Welcome to Tigerland - Tim Taranto

[Redford]

The strategy isn’t without risk but it’s waaaaay too early to be making judgements.

Taranto has only played 3 games. Hopper 2. Potential draft picks we might have taken…..somewhere between zero and 3 as well.

This’ll take at least 2 years to begin to prove out one way or the other.

 

[Elmer]

Is good, lively reading this thread at the mo.

 

[forward press]

Williams hasn't turned 23 but he's close, building ok and is looking like a better bet than Dow, that's my base level measurement, even average talls tend to stay in the system for a decade and usually provide either back-up or trading capital. The trick with talls is to get them in early and then build up a surplus in order to account for the odd bust.

As for our depth, we're losing with the Cotchin, Martin, Prestia, Riewoldt, Lynch, Grimes & Pickett retirements, not enough back-up & not enough quality coming through. That's the premiership core, Hopper & Taranto help somewhat but it's shaping up as a raid on Peter to pay Paul. Pick 30 odd next draft hopefully addresses one shortcoming but it's unlikely to fill the massive void coming up. I see a repeat of the Crazy Vossy era and the Hawthorn all or nothing approach.

I’m struggling to comprehend how you think that not picking Sam Taylor was a missed because we picked a ‘tweener’ ruck (assume this is ccj?) but in the same paragraph also big note Bailey Williams who has provided very little in his career so far.

And comparing him to Dow? He wasn’t even in the same draft?

There are levels of comparison here that assume we needed to make a fictional future trade with a club that may or may not have agreed to the terms we put to them, and then for us to rate them the same as you.

I’m still not sure what you are seeing in Williams and Bytel though. These guys are peripheral players in their side at best.

If we reached for Williams at 20 in that draft there would be many who would be questioning his output at that pick.

And Bytel would have involved trading for a future pick, probably second round which was our Cumberland pick.

So many variables, the permutations are endless, not as absolute as you are making them out to be.

 

[bullus_hit]

No doubt.
But who knows if we would have picked him let alone traded for those picks.

It’s a scenario that never happened.
Like Cowan and Hewett. They were on your radar and may or may not work out. But there’s no guarantee that we would have picked them at those spots had we kept the picks.

BTW I haven’t seen Bytel in the team this year. Might have missed him though as I haven’t been watching the saints closely. How’s he been playing?

Playing the shut down role, he'll be ok I think, not a world beater but a core contributor.

The hawks comparison keeps getting thrown up. They had something like ZERO 1st rd picks, and very few 2nd rd picks over a decade. We have had heaps. the comparison is nonsense.
Not sure on Voss- but from memory he sold the farm for some over the hill footballers.

The Hawks sold the farm for Mitchell & O'Meara, they borrowed heavily from future picks, plenty of similarities given the player types and the cost involved.

 

[bullus_hit]

I’m struggling to comprehend how you think that not picking Sam Taylor was a missed because we picked a ‘tweener’ ruck (assume this is ccj?) but in the same paragraph also big note Bailey Williams who has provided very little in his career so far.

And comparing him to Dow? He wasn’t even in the same draft?

There are levels of comparison here that assume we needed to make a fictional future trade with a club that may or may not have agreed to the terms we put to them, and then for us to rate them the same as you.

I’m still not sure what you are seeing in Williams and Bytel though. These guys are peripheral players in their side at best.

If we reached for Williams at 20 in that draft there would be many who would be questioning his output at that pick.

And Bytel would have involved trading for a future pick, probably second round which was our Cumberland pick.

So many variables, the permutations are endless, not as absolute as you are making them out to be.

The Williams selection was a future pick and one which was suggested when the Bulldogs were searching for future capital in the West F&S brokering, it was a good chance to secure an athletic tall and stock up in an area which was lacking, That pick turned into Dow who looks a bust, Williams not necessarily a world beater but I know who I'd rather have on the list right now.

 

[forward press]

The Williams selection was a future pick and one which was suggested when the Bulldogs were searching for future capital in the West F&S brokering, it was a good chance to secure an athletic tall and stock up in an area which was lacking, That pick turned into Dow who looks a bust, Williams not necessarily a world beater but I know who I'd rather have on the list right now.

So we were looking at trading with the bulldogs? Or was this your view of what we should have done?

