Author Topic: How did we rate Richmond's draft?  (Read 7795 times)

Online Francois Jackson

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13617
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #90 on: November 25, 2012, 11:00:40 PM »
Were there any potential A grade players from our draftees. To be honest I dont see any. I see Vlastuin as having a B grade ceiling, McIntosh a C+/B grade ceiling, McDonough a C grade ceiling, McBean a C+ grade ceiling. Collingwood got Grundy and Kennedy who will be A grade players in their system and Broomhead a B grade ceiling player.
With all due respect, with the same logic you would have given Michael Voss a B grade ceiling too using the same criteria!

With all due respect this is a forum and if I wanna post crap then I will post crap and if it works out for me I will come back and claim to have picked it 100% if my rankings dont work out I will just come back and say its just an internet forum and it doesnt matter. Thats how we roll on OER... no responsibility is taken for stupidity  ;D

now thats some funny poo
Currently a member of the Roupies, and employed by the great man Roup.

Offline yellowandback

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #91 on: November 25, 2012, 11:01:27 PM »
Were there any potential A grade players from our draftees. To be honest I dont see any. I see Vlastuin as having a B grade ceiling, McIntosh a C+/B grade ceiling, McDonough a C grade ceiling, McBean a C+ grade ceiling. Collingwood got Grundy and Kennedy who will be A grade players in their system and Broomhead a B grade ceiling player.
With all due respect, with the same logic you would have given Michael Voss a B grade ceiling too using the same criteria!
With all due no respect...... :rollin
With all due respect this is a forum and if I wanna post crap then I will post crap and if it works out for me I will come back and claim to have picked it 100% if my rankings dont work out I will just come back and say its just an internet forum and it doesnt matter. Thats how we roll on OER... no responsibility is taken for stupidity  ;D
It's that simple Spud
"I discussed (it) with my three daughters, my wife and my 82-year-old mum, because it has really affected me … If those comments … were made about one of my daughters, it would make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I would not have liked it at all.”

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2012, 08:13:57 AM »
Were there any potential A grade players from our draftees. To be honest I dont see any. I see Vlastuin as having a B grade ceiling, McIntosh a C+/B grade ceiling, McDonough a C grade ceiling, McBean a C+ grade ceiling. Collingwood got Grundy and Kennedy who will be A grade players in their system and Broomhead a B grade ceiling player.
With all due respect, with the same logic you would have given Michael Voss a B grade ceiling too using the same criteria!

With all due respect this is a forum and if I wanna post crap then I will post crap and if it works out for me I will come back and claim to have picked it 100% if my rankings dont work out I will just come back and say its just an internet forum and it doesnt matter. Thats how we roll on OER... no responsibility is taken for stupidity  ;D

 :lol

Actually Ramps, even more than "no responsibility is taken for stupidity", I would have thought many seek it as a real and valued badge of honour!   ;D

gerkin greg

  • Guest
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #93 on: November 26, 2012, 09:20:04 AM »
Were there any potential A grade players from our draftees. To be honest I dont see any. I see Vlastuin as having a B grade ceiling, McIntosh a C+/B grade ceiling, McDonough a C grade ceiling, McBean a C+ grade ceiling. Collingwood got Grundy and Kennedy who will be A grade players in their system and Broomhead a B grade ceiling player.
With all due respect, with the same logic you would have given Michael Voss a B grade ceiling too using the same criteria!

With all due respect this is a forum and if I wanna post crap then I will post crap and if it works out for me I will come back and claim to have picked it 100% if my rankings dont work out I will just come back and say its just an internet forum and it doesnt matter. Thats how we roll on OER... no responsibility is taken for stupidity  ;D

 :clapping lmao

Offline tiga

  • Exhaling Carbon in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5547
  • Yes Hampson has taken a mark!
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #94 on: November 26, 2012, 09:52:16 AM »
Were there any potential A grade players from our draftees. To be honest I dont see any. I see Vlastuin as having a B grade ceiling, McIntosh a C+/B grade ceiling, McDonough a C grade ceiling, McBean a C+ grade ceiling. Collingwood got Grundy and Kennedy who will be A grade players in their system and Broomhead a B grade ceiling player.
With all due respect, with the same logic you would have given Michael Voss a B grade ceiling too using the same criteria!

