Jayden Short

[tigerman]

I look at it this way, are we a better side this year, i'm sure we are. We have had more injuries this year, Rioli, Prestia have missed most of the season and Houli half of the season and for mine we are a better side. Shorty with his elite disposal has to be major reason why we are a better side.

He has kept his place in the side ahead of B Ellis, McIntosh and Jack G, so he's rising in the pecking order. Not sure what he's worth contract wise, but i can't see a long term replacement for him at the club other than maybe Naish.

 

[Baron Samedi]

IMO if things play out in certain ways, ie he asks too much and that means squeezing more important players out, that isn't letting him walk, and it's not idiotic.

so you can't name anyone who can hit long range targets with precision from HB.

Ellis plays safe.
Houli blasts.
Vlastuin doesn't have Shorty's extra five yards.

yep, that's right - we have no one else who can do it. so we pay slightly overs. a proposition he will accept, even if the likes of NM get desperate, because he loves playing for richmond. end of story, despite some fans' strange misgivings.

 

[year of the tiger]

so you can't name anyone who can hit long range targets with precision from HB.

Ellis plays safe.
Houli blasts.
Vlastuin doesn't have Shorty's extra five yards.

yep, that's right - we have no one else who can do it. so we pay slightly overs. a proposition he will accept, even if the likes of NM get desperate, because he loves playing for richmond. end of story, despite some fans' strange misgivings.

Houli is a lovely kick - so there’s one but he is in his twilight.

Agree don’t mind if we play slightly overs for Shorty but as TM says - if he wants too much then we would survive without him.

We have plenty of good young fast players coming though so no one can ransom the club - I also agree Baron -

Shorty is playing career best footy and is holding his own within the best 22 but I think there are another 10 to 15 players in the team that have also stepped up and are in career best form. I don’t want to lose shorty but I don’t want to throw the kitchen sink at him till he is a proven finals performer.

 

[BillyJean17]

so you can't name anyone who can hit long range targets with precision from HB.

Ellis plays safe.
Houli blasts.
Vlastuin doesn't have Shorty's extra five yards.

yep, that's right - we have no one else who can do it. so we pay slightly overs. a proposition he will accept, even if the likes of NM get desperate, because he loves playing for richmond. end of story, despite some fans' strange misgivings.

Precisely , unbelievable how so many are deluded that his teammates can contribute what he does Grimes , Ellis vlas are nowhere near as clinical in ,auncbing off hb , nowhere near
With the average salary at 370 , I would expect our offer is 370-400 that’s close enough to some crazy offers at non contender clubs , < 300 is well under his worth

 

[tigerman]

Just another thought on Shorty, he was on the Rookie list for two years on very basic money. It wouldn't hurt to pay him a small amount of overs as he would be down quite a few K on players from his draft year.

 

[mad_tiggy911]

Shorty's worth 400-500k.

Maybe he wants an extra year?

Hoping a deal can be done around 400k for 3 years.

 

[spook]

Jayden Short knows the score.

"I just love playing with the boys, they make my job easy out there.

“I’ve got some great players around me... they look after me. Just as I try to help them with my offense, they help me out with their defence, which is unbelievable...”

I saw a snippet of Bob Murphy's show with Nat Fyfe. Bob mentioned 'the half-back role', Fyfe scoffed and said, "Pfft. My brother could play the half-back role." (I don't think Nat rates his brother as as footballer.)

The offensive half-back role is the easiest one on the ground. That's why they give it to juniors (Short, Witherden, Bonnor), Irishmen (Tuohy, McKenna, Hanley) or blokes who can kick but can't get a kick anywhere else (Suckling, Duryea, Crozier, Seedsman, Hurn, the Lonies). Shorty's role is easier than most because he barely has to worry about defending or contesting, just receiving and delivering the ball.

I see 'metres gained' being constantly cited. It is a misleading stat weighted towards blokes who run the ball out of defence and kick long. Short gets 200+ metres gained every match (plus 4-5 disposals) just by playing on from kick-ins. What about 'metres regained'? In the Geelong game, for example, there's a passage of play in which Short is in a contest on our offensive 50, on the boundary, southern side, Punt Rd end. The ball goes towards our hotspot 30 out from goal. Sheds and Conca are both there but Geelong win the ball and work it down the ground. They get it to within 15 metres of their own goal when guess who wins it back? Sheds, having run 130 metres-plus. He handballs to Conca, who has run a similar distance. Conca runs his 15 and kicks 45 metres to Short on the wing. Short runs 20 and kicks 50. So Short is credited with 70 metres gained, Conca 60 and Edwards zero, because he handballed sideways. If this does not convince you what a flawed stat metres gained is, I give up. In real terms, Conca regained 190 metres, Edwards 130 and Short 70 (or 110 if you want to credit him for jogging to the wing to receive the pass).

