Draft Winners and Losers

[Obeanie1]

You guys did it perfectly, you took the 3 smalls, Hotton the risk one but peple forget how good he was prior to the injury, and all reports he's back at 100%, medicine is so much better these days. Faull at 11 makes sense, and he's the guy that has improved stacks this season, I was hoping he'd get to our pick. Armstrong was just too good to pass at that point regardless of some issues if he has them.

After that you trade your next to next year banking lets say for arguments sake a top 5-7 pick from North Melbourne.

Nice needs pick in the second night.

Next year you have pick 1 plus pick (5-7), you could split one or both of those for multiple picks if need be too.

Getting talls when Tassie are pillaging the draft is a terrible strategy, get them in and get them in now. It really is that simple not sure how hard it is to understand.

Getting talls in now does make sense. No one is disputing that.

It's the taking of three talls in the 1st round when the draft had mutliple quality talls in the 2nd round. That is the issue people are questioning.

Shanahan rated the 2nd best KP forward in the draft went pick 30. Whitlocks x 2 went pick 27 and 33.

So were the 3 talls taken with mid 1st rounders really that much better quality than those taken later?

Because the mids and skillfull flankers in the 1st look better than those taken in the 2nd round.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Strategically it was the right way to go, especially when Richmond's time frame is to contend in 5 years

All depends if the players selected will be good enough, lets see what happens

Yep and you do have to consider 2027 and 2028 will he compromised with Tassie, let alone the obvious NGA/Academy/Father Son that are in there too as usual. This draft and next year are the two drafts to really go hard at key positions at least in the mid to late first round. Take the sure thing mids/smalls early by all means.

 

[Obeanie1]

Strategically it was the right way to go, especially when Richmond's time frame is to contend in 5 years

All depends if the players selected will be good enough, lets see what happens

Contending in 5 years?

That would be the fastest rebuild ever.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Getting talls in now does make sense. No one is disputing that.

It's the taking of three talls in the 1st round when the draft had mutliple quality talls in the 2nd round. That is the issue people are questioning.

Shanahan rated the 2nd best KP forward in the draft went pick 30. Whitlocks x 2 went pick 27 and 33.

So were the 3 talls taken with mid 1st rounders really that much better quality than those taken later?

Because the mids and skillfull flankers in the 1st look better than those taken in the 2nd round.

Maybe just maybe Shanahan wasn't the highest rated tall for a lot of clubs, he wasn't to Richmond, he wasn't to us that is well known. If Faull was there we would have taken him. Fox rankings are just for TV, these recruiters spend hours, months and make better calls than your Sheenhan's of the world.

They took 3 smalls, that was plenty, they took two talls next two, and sent the next pick to next year. It's smart recruiting

 

[Obeanie1]

Maybe just maybe Shanahan wasn't the highest rated tall for a lot of clubs, he wasn't to Richmond, he wasn't to us that is well known. If Faull was there we would have taken him. Fox rankings are just for TV, these recruiters spend hours, months and make better calls than your Sheenhan's of the world.

They took 3 smalls, that was plenty, they took two talls next two, and sent the next pick to next year. It's smart recruiting

I don't rely on Fox rankings. I listen to what recruiters and people talking to recruiters are saying plus research the players.

It is only smart recruiting if the players selected early end up better than those selected cheaper later.

Only time will tell if it was a smart call.

And regarding the Swans looks like they weren't looking for tall forwards at their picks.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I don't rely on Fox rankings. I listen to what recruiters and people talking to recruiters are saying plus research the players.

It is only smart recruiting if the players selected early end up better than those selected cheaper later.

Only time will tell if it was a smart call.

Drafts are guesses, it's just that especially with talls, but Richmond had Faull the no1 tall on their board, so did Sydney. If they didn't take him at 11, they miss him. They had to take him at pick 11. Faull had improved substancially over the last 6 months especially, he really shot up the rankings.

 

[jdstorm]

You guys did it perfectly, you took the 3 smalls, Hotton the risk one but peple forget how good he was prior to the injury, and all reports he's back at 100%, medicine is so much better these days. Faull at 11 makes sense, and he's the guy that has improved stacks this season, I was hoping he'd get to our pick. Armstrong was just too good to pass at that point regardless of some issues if he has them.

