Tigers Will Chase Warnock

[CoggaRules]

A good ruckman RT is expected to get hitouts, contribute to clearances and take marks. Cox is an outside type of ruckman, but I'd take an inside version over an outsider. It's just that Cox is an excellent outside ruckman.

Pattison is an insider, but he doesn't get hitouts or take marks.

i would take any ruckman as long as those words appear

 

[MJ42]

lmao. Thats quite funny.

But pity you didnt use the same analogy for Kayne Pettifer who is a woman playing a mans game.

well he is the first woman to play AFL so hats off to him.

 

[beaver fever]

I say use pick 8 on Vickery, unless Ziebell/Hartlett/Hurley is available.

 

[rgauci]

2nd pick alone is a lot to pay for someone like him, I hope not.

I find this sort of opinion interesting. In 2004 the Richmond football club used pick 16 on Adam Pattison. Not many players taken after him (who weren't father son) can lay claim to being regulars in a 22.

If your club used its 2nd round draft pick on a ruckman this year, NOT one Richmond fan would be upset. In fact, you would be delighted if this player went on to lead the ruck at Richmond.

In fact, if you used your 1st round pick on a ruckman who became the lead ruckman it would be seen as an overwhelming success at the draft.

Why wouldn't you trade for a player who can do the same?

There lies the crux of the argument. Would you prefer a 5% chance that the ruckman you get via either the 1st or 2nd round ends up one of the very best ruckman in the league. Its probably only a 25% chance that a 1st round ruckman will be better than Warnock and a 5% chance a 2nd round ruckman will be better. Or perhaps, knowing you've assembled a good team in most other positions, the confidence of knowing what your getting with Warnock would be more enticing.

Ruckman taken in recent drafts:

2007
Pick 1 Matthew Kreuzer
Pick 9 Ben McEvoy
Pick 51 Dean Putt

2006
Pick 4 Matthew Leuenberger
Pick 17 Shaun Hampson
Pick 24 Brent Renouf
Pick 32 Kurt Tippett (ruck/forward)

2005
Pick 18 Max Bailey
Pick 42 Robert Warnock

2004
Pick 8 John Meeson
Pick 16 Adam Pattison
Pick 18 Cameron Wood
Pick 33 Cain Ackland
Pick 35 Fabian Deluca
Pick 53 Simon Taylor
Pick 73 Chris Bryan

2003
Pick 6 Kepler Bradley
Pick 18 Llane Spaanderman


There's a bunch i've missed. All it shows is that early picks on ruckman are very speculative. Some gems occasionally later in the draft but you have to get lucky. At this stage Kreuzer looks destined to become better and Leuenberger will probably be better than Warnock. Personally i'd have Warnock ahead of the rest.

Carlton fans will argue its too early to tell on Hampson. Which it is.

The other way to look at it is who would Richmond pick with its 1st or 2nd rounder. At some stage you have to get a ruckman one way or another. Might be 1st more likely 2nd rounder. Will that player be better than Warnock.

At this stage Naitanui is the best ruckman available. He'll be gone by your pick. Then Vickory (?spelling) is probably 2nd best. Knee reconstruction before turning 18 but showed good form in the carnival. Will he be better than Warnock, arguable. Some other unknown coming on in leaps and bounds. Probably will happen. But will you definately pick him or some other guy who doesn't come on.

In 3 years time your young stars like Deledio, Foley etc will be mid career and peaking. If you recruit an underage ruckman now, will he be physically ready to lead the ruck in 3 years? versus Warnock who has already had 3 years development...

In my eyes it should be an easy choice for Richmond supporters. A 2nd rounder is a BARGAIN.

 

[beaver fever]

Pattison was drafted as a CHF, not ruckman. You make a good argument though.

 

[MJ42]

lets just say this dip. So you are advocating that for us to become a top side we need to find 3 or 4 champion mids and keep Patto, Gus or Putt rucking, correct?
We havent any at the moment, because Foley and Brown dont rate with you as champions, we dont know if Lids can be a champion, he might, we might have a leg up with Cotch and we need to keep drafting mids to find what we havent got. Correct?

Every great side has 3,4 or even 5 A grade midfielders, not every great side has an A grade ruckmen. FFS Steven King played in a premiership with one of the greatest teams of all time.