Short is doing a good job and is improving. He is averaging 20 disposals a game this year, 5.5 of which are contested (5.4 of which would be loose-ball gets). Of the other 14.5, 4.5 come from uncontested marks (switches), another 4 or so from playing on from a kick-in, and the rest would be handball receives, etc. That doesn't make him a star, it makes him a role player. His role is to kick it when the others give it to him, and he's doing a good job of it.

I wouldn't put him on the table, but talk that no one else can do what he does and we need to pay him overs is ridiculous. You don't pay overs to anyone except those you are luring from other clubs - and only then because you have to (Caddy and Nank massive bargains salary-wise, b-t-dubs). Cotchin, Martin, Rance and Riewoldt all took unders. So should Short.

Menadue apparently.

Despite a consistent inability to translate his VFL form to AFL.

Menadue has never been coddled in the junior half-back role. He's asked to play wing or half-forward, which are much harder. Give him those 15 easy touches a week and he'll get 20+. And kick with just as much penetration as Short, while running harder, faster, and further. Not yet, but he's not far off. Next year, no worries. But we expect more from Connor. We'll only give him the half-back role if he fails everywhere else (he won't).

Naish is coming along nicely in the role. He's just as good a kick as Short and has the added bonus of being competitive in the air. He's not there yet, but he'll get there.

Leysy and I have banged on about giving Shai a shot at it, but like Connor, they want more from Shai. So they're both playing midfield in the twos. (Six clearances to Connor yesterday.)

We'll keep Short. But we won't pay him overs. Clubs will enquire. They might offer him $100k more than we do, but they won't offer us much in terms of picks. Crozier went for pick 40. I'd be surprised if anyone offered much more than that.

 

[tigerlove]

I think he is the type of player who isn't that hard to replace, especially in comparison to many other players on our list, others seem to think he's irreplaceable. cie la vie. we'll see.

I think his type is very hard to replace. Long penetrating and accurate kick on both sides of his body, quick, able to break the lines and composed. We've been trying players for this type of position for ages. The closest we've managed is maybe Houli but he has nowhere the disposal skill Short has. I really can't see us letting him go. Is very important for our balance and why he's been playing substantial game time of late.

 

[tigersnake]

so you can't name anyone who can hit long range targets with precision from HB.

Ellis plays safe.
Houli blasts.
Vlastuin doesn't have Shorty's extra five yards.

yep, that's right - we have no one else who can do it. so we pay slightly overs. a proposition he will accept, even if the likes of NM get desperate, because he loves playing for richmond. end of story, despite some fans' strange misgivings.

Shorty does a lot of blasting. That is not a criticism, I love it and it suits our game style beautifully. I love a 60m low trajectory blast.

I think he is good, but much more replaceable than other players who they'll come for, others think he's great and irreplaceable. No worries. We'll see.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Jayden Short knows the score.

"I just love playing with the boys, they make my job easy out there.

“I’ve got some great players around me... they look after me. Just as I try to help them with my offense, they help me out with their defence, which is unbelievable...”

I saw a snippet of Bob Murphy's show with Nat Fyfe. Bob mentioned 'the half-back role', Fyfe scoffed and said, "Pfft. My brother could play the half-back role." (I don't think Nat rates his brother as as footballer.)

The offensive half-back role is the easiest one on the ground. That's why they give it to juniors (Short, Witherden, Bonnor), Irishmen (Tuohy, McKenna, Hanley) or blokes who can kick but can't get a kick anywhere else (Suckling, Duryea, Crozier, Seedsman, Hurn, the Lonies). Shorty's role is easier than most because he barely has to worry about defending or contesting, just receiving and delivering the ball.

I see 'metres gained' being constantly cited. It is a misleading stat weighted towards blokes who run the ball out of defence and kick long. Short gets 200+ metres gained every match (plus 4-5 disposals) just by playing on from kick-ins. What about 'metres regained'? In the Geelong game, for example, there's a passage of play in which Short is in a contest on our offensive 50, on the boundary, southern side, Punt Rd end. The ball goes towards our hotspot 30 out from goal. Sheds and Conca are both there but Geelong win the ball and work it down the ground. They get it to within 15 metres of their own goal when guess who wins it back? Sheds, having run 130 metres-plus. He handballs to Conca, who has run a similar distance. Conca runs his 15 and kicks 45 metres to Short on the wing. Short runs 20 and kicks 50. So Short is credited with 70 metres gained, Conca 60 and Edwards zero, because he handballed sideways. If this does not convince you what a flawed stat metres gained is, I give up. In real terms, Conca regained 190 metres, Edwards 130 and Short 70 (or 110 if you want to credit him for jogging to the wing to receive the pass).

