Who would we have gone for if Hughes was gone at 24 ?

[Harry]

Would it have been Casserly ? Apparently we rated him at 24. That would have left us with 2 speedy mediums.....where do we then go with pick 40? Another midfielder and totally ignore our lack of KPP's?

Or would we have taken Mills perhaps? Did we rate Mills? Were there any other big men available? Who were in our "second bunch" of KPP's besides Hughes?

Can those that attended the Greg Miller pre-draft meeting perhaps shed some light on this?

I'm of the opinion that we could have been up sh1t creek without a paddle had Hughes been gone before 24. We were kinda lucky in the end.

 

[jb03]

Don't stress with the hypotheticals H. What's done is done.

 

[White Czar]

Casserly according to the club. (2 flankers? sounds like bollocks)

I was happy with Hughes @ 8.

Thank Christ he was still around at 24.

 

[the claw]

Would it have been Casserly ?  Apparently we rated him at 24.  That would have left us with 2 speedy mediums.....where do we then go with pick 40?  Another midfielder and totally ignore our lack of KPP's?

Or would we have taken Mills perhaps?  Did we rate Mills?  Were there any other big men available?  Who were in our "second bunch" of KPP's besides Hughes?

Can those that attended the Greg Miller pre-draft meeting perhaps shed some light on this?

I'm of the opinion that we could have been up sh1t creek without a paddle had Hughes been gone before 24.  We were kinda lucky in the end.

yeah it really makes one wonder if they have any long term direction as far as list management goes.miller has already said casserly would of been taken at 24 if hughes wasnt there.
i have to say we are bucking the trend when it comes to the struggling sides.in recent yrs of the struggling teams haw ca wb hve seen fit to go tall in drafting i havent included coll because they have had an abundance of genuine talls 190cm + for awhile.it seems they think its more important to build tall depth in a rebuilding phase.the dogs have gone from about 10 genuine talls 3 or 4 yrs ago to 19 at the start of this yr.haw have drafted 10 talls in the last 3 yrs for a total of 19. carlton drafted another 3 talls this yr for a total of 19.does anyone think that perhaps we are going about rebuilding arse about.
we have 13 talls on our list with 4 of them turning 30 or older gaspar kellaway richo and stafford.we have another 3 with big question marks about them in moore schulz and limbach. and 4 who have an awful lot to prove in thursfield mcguane pattison and hughes and we shouldnt be expecting anything major from this last group for 3 or 4 yrs.this leaves hall knobel who are both average at best and simmonds.in the next 2 or 3 yrs i can see us delisting or retireing up to 9 of these players.
imo we have to look down the track and get our future ff chf chb and fb on to our list now and we need replacements for them as well in case of injuries.

 

[Darth Tiger]

Would it have been Casserly ? Apparently we rated him at 24. That would have left us with 2 speedy mediums.....where do we then go with pick 40? Another midfielder and totally ignore our lack of KPP's?

Or would we have taken Mills perhaps? Did we rate Mills? Were there any other big men available? Who were in our "second bunch" of KPP's besides Hughes?

Can those that attended the Greg Miller pre-draft meeting perhaps shed some light on this?

I'm of the opinion that we could have been up sh1t creek without a paddle had Hughes been gone before 24. We were kinda lucky in the end.

yeah it really makes one wonder if they have any long term direction as far as list management goes.miller has already said casserly would of been taken at 24 if hughes wasnt there.
i have to say we are bucking the trend when it comes to the struggling sides.in recent yrs of the struggling teams haw ca wb hve seen fit to go tall in drafting i havent included coll because they have had an abundance of genuine talls 190cm + for awhile.it seems they think its more important to build tall depth in a rebuilding phase.the dogs have gone from about 10 genuine talls 3 or 4 yrs ago to 19 at the start of this yr.haw have drafted 10 talls in the last 3 yrs for a total of 19. carlton drafted another 3 talls this yr for a total of 19.does anyone think that perhaps we are going about rebuilding arse about.
we have 13 talls on our list with 4 of them turning 30 or older gaspar kellaway richo and stafford.we have another 3 with big question marks about them in moore schulz and limbach. and 4 who have an awful lot to prove in thursfield mcguane pattison and hughes and we shouldnt be expecting anything major from this last group for 3 or 4 yrs.this leaves hall knobel who are both average at best and simmonds.in the next 2 or 3 yrs i can see us delisting or retireing up to 9 of these players.
imo we have to look down the track and get our future ff chf chb and fb on to our list now and we need replacements for them as well in case of injuries.

In some ways I agree with you Claw, however the tall deficiency cannot be fixed in 1 or 2 drafts.

