-
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.
Perspective
- Thread starter Blueyboy74
- Start date
Tygrys said:
I don't shy away fom that Tygrys ... there are no iron-clad guarantees. At least we are creating the possibilty of a window by having a pool of 30-odd players in the right age bracket generally chosen in the first 3 rounds of the draft. As for KPP - can only hope that say 6-7 of Hughes, McGuane, Pattison, Polak, Riewoldt, Schulz, Thursfield, Graham, Rance, Putt are cutting the mustard blended with 3 say another 5 KPPs from the ensuing drafts.
okay perspective. my perspective.you have named 10 of 14 talls on our list. the other 4 are gourdis, richo, sylvestor, and cartledge.Blueyboy74 said:
you state we can only hope 6 or 7 talls make the grade hope should not come into it.
i have continually said you need 2 ruckmen at afl standard with 2 developing one as immediate backup if need be. one in the early stages of development this player could be on the rookie list.
thats 4 ruckmen.
the most common set up on game day is 3 genuine talls in the forward line. 2 of them kp the third a developing kpp. ditto for the backline. so thats 6 kpp who take the field on game day and 2 ruckmen.your third tall can also be a utility type.
its my perspective that we should cover for eack of the kpps so thats another 6 talls at various stages of development.development is the key word with these 6.
all up to cater for depth allowing for injuries and allowing for long term development you need 16 ruckmen genuine talls on your list.12 of these 16 should be up to afl standard or fast approaching that level.
thats basically a third of your list. this leaves two players for every other position on the list. its balanced and caters to the unforseen.and it allows time for development it would allow the likes of rance gourdis putt hughes riewoldt to serve their apprenticeships at coburg where they belong.
now thats my perspective of where and how we should go about developing talls to do this it may well mean we have to turn over 22 24 talls all up.turning over so many allows us to get a few wrong we wont be putting all our eggs in one basket.
now look at our situation we should have 12 talls ready to go or at afl level. instead we have just 3 good solid or better talls. they are richo simmo and thursfield. two of them are in their 30s so we are or should already be looking to replace them.
the vast majority of our talls are very much in various development stages. rance gourdis putt riewoldt hughes graham pattison mcguane.now ask yourself whats the likelyhood of a good percentage of them not making it.
jeez i have serious doubts about 4 of them long term so we have to cater for this.
whats left is polak sylvestor and schulz well ive written all three of.
so thats 3 write ofs. 4 with serious doubts and two close to retirement. its my opinion a worst case scenario could well be 9 of our talls wont be there in the not too distant future. i dont want this to happen but we should be planning for worst case scenarios like this.
this is my perspective or opinion. i know what we need to do to counter a worst case scenario ive outlayed how we should be going about it as far as talls go.
its all just a bit of common sense but we arent getting a common sense approach to list management atm.
If we dont have some sort of miracle injury free run with our ruckman this year its pretty clear we are doomed to repeat last year.
the claw said:
12 talls at a good or better level on your list? Get real claw. No list carries that. Because it is so difficult to find good talls, if you had 5 or so playing in your reserves they would be snapped up by other clubs with offers too good to refuse. Geelong's premiership team had N.Ablett, Harley, Mooney, Ottens, King, Scarlett = 6. WC and Sydney the previous two years had probably even less in their premiership team.
Jason King said:
Agree. Have been negligent in the ruck area. I guess that is why we rookied Cartledge as insurance (it would be good if like NFL we could have him contest the bounce and then sub him off).
I wish we had of rookied or drafted late more ruckmen. Taking them early can be a risk unless you have a standout. As Brisbane has illustrated, if you have "excess stock" of these you can offload them for a good price (eg. Travis Johnstone).
thats wrong. blake ottens and king were the ruckman they had a 198cm lad on the rookie list i think west yes trent west i think. theres your 4 ruckmen 3 capable of playing afl.Blueyboy74 said:
they had mooney ottens and n ablett as the 3 kpps yes ottens played in ruck for them to. they had hawkins in early development.also playfair to fill in if injury hit.you could throw gairdner in as well.i make that 6 tall kpfs basically all of them capable of stepping up if injury occured.. in defence they had scarlett egan and harley mackie milburn and bloke they persevered with in spencer.mackie milburn and a bloke called rooke all played in the side the last 3 all capable of playing kp if need be. they also had talls on their rookie list in grima and lonergan.
gairdner and playfair have been snapped up by other teams king has also gone because of salary cap issues he was snapped up as well.
you mention wce they have two decent ruckmen in cox and seaby they took will sullivan in the rookie draft. atm if injury hits one of their two senior ruckmen they will be light on.
kpfs are lynch hansen and staker.as back up they have chad jones they have good youngsters in brown and notte notte early development and brown i have no doubt would be playing seniors if not for injurys. i make that 6 kpf 4 who are afl players.
kpds are glass hunter and graham. they have sphanger mackenzie schofield and a kid i really like in james thompson all at various stages of development.theres others like brett jones who is capable of playing kp but i havent included him because of his height, at 189cm and 95kg he has shown hes capable of taking on taller opponents and playing kp. sheesh when you look at their list they have few under 185cm.
any way they have 10 ready to go talls not 12 granted but some of their kids are not far of they also have wilkes on their rookie list im pretty sure he will be promoted now that brown has done a knee.