Short is doing a good job and is improving. He is averaging 20 disposals a game this year, 5.5 of which are contested (5.4 of which would be loose-ball gets). Of the other 14.5, 4.5 come from uncontested marks (switches), another 4 or so from playing on from a kick-in, and the rest would be handball receives, etc. That doesn't make him a star, it makes him a role player. His role is to kick it when the others give it to him, and he's doing a good job of it.

I wouldn't put him on the table, but talk that no one else can do what he does and we need to pay him overs is ridiculous. You don't pay overs to anyone except those you are luring from other clubs - and only then because you have to (Caddy and Nank massive bargains salary-wise, b-t-dubs). Cotchin, Martin, Rance and Riewoldt all took unders. So should Short.
Menadue has never been coddled in the junior half-back role. He's asked to play wing or half-forward, which are much harder. Give him those 15 easy touches a week and he'll get 20+. And kick with just as much penetration as Short, while running harder, faster, and further. Not yet, but he's not far off. Next year, no worries. But we expect more from Connor. We'll only give him the half-back role if he fails everywhere else (he won't).

Naish is coming along nicely in the role. He's just as good a kick as Short and has the added bonus of being competitive in the air. He's not there yet, but he'll get there.

Leysy and I have banged on about giving Shai a shot at it, but like Connor, they want more from Shai. So they're both playing midfield in the twos. (Six clearances to Connor yesterday.)

We'll keep Short. But we won't pay him overs. Clubs will enquire. They might offer him $100k more than we do, but they won't offer us much in terms of picks. Crozier went for pick 40. I'd be surprised if anyone offered much more than that.

You are still trying to shoehorn skills into Short that he doesn’t need to have. Why do you keep bringing up CP? Short is improving in that area but it doesn’t need to be his bread and butter.

You also chronically undervalue the quarterback role. Short has agility, poise, length and precision. Tick, tick, tick and tick for a handball receive type off half back.

Our much vaunted turnover game is vulnerable to oppo centre clearances. Short is critical in finishing off the good work of a defensive unit that routinely wins the ball back. He can instantly turn defence into attack.

Finally, Menadue? Come on man. Short well ahead.

 

[Scoop]

Menadue apparently.

Despite a consistent inability to translate his VFL form to AFL.

Indeed. Not being given a go there already is a fair sign that the club doesn't have the skill set in him. Pretty sure he has played some VFL footy there in the past. For little impact.

I think his type is very hard to replace. Long penetrating and accurate kick on both sides of his body, quick, able to break the lines and composed. We've been trying players for this type of position for ages. The closest we've managed is maybe Houli but he has nowhere the disposal skill Short has. I really can't see us letting him go. Is very important for our balance and why he's been playing substantial game time of late.

Indeed. Looking for years finding it and then letting it walk doesn't add up or sound like sound list management.

Jayden Short knows the score.

"I just love playing with the boys, they make my job easy out there.

“I’ve got some great players around me... they look after me. Just as I try to help them with my offense, they help me out with their defence, which is unbelievable...”

I saw a snippet of Bob Murphy's show with Nat Fyfe. Bob mentioned 'the half-back role', Fyfe scoffed and said, "Pfft. My brother could play the half-back role." (I don't think Nat rates his brother as as footballer.)

The offensive half-back role is the easiest one on the ground. That's why they give it to juniors (Short, Witherden, Bonnor), Irishmen (Tuohy, McKenna, Hanley) or blokes who can kick but can't get a kick anywhere else (Suckling, Duryea, Crozier, Seedsman, Hurn, the Lonies). Shorty's role is easier than most because he barely has to worry about defending or contesting, just receiving and delivering the ball.

I see 'metres gained' being constantly cited. It is a misleading stat weighted towards blokes who run the ball out of defence and kick long. Short gets 200+ metres gained every match (plus 4-5 disposals) just by playing on from kick-ins. What about 'metres regained'? In the Geelong game, for example, there's a passage of play in which Short is in a contest on our offensive 50, on the boundary, southern side, Punt Rd end. The ball goes towards our hotspot 30 out from goal. Sheds and Conca are both there but Geelong win the ball and work it down the ground. They get it to within 15 metres of their own goal when guess who wins it back? Sheds, having run 130 metres-plus. He handballs to Conca, who has run a similar distance. Conca runs his 15 and kicks 45 metres to Short on the wing. Short runs 20 and kicks 50. So Short is credited with 70 metres gained, Conca 60 and Edwards zero, because he handballed sideways. If this does not convince you what a flawed stat metres gained is, I give up. In real terms, Conca regained 190 metres, Edwards 130 and Short 70 (or 110 if you want to credit him for jogging to the wing to receive the pass).