 

[CoggaRules]

Every great side has 3,4 or even 5 A grade midfielders, not every great side has an A grade ruckmen. FFS Steven King played in a premiership with one of the greatest teams of all time.

so why did Bomber do cartwheels to get Ottens to the cats, if by what you are saying, he could have done the job with King and Blake?

 

[Rayzorwire]

Knobel was only ever a stop gap measure,

Knobel was admittedly ordinary away from the ruck, but he was no stop-gap measure, he was a genuine no.1 ruckman and a lot better than Simmonds as a pure ruckman - as indicated by the fact that in 2005 he had among the most hitouts to advantage in the league despite missing four games.

If you have a good look at the games we won in '05 and '06, having Knobel regularly giving us first use in the centre gave us an advantage which we haven't had since - an advantage which allowed us to do things like beat Geelong at Skilled stadium. He smashed Ottens that day and would still be doing it against the best ruckmen in the league if he hadn't succumbed to injury.

I don't believe ruckmen give you enough advantage to make them anywhere near as valuable a commodity as quality small onballers, but a bloke like Knobel who can give you hitouts to advantage at crucial stages in games was still a very handy player to have around and not just a stop-gap fill in.

as if Ray Hall was ever going to even be a 3rd ruck option.

Last year a fit Ray Hall would have been our no.1 ruck option and we would have finally had some key defensive options which would have allowed him to play the natural roaming role which suited him far more than the role of no.1 defender. Matched up against ruckmen he had a pace and endurance advantage around the ground like Simmonds does - instead of struggling to sprint repeatedly all game on lightning quick key forwards - and he was at least as good as Simmonds when allowed to drift forward.

At full fitness he was still a lot more valuable than Pattison has been yet and light years ahead of a player like Cartledge.

Fact is we have neglected this area and are paying the price. We should have had 1-2 rucks on the rookie list every year.

We tried to fix it until 2010 or so by getting Knobel and Simmonds in one hit - a strategy which allowed us the draft picks to build a midfield from virtually nothing - and we did also draft Pattison the same year plus rookie Graham the year after, so I think 'neglect' is too strong a word. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any ruckmen who have come off a rookie list to play regular AFL football during Wallace's tenure, so perhaps there's an argument for saying Graham was the only bloke during that period which we thought was worth spending a rookie pick on?

Barring last year when there was quite a few decent ones available, the ruck stocks have been pretty thin over recent years unless you give up a high selection. I would have liked to have grabbed Bellchambers in the last rookie draft, but given a choice between he and a kid with freakish potential like Gourdis, you have to go with Gourdis IMO.

We'll fix the gap we have in rucks before the time we're genuine challengers and it will be a good budget solution like our backline has been - not a recruiting folly like spending our sole first round pick on a ruckman who is highly unlikely to be more valuable than a midfielder available at the same selection.

 

[CoggaRules]

Knobel was admittedly ordinary away from the ruck, but he was no stop-gap measure, he was a genuine no.1 ruckman and a lot better than Simmonds as a pure ruckman - as indicated by the fact that in 2005 he had among the most hitouts to advantage in the league despite missing four games.

If you have a good look at the games we won in '05 and '06, having Knobel regularly giving us first use in the centre gave us an advantage which we haven't had since - an advantage which allowed us to do things like beat Geelong at Skilled stadium. He smashed Ottens that day and would still be doing it against the best ruckmen in the league if he hadn't succumbed to injury.

I don't believe ruckmen give you enough advantage to make them anywhere near as valuable a commodity as quality small onballers, but a bloke like Knobel who can give you hitouts to advantage at crucial stages in games was still a very handy player to have around and not just a stop-gap fill in.



Last year a fit Ray Hall would have been our no.1 ruck option and we would have finally had some key defensive options which would have allowed him to play the natural roaming role which suited him far more than the role of no.1 defender. Matched up against ruckmen he had a pace and endurance advantage around the ground like Simmonds does - instead of struggling to sprint repeatedly all game on lightning quick key forwards - and he was at least as good as Simmonds when allowed to drift forward.

At full fitness he was still a lot more valuable than Pattison has been yet and light years ahead of a player like Cartledge.



