-
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.
Team for this week
- Thread starter Davo066
- Start date
Dean3 said:
G'day Deano. I don't mind you making reference to what I've said in the past but you've got it around the wrong way.
What I've openly questioned several times - even been highly critical of it you want to call it that - is the recruiting of Pattison, Polo and McGuane back in 2004. Not JON.
What I have said about JON is that I think we paid over the odds for him. Not that he was a bad selection per se as you seem to be suggesting. In fact, if you go back and have a look, you'll see I actually said I could understand the recruiting strategy. JON, Hughes and Cass all come as reasonably well skilled footballers and it was a relief to me to see that we'd focussed on this. And therein lies my beef: the recruiting of too many players with a huge deficiency or two, more often than not a poor level of foot skill. But in the case of 2005 and JON I'm not unduly disturbed or unhappy with our selections.
Its 2004 and prior that I reckon we've made some grand blunders.
Redford said:
Have I? Bottom line - would you have taken JON when we did? That's what drafting boils down to.
Redford said:
And I reckon that's too early to call. Pattison looks like Benny Gale to me. Gale started out as a slow blundering ruckman/forward and played, what, 250 games as...a slow blundering forward/ruckman. ;D He, of all people, needs a heap of time. Polo should be showing something by now, agreed, but he hasn't had a lot of luck with injury. He's an insider and his body isn't there yet. He's a bit like Coughlan in my mind — we need to keep him at Coburg until his body is really ready to play his game. There is plenty to suggest that we even went too early with Cogs, despite all the howls about Frawley holding him back etc. Dunno about McGuane. As I said, some will make it and some won't. 50% is a reasonable rate. We're not much below that if you look at the figures.
For those wondering about some of the selections, a quick look at the Collins Report on Eye of the Tiger may enlighten.
And for those worrying about the list and our previous drafting - yes it is horrible.
But the past cannot be changed. At least this year they went after the right type of player, even if some of them may not have been the best possible option.
And for those worrying about the list and our previous drafting - yes it is horrible.
But the past cannot be changed. At least this year they went after the right type of player, even if some of them may not have been the best possible option.
Dean3 said:
You've used the word "unbelievable" in your post. I don't see what's so "unbelivable" about suggesting that I reckon we paid over the odds ? Which leads me onto your question. Personally, after seeing his U/18 Nat performances and seeing all the full videos of him back in Perth, I thought that he was in the late first round to early second round category which means no, I wouldn't have taken him with pick 8, but would have been wrapt if we'd used 24 on him. As it turns out, we got a bargain with Hughes at 24, so it evened out in the end (even though it was more luck than any strategic planning that Hughes came to us at 24).
I think you might be getting me confused with a couple of other posters - one in particular - re: JON.
Its all personal opinion, and we're getting off the track of the thread topic, but Pattison looks nothing like Gale to me. Gale always had reasonable technique with most things he did. I certainly never really thought of Benny as "blundering" that's for sure. Patto has always (and still does) look very unco-ordinated to me. Ditto Polo. But granted, talls do seem to take a while, so lets see.
As far as the 50% reasonable rate goes, that argument doesn't stack up in Richmond's case imo. Across the board AFL club's might have that average - and maybe Richmond is in that ball park - But it shouldn't be. It should be higher given its had such a sustained period of lower finishes and thus higher picks to choose from.
I basically agree with your main points RF. For me, I was exacperated and pissed-off with our drafts prior to 2004, luke-warm in 2004, and rapt in 2005 (although I would have liked another pick). Its a good trend.
Benny was pretty bumbling early on, but he did more good things sooner. Personally I've got a good feeling about Pattison, but time will tell.
Benny was pretty bumbling early on, but he did more good things sooner. Personally I've got a good feeling about Pattison, but time will tell.
Jools said:
Just went outside for lunch and its very warm outside. Training tonight will be good, it will start cooling down and will be a pleasant night (so long as the storms stay away).
For me, I think one of Brown and Bradshaw will miss. More than likely Bradshaw. Both are sore and the gabba's surface doesn't lend itself to sore players. I think this is why both Keating and Merrett were included in the team.
I think the Pattison/Gale comparison is a good one. Gale was unco and blundering as a youngster, I recall him pretty well. He never got any quicker I can tell you that, but he did get smarter. He wasn't a Riewoldt or Barry Hall, but I think we'd all take it now if Patto had as good a career as Benny.
"Unbelievable" is accurate, IMO. If you didn't question his drafting then I'm sorry — but I think you did. Not drafting at all, but drafting at 8 or 9 or whenever it was. I'm saying that we need to let it play out a bit before we can judge whether that was an inspired choice or whether it was a Fiora choice. To not let it play out a bit (like for 2 or 3 or maybe 4 years!) is, in my mind, unbelievable. You don't have to agree, by the way.
