Richmond 2012

[partycorolla]

.

Santa, didn't want to quote the whole thing but for once I don't entirely disagree with you.

The ruck situation I think you have probably summed up correctly. The only other reason for getting Maric might be that they think one of Gus and Browne (or perhaps TV) will make it as a 1st or 2nd ruck but is not ready yet. Now whether that is right or not is clearly debatable. If not, then the only reason they didn't draft or rookie another ruckman is that they couldn't identify anyone they thought was good enough available at our picks. I can't think of another reason...

I think they want the bulk of the group coming through together which is why the mature agers that we have drafted/traded for have still been young (Maric an exception due to desperate need). They won't always come off, of course...

I got a little confused as to exactly what you would want the club to do hence forth with drafting/trading from this point on.... could you address your exact preferred options from now for me again.

 

[RichosGuns]

Round 1 side-

FB: Grimes.... Rance.... Batchelor
HB: Houli.......Post....... Newman
C: Conca ........ Martin.... Deledio
HF: Edwards...Miller..... A Maric
FF: Nahas.......Riewoldt..Vickery

Ruck: I Maric.. Foley....Cotchin

Int: Tuck Grigg Ellis

Sub: Jackson

Pretty much same as today's side but with Deledio in for King

 

[Groupie_]

Round 1 side-

FB: Grimes.... Rance.... Batchelor
HB: Houli.......Post....... Newman
C: Conca ........ Martin.... Deledio
HF: Edwards...Miller..... A Maric
FF: Nahas.......Riewoldt..Vickery

Ruck: I Maric.. Foley....Cotchin

Int: Tuck Grigg Ellis

Sub: Jackson

Pretty much same as today's side but with Deledio in for King

Morris?

 

[theflea]

Santa, didn't want to quote the whole thing but for once I don't entirely disagree with you.

The ruck situation I think you have probably summed up correctly. The only other reason for getting Maric might be that they think one of Gus and Browne (or perhaps TV) will make it as a 1st or 2nd ruck but is not ready yet. Now whether that is right or not is clearly debatable. If not, then the only reason they didn't draft or rookie another ruckman is that they couldn't identify anyone they thought was good enough available at our picks. I can't think of another reason...

I think they want the bulk of the group coming through together which is why the mature agers that we have drafted/traded for have still been young (Maric an exception due to desperate need). They won't always come off, of course...

I got a little confused as to exactly what you would want the club to do hence forth with drafting/trading from this point on.... could you address your exact preferred options from now for me again.

santa has a pov which is fine even if it doesnt agree with the club. but i think he believes the club doesnt do its due diligence and just pissing into the wind. for me while we definately need to keep improving i dont have the doomsday thinking santa has which by the way he is entitled to have. i just have a different view.

 

[RichosGuns]

Morris?

Nope... Who would he replace, batchelor?

 

[Groupie_]

Nope... Who would he replace, batchelor?

I just feel that Hardwick will play him coz of his hardness and because he MAY be able to take it to Betts and Garlett.


Don't know at whos expense though.

 

[hectic]

Round 1 side-

FB: Grimes.... Rance.... Batchelor
HB: Houli.......Post....... Newman
C: Conca ........ Martin.... Deledio
HF: Edwards...Miller..... A Maric
FF: Nahas.......Riewoldt..Vickery

Ruck: I Maric.. Foley....Cotchin

Int: Tuck Grigg Ellis

Sub: Jackson

Pretty much same as today's side but with Deledio in for King

Do you really think we can play Jackson, Grigg and Tuck all in the same team? I would replace one for Morris unfortunately I think that will be Tuck, even though I would prefer Jackson gone.

 

[_RT_]

After todays game my side for round 1 is:

B: Newman Rance Grimes
HB: Houli Post Batchelor
C: Grigg Cotchin Conca
HF: Deledio Miller Nahas
F: Vickery Riewoldt A.Maric
R: I.Maric Tuck Foley
I/C: Martin Jackson Ellis
SUB: Morris
EMG: Helbig Edwards Dea

For those wondering about whether Grigg Jackson & Tuck can play in the same side and be effective. They did today and all played their parts well.

 

[City Search]

My round 1 side, much the same as all the others but it is fun to make one.

