One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: TigerLand on August 29, 2009, 12:47:29 AM
-
Seeing as we are all culling 3/4 of the list lets do a legitmete Cull anything over 15 players is ludicrous.
Firstly the walk up starts:
Retirees
-Johnson
-Bowden
-Brown
-Coughlan
Then First to Go:
-Simmonds (Couldn't possibly get another game)
-Pettifer (Coming off knee reco, now broken knee cap. Behind Morton as No.1 small Lead up forward, also too old now to be in next possible dream premiership)
-McMahon
Thats 7
Before you cull young players that could be given a better development and chance under a new regime, next to go are the tried but most likely wont make it category (Probably the toughest category):
-Schultz
-Polak
-King
All 3 have some upside to keeping whether it potential, or chance under a new coach. I think Schultz has had enough chances but still remember he's 24, or 25 next season. In fact thats proably enough for me.
Out of that lot, maybe 1 would stay.
Thats 9
Thats probably it for the straight up delistings or trade for anything bunch, the next list management phase would be in two parts:
A) Players who are too old to feature in the blossom of our youths rebuild
B) The youth players that havent developed as hoped for
Starting with A:
Players that wont feature in premiership Window
-Tuck
-Newman
-Moore (26 next year, shoulder problems not setting the world on fire puts him in here)
For mine all have to be up for trade value for something worthy, if nothing is offered then they stay. If we are lucky a max of 1 trade of those 3 will be worked out.
Lets say that now 10 gone
And finally B:
Younger players that haven't fulfilled there development potential
-JON
-Raines
-Pattison
-Polo
-Hughes
-Thompson
-Hislop
-Connors
-Putt
Probably the scariest cull since there are so many. I think out of that group the only with currency for trade are, Raines, Pattison, Polo, Hughes and Connors. Putt may be saved since he's untried and JON I feel unless Hardwick gives him a life with be delisted or traded at a very low rounder.
Reality Raines would get picked up, as would Hughes, Patto and Polo and maybe 1 delisting. Using the rule of unknown probability lets say 3 of that list leaves in one way or another. Maybe 2.
That leaves the magic number of 12-13 moved players from list, I can't see much more than that, seeing out of those 12-13 would include contracted Schultz, McMahon and King so if we kept all of them cause of contract reasons, we would could have a cull of single digits..
Think everyone else is easily safe guys like White, Edwards, Graham that have come under scrutiny would be pretty safe as the cull wont go above a number of 40%.
In a silly way I'm kinda excited for it to happen, I can see the papers read "Spring Clean September for Tigers"
Lets Hope so.
-
Well Jack's heard Simmo is staying and Gus is going :o but ignoring that for the time being.....
The list management has to be planned over the next 2 years (3 drafts) at least. It's too big a job to try and do in just a single off-season. Whether we like it or not we need to bottom out. It'll be tough on Hardwick in his first 2 years and some supporters will call him a dud but if he wants to be the coach to turn our Club around it's what he and us need to do.
Now we start off with picks 3, 19, 35, 51, 67,.. straight away. Next year even with GC17 hogging the draft a bottom 2 side will still have either pick 4 or 6 or thereabouts. Say it's 6, 26, 43, 60, ... It's not a complete disaster with the intro of GC17 as long as the Club is SMART and PLANS AHEAD unlike most of the past 23 draft/trade periods. We'll at least still have a top pick when most existing clubs won't enter the draft until the 20s. So we need to sign up our best young players going forward (those capable of playing in premiership side) now so they're out of reach of other clubs and then trade for picks with the rest. That will be the key for us.
We should be aiming for a minimum of six National draft picks for the next couple of years. Add PSD, rookies and rookie promotions then 12 changes per year is a realistic outcome. Do that over the next 2 years and we will have basically turned over 3/4ers of the current list only keeping hold of the current cream (which even by the club's estimation is only 12 faces).
Mine changes are pretty much the same as yours Popelord.
2009 - * Outside senior list
Retirees: Johnson, Bowden*, Brown, Cogs
Delist: JON, Hughes, Petts, Polak, Simmo, Gourdis*, Silvester*
Attempt to Trade one or more for picks: McMahon, Tuck, Raines, Patto
= 8 senior list outs (at least). Any trade would be an extra out for an extra pick. Would like to offload more but you need to match a draft pick for every out. A priority pick would've been useful here :scream.
Promote: Nahas
Draft Picks: 3, 19, 35, 51, 67, 83 (Free F/S), PSD #2. Plus any extra picks gained in 2009 trade week.
