Rate our PSD & Rookie Draft Picks

[the claw]

Some fair comments however it's not as simple as Polak versus Bradshaw - Grimes needs to come into the equation as well.

The other issue is whether Bradshaw would in fact stifle the development of our juniors by preventing their exposure at senior level. Hardwick has stated there will be no short cuts and I agree with this approach, another year down in the cellar isn't something to be feared - Bradshaw may be an improvment but is hardly the type who would make us a true contender.

your not taking a player like bradshaw to make us a contender you do it for the reasons ive stated adnauseum but are totally ignored when bradshaw is mentioned.
now read carefully he was the only mature quality kpf available the reason to take him is to give our kpfs a little time time to develop. now that we have cleaned out so many duds we dont want all the kids we have taken over the last 3 or so drafts to continue to get belted. while we dont expect to see many wins we want them to be in a position whjere they are actually competetive. good structure and some added experience not to mention quality will do this in much the same way cousins has.

and as we dont have bradshaw its now speculation but i see no reason why grimes could not have been taken at pick 71 yep more speculation but what a couple of us wanted.

also stifle what development we have one other potential ff in griffiths he will learn much from bradshaw he can be plonked in a pocket and developed as a third tall if he shows he can play straight away which i doubt. he wont be copping the lakes and glasses and merrets bradshaw will. just how quickly do people think griffiths will be ready.

and maisey mentions money geez hands up who thinks bradshaw is not worth 450k at least for next yr one thiong for sure he will help with the salary cap and tpp his salary does not matter for now and probably wont until we become a finals side.

and i would have liked the club to take a punt on a player like daw with our early rookie picks.

 

[Disco08]

clearly we think they are more important than talls.

Rubbish. If the football department thought that way we'd have taken Weedon at 19 and Macmillan at 35, not two key position types.

You talk about ignoring mids yet they spent their number 3 pick this year, their 3rd rounder last year (after getting 2 talls) and their number 2 pick the year before all on genuine midfielders. Not to mention getting Cousins last year as well. The last 2 years they've had 20 picks in all drafts and 1 trade. Of the 21 players acquired, 9 have been key position or rucks prospects, 5 have been genuine mids, 2 are a forward/mids, 3 are rebounding defenders and 2 are small forwards. Hardly the imbalance you keep going on.

Looking at it another way, in 2008 and 2009, Francis and Cameron have spent one pick inside the first 3 rounds on a non-tall or genuine mid - Dea. Wallace and Miller were the kings of it with trades for McMahon & Morton as well as the drafting of Edwards, Oakley-Nicholls, Casserley and Meyer all with premium picks in 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Jackson and Cameron might have picked up a couple of smaller types with their speculators but it's not as if the list doesn't still really need both a good crumbing forward with good defensive skills and a close checking back pocket with a good kick.

 

[the claw]

Rubbish. If the football department thought that way we'd have taken Weedon at 19 and Macmillan at 35, not two key position types.

You talk about ignoring mids yet they spent their number 3 pick this year, their 3rd rounder last year (after getting 2 talls) and their number 2 pick the year before all on genuine midfielders. Not to mention getting Cousins last year as well. The last 2 years they've had 20 picks in all drafts and 1 trade. Of the 21 players acquired, 9 have been key position or rucks prospects, 5 have been genuine mids, 2 are a forward/mids, 3 are rebounding defenders and 2 are small forwards. Hardly the imbalance you keep going on.

Looking at it another way, in 2008 and 2009, Francis and Cameron have spent one pick inside the first 3 rounds on a non-tall or genuine mid - Dea. Wallace and Miller were the kings of it with trades for McMahon & Morton as well as the drafting of Edwards, Oakley-Nicholls, Casserley and Meyer all with premium picks in 2004, 2005 & 2006.

