20-20 Draft Hindsight

[craig]

Deledio was always going to go at #1 in that draft - he was a no brainer, and would be even better a player now had he gone to a club that had better leaders and could develop kids.



Gus tiger makes a very interesting point re Franklin, i too have a flickering suspicion that Buddy wouldnt be tearing sides apart as he has at the Hawx if he was a tiger simply as their midfield is so much more quality than ours and the Richo focussed duds wouldnt kick it to him either, and Wallce would probably still have him at Coburg ;D

 

[RFC not KFC]

http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=10550.0

So where were all the people who claim to have been in favour of Butthole or Roughhead?

 

[RFC not KFC]

Since you seem very new to the site I will save you going back over the last few years draft responses on PRE.

If you do, you will find that Claw, Evo, Redford, Harry and some other "darksiders" were more on the mark than both the recruiters at RFC and the "brightsiders" who shouted them down at the time.

When they say things critical of some officers of the club in future, don't shout them down llike the others.

They truly care about the club.

thanks for the vote of confidence redan though i think most on pre would disagree with you.
i claim to be no expert when it comes to drafting there are others on this site who are miles better. i have a few basic rules when looking at players they dont always guide me in the right direction. believe it or not my biggest concern and passion has been list management and structure. we are still making the exact same mistakes we made when frawley was in charge or when miller first came to the club.

And Claw chose neither Butthole or Roughhead......


1-deledio
4-griffen -lewis
12 lewis-monfries am being hopeful.
after these picks im prepared to let beck do his job. as long as wallace and miller are lookking over his shoulder.

 

[1eyedtiger]

It's great having 20/20 hindsight.

Robert Walls, various media "experts" (and some PRE'ders) say NOW that we should have got Franklin and Roughead - rather than Deledio and Tambling.

Let's face it, if Richmond had chosen Franklin and Roughead at the time, now they would be saying we should have got Deledio and Tambling.
Not all of our problems can be traced back to bad drafting. Most of our problems occur after drafting. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, Richmond has a poor record of fully developing it's recruits. Since this has been the norm at Richmond for 1/4 of a century now, I can't entirely blame the coaching staff. I believe our problems lie above the coaching staff.
Whilst we are on the subject, in hindsight, I think we would have been better off keeping John Northey instead of taking Walls.

 

[tigers#7]

But who says we've made a blue yet? Walls? Pfft.

Who cares what that **** thinks.

He's no pro, he's a bandwagon jumper. He's having his time of the month. Let him get over it.

Richies doing just fine, and even now, I wouldn't change things that were done in that draft.

Buddys no star, yet, and if he does become one, who cares?

We got Richie, and I'm 100% proud by that. Let's not get sucked in by so called 'experts' of the game, because, even Joffer could've written that article. Got something new Walls?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, buts its only 3 years into 2 wonderful careers

 

[the claw]

Since you seem very new to the site I will save you going back over the last few years draft responses on PRE.

If you do, you will find that Claw, Evo, Redford, Harry and some other "darksiders" were more on the mark than both the recruiters at RFC and the "brightsiders" who shouted them down at the time.

When they say things critical of some officers of the club in future, don't shout them down llike the others.

They truly care about the club.

thanks for the vote of confidence redan though i think most on pre would disagree with you.
i claim to be no expert when it comes to drafting there are others on this site who are miles better. i have a few basic rules when looking at players they dont always guide me in the right direction. believe it or not my biggest concern and passion has been list management and structure. we are still making the exact same mistakes we made when frawley was in charge or when miller first came to the club.

And Claw chose neither Butthole or Roughhead......


1-deledio
4-griffen -lewis
12 lewis-monfries am being hopeful.
after these picks im prepared to let beck do his job. as long as wallace and miller are lookking over his shoulder.

i believe ive always said im okay with tambling would have preferred franklin to him though. i think tambling will be fine. the only reason i went cold on franklin was his percieved very poor attitude. i have learnt a lesson after mitch clarke 2005 draft and his so called bad attitude. (i believe i opted for drum or hurn in this draft with pick 8) having seen plenty of both boys first hand i would have taken them with picks 4 and 8 based on talent alone.alas i allowed otherfactors to cloud my judgement. i belive i facilitated between bate monfries and lewis for pick 12 i was even contemplating wood at 12 at one stage. i had wood pencilled in at 16.my big blunder in this draft was gibson at 20 i still scratch my head at him lasting such a short time at adelaide. anyway not bad for an amateur .

 

[Phar Ace]

Bl00dy good actually Catfist!

 

[Tango]

i wanted

1.Griiffen
4.Deledio
?. Roughead
?. Lewis

 

[Harry]

The Hawks could afford to go big with their first 2 picks becasue they already had a decent midfield in place at the time - Crawford, Mitchell, Hodge, Bateman. We had the worst midfield by far and had to add to it. We had nothing at the time - Johnson, Tivendale, Rogers, an old Campbell, an unfit Coughlan...........nothing much more really. Wallace had to go with the best midfielders - he had no choice - especially after the KP we wanted (Roughead) was gone. Franklin was never gonna come to Punt Rd.

 

[evo]

This is true.

Sadly,here we are 3 years later and we still need some proper midfielders.

 

[bullus_hit]

This is true.

Sadly,here we are 3 years later and we still need some proper midfielders.

Another reason why I can't get my head around the JON selection - there's a boy running around for Melbourne who would have slotted in beautifully at Tigerland.