= 8 senior list ins (at least).
Rookie ins: O'Rielly*
2010
Retirees: Richo*, Cousins?
Delist: King, Thomson, Hislop, Schulz and any other of those lucky to survive purely because they have a contract and that we couldn't trade away this year.
Uncontracted player to GC17 for a pick: Raines?, one of our tall defenders?
Should be similar number out to 2009.
Draft picks: 6?, 26, 43, 60, GC17 pick, PSD. Plus any extra picks gained in 2010 trade week.
2011
A final sweep out of who currently doesn't come on and develop within 4-5 years of being on our list.
-
Interesting about Simmo though, he didnt want to go on at start of the year, and wasnt farewelled last night . mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
On Simmo, I wouldn't surprised if the mentality this year is that lets get one experienced player for all 4 areas of the game. Richo -forwards, Cousins - midfield, Newman - Backline, Simmo - rucks. Something to help and guide the immense amount of new player the Tigers will have over the next 2-3 years.
What I would do personally if I was managing the list would be to go in to the Trade week letting everyone know that everyone bar a select few (Deledio, Richo, Cousins, Cotchin, Vickery and Post) are all up for grabs in a trade. Yes that means guys like Riewoldt and Rance. Actively look to trade some (i.e. RFC initiates talks for the most part) and some see if deals come to you (like Riewoldt etc.) If there is a deal that could get us better long term, then do it.
I would keep everyone on the rookie list as well as Dean Putt and premote Silvester. I know he's not going to be in the next preimership side and all, but he'll compete for a spot. And if you promote Nahas, Silvester, and say promote Browne; it gives you 2-3 more rookie spots to get these 'ínteresting' prospects to see if we can find another Foley/ Thursfield/ Nahas.
I think for the betterment of the club, the culling should be almost equally based over a 2 year period, not an instant fix right now. It will mean that we get better overall talent.
Just my thoughts.
-
Let the clean out start and make a new begining for us.
Let him get rid of who he wants to, even if it means he get rid of someone who you or we think is too good to go.
We showed him who should go last night in the playing group.
Bring on the cull and rebuild it from what is left in the pantry.
-
Very bare pantry I am afraid.
Only as handfull of players would get games at other clubs.
Thank you Terry Wallace for the mess you have left.
I said three years ago how bad Wallace was, everyone here bagged me for bagging Wallace, well hello :banghead
-
Very bare pantry I am afraid.
Only as handfull of players would get games at other clubs.
Thank you Terry Wallace for the mess you have left.
I said three years ago how bad Wallace was, everyone here bagged me for bagging Wallace, well hello :banghead
this list is a bigger train wreck than we have ever had, that i can remember.
what a stuffin mess that fool has left us in.
-
I said three years ago how bad Wallace was, everyone here bagged me for bagging Wallace, well hello :banghead
You weren't bagged for bagging Wallace as such, you were bagged for bagging Wallace in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread...........many of which had nothing to do with Wallace yet you spammed your bagging of him in them anyway.
-
I said three years ago how bad Wallace was, everyone here bagged me for bagging Wallace, well hello :banghead
You weren't bagged for bagging Wallace as such, you were bagged for bagging Wallace in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread...........many of which had nothing to do with Wallace yet you spammed your bagging of him in them anyway.
the reason why his name is brought up all the time is because he is the reason we are stuffed right now. Him and Miller no-one else.
I even recall last year people on OER saying to give Wallace a one year extension.. "he has a plan" let him finish it" bla bla bla
everyone knew this list was stuffed yet no one wanted to believe it. another rebuild-no one wanted to believe that either.
well shock horror we do need to rebuild and hard.
well here are 5 top ups that should have been kids FFS.
kingsley
graham
knobel
P bowden
mcmahon
its not only who he brought to the club its who he never let go.
schulz
JON
Cogs
Pettrified
this is the reason why hardwick needs to do more than say he is going to cull he needs to prove it. talk is chap at the RFC.
we will find out by december if we have our man to take us out of this hole we are in.
-
Well one player seems to be continually overlooked on this forum and is highly rated be some posters but is IMO, IMO, IMO, he is very very very over rated and lucky to have ever played AFL. Watching last nights game backs up what I am saying, he is un-accountable and he makes stupid decisions but he is always in the side for some stupid reason. I have continually pointed out his errors just about every week and people say how good he is, please watch last nights replay!!!!!!!
