Richmonds Drafting Nightmare

[Goldust]

Well, I hope this Stibbard fellow is supplementing his Richmond article with a similar self-analysis criticising him and his club's own alacrity towards continually ending up mid-table.

Read my previous posts, I have never ONCE agreed with what he said re our list.
I'm undecided on where I sit on that.
But you - and numerous other posters - have just shot Stibbard down and attacked him. And based on what?
His record speaks for itself. The Kangas have never had the low picks we've had (outside 2002 when they picked at number two) yet somehow remain more than competitive year after year, with bugger all resources and money.
I bet Kangaroo supporters would be a lot happier than us Richmond fans, playing finals every year!!!
Anyone who thinks our list is better than theirs is delusional!!!

 

[Goldust]

But Stibbard rated that draft the most shallow talent pool in recent times. “We (the Kangaroos) traded for Jonathan Hay because I didn’t believe the draft was very strong,” he said.

Has anyone ever see someone's credibility plummet so dramatically in so few words.

HINDSIGHT is a remarkable thing. Hay was an All-Australian two years previous and followed up with another good year.
A first round pick was over the odds in hindsight and reality, but at least he admits it. But the rationale was correct. It wasn't a strong draft and he and the club deemed they would go another way.
No one could have forseen what would transpire with hay and his personal life. No one could foresee that. I used the example earlier of Polak. You couldn't forsee he would be involved in the accident he was.
We used a first round pick on him - hindsight now tells us it was a poor move. Or will we put a positive spin on that because it's us!

 

[PHX]

In what context is the word competitive defined?

I'm quite sure many of us were attacking Joel Bowden just a few weeks ago for "just wanting to be competitive."

I'm sure the Kangas supporters or administration were not content with him just delivering "competitive" players and that's why he got sacked.

But I shot down Stibbard mostly because he reckons he can analyse and create a critical anaysis on our list simply by looking through the AFL prospectus. We might as well ring up the "Elite Dream Teamers" league and get their opinion if that's the best way to anlayse a list.

I personally thought the best way would be for Stibbard to get an informed opinion and actually watch our kids play rather than read a book written by god knows who, and consider themselves an expert because of it. By going and watching Coburg and Richmond (Of a bigger sample size than 3 weeks) maybe he'd be able to get an informed individual critique instead of reading a book.

Then I'd be more willing to take what this guy says seriously.

 

[tony_montana]

The possible logic of this remark defies me.

How would two picks so late in the draft be so crucial to our ongoing viability?

Now, if these two veterans had been tradeable, fair enough. Grab a second- or third-rounder by all means. But they weren't so, they would've been outright delistings - except, perhaps, if this Neville Hibbard was still a recruiting officer.

You still don't get it.


So you think it would have been a mistake to use mid range picks on untried youth instead of club rejects (albeit still youthful-ish)hislop and thompson?

Please mate, I can smell the stench of your bullshit from here.

Without getting too mathematical on your arse, "average" might be a great measure of a batsman's performance over a period of tiem, but not a great analyser of something like age. It's too prone to extremes.

There is a reason why things like properties values are compared by "medians" instead.

The fact of the matter is, you mental giant you, disregarding averages medians et al, we have 6 slots we have to fill within the next year or 2 just solely with the retirements of the older players, that doesnt take into consideration players that should be cut bc they simply cant cut it. We are just delaying the inevitable and timing it just perfectly to coincide with when the draft will be getting r*ped by the GC, CLASS LIST MANAGEMENT that is.

So instead of staggering it over maybe 3 years (2 last season) (1 or 2) this season and 1 or 2 the year after), using mid range picks last season to cover those 2, we will instead use late draft picks in the future to replace them, whats more all in only one or 2 drafts and furthermore in shallow drafts after the GC get their hands dirty..... yeah that makes a lot of sense. LOL

I'm not a great fan of either Hislop or Thomson, nor our decision to draft them. But technically they are youth. And you're working on the assumption that we could've got them so late in the draft, which is merely speculation.

Hislop's 20 (Pick 20 2006 Draft) and Thomson's 22 (Pick 11 2004 i.e. same draft as Deledio, Tambling).

If they're going to be good players at all, which is far from a foregone conclusion (they've both got "Frawley type" written all over them) then we're going to get ten years out of them.

Me either which is why I would have rathered our picks get used on young untried youth rather than recycled club rejects. ....hello?
They may be handy, they may not be which is why i suggested we couldve just as easily used our late picks on getting them, and if they weren't available then so be it.

so where do you have the problem Ghost? or are you just being an argumentative smartarse for the hell of it?