Jackson and Cameron might have picked up a couple of smaller types with their speculators but it's not as if the list doesn't still really need both a good crumbing forward with good defensive skills and a close checking back pocket with a good kick.

balderdash take martin out they almost totallly ignored genuine mids. they took just 4 talls also out of how many total picks.oh thats right 14.
i thought we traded for a mature farmer to look after the back pockrt situation dont we have nahas we took taylor we had morton and gilligan on the rookie list yet we used pick 71 on a reserves sanfl player who in all likelyhood none else had an interest in, not in the nd anyway.
get one thing straight no one is complaining we used picks 19 and 35 on genuine talls.thank god they did. pick 97 and one hundred and what ever were the only others.
and yeah your gunna crap on about taylor and dea as being talls. like i said if you include polak 7 off the list which took the numbers down to 9 and a staggering 4 on. 5 if you cont polak. numbers dont lie we went backwards spin it how you like you always do but if you add the fact that simmo has only one yr graham and mcguane are no good and gourdis is very iffy throw polak the underachiever in and the real numbers are diabolical stop pissing in the wind disco.

there was a few instances where we should have made the effort to address the tall situation and we didnt. how many under 181cm did we take again sheesh we sure looked after the smalls and few genuine mids.

 

[Disco08]

balderdash take martin out they almost totallly ignored genuine mids.

that might nearly be true if you were silly enough to look at it as a one year proposition, but clearly drafting is an ongoing process. Over the last two drafts they've spent picks 3, 42, 58, PSD8 and RD 23 on mids. Only talls have been better catered to as far as premium picks go.

they took just 4 talls also out of how many total picks.oh thats right 14.

4? Griffiths, Astbury, Grimes, Westhoff and Polak are all included in those 14 picks.

i thought we traded for a mature farmer to look after the back pockrt situation

And you criticise others for believing every picks going to make it?

and yeah your gunna crap on about taylor and dea as being talls.

I've never said either one of them are talls. I did say Taylor is a full forward prospect and I'd still like to hear one good reason why he isn't. Not sure where I've ever said anything about Dea being either a tall of a key position prospect.

numbers dont lie we went backwards spin it how you like

No one arguing against that. It was bound to happen given the state of the list. The difference is some of us can't accept that's it's a problem that couldn't be solved in one draft.

there was a few instances where we should have made the effort to address the tall situation and we didnt. how many under 181cm did we take again sheesh we sure looked after the smalls and few genuine mids.

6 in 21 picks over the last two years, one of whom was Cousins.

They've addressed the tall situation, which was well and truly apparent when Cameron took over, by spending 4 of their 7 premium picks on talls in the last two years. Simple as that. They're the bare facts and I haven't heard anything from you that even comes close to explaining how this is actually ignoring the need for talls.

 

[RedanTiger]

that might nearly be true if you were silly enough to look at it as a one year proposition, but clearly drafting is an ongoing process. Over the last two drafts they've spent picks 3, 42, 58, PSD8 and RD 23 on mids. Only talls have been better catered to as far as premium picks go. That would be Thomson, Hislop and Cousins in 2008 - Martin and Contin in 2009?

4? Griffiths, Astbury, Grimes, Westhoff and Polak are all included in those 14 picks. So 5, if you include Westhoffand ignore that Polak was demoted to the rookie list?


And you criticise others for believing every picks going to make it?


I've never said either one of them are talls. I did say Taylor is a full forward prospect and I'd still like to hear one good reason why he isn't. Not sure where I've ever said anything about Dea being either a tall of a key position prospect.


No one arguing against that. It was bound to happen given the state of the list. The difference is some of us can't accept that's it's a problem that couldn't be solved in one draft. No-one except you is saying that we want it changed in one draft. Although the double negative is a bit tricky. ;D You talk about two or more years in arguing about mids but anyone arguing for MORE talls is talking only about one year.You admit that we went backwards yet you with any effort to remedy it.


6 in 21 picks over the last two years, one of whom was Cousins. In 2009 we've taken 5 under 181cm, plus Dea at 186. Come on, stay on topic and talk about THIS years drafting.