Short is doing a good job and is improving. He is averaging 20 disposals a game this year, 5.5 of which are contested (5.4 of which would be loose-ball gets). Of the other 14.5, 4.5 come from uncontested marks (switches), another 4 or so from playing on from a kick-in, and the rest would be handball receives, etc. That doesn't make him a star, it makes him a role player. His role is to kick it when the others give it to him, and he's doing a good job of it.

I wouldn't put him on the table, but talk that no one else can do what he does and we need to pay him overs is ridiculous. You don't pay overs to anyone except those you are luring from other clubs - and only then because you have to (Caddy and Nank massive bargains salary-wise, b-t-dubs). Cotchin, Martin, Rance and Riewoldt all took unders. So should Short.
Menadue has never been coddled in the junior half-back role. He's asked to play wing or half-forward, which are much harder. Give him those 15 easy touches a week and he'll get 20+. And kick with just as much penetration as Short, while running harder, faster, and further. Not yet, but he's not far off. Next year, no worries. But we expect more from Connor. We'll only give him the half-back role if he fails everywhere else (he won't).

Naish is coming along nicely in the role. He's just as good a kick as Short and has the added bonus of being competitive in the air. He's not there yet, but he'll get there.

Leysy and I have banged on about giving Shai a shot at it, but like Connor, they want more from Shai. So they're both playing midfield in the twos. (Six clearances to Connor yesterday.)

We'll keep Short. But we won't pay him overs. Clubs will enquire. They might offer him $100k more than we do, but they won't offer us much in terms of picks. Crozier went for pick 40. I'd be surprised if anyone offered much more than that.

Inventing a stat to disapprove another is a fair old stretch Spooker.

Using super generic football speak 101 to disapprove his role as well seems somewhat stretching it as well.

Nathan Wilson was worth Freo's second rounder this year. So a pick under 25 plus 57 for Wilson and 71. Short will fetch that easily. Crozier came with zero form or claims. Sam Murray got a second rounder out of the NEAFL.

The types you've listed leave out types like Jason Johansien, Andrew McGrath, Zac Williams, Jake Lloyd, Rory Laird, Kade Simpson who play the same role. Fair old bunch that would walk into any side.

We traded two picks inside 25 to get Yarran. We value the role.

 

[mrposhman]

We've been searching for someone like Shorty for a long time, hence why we traded so much for Yarran. We won't be stupid and trading out Shorty for junk picks.

 

[jb03]

IMO if things play out in certain ways, ie he asks too much and that means squeezing more important players out, that isn't letting him walk, and it's not idiotic.

Do you think Shorty is more valuable than Conca?

 

[leon]

They're quite different kinds of player: an inside mid cf. to running HBF line-breaker/kicker. But I know who is the valuable kick. Conca is a far superior CB player though for sure.

 

[ninjahaha]

My two and a 1/7th cents worth...

Being a tiger tragic I have soft spot for all our players (some more than others ;D) But if we are to lose players then...

Players drafted after Flosseys year...


Danny
shorty
Broady
Graham

Are priority on exposed results at AFL level.


Shai and dolton on potential.



Club will know which talls are worth keeping.




Miles n Lloyd would be the players that won't hurt if they leave to try get game time or get better offers.
Houli and grigg would be hard to replace with kids that could perform to the same level consistently. But are of an age where we need to find players that will be around longer to fill their roles. We seemed to have covered bash already.




Then the rest are either covered by a similar player or yet to prove they can deliver the type of footy that keeps us playing finals and challenging for flags! Lets face it, our best 15 players could make many a decent hard working footballer look good. Not as easy to look good playing for a side like the blues or saints etc!



But I think shorty is in that best 15 players now! Played very good footy against some good sides. He is composed and that slipper of his is a weapon!

 

[spook]

Indeed. Not being given a go there already is a fair sign that the club doesn't have the skill set in him. Pretty sure he has played some VFL footy there in the past. For little impact.

Menadue has played some very good footy off half-back this year. I would suggest he's never been given the chance in the ones because others were already in the role when he was fit and in-form. (And he's 6'2 and skinny, he's still filling out.) Still, if he hadn't had an interrupted pre-season there's a good chance he might have been given first crack at it this year and maybe you'd be talking about how we need to sign him asap (and I'd agree, along with Shai he's the priority re-signing for mine).