FB: Newman Rance Grimes
HB: Houli Post Batchelor
C: Jackson Martin Conca
HF: Nahas Miller Grigg
FF: Maric Riewoldt Vickery
R: Maric Deledio Cotchin
I/C: Tuck Foley Ellis
SUB: Edwards
EMG: Webberley Astbury Dea

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

After todays game my side for round 1 is:

B: Newman Rance Grimes
HB: Houli Post Batchelor
C: Grigg Cotchin Conca
HF: Deledio Miller Nahas
F: Vickery Riewoldt A.Maric
R: I.Maric Tuck Foley
I/C: Martin Jackson Ellis
SUB: Morris
EMG: Helbig Edwards Dea

For those wondering about whether Grigg Jackson & Tuck can play in the same side and be effective. They did today and all played their parts well.

Pretty close I'd suggest , although I wouldn't be against leaving out Nahas , in preference to A.Maric , and playing a more defensive small forward , in King's absence ?
Also via fox it appeared Jackson spent alot of the Geelong game upon a wing which I didn't mind .

 

[_RT_]

Pretty close I'd suggest , although I wouldn't be against leaving out Nahas , in preference to A.Maric , and playing a more defensive small forward , in King's absence ?
Also via fox it appeared Jackson spent alot of the Geelong game upon a wing which I didn't mind .

That he did, but I'd prefer Conca to start on the wing and have Jackson there as part of the rotation.

 

[City Search]

Nahas can play pretty well as a defensive forward. Pretty sure he makes a lot of tackles each game.

 

[santa claws]

santa has a pov which is fine even if it doesnt agree with the club. but i think he believes the club doesnt do its due diligence and just pissing into the wind. for me while we definately need to keep improving i dont have the doomsday thinking santa has which by the way he is entitled to have. i just have a different view.

hmm i dont know about not doing due diligence i think the do the best they can i just think we can do much better in dseveral instances.

i dont consider my thinking doomsday thinking. i just look as much as possible at what other sides have done to succeed. there are key areas all sides seem to meet and we havent met them yet. some things i look at are depth structure games played experience tick these boxes and i will be just as optimistic as the next tiger feral.
the other thing i dont rate a lot of our players unlike most richmond supporters do. with these players im always looking for the club to try and upgrade on them. its usually this area that i have most of my debates on here abaout. when i compare them against similar players from other sides far too many dont stack up.
i havent said anywhere wa are on the wrong track but i have a totally different time frame and expectation for when we should play finals.
i believe a side has to have enough good players enter certain age brackets and you need to have enough with 100 plus games behind them we dont really tick enough of these boxes for me.
imo we still have too many below standard players and a lot of them are getting regular games. when younger players can actually displace them altogether i will be happy.
finally i for one insist they prove they have improved thru good consistent performance i wont rate them until this happens.

you never know it finals may be this yr. ive often said we are in the same sort of stage of development as about 10 other sides. if the gods align for us and everything goes right we may well make finals.
one thing for sure we have such shallow depth we had want to hope we have another v/good run with injuries like last yr and the yr before if we are to improve.
people forget some sides who finished around us last yr were at times crippled with injuries.
yep i have my reasons for thinking we are not a finals side its not doomsday thinking at all but a realistic expectation of us meeting important criteria.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

hmm i dont know about not doing due diligence i think the do the best they can i just think we can do much better in dseveral instances.

i dont consider my thinking doomsday thinking. i just look as much as possible at what other sides have done to succeed. there are key areas all sides seem to meet and we havent met them yet. some things i look at are depth structure games played experience tick these boxes and i will be just as optimistic as the next tiger feral.
the other thing i dont rate a lot of our players unlike most richmond supporters do. with these players im always looking for the club to try and upgrade on them. its usually this area that i have most of my debates on here abaout. when i compare them against similar players from other sides far too many dont stack up.
i havent said anywhere wa are on the wrong track but i have a totally different time frame and expectation for when we should play finals.
i believe a side has to have enough good players enter certain age brackets and you need to have enough with 100 plus games behind them we dont really tick enough of these boxes for me.
imo we still have too many below standard players and a lot of them are getting regular games. when younger players can actually displace them altogether i will be happy.
finally i for one insist they prove they have improved thru good consistent performance i wont rate them until this happens.

you never know it finals may be this yr. ive often said we are in the same sort of stage of development as about 10 other sides. if the gods align for us and everything goes right we may well make finals.
one thing for sure we have such shallow depth we had want to hope we have another v/good run with injuries like last yr and the yr before if we are to improve.
people forget some sides who finished around us last yr were at times crippled with injuries.
yep i have my reasons for thinking we are not a finals side its not doomsday thinking at all but a realistic expectation of us meeting important criteria.

