-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
that seems a little too simplistic Mojo my friend.... Yes in hindsight its very easy to say we should have taken Franklin, Clarke, Wood etc...but in reality at the time by gettin say Tambling we thought we had got the two best young midfielders of that 04 draft - most agreed - and we were desperate for quick talented midfielders to replace the likes of Campbell etc. Then there are the questions like why didnt the dogs and hawks take Franklin at picks 2 and 3..etc....its because there are no clear standouts as to who will become an elite player. Buddy was talented but a total menace as a junior....hawks have got lucky. However when i look at the list you made of:
1 Deledio
2 Cotchin
4 Tambling
8 JON
12 Meyer
13 Riewoldt
16 Pattison
19 Rance
20 Polo
24 Hughes
26 Edwards
I see upto 7 or 8 players who have a major chance at becoming excellent servants fo the RFC.... I think Meyer and JON are the most speculative and Hughes needs more application - but is young, talented and a good size.
In the next 10 years Deledio, Cotchin, Tambling, Polo, Edwards, Pattison, Rance, JR all seem good chances to be prominant players in our next era of success and Deledio, Cotchin and possible Tambling the chance at being elite.
To be honest the RFC was in a horrible state before Wallace got there. Early picks used on Schulz, Gilmour, Roach, Fiora, Poyas etc and picking up the likes of Marsh, Weller, Morrison, Fletcher, Fleming, Nichols, Houlihan and Sziller is what has set this club back so far....
Yes Wallace took Graham and Bowden...Both had very good years the years they played and cost us nothing less than a pick in the 50's and 60's....but yes Kingsley was a failure....If anything i think Wallace has been better than average in recruiting since he has been there.
1 Deledio
2 Cotchin
4 Tambling
8 JON
12 Meyer
13 Riewoldt
16 Pattison
19 Rance
20 Polo
24 Hughes
26 Edwards
I see upto 7 or 8 players who have a major chance at becoming excellent servants fo the RFC.... I think Meyer and JON are the most speculative and Hughes needs more application - but is young, talented and a good size.
In the next 10 years Deledio, Cotchin, Tambling, Polo, Edwards, Pattison, Rance, JR all seem good chances to be prominant players in our next era of success and Deledio, Cotchin and possible Tambling the chance at being elite.
To be honest the RFC was in a horrible state before Wallace got there. Early picks used on Schulz, Gilmour, Roach, Fiora, Poyas etc and picking up the likes of Marsh, Weller, Morrison, Fletcher, Fleming, Nichols, Houlihan and Sziller is what has set this club back so far....
Yes Wallace took Graham and Bowden...Both had very good years the years they played and cost us nothing less than a pick in the 50's and 60's....but yes Kingsley was a failure....If anything i think Wallace has been better than average in recruiting since he has been there.
tha8ball said:
Not sure you read my post very closely. I never said Tambling was an error. I said I would have taken Franklin and said why but had no problem with the drafting of Tambling as he was an elite kid. But with the trading of Ottens and the aging spine and the already drafted Deledio to add to the acquiring of Brown and Johnson and my rating of Franklin I would have taken him. I also said I would have taken Woods at 12 because I obviously rated him higher than Meyer and rate ruckmen and KP players.
I then moved along to what was then drafted that year and how that would impact my thoughts for 2005 and 6 and 7 and so forth. But the 2004 draft and year 1 of the 5 year plan and with the ruckman/forward tyraded it made snse to have a good long hard think about the ruck and spine. Tambling was taken, fair enough. Meyer was taken next. JON was taken the next year, seemed odd really with what happened in 2004 draft. 2007 Mcmahon is traded for. Seemed not quite right with the decisions made previously and that term thrown around a lot, list management.. Clubs stocked up on talls in 2006.
I rarely use the term "should" when drafting as its easy to say things in hindsight. As for listing who will make it and who wont. Not sure I am as optimistic as you are. Time will tell. The strike rate for top 20 picks doing okay when they are runners is pretty high. That does not mean you have to use all your top 10 picks on them when you do get them or trading them away to pick up a ready made small. Then after you have done that think about taking a tall as the 2nd or 3rd thought and throw your hands up in the air when the talls and rucks on the list get injured as they near 30 and beyond.
Dont really want to talk about the Hawks or Franklin really as it gets bogged down. They have spread the risk and options by drafting rucks and talls in multiple drafts and taking them early when they had a real choice what they wanted to do. They have not recycled many players and made their first genuine trade for 1 this year with Dew to fill in a whole they see after picking the eyes out of the last few drafts and trying their hardest to acquire more picks. I dont eqaute that to getting "lucky" on Franklin or what Richmond have done in comparison.
If I guessed that Mojo was your smarter and more literate twin brother, would I win the kewpie doll?the claw said:
Fair dinkum Claw you really should stop picking Mojo's information apart and reprinting it without capitals so you can try and claim it as your own work.
<
Bleed for Your Team Mates or Just a Job?
|
Centenary Year....... Time for another Immortal and new Hall-of-Famers?
>