We Target 3-Net Result-0

[blx]

In a meaningless game against half-hearted opposition who are now one game from a GF - and where did we finish?

Premierships are what it's all about, not one meaningless win.

so now its a meaningless win now is it :

 

[IrockZ]

Didnt even insinuate he was a small ToT so not sure how you come up with that. Leysy Just said he's more suited to playing forward, which currently he no doubt is.
Because of Dean's body shape & attributes, In leysy's view it will be a good 3-4 years before he'll firstly be used for any decent time in the ruck & secondly a few more after that to have an impact there.

BTW, not sure on actual ability yet but J.Westhoff (199cm) & Tippett (201cm) are examples of a general type of spindly athletic forward Putt will start out like.

good post

Putt is more of a forward atm, has a LONG way to go before he does anything in the ruck at afl level

 

[Tigers of Old]

Someone on the boards somewhere likened Putt to a young Paul Salmon, if perhaps not as immediately talented, from what you guys are saying that would seem pretty accurate.
I'd be happy with that. 8)

 

[seven]

Someone on the boards somewhere likened Putt to a young Paul Salmon, if perhaps not as immediately talented, from what you guys are saying that would seem pretty accurate.
I'd be happy with that. 8)

Would like us to pick up a young stafford like player. Ruckman with a bit of mongrel.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

so now its a meaningless win now is it :

What was it then? We had lost the crunch game the week before in one of the more pathetic displays of the year. The 2 biggest games of the year for us were Carlton & Adelaide and in both we were very very ordinary. The hawks had no chance to move up or down the ladder and basically went through the motions for the whole game. We played their rolling zone very well and the Hawks continually turned it over going into there forward 50 ala the Tigers at their worst. The game didn't reveal anything to me about our players I didn't already know.

We finished 9th for the year without any significant injuries but significant contributuions from 4 senior players who will likely not be there in 2010. We don't have a spine and a serious injury to either or both of Simmonds & Richo will see us in the bottom 4 most likely bottom 2 next year.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

hmm whats that noise. the sound of running feet perhaps.or just someone avoiding questions again.

:whistle :whistle :whistle :whistle :whistle :whistle :whistle :whistle

 

[Leysy Days]

joke leysy maisey you know taking the p!ss.

All good Claw. Hate that rolly eyes smiley, gets leysy everytime.

 

[GoodOne]

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.

I can't see how this supports your point. Carlton have gone through 11 ruckmen and what do they end up with. Kruezer picked at 1 and Hampson picked at 17 (rocket science I think not). And the rest? Hardly inspiring. When Carlton start showing success and win premierships then I'll look at how they've achieved their success. In the meantime I stick to my thoery that you'd be much better looking at how the successful teams have nadled their ruck strategies. If the Tigers can pick up Vickery, without any guarantees, there are two highly potential quality ruckmen (Putt) for the future. Sure pick up a rookie ruckman and if required look at a more mature ruckman for the shorter term (after Simmonds). No need to go crazy on ruckmen. We have key positions to concentrate on as well.

As I said if the Tigers can now concentrate on their key positions including rucks then we should be in a very good position moving forward.

 

[Brettstigers]

We finished 9th for the year without any significant injuries but significant contributuions from 4 senior players who will likely not be there in 2010. We don't have a spine and a serious injury to either or both of Simmonds & Richo will see us in the bottom 4 most likely bottom 2 next year.

Don't forget we had an easy draw playing most of the bottom and middling sides twice.
Richmond without Bowden, Richo, Brown and Johnson is going to be a bit of a struggle for us. And to head off the nay-sayers those four add poise, marking power, class disposal and shut down tagging respectively. Add a few injuries a tougher draw and right now we are looking at a bottom four spot. I can understand why we got five out of ten for our performance this year and why Miller was given the shove.

Looking through the thread the thought of getting a few more Delidio/Cotchin like players would just be breathtaking for the club BUT the bloodletting, negativity and destructiveness of playing rubbish or even just losing football makes the draft picks a pricey proposition. But I can see why it would be nice.

 

[the claw]

I can't see how this supports your point. Carlton have gone through 11 ruckmen and what do they end up with. Kruezer picked at 1 and Hampson picked at 17 (rocket science I think not). And the rest? Hardly inspiring. When Carlton start showing success and win premierships then I'll look at how they've achieved their success. In the meantime I stick to my thoery that you'd be much better looking at how the successful teams have nadled their ruck strategies. If the Tigers can pick up Vickery, without any guarantees, there are two highly potential quality ruckmen (Putt) for the future. Sure pick up a rookie ruckman and if required look at a more mature ruckman for the shorter term (after Simmonds). No need to go crazy on ruckmen. We have key positions to concentrate on as well.

