Fiora + Ottens, or Simmo + Patto?

[benny_furs]

fwiw I agree with claw's posts in this thread.

If Patto comes on then I won't mind the Meyer mistake because we'll have a tall bloke with great leadership/character who will play through "our window" - something Ottens was never going to achieve.

Patto may not make it, but I would rather have a 50% chance on a ruck/KPP in our window of opportunity than have a 100% good (but inconsistent) player who will never directly help us win a Grand Final.

The best way for us to win a premiership was to trade away Brad Ottens for picks. So far we've failed one pick and the other is 50/50 - so correct process, sketchy execution.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

simmo left freo for two reasons he wanted to come home for family. and two he was disgruntled they tried to play him as a key forward when his best footy was clearly as a ruckman. wallace made the same mistake in simmos first yr after promising he would play ruck.

Exactly, and Simmo had to play froward because their was a better ruck ahead of him at Freo, which their would have been at the Tigers too if Otto had stayed.

But I agree with your original point that's it's a mute point now, what's done is done, it was a good trade at the time let down by the drafting. How different 04 might have been if we'd had a better funded recruiting department at the time.

 

[mb64]

fwiw I agree with claw's posts in this thread.

If Patto comes on then I won't mind the Meyer mistake because we'll have a tall bloke with great leadership/character who will play through "our window" - something Ottens was never going to achieve.

Patto may not make it, but I would rather have a 50% chance on a ruck/KPP in our window of opportunity than have a 100% good (but inconsistent) player who will never directly help us win a Grand Final.

The best way for us to win a premiership was to trade away Brad Ottens for picks. So far we've failed one pick and the other is 50/50 - so correct process, sketchy execution.

Well summed up

 

[tigertim]

Where is the "neither" option?

Anyway, I would say that Simmonds has been of similar value to us (2005-2008) as Ottens was (99-2004). Fiora, in games tally wise, has it on Patto. From an output value they both have a similar value........

 

[doherz]

...and we got nothing out of meyer and pattison....

To say that Patto has had no output is a far too harsh. Patto held his own in 2007 when Simmo was out, learnt a hell of a lot and still continues to improve every week. He was a shining light last year in what was a very bleak year. A strong competitor and gives his all at each contest.

To say that RFC has had no output from Patto is to condemn your comments to the realm of mediocrity, as they fall well short of the mark. You have said yourself that talls take a long time to develop and the best of PAtto is yet to come. Claw - ye of little faith and short memory.

 

[doherz]

its funny how we skew things.or make excuses.

ottens was a trade for picks 12 and 16 at the time we werent happy with these picks. have we done well with these picks? well the answer is a resounding no.
the one good thing about getting these picks was we went down a new and correct process even though we got the picks wrong.

simmonds was part of a 3 way player trade. if the ottens deal did not happen we would have still taken simmnds in the psd where we were originally going to take him. in trade or psd we got simmo for nothing in trading simmo we kept our no1 psd pick and used it on knobel.

now ottens a disgruntled underperforming ruckman for picks 12 and 16 on these plain terms we did okay the process people. it wouls have been nice to get another top 10 pick.

to look at player performance since the deal and player development in our case we lost on it. should we do it again under the same circumstances? a resounding yes, once again the processes people.
no one would be complaining if we had picked 2 decent long term players with those picks. we got the process right but the fine detail (recruiting) wrong. we should be going thru the same process when possible but fixing the fine detail which im hoping we have with the axing of miller and with jackson and cameron on board.

anyway thats my look on it right or wrong.

So putting it that way equates to Richo being offered as trade bait then?

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Simmo & Patto thanks.

What did we lose?

An a average medium who struggles in a good team, and a good tall who was going to send the club broke if he remained and didn't want to stay anyway.

What did we gain?

A mature tall who has selflessly led our rucks for the last 4 years, except for injury, and a keen hardworking tall whose best is still ahead of him.

Long term, even putting Meyer to the side, it was a a very good deal.

I'm with Phanto on this one. If nothing else it allowed us to get rid of Fiora, who should never have been taken with pick #3, but that was what happened. It's rather scary to think how bad we would have been in the ruck without Simmonds.

 

[the claw]

To say that Patto has had no output is a far too harsh. Patto held his own in 2007 when Simmo was out, learnt a hell of a lot and still continues to improve every week. He was a shining light last year in what was a very bleak year. A strong competitor and gives his all at each contest.

