Tiger rookies are 'injury replacement players': Hardwick (afl site)

[one-eyed]

Tiger rookies are 'injury replacement players': Hardwick

Nathan Schmook 
afl.com.au
January 26, 2014 12:55 PM

RICHMOND'S mature-age drafting during the off-season has left it well equipped to handle any injury curveballs in 2014, according to coach Damien Hardwick.
 
The Tigers took a fresh look at their rookie list strategy last year and now view their rookies, who mostly have past AFL experience, as "injury replacement players" rather than development prospects. 
 
They also used two of their three NAB AFL Draft selections to recruit mature-age players, selecting former Sydney Swans half-forward Nathan Gordon and VFL goalkicker Sam Lloyd.
 
When injury struck, Hardwick said there would be more value in calling on mature-age players than blooding teenagers who might not be ready to perform at the top level.
 
"The thing we've done and we've probably looked at over the course of a number of years is the chances of rookie list players making it are probably relatively slim," Hardwick told AFL.com.au.
 
"What we've tried to do is come up with a strategy where we still keep our picks in the national draft but then look at those mature-age players that we get on the rookie list as injury replacement players.
 
"Players that, for example, if we do lose Reece Conca we've got a mature-age player we can put in while he recovers."
 
Richmond added Todd Banfield (ex-Brisbane Lions), Anthony Miles (ex-Greater Western Sydney) and Matt Thomas (ex-Port Adelaide) to its rookie list in the off-season, with the trio joining 31-year-old ruckman Orren Stephenson.
 
Midfielder Cadeyn Williams, 19, and key defender Ben Darrou, 20, are the only developing prospects on the rookie list after they were retained for a second and third year respectively.
 
"[The mature-age approach] is probably a stopgap measure … but then we've got guys like Ricky Petterd, who did a terrific job for us last year and has forced his way onto the list," Hardwick said.
 
"Matt Thomas and Todd Banfield are two capable players, Orren Stephensen the same … they're quite capable of playing week-in, week-out.
 
"So we're quite pleased that those guys have made a significant contribution over the last couple of years."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-01-26/new-role-for-tiger-rookies-

[Chuck17]

Locked and loaded

[dwaino]

Chucked and loaded 

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Cue The Craw.
This is going to be good.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Cue The Craw.
This is going to be good.

It's not Craw, it's Craw!!!

[Hard Roar Tiger]

 

The Claw: Very amusing, Mr. Smart. I suppose you can guess what they call me?
[holds up right arm, with a large horseshoe magnet for a hand]
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Lefty?
The Claw: No, Mr. Smart. I am employed by KAOS. The international organization of evil. My name is The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: The Craw?
The Claw: No, not The Craw, The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Ah yes, The Craw.

[the claw]

The Claw: Very amusing, Mr. Smart. I suppose you can guess what they call me?
[holds up right arm, with a large horseshoe magnet for a hand]
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Lefty?
The Claw: No, Mr. Smart. I am employed by KAOS. The international organization of evil. My name is The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: The Craw?
The Claw: No, not The Craw, The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Ah yes, The Craw.

lol thats gold..

on the article. i know we needed to take some mature players. but i still think we should have balanced out waht we did a bit more.

i look at what might have been possible  what alternative paths we might have tried.
with hindsight thats for you al.  and only trading for and drafting juniors we could have gone something like this simply by not promoting petterd and  if the trade came of.
that trade.  pick 12 and 50 for longer and 25. when you look at what longer went for this was very possible imo.
so in only taking juniors that is 21 and under. at each pick these players were available.

12 billy longer. ruckman.
25 trent dumont medium mid 186/83
32/ george hewitt med mid  185/79
66/ jon marsh tall  for/mid  192/87
78/ eli templeton  med /mid  182/75

rookie 11 nick bourke med mid 188/80
rookie 27 darcy hourigan kpf/kpd 192/93
rookie 42 darcy cameron ruck 203/98
32 george hewitt. 185cm mid

let me just say im happy with the gordon lloyd and miles selections. would have waited to take em later than we did and hoped they were still there. a nd like the one above and mature rookies and id have been over the moon.

[Tigers of Old]

name of the 'Rookie' list is redundant these days. Should be renamed the 'Supplementary' List.

[Stripes]

Yes or emergency list

[Smokey]

name of the 'Rookie' list is redundant these days. Should be renamed the 'Supplementary' List.

Yep, that's becoming the truth.

[Dice]

"but then we've got guys like Ricky Petterd, who did a terrific job for us last year and has forced his way onto the list," Hardwick said.

Video evidence or it didn't happen Dimma.

[Judge Roughneck]

The Claw: Very amusing, Mr. Smart. I suppose you can guess what they call me?
[holds up right arm, with a large horseshoe magnet for a hand]
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Lefty?
The Claw: No, Mr. Smart. I am employed by KAOS. The international organization of evil. My name is The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: The Craw?
The Claw: No, not The Craw, The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Ah yes, The Craw.

lol thats gold..

on the article. i know we needed to take some mature players. but i still think we should have balanced out waht we did a bit more.

i look at what might have been possible  what alternative paths we might have tried.
with hindsight thats for you al.  and only trading for and drafting juniors we could have gone something like this simply by not promoting petterd and  if the trade came of.
that trade.  pick 12 and 50 for longer and 25. when you look at what longer went for this was very possible imo.
so in only taking juniors that is 21 and under. at each pick these players were available.