POLO leave the club, be traded or just go away.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Well Jack's heard Simmo is staying and Gus is going :o but ignoring that for the time being.....
I don't agree with Simmo staying but I certainly agree with Gus going.
Gus was deplorable last night. His unwillingness to actually contest at the centre bounces (eg not bloody jumping) instead of just looking at his opponent and running at him, makes him a liablity. He has had 5 years in the system
Sitting at the airport waiting for the red-eye wihich was delayed for over 90 mins (bout sums up the season in one swoop I reckon) I actually said I would trade Gus to a club for an experienced ruckman (say for the argument a Charman) and we keep and develop Vickery and Browne. We need an experienced ruckman for another say 2-3 years. I don't see how we can go with 3 inexperienced blokes
Now for the above to work, we obviously need a decent ruck coach, who as I said the other day needs to be someone who has actually played the game under the rule that currently exists, rather than what we have now which is a dinosaur who played when the rules were different.
-
Gus has little idea.
He is a wacko, fair dinkum
He has no abilty below his knees whatsover
-
Well Jack's heard Simmo is staying and Gus is going :o but ignoring that for the time being.....
I don't agree with Simmo staying but I certainly agree with Gus going.
Gus was deplorable last night. His unwillingness to actually contest at the centre bounces (eg not bloody jumping) instead of just looking at his opponent and running at him, makes him a liablity. He has had 5 years in the system
Sitting at the airport waiting for the red-eye wihich was delayed for over 90 mins (bout sums up the season in one swoop I reckon) I actually said I would trade Gus to a club for an experienced ruckman (say for the argument a Charman) and we keep and develop Vickery and Browne. We need an experienced ruckman for another say 2-3 years. I don't see how we can go with 3 inexperienced blokes
Now for the above to work, we obviously need a decent ruck coach, who as I said the other day needs to be someone who has actually played the game under the rule that currently exists, rather than what we have now which is a dinosaur who played when the rules were different.
The last part of the post is the most important. These guys are being tought how to ruck badly, I would give Gus another year under a decent ruck coach.
Monkhurst, you have got to be mad to think this brianless twit could actauly TEACH. As a ex ruckman I have watched as our guys have reached a point where they have no idea how to jump for the ball. Its like they fake a jump in the hope that the other guy misses it, its a dicrace what our rucks have become. Lets not wreck Vickery too please.
-
He has no abilty below his knees whatsover
Correct, but it might help if his teammates didn't continuously pass it to him below his knees as well. :scream :scream
-
He has no abilty below his knees whatsover
Correct, but it might help if his teammates didn't continuously pass it to him below his knees as well. :scream :scream
Whats amazing is how this guy gets in the position of been a receiver of the ball in a" run and carry situation", then to have him cough it up.
he is actually running to the wrong spots on the ground. :banghead
he basically stands in the corridor and they handball it to him , and he doesnt know what to do
-
This is what I would do-
Retire- Brown, Cogs, Simmons, Bowden and Johnson. = 5
Delist- (I don't care if they have contracts or not, we had a good year financially so pay these duds outs and be done with it)
JON, Hughes, McMahon, Pattison, Petts, Polak, and Thompson. = 7
Trade or they stay- Raines, Schulz and Jackson = maybe 3
So that's possibly 15.
Now I would promote Browne and Nahas off the rookie list.
So in terms of the ruckmen for next year I would let Browne and Gus fight it out over the pre season to see who is our number one ruckmen next year and draft a young ruckmen and rookie another. As well as having Vickory learning as well. Sure they are all young but get the right ruck coach and let them learn. Tell them all if they don't run and jump at the footy it will be there last year.
Players like Conners, Edwards, Hislop, King, Moore, Polo, Putt, Rance, Thursfield and Tuck are all lucky but nobody to sign more than a year contract. They all get next year to prove themselves or they are the next to go!
I was all for trading away Foley and Newman but our list is so bad we need these players to stay and stay and play well. The only other guy who maybe worth something after the year he has had is Bling. Realistically he had a good 4 to 6 weeks but his last 6 weeks have been ordinary at best. I think if he stayed a Tiger he would be a good player but only good, not outstanding. We have an opportunity to trade this guy now and maybe get a first rounder for him that might be a superstar and might not be but we need to try something.
After watching last night I would definitely say we have the worst list in the AFL, Fremantle are a year in front of us in terms of draft picks and have some really good kids that have shown a fair bit this year and they have Pav.