I’m not defending Dow by the way, but am confused as to why there is criticism on why we picked him up vs a split of picks over two years.

I normally follow the trade period quite closely but seem to have missed this one where we were looking to get involved.

 

[turk-d-tiger]

I think the Tuck comparison is a pretty good one, a regular in the top 5 B&F but far from an elite midfielder, the difference being the bill is 5 million & two premium draftees.

Personally i dont get the tuck comparison

Shane Tuck was a low talent footballer that was always border line best 22 until finally he was and made the best out of his talent playing 170 odd games but had guts and determination to make the best out of his abilities.

Taranto is a few rungs up from Tuck and his kicking efficiency is his only negative which is what it is
But i would not say its any worse than somebody like Trent Cotchin , Jack Steel or the Bont

Early days lets see how it is in a couple of years
but i would still do that trade with where our list is at but not if we were in say Hawks , Eagles , North position

 

[bullus_hit]

So we were looking at trading with the bulldogs? Or was this your view of what we should have done?

I’m not defending Dow by the way, but am confused as to why there is criticism on why we picked him up vs a split of picks over two years.

I normally follow the trade period quite closely but seem to have missed this one where we were looking to get involved.

This was my suggestion, two players (Williams & Bytel) for a future first, the reasoning sound enough, we were a clear top 4 team so the cost not selling the farm. A tall and a midfielder, a year early so to get the apprenticeship underway in preparation for the imminent retirements. Both players could easily be role players in a successful side, handy depth at the very least. Dow was ranked as a third round prospect by many, it was the first sign that Clarke was doing things in a slightly unconventional manner.

 

[bullus_hit]

Personally i dont get the tuck comparison

Shane Tuck was a low talent footballer that was always border line best 22 until finally he was and made the best out of his talent playing 170 odd games but had guts and determination to make the best out of his abilities.

Taranto is a few rungs up from Tuck and his kicking efficiency is his only negative which is what it is
But i would not say its any worse than somebody like Trent Cotchin , Jack Steel or the Bont

Early days lets see how it is in a couple of years
but i would still do that trade with where our list is at but not if we were in say Hawks , Eagles , North position

Tuck was a regular top 5 B&F player but lacked kicking finesse, that was the point being made, not that they are similar players. Taranto won a B&F at GWS despite having ordinary disposal efficiency, I reckon he's odds on to do that at Richmond and will struggle to spearhead a midfield for the next 7 years. He won't be an outright bust, he'll be serviceable, but so too was Kane Johnson, a player who didn't vindicate losing Daniel Wells in the wash-up. I do find it slightly bewildering that Taranto's lack of hurt factor is being routinely dismissed yet the cheaper and more accomplished Mitchell cops it from all angles. We haven't played the percentages this year, I can only hope the future first doesn't wind up being a top 10 pick in a very strong draft. Even worse if it's a key position prospect. I'm very uneasy about the direction the club is going.

 

[TigerFurious]

This was my suggestion, two players (Williams & Bytel) for a future first, the reasoning sound enough, we were a clear top 4 team so the cost not selling the farm. A tall and a midfielder, a year early so to get the apprenticeship underway in preparation for the imminent retirements. Both players could easily be role players in a successful side, handy depth at the very least. Dow was ranked as a third round prospect by many, it was the first sign that Clarke was doing things in a slightly unconventional manner.

Historically, the difference between a late first rounder like Dow and an early third rounder is extremely marginal. Pick 21 has a 13% chance of producing a 200+ gamer. Pick 40 also has a 13% of producing a 200+ gamer.

This is why there is a perception around here that we are terrible with first rounders but good with second and third rounders. They are basically the same pick and we’ve had more second and third round picks in the last decade than we’ve had first rounders. It’s just numbers.

 

[Smoking Aces]

You can't put a Brownlow winner as "dime a dozen" and you can't put him with Tuck.

Shane Woowodin won a Brownlow. Just saying.

 

[bullus_hit]

Shane Woowodin won a Brownlow. Just saying.

123 Brownlow votes suggests a bit more consistency, wouldn't you agree?

 

[bullus_hit]

Historically, the difference between a late first rounder like Dow and an early third rounder is extremely marginal. Pick 21 has a 13% chance of producing a 200+ gamer. Pick 40 also has a 13% of producing a 200+ gamer.