After that you trade your next to next year banking lets say for arguments sake a top 5-7 pick from North Melbourne.

Nice needs pick in the second night.

Next year you have pick 1 plus pick (5-7), you could split one or both of those for multiple picks if need be too.

Getting talls when Tassie are pillaging the draft is a terrible strategy, get them in and get them in now. It really is that simple not sure how hard it is to understand.

No one said anything about not taking talls this draft.

Richmond started with 8 top picks and ended up taking 7. If I were to make an ideal list of what they’d want you’d say

2 Mids (ideally with size as smalls are easier to find later)
2 pressure forwards
Three talls - 1 ruck, 1 Ruck/Forward and 1 CHF type
1 flanker.

Richmond did this. They had a good smart draft. Of the talls you’d expect at 1 to make it and 1 to make it repositioned as a defender.

Thing is you traded back into the draft in the 50s to get that pressure forward.

What I’m saying is that there’s a huge gulf in quality between a pressure forward at 14 (Reid/Berry) and the guy you take at 50.

Where as if you don’t take faul you get access to the whitlocks, Shanahan, Gereyn and a bunch of others and it’s a fairly even crapshoot. Most people’s top ranked ruck lasted into the 40+ range

as far as talls go Key forwards aren’t that important. You just need 1 forward that can get you a bag. They don’t need size.

Key defenders are far more important as if you don’t have one you will get shredded. But failed forwards typically make good defenders (plus you have Gibcus) and you can find these guys via trade/FA

As for what do you do if you need a KPP in 3-4 years? Trade for 1. Give up a FRP or trade a surplus small or wing that’s easier to replace

 

[blaisee]

Getting talls in now does make sense. No one is disputing that.

It's the taking of three talls in the 1st round when the draft had mutliple quality talls in the 2nd round. That is the issue people are questioning.

Shanahan rated the 2nd best KP forward in the draft went pick 30. Whitlocks x 2 went pick 27 and 33.

So were the 3 talls taken with mid 1st rounders really that much better quality than those taken later?

Because the mids and skillfull flankers in the 1st look better than those taken in the 2nd round.

clearly according to Richmond ( and Sydney ) Faull was the best tall, and Armstrong and Sims where too good to pass up.

History will judge if they where right

But at the start of a rebuild, with 8 1st round picks, 3 KP players, sounds about the right number

 

[blaisee]

Contending in 5 years?

That would be the fastest rebuild ever.

8 years of 1st round picks where taken on one night

2 top 5 picks will come onto the books in 2025

contending in 5 years is the target

Lets see what happens

 

[blaisee]

I don't rely on Fox rankings. I listen to what recruiters and people talking to recruiters are saying plus research the players.

It is only smart recruiting if the players selected early end up better than those selected cheaper later.

Only time will tell if it was a smart call.

so which recruiters said what ?

What are you referring too, do you have any evidence?

 

[Obeanie1]

so which recruiters said what ?

What are you referring too, do you have any evidence?

The ones I read and listened to.

Go and broaden your research and you will come across them.

And no I won't be providing you with a detailed referenced summary to all of them.

Do you do that to back up all your overly optimistic views?

 

[draft_enjoyer]

The ones I read and listened to.

Go and broaden your research and you will come across them.

And no I won't be providing you with a detailed referenced summary to all of them.

Do you do that to back up all your overly optimistic views?

In other words, you've got nfi

 

[blaisee]

The ones I read and listened to.

Go and broaden your research and you will come across them.

And no I won't be providing you with a detailed referenced summary to all of them.

Do you do that to back up all your overly optimistic views?

I am very well researched, that is why I am asking

No recruiter has stated the position you are talking about

There has not been a consensus announcement that Shanahan was the best or second best tall

So not sure how you can say that, because it is not true, and definitely not true for Richmond, as they had 8 chances to draft him and did not.

Not saying he will not be a good player for the eagles, but Richmond did not want him, and neither did any other club up to Pick 30.

 

[Obeanie1]

I am very well researched, that is why I am asking

No recruiter has stated the position you are talking about

There has not been a consensus announcement that Shanahan was the best or second best tall

So not sure how you can say that, because it is not true, and definitely not true for Richmond, as they had 8 chances to draft him and did not.

Not saying he will not be a good player for the eagles, but Richmond did not want him, and neither did any other club up to Pick 30.