 

[peterbuch74]

Read my previous posts, I have never ONCE agreed with what he said re our list.
I'm undecided on where I sit on that.
But you - and numerous other posters - have just shot Stibbard down and attacked him. And based on what?
His record speaks for itself. The Kangas have never had the low picks we've had (outside 2002 when they picked at number two) yet somehow remain more than competitive year after year, with bugger all resources and money.
I bet Kangaroo supporters would be a lot happier than us Richmond fans, playing finals every year!!!
Anyone who thinks our list is better than theirs is delusional!!!

Goldy... I don't think our list is better than theirs. I do honestly believe line for line we're certainly equal to them. I don't think I'm delusional in saying this.

I'd certainly say that for the past how ever many years you want to compare our lists that they've been better coached and better equipped through training and development than ours has.

My favourite line is that "any team can beat anyone on their day. After all it's only 18 men against 18 men at any given time."

What it comes down to is training, application, development, planning and commitment. And that's where we've been let down. Year after year.

John Northey was the last coach at Tigerland to fully grasp this IMO. And call it coincidence or not, he's the last "Tiger" coach we've had. Not saying that we really need a Tiger coach at Tigerland, but I don't think anyone else has really understood the club, the culture and the fans like he did.

 

[Goldust]

SO, let me get this straight.
From reading Big Footy these past three weeks.
Richo is still our best player but has probably one more year left in him.
Bowden is ordinary and I would suggest in his last year.
JON is an embarrasment as a top 10 pick and should be delisted.
McMahon is a disgrace.
Edwards is ordinary.
Schulz should be a permanent resident at Coburg.
Pettifer is clogging the list and was never any good.
We should play Cleve Hughes in preference to Schulz (yet we forget slow ol' Cleve is playing Coburg twos).
Doubts over Gourdis (also playing Coburg twos).
Tambling (see McMahon comments).
Questions over whether Ty Vickery was the rigt player for us.
Jake King should never play for the Tigers again (editor's note: and probably won't).
Hislop - drafting him was a mistake.
How ordinary has Troy Simmonds been?
Opinion didvide on whether we trade one of the few players in McGuane who is actually developing!

But our list is in good shape??????

But because some guy involved at another club said it, he's wrong!!!!!

 

[folester41]

this is a joke surely?

i was looking over our list and it really is not as poor as they are making it out to be.

after our poor performances lately people are lining u to criticise our list when really they wouldnt have an idea about half the players on it.

i agree we need to get rid of 4 of the 6 players over 28.

aslong as we draft 4 or 5 kids at the end of this season, trade one or two players to gold coast next season for decent picks, and start playing some footy that will get some confidence into the boys, then im not worried.

its more about the game plan, effort and confidence then the amunt of young players.

im tipping bowden and johnson to go come seasons end.

that will leave richo, cousins, brown and simmonds.

when you look at melbourne who have bruce, green, robertson mcdonald its really not that much different.

we held on to bowden and johnson for a season too long i agree, but we are not as far behind as they say.

need to draft a quality mid with skills, hope one two of our talls develop into a ruck and a foward, and develop one small to medium foward and i think our team will be looking the goods.

 

[tony_montana]

HINDSIGHT is a remarkable thing. Hay was an All-Australian two years previous and followed up with another good year.
A first round pick was over the odds in hindsight and reality, but at least he admits it. But the rationale was correct. It wasn't a strong draft and he and the club deemed they would go another way.
No one could have forseen what would transpire with hay and his personal life. No one could foresee that. I used the example earlier of Polak. You couldn't forsee he would be involved in the accident he was.
We used a first round pick on him - hindsight now tells us it was a poor move. Or will we put a positive spin on that because it's us!

Exactly Goldust. People forget just how good Hay was, he was the perfect modern day prototype to play on the big fwds, had pace, strength and was just entering his prime, no-one knew the Hawks would be dirty buggers and not divulge his past mental health issues which were obviously coming to the fore.

If he was metally sound, that would've been a good trade for North. It was just unfortunate like us with Polak.
He was the premier Fb in the comp, how quickly ppl forget.

 

[Goldust]

Goldy... I don't think our list is better than theirs. I do honestly believe line for line we're certainly equal to them. I don't think I'm delusional in saying this.

I'd certainly say that for the past how ever many years you want to compare our lists that they've been better coached and better equipped through training and development than ours has.

My favourite line is that "any team can beat anyone on their day. After all it's only 18 men against 18 men at any given time."

What it comes down to is training, application, development, planning and commitment. And that's where we've been let down. Year after year.

John Northey was the last coach at Tigerland to fully grasp this IMO. And call it coincidence or not, he's the last "Tiger" coach we've had. Not saying that we really need a Tiger coach at Tigerland, but I don't think anyone else has really understood the club, the culture and the fans like he did.[/QUOTE]

DON'T get me started on that...poor decision making at its finest!!! The players plain played for Swooper!!