We tried to fix it until 2010 or so by getting Knobel and Simmonds in one hit - a strategy which allowed us the draft picks to build a midfield from virtually nothing - and we did also draft Pattison the same year plus rookie Graham the year after, so I think 'neglect' is too strong a word. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any ruckmen who have come off a rookie list to play regular AFL football during Wallace's tenure, so perhaps there's an argument for saying Graham was the only bloke during that period which we thought was worth spending a rookie pick on?

Barring last year when there was quite a few decent ones available, the ruck stocks have been pretty thin over recent years unless you give up a high selection. I would have liked to have grabbed Bellchambers in the last rookie draft, but given a choice between he and a kid with freakish potential like Gourdis, you have to go with Gourdis IMO.

We'll fix the gap we have in rucks before the time we're genuine challengers and it will be a good budget solution like our backline has been - not a recruiting folly like spending our sole first round pick on a ruckman who is highly unlikely to be more valuable than a midfielder available at the same selection.

one question dude. Would a Sandilands be real handy for us right now?

 

[beaver fever]

Knobel was admittedly ordinary away from the ruck, but he was no stop-gap measure, he was a genuine no.1 ruckman and a lot better than Simmonds as a pure ruckman - as indicated by the fact that in 2005 he had among the most hitouts to advantage in the league despite missing four games.

If you have a good look at the games we won in '05 and '06, having Knobel regularly giving us first use in the centre gave us an advantage which we haven't had since - an advantage which allowed us to do things like beat Geelong at Skilled stadium. He smashed Ottens that day and would still be doing it against the best ruckmen in the league if he hadn't succumbed to injury.

I don't believe ruckmen give you enough advantage to make them anywhere near as valuable a commodity as quality small onballers, but a bloke like Knobel who can give you hitouts to advantage at crucial stages in games was still a very handy player to have around and not just a stop-gap fill in.

A genuine no.1 ruckman needs to be able to mark, provide a contest at the clearances and get hitouts. Knobel was only good at one of those things. Going forward we had to do better. Simmonds himself should be a no.2 ruckman but we are forced to play him as our no.1.

Last year a fit Ray Hall would have been our no.1 ruck option and we would have finally had some key defensive options which would have allowed him to play the natural roaming role which suited him far more than the role of no.1 defender. Matched up against ruckmen he had a pace and endurance advantage around the ground like Simmonds does - instead of struggling to sprint repeatedly all game on lightning quick key forwards - and he was at least as good as Simmonds when allowed to drift forward.

At full fitness he was still a lot more valuable than Pattison has been yet and light years ahead of a player like Cartledge.

So what. Just because he would have been our no.1 doesn't mean he is capable of being one. Never going to be the answer. Tuck played ruck against geelong in the pre-season 2007, are you suggesting he is a no.1 ruckman?

We tried to fix it until 2010 or so by getting Knobel and Simmonds in one hit - a strategy which allowed us the draft picks to build a midfield from virtually nothing - and we did also draft Pattison the same year plus rookie Graham the year after, so I think 'neglect' is too strong a word. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of any ruckmen who have come off a rookie list to play regular AFL football during Wallace's tenure, so perhaps there's an argument for saying Graham was the only bloke during that period which we thought was worth spending a rookie pick on?

Barring last year when there was quite a few decent ones available, the ruck stocks have been pretty thin over recent years unless you give up a high selection. I would have liked to have grabbed Bellchambers in the last rookie draft, but given a choice between he and a kid with freakish potential like Gourdis, you have to go with Gourdis IMO.

We'll fix the gap we have in rucks before the time we're genuine challengers and it will be a good budget solution like our backline has been - not a recruiting folly like spending our sole first round pick on a ruckman who is highly unlikely to be more valuable than a midfielder available at the same selection.

Some good points, but Pattison is not a ruckman and wasn't drafted as one. I still think we should have taken a punt on some junior rucks for the rookie list, just to have the systems in place to find one.

 

[MJ42]

so why did Bomber do cartwheels to get Ottens to the cats, if by what you are saying, he could have done the job with King and Blake?

Geelong would have won last years and this years flag regardless of whether Ottens was playing.