According to you and your so called research. Research which I note always seems to provide rose coloured feedback on all the players your club drafted. And players your team didn't select are assumed to be ranked lower.

Feel free to point out / link where these consensus announcements from recruiters are made you refer to.

And I didn't say there was any consensus in any case.

What is clear is the number and quality of talls and smalls ran deeper this draft. Tigers will likely have landed a few good ones but it's a tad one eyed to believe every player they picked was the best choice at that stage of the draft. History suggests otherwise.

 

[blaisee]

According to you and your so called research. Research which I note always seems to provide rose coloured feedback on all the players your club drafted. And players your team didn't select are assumed to be ranked lower.

Feel free to point out / link where these consensus announcements from recruiters are made you refer to.

And I didn't say there was any consensus in any case.

What is clear is the number and quality of talls and smalls ran deeper this draft. Tigers will likely have landed a few good ones but it's a tad one eyed to believe every player they picked was the best choice at that stage of the draft. History suggests otherwise.

I think you may be confused, actually you are more likely deliberately obtuse

You said Shanahan was rated the second best KP player in the draft

I said prove it, you did not, you did not because your claim about recruiters stating this publicly is garbage and you know it

Then I showed you that no one took him in the top 29 picks, and that richmond had 8 chances to take him and didn't

Then you changed the subject

I do not know who will better as KP in this draft, I do know Faull was the highest rated tall, by at least 2 clubs, I also know Armstrong had the best resume.

You should own your opinions, do not back track when challenged, What you could say is that it is just your view, your opinion, which is fair enough, but it certainly is not an opinion stated by a recruiter publicly, that is for sure

 

[tiger_tough]

Getting talls in now does make sense. No one is disputing that.

It's the taking of three talls in the 1st round when the draft had mutliple quality talls in the 2nd round. That is the issue people are questioning.

Shanahan rated the 2nd best KP forward in the draft went pick 30. Whitlocks x 2 went pick 27 and 33.

So were the 3 talls taken with mid 1st rounders really that much better quality than those taken later?

Because the mids and skillfull flankers in the 1st look better than those taken in the 2nd round.

Who cares where the phantom drafts rated the others? Obviously, our recruiters rated Armstrong and Faull much higher.

Dodson was rated the standout #1 ruck by all the supposed draft experts yet not only was he the 3rd ruckman selected but his fellow Sturt team mate ruckman was picked ahead of him.

you seem to always have an issue with whatever Richmond does.

 

[tiger_tough]

I am very well researched, that is why I am asking

No recruiter has stated the position you are talking about

There has not been a consensus announcement that Shanahan was the best or second best tall

So not sure how you can say that, because it is not true, and definitely not true for Richmond, as they had 8 chances to draft him and did not.

Not saying he will not be a good player for the eagles, but Richmond did not want him, and neither did any other club up to Pick 30.

7, but yes, I think that says enough about old mate beanbag. He clearly just wants to talk up the Eagles getting a steal but in reality we just did not rate the guy.

Time will tell.

 

[blaisee]

7, but yes, I think that says enough about old mate beanbag. He clearly just wants to talk up the Eagles getting a steal but in reality we just did not rate the guy.

Time will tell.

8, they had another chance to draft him at Pick 27, and traded the pick to NTH who also did not draft him

 

[Noidnadroj]

Do any of the Richmond posters have any idea why the Tigs didn't take Reid with one of their first rounders? Vic Metro MVP who bled yellow and black. Also a skill set that would have helped to cover the loss of Bolton and/or Rioli.

Reid is small and potentially a bit of Jack Billings about him. Lalor and Smillie were clearly rated higher, then Hotton is a mid-fwd hybrid who is an excellent mark we needed to replace Bolton. Then by our fourth pick we needed a KPF badly.

I think Reid will be good, but we simply rated Lalor, Smillie and Hotton higher.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

For its depth, but not its top end quality. Ask any draft expert, they’ll tell you at least 3 players last year would have gone #1 this year (Reid, Walter, McKercher). A few top 10 selections would not have gone top 10 in recent years.