This is why there is a perception around here that we are terrible with first rounders but good with second and third rounders. They are basically the same pick and we’ve had more second and third round picks in the last decade than we’ve had first rounders. It’s just numbers.

That analysis is too simplistic, a player like Rance plays 200 games which is worth a truckload more than 200 games from a flanker or small forward, talls pretty much have to come in the top 30, that is why these picks are so valuable. Quality mids are also better sourced with top 30 selections, plenty of guns like Beams, Touk Miller, Shai Bolton etc have slid into that steal of the draft category. The days of Dane Swan type bargains happen once in a blue moon, it used to happen much more frequently, Sloane another example, Neale another quality late pick. I think the drafting game has become much more competitive and 'hiding' players not feasible. nowadays.

 

[forward press]

This was my suggestion, two players (Williams & Bytel) for a future first, the reasoning sound enough, we were a clear top 4 team so the cost not selling the farm. A tall and a midfielder, a year early so to get the apprenticeship underway in preparation for the imminent retirements. Both players could easily be role players in a successful side, handy depth at the very least. Dow was ranked as a third round prospect by many, it was the first sign that Clarke was doing things in a slightly unconventional manner.

Oh ok.
So a suggested trade hypothetical that neither Richmond nor the Bulldogs even discussed. Thanks for the context.

This is an even more unfair analysis then.
Not only was never in play in the real world, there is the benefit of hindsight to criticise the eventual pick that we took the following year.

Once again, comparing Dow to two players from two different draft classes based on a fictional trade between two clubs that never discussed the proposition is ridiculously unfair. Williams and Bytel are hardly world beaters by any means.

Bytel would be criticised as a battler if he was on our list, and well behind mids in Graham, Ross, Sonsie. Probably fighting it out with Dow as forth in line.

It would be questionable whether Williams would be getting games for us either. Is he a first ruck and if so, would Nank be the second ruckman? Or is he more of a third forward who chops out Nank, like the role Samson is playing? And if so, how is he tracking against Samson in this position? Both are 22 although our boy has had less time in the professional system so potentially more upside.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

At least he is better then LObb, Horn Francis, Bowes & Brunh

 

[bullus_hit]

Oh ok.
So a suggested trade hypothetical that neither Richmond nor the Bulldogs even discussed. Thanks for the context.

This is an even more unfair analysis then.
Not only was never in play in the real world, there is the benefit of hindsight to criticise the eventual pick that we took the following year.

Once again, comparing Dow to two players from two different draft classes based on a fictional trade between two clubs that never discussed the proposition is ridiculously unfair. Williams and Bytel are hardly world beaters by any means.

Bytel would be criticised as a battler if he was on our list, and well behind mids in Graham, Ross, Sonsie. Probably fighting it out with Dow as forth in line.

It would be questionable whether Williams would be getting games for us either. Is he a first ruck and if so, would Nank be the second ruckman? Or is he more of a third forward who chops out Nank, like the role Samson is playing? And if so, how is he tracking against Samson in this position? Both are 22 although our boy has had less time in the professional system so potentially more upside.

Never in play? He was pick 35, he was always in play, if we wanted him we could have cut a deal, whether it was the trade I suggested or any other type of trade such as moving up a paltry 8 places in the draft. I had him pegged at 11 so from my perspective he was worth a stab. Funny enough, most on here ridiculed me for the suggestion, too risky came the chorus, now that it turns out to be an ok manoeuvre we're back to the fantasy land critque. And I'm being perfectly fair in my criticism, Clarke has missed quite a few talls over the journey, that is now coming back to bite.

 

[TigerFurious]

That analysis is too simplistic, a player like Rance plays 200 games which is worth a truckload more than 200 games from a flanker or small forward, talls pretty much have to come in the top 30, that is why these picks are so valuable. Quality mids are also better sourced with top 30 selections, plenty of guns like Beams, Touk Miller, Shai Bolton etc have slid into that steal of the draft category. The days of Dane Swan type bargains happen once in a blue moon, it used to happen much more frequently, Sloane another example, Neale another quality late pick. I think the drafting game has become much more competitive and 'hiding' players not feasible. nowadays.