They've addressed the tall situation, which was well and truly apparent when Cameron took over, by spending 4 of their 7 premium picks on talls in the last two years. Simple as that. They're the bare facts and I haven't heard anything from you that even comes close to explaining how this is actually ignoring the need for talls.

 

[Disco08]

So 5, if you include Westhoffand ignore that Polak was demoted to the rookie list?

Claw was obviously including Polak to get to 14 picks. 4 out of 14 is therefore clearly wrong.

No-one except you is saying that we want it changed in one draft.

Yet the 3 of you are arguing very passionately about the use of very late picks. If you are willing to accept that rebuilding the tall stocks adequately is likely to take a number of years I can't see why you aren't happy with 4 of 7 premium picks being used on talls since Cameron took over.

You talk about two or more years in arguing about mids but anyone arguing for MORE talls is talking only about one year.You admit that we went backwards yet you with any effort to remedy it.

We went backwards because the people previously responsible for list management stuffed it up. Even had we drafted replacements for every tall that left we still would have gone backwards simply because none of them are very likely to contribute next year.

I thought I'd made it quite clear that I think spending quality picks over a sustained period is the most effective remedy for the situation.

In 2009 we've taken 5 under 181cm, plus Dea at 186. Come on, stay on topic and talk about THIS years drafting.

Why, so you can make things seem far more dramatic than they actually are? Drafting is an ongoing process and looking at it that way gives you a much better idea of what's going on.

BTW, Martin, Griffiths, Astbury, Dea, Taylor, Webberley (181), Grimes, Contin (181.3), Westhoff, Polak and O'Reilly are all at or above 181. That leaves 3 at under 181. Perhaps the arbitrary figure should be 182 or 183? Either way, that takes the total number of players under 183 on the Richmond list to 14. Geelong have 13. Or we could make the imaginary crucial number 184, in which case Richmond has the same number of players under it as the Bulldogs; 15.

 

[RedanTiger]

They've addressed the tall situation, which was well and truly apparent when Cameron took over, by spending 4 of their 7 premium picks on talls in the last two years. Simple as that. They're the bare facts and I haven't heard anything from you that even comes close to explaining how this is actually ignoring the need for talls.

If you have a "need for talls" then delisting more than you recruit is "ignoring" this need, or in fact making the need worse.

Another ridiculous red herring is that in terms of tall "premium picks" we have lost Hughes (2nd), Pattison (1st), Schulz (1st), Putt (3rd) and Polak (1st to rookie) this year alone. Not to mention Richo who I think was a premium player. ;D
So in terms of "premium picks" we lost 5 and added 2 this year alone. We even lost 3 gold "premium picks" from the first round and added zero.

If only "premium picks" count why do we continue selecting. Possibly because some times they become good players. Do we have to revisit the Hird, Grant, etc threads AGAIN?

The SUM RESULT for 2009 regarding talls is we cut 7 and added 5.

 

[RedanTiger]

Claw was obviously including Polak to get to 14 picks. 4 out of 14 is therefore clearly wrong.

Yet the 3 of you are arguing very passionately about the use of very late picks. They are not "very late picks". They start the round after your "premium picks". If you are willing to accept that rebuilding the tall stocks adequately is likely to take a number of years I can't see why you aren't happy with 4 of 7 premium picks being used on talls since Cameron took over. Because more than one of the six picks after the "premium picks" could've been used on talls rather than players under 182.

We went backwards because the people previously responsible for list management stuffed it up. How did they do that? Even had we drafted replacements for every tall that left we still would have gone backwards simply because none of them are very likely to contribute next year.And the ones we didn't take definately won't contribute, ever.

I thought I'd made it quite clear that I think spending quality picks over a sustained period is the most effective remedy for the situation. I tend toward spending all picks over a sustained period as a remedy.

Why, so you can make things seem far more dramatic than they actually are? Drafting is an ongoing process and looking at it that way gives you a much better idea of what's going on.