Melbourne are two years ahead of us in terms of draft picks and after this years draft will pick up a Deledio and Cotchin with their first two picks. Both Melbourne and Freeo will play finals before we do.
Next year Hardwick needs to play the kids and develop them as fast as possible but we need to bottom out and bottom out properly. I think we will win fewer games than this year but as long as they start to do the things that will make them a better side in the future (e.g. TACKLE, chase, smother, block) then I will be happy.
Some average years ahead but it will be all worth it if it is done properly!
Good luck D. Hardwick, you are going to need it!
-
After watching last night I would definitely say we have the worst list in the AFL, Fremantle are a year in front of us in terms of draft picks and have some really good kids that have shown a fair bit this year and they have Pav.
Melbourne are two years ahead of us in terms of draft picks and after this years draft will pick up a Deledio and Cotchin with their first two picks. Both Melbourne and Freeo will play finals before we do.
Agreed (back in May) - http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum//index.php?topic=9157.msg139090#msg139090
-
Well Jack's heard Simmo is staying and Gus is going :o but ignoring that for the time being.....
The list management has to be planned over the next 2 years (3 drafts) at least. It's too big a job to try and do in just a single off-season. Whether we like it or not we need to bottom out. It'll be tough on Hardwick in his first 2 years and some supporters will call him a dud but if he wants to be the coach to turn our Club around it's what he and us need to do.
Now we start off with picks 3, 19, 35, 51, 67,.. straight away. Next year even with GC17 hogging the draft a bottom 2 side will still have either pick 4 or 6 or thereabouts. Say it's 6, 26, 43, 60, ... It's not a complete disaster with the intro of GC17 as long as the Club is SMART and PLANS AHEAD unlike most of the past 23 draft/trade periods. We'll at least still have a top pick when most existing clubs won't enter the draft until the 20s. So we need to sign up our best young players going forward (those capable of playing in premiership side) now so they're out of reach of other clubs and then trade for picks with the rest. That will be the key for us.
We should be aiming for a minimum of six National draft picks for the next couple of years. Add PSD, rookies and rookie promotions then 12 changes per year is a realistic outcome. Do that over the next 2 years and we will have basically turned over 3/4ers of the current list only keeping hold of the current cream (which even by the club's estimation is only 12 faces).
Mine changes are pretty much the same as yours Popelord.
2009 - * Outside senior list
Retirees: Johnson, Bowden*, Brown, Cogs
Delist: JON, Hughes, Petts, Polak, Simmo, Gourdis*, Silvester*
Attempt to Trade one or more for picks: McMahon, Tuck, Raines, Patto
= 8 senior list outs (at least). Any trade would be an extra out for an extra pick. Would like to offload more but you need to match a draft pick for every out. A priority pick would've been useful here :scream.
Promote: Nahas
Draft Picks: 3, 19, 35, 51, 67, 83 (Free F/S), PSD #2. Plus any extra picks gained in 2009 trade week.
= 8 senior list ins (at least).
Rookie ins: O'Rielly*
2010
Retirees: Richo*, Cousins?
Delist: King, Thomson, Hislop, Schulz and any other of those lucky to survive purely because they have a contract and that we couldn't trade away this year.
Uncontracted player to GC17 for a pick: Raines?, one of our tall defenders?
Should be similar number out to 2009.
Draft picks: 6?, 26, 43, 60, GC17 pick, PSD. Plus any extra picks gained in 2010 trade week.
2011
A final sweep out of who currently doesn't come on and develop within 4-5 years of being on our list.
Pretty spot on MT. Absolutely spot on.
Looking at our list its beyond unaccecptable we had those older players stayed on. As Hardwick said there is no sentiment in football, well keeping Johnson, Bowden, Brown, Richo, Simmonds all on the list for another year with Coughlan a 28 year old injury prone unknown, Polak a special case and the recruitment of Cousins. To recruit 2 players that had failed to set the world on fire at there previous clubs in Thompson and Hislop along with some under developed youngsters. My god it looks horrible. I'm annoyed I didn't see it coming, even more annoyed the RFC didn't either.