To say that RFC has had no output from Patto is to condemn your comments to the realm of mediocrity, as they fall well short of the mark. You have said yourself that talls take a long time to develop and the best of PAtto is yet to come. Claw - ye of little faith and short memory.

to put it nicely a dud is a dud is a dud. pattison is a dud. his onfield impact has been minimal.in fact most of the ime he goes onball we get smashed.

So putting it that way equates to Richo being offered as trade bait then?

sheesh where does this come from. nowhere in that post does it suggest we trade richo. but i can tell ya now if we could have got picks 12 and 16 for richo this trade period he big lug would have been of quicker than a brides nightie.

 

[Tigerbob]

I chose the Simmo and Patto option only because of Simmonds.

Fiora is next to useless and Ottens is still overrated and been helped being disguised by a good outfit.

Simmonds is a very good ruckman although getting older now, he has held our ruck division by himself for so long and was a contender for All Australian selection.

Patto is a non impact for me.

 

[Ty Esler]

The biggest problem with the Ottens trade is that is in retrospect it was a bad draft year. Of the players picked between pick 8 and 20: - 3 have already been traded (Meeson, Thompson, Wood) another 4 delisted (Egan, Willits, McQualter and Myer) and of the rest only Matthew Bate really looks like being an above average player. The next standout was Nathan Van Berlo at pick 24

If we had drafted Monfries or Wood it would have a bonus for PRE posters who enjoy criticising soft underachievers.

Comparing Simmons and Ottens is a wash for me, and watching Fiora duck his head for another club is great. I would much rather Patto for his limitations

 

[Broadsword95]

its funny how we skew things.or make excuses.

ottens was a trade for picks 12 and 16 at the time we werent happy with these picks. have we done well with these picks? well the answer is a resounding no.
the one good thing about getting these picks was we went down a new and correct process even though we got the picks wrong.

simmonds was part of a 3 way player trade. if the ottens deal did not happen we would have still taken simmnds in the psd where we were originally going to take him. in trade or psd we got simmo for nothing in trading simmo we kept our no1 psd pick and used it on knobel.

now ottens a disgruntled underperforming ruckman for picks 12 and 16 on these plain terms we did okay the process people. it wouls have been nice to get another top 10 pick.

to look at player performance since the deal and player development in our case we lost on it. should we do it again under the same circumstances? a resounding yes, once again the processes people.
no one would be complaining if we had picked 2 decent long term players with those picks. we got the process right but the fine detail (recruiting) wrong. we should be going thru the same process when possible but fixing the fine detail which im hoping we have with the axing of miller and with jackson and cameron on board.

anyway thats my look on it right or wrong.

I'd agree with this. The process was fine, and while we can always bicker over what picks we might have been able to secure, having 12 and 16 should really guarantee a club one good long term player. Time will tell if we found this in Pattison. Of course many people, including myself, have their doubts on this.

I would also say that Ottens is overrated, and is lucky to find himself in a very very talented side. He was also a negative influence on the team with his attitude, and I don't mind giving a player the flick for that.

Meyer has had a bad run with injuries, and while I don't profess to know all that much about him, I hear he was a great kick and had top disposal. Had he stayed fit and bulked up, those are just the sort of players we need. He is a disappointment because he promised a lot.

That leads me then to the point that even though I agree with you, I think that you've put yourself in a very easy and defendable position. It's easy to say we got the process right and messed up on recruiting, especially in hindsight 4 years down the line (usually our problem is the process anyway, so I appreciate you being positive about this aspect). Some recruits will always fail...FACT. To say that Patto has is premature; to target Meyer for all his problems is hard line but I think harsh. They addressed a list need in Patto and recruited a great kick in Meyer, two areas you highlight often.

I think it would be easy for all posters to sit back after 4 years and criticize the recruiting of players that have either failed or yet to mature, especially when they had no input themselves.

You're opinion has solid foundations, but I won't congratulate you for it.

 

[the claw]

I'd agree with this. The process was fine, and while we can always bicker over what picks we might have been able to secure, having 12 and 16 should really guarantee a club one good long term player. Time will tell if we found this in Pattison. Of course many people, including myself, have their doubts on this.

I would also say that Ottens is overrated, and is lucky to find himself in a very very talented side. He was also a negative influence on the team with his attitude, and I don't mind giving a player the flick for that.