 

[CoggaRules]

Geelong would have won last years and this years flag regardless of whether Ottens was playing.

we would have won last years GF, stupid. There was only one side on the field. But then again you might want to ask Bomber who was integral in getting them to the GF the week before, in the 5 point win over the scum. I mean the scum had a real top midfiled didnt they? What they didnt have were dominant big men...

 

[Rayzorwire]

one question dude. Would a Sandilands be real handy for us right now?

Of course he would, but it's taken him a long time to get to where he is now - a genuinely effective ruckman rather than just a bloke who gets a lot of hitouts, can't take a grab and is useless around the ground - and over the full span of his career (rather than just the last season and a half) he's been as much if not more of a hindrance to Freo as a help.

If we'd had a choice between taking Simmonds or Sandilands (taking into account the appropriate trade price difference between them), I'd still take Simmonds, and the game between us and Freo this year clearly shows why - Sandilands had twice as many hitouts, but one third of the possessions, and every time the ball came back to the centre after another Richmond goal, Sandilands was powerless to turn the game around because our overall midfield was way better than theirs.

Offered at the same price I'd take Sandilands over Simmonds every time, but I'd never give up a top-10 pick for him and I'd rather get a Simmonds-type on the cheap. The only ruck worth giving up a top-10 pick for is Cox and that's because he's the only player in the comp who is not only a top-class ruckman, but also a complete footballer.

 

[tigertiger]

So does anyone think Graham will become a good ruckman or does he have some major flaw i am unaware of like he is 2cm to short or is an outside inside mid or some crap statement like that.

 

[CoggaRules]

Of course he would, but it's taken him a long time to get to where he is now - a genuinely effective ruckman rather than just a bloke who gets a lot of hitouts, can't take a grab and is useless around the ground - and over the full span of his career (rather than just the last season and a half) he's been as much if not more of a hindrance to Freo as a help.

If we'd had a choice between taking Simmonds or Sandilands (taking into account the appropriate trade price difference between them), I'd still take Simmonds, and the game between us and Freo this year clearly shows why - Sandilands had twice as many hitouts, but one third of the possessions, and every time the ball came back to the centre after another Richmond goal, Sandilands was powerless to turn the game around because our overall midfield was way better than theirs.

Offered at the same price I'd take Sandilands over Simmonds every time, but I'd never give up a top-10 pick for him and I'd rather get a Simmonds-type on the cheap. The only ruck worth giving up a top-10 pick for is Cox and that's because he's the only player in the comp who is not only a top-class ruckman, but also a complete footballer.

yeah but if ours wasnt? and if say we had Sandilands instead of Simmonds rucking to our midfield what would you get? We would step up another notch in the contenders stakes, because we would have a winning ruckman and a winning midfield and we would be a super dangerous team. Thats how you mix it with the top guns at the top. All that has to happen is for both parts of the equation to come together and you are in the mix.
Simmonds is ok, but struggles to exert a dominant influence in the middle. He can only do so on occasions against lesser lights and then when he fronts up to bigger more potent rucks, you tend to see the good old, jump up before acceptances trick he must have learnt from Jemmy at the dees. All to no avail though. It only reduces the chances of the opposition executing a play, and does nothing to execute plays for us.
I say we need a ruckman and we need him badly. Time will tell.

 

[Rayzorwire]

A genuine no.1 ruckman needs to be able to mark, provide a contest at the clearances and get hitouts. Knobel was only good at one of those things. Going forward we had to do better. Simmonds himself should be a no.2 ruckman but we are forced to play him as our no.1.

I agree with most of that, but the fact is very few ruckmen impact games in significant ways other than getting hitouts, and of those who can impact games in other ways, Cox is the only player who has done it consistently.

So what. Just because he would have been our no.1 doesn't mean he is capable of being one. Never going to be the answer.

Didn't suggest he was, merely that he was another layer of depth (depth far better than what we had to use last year) which we had stripped away by injury.

Some good points, but Pattison is not a ruckman and wasn't drafted as one.

I never really bought that line about him being recruited primarily to be a CHF, I just think it was a bit of media spin to appease the hordes who rant for KP forwards year after year. I think his selection was very much in line with the type of thinking which we applied to Putt - a 2nd-string ruckman who can eventually play as a decent forward when rested there.