-
Delist- (I don't care if they have contracts or not, we had a good year financially so pay these duds outs and be done with it)
JON, Hughes, McMahon, Pattison, Petts, Polak, and Thompson. = 7
big tone, with blokes being contracted and wnating ot pay them out it isn't just about whether we have the cash or not. It is more dependant on where we sit salary cap wise, we cut them in 2009 then that omeny forms part of the 2009 salary cap. I don't know where we sit % wise to 100% but if paying out those blokes with contracts is going to tip us over the 100% clearly we cannot do it
Don't get me wrong I am all for terminating the contracts if we can 1/ afford to do it and 2/ it wont send us over the 100%. My point is simply that it is also an salary cap consideration
BTW of the 7 you've mentioned only 2 have contracts for 2010 - Thompson and McMahon
Personally if we are in a position to pay out say 2 contracts then it is a case of choosing who ;D
-
The last part of the post is the most important. These guys are being tought how to ruck badly, I would give Gus another year under a decent ruck coach.
Monkhurst, you have got to be mad to think this brianless twit could actauly TEACH. As a ex ruckman I have watched as our guys have reached a point where they have no idea how to jump for the ball. Its like they fake a jump in the hope that the other guy misses it, its a dicrace what our rucks have become. Lets not wreck Vickery too please.
I suppose Fluffy I have no qualms in looking at trading Gus because I have watched him for 4-5 years now and in the last 12 months in particulare seen very little improvement. Even when he was runnign around in Coburg reserves he refused to jump ... I just think out interests are better served in getting someone with experience in the joint who has 4-5 years left and working on developing Vickery & Browne. Facts are Simmonds doesn't have that window of 4-5 years (struth I doubt he'd have 2 years) left so I'drather go with a someone else
-
Delist- (I don't care if they have contracts or not, we had a good year financially so pay these duds outs and be done with it)
JON, Hughes, McMahon, Pattison, Petts, Polak, and Thompson. = 7
big tone, with blokes being contracted and wnating ot pay them out it isn't just about whether we have the cash or not. It is more dependant on where we sit salary cap wise, we cut them in 2009 then that omeny forms part of the 2009 salary cap. I don't know where we sit % wise to 100% but if paying out those blokes with contracts is going to tip us over the 100% clearly we cannot do it
Don't get me wrong I am all for terminating the contracts if we can 1/ afford to do it and 2/ it wont send us over the 100%. My point is simply that it is also an salary cap consideration
BTW of the 7 you've mentioned only 2 have contracts for 2010 - Thompson and McMahon
Personally if we are in a position to pay out say 2 contracts then it is a case of choosing who ;D
It's also a draft pick consideration as well as a cost and salary cap issue. If we can't trade Jordie to another club for a semi-decent pick in return then he'll have to be replaced by a kid picked up late in the draft (in the 80s?) who has a low probability of making it especially in a shallower draft pool.
-
Delist- (I don't care if they have contracts or not, we had a good year financially so pay these duds outs and be done with it)
JON, Hughes, McMahon, Pattison, Petts, Polak, and Thompson. = 7
big tone, with blokes being contracted and wnating ot pay them out it isn't just about whether we have the cash or not. It is more dependant on where we sit salary cap wise, we cut them in 2009 then that omeny forms part of the 2009 salary cap. I don't know where we sit % wise to 100% but if paying out those blokes with contracts is going to tip us over the 100% clearly we cannot do it
Don't get me wrong I am all for terminating the contracts if we can 1/ afford to do it and 2/ it wont send us over the 100%. My point is simply that it is also an salary cap consideration
BTW of the 7 you've mentioned only 2 have contracts for 2010 - Thompson and McMahon
Personally if we are in a position to pay out say 2 contracts then it is a case of choosing who ;D
Fair enough WP.
Thompson is simply not upto AFL footy, he has to go. How much would it cost me? :lol
-
I will be extremely confused and angry if Simmonds is kept on the list yet Graham is not. Going on our last game I would have thought both should go but that was not a reflection of Gus season IMHO. While he did worry me just how poor he was below his knees and how he was our rucked by a first year ruckman in Natanui, he still has another year of development left in him at the least particulary given the age of our other ruckmen.
Simmonds is terrible. He was once good enough to be selected as the Victorian Ruck in the State of Origin game but he has now lost his mobility, skills and leap. For an experienced player he offers nothing that Vickery, Browne, Patto and even Gus at his worst wouldn't offer.
Johnson(ret.), Bowden(ret.), Brown(ret.) and Cogs(ret.) are already gone - that's four gone already.
JON and Pettifier are another 2 givens - that's six.
Simmonds should surely be given his marching orders and, if Hardwick is true to his ' no room for sentiments' statement, Polak should follow - that makes eight.