I like the Tommy Hafey legacy and Richmond playing style of old, where fast tracking and kicking it long to quality tall timber has been the gameplan.

However, the days of of kick-mark-kick-mark&goal are gone.

A new AFL playing style has emerged of run-dispose-run-dispose-run-dispose&goal.

Most of the power forwards will have the ball kicked over their heads in the new millenia era, mainly because a sliding playing style is the norm.

Wallet is on to it (and had commenced drafting appropriately), the BBC 6foot centreline will become a 6'2" sliding, running, effective disposal HalfBack,Centreline, HalfForward line with 4 to 6 talls in the run-on 22 max.

The Dinosaur 6'5"+ one/two dimensional tall is gawwwwwwwn, that is why Clarke was bypassed by the Tigers in favour of J.O-N. The Tigers are looking for 3 dimensional talls to compliment the structure and feed the effective disposal providers.

I would be interested in your return comments.

 

[Tigermad2005]

Would have looked long and hard at me, still can not beleive i did not get picked up.

 

[TOT70]

I noted all the names that Miller had on the board last Tuesday night and there were 23 names listed above choice 24. Casserley was at the top of the next group and was above Pendlebury and Thornton, in a group of closely rated midfield types. There was also a largish group of ruckmen at this level but the favoured one was Bailey, who was already gone.

When choice 24 came along there were three names left from the list of 23, everyone else had been taken. The names left were Hughes, who had been strongly considered for 8 (my guess is he was about 11 on the priority list), McKinley and Swallow. Miller had said previously that Swallow's disposal was poor.

On balance, I think they would have taken Casserley before either McKinley or Swallow. If Bailey had been around it would have been interesting.

 

[White Czar]

I noted all the names that Miller had on the board last Tuesday night and there were 23 names listed above choice 24.  Casserley was at the top of the next group and was above Pendlebury and Thornton, in a group of closely rated midfield types.  There was also a largish group of ruckmen at this level but the favoured one was Bailey, who was already gone.

When choice 24 came along there were three names left from the list of 23, everyone else had been taken.  The names left were Hughes, who had been strongly considered for 8 (my guess is he was about 11 on the priority list), McKinley and Swallow.  Miller had said previously that Swallow's disposal was poor.

On balance, I think they would have taken Casserley before either McKinley or Swallow.  If Bailey had been around it would have been interesting.

Intersting. Fingers crossed we get our hands on Luke McEntee to make up missing Bailey 8)

 

[tigersnake]

Sean McManus

 

[blx]

mcentee would be the icing on the cake to the point were, i know its too early to say such things but, it possibly makes us up there as the team with the best all-round value per pick drafting results this year.

wisbey has mcentee at no2, his wisbey file would be an interesting read, can anyone post a link?

 

[Tigerdog]

Don't discount Angus Graham's name from the equation.

 

[Scoop]

I would have taken McKinley, I think he would be handy in our forward line.

A forward floater like McKinley would have been a great get, play the O'Keffe/Robertson role. Medium forward able to play tall and short. Would be great addition to our bevy of talls.

Having said that very happy with Beaver.

 

[craig]

Would it have been Casserly ?  Apparently we rated him at 24.  That would have left us with 2 speedy mediums.....where do we then go with pick 40?  Another midfielder and totally ignore our lack of KPP's?

Or would we have taken Mills perhaps?  Did we rate Mills?  Were there any other big men available?  Who were in our "second bunch" of KPP's besides Hughes?

Can those that attended the Greg Miller pre-draft meeting perhaps shed some light on this?

I'm of the opinion that we could have been up sh1t creek without a paddle had Hughes been gone before 24.  We were kinda lucky in the end.

yeah it really makes one wonder if they have any long term direction as far as list management goes.miller has already said casserly would of been taken at 24 if hughes wasnt there.
i have to say we are bucking the trend when it comes to the struggling sides.in recent yrs of the struggling teams haw ca wb hve seen fit to go tall in drafting i havent included coll because they have had an abundance of genuine talls 190cm + for awhile.it seems they think its more important to build tall depth in a rebuilding phase.the dogs have gone from about 10 genuine talls 3 or 4 yrs ago to 19 at the start of this yr.haw have drafted 10 talls in the last 3 yrs for a total of 19. carlton drafted another 3 talls this yr for a total of 19.does anyone think that perhaps we are going about rebuilding arse about.
we have 13 talls on our list with 4 of them turning 30 or older gaspar kellaway richo and stafford.we have another 3 with big question marks about them in moore schulz and limbach. and 4 who have an awful lot to prove in thursfield mcguane  pattison and hughes and we shouldnt be expecting anything major from this last group for 3 or 4 yrs.this leaves hall knobel who are both average at best and simmonds.in the next 2 or 3 yrs i can see us delisting or retireing up to 9 of these players.
imo we have to look down the track and get our future ff chf chb and fb on to our list now and we need replacements for them as well in case of injuries.