Not sure how you could quantify a players career impact short of looking at something like super coach points. Regardless, with the exception of Shaun Atley not many duds play 200 games so I think it’s a reasonable measure.

You cited a few examples ranging from late first to third round picks but left out the vast majority of players taken in that range that don’t amount to anything. You would probably have to take 5-6 players in that draft range to find one player of the quality of Neale, Beams, Bolton or Rance. That’s a lot of draft picks for one player and there are no guarantees.

Rounding back to the original topic, this is why I believe the Taranto and Hopper deals were good ones. We gave up a collection of middling picks with marginal chance of success for two players that are near certainties to play good quality football for 100+ games for us. Your option of taking those picks to the draft has a very high chance of reward (2,3 or even 4 of those picks turn out to be good players) but also very high risk (one or even none of those players are any good). To me it was a no brainer, take the players because the draft picks are overrated.

 

[forward press]

Never in play? He was pick 35, he was always in play, if we wanted him we could have cut a deal, whether it was the trade I suggested or any other type of trade such as moving up a paltry 8 places in the draft. I had him pegged at 11 so from my perspective he was worth a stab. Funny enough, most on here ridiculed me for the suggestion, too risky came the chorus, now that it turns out to be an ok manoeuvre we're back to the fantasy land critque. And I'm being perfectly fair in my criticism, Clarke has missed quite a few talls over the journey, that is now coming back to bite.

Look I respect you putting your neck out with your views on the juniors. They make for interesting viewing and you make some ballsy calls.

But you had him at 11 in your rankings for that year. Of course you are invested to the point you WANT him to succeed.

If we wanted him we could have traded up.
But Jack Ross looks more promising without having needed to. And he’s also a much better prospect than Bytel. Even I was seduced by Bytels injury prone junior career and wanted him to land with us. But it looks like Ross is the better player. We got the better mid of the two and we didn’t have the choice. But it’s really marginal whether either of these guys will be more than role players.

Do you think Williams offers more to our team than Ryan does as a forward? Williams looks more like a ruck forward to me, but perhaps that’s because West Coast have had a glut of tall forwards. I can’t see significant incremental value over Samson in our side, but I’m interested in your view.

 

[bullus_hit]

Not sure how you could quantify a players career impact short of looking at something like super coach points. Regardless, with the exception of Shaun Atley not many duds play 200 games so I think it’s a reasonable measure.

You cited a few examples ranging from late first to third round picks but left out the vast majority of players taken in that range that don’t amount to anything. You would probably have to take 5-6 players in that draft range to find one player of the quality of Neale, Beams, Bolton or Rance. That’s a lot of draft picks for one player and there are no guarantees.

Rounding back to the original topic, this is why I believe the Taranto and Hopper deals were good ones. We gave up a collection of middling picks with marginal chance of success for two players that are near certainties to play good quality football for 100+ games for us. Your option of taking those picks to the draft has a very high chance of reward (2,3 or even 4 of those picks turn out to be good players) but also very high risk (one or even none of those players are any good). To me it was a no brainer, take the players because the draft picks are overrated.

Let me put it this way. is 200 games from Riewoldt the same as 200 games from Kamydyn McIntosh or Nathan Broad? Just take a quick snapshot of our premiership, the cream always at the top end, the top tier basically kitted out with first round talent, our best players invariably high draftees. Now if you are talking about paying a premium for known quantities like Hopper & Taranto, 3 premium picks to be exact, then I'd expect some assurances on the injury & kicking front, if this is the best we can do with our draft capital, especially when a guy like Mitchell was going cheap as chips then I reckon we've misread the script.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Let me put it this way. is 200 games from Riewoldt the same as 200 games from Kamydyn McIntosh or Nathan Broad? Just take a quick snapshot of our premiership, the cream always at the top end, the top tier basically kitted out with first round talent, our best players invariably high draftees. Now if you are talking about paying a premium for known quantities like Hopper & Taranto, 3 premium picks to be exact, then I'd expect some assurances on the injury & kicking front, if this is the best we can do with our draft capital, especially when a guy like Mitchell was going cheap as chips then I reckon we've misread the script.

We shouldve taken Mitchell last year.
He was offered to us and we knocked it back.
Read all the comments from last year in the rumours or trade board.
I was massive on getting Mitchell