With all due respect this is a forum and if I wanna post crap then I will post crap and if it works out for me I will come back and claim to have picked it 100% if my rankings dont work out I will just come back and say its just an internet forum and it doesnt matter. Thats how we roll on OER... no responsibility is taken for stupidity  ;D

Post of the year Ramps!   :lol


Ou new forum motto should be, "Crapm ego stipes ergo sum" or translated "I post crap, therefore I am".  ;D

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #95 on: December 05, 2012, 07:56:12 AM »
Was just catching up on the RFC Qld Supporters Facebook site and they had a few members attend the Draft.  A couple of the guys had a chat with Richard Taylor afterwards and he had this to say:

After the draft last night, we had the opportunity to speak to Mr Richard Taylor from Richmond recruiting. Here are a few points we found out.
Out of all draft hopefuls,Tigers only had 25 marked down as potential players. And by selection 31 there were only 2 left on that list.
Very happy with selections taken. They were never going to take Brodie Grundy as pick 9. but also knew that he would be gone by pick 31.
They have compared Liam McBean to Dean Cox. (can play both sides of the body opponents unsure of which foot he will use)
Only selection likely to play seniors in 2013 is Nick Vlastuin. Others are all for the future. Nick likely will be prepared for Round One

http://www.facebook.com/groups/70376760446/

Offline tigs2011

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5517
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #96 on: December 05, 2012, 09:50:59 AM »
Not sure that's accurate smokey. From what I've read on another forum there were 4 players left at pick 31 and we got 3 of them. Unsure who the 4th one was but believe they were still on the board and went later in the draft.

Offline JohnP

  • Tiger Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #97 on: December 05, 2012, 10:07:29 AM »
Was just catching up on the RFC Qld Supporters Facebook site and they had a few members attend the Draft.  A couple of the guys had a chat with Richard Taylor afterwards and he had this to say:

After the draft last night, we had the opportunity to speak to Mr Richard Taylor from Richmond recruiting. Here are a few points we found out.
Out of all draft hopefuls,Tigers only had 25 marked down as potential players. And by selection 31 there were only 2 left on that list.
Very happy with selections taken. They were never going to take Brodie Grundy as pick 9. but also knew that he would be gone by pick 31.
They have compared Liam McBean to Dean Cox. (can play both sides of the body opponents unsure of which foot he will use)
Only selection likely to play seniors in 2013 is Nick Vlastuin. Others are all for the future. Nick likely will be prepared for Round One

http://www.facebook.com/groups/70376760446/


So can we assume that Matthew McDonough was one of those 2 left? Or to put it another way, out of the 25 identified, whatever way you cut it, we got four of them with our four draft picks?

Offline Mr Magic

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6887
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #98 on: December 05, 2012, 10:09:10 AM »
Out of all draft hopefuls,Tigers only had 25 marked down as potential players. And by selection 31 there were only 2 left on that list.

At least we're targetting the right players these days, even if we don't get them.

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #99 on: December 05, 2012, 11:20:42 AM »
Not sure that's accurate smokey. From what I've read on another forum there were 4 players left at pick 31 and we got 3 of them. Unsure who the 4th one was but believe they were still on the board and went later in the draft.

