Rate our PSD & Rookie Draft Picks

[Phar Ace]

Firstly, I have never seen him play. I was more worried by his kicking than anything else that I saw on that highligh package. Mongrel floaters that didn't seem to travel all that far, maybe 30-40m. Realistically, this guy seems at least 5 years off from playing any KP in AFL. I understand that the Rookie draft is intended for this sort of player. I just hope that people are VERY patient with this kid.

yeah, anything under 5 years for a regular KP role from a Rookie would be a bonus. I think that's the point, some patience is required for most draftees deeper in the draft, after certain club-based milestones are achieved.

 

[Disco08]

oh deary me you sure try hard disco keep kidding yourself its fun to watch. lol 6 kpps isnt delusion grand.

I haven't heard a single piece of common sense from you to refute it. Griffiths, Astbury, Grimes, Westhoff and Polak are indisputable. Taylor's the same size as any number of great full forwards, has the skills of a full forward and has spent most of his time playing as a full forward.

oh do you honestly think one draft full of runts can honestly make a difference . it cuts both ways bud. but as you well know no one is talking one draft here but keep deflecting its what you do best.

No, I don't. I think sustained attempts to add quality where we need it will though, and I think this is exactly what they've done since Miller left.

Your carry on has all been aimed at the lack of talls we took in this draft and how we haven't addressed list needs despite the fact we spent our second and third rounders on talls, just as we spent our first and second rounders on them last year. To me this suggests quite clearly that you're too impatient to wait out a proper rebuild of the list that focuses on quality in all crucial positions.

BTW, It'd be nice if you actually answered a question of mine occasionally but I guess that's too much to ask.

 

[Disco08]

all those numbers we certainly dont have to worry about talls in fact we only have to show a bit of tokenism toward that area.

Again, 4 out 7 picks within the first 3 rounds on talls since Cameron took over, and 6 out of 11 since Jackson began full time. Can you explain to me how you see this as "tokenism"? Add to that the other picks not used on talls in that time are Edwards, Cotchin, Thomson, Martin and Dea and I think they've clearly addressed our biggest needs.

 

[RedanTiger]

No worries.3rd tall,5th tall whatever.lol.be good to have mulitple options up fwd for a change.

Agreed, which is why i don't mind Taylor as a taller HF. Too often in the past it seems Deledio was the only marking HF option, given Nahas and Morton played deep in the pockets.. Also the reason why I preferred Barlow to Webberley.

Westhoff as 3rd tall may well be very valuable to exchange for the resting ruckmen, which I personally prefer as it gives us more midfield options.

Also hope that Nason can do the same as a small goal-kicking rover like Brown at the time we got him.

 

[IanG]

My apologies, you did not say CHF. KPP is what you said and I misread that since we were talking abouot big ogres.

I said he was a third tall forward, not a KPP, and you replied the recruiters thought he was.

The rest of my post holds true. Jackson does not say he is expecting a KPP, but you assume that is what he is "alluding to" when he says that "if we can get some bulk on him he could be a really capable player". He could equally be talking of a third tall forward as I said. In fact considering the comment about some bulk, it is a more reasonable assumption that he is talking about a third tall.

I think there's a confusion between talls and KPPs, when we talk about the number of talls no the list it seems to mean typically those over 192 cms plus those under that who can play a KPP role. Westoff is clearly amongst those. Third tall forwards or defenders will come from these talls. The ideal number of these talls on a list seems to be 16-18, we have 16, or 17 if you count Taylor.

 

[the claw]

No worries.3rd tall,5th tall whatever.lol.be good to have mulitple options up fwd for a change.

lol so you think we have ready to go kpfs of quality you think we have experienced kpfs you think our underweight undersized inexperienced kpfs are ready to go. i take it you dont think they could do with some help.

as circumstances change so does requirements.but hey lets just ignore that. typical of some here. no wonder i debate the way i do.

geez a psd pick on a high quality ff of which we have none.oh no its cost the earth. i repeat we have none other than griffiths. whos a long way to go but hey lets just throw him in the deep end dodgy shoulder and all.

with 14 picks im sure we can afford to take one high quality mature player who fills a glaring massive hole in the list. but it seems we cant do this.if bradshaw was not quality you wouldnt bother if we only had 3 nd picks you would not do it the simple fact is we have no mature kpfs on the list and this is a good thing i suppose sheesh common sense just goes out the window with most on here. sheep is a good word for the lot of yas.

a

 

[jb03]

lol so you think we have ready to go kpfs of quality you think we have experienced kpfs you think our underweight undersized inexperienced kpfs are ready to go. i take it you dont think they could do with some help.

as circumstances change so does requirements.but hey lets just ignore that. typical of some here. no wonder i debate the way i do.

geez a psd pick on a high quality ff of which we have none.oh no its cost the earth. i repeat we have none other than griffiths. whos a long way to go but hey lets just throw him in the deep end dodgy shoulder and all.

with 14 picks im sure we can afford to take one high quality mature player who fills a glaring massive hole in the list. but it seems we cant do this.if bradshaw was not quality you wouldnt bother if we only had 3 nd picks you would not do it the simple fact is we have no mature kpfs on the list and this is a good thing i suppose sheesh common sense just goes out the window with most on here. sheep is a good word for the lot of yas.

a

I am amazed you are still banging on about wasting a pick on Bradshaw. YOu sure have a habit of over rating our list.

