We Target 3-Net Result-0

[johnson2richo2003]

nice evasion of 3 perfectly legit questions i suppose that answers my questions sheesh and you call me a hypocrite.
just in case you change your mind the questions were.

1 do you think it unreasonable to predict a bottom 4 finish next yr.
2 do you think it a certainty we will finish above 12th next yr.
3 what would you rather cotchin at richmond or 4 or 5 extra wins.
pretty straight forward questions that only require a yes or no.

Like i said Claw.You WANT us to finish bottom 4 at the sametime you want us to play the kids.So you WANT these same kids to go loss after loss for the sake of getting another Cotchin etc.In between getting all these Cotchin,s etc you,ll be calling these kids DuDs because they finish bottom 4 to get the next Cotchin.

As for your predictable.s.Anything can happen.Even finish top 4

 

[johnson2richo2003]

claw just interested whether you think theres an upside to Richmonds future at all?

Claws upside for Richmond:
2009 to 2029 to Finish bottom 4 so by 2030 we,ll have 22 Cotchin,s in the side :hihi :hihi :hihi

 

[benny_furs]

1 do you think it unreasonable to predict a bottom 4 finish next yr.
2 do you think it a certainty we will finish above 12th next yr.
3 what would you rather cotchin at richmond or 4 or 5 extra wins.
pretty straight forward questions that only require a yes or no.

1. Yes, it is unreasonable to predict a bottom 4 finish. There is of course a chance that we will drop down, but that chance is too low to realistically predict it with confidence.

2. Same question, but the words "certainty" and "Richmond" have been fighting and refuse to talk to each other. We are maybe a 10% chance of finishing bottom 4 in my books.

3. Last year I said I would not trade Pick 2 alone for Chris Judd, so this shows you I value talented 10+ year players more than a certain 5 year superstar. But here is the confusing part of my answer. I would prefer a Cotchin than 4-5 wins... but above everything else I need the playing group to have a genuine belief we are heading in the right direction.

Listen to this next point very carefully.

If we could finish 16th for the next 2 years and have all our young players absolutely 100% confident of winning multiple premierships in the future, then that would be the dream scenario.

But that is just not realistic, is it.

 

[the claw]

Like i said Claw.You WANT us to finish bottom 4 at the sametime you want us to play the kids.So you WANT these same kids to go loss after loss for the sake of getting another Cotchin etc.In between getting all these Cotchin,s etc you,ll be calling these kids DuDs because they finish bottom 4 to get the next Cotchin.

As for your predictable.s.Anything can happen.Even finish top 4

still evaded the questions i see. soft.

Claws upside for Richmond:
2009 to 2029 to Finish bottom 4 so by 2030 we,ll have 22 Cotchin,s in the side :hihi :hihi :hihi

pretty poor form dont you think. is that all you have. i suppose if your losing the debate you may as well try and change tack and play the man with untruths.you tell fibs in an attempt to discredit thats fine by me but its poor form coming from a bloke who cant answer 3 straight forward questions. whos the hypocrite.

as i always do i will attempt to answer you regardless. as i have said and will say again i give all our kids plenty of time to prove themselves most of them a minimum of 4yrs and few have been called duds.yes few. you know this for a fact madcow but continue to make a fool of yourself by trying to paint an otherwise different picture. you also know i advocate low finishes but only until we have enough quality and depth to genuinely be called a top 4 side. realistically under wallace we should be there but wallace like you refuse to admit to the advantage of truly bottoming out for 3 or 4 yrs. no you would rather 12th and 9th place finishes every yr with the odd finals appearnce every 7 or 8 yrs. and thus stay mid to low table.which is exactly whats happened and happening.

your pathetic madcow. you have no ideas on how to create a top 4 list you refuse to answer questions in a debate and when you hear things you dont like instead of debating the points you sneakily play the man and misrepresent peoples views.
like i said pathetic and definately hypocritical.

 

[the claw]

claw just interested whether you think theres an upside to Richmonds future at all?Do you think we are still that far behind the rest of the teams

yeah i think theres an upside with continued good picks and a fixing of list structure. no one ithink denies we have picked up some good kids.but a few good kids does not make for a good list.

and in answer to the second bit i think a lot of teams are at a similar level. i think those teams are nowhere near a premiership and atm all are potential bottom 4 sides. you can only judge improvement in relation to other teams.

 

[the claw]

1. Yes, it is unreasonable to predict a bottom 4 finish. There is of course a chance that we will drop down, but that chance is too low to realistically predict it with confidence.