As I said if the Tigers can now concentrate on their key positions including rucks then we should be in a very good position moving forward.

the point being is you need to turn over lots to find decent ruckmen. the point being only carltons early picked ruckmen look anygood. the point being we have just one ruckman who was taken thru the nd and that at 51 closer to the backend of the draft than the front.
the point being carlton have shown a preparedness to adopt two strategies to get ruckmen. those being early picks in the nd and rookie selections and retreads thru the psd.
yeah their rookies and retreads have been ordinary thats the chance you take when you take rookies. the advantage is it doesnt cost the earth.
the questions that have to be asked have we done either the answer is no.we have not taken ruckmen with early picks bar one if you call pick 51 early and we have not loaded up with rookies psd late picks the reason our ruck stocks are so poor is because of this.

you have your ruck future in maybe vickery who isnt even on the list and putt who is at least 2 yrs away with no guarantees he will be any good. and maybe a rookie and a short term fix in another clubs hack.if thats not putting all your eggs in one basket i dont know what is.

you want to look at successful sides and how they went about getting what ruckmen they need.
how about geelong.
to compliment king a compensation pick and worth a first rounder. street pick 17, smith a rookie.from 2003 they proceeded to invest nd picks in blake 38, ottens 12 16 and moloney.west 31.simpson 34. loats 51 traded by hawthorn in a player swap.plus rookies
clearly geelong have primarily chosen the earlyish nd route in chasing ruckmen. and this while having some decent ruckmen already on their list. how many nd picks have we used in recent yrs no in the last 12 yrs oh thats right just two. how many ruckmen have we tried in those 12 yrs sheesh you could easily fit them on both hands.

how about hawthorn. since 2004 to compliment ruckmen campbell rookie, thompson 82, who they traded and everitt 6, 22, already on the list. taylor 54. bailey 18.mcentee rookie. sheesh in 2006 they had everitt taylor campbell bailey mcentee yet in 2007 they added renouf at 34.again over the last 10 yrs hawthorn have primarily used earlyish nd picks to get ruckmen. they also got a little lucky with rookie picks unlike carlton.

again the point of the exercise if you wont use nd picks to aquire ruckmen and we dont, and are highly unlikely to under wallace you have to load up late and psd rookie them to get them.its hit and miss.
ive been saying exactly this for yrs you need to do one or the other or both depending on your list. again we do neither.
go look at most sides this is how they have gone about it. i just wish we would do one or the other or both.and not put all our eggs in one basket as you suggest. its not unreasonable to suggest that at this point in time our whole future ruck division is dependant on a 51 pick in the 2007 draft.

in 26 yrs we have tried mopst things but the things we have not done is use earlyish picks on ruckmen or load up with plenty late geez you have to go back to mark lee to find the last decent home grown ruckman.

 

[Willo]

Claw, in regard to drafting ruckmen, what do you regard as early picks?
( PSD aside hopefully we utilise it for 1 or 2 young ruckmen)
ie Would you be prepared to use a 1st round pick or 2nd round in the ND on a ruckman?

Some posters seem adverse to using early picks on a ruckman. Just curious as to what your stance is on this?

 

[the claw]

Claw, in regard to drafting ruckmen, what do you regard as early picks?
( PSD aside hopefully we utilise it for 1 or 2 young ruckmen)
ie Would you be prepared to use a 1st round pick or 2nd round in the ND on a ruckman?

Some posters seem adverse to using early picks on a ruckman. Just curious as to what your stance is on this?

hmm good question. to me a pick thru rounds 1 to 3 are important 3rd round picks may not exactly be early but it gives you a crack at one of the top 50 kids in the country.

i am averse to useing top 10 picks on ruckmen. unless they are a kruezer or leunenberger some might say even the leuenbergers of this world are to risky top 10.
i suppose it comes down to how you rate them.i would definately have no problem useing a late first rounder second rounder on a ruckman but top 10 picks have to be used on best available if that happens to be a ruckman unlikely in most cases so be it.

 

[Willo]

hmm good question. to me a pick thru rounds 1 to 3 are important 3rd round picks may not exactly be early but it gives you a crack at one of the top 50 kids in the country.

i am averse to useing top 10 picks on ruckmen. unless they are a kruezer or leunenberger some might say even the leuenbergers of this world are to risky top 10.
i suppose it comes down to how you rate them.i would definately have no problem useing a late first rounder second rounder on a ruckman but top 10 picks have to be used on best available if that happens to be a ruckman unlikely in most cases so be it.