Yeah, who knows the truth T2011.  At least these guys were getting their info from as close to the 'horse's mouth' as possible I suppose.  But you often can't trust what you are told and probably the main thing I took from it was like Mr Magic said - at least we appear to be getting quite specific in our drafting/targeting.  I put this down to the improvement in our football department resourcing over the past few seasons and that can only be a good thing as long as we have the right people in place to do the job.

the claw

  • Guest
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #100 on: December 05, 2012, 09:40:58 PM »
once again rather than just swallow what ive been told by those in charge or in this case read in a post above i have to question what they say.
what a bloodtygreat concern if they can only identify 25 possible players that doesnt ring true or right. no wonder we cant find decent players with 2nd and 3rd round picks.if this is the case i have to quesrtion the way they are going about it.

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 39127
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #101 on: December 05, 2012, 10:34:48 PM »
Was just catching up on the RFC Qld Supporters Facebook site and they had a few members attend the Draft.  A couple of the guys had a chat with Richard Taylor afterwards and he had this to say:

After the draft last night, we had the opportunity to speak to Mr Richard Taylor from Richmond recruiting. Here are a few points we found out.
Out of all draft hopefuls,Tigers only had 25 marked down as potential players. And by selection 31 there were only 2 left on that list.
Very happy with selections taken. They were never going to take Brodie Grundy as pick 9. but also knew that he would be gone by pick 31.
They have compared Liam McBean to Dean Cox. (can play both sides of the body opponents unsure of which foot he will use)
Only selection likely to play seniors in 2013 is Nick Vlastuin. Others are all for the future. Nick likely will be prepared for Round One

http://www.facebook.com/groups/70376760446/

Hmmmm

I really wonder if people actually listen to what they are told sometimes or whether just listen to what they want to hear.

 ;D

25 players? Doubt it  ;D

"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #102 on: December 05, 2012, 10:42:58 PM »
didnt jackson say before the draft he felt the talent dropped right off after the top 30 or so?

once again rather than just swallow what ive been told by those in charge or in this case read in a post above i have to question what they say.
what a bloodtygreat concern if they can only identify 25 possible players that doesnt ring true or right. no wonder we cant find decent players with 2nd and 3rd round picks.if this is the case i have to quesrtion the way they are going about it.

So perhaps you could name 2 players after our last 2 picks who you have utmost faith in making it?

Will these be the "genuine" mids we overlooked?

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline yellowandback

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4025
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #103 on: December 05, 2012, 11:58:17 PM »
didnt jackson say before the draft he felt the talent dropped right off after the top 30 or so?

once again rather than just swallow what ive been told by those in charge or in this case read in a post above i have to question what they say.
what a bloodtygreat concern if they can only identify 25 possible players that doesnt ring true or right. no wonder we cant find decent players with 2nd and 3rd round picks.if this is the case i have to quesrtion the way they are going about it.

So perhaps you could name 2 players after our last 2 picks who you have utmost faith in making it?

Will these be the "genuine" mids we overlooked?
You really are the Stewart Littlemore of OE'ed  ;D
It's that simple Spud
"I discussed (it) with my three daughters, my wife and my 82-year-old mum, because it has really affected me … If those comments … were made about one of my daughters, it would make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I would not have liked it at all.”

Offline tigs2011

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5517
Re: How did we rate Richmond's draft?
« Reply #104 on: December 06, 2012, 01:11:05 AM »
Not sure that's accurate smokey. From what I've read on another forum there were 4 players left at pick 31 and we got 3 of them. Unsure who the 4th one was but believe they were still on the board and went later in the draft.

Yeah, who knows the truth T2011.  At least these guys were getting their info from as close to the 'horse's mouth' as possible I suppose.  But you often can't trust what you are told and probably the main thing I took from it was like Mr Magic said - at least we appear to be getting quite specific in our drafting/targeting.  I put this down to the improvement in our football department resourcing over the past few seasons and that can only be a good thing as long as we have the right people in place to do the job.

What I meant was I think they wrote it wrong on the fb page. I've seen on other forums from 2 people who were present at that talk and both quotes say there were 4 left by pick 31 of which we got 3. However, they aren't sure who the other player was.