Can you point me to a ‘draft expert’ who said Reid, Walter and McKercher would’ve gone #1? Having nothing else to celebrate I digested basically everything trade and draft for 6-weeks and never heard this assertion once. Who were these ‘draft experts’ you refer to saying these things?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

Fundamentally Dodorro was known for focusing on building spines first and trying to convert flankers into midfielders while usually failing at both. So I’m not sure how suggesting the opposite of that (focusing on Inside mids and SF goal threats) is a Dodorro thing to do?

Why should Richmond not have taken their No1 tall?

For me personally it’s such a huge advantage to get multiple 200+ game players in a draft whatever position they play. With talls there’s real risk reward and given this particular crop of talls were all rated later picks prioritising the best of a mediocre bunch over a much more sure thing smaller player seems unwise to me.

I’m suggesting to do what GWS did that first draft. Just lock in as many good footballers as possible. Take a few chances on talls later. Then next year fill gaps with best available talent and/or take a chance on a real top 5 ranked tall

Richmond already has a lot of youth who are small goal kicking flanker types …. they’ve not had heaps of opportunity due to injuries and other factors, so there are still question marks on most of them, but I’m referring to the likes of Seth Campbell, Steely Green, Rioli Junior, Judson Clarke - they’d be confident of at least 2 of these guys becoming quality senior players.

Then we drafted Hotton who is a highly talented mid-fwd hybrid, and Algers in the 50’s who was touted to go top-30. Lalor is also a capable forward.

However, our existing young goal kicking talls all have huge queries - Ryan, Gray, Kosi, Lafau, Fawcett … the club wouldn’t be confident any of these guys will become quality senior regulars, so we had to hit that part of this draft really hard.

If we didn’t, we could end up like North where 6-years into their rebuild they were desperately giving away F1 picks for a KPF.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

I agree entirely, given the premium on key forwards, the fact that none of these were even talked about in the top 10 of this draft really says something. I think Richmond went way overboard on the talls and clearly overpaid. Enjoy Matthew Watson-esque youth Tiger fans.

I know … it’s a shame we couldn’t have used a top pick to get someone like Boyd, Patton, Schache, Weidemann, Thorp or McCartin.

But pick-10 onwards went McKay, Curnow, Riewoldt, Larkey, Treacy, Lynch, Fogarty….


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

What happens if the best players at Pick #1 and pick #6 next year are generational forwards that are far more highly rated than Faul etal? They now have 5 or 6 key forwards on their list from two seasons?

The list of KPF forwards taken with top-6 picks the last 20-years:

Tom Boyd - fail
Jon Patton - fail
McCartin - fail
Cadman - promising signs but who knows?
JUH - looking good but a bit flaky
McDonald - solid player but not looking like a star.
Max King - injury prone and flaky
Lukosius - soft and just got traded
Schache - fail
Sam Day - fail
Watts - fail
Gumbleton - fail
Thorp - fail

The last ‘generational forward’ to go top-6 in the open draft was Josh Kennedy who went pick-4 in 2005.

So I don’t think we will lose any sleep worrying about 2 x generational forwards popping out of the ground in the 2025 draft - even if they appear to be there the list above advises probably best to avoid.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

Sure, but you should know that no one respects the Richmond dynasty and, it's players outside of Dusty, will never be considered all time greats, and you are very likely never to recapture that lightning in a bottle. Which goes back to this draft and how you made wrong decision after wrong decision which you and your fellow supporters only explanation or excuse is "but, but, we used to be a dynasty" which as we've just established is irrelevant.

Bahahaha. Carlton haven’t made a Grand Final for 25-years. And have finished top-4 once … once … in the last 25-years. Back to bed poppet.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Rich01]

According to you and your so called research. Research which I note always seems to provide rose coloured feedback on all the players your club drafted. And players your team didn't select are assumed to be ranked lower.

Feel free to point out / link where these consensus announcements from recruiters are made you refer to.

And I didn't say there was any consensus in any case.

What is clear is the number and quality of talls and smalls ran deeper this draft. Tigers will likely have landed a few good ones but it's a tad one eyed to believe every player they picked was the best choice at that stage of the draft. History suggests otherwise.

Time will tell.
Reid would have been a nice get but he’s an outside linkman.
Allan’s an athletic half back who can’t kick.

Berrys a small forward who projects more as a link half forward than a volume goal kicker.
All decent options.
But none are bulletproof.
I’d have taken Reid, Faull, Berry then Allan in that order.