Trade McMahon and Raines plus Schulz (if he we can get something for him) - and that should give us ten at minimum.
I really don't think it is worth it paying out players such as Thomson, Hislop, King plus McMahon and Schulz(if we can't trade them). We just don't have the depth to replace such players with players picked up in the 5th+ round of the draft plus absorbing their payments in our salary cap.
I believe 10 is a good starting point to turn over. Any more than that and we will be only bringing in poor/average players to replace poor/average players.
The rebuild we take time.
Stripes
-
I will be extremely confused and angry if Simmonds is kept on the list yet Graham is not. Going on our last game I would have thought both should go but that was not a reflection of Gus season IMHO. While he did worry me just how poor he was below his knees and how he was our rucked by a first year ruckman in Natanui, he still has another year of development left in him at the least particulary given the age of our other ruckmen.
Simmonds is terrible. He was once good enough to be selected as the Victorian Ruck in the State of Origin game but he has now lost his mobility, skills and leap. For an experienced player he offers nothing that Vickery, Browne, Patto and even Gus at his worst wouldn't offer.
Johnson(ret.), Bowden(ret.), Brown(ret.) and Cogs(ret.) are already gone - that's four gone already.
JON and Pettifier are another 2 givens - that's six.
Simmonds should surely be given his marching orders and, if Hardwick is true to his ' no room for sentiments' statement, Polak should follow - that makes eight.
Trade McMahon and Raines plus Schulz (if he we can get something for him) - and that should give us ten at minimum.
I really don't think it is worth it paying out players such as Thomson, Hislop, King plus McMahon and Schulz(if we can't trade them). We just don't have the depth to replace such players with players picked up in the 5th+ round of the draft plus absorbing their payments in our salary cap.
I believe 10 is a good starting point to turn over. Any more than that and we will be only bringing in poor/average players to replace poor/average players.
The rebuild we take time.
Stripes
So according to you Stripes you want to delist only TWO players from that list!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is almost as stupid as you defending TW the entire pre-season last year!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That would be the weakest discission the club has made for some time imo.
I just hope that Damien and the RFC have a different idea to you. :banghead
We need to rebuild, not just get rid of players that have retired.
-
It's also a draft pick consideration as well as a cost and salary cap issue. If we can't trade Jordie to another club for a semi-decent pick in return then he'll have to be replaced by a kid picked up late in the draft (in the 80s?) who has a low probability of making it especially in a shallower draft pool.
Agreed MT it will also depend on what sort of pick you'd get. I reckon this year we will see alot of 20-21 year olds from the state based comps being considered at draft time. I would think a Liddle or Horne from Coburg for example would have greater chance of being drafted this year because the depth just isn't there at U18 level
I suppose the other thing you need to ask is what do you do about those out of contract that are likely to be put up for trade (eg Raines) and you don't get a decent trade for them. Do you keep them or cut them
-
I would not be keeping Simmonds. Simmonds and Pettifer should officially retire and they should do it tomorrow.
-
To go:
Bowden
Brown
Coughlan
Hughes
Johnson
McMahon
Oakley-Nicholls
Pettifer
Polak
Simmonds
Sylvestor
9 from the main list, elevate Nahas so 8 picks, maybe more with trades. Only 1 vet so additional rookie spot.
-
To go:
Bowden
Brown
Coughlan
Hughes
Johnson
McMahon
Oakley-Nicholls
Pettifer
Polak
Simmonds
Sylvestor
9 from the main list, elevate Nahas so 8 picks, maybe more with trades. Only 1 vet so additional rookie spot.
Pretty good list that jezza and I agree with all of them, maybe not Polly though. I would also delist Schulz, Thompson and Hislop and look at trading the following:
Patto
Schulz (if under contract)
McMahon
Edwards (unless he hits the weights)
King
Polo
-
Anyone who expects Hislop & Thomson to go are kidding themselves
They are both contracted, they are both kids and are both contested ball winners, exactly the type Hardwick wants
If they still haven't done anything next year then they'll be in the firing line, but to think they'll go now is just nonsense
-
Anyone who expects Hislop & Thomson to go are kidding themselves
They are both contracted, they are both kids and are both contested ball winners, exactly the type Hardwick wants
If they still haven't done anything next year then they'll be in the firing line, but to think they'll go now is just nonsense
Well they had better have one hell of a pre-season and lift by about 150% because they were nothing short of useless this year and they came supposidly ready to roll players but spent most of their time at Coburg!