Have'nt read a post of yours yet that goes out of its way to rate a Richmond player in as many lines as you expose their weaknesses...

 

[santa claws]

Have'nt read a post of yours yet that goes out of its way to rate a Richmond player in as many lines as you expose their weaknesses...

i was actually talking about the team but yes the same goes for the players.

the simple reason for that is those i think are good players i dont really talk about. every man and his dog rates them as well.
deledio sheesh im one of probably very few on here who has not bagged him.
martin the love for this bloke is immense why do i need to add to it.cotchin another who everyone rates id be just adding to whats already been said.
matt dea is a player ive defended addam maric i have constantly said has better attributes than the other smalls on the list. conca sheesh have never said a bad thing about him. have commented on his good points and the only thing ive ever said thats negative is i prefered heppell.
which really has nothing to with concas performance and is not a criticism of the kid in itself.
newman grimes browne moore foley tuck all regularly get more good said about them than negative. post is another . the only thing is as with all our players i will list their weaknesses as well.

while vickery was copping it from most on here, while critical of aspects of his game i was calling for patience. im still critical of those aspects and im real disappointed he has not bulked up in the off season as well. ive not seen one critical post of vickery on these boards for a long time yet im bagged because i dare to point out his weakneses as i percieve them.
riewoldt was another i defended and called for patience, i said he was actually improving each yr. yet while he was having a v/good 2010 and i dared only rate him as v/good and i dared point out what i saw as weaknesses and areas he must improve i was accused of bagging him.i still have some issues with jacks game.

yep i tend to leave 18 - 21 yr olds alone in the main. i tend to leave the obvious v good playeras alone.theres usually so much positive hype going on around these groups of players i see no reason to add to it.imo i actually balance out the love fests that surround our players on here.

nope its the ones who have been around for 4 or more yrs and are still struggling with chronic weakness in their games, who most rate that i tend to focus on.
obviously there are going to be more negatives than positives in this group. in fact i usually find myself in debates where people are actually rating these types, of course im going to point out the negatives while disagreeing with them.

 

[santa claws]

Nahas can play pretty well as a defensive forward. Pretty sure he makes a lot of tackles each game.

but doesnt king and white perform that role sheesh how many defensive forwards do you want. you know what id like to see a couple of well rounded small forwards who actually have some real polish about them.
also i cant see a place for three genuine small forwards in the one team. id say two maximum preferably one.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

i was actually talking about the team but yes the same goes for the players.

the simple reason for that is those i think are good players i dont really talk about. every man and his dog rates them as well.
deledio sheesh im one of probably very few on here who has not bagged him.
martin the love for this bloke is immense why do i need to add to it.cotchin another who everyone rates id be just adding to whats already been said.
matt dea is a player ive defended addam maric i have constantly said has better attributes than the other smalls on the list. conca sheesh have never said a bad thing about him. have commented on his good points and the only thing ive ever said thats negative is i prefered heppell.
which really has nothing to with concas performance and is not a criticism of the kid in itself.
newman grimes browne moore foley tuck all regularly get more good said about them than negative. post is another . the only thing is as with all our players i will list their weaknesses as well.

while vickery was copping it from most on here, while critical of aspects of his game i was calling for patience. im still critical of those aspects and im real disappointed he has not bulked up in the off season as well. ive not seen one critical post of vickery on these boards for a long time yet im bagged because i dare to point out his weakneses as i percieve them.
riewoldt was another i defended and called for patience, i said he was actually improving each yr. yet while he was having a v/good 2010 and i dared only rate him as v/good and i dared point out what i saw as weaknesses and areas he must improve i was accused of bagging him.i still have some issues with jacks game.

yep i tend to leave 18 - 21 yr olds alone in the main. i tend to leave the obvious v good playeras alone.theres usually so much positive hype going on around these groups of players i see no reason to add to it.imo i actually balance out the love fests that surround our players on here.

nope its the ones who have been around for 4 or more yrs and are still struggling with chronic weakness in their games, who most rate that i tend to focus on.
obviously there are going to be more negatives than positives in this group. in fact i usually find myself in debates where people are actually rating these types, of course im going to point out the negatives while disagreeing with them.