BTW, Martin, Griffiths, Astbury, Dea, Taylor, Webberley (181), Grimes, Contin (181.3), Westhoff, Polak and O'Reilly are all at or above 181. That leaves 3 at under 181. Perhaps the arbitrary figure should be 182 or 183? Either way, that takes the total number of players under 183 on the Richmond list to 14. Geelong have 13. Or we could make the imaginary crucial number 184, in which case Richmond has the same number of players under it as the Bulldogs; 15.

 

[IanG]

No-one except you is saying that we want it changed in one draft.

Sure they are, its implicit in what claw and tango have said by wanting us to stack our list with talls this year.

If you have a "need for talls" then delisting more than you recruit is "ignoring" this need, or in fact making the need worse.

Not if you take a longer view that just this year. Besides in terms of total numbers we still have the average number of talls compared to other clubs we aren't low in numerical terms.

Another ridiculous red herring is that in terms of tall "premium picks" we have lost Hughes (2nd), Pattison (1st), Schulz (1st), Putt (3rd) and Polak (1st to rookie) this year alone. Not to mention Richo who I think was a premium player.

What is a 'premium tall'? Polak is still on the list and may be available full time during 2010.

So in terms of "premium picks" we lost 5 and added 2 this year alone.

We added 3.

The SUM RESULT for 2009 regarding talls is we cut 7 and added 5

We have 16 talls or KPP players on the list, 17 if Taylor develops as 1. That is adequate until next year when the pool is reportedly better for KPPs. The talls we cut were all dead wood and it should be noted that they were cut before we lost Richo who was expected to continue at the time.

 

[Disco08]

I tend toward spending all picks over a sustained period as a remedy.

Spend every pick on a tall. Seriously? Butcher instead of Martin?

If only "premium picks" count why do we continue selecting. Possibly because some times they become good players. Do we have to revisit the Hird, Grant, etc threads AGAIN?

We all know that good players can be taken with late picks. You don't have to be smart about it. The point is though that the chances of finding these good players are far slimmer with late picks than they are with early picks. Therefore it's completely logical that the best way to address a need is to spend as many early picks as possible on the deficient area.

If you have a "need for talls" then delisting more than you recruit is "ignoring" this need, or in fact making the need worse.

Another ridiculous red herring is that in terms of tall "premium picks" we have lost Hughes (2nd), Pattison (1st), Schulz (1st), Putt (3rd) and Polak (1st to rookie) this year alone. Not to mention Richo who I think was a premium player. ;D
So in terms of "premium picks" we lost 5 and added 2 this year alone. We even lost 3 gold "premium picks" from the first round and added zero.

The SUM RESULT for 2009 regarding talls is we cut 7 and added 5.

Again, why can you only focus on this year? The players drafted aren't going to contribute next year anyway so why not look at it as at least a 3 year process? Cameron took over the list 2 years ago. In that time they've traded, retired or delisted 20 players (not including players who were delisted but retained as rookies) including 7 talls. In the same time they've added to the list 21 players including 7 talls and one full forward who should be viewed as a KPP prospect at this point.

Next year the only talls likely to go are Simmonds and possibly Polak. Given we're likely to see another substantial turnover we'll probably end up retiring or delisting another 8 or 9 players. If they replace them with a group that includes at least another 4 talls we'll be in front over the 3 years and will have added quality, not just quantity. If Simmonds is the only tall to move on, we'll go from 15 talls to 18. That's a higher figure than Geelong (15), Collingwood (16) and the Dogs (17) to name just a few. From that point they can maintain that number while gradually replacing those that aren't up to it.

To me this seems like a perfectly measured approach which should be effective if our recruiters do their job. If you think otherwise I'd like to hear your reasoning.

 

[Tiger74]

Next year the only talls likely to go are Simmonds and possibly Polak. Given we're likely to see another substantial turnover we'll probably end up retiring or delisting another 8 or 9 players. If they replace them with a group that includes at least another 4 talls we'll be in front over the 3 years and will have added quality, not just quantity. If Simmonds is the only tall to move on, we'll go from 15 talls to 18. That's a higher figure than Geelong (15), Collingwood (16) and the Dogs (17) to name just a few. From that point they can maintain that number while gradually replacing those that aren't up to it.