12 billy longer. ruckman.
25 trent dumont medium mid 186/83
32/ george hewitt med mid  185/79
66/ jon marsh tall  for/mid  192/87
78/ eli templeton  med /mid  182/75

rookie 11 nick bourke med mid 188/80
rookie 27 darcy hourigan kpf/kpd 192/93
rookie 42 darcy cameron ruck 203/98
32 george hewitt. 185cm mid

let me just say im happy with the gordon lloyd and miles selections. would have waited to take em later than we did and hoped they were still there. a nd like the one above and mature rookies and id have been over the moon.

Why did you prefer a developing ruckman over a forward/mid with our most prized draft pick?

[the claw]

The Claw: Very amusing, Mr. Smart. I suppose you can guess what they call me?
[holds up right arm, with a large horseshoe magnet for a hand]
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Lefty?
The Claw: No, Mr. Smart. I am employed by KAOS. The international organization of evil. My name is The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: The Craw?
The Claw: No, not The Craw, The Claw!
Maxwell Smart, Agent 86: Ah yes, The Craw.

lol thats gold..

on the article. i know we needed to take some mature players. but i still think we should have balanced out waht we did a bit more.

i look at what might have been possible  what alternative paths we might have tried.
with hindsight thats for you al.  and only trading for and drafting juniors we could have gone something like this simply by not promoting petterd and  if the trade came of.
that trade.  pick 12 and 50 for longer and 25. when you look at what longer went for this was very possible imo.
so in only taking juniors that is 21 and under. at each pick these players were available.

12 billy longer. ruckman.
25 trent dumont medium mid 186/83
32/ george hewitt med mid  185/79
66/ jon marsh tall  for/mid  192/87
78/ eli templeton  med /mid  182/75

rookie 11 nick bourke med mid 188/80
rookie 27 darcy hourigan kpf/kpd 192/93
rookie 42 darcy cameron ruck 203/9

let me just say im happy with the gordon lloyd and miles selections. would have waited to take em later than we did and hoped they were still there. a nd like the one above and mature rookies and id have been over the moon.

Why did you prefer a developing ruckman over a forward/mid with our most prized draft pick?

is lennon not  a developing for/mid. why  not a promising ruckman instead of a promising forward/mid.  im pretty sure longer will become a decent ruckman based on the  two yrs development put into him.

1/in a way  i took longer instead of hampson. both hampson and longer would have filled greater list needs.

2/ i think longer a very good ruck prospect.  longer and 25  and id say we were in front.  longer and 25  is  worth pick 12 and 50.  cmon he was an original pick 8 and deservedly so. imo in his two yrs hes shown more than enough to suggest he will be a good ruckman. hes shown enough to say this yr he would play  senior footy.
i reckon you would be hard pressed to find too many people in the afl who didnt think longer worth a first rounder.


3/ im not so sure about lennon is there less risk in taking him  than any of longer, dumont and hewitt.. i dont think anyone can say he will DEFINATELY  develop into a genuine mid.
instead of lennon at 12 we get dumont and hewitt at 25 and 32. both imo are/will be  big bodied, have good skills and are well rounded mids. they may not be as classy as lennon skill wise but theres just as much chance that they will make it as lennon and be damn good mids.
think about it doing just slightly different we get a top 10 ruckman with two yrs development. we gain pick 25 and use it on a mid. we keep 32 and use it on a mid. .

finally do i agree with taking mature players of course. just where and for what reasons is the sticking point for me this yr.
we are locked and loaded no other conclusion and i dont agree we have miles to go and we need balanced drafts every yr.

[Penelope]

finally do i agree with taking mature players of course. just where and for what reasons is the sticking point for me this yr.
we are locked and loaded no other conclusion

Really? After much thought and careful consideration, you cannot come to any other conclusion as to why mature players were taken ahead of kids at certain picks?

Seriously?

[the claw]

name of the 'Rookie' list is redundant these days. Should be renamed the 'Supplementary' List.

why is that? just because we use it that way most other clubs still tend to balance it out.
why could we not target a junior with say the banfield pick. i mean to say dont we already have enough mature cover if a sml forward goes down sheesh we have knights coming back and took lloyd and gordon to go with the numerous sml/med forwards we already had. ffs half the list is sml/med forwards.  we really needed to cover that area in case of injury.
if their thinking is cover why promote petterd. geez other clubs left mature players who gave a bit on the rookie list.

i dont get it, the club says it or does it so it must be right. other clubs continue to balance out their lists with a good sprerad of juniors and mature types.
i can understand mature cover in areas we lack ie ruckmen orren will be needed if maric goes down. we didnt lack for sml/med forwards just quality ones. yet we load up with this type who are there for no other reason than injury according to the club.
what if say chaplin goes down or both chaplin and rance who is going to cover. why did we not even look at scully if cover was the goal.
again i say we need maturity but for the right reasons and in a balanced way. i understand what they are attempting to do but i think we could have done it better.