 

[IrockZ]

The Hawks could afford to go big with their first 2 picks becasue they already had a decent midfield in place at the time - Crawford, Mitchell, Hodge, Bateman. We had the worst midfield by far and had to add to it. We had nothing at the time - Johnson, Tivendale, Rogers, an old Campbell, an unfit Coughlan...........nothing much more really. Wallace had to go with the best midfielders - he had no choice - especially after the KP we wanted (Roughead) was gone. Franklin was never gonna come to Punt Rd.

exactly

deledio and tambling i have no problems with because they have the talent, its up to the club now

its the picks like meyer and jon who were speculative that should be getting the attention

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah I wouldn't call any of the mob of posters you mention darksiders. Just call a spade a spade. And back it by watching juniors. My beef with craw, while he does talk a lot of sense on individuals, is that he doesn't seem to be able to grasp the basic logistical contraints of putting a list together, in other words you can't have 9 Pavs and 9 Judds in your side.

The Tambling/ deledio thing, a lot of sides recruiters would have done the same thing. Have to say my little bro gollywog saw Tambling play a few times and said not to touch him because he was soft.

 

[Joshnbeks Dad]

Forget the 2004 draft. I'm waiting for someone from the 2005 or 2006 draft to stand up. Apart King who was a rookie no-one has cemented themselves in our side from these drafts. Every year I like to see at least 1 player cement themselves as a first year player. The only player from 2005 who even gets the occasional game is Matty White and he only sprints when he's been dragged! ???

 

[bowden4president]

Forget the 2004 draft. I'm waiting for someone from the 2005 or 2006 draft to stand up. Apart King who was a rookie no-one has cemented themselves in our side from these drafts. Every year I like to see at least 1 player cement themselves as a first year player. The only player from 2005 who even gets the occasional game is Matty White and he only sprints when he's been dragged! ???

Fair piont!

But i think Casserly would be there without his injury problems and Peterson has had no chance just yet given his OP!! Conners also looks like he will be i regular as soon as his fitness is where it needs to be(hope RFC is up to it :hihi)


Of more concern are Meyer and JON who are high picks who look lost out there

 

[the claw]

Yeah I wouldn't call any of the mob of posters you mention darksiders. Just call a spade a spade. And back it by watching juniors. My beef with craw, while he does talk a lot of sense on individuals, is that he doesn't seem to be able to grasp the basic logistical contraints of putting a list together, in other words you can't have 9 Pavs and 9 Judds in your side.

The Tambling/ deledio thing, a lot of sides recruiters would have done the same thing. Have to say my little bro gollywog saw Tambling play a few times and said not to touch him because he was soft.

i have to ask where have i ever stated i want 9 judds and 9 pavs.nothing could be thurther from the truth. i have to say i think it is a part of your dislike and perception of me. what i have done is state ad nauseum for 4 yrs is if you wnat a pav you get them with early picks if you want 5 judds trade for early picks. ive focused almost exclusively on kids ive lambasted going after big name players i was one of the few ctitical of us getting johnson and brown at the time of their recruiting. i have always said we must build the list to astage where we are basically a finals side utilising as many early picks as possible. whats a early pick 1st and 2nd rounders personally i would rate a third round pick as earlyish and to be treated like gold as well.

get the core in place then and only then do you chase the cream like brown. the exception to this is if you can get your hands on a proven 22 23 yo without giving away first rounders for them. polak fit this bill. in most circumstances i would sing its praises but polak was unproven after 5 yrs and he has weaknesses in his game. i didnt rate polak then and i still dont now. and i certainly dont believe in down sizing a top 10 pick and trading an earlyish pick ever. and certainly not for a 5 yr failure who was passed by all and sundry at his previous club.and certainly not when the club is such early stages of rebuild.

anyway back to 9 judds and nine pavs theoretically if you have enough early picks you could well end up with a few of these types of players. in fact i would say you are not doing your job if you dont get a quality footballer with a top 10 pick.

as i have said i think there are many on pre miles ahead of me when it comes to recruiting but i have to say my main focus has been on list structure and management. i was that concerned about it in 02 that i wrote a letter to miller. 5 or 6 yrs later im just as concerned. nothings changed.

you may not like what i have to say but please dont confuse what i say with me wanting or expecting to get 9 pavs in the one team.

 

[tigersnake]

You're being too defensive craw. It was a throwaway line. On balance I have a lot of time for your writings, you obviously watch far more non-AFL footy than I do. But our debates over the years, which I've enjoyed, have been based on where individuals fit on a cost benefit analysis in the overall list, which was my point. Sometimes we've agreed 100 per cent, sometimes not. No big deal.

 

[the claw]

You're being too defensive craw. It was a throwaway line. On balance I have a lot of time for your writings, you obviously watch far more non-AFL footy than I do. But our debates over the years, which I've enjoyed, have been based on where individuals fit on a cost benefit analysis in the overall list, which was my point. Sometimes we've agreed 100 per cent, sometimes not. No big deal.

yeah with a bit of hindsight i think your right im beiing way to defensive. i have enjoyed debating footy with you ive even learnt one or to things.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Forget the 2004 draft. I'm waiting for someone from the 2005 or 2006 draft to stand up. Apart King who was a rookie no-one has cemented themselves in our side from these drafts. Every year I like to see at least 1 player cement themselves as a first year player. The only player from 2005 who even gets the occasional game is Matty White and he only sprints when he's been dragged! ???

2005 has been a disappointment thus far, but I think Shane Edwards is a 2006 draftee who is really showing something.

 

[Tango]

the problem with bling and lids is i dont see either of them as inside mids - which is exactly what we needed