Like i said...

I have yet to read a post of yours on here that rates a Tigers player...what exactly in your opinion are the qualities that make him a good player... in as many lines as you go on about their weaknesses...

Reading your posts its hard not to get the opinion that the Richmond side is...full of poorly selected...poorly recruited...poorly talented flawed players...why is that......

 

[Ralll]

my side for round 1

B: Ellis Rance Grimes
HB: Houli Post Newman
C: Deledio Cotchin Conca
HF: Martin Miller Nahas
F: Vickery Riewoldt King
R: I.Maric Jackson Foley
I/C: Tuck Grigg A.Maric
SUB: Batchelor

 

[theflea]

hmm i dont know about not doing due diligence i think the do the best they can i just think we can do much better in dseveral instances.

i dont consider my thinking doomsday thinking. i just look as much as possible at what other sides have done to succeed. there are key areas all sides seem to meet and we havent met them yet. some things i look at are depth structure games played experience tick these boxes and i will be just as optimistic as the next tiger feral.
the other thing i dont rate a lot of our players unlike most richmond supporters do. with these players im always looking for the club to try and upgrade on them. its usually this area that i have most of my debates on here abaout. when i compare them against similar players from other sides far too many dont stack up.
i havent said anywhere wa are on the wrong track but i have a totally different time frame and expectation for when we should play finals.
i believe a side has to have enough good players enter certain age brackets and you need to have enough with 100 plus games behind them we dont really tick enough of these boxes for me.
imo we still have too many below standard players and a lot of them are getting regular games. when younger players can actually displace them altogether i will be happy.
finally i for one insist they prove they have improved thru good consistent performance i wont rate them until this happens.

you never know it finals may be this yr. ive often said we are in the same sort of stage of development as about 10 other sides. if the gods align for us and everything goes right we may well make finals.
one thing for sure we have such shallow depth we had want to hope we have another v/good run with injuries like last yr and the yr before if we are to improve.
people forget some sides who finished around us last yr were at times crippled with injuries.
yep i have my reasons for thinking we are not a finals side its not doomsday thinking at all but a realistic expectation of us meeting important criteria.

solid post santa. my doomsday reference was that i feel you harp on the negative mostly and while that is fine you also dont refer to the good of the player. i agree that the age/games demographic is a fair assessment but i dont agree to raise these concerns via a shortsighted view of drafting lower level value added players. we are not in the window of many teams doing this so to compare us to them is folly. you have used a eg like wilkes but for me that just gets in the way of other younger players getiing games into them. imo players at coburg dont get the experience of the afl standard playing there and actually play better in the 1's. by all means when the window opens we can look at the depth factor but at this time i think the draft is the way to go.

 

[santa claws]

solid post santa. my doomsday reference was that i feel you harp on the negative mostly and while that is fine you also dont refer to the good of the player. i agree that the age/games demographic is a fair assessment but i dont agree to raise these concerns via a shortsighted view of drafting lower level value added players. we are not in the window of many teams doing this so to compare us to them is folly. you have used a eg like wilkes but for me that just gets in the way of other younger players getiing games into them. imo players at coburg dont get the experience of the afl standard playing there and actually play better in the 1's. by all means when the window opens we can look at the depth factor but at this time i think the draft is the way to go.

again i disagree. when do you take a mature player? imo every single yr as long as they meet your criteria.
what window are you talking about low sides as well as top sides take mature players because they are percieved as better options than late nd and rookie picks on kids. this happens to be a fact. id also say if you lack big bodied experienced players and have a young list you have a greater need for experienced types than sides at the top of the ladder.