But yes, agree with what you say. The training, devbelopment, commitment aspect is where we have been let down badly.
I am sure some of those drafted - I'm thinking Tambling straigt away - could have thrived elsewhere if drafted by Hawthorn, Bulldogs etc.
There si simply no reason for our players to be as poorly skilled as they are...it coes back to training and teaching!

 

[Goldust]

Exactly Goldust. People forget just how good Hay was, he was the perfect modern day prototype to play on the big fwds, had pace, strength and was just entering his prime, no-one knew the Hawks would be dirty buggers and not divulge his past mental health issues which were obviously coming to the fore.

If he was metally sound, that would've been a good trade for North. It was just unfortunate like us with Polak.
He was the premier Fb in the comp, how quickly ppl forget.

Amen!!!

Hawthorn should have be crucified for doing what they did. It was unethical...and to think their president is the leader of an organisation that leads the fight against depression.

 

[cormick]

Exactly Goldust. People forget just how good Hay was, he was the perfect modern day prototype to play on the big fwds, had pace, strength and was just entering his prime, no-one knew the Hawks would be dirty buggers and not divulge his past mental health issues which were obviously coming to the fore.

If he was metally sound, that would've been a good trade for North. It was just unfortunate like us with Polak.
He was the premier Fb in the comp, how quickly ppl forget.

But then again, Tambling was seen as the second best player in the 2004 draft, JON as the one with the most potential in 2005. Does that therefore void Richmond from recieving criticism about those two picks in particular? No. Why can't people then criticise North for picking up Hay who turned out to be not so good for them?

 

[tony_montana]

But then again, Tambling was seen as the second best player in the 2004 draft, JON as the one with the most potential in 2005. Does that therefore void Richmond from recieving criticism about those two picks in particular? No. Why can't people then criticise North for picking up Hay who turned out to be not so good for them?

Drawing a pretty long bow there cormick

Two completely different things, we shouldn't be criticised for picking tambling, more so for his lack of development, he was a surething top 5 pick, everybody knows that. Again with JON same thing, we shouldn't cop criticism for actually picking him, Freo and WCE were ready to pounce with their first picks, but more so with the lack of development. Sure BF idiots will harp on about picking those guys, but fact is its about lack of development not talent identification.

As Goldy has mentioned, the Polak situation is where you can draw parallels with the Hay situation. Would the kangas have drafted him if they knew his history of mental health? would we have drafted him if we knew he was going to get hit by a tram? Sometimes its just badluck

 

[peterbuch74]

Goldy... I don't think our list is better than theirs. I do honestly believe line for line we're certainly equal to them. I don't think I'm delusional in saying this.

I'd certainly say that for the past how ever many years you want to compare our lists that they've been better coached and better equipped through training and development than ours has.

My favourite line is that "any team can beat anyone on their day. After all it's only 18 men against 18 men at any given time."

What it comes down to is training, application, development, planning and commitment. And that's where we've been let down. Year after year.

John Northey was the last coach at Tigerland to fully grasp this IMO. And call it coincidence or not, he's the last "Tiger" coach we've had. Not saying that we really need a Tiger coach at Tigerland, but I don't think anyone else has really understood the club, the culture and the fans like he did.

DON'T get me started on that...poor decision making at its finest!!! The players plain played for Swooper!!

But yes, agree with what you say. The training, devbelopment, commitment aspect is where we have been let down badly.
I am sure some of those drafted - I'm thinking Tambling straigt away - could have thrived elsewhere if drafted by Hawthorn, Bulldogs etc.
There si simply no reason for our players to be as poorly skilled as they are...it coes back to training and teaching!

Funny you mention that, as my argument with the whole Tambling/Buddy drafting is this... who can honestly say that Buddy would be the player he is today if he had been drafted to Richmond?

Who's to say he wouldn't be in exactly the same position that Cleve Hughes is? A player with a heap of potential... but without the same nurturing, coaching, development, and mentoring that he's had at Hawthorn he mightn't be anything.

Who knows what Tambling might have been had he spent the past 5 years at Hawthorn or the Bulldogs?

Yes, we've had some wins with players coming through in the past 5 years (Foley as one example), but this is our biggest downfall lately...

I can't think of any other club that's had as many "untried", "unproven" or "undeveloped" players through their list as we've had in the past (let's call it) 25 years.

 

[Barnzy]

Good article. Doesn't say anything I didn't know, Melbourne are ahead of us in development which is very sad.

 

[peggles]

an ex north melbourne recruiter has no credibility in talking about other team's mistakes in drafting man. they're no good at recruiting either if u ask me. trading away 2 1st round draft picks each for Hay and Thompson. c'mon....