To me this seems like a perfectly measured approach which should be effective if our recruiters do their job. If you think otherwise I'd like to hear your reasoning.

This is actually a good point Disco. Looking at the list, an IMO list of those likely to be under the gun in 2010 are:

Troy Simmonds
Shane Edwards
Jordan McMahon
Dan Connors
Shane Tuck
Tom Hislop
Jake King
Adam Thomson
Ben Cousins
Matthew White
Graham Polak
Alroy Gilligan
David Gourdis

That list of mine has 13 potentially going either through retirement, delisting, or trade (Tuck or McMahon have been shopped), and of these 13, only three are talls.

 

[the claw]

Claw was obviously including Polak to get to 14 picks. 4 out of 14 is therefore clearly wrong.

Yet the 3 of you are arguing very passionately about the use of very late picks. If you are willing to accept that rebuilding the tall stocks adequately is likely to take a number of years I can't see why you aren't happy with 4 of 7 premium picks being used on talls since Cameron took over.

We went backwards because the people previously responsible for list management stuffed it up. Even had we drafted replacements for every tall that left we still would have gone backwards simply because none of them are very likely to contribute next year.

I thought I'd made it quite clear that I think spending quality picks over a sustained period is the most effective remedy for the situation.

Why, so you can make things seem far more dramatic than they actually are? Drafting is an ongoing process and looking at it that way gives you a much better idea of what's going on.

BTW, Martin, Griffiths, Astbury, Dea, Taylor, Webberley (181), Grimes, Contin (181.3), Westhoff, Polak and O'Reilly are all at or above 181. That leaves 3 at under 181. Perhaps the arbitrary figure should be 182 or 183? Either way, that takes the total number of players under 183 on the Richmond list to 14. Geelong have 13. Or we could make the imaginary crucial number 184, in which case Richmond has the same number of players under it as the Bulldogs; 15.

will reply to this nonsense in the fulness of time

Sure they are, its implicit in what claw and tango have said by wanting us to stack our list with talls this year.

Not if you take a longer view that just this year. Besides in terms of total numbers we still have the average number of talls compared to other clubs we aren't low in numerical terms.

What is a 'premium tall'? Polak is still on the list and may be available full time during 2010.

We added 3.

We have 16 talls or KPP players on the list, 17 if Taylor develops as 1. That is adequate until next year when the pool is reportedly better for KPPs. The talls we cut were all dead wood and it should be noted that they were cut before we lost Richo who was expected to continue at the time.

what utter crap its almost pointless debating with a bloke who cant properly read and understand what is being said. talk about thick. heres an example.

Sure they are, its implicit in what claw and tango have said by wanting us to stack our list with talls this year.

how many times has it been stated that i think it will take many yrs to get the talls where they need to be. how many times has it been said we may have to get as many as 20 22 talls in the system and then prune just like many clubs have done. sheesh so many times i cant count.
i want as many talls as possible this yr next yr the yr after i want the numbers to actually grow not go backwards.yet this one yr fix nonsense is rolled out surely you can do better than that.

 

[shamekha]

Being a little self righteous aren't you claw

 

[TigerForce]

Do we have some obligation to fulfil in 2010? I must be missing something.

 

[Baloo]

We're going for the Flag this year boys, didn't you know ? We're one Bradshaw away from being Premiers.

 

[Disco08]

how many times has it been stated that i think it will take many yrs to get the talls where they need to be.

If you think it's going to take many years to get the quality of talls we need, why are you so fixated on filling up the list with speculative talls this year? These kids are going to take years to develop. In most cases you're not going to be able to make a proper call on them after 2 or 3 years. In general it's at least 4 or 5 before their true worth will be known.

