the afl for doing that! :/

**** I hope I'm wrong!

Toughten up Tiger...those first five games of the season will show us were we are at...

Am looking forward to it... ...