The argument that we have had a lot of high picks isn't necessarily true either. We finished 9th a lot. You could well argue that we haven't traded aggressively enough to consistently get high picks, I'd be right with you on that one. In fact I think you have argued that a fair bit. No doubt we are still working our way out of the Frawley push-for-the- flag-with-Hudson-and-Sziller style recruitment after 2001. But, in general, I reckon the last couple of years have been moving steadily in the right direction, and as I've said ad literal nauseum, some will make it and some won't and we have to be prepared to accept that — especially when you're talking about picks in the 20s, 30s and 50s. Certainly I'm prepared for the possibility that none of Pattison, Polo and McGuane will get there and I won't be pulling a knife out of my bag if that happens.
olice:
"Unbelievable" is accurate, IMO. If you didn't question his drafting then I'm sorry — but I think you did. Not drafting at all, but drafting at 8 or 9 or whenever it was. I'm saying that we need to let it play out a bit before we can judge whether that was an inspired choice or whether it was a Fiora choice. To not let it play out a bit (like for 2 or 3 or maybe 4 years!) is, in my mind, unbelievable. You don't have to agree, by the way.
The argument that we have had a lot of high picks isn't necessarily true either. We finished 9th a lot. You could well argue that we haven't traded aggressively enough to consistently get high picks, I'd be right with you on that one. In fact I think you have argued that a fair bit. No doubt we are still working our way out of the Frawley push-for-the- flag-with-Hudson-and-Sziller style recruitment after 2001. But, in general, I reckon the last couple of years have been moving steadily in the right direction, and as I've said ad literal nauseum, some will make it and some won't and we have to be prepared to accept that — especially when you're talking about picks in the 20s, 30s and 50s. Certainly I'm prepared for the possibility that none of Pattison, Polo and McGuane will get there and I won't be pulling a knife out of my bag if that happens.
olice:
Dean3 said:I think the Pattison/Gale comparison is a good one. Gale was unco and blundering as a youngster, I recall him pretty well. He never got any quicker I can tell you that, but he did get smarter. He wasn't a Riewoldt or Barry Hall, but I think we'd all take it now if Patto had as good a career as Benny.
"Unbelievable" is accurate, IMO. If you didn't question his drafting then I'm sorry — but I think you did. Not drafting at all, but drafting at 8 or 9 or whenever it was. I'm saying that we need to let it play out a bit before we can judge whether that was an inspired choice or whether it was a Fiora choice. To not let it play out a bit (like for 2 or 3 or maybe 4 years!) is, in my mind, unbelievable. You don't have to agree, by the way.
The argument that we have had a lot of high picks isn't necessarily true either. We finished 9th a lot. You could well argue that we haven't traded aggressively enough to consistently get high picks, I'd be right with you on that one. In fact I think you have argued that a fair bit. No doubt we are still working our way out of the Frawley push-for-the- flag-with-Hudson-and-Sziller style recruitment after 2001. But, in general, I reckon the last couple of years have been moving steadily in the right direction, and as I've said ad literal nauseum, some will make it and some won't and we have to be prepared to accept that — especially when you're talking about picks in the 20s, 30s and 50s. Certainly I'm prepared for the possibility that none of Pattison, Polo and McGuane will get there and I won't be pulling a knife out of my bag if that happens.
Everyone’s got an opinion on our recruiting. Me…you…everybody…and that’s cool. But describing my personal opinion that we may have overpaid a tad for JON as being “unbelievable” (especially where I’ve stated that he may well have still been a 1st rounder anyway) is a bit melodramatic don’t you think ? Boy Deano, what terms do you apply to those on PRE who have been saying that we shouldn’t have picked him at all !! Just as well there’s a swear filter on PRE !
I think we both agree that the club hasn’t pushed hard enough over the years for higher draft picks and that fortunately those days seem to be behind us. And you’re probably right. We haven’t had as many high picks as we should have due to a ridiculous approach to recruiting under Frawley and prior. But as has been brought out ad nauseam on PRE, we’ve still had our fair share of first and second round draft picks just the same Deano, and we ‘aint been all that successful.
As for that class of 2004, even though I stand by my own personal opinion that beyond pick 12 they weren’t great picks, I’m more than prepared to give them the time necessary to have a decent crack at it. I’d love to see them come through, and whilst many would disagree, I would let ‘em all play to at least the end of 2007….even if I think that you may find at the end of the year the club itself has less patience.
And like you, I won’t be pulling the knife out of the bag either if they don’t make it because as stated I'm much more comfortable with our general approach to recruiting nowadays. But I dunno what you’re gonna do with guys like Claw and co. They’ve got sawn off shot guns in their bags ! :hihi