So regardless you want to stack up the talls this year. I presume you're not childish enough to be whinging over one or two players' difference, so I assume you'd like us to have taken at least an extra 3 talls this year. That'd take our number to 19 and 14 of them would be 20 or younger. It doesn't take much forethought to see that in a year or two you'd have to start making premature calls on these kids if you wanted to continue adding quality talls each year. What's the point of taking a flyer on a speculative kid if you're not going to give him time to develop?

Out of interest, tell me if this is how you think it should go:

2010: Simmonds (32), Polak (25), Thursfield (23), McGuane (23), Graham (23), Reiwoldt (21), Gourdis (20), Rance (20), Post (20), Vickery (19), Browne (19), Astbury (18), Grimes (18), Taylor (18), Griffiths (18), Westhoff (18), 2010 Extra late pick 1 (18). 10ELP2 (18), 10ELP3 (18). Total - 19

2011: Thursfield (24), Reiwoldt (22), Gourdis (21), Rance (21), Post (21), Vickery (20), Browne (20), Astbury (19), Grimes (19), Taylor (19), Griffiths (19), Westhoff (19), 10ELP (19). ELP2 (19), ELP3 (19), 2011 Premium pick tall 1 (18), 11PP2 (18), 2011 late pick 1 (18), 11LP2 (18), 11LP3 (18). total 20 (13 of whom are first or second year players), which you think is ideal.

Who are you making the call on in 2012 to make way for the 3 or 4 talls (including a couple more premium picks) we should be taking?

 

[bullus_hit]

We're going for the Flag this year boys, didn't you know ? We're one Bradshaw away from being Premiers.

Slightly off topic but if Bradshaw played and we finished mid table again, we would effectively be looking at picks 17, 34, 51 etc (assuming a 9th place finish)

If we finished last, it would be picks 4, 27, 44 etc.

Now, I'm generally not one to get caught up in the draft pick hype so early on but short term gain in the near future will severely hamper our chances of finding another well credentialled KP prospect.

Bottoming out theorists would surely see the sense in getting games into the juniors and then having a tilt at the next Franklin or Pavlich. If we're serious about getting a premiership line up then I see no point in short term solutions, particularly with a player who will almost definitely not be around for any serious finals challenge.

 

[turk-d-tiger]

i have 2 thoughts on this topic on what richmond should be doing to develope young players that are currently not at the club.

the richmond football club should be looking to coburg to recruite players like temel,tighe or any other player that they may need in the future & develope them there with the view of useing coburg as a feeder to the main team.
young kids which have missed out in the november & psd drafts could be looked at for an extended period of time at coburg & groomed to suit our needs.

2nd point is with the next few draft being comprimised why cant we just throw a stupid amount of money at a player like mitch clark kruezer or even a roughead or franklin.
carlton have done this the last 3 years with judd,warnock,mcclean and even sydney threw $1mill at a rookie ruckman such as mumford.
we currently will struggle to meet minumum tpp.

why not go after a couple of big solid kpp, and make sure they cant say no.

 

[RedanTiger]

I think the club has picked reasonably in the ND. The only one I'm upset with is taking a back pocket with pick 67. I would have liked a better player type given our needs.
Barlow (189, 92) before Webberley (181, 74).

The rookie draft picks I don't like very much and would have taken Thompson, Dare and two more key players. Don't think there's much point in holding Polak even as "insurance".
Thompson (192, 85) before Hicks (176, 68)
Dare (188, 81) before Contin (181, 81)
Casboult (196, 99) before Roberts (176, 78)

before you get to Westhoff, Polak and the issue of "two more key players".

 

[IanG]

what utter crap its almost pointless debating with a bloke who cant properly read and understand what is being said. talk about thick. heres an example. how many times has it been stated that i think it will take many yrs to get the talls where they need to be. how many times has it been said we may have to get as many as 20 22 talls in the system and then prune just like many clubs have done. sheesh so many times i cant count.

What clubs have had 22 talls since the list ha been at 38?

And BTW if you think it will take years you really should be in favour of the approach which sees us trying to get quality ball disposers across all lines not just concentrate on talls to the detriment of the rest of the team.