Interesting. So I suppose if a kid was rated outstanding ala Vickery you'd probaly take him. Its always a gamble how they turn out I guess, there's been plenty of early (ruck) picks that have floundered but the same could be said of mids, flankers or kpp. You just have to keep filling the holes. Sooner or later you're bound to unearth a good 'un if you keep turning them over.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

 

[Tigers of Old]

hmm good question. to me a pick thru rounds 1 to 3 are important 3rd round picks may not exactly be early but it gives you a crack at one of the top 50 kids in the country.

i am averse to useing top 10 picks on ruckmen. unless they are a kruezer or leunenberger some might say even the leuenbergers of this world are to risky top 10.
i suppose it comes down to how you rate them.i would definately have no problem useing a late first rounder second rounder on a ruckman but top 10 picks have to be used on best available if that happens to be a ruckman unlikely in most cases so be it.

What do you think of Vickery clawsy based on what you have seen?
Reckon he is worth a punt at pick 8 or not?

Of course relative to others available but do you think he is worth top 10?

 

[the claw]

What do you think of Vickery clawsy based on what you have seen?
Reckon he is worth a punt at pick 8 or not?

Of course relative to others available but do you think he is worth top 10?

based on what i have seen which is not enough he looks okay sorry thats it. but thats not fair on the kid i havent seen enough of him especially live. many far more informed than me do like him including my cousin alan ex talent scout who still takes a keen interest. i rely a lot on alan and regard his opinion extremely high.at pick 8 idunno i like others in front of him. is he worth a pick 8. hes probably in a group of 5 or 6 you would seriously consider around there.
oldie any picks i make this yr are speculative ive only really wanted to comment on players ive seen a reasonable amount of.even then im becoming more inclined to keep my thoughts to myself for my own reasons.

 

[Tigers of Old]

based on what i have seen which is not enough he looks okay sorry thats it. but thats not fair on the kid i havent seen enough of him especially live. many far more informed than me do like him including my cousin alan ex talent scout who still takes a keen interest. i rely a lot on alan and regard his opinion extremely high.at pick 8 idunno i like others in front of him. is he worth a pick 8. hes probably in a group of 5 or 6 you would seriously consider around there.
oldie any picks i make this yr are speculative ive only really wanted to comment on players ive seen a reasonable amount of.even then im becoming more inclined to keep my thoughts to myself for my own reasons.

Fair enough.
So basically if the club picks him you won't be overly unhappy because unlike a JoN he's not plucked from the stratosphere and fundamentally fills a need.

 

[the claw]

Interesting. So I suppose if a kid was rated outstanding ala Vickery you'd probaly take him. Its always a gamble how they turn out I guess, there's been plenty of early (ruck) picks that have floundered but the same could be said of mids, flankers or kpp. You just have to keep filling the holes. Sooner or later you're bound to unearth a good 'un if you keep turning them over.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

i suppose so. certainly as far as structure goes vickery is ideal the question is are there better credentialled players in front of him. that i suppose depends on how individuals rate players.

let me say with top 10s im looking for players of high quality im certain will make it. there may be others there with more upside but with one or two serious question marks.

i ummed and aarred about masten and palmer last yr but picked cotchin at 2 because of upside go figure. the thing with cotchin there was little doubt about him being a very good player.

 

[the claw]

Fair enough.
So basically if the club picks him you won't be overly unhappy because unlike a JoN he's not plucked from the stratosphere and fundamentally fills a need.

that would be fair to say. i have 5 i have my eye on one would surprise most people the only thing that would how does one say it make me a little irate would be if we overlooked one of those 5 for vickery but again thats just down to personal choices.

 

[GoodOne]

i suppose it comes down to how you rate them.i would definately have no problem useing a late first rounder second rounder on a ruckman but top 10 picks have to be used on best available if that happens to be a ruckman unlikely in most cases so be it.

Everyone talks about the best available. But what does this mean? Except for players who stand out heads and shoulders above the rest, I think you can argue that best available takes into account your actual needs. This is why come pick 8 if Vickery is around, we should pick him over arguably better midfielders purely because that is where we are sorely lacking and he looks to be a great player.

As for successful rucking strategies, based on past team successes, I think recruiting mature aged ruckmen as needed (especially once you are a serious finals threat) makes alot more sense than wasting pick after pick on ruckmen when clearly a high proportion of them don't make it. When it comes to the crunch this is exactly what successful teams of the past lije Geelong, Brisbane and Swans have done. West Coast are the major exception. I'd be happy next year to have on our list Putt, Vickery, Simmonds, one of Cartledge or Graham and maybe another rookie.

 

[IanG]

Everyone talks about the best available. But what does this mean? Except for players who stand out heads and shoulders above the rest, I think you can argue that best available takes into account your actual needs.

Agreed, unless we're right at the top of the draft, say top 3 I think we have to take the best available that fits our needs.