SPOT ON CLAW

 

[craig]

Probably wouldve taken Casserly as Miller said and then another small at last pick which wouldve been a great result for the future of the club
The fact we snatched Cleaver at 24 was very fortuitous and we will take it, but i would prefer to think we would have taken Wayde Mills surely if Cleaver was goneskis.
The tigers had to come away with at least one quality tall surely to god!!!

 

[Tortured Tiger]

Is Craig and Claw one in the same person ??

I can't believe how much they think alike !!.

They are either both geniuses or ................ just guessing like the rest of us experts. :hihi

 

[Tigers of Old]

If, but, maybe....move on and support the players we have!

 

[White Czar]

If, but, maybe....move on and support the players we have!

Is Craig and Claw one in the same person ??

I can't believe how much they think alike !!.

They are either both geniuses or ................ just guessing like the rest of us experts. :hihi

Support the team on game day.

Have a good hard look at our future without too much bias on here.

 

[Tigermad2005]

Still say me.

 

[the claw]

Would it have been Casserly ?  Apparently we rated him at 24.  That would have left us with 2 speedy mediums.....where do we then go with pick 40?  Another midfielder and totally ignore our lack of KPP's?

Or would we have taken Mills perhaps?  Did we rate Mills?  Were there any other big men available?  Who were in our "second bunch" of KPP's besides Hughes?

Can those that attended the Greg Miller pre-draft meeting perhaps shed some light on this?

I'm of the opinion that we could have been up sh1t creek without a paddle had Hughes been gone before 24.  We were kinda lucky in the end.

yeah it really makes one wonder if they have any long term direction as far as list management goes.miller has already said casserly would of been taken at 24 if hughes wasnt there.
i have to say we are bucking the trend when it comes to the struggling sides.in recent yrs of the struggling teams haw ca wb hve seen fit to go tall in drafting i havent included coll because they have had an abundance of genuine talls 190cm + for awhile.it seems they think its more important to build tall depth in a rebuilding phase.the dogs have gone from about 10 genuine talls 3 or 4 yrs ago to 19 at the start of this yr.haw have drafted 10 talls in the last 3 yrs for a total of 19. carlton drafted another 3 talls this yr for a total of 19.does anyone think that perhaps we are going about rebuilding arse about.
we have 13 talls on our list with 4 of them turning 30 or older gaspar kellaway richo and stafford.we have another 3 with big question marks about them in moore schulz and limbach. and 4 who have an awful lot to prove in thursfield mcguane pattison and hughes and we shouldnt be expecting anything major from this last group for 3 or 4 yrs.this leaves hall knobel who are both average at best and simmonds.in the next 2 or 3 yrs i can see us delisting or retireing up to 9 of these players.
imo we have to look down the track and get our future ff chf chb and fb on to our list now and we need replacements for them as well in case of injuries.

In some ways I agree with you Claw, however the tall deficiency cannot be fixed in 1 or 2 drafts.

I like the Tommy Hafey legacy and Richmond playing style of old, where fast tracking and kicking it long to quality tall timber has been the gameplan.

However, the days of of kick-mark-kick-mark&goal are gone.

A new AFL playing style has emerged of run-dispose-run-dispose-run-dispose&goal.

Most of the power forwards will have the ball kicked over their heads in the new millenia era, mainly because a sliding playing style is the norm.

Wallet is on to it (and had commenced drafting appropriately), the BBC 6foot centreline will become a 6'2" sliding, running, effective disposal HalfBack,Centreline, HalfForward line with 4 to 6 talls in the run-on 22 max.

The Dinosaur 6'5"+ one/two dimensional tall is gawwwwwwwn, that is why Clarke was bypassed by the Tigers in favour of J.O-N.  The Tigers are looking for 3 dimensional talls to compliment the structure and feed the effective disposal providers.

I would be interested in your return comments.

im sorry i havent replied sooner computer probs.
put simply the tall problems are never going to be fixed taking 1 tall each draft.can you remember what happened when gaspar and hall was hurt this yr we couldnt cope with opposition power forwards.take richo out of the forward line what are we left with nothing.
the bulldogs improvement has coincided with not only getting some quality midfield kids but the improvement in their talls and depth in this area.remember they lost darcy for most of the yr.
the lack of quality talls and our inability to cover for injuries in this area has hurt us for as long as i can remember.
lastly when we have to play a sydney in a final i would take a drum over an outside player like jon anyday.the reason wce lost the gf was they didnt have a key forward who could take a mark.