Anyway, as I said, we're asking more of Menadue by sticking him in the guts and he's responding beautifully. Six clearances yesterday. Another pre-season, another 5kg, and he will break AFL tackles and weave out of AFL packs the way he did yesterday.

Inventing a stat to disapprove another is a fair old stretch Spooker.

My position on stats is well established: they're nonsense. You can use stats to argue Tom Mitchell is better than Trent Cotchin, that's how meaningless they are.

'Metres gained' is a stat invented by some nerd at Champion Data. It is inherently biased towards those who play with the field in front of them, especially those used as outlets from defence. Mine is just as valid and more representative of what is actually happening onfield. Short gets a long way forward (by instruction, no doubt) and midfielders run back harder than him in transition and cover for him. Another example from the Geelong game: last quarter, Higgins wins a free in the centre. Short runs behind him for the handball and kicks laterally to Ellis, who pops it to Conca, still inside the centre square. Conca wheels and kicks long to the hot-spot, ball is spoiled, turned over and Geelong rebounds. Conca sprints 80-odd metres, gets back to defensive 50 and spoils a Geelong marking attempt out of bounds. Short is still in the centre square. From the resultant throw-in, we get Sheds' line-breaking run and long bomb to George for the mid-air soccer goal. Thanks to Conca's defensive running and gutsy spoil while our half-back-flanker was jogging through the centre of the ground.

This is where we get to 'roles' and playing to individual strengths. Short rarely gets involved in contests, because he ain't much chop at them. He applies little defensive pressure. He doesn't run back hard in defensive transition because he ain't a great runner. But others are, and do, and he's a great kick. So that's his role. Kicking. We're maximising his strengths and covering his weaknesses. That's why we're so good - not why he is.

Using super generic football speak 101 to disapprove his role as well seems somewhat stretching it as well.

Dunno what you're talking about here. What generic football speak?

Nathan Wilson was worth Freo's second rounder this year. So a pick under 25 plus 57 for Wilson and 71. Short will fetch that easily. Crozier came with zero form or claims. Sam Murray got a second rounder out of the NEAFL.

Wilson is a better player than Short. He's bigger, stronger, faster, just as good a kick (if not better), can win his own ball and get it back off the bad guys. He has line-breaking pace, Short doesn't. No one is offering pick 25 for Short. They just aren't.

Murray was a bizarre one. Looked good for a month or two (his stats are better than Short's, for the zero that's worth) but hasn't been seen since Round 9, despite Collingwood's long injury list. Again, he's very quick. And he's 187cm and 86kg; he has a presence. Short is 175cm (on tiptoes, I reckon) and a couple of saunas away from being a jumps jockey. Murray, pick 70 and Sydney's future 3rd rounder were traded for Collingwood's future 2nd - so roughly Murray, pick 50 and pick 70 for pick 35, the way things are looking.

The types you've listed leave out types like Jason Johansien, Andrew McGrath, Zac Williams, Jake Lloyd, Rory Laird, Kade Simpson who play the same role. Fair old bunch that would walk into any side.

Yep, plenty of guns play at half-back. Deledio and Houli two more. All these players have more strings to their bow than Short. They can win their own ball. Mark. Have genuine pace.

We traded two picks inside 25 to get Yarran. We value the role.

We traded pick 31 (ended up pick 36 after Academy bids were matched) and a future second-rounder we expected to be in the 30s (ended up pick 28 after our disastrous 2016) to get Yarran. Of course we value the role. Yarran was a far superior talent to Short. A fit and firing Yarran in our current side would be lauded as a superstar. If we had a fit and firing Yarran in our current side we would be even more dominant - we would be shredding teams.

I'm not bashing Short, I swear. I'm looking at his strengths and weaknesses objectively and rejecting the notion that he's irreplaceable and we should pay overs to keep him. He's trying to maximise his income, and fair enough. I just don't think he would look as good in any other side and can't see modern-day Richmond being held to ransom.

 

[artball]

Keep him around because of the way he kicks a football

 

[tigersnake]

Do you think Shorty is more valuable than Conca?

No. I can't split them as it stands right now. Both valuable to the side, both have big strengths and weaknesses. If Reece was a better kick he'd be a star, if shorty was better in the clinches and one on one, he'd be a star. Personally I think Reece is harder to replace, so I guess that puts him ahead. Others obviously think Shorty is harder to replace.

 

[Baron Samedi]

No. I can't split them as it stands right now.

wow.

 

[Leysy Days]

Good debate this one.

Can see both sides so standing out ha!