2. Same question, but the words "certainty" and "Richmond" have been fighting and refuse to talk to each other. We are maybe a 10% chance of finishing bottom 4 in my books.

3. Last year I said I would not trade Pick 2 alone for Chris Judd, so this shows you I value talented 10+ year players more than a certain 5 year superstar. But here is the confusing part of my answer. I would prefer a Cotchin than 4-5 wins... but above everything else I need the playing group to have a genuine belief we are heading in the right direction.

Listen to this next point very carefully.

If we could finish 16th for the next 2 years and have all our young players absolutely 100% confident of winning multiple premierships in the future, then that would be the dream scenario.

But that is just not realistic, is it.

thanks for the answers benny unlike others you show some balls.

clearly on the first we disagree. the list and its structure, depth, kind draw, few injuries, a reliance on 30+ yrolds and an inability to beat sides above us clearly says to me we can finish bottom 4 next yr.

2 so in effect you are saying theres a chance to finish bottom 4. so it would not be totally unrealistic to predict such.

3. you answer yes to wanting cotchin over a few wins. the obvious question to that is would you prefer two more players of cotchins quality than the extra wins that put us in 9th this yr.. i certainly know which is better for the club moving forward.

 

[the claw]

So essentially what you're saying is that it doesn't matter if you have duds on your list as long as they're tall duds? When Wallace first came in we had the following players either already playing in the ruck or capable of doing so: Ottens, Stafford and Ray Hall. Ottens decided he didn't want to play for less money than he was getting and left, to cover the gap we traded for Simmonds and used one of the picks we got for Ottens to draft Pattison. We then secured Knobel via the PSD. That gave us 5 possible ruckmen. Stafford retired and Hall and Knobel were forced to retire due to injury. At present we have Simmonds, Pattison, Graham, Putt and Cartledge who can all ruck with varying degrees of success. Assuming we promote Cartledge and keep Graham on the list, then draft a young ruckman that will give us 6 ruckmen on the list. A couple of duds and some that show promise. Not a lot different to Carlton from where I sit and as I said Carlton do not have Warnock yet and there is no guarantee that he will wind up there. That article was written by Greg Denham, what's his success rate like with these things?

thats silly. you dont draft duds deliberately but everyone does end up with duds. especially if you use later nd picks and you rookie players.

carlton the model we are useing took ackland in the psd hes proven to be a dud.cloke who was originally a kpp in the psd they have rookied both ohailpins they may prove to be duds they rookied jacobs who knows thats the risk you take with recycled players rookies.they have also used pick 1 and 17 in the nd on ruckmen it looks like they will now invest a 2nd round pick on another warnock. these are all currently on carltons list warnock aside.in 2005 they had batson french deluca and bryan they have invested in heps of ruckmen in 4 yrs.

at the end of 2004 we had marsh ottens and stafford.ray hall was not a ruckman he helped out sometimes if injury hit.
along comes terrry forces ottens out imo and delists marsh and keeps an aging injury prone stafford.
so what does he do he takes simmonds who fell to us in the psd but takes him in a trade. 27yo simmo ended up a tiger because he left freo not because we went after him.lucky for us anyway.he then takes a dinosaur in 25yr old knobel who is ijury prone and he keeps 31 yr old stafford. the obvious question is where is the couple of young ruckmen that should be in the system. you say pattison i say not he was clearly drafted as a kpp. i will say wallace tried to do something about the rucks but it was short term and totally inadequate.
the next yr the only inclusion is graham thru the rookie draft.wheres the future wheres the future quality.
come the next yr wallace finally takes a ruckman in the nd and in deperation promtes a failed retread to the rookie list.in the meantime he loses two knobel and stafford.
ive rushed this post and have to go but to try and excuse the list management is not on and it has been half arsed.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

It is almost the other way Toots. Two years ago Patto was in front of Cloke but I would suggest Cloke has gone past Patto.