-
Anyone who expects Hislop & Thomson to go are kidding themselves
They are both contracted, they are both kids and are both contested ball winners, exactly the type Hardwick wants
If they still haven't done anything next year then they'll be in the firing line, but to think they'll go now is just nonsense
Well they had better have one hell of a pre-season and lift by about 150% because they were nothing short of useless this year and they came supposidly ready to roll players but spent most of their time at Coburg!
Both had injury interupted years, specifically Thomson
I didn't think Thomson was too bad in the tiny bit of gametime he got in the last two games, hard to judge off such limited exposure
-
So according to you Stripes you want to delist only TWO players from that list!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is almost as stupid as you defending TW the entire pre-season last year!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That would be the weakest discission the club has made for some time imo.
I just hope that Damien and the RFC have a different idea to you. :banghead
We need to rebuild, not just get rid of players that have retired.
Good to see you nice and fired up bigtone ;D Shows you passion for our great club! :thumbsup
Here is who I would have removed from our list before trade week -
Johnson
Bowden
Cogs
Brown
Simmonds
JON
Pettifier
Polak
Definite Trades
Raines
McMahon
Schulz
Patto
If the worst scenario is realized and none of the above are traded (which I think is unlikely given we will trade many of these for rock bottom picks if we have to) then we would have to keep these players (maybe pay out one contract at most such as Schulz) and delist 2 players such as -
Hughes
Putt
Regardless, trade week will be huge for us this year as we seek to unload as many middle range to low players from our list who hold any value for addition picks. This will tell us how many players will realistically leave/be culled.
All said and done bigtone - I'm expecting 10 to be gone at year's end or 4 retirees and 6 trades/delistings. That's more than 2 if I have my calculations in order. Any more than that, and as I said in the post you replied to, we will only be replacing average players with average/poor players. What's the purpose of that.
Stripes
-
Anyone who expects Hislop & Thomson to go are kidding themselves
They are both contracted, they are both kids and are both contested ball winners, exactly the type Hardwick wants
If they still haven't done anything next year then they'll be in the firing line, but to think they'll go now is just nonsense
We must go to different games when Richmond and Coburg are playing, BOTH arent up to it
-
Anyone who expects Hislop & Thomson to go are kidding themselves
They are both contracted, they are both kids and are both contested ball winners, exactly the type Hardwick wants
If they still haven't done anything next year then they'll be in the firing line, but to think they'll go now is just nonsense
We must go to different games when Richmond and Coburg are playing, BOTH arent up to it
What does that have to do with my post? I've given three reasons why they will be here next year, you haven't refuted one of them
-
Take this with a grain of salt but apparently JON has gone....
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=625867
-
If he has gone there will more than one here that is happy.
-
Just read that WATiger, as you said grain of salt.
Interesting stuff.
-
With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."
Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.
Would you still delist them?
-
With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."
Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.
Would you still delist them?
polak no
pettfier yes yes yes
like any work place when its time to go its time to go
pettifer is a very average footballer and thats being nice.
-
polak was playing coburg 3rds not long ago
why would u not delist him..
-
Graham Polak - No.
Kayne Pettifer - No.
-
Will Richo go around again, or is it what was posted here a while ago, that his injury is worse than the club is letting on.
If it is I can see Richo staying at the Tiger's, as I think he will get the offer to be the Forwards coach, thus keeping him at home.
I think this would be a good outcome. As it has also been said that there can not be setiment in football.
So I would go down this road as Richo will only take more time to recover now.
-
Polak I could keep.
Pettifer has to go.
-
Polak - Keep
Petts - Delist
-
Will Richo go around again, or is it what was posted here a while ago, that his injury is worse than the club is letting on.
If it is I can see Richo staying at the Tiger's, as I think he will get the offer to be the Forwards coach, thus keeping him at home.
I think this would be a good outcome. As it has also been said that there can not be setiment in football.
So I would go down this road as Richo will only take more time to recover now.
Only problem with this bushy is that Richo can't teach, coach or lead. He can play but doesn't understand how to teach others to do what he can do - it's all natural talent for him.
-
Stripes if that's the case and he is finished. Would he head back to quaint old Tasmania then ?
Not that I'm trying to hammer a nail in his football coffin.
But all I'm doing is asking a question, though I do think he just might not make it back.
-
Richo has said he'd like to stay in footy but not as senior or assistant coach. Maybe a part-time specialist coaching role and see if he likes it.
With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."
Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.
Would you still delist them?