my criteria. 1/they have enough afl attributes. 2/ they are in the better group of players and do really well at the lower level.3/ they are denied a chance at another club because of established stars.its not rocket science. 4/ they add depth or can fill a role or perform a task where you are lacking.if possible target a top 5 in the b&f of the players club or even league.

my call for one of wilkes austin or warnock to play at fb. firstly as cover and secondly hoping they can force their way into the team. alex rance imo is the only one who can play fb and imo he does it poorly of course we could do with some experienced cover in case he does drop away with poor form or is injured.

where do you take them ? rookie psd and late nd. it is clearly shown that you have a better chance of finding a decent player here by taking mature types over kids.

finally i too am all for building the list with kids and think the draft is the way to go. unlike you i also think mature recruiting is also the way to go so we do both. there is only two ways to grow a list so why would you deny yourself one of those paths.

i was dirty we used pick 35 on maric as i think valuable 2nd rnd picks are for the kids.so yes i do embrace the draft but i believe strongly in the first 3 rounds. after that it really is a lottery.
i will give them some credit having traded 35 which i was against they found a way to get back by obtaining 26 kudos to them. if you are going to trade for players with good picks find a way to stay in the round.

less than 1 in 6 rookies make it and in most cases we get no contribution what so ever out of them. the strike rate with mature types is much better and you have at the very least someone who is mature enough to play if we have a horror run of injury or bad form.

what you dont get is the state of the list determines when you should take mature players . the state of our list calls for more mature types and urgently.
the only caveat i have on that is if we take them they meet our criteria and they are an upgrade no matter how small an upgrade on the player they replace.

anyway we have done this to death and once again around it goes.
if you cant acknowledge the need for mature players with just 9 aged 25 plus or the fact we only have 5 100 gamers you are never going to acknowledge the need for mature players.
when we have just one fb aged 22 and hes iffy in the role you are never going to acknowledge the need for cover in the role. the sad thing is we dont really have a 18 - 21 yr old on the list who we can start to groom for the role if rance went down a mature player would be taking no ones spot in the short term.

rance and post look very iffy imo who else is there astbury maybe if he even plays back. grimes well im a wrap for the kid but he may never be big enough to play kp and if he does it wont be for a couple of seasons at least.

nope ive said my piece theres not a lot you can say that will change my mind and the debate is going around in another circle so i will leave it at that.

 

[theflea]

again i disagree. when do you take a mature player? imo every single yr as long as they meet your criteria.
what window are you talking about low sides as well as top sides take mature players because they are percieved as better options than late nd and rookie picks on kids. this happens to be a fact. id also say if you lack big bodied experienced players and have a young list you have a greater need for experienced types than sides at the top of the ladder.

my criteria. 1/they have enough afl attributes. 2/ they are in the better group of players and do really well at the lower level.3/ they are denied a chance at another club because of established stars.its not rocket science. 4/ they add depth or can fill a role or perform a task where you are lacking.if possible target a top 5 in the b&f of the players club or even league.

my call for one of wilkes austin or warnock to play at fb. firstly as cover and secondly hoping they can force their way into the team. alex rance imo is the only one who can play fb and imo he does it poorly of course we could do with some experienced cover in case he does drop away with poor form or is injured.

where do you take them ? rookie psd and late nd. it is clearly shown that you have a better chance of finding a decent player here by taking mature types over kids.

finally i too am all for building the list with kids and think the draft is the way to go. unlike you i also think mature recruiting is also the way to go so we do both. there is only two ways to grow a list so why would you deny yourself one of those paths.

i was dirty we used pick 35 on maric as i think valuable 2nd rnd picks are for the kids.so yes i do embrace the draft but i believe strongly in the first 3 rounds. after that it really is a lottery.
i will give them some credit having traded 35 which i was against they found a way to get back by obtaining 26 kudos to them. if you are going to trade for players with good picks find a way to stay in the round.

less than 1 in 6 rookies make it and in most cases we get no contribution what so ever out of them. the strike rate with mature types is much better and you have at the very least someone who is mature enough to play if we have a horror run of injury or bad form.

what you dont get is the state of the list determines when you should take mature players . the state of our list calls for more mature types and urgently.
the only caveat i have on that is if we take them they meet our criteria and they are an upgrade no matter how small an upgrade on the player they replace.