not all of wce talls will make it but they had had good list management for yrs unlike us they are in a position ofslowly bringing players into their team they have a sort of ascension system in place its where we need to get to.
perhaps i should have said 12 talls at a good or better level on your list or approaching a level close to afl standard.. anyway i disagree with you both geelong and wce have turned over heaps of talls and continue to do so.Blueyboy74 said:
oh also talk about to many afl talls on a list being snapped up by other clubs. what does happen is those extras who cant break into the good sides do get snapped up usually it costs earlyish draft picks to get these players especially ruckmen.
the claw said:
Go play Fantasy Football if you expect that sort of rubbish. All seems so easy when you get your crayons out and scribble on a piece of paper. You harp on about list management, so you can't lose can you? You've got history on your side, and a coach and his team that are half way through a rebuilding process that can't yet be fully judged. Seems to me that you're out to win arguments more than anything else.
Broadsword95 said:
Not wanting to get personal here, but the reality of where we are at is NOT FANTASY FOOSBALL :
Red Sea Tiger said:Not wanting to get personal here, but the reality of where we are at is NOT FANTASY FOOTBALL :
No, but it just gets boring after a while. Who turns a Tigers vs Swans gameday thread into an anti-Richo rant? PRE just seems like American politics now - if you're not a Democrat you're a Republican; if you're not a darksider you're a brightsider. Gets tiring looking at threads only for them to be dominated by this 'ruthless, hardline' grumbling. If Claw was on the Richmond board then by all means be forceful, but what's the point on a fans' website?
i take it you disagree with what i have written on this thread, or is it you disagree with what i wrote on the rich v swans thread. or is it you just disagree with anyone who remotely looks like criticiseing the rfc.. oh well each to his own.Broadsword95 said:
by the way how do you think we have managed our tall stocks do you think they are in good shape. oh i know i wont get a straight forward answer to that you would have to criticse the club we cant have that now can we.
just for your information though i have a point of view which i consider to be correct in fact i will go so far as to say i have been proven correct time after time.
if they got it right every now and then i wouldnt have to criticise now would i. oh thats right theres never anything to criticise the list is fine and we are travelling along okay 14th 13 th 16th 12th 9th and 16th tells us it is so.
halfway thru a rebuilding process we get a spoon.we go backwards playing a terrible brand of footy with gaping holes in the list,list management recruiting player development have all been terrible or perhaps you think they have been good. when are we supposed to criticise when the club folds.
I have shown how successful clubs go about building up their tall stocks i dare suggest we should follow their example and im a mongrel for suggesting it.
going by this i take it you think im right. and yes when you use common sense most things are easy. finally im not out to win arguments i just put my point of view across. others judge weather i have won a debate or not.Broadsword95 said:
oh yeah finally on the rich v swans thread all i did was question the wisdom of playing an undersized kel moore on barry hall others took it from there all i did was defend my position.
one other question do you think we should be looking at a replacement or 2 for richo. at 33 i think its time we started to put more of aload on our kids in readiness for richos departure.how we rate richo is another debate. from your reaction i take it you think richo will play forever.
finally if you get so upset with my posts may i suggest you just dont read them. you know do what types like you usually do put your head in the sand and pretend all is well.
the claw said:
You mustn't have read my other post. It's the 'brightsider vs darksider' attitude that I have a problem with. I don't agree with you so I'm automatically shoved in the other camp? In fact many times I have agreed with you, and many more times I'm sure I will, but it's the attitude behind half the stuff you say that makes it irritating. If, God forbid, you have something positive to say, it appears to be some begrudged, half-mumbled compliment. Actually, I'd be interested in you starting a thread in which you outlined all the things you thought were positive aspects of the Richmond footy club atm. I'm sure you agree with some of what's going on, so why don't we hear it? It would make for a refreshing interlude before you go back to slating what is a half-finished project for another three years. I have my own doubts, many of them, about the number of talls on our list, the running game that Wallace favours, the quality of our kids coming through, but then what do you expect from a guy whose job it was to come in and overhaul a lousy list and start afresh. it doesn't happen in three years.
And yes, of course we need a replacement for Richo. Not that we'll get one. He's a once in a generation player for any club. But the idea that with him Richmond are destined to be one-dimensional? Rubbish.
the claw said:
Well I'm just glad that somebody who matters is mouthing off so that things can be set right for good. I don't get upset by your posts. In fact I'd be more irritated if there were no people of your cynicism and critique on here, for I'm very much of the same persuasion, but I'm a Tiger fan in distress as it is - why would i want to hear a miserable and curmudgeonly bloke slagging things off left right and centre?
the claw said:
"Proven" - get real. "Geelong won the premiership because they had 16 talls, 12 of good AFL standard. FACT." Yep, that must have been it. That must have been the main reason.
That said, I have major doubts over our ruck stocks. Elsewhere I think that we're well enough catered for. I don't agree that so many talls are needed, and I'm dubious as to Geelong having 12 talls of good AFL standard. I suspect that simply because they're in a premiership winning team that makes their fringe players so? Or is it that you're lending them that ability to try and make a point?
the claw said:
You love the image don't you? The cynical wise guy who no one listens to, cast aside by naive others doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Ah well, each to their own is it?