Agree.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

thats silly. you dont draft duds deliberately but everyone does end up with duds. especially if you use later nd picks and you rookie players.

carlton the model we are useing took ackland in the psd hes proven to be a dud.cloke who was originally a kpp in the psd they have rookied both ohailpins they may prove to be duds they rookied jacobs who knows thats the risk you take with recycled players rookies.they have also used pick 1 and 17 in the nd on ruckmen it looks like they will now invest a 2nd round pick on another warnock. these are all currently on carltons list warnock aside.in 2005 they had batson french deluca and bryan they have invested in heps of ruckmen in 4 yrs.

at the end of 2004 we had marsh ottens and stafford.ray hall was not a ruckman he helped out sometimes if injury hit.
along comes terrry forces ottens out imo and delists marsh and keeps an aging injury prone stafford.
so what does he do he takes simmonds who fell to us in the psd but takes him in a trade. 27yo simmo ended up a tiger because he left freo not because we went after him.lucky for us anyway.he then takes a dinosaur in 25yr old knobel who is ijury prone and he keeps 31 yr old stafford. the obvious question is where is the couple of young ruckmen that should be in the system. you say pattison i say not he was clearly drafted as a kpp. i will say wallace tried to do something about the rucks but it was short term and totally inadequate.
the next yr the only inclusion is graham thru the rookie draft.wheres the future wheres the future quality.
come the next yr wallace finally takes a ruckman in the nd and in deperation promtes a failed retread to the rookie list.in the meantime he loses two knobel and stafford.
ive rushed this post and have to go but to try and excuse the list management is not on and it has been half arsed.

So you would have been happy with paying Ottens $400,000 a season? That's what he was getting and the club were getting precious little return for it. Terry did not force Ottens out. The club offered him a deal he didn't want and Geelong pulled out the cheque book. The Simmonds deal worked out better for the Tigers than any of the other 2 teams involved. We didn't give up a pick, we gave up a player who had never succeeded at the club and didn't look likely to. Remember Fiona? Freo got Heath Black back and that worked out so well for them. Simmonds just missed out on AA selection in 2006 and played as the Victorian ruckman earlier this year. BTW I wouldn't count on the younger O'Hailpin staying at Carlton. They can't rookie him again and it looks like he may not make it. As someone else mentioned Carlton aren't really a good one to look at. Freo are sticking with their 'we want more than a second round pick or a recycled player for Warnock, too' Really want to give up pick 6 and pay the kid in excess of a million over 3 seasons? That's the scenario to get him to Carlton. Their first rounder and a big fat pay cheque for a kid that has played less than 30 games and may not even come good by the end of the contract. As Bennyfurs said elsewhere I'd rather not trade for overpriced players because there's this strange frenzy about them at trade time, and leave our young group as it is and let them develop a really strong team bond. I think we will finish out of the bottom 4 next season and it is highly unlikely, if not unrealistic, that we'll finish bottom 4. I wouldn't have wanted to lose Cotchin for the sake of a few wins, but if the side doesn't experience some success (finish better than bottom 4) over a period of the 4 or 5 years you favour then you'll lose those kids anyway. Why do you think Warnock wants to go to Carlton instead of Melbourne? Carlton have a better chance of playing finals than Melbourne and they're prepared to come up with the readies to pay him as well.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

still evaded the questions i see. soft.pretty poor form dont you think. is that all you have. i suppose if your losing the debate you may as well try and change tack and play the man with untruths.you tell fibs in an attempt to discredit thats fine by me but its poor form coming from a bloke who cant answer 3 straight forward questions. whos the hypocrite.

as i always do i will attempt to answer you regardless. as i have said and will say again i give all our kids plenty of time to prove themselves most of them a minimum of 4yrs and few have been called duds.yes few. you know this for a fact madcow but continue to make a fool of yourself by trying to paint an otherwise different picture. you also know i advocate low finishes but only until we have enough quality and depth to genuinely be called a top 4 side. realistically under wallace we should be there but wallace like you refuse to admit to the advantage of truly bottoming out for 3 or 4 yrs. no you would rather 12th and 9th place finishes every yr with the odd finals appearnce every 7 or 8 yrs. and thus stay mid to low table.which is exactly whats happened and happening.

your pathetic madcow. you have no ideas on how to create a top 4 list you refuse to answer questions in a debate and when you hear things you dont like instead of debating the points you sneakily play the man and misrepresent peoples views.
like i said pathetic and definately hypocritical.

I said we could very well finish top 4.
And what different picture am i trying to paint here Claw when you have openly said you prefer we finish bottom 4.
History shows you dont have to finish in the Bottom 4 on a regular basis to be a success.Ask West Coast,Geelong,North.
History also shows you can find some gems in the teens and even with later picks.
History also shows there can be stuff ups in the Top 5.
Arent you sick of our past 25 yr history claw.
Obviously your not

 

[the claw]

Kruezer would have gone to whoever had first pick so I dont think that counts as planning (or maybe it does via the tank). Hampson looks promising for sure. Warnock is not at Carlton yet, there is no guarantee he will be going there. Stanta OHailpin, 25yo and borderline player, his brother is 23 and hasn't played game. So who else Jacobs?