 

[Phar Ace]

I am amazed you are still banging on about wasting a pick on Bradshaw. YOu sure have a habit of over rating our list.

:hihi
Only when it suits his arguments >

 

[the claw]

I am amazed you are still banging on about wasting a pick on Bradshaw. YOu sure have a habit of over rating our list.

ah the flea one thinks he needs to scratch but at the end of the day cant be bothered. i now understand reds disdain.

 

[RedanTiger]

I think there's a confusion between talls and KPPs, when we talk about the number of talls no the list it seems to mean typically those over 192 cms plus those under that who can play a KPP role. Westoff is clearly amongst those. Third tall forwards or defenders will come from these talls. The ideal number of these talls on a list seems to be 16-18, we have 16, or 17 if you count Taylor.

I'm certainly confused about your post. ;D

But I think of Tall and KPP as two separate categories. You don't have to be over 192 to be a KPP but not all who are over 192 are KPP.

You can be a KPP but not a tall, while being a tall doesn't make you a KPP.

Nope, I'm confused again.

 

[Leysy Days]

I am amazed you are still banging on about wasting a pick on Bradshaw. YOu sure have a habit of over rating our list.

Dont forget the add-ons of us targeting a 31 y.o @ circa $450K per year for 3 years.

Astute list management if ever leysy saw it.

 

[Leysy Days]

I presume you are referring to "heaps of that type" and redefining it to mean players who can kick accurately & long, rather than backpockets.

He may fill a need, but why isn't this need met by delisting one of the failures, rather than creating a need elsewhere? To argue that this is the most pressing need is folly - even if he is 100% guaranteed by you to fill this need

Your the one that said we have heaps of Webberleys type. So now he's not just a back pocket but is a type that kicks long & may fill a need.
Leysy's confused.

Which is exactly the reason why I didn't mind Dea as that TYPE at pick 44.

All things going well, Dea will play on the 3rd tall i.e Milburn, Hargraves etc. Webberley with is footskills will be tried to free up as suggested. Like Gilbee, Shaw, Gram wtc.

Whether they can we dont know. But they fill a definate hole in our team.

Ahh, so a new version of Jordy McMahon.

So you think McMahon can kick accurately over 60m then.

 

[rockstar_tiger]

Your carry on has all been aimed at the lack of talls we took in this draft and how we haven't addressed list needs despite the fact we spent our second and third rounders on talls, just as we spent our first and second rounders on them last year. To me this suggests quite clearly that you're too impatient to wait out a proper rebuild of the list that focuses on quality in all crucial positions.

BTW, It'd be nice if you actually answered a question of mine occasionally but I guess that's too much to ask.

This is a good question.

Are posters who want to overload on talls at the expense of other positions being influenced by their impatience?

If so, they're not the first to fall into this trap at Tigerland.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

lol so you think we have ready to go kpfs of quality you think we have experienced kpfs you think our underweight undersized inexperienced kpfs are ready to go. i take it you dont think they could do with some help.

as circumstances change so does requirements.but hey lets just ignore that. typical of some here. no wonder i debate the way i do.

geez a psd pick on a high quality ff of which we have none.oh no its cost the earth. i repeat we have none other than griffiths. whos a long way to go but hey lets just throw him in the deep end dodgy shoulder and all.

with 14 picks im sure we can afford to take one high quality mature player who fills a glaring massive hole in the list. but it seems we cant do this.if bradshaw was not quality you wouldnt bother if we only had 3 nd picks you would not do it the simple fact is we have no mature kpfs on the list and this is a good thing i suppose sheesh common sense just goes out the window with most on here. sheep is a good word for the lot of yas.

a

Oh yeah i have no doubt,not only will Griffiths,Westhoff play all 22 games next year but also come 1st and 2nd in the Coleman. :hihi :hihi.On Bradshaw there are only 2 rules on why a club would take him.The coach is under pressure or the side is at least in the finals window.Niether of those rules apply to the RFC.