 

[peggles]

Good article. Doesn't say anything I didn't know, Melbourne are ahead of us in development which is very sad.

they're not ahead of us in terms of development man.

 

[Rayzorwire]

...former North recruiter Neville Stibbard suggests that we're going to have a hard time getting the list right over the next few years.

I'm sure Stibbard's former employers were really chuffed that he made the call to take 1st and 2nd round draft picks in '03 (David Trotter and Chad Jones!) instead of '04 (when they could have had two of Lewis/Murphy/Van Berlo!).

Professional w***ers like Stibbard shouldn't still be getting paid (via the article) to blow their entire legs off in public with a shotgun.

North's list is in significantly worse shape than ours and he is the man responsible:

His 1st and 2nd round selections in the seven years prior to him finally getting the arse were:

Robbie Tarrant
Levi Greenwood
Lachlan Hansen
Gavin Urquhart
Matt Riggio
David Trotter
Chad Jones
Daniel Wells
Hamish McIntosh
Kris Shore
Callum Urch
Joel Perry
David Hale
Ashley Watson
Rod Crowe
Dylan Smith
Daniel Motlop
Daniel Harris
Drew Petrie
Saverio Rocca (recycled)
Blake Campbell

21 first and 2nd round picks, the earliest (not including recycled players like Rocca) of whom would be in their footballing prime right now, and what do the Roos have to show for those picks (apart from more average ruckmen than they know what to do with)?

That's not even counting the picks he also gave up for Rawlings, Hay, and Thomson during the same time.

LMAO at anyone listening to a word this clown says.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I believe his opinion was exactly that his opinion, which in most cases aren't far of the mark, however I think the biggest problem the current coach has been guilty of player list wise is keeping hold of players for 12 months at least to long. Hyde, Tivendale, Bowden, Johnson, Polak, Pettifer, and the amount of trades made for players who were recruited for the longer term rather than immediate stop gap.
Enjoyed reading Crawfords frank but honest assesment of the individual players, although generally made out to be the class clown by Sam Newman, his assesments including that of Hawthorns situations during this pre-season have had a lot of merit.

 

[Goldust]

I believe his opinion was exactly that his opinion, which in most cases aren't far of the mark, however I think the biggest problem the current coach has been guilty of player list wise is keeping hold of players for 12 months at least to long. Hyde, Tivendale, Bowden, Johnson, Polak, Pettifer, and the amount of trades made for players who were recruited for the longer term rather than immediate stop gap.
Enjoyed reading Crawfords frank but honest assesment of the individual players, although generally made out to be the class clown by Sam Newman, his assesments including that of Hawthorns situations during this pre-season have had a lot of merit.

Mate, 12 months too early on Tiv.
Compared to this current crop, Tivendale was a superstar.
Being plundered by the Dees!!!

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Mate, 12 months too early on Tiv.
Compared to this current crop, Tivendale was a superstar.
Being plundered by the Dees!!!

That certainly doesn't justify him being kept on the list for the 2008 , rather just the current interest level of the players and an insipid game plan.

 

[bigrob]

[who can honestly say that Buddy would be the player he is today if he had been drafted to Richmond? ]

He'd be an indecisive, fade out player with no confidence or commitment. That's what Richmond does to the players it recruits. You took Raines, who had pedigree, skill, and natural talent, and turned him into another Tambling, who you created from scratch.
It's an amazing thing that you do at Tigerland.

 

[cormick]

[who can honestly say that Buddy would be the player he is today if he had been drafted to Richmond? ]

He'd be an indecisive, fade out player with no confidence or commitment. That's what Richmond does to the players it recruits. You took Raines, who had pedigree, skill, and natural talent, and turned him into another Tambling, who you created from scratch.
It's an amazing thing that you do at Tigerland.

Raines?
He had so much pedigree, skill and natural talent that he went at pick 74. Clearly no one else rated his skills as much as you...

 

[bigrob]

Looked and moved like his dad, and I rated him. Could have been great.

 

[Goldust]

ANYONE want to reassess the state of our list now???????

In making changes to today's team, we're just reverting to the same ol' guys we dropped the previous two weeks .... Tambling, Schulz etc.

 

[PHX]

No, for what it's worth, I still see our list as decent, we have plenty of quality players, however they fail at executing the gameplan. When we take it on we can do great things but then we get lose confidence and start kicking and handballing sideways and it all goes haywire. Our list itself is not bad enough to be 0-4, there are other variables and I believe it has a lot to do with the game plan.

But because some guy involved at another club said it, he's wrong!!!!!

No Goldy, his opinion is not necessarily wrong, but in my opinion it is not worth anything because he came to his conclusion by reading the AFL prospectus. It's a weak analysis to draw conclusions on a list from.