So what have we, Putt=Hampson, Kruezer=Vickery (maybe wishful thinking); Simmonds, Cartledge, Graham = 2 x O Hailpins & Jacobs; Cloke and Ackland = Pattison not really ruckmen.

I don't see alot of difference. Richmond have concentrated predominantly on the midfield in the past. If we have two youngsters Putt and a Vickery type coming through and Simmonds can get through another two years, and we can maybe pick up a recycled stop-gap ruckman for a year or two, in 3 years time we'll be looking quite strong.

I just don't think using Carlton as the yarstick is appropriate. I'd be looking at the Geelongs and West Coast and Swans, the successful teams to see how they have handled the ruckman situation rather than an untried and yet unproven outfit named Carlton.

well we disagree again. aquestion do you think we would have taken kruezer in front of cotchin or wce for that matter.
also in 4 yrs since the start of 2005 which equates to wallaces time at richmond carlton hve gone thru 11 ruckmen which includes the ruckmen they have today and ruckmen who are now gone all since the end of 2004. you can add the ohailpins from the rookie list to the list proper. and you can most certainly add warnock which would make the number 12.

the rfc would nothave had more than 12 ruckmen go thru their system in 15 yrs and we certainly hve had just 2 nd picks in 11 yrs.

your rating or comparisons of each teams ruckmen is also funny.
looking forward who has the best ruck stocks. carlton have loaded up big time with talls they have primarily chased mids onballers second as they weed out the lesser talls they will load up on onballers and speciality positions and in theory they will all come together or and be ready to go at the same time.

you bag carlton because they are carlton if we are to get better we have to leran from all sides who get things right we clearly havent while carlton are busy delisting their extras or lesser talls we will probably be picking them up in that stop gap way you just mentioned.

 

[doherz]

claw just interested whether you think theres an upside to Richmonds future at all?Do you think we are still that far behind the rest of the teams

yes, interesting. I seem to recall RFC being the best of the worst this year. Nothing to pin your hat on, but better than last. You also have to remember claw that with sustained improvement and better efforts, it has flow on effects into the calibre of people we can attract (ala March, Wright Cameron, Wallace et al) and for sponsorship. I am aware of curretn circumstances regarding the open football chief position and lacking a major sponsor, but Rome wasnt built in a day my friend.

 

[Tigers of Old]

So you would have been happy with paying Ottens $400,000 a season? That's what he was getting and the club were getting precious little return for it. Terry did not force Ottens out. The club offered him a deal he didn't want and Geelong pulled out the cheque book.

I honestly couldn't have cared less about the money re Ottens. I mean seriously who cares?
He is a first class ruck and had we had a decent midfield he'd had been perfect for us but we didn't have much of a midfield at all and probably undervalued him if anything. The Cats who do have quality surrounding him would be well happy to have him right now I imagine. Can't help but wish we had him now either. Always pictured him as a player that you build premiership teams around. Thompson thought so too and now Brad's got one medallion & looks likely to add another.

Simmo has given us 1.5 good years out of 4 and whilst he is pretty good, I still think Ottens is a fair better player and younger too.

On the face of it two first rounders should have been worthwhile compensation but it becomes a bit of a lottery after the top 5 or so and we struck out with Meyer and Pattison as replacements sadly. So thanks for nothing Greg & Terry. Aah well...

the rfc would nothave had more than 12 ruckmen go thru their system in 15 yrs and we certainly hve had just 2 nd picks in 11 yrs.

You can't be serious about rating the Blues ruck division over the past few years clawsy.
They have had duds of the highest calibre.

 

[Leysy Days]

I honestly couldn't have cared less about the money re Ottens. I mean seriously who cares?
He is a first class ruck and had we had a decent midfield he'd had been perfect for us but we didn't have much of a midfield at all and probably undervalued him if anything. The Cats who do have quality surrounding him would be well happy to have him right now I imagine. Can't help but wish we had him now either. Always pictured him as a player that you build premiership teams around. Thompson thought so too and now Brad's got one medallion & looks likely to add another.

Simmo has given us 1.5 good years out of 4 and whilst he is pretty good, I still think Ottens is a fair better player and younger too.

reckon Simmonds gets sold short on here. Been very very good for us. The piece of trading that saw us trade Fiora & Ottens to pickup 12, 16 & Troy Simmonds is the stuff of legends.

FWIW here's a bit of a comparison between Ottens & Simmonds since the trade.