anyway we have done this to death and once again around it goes.
if you cant acknowledge the need for mature players with just 9 aged 25 plus or the fact we only have 5 100 gamers you are never going to acknowledge the need for mature players.
when we have just one fb aged 22 and hes iffy in the role you are never going to acknowledge the need for cover in the role. the sad thing is we dont really have a 18 - 21 yr old on the list who we can start to groom for the role if rance went down a mature player would be taking no ones spot in the short term.

rance and post look very iffy imo who else is there astbury maybe if he even plays back. grimes well im a wrap for the kid but he may never be big enough to play kp and if he does it wont be for a couple of seasons at least.

nope ive said my piece theres not a lot you can say that will change my mind and the debate is going around in another circle so i will leave it at that.

santa im all for mature types but i want the right 1's. like you said if it equals our criteria but the club clearly thinks the current crop are not it. they may be looking at some being on watch lists but clearly they havent pulled the trigger. i may add also that we also look around the afl for these types too which the club has done . you wanted us to pick some of those mature players but clearly the club doesnt agree.finally i see you still dont think maric was worth pick 35, well on exposed form your wrong. but your right it a circular argument with different philosifies so lets agree to disagree.

 

[partycorolla]

again i disagree. when do you take a mature player? imo every single yr as long as they meet your criteria.
what window are you talking about low sides as well as top sides take mature players because they are percieved as better options than late nd and rookie picks on kids. this happens to be a fact. id also say if you lack big bodied experienced players and have a young list you have a greater need for experienced types than sides at the top of the ladder.

my criteria. 1/they have enough afl attributes. 2/ they are in the better group of players and do really well at the lower level.3/ they are denied a chance at another club because of established stars.its not rocket science. 4/ they add depth or can fill a role or perform a task where you are lacking.if possible target a top 5 in the b&f of the players club or even league.

my call for one of wilkes austin or warnock to play at fb. firstly as cover and secondly hoping they can force their way into the team. alex rance imo is the only one who can play fb and imo he does it poorly of course we could do with some experienced cover in case he does drop away with poor form or is injured.

where do you take them ? rookie psd and late nd. it is clearly shown that you have a better chance of finding a decent player here by taking mature types over kids.

finally i too am all for building the list with kids and think the draft is the way to go. unlike you i also think mature recruiting is also the way to go so we do both. there is only two ways to grow a list so why would you deny yourself one of those paths.

i was dirty we used pick 35 on maric as i think valuable 2nd rnd picks are for the kids.so yes i do embrace the draft but i believe strongly in the first 3 rounds. after that it really is a lottery.
i will give them some credit having traded 35 which i was against they found a way to get back by obtaining 26 kudos to them. if you are going to trade for players with good picks find a way to stay in the round.

less than 1 in 6 rookies make it and in most cases we get no contribution what so ever out of them. the strike rate with mature types is much better and you have at the very least someone who is mature enough to play if we have a horror run of injury or bad form.

what you dont get is the state of the list determines when you should take mature players . the state of our list calls for more mature types and urgently.
the only caveat i have on that is if we take them they meet our criteria and they are an upgrade no matter how small an upgrade on the player they replace.

anyway we have done this to death and once again around it goes.
if you cant acknowledge the need for mature players with just 9 aged 25 plus or the fact we only have 5 100 gamers you are never going to acknowledge the need for mature players.
when we have just one fb aged 22 and hes iffy in the role you are never going to acknowledge the need for cover in the role. the sad thing is we dont really have a 18 - 21 yr old on the list who we can start to groom for the role if rance went down a mature player would be taking no ones spot in the short term.

rance and post look very iffy imo who else is there astbury maybe if he even plays back. grimes well im a wrap for the kid but he may never be big enough to play kp and if he does it wont be for a couple of seasons at least.

nope ive said my piece theres not a lot you can say that will change my mind and the debate is going around in another circle so i will leave it at that.

You sort of answered my questions but in a roundabout way. Can you see the benefit of drafting mature aged players that will still fit into our age bracket of 21-25. The club has clearly shown that is what they want to do.... I agree with your comment about these players should be able to at least put pressure on the top 22 and I have no particular problem with your full-back argument.