Meyer has had a bad run with injuries, and while I don't profess to know all that much about him, I hear he was a great kick and had top disposal. Had he stayed fit and bulked up, those are just the sort of players we need. He is a disappointment because he promised a lot.

That leads me then to the point that even though I agree with you, I think that you've put yourself in a very easy and defendable position. It's easy to say we got the process right and messed up on recruiting, especially in hindsight 4 years down the line (usually our problem is the process anyway, so I appreciate you being positive about this aspect). Some recruits will always fail...FACT. To say that Patto has is premature; to target Meyer for all his problems is hard line but I think harsh. They addressed a list need in Patto and recruited a great kick in Meyer, two areas you highlight often.

I think it would be easy for all posters to sit back after 4 years and criticize the recruiting of players that have either failed or yet to mature, especially when they had no input themselves.

You're opinion has solid foundations, but I won't congratulate you for it.

hmm i think you will find me pretty vocal at the time of each draft i can assure you i was vocal at the time of the 2004 draft.
and it is an easy position to adopt when commenting on processes and recruiting its easy because its correct and done without hindsight the processes in particular i have debated long and hard over the yrs. i was very critical of the jon selection in 2005 no hindsight required. i was terribly critical of downgrading pick 8 in 2006 i was critical of the polak brown and johnson trades at the time they happened, please dont preaach the old bug bear hindsight to me. because i taker a stand i spend many hours on this site defending my stance.
processes hey well the process that has been ignored again is trading draft picks instead of trading into them. ive bemoaned the lack of talls for so long now i allmost cant be bothered anymore ive even shown how to go about building a well rounded list and i continually have to defend my stance. the only thing that shuts the fools up is being proven right and you have the temerity to call it hindsight .
2003 i called for millers head i said what will happen before it happened and all i copped was grief, before miller it was beck what dumbfounds me is idiots actually defend these people. i used to bemoan the way we used the rookie list i still do. oh man i could go on and on i called krakouer a dud in 2003 and had to defend my stance for 4 yrs because blind fools refused to open their eyes. what is it with rfc supporters.ive called pattison and others ive already said 20 of the current list have to go that does not include somee borderline types. but most of all i have criticised the processes. we are where we are because we make the same mistakes over and over we plug a few holes but do nothing about setting in stone some proesses that will ensure a proper rebuild.

ah why go on it would take forever. but just on pattison and meyer. in 2004 i said patto was taken to early because of his many deficiencies. but even with this i held of criticiseing him other than to point out his deficiencies,but after 4 yrs i dont need to see him anymore pick 16 or 100 he has to many deficiencies.

meyer was not a claw selection in 2004. i had 2 big issues with him. 1 he could never win enough of the footy he was a flanker and to me he would always be a flanker. 2 his body type /size he looked to be one who would struggle to bulk up to a level where he could compete on a level footing on both i have been proven correct. for me at 12 that yr there was safer more rounded types available hence my criticism. and i preach we take well rounded players at every pick if possible with an emphasis on kicking and body type. anyway enough of a rant just 4 delistings from the list proper this yr will see me cut all ties with this rabble footy club im sure that will make many happy.

 

[Disco08]

patto was taken to early because of his many deficiencies. but even with this i held of criticiseing him other than to point out his deficiencies,but after 4 yrs i dont need to see him anymore pick 16 or 100 he has to many deficiencies.

if still available pattison at 36 if not perhaps eckerman.

Surprised you'd take a guy with so many glaring deficiencies with a 3rd rounder claw.

meyer was not a claw selection in 2004. i had 2 big issues with him. 1 he could never win enough of the footy he was a flanker and to me he would always be a flanker. 2 his body type /size he looked to be one who would struggle to bulk up to a level where he could compete on a level footing on both i have been proven correct

the first 3 picks are excellent lets hope we have some people running the show who can develop them properly.

 

[the claw]

Surprised you'd take a guy with so many glaring deficiencies with a 3rd rounder claw.