 

[the claw]

Oh yeah i have no doubt,not only will Griffiths,Westhoff play all 22 games next year but also come 1st and 2nd in the Coleman. :hihi :hihi.On Bradshaw there are only 2 rules on why a club would take him.The coach is under pressure or the side is at least in the finals window.Niether of those rules apply to the RFC.

na your wrong the third scenario is when a side is very young and devoid or lacks a lot of experience.

its funny wile we had some experienced players about the place most didnt want to give kids a game the common excuse was you cant throw em in the deep end it will destroy them. now that we have got rid of most of our experience most on here are okay with throwing our kids to the wolves it does not make sense.

my logic behind bradshaw is two fold clearly he is experienced hes quality and he will take the load of very young not ready to go players. he will be around long enough for the griffiths riewoldts posts astburys gourdis to grow into their positions.

the other reason was he was cheap, players of his quality dont come any cheaper effectively pick 97 in the nd. to me it was bradshaw or polak we took ploak at pick one hundred and what ever.

to me those against bradshaw or an experienced key forward if there was another available dont believe we lack experience and guidance and that our very young tall forwards dont need a hand. sheesh most were happy to keep richo for those very reasons.

 

[Leysy Days]

The problem with Bradshaw is he's already 31 & comes with a $450K a season 3 year contract.

A big risk that your guaranteeing now to pay him that much when he's 33. A lot can change very quickly with footballers once mother nature sets in.

Its why nearly all clubs only give 1 year contracts at that age.

 

[RedanTiger]

Your the one that said we have heaps of Webberleys type. So now he's not just a back pocket but is a type that kicks long & may fill a need.
Leysy's confused.As I said before, we have heaps of small backpocket types. You are the one saying he also fills the need for an accurate and long kick. Even if you are correct and he "may" fix this, why was one of the other small backs not delisted to accomodate him?

One of our biggest weaknesses is having guys who can kick accurately & just as importantly long.

Webberley has this ability. Whether he has the rest of a "game" to make the level no-one knows yet.

But he 100% fills a pressing need. To argue otherwise is folly.

All things going well, Dea will play on the 3rd tall i.e Milburn, Hargraves etc. Webberley with is footskills will be tried to free up as suggested. Like Gilbee, Shaw, Gram wtc. So now Dea is a 3rd tall and Webberley is a HBF, "all things going well" and ignoring size differences.

Whether they can we dont know. Yet you compare them to the best of their type in the league to excuse their recruitment.But they fill a definate hole in our team. Want some other holes - try FB, CHB, CHF, FF, Ruck and Rover. But as long as we've got two or three more small backs and two or three more small forwards we're alright.

So you think McMahon can kick accurately over 60m then. That was exactly the reason he was traded for pick 19.

 

[the claw]

This is a good question.

Are posters who want to overload on talls at the expense of other positions being influenced by their impatience?

If so, they're not the first to fall into this trap at Tigerland.

who wants to overload at the expense of other positions. how many genuine talls did we take how many did we have on the list. ask the same about mids we took just one genuine mid up to the rookie draft. and only one genuine mid in the rookie draft. the rest were small forwards who may spend time in the midfield if we are lucky. ask the same about sml/med forwards sml/med backs. how critical to a list is the player types we loaded up on. clearly we think they are more important than talls.

 

[the claw]

The problem with Bradshaw is he's already 31 & comes with a $450K a season 3 year contract.

A big risk that your guaranteeing now to pay him that much when he's 33. A lot can change very quickly with footballers once mother nature sets in.

Its why nearly all clubs only give 1 year contracts at that age.

agree his age is a problem but there was no other QUALITY FF available to us. or decent younger mature key forward who can take the load of our young kpfs.im sure thorpe was looked for the simple reason that he is older.
besides have a look at the age history of the better ffs ablett 35 dunstall 34 lockett 36 gehrig 33 hall 33 lynch 36 richo 34 lloyd 31 seems to me ff have a bit of longevity in the game. the real risk would be if he copped a serious injury it would be the end of him.

to me it didnt have to be bradshaw it could have been a younger kpf who was decent but there was no one else. i think it important that we do have some experienced talls around our young talls to both lead and take the heat. i didnt want a mature kp until richo retired but his retirement changed totally the landscape.

mate i got pissed when we took kingsley some on here would say it is the same taking bradshaw, but any thinking person would agree the circumstances are chalk and cheese and so are the players.

as stated i look at it as a choice between bradshaw or polak both are short term fixes one is proven and quality and the other a battler. i reckon theres a good chance you will get 2 to 3 yrs out of bradshaw based on his continued very good form of latter seasons. without doubt polak is an admittance by the club of a lack of experience in the talls.

 

[bullus_hit]

as stated i look at it as a choice between bradshaw or polak both are short term fixes one is proven and quality and the other a battler. i reckon theres a good chance you will get 2 to 3 yrs out of bradshaw based on his continued very good form of latter seasons. without doubt polak is an admittance by the club of a lack of experience in the talls.

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.