What you seem to be missing IMO, is that the club is planning for a premiership, not band-aiding our way to a weak finals berth like others who have coached before DH. In think the 100 game philosophy is spot-on but should not just be bought or traded for.... DH and the club want them to earn it, and to hit that mark with a nucleus of players. Clearly they think that some of that group is already there - Martin, Cotch, Conca, Rance, Houli, JR etc and they want to add to that group similar aged players rather than over 25's (Maric an exception). I think the club is aware that that the premiership they want won't be delivered in 2012 (in all likelihood) so getting more games into the players they think will deliver that flag is more important than getting an older player who will do serviceably for 2 or 3 seasons but possibly stifle the development of someone they think will make it given more experience (Rance for example - we could have got someone better but they want him to develop).

While it's all about 2012 for the supporters, and fair enough, it is a premiership the club is striving for and they have a plan to deliver it. Whether they are successful are not, time will tell...

 

[MightyTiger]

You sort of answered my questions but in a roundabout way. Can you see the benefit of drafting mature aged players that will still fit into our age bracket of 21-25. The club has clearly shown that is what they want to do.... I agree with your comment about these players should be able to at least put pressure on the top 22 and I have no particular problem with your full-back argument.

What you seem to be missing IMO, is that the club is planning for a premiership, not band-aiding our way to a weak finals berth like others who have coached before DH. In think the 100 game philosophy is spot-on but should not just be bought or traded for.... DH and the club want them to earn it, and to hit that mark with a nucleus of players. Clearly they think that some of that group is already there - Martin, Cotch, Conca, Rance, Houli, JR etc and they want to add to that group similar aged players rather than over 25's (Maric an exception). I think the club is aware that that the premiership they want won't be delivered in 2012 (in all likelihood) so getting more games into the players they think will deliver that flag is more important than getting an older player who will do serviceably for 2 or 3 seasons but possibly stifle the development of someone they think will make it given more experience (Rance for example - we could have got someone better but they want him to develop).

While it's all about 2012 for the supporters, and fair enough, it is a premiership the club is striving for and they have a plan to deliver it. Whether they are successful are not, time will tell...

 

[_RT_]

finally i too am all for building the list with kids and think the draft is the way to go. unlike you i also think mature recruiting is also the way to go so we do both. there is only two ways to grow a list so why would you deny yourself one of those paths.

Have to take exception with this claim of yours Claws. Since Hardwick took over at the end of 2009 we have taken the following 'mature' players:
2009
Webberley - 21 when drafted solid TFL level form
Nason - 20 when drafted
Farmer - 20 when traded for

2010
Brad Miller - 27 when drafted had 9 seasons at the Dees.
Dercikx - 23 when drafted solid season at WAFL level
Grigg - 21 when traded for had 4 seasons in the system
Houli - 21 when drafted had 4 seasons in the system

2011
I.Maric - 25 when traded for 77 games at AFL level
A.Maric - 21 when rookie listed 4 years in the system
Morris - 22 when traded for coming off solid form at SANFL level

So thats 10 players(8 are still on our list) that could be classed as mature types that have been added to the list over Hardwicks tenure and yet you say that we have ignored taking mature types. The fact is that 1/3 of the players were added in 3 off seasons have been what I would call a mature aged recruit.

Not every mature aged player needs to be 25 to be called a 'mature' recruit. In fact some of the names you are suggesting we should have taken in Horsley(24), Austin(23) & Mohr(23) aren't much older than most of our 'mature' recruits.

 

[Morro]

ok, so after seeing a couple of full games now, I think I have my rd 1 side down pat.

Grimes Rance Newy
Morris Post Batch
Houli Cotch Conca
Lids Jack Maric
Nahas Ty Miller

Maric Tuck Dusty

Foley Grigg Jackson sub: Ellis

Emergency - Helbig, Drex, Edwards.

Backs - Newy remains back as experience . Morris as the shut down and physical defender that we need. The KPP's pick themselves at this stage.

Midfield - Loaded up with ball winners early, with 3 more ball winners rotating through the bench and a few small forwards all capable of going though there aswell, not discounting Lids and newy either.

Forwards - Pace, smarts, talls and pressure, all our midfielders are more than capable of going in their aswell.

Thoughts?