When you look at the blokes we have recruited as genuine key forwards since we got Patto, they have very different attributes to what he came to the club with.

I still think we should have taken a punt on some junior rucks for the rookie list, just to have the systems in place to find one.

I'm sure we will now that the major parts of the rebuild have been put in place and we can start focusing on something besides building a classy midfield.

 

[CoggaRules]

if we are going to get real about being a top flight contender every box needs to be ticked and that includes ruckmen or else we are going nowhere.
Keating, Cox, Ball, Ottens/King....do i go on?

 

[Rayzorwire]

yeah but if ours wasnt? and if say we had Sandilands instead of Simmonds rucking to our midfield what would you get?

Certainly not an automatic extra advantage, because it would hardly be the first time that Sandilands has hit more ball to the opposition midfielders than to his own, and our opposition would also do exactly what they do to Freo so effectively - rove to Sandilands.

We would step up another notch in the contenders stakes, because we would have a winning ruckman and a winning midfield and we would be a super dangerous team. Thats how you mix it with the top guns at the top. All that has to happen is for both parts of the equation to come together and you are in the mix.

Like the Dogs, Hawthorn and Adelaide have winning ruckmen?

Even with Geelong, if you really want to argue that Ottens is a top ruckman (I really don't think he is anything more than slightly above average), then how do you explain them still being 99.9% as dominant using Blake and West/Mumford as their ruck combo for much of this season?

Simmonds is ok, but struggles to exert a dominant influence in the middle. He can only do so on occasions against lesser lights and then when he fronts up to bigger more potent rucks, you tend to see the good old, jump up before acceptances trick he must have learnt from Jemmy at the dees. All to no avail though. It only reduces the chances of the opposition executing a play, and does nothing to execute plays for us.

I agree with all that, but when you have endless rotations of good midfielders, it really doesn't make a great deal of difference.

I say we need a ruckman and we need him badly. Time will tell.

We needed onballers far more and we still do to some extent - you can never have too many onballers. Enough so every flank is carrying a B grade midfielder at a minimum and you can afford to play blokes like Chapman as a permanent forward, or players like Enright and Hunt on a HBF. That's the secret of Geelong's success, not ruckmen. Players that are competitive midfielders who are strong and skilled enough to win their own ball more often than not and run with it - all over the ground.

Port had a better ruck duo or at least a comparable one in the GF last year - didn't get them far did it?

 

[CoggaRules]

Certainly not an automatic extra advantage, because it would hardly be the first time that Sandilands has hit more ball to the opposition midfielders than to his own, and our opposition would also do exactly what they do to Freo so effectively - rove to Sandilands.




Like the Dogs, Hawthorn and Adelaide have winning ruckmen?

Even with Geelong, if you really want to argue that Ottens is a top ruckman (I really don't think he is anything more than slightly above average), then how do you explain them still being 99.9% as dominant using Blake and West/Mumford as their ruck combo for much of this season?



I agree with all that, but when you have endless rotations of good midfielders, it really doesn't make a great deal of difference.



We needed onballers far more and we still do to some extent - you can never have too many onballers. Enough so every flank is carrying a B grade midfielder at a minimum and you can afford to play blokes like Chapman as a permanent forward, or players like Enright and Hunt on a HBF. That's the secret of Geelong's success, not ruckmen. Players that are competitive midfielders who are strong and skilled enough to win their own ball more often than not and run with it - all over the ground.

Port had a better ruck duo or at least a comparable one in the GF last year - didn't get them far did it?

ok, if you have an effective ruckman it makes it easier to carry out set plays at ruck contests. They dont always come off, but they do come off and your mids know the deal, their mids have to work it out. That is of course if you have a half decent midfield that can execute the plays.

On the ottens thing, well lets just say if it werent for him, the cats would more than likely be still waiting for their flag. Because he dragged them over the line in the prelim against the scum. i.e he repaid his contract right there with that one game and anything else is a bonus. Because all their plans were toast if not for his performance.
Did the scum have an A-grade midfield with all the bells and whistles that the cats did?