3rd round is a world removed from pick 16. and i will admit i hadnt seen a hell of a lot of patto prior to the draft but what i had seen had alarm bells going.in fact in some debates i said he was okay at 20 being a tall but wood a genuine ruckman should have been taken at 16. i still think that.

i will say again meyer was not a claw selection at 12 if you are interested i had bate and monfriesat 12 16 wood 20 gibson. was happy with meyer mainly because of his strengths kicking etc but i did not consider him a well rounded player.

mate i rated sampi a very good footballer i still say hes the most talented junior i have seen but i didnt push to take him in the 01 draft. gibson lasted one yr at adelaide iknew him to be a risk but i felt talls were important to take at 20 i thought him the best left. i liked the look of mcguane at 36 another tall and was also happy with us taking hin there he did however break a strong rule of mine that being his kicking skills. polo at 20 i ignored why because of his kicking skills go figure i take one and leave one both with the same obvious deficiency i suppose the difference being one met a need and was later in the draft..polo imo was always going to slip or go later in that draft..
sheesh i had lewis pencilled in at 4 at one stage. totally loved franklin but was convinced his attitude was stuffed did the same thing with mitch clarke i learnt a lesson finally after that. eckerman i really liked and was hoping to get him at 36 or 52. he went at 51 lucky for us.
yeah i get a few wrong but im an amateur im not paid to do the job. i like to think ive been pretty consistant as far as getting picks right(mostly luck) and sticking to my processes and criteria.if i had a frction of the info most of the bozos have i reckon i could do a hell of a lot better than a lot of them

 

[Disco08]

i will say again meyer was not a claw selection at 12 if you are interested i had bate and monfriesat 12 16 wood 20 gibson. was happy with meyer mainly because of his strengths kicking etc but i did not consider him a well rounded player.

Please. You can't tell me you thought using pick 12 on a player who was not well rounded was an excellent choice.

 

[the claw]

Please. You can't tell me you thought using pick 12 on a player who was not well rounded was an excellent choice.

like i said he was not a claw selection was not to dismayed at getting him in fact was happy to get him. i did think he had upside.instead of not well rounded how about had some deficiencies that were a worry. not all players are well rounded in fact most have weaknesses of one kind or another its then a matter of judging if their weaknesses are chronic. the simple fact is i had others pencilled in in front of meyer.just like i was not upset at tambling and have said i was happy to get him.

 

[Talon]

I'd agree with this. The process was fine, and while we can always bicker over what picks we might have been able to secure, having 12 and 16 should really guarantee a club one good long term player. Time will tell if we found this in Pattison. Of course many people, including myself, have their doubts on this.

I would also say that Ottens is overrated, and is lucky to find himself in a very very talented side. He was also a negative influence on the team with his attitude, and I don't mind giving a player the flick for that.

Meyer has had a bad run with injuries, and while I don't profess to know all that much about him, I hear he was a great kick and had top disposal. Had he stayed fit and bulked up, those are just the sort of players we need. He is a disappointment because he promised a lot.

That leads me then to the point that even though I agree with you, I think that you've put yourself in a very easy and defendable position. It's easy to say we got the process right and messed up on recruiting, especially in hindsight 4 years down the line (usually our problem is the process anyway, so I appreciate you being positive about this aspect). Some recruits will always fail...FACT. To say that Patto has is premature; to target Meyer for all his problems is hard line but I think harsh. They addressed a list need in Patto and recruited a great kick in Meyer, two areas you highlight often.

I think it would be easy for all posters to sit back after 4 years and criticize the recruiting of players that have either failed or yet to mature, especially when they had no input themselves.

You're opinion has solid foundations, but I won't congratulate you for it.

As someone who has had many a agreement and argument with the Claw over the years, I can honestly say he has not had the use of hindsight in his ideas, because he has had these thoughts for many years, he stands by his comments and most of the time is proven right, throwing up hindsight as defence to his way of thinking is closing your eyes to the real issues and is only going to show the shallowness of your argument!

 

[Broadsword95]

As someone who has had many a agreement and argument with the Claw over the years, I can honestly say he has not had the use of hindsight in his ideas, because he has had these thoughts for many years, he stands by his comments and most of the time is proven right, throwing up hindsight as defence to his way of thinking is closing your eyes to the real issues and is only going to show the shallowness of your argument!

Authorized by the Claw Government, Canberra.
Spoken by Talon after first checking with Claw.


Thanks Claw. :

 

[the claw]

Authorized by the Claw Government, Canberra.
Spoken by Talon after first checking with Claw.


Thanks Claw. :

claws government canberra lol.it would be good. i might not survive it but it would be fun.

i can assure you talon and my good self are fierce rivals in most things, but when it comes to the rabble football club known as the tigers we pretty much agree.
ha claws government i sure would shove it up all sorts.