Games Kicks Marks H/Balls Poss Goals H'Outs B'low Votes (Total)
Ottens 73 5.6 4.8 6.5 12.1 1.1 16.3 2
Simmonds 75 9.5 5.9 5.2 14.7 0.8 15.7 11

As leysy said, the whole trade itself was a cracker. We got an on par rucking replacement, saved $$$ at a time when they were very short & also got two first round picks. Sure it looks like we butchered the picks but the actual trade was the stuff of dreams.

 

[TygerTyger]

I'm just glad there's been no mention of Kosi

(I get the feeling that he and Dal Santo could be shopped around --- and I'm not so keen on either, especially if it involved losing pick 8 and Connor)

 

[Scoop]

reckon Simmonds gets sold short on here. Been very very good for us. The piece of trading that saw us trade Fiora & Ottens to pickup 12, 16 & Troy Simmonds is the stuff of legends.

FWIW here's a bit of a comparison between Ottens & Simmonds since the trade.

Games Kicks Marks H/Balls Poss Goals H'Outs B'low Votes (Total)
Ottens 73 5.6 4.8 6.5 12.1 1.1 16.3 2
Simmonds 75 9.5 5.9 5.2 14.7 0.8 15.7 11

As leysy said, the whole trade itself was a cracker. We got an on par rucking replacement, saved $$$ at a time when they were very short & also got two first round picks. Sure it looks like we butchered the picks but the actual trade was the stuff of dreams.

Agree, if you get the picks right that is the deal of the century.

 

[Tigers of Old]

reckon Simmonds gets sold short on here. Been very very good for us. The piece of trading that saw us trade Fiora & Ottens to pickup 12, 16 & Troy Simmonds is the stuff of legends.

FWIW here's a bit of a comparison between Ottens & Simmonds since the trade.

Games Kicks Marks H/Balls Poss Goals H'Outs B'low Votes (Total)
Ottens 73 5.6 4.8 6.5 12.1 1.1 16.3 2
Simmonds 75 9.5 5.9 5.2 14.7 0.8 15.7 11

Stats schmats.
You know they don't tell the whole story daisy so I am very surprised at your speed to use them in this instance, particularly given the respective uses & situations of said players over that period. Means little side by side.

On par?
It's only my opinion but Ottens is a better player than Troy as both a forward & tap ruckman.
When 100% fit, BO along with Cox would be one of the two premier talls in the comp.
The Cats would be well happy with that trade in hindsight and I very much doubt they would make the swap if asked, particularly with Troy nearing the end and Ottens with another two years left.I don't mind Troy, been serviceable but if asked I would swap him out.

As I said if we used the picks correctly then it looks ok but we didn't and the same blokes doing the trade also did the drafting. Stuff of legends? I think not.

Ideally we keep Ottens and bring Troy to Richmond as well.

 

[Tigerbob]

We need to trade for Jonathan Griffen more than anything else this trade period.

Have a look around the league and try and see another ruckman we could prize away? There is not many at all.

Robert Warnock would be decent but way too expensive.

We cannot, I repeat cannot go into another season with the backup ruckman of Graham, Cartledge and Pattison.

Jonathan Griffen is my number one target and I would swap Jay Schulz for him in a heartbeat. We have other young KPP like Hughes, Gourdis, Putt, Rance all coming through we can spare Jay and get a player that we need.

 

[ZeroGame]

Stats schmats.
You know they don't tell the whole story daisy so I am very surprised at your speed to use them in this instance, particularly given the respective uses & situations of said players over that period. Means little side by side.

On par?
It's only my opinion but Ottens is a better player than Troy as both a forward & tap ruckman.
When 100% fit, BO along with Cox would be one of the two premier talls in the comp.
The Cats would be well happy with that trade in hindsight and I very much doubt they would make the swap if asked, particularly with Troy nearing the end and Ottens with another two years left.I don't mind Troy, been serviceable but if asked I would swap him out.

As I said if we used the picks correctly then it looks ok but we didn't and the same blokes doing the trade also did the drafting. Stuff of legends? I think not.

Ideally we keep Ottens and bring Troy to Richmond as well.

Can't agree, Ottens has massively underperformed for what Geelong gave up for him. He made no difference in their win against Port Adelaide in the GF and while he may be a very good player when fit... he never is.

 

[IanG]

Can't agree, Ottens has massively underperformed for what Geelong gave up for him. He made no difference in their win against Port Adelaide in the GF

But he was the difference in the PF win over Collingwood.