The dogs, crows and dawks are going to pay the price..as for Port having a better ruck combo, Lade & Brogan? come on man, they are an ok combo and both are on a par with Simmo, i.e. they exert influence when they are up against lesser lights and when they front up against top shelf rucks they are purely a sideshow. Lade can kick you goals which makes him more valuable than Brogan. But he is on the arse end of his career.

You cant be serious when you suggest that Lade/Brogan is a better combo than King/Ottens can you?

as for the onballer and how we needed them. Of course we do, the more the merrier, but you cant just focus on the one facet. We have spent the best part of 4 years doing that and we have to start including other facets or we will become a bulldogs or aints falling at the second last hurdle every time.

When you are building a team, and something that you need comes up, you take it. If it doesnt, then you fish around at pick 56 or 68 for it.

Reading between the lines i would be having a fiver on Warnock being in yellow and black next year. He can help us get into the 8 next year and by the time we are ready to make the push into the big time of Flag chasing, he would have developed even more.

 

[Doobie]

first off, is the money being talked about actually confirmed? or is it just pie in the ****ing sky stuff that is usually aligned to scaring off other potential customers, in an effort to go to the club he actually wants to go to?

Secondly, if there was a young ruckman in the upcoming draft and he was available when our first round pick came up, would there be any tigerheads here suggesting no, dont take him, no way we dont need a ruckman etc etc?

me dont think so...so i am with RT on this one, it seems pretty obvious we are in shitsville when it comes to the ruck and first round pick for a kid that is 21 and a giant is sold in my book. Get him and work out the cash later..

cogga tyrone vickery is the man for us 200 cm ruckman goal kicking forward

 

[CoggaRules]

cogga tyrone vickery is the man for us 200 cm ruckman goal kicking forward

dont know anything of him. Will he get to our pick? or are we just pissing in the wind, because i would suggest there are a few ahead of us saying the same.

 

[beaver fever]

Let's assess Warnock against the key performance indicators I suggested are needed by good ruckmen.
1. Good mark
2. Clearance work
3. Hit-outs

Robert Warnock 206cm 94kg. Is tall enough, needs another 10 kgs.

KPI's 2008
1. ave marks = 2.6 (taken 2 contested marks for the season)
2. ave clearances = 3 and ave 1% = 1
3. ave hitouts = 8.2

Now obviously game time % is important here, because Sandilands would get a large majority of the rucking duties. From those numbers it would appear like there is something to work with. Marking ability probably needs work, but clearances are pretty good.

From a statistical perspective Warnock appears to be a good option, now it comes down to what we are prepared to give up for him? Pick 8 I think not. Pick 26 not good enough unless combined with a player. Do fremantle lack pace? Does Matt White/Jake King + Pick 26 beat pick 19?

 

[CoggaRules]

Let's assess Warnock against the key performance indicators I suggested are needed by good ruckmen.
1. Good mark
2. Clearance work
3. Hit-outs

Robert Warnock 206cm 94kg. Is tall enough, needs another 10 kgs.

KPI's 2008
1. ave marks = 2.6 (taken 2 contested marks for the season)
2. ave clearances = 3 and ave 1% = 1
3. ave hitouts = 8.2

Now obviously game time % is important here, because Sandilands would get a large majority of the rucking duties. From those numbers it would appear like there is something to work with. Marking ability probably needs work, but clearances are pretty good.

From a statistical perspective Warnock appears to be a good option, now it comes down to what we are prepared to give up for him? Pick 8 I think not. Pick 26 not good enough unless combined with a player. Do fremanle lack pace? Does Matt White + Pick 26 beat pick 19?

i wouldnt underestimate Sarges positioning last week beaver that had the stats rolling against the dawks. looks real good on the windscreen in the used car lot. I am tipping that someone or some two are going to go at trade time. We havent really traded anyone up until now and there are question marks on a few. So its going to be interesting.
So this guy is asking 300K? and they are his KPIs? we have talked to him and the money is all BS dude..

 

[Doobie]

dont know anything of him. Will he get to our pick? or are we just pissing in the wind, because i would suggest there are a few ahead of us saying the same.

i think we can get him

 

[beaver fever]

i think we can get him

Would you take him above Ziebell/Hartlett/Hurley though in the off chance one of them is available as well?