Yep sadly and definitely yep. There's been no sentiment so far with the delistings.
-
Richo has said he'd like to stay in footy but not as senior or assistant coach. Maybe a part-time specialist coaching role and see if he likes it.
With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."
Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.
Would you still delist them?
Yep sadly and definitely yep. There's been no sentiment so far with the delistings.
I agree with the Polak comments. He was never that good before the accident and now he is just too much risk for the potential return. He was only ever good at contested marking and that is just not enough in the modern game.
And as for Richo trying his hand at coaching to "see if he likes it" - no thanks. MT, now you are the one playing the 'sentiment' card. Richo does not have one coaching bone in his body and if he wants to have a crack then I would much rather he leave to do it elsewhere - we have way too much upheaval and change going on at the moment to spend time and resources letting him find out at Richmond.
-
Richo's future is in the media, but I'm sure he'll still get involved down at the club
-
Richo has said he'd like to stay in footy but not as senior or assistant coach. Maybe a part-time specialist coaching role and see if he likes it.
With Hardwicks "no sentiment in football."
Knowing Polak's condition and Pettifer's traumatic finish to the year.
Would you still delist them?
Yep sadly and definitely yep. There's been no sentiment so far with the delistings.
I agree with the Polak comments. He was never that good before the accident and now he is just too much risk for the potential return. He was only ever good at contested marking and that is just not enough in the modern game.
This is a tough decision to make. Just before Polak was hit I think he was playing good footy.
He was never a great player but an AFL standard player for me.
If he has legitimately come back to play this year, and that is what all the public statements have said, then there is an argument for keeping him for list management reasons.
- He could still be there in 5 years time when we are playing and contending for a premiership (if that ever happens).
- Backmen develop late and he is a 25 year old 100+ game player. It would take 5 years to replace him from scratch.
- We have a bad enough age gap in our list as is. Though it matters less as the gap ('81-'85) is past a players prime age (20-24) now.
- Thursfield seems injury prone.
- Raines wants to leave
- Bowden has retired
- King keeps getting reported
- Hislop is of questionable AFL standard
This all leaves our backline stocks pretty thin. There are already a few spots up for grabs in our back line, so why thin it more?
If Polak was to go it would be because they dont think he can play in a premiership side.
Players born in '81 to '85 10 players (age 24 to 28) of which
====================
1 is gone (Coughlan)
3 are likely to go (Pettifer, McMahon, Schulz)
leaving Tuck, Newman, Moore, King, Polak and Foley
This is the age hole Terry Wallace talked about 2 years ago and is still a structural problem, though less so as time goes on.
Plus the 3 old gents Richo, Cousins and Simmonds (who is lucky to stay imo but we have to keep him as graham and patterson dont seem very good yet)
who will all retire within a year or two
So you talking about having 8 or 9 players being in the experienced category next year.
Our 20-23 year old brigade should be playing better with more games under their belts.
Of which we have 22 players in this age group but this is also the group we have recruited badly in, Meyer, JON etc and have picked up a number of recycled players who may or may not be duds. Thompson, Hislop.
If a player was to be dropped for age reasons it would probably be Tuck but his dad lasted forever, why wouldn't he?
-
And as for Richo trying his hand at coaching to "see if he likes it" - no thanks. MT, now you are the one playing the 'sentiment' card. Richo does not have one coaching bone in his body and if he wants to have a crack then I would much rather he leave to do it elsewhere - we have way too much upheaval and change going on at the moment to spend time and resources letting him find out at Richmond.
I probably didn't make it clear smokey but they were Richo's words not mine. He said he'd like to test the waters in a part-time role. I agree I don't see Richo turning to full-time coaching and he's said that himself. He's found his place in the media and that'll be where you'd think he'll move to full-time after his playing career is over.
-
Richo is a very popular figure who speaks very candidly about himself especially his on field demeanour and kicking for goal. With those attributes he should move into the media where he will speak honestly on all issues and on all clubs.
Don't think he has the discipline to handle the rigors of coaching full time.
-
Players born in '81 to '85 10 players (age 24 to 28) of which
====================
1 is gone (Coughlan)
3 are likely to go (Pettifer, McMahon, Schulz)
leaving Tuck, Newman, Moore, King, Polak and Foley
This is the age hole Terry Wallace talked about 2 years ago and is still a structural problem, though less so as time goes on.
Plus the 3 old gents Richo, Cousins and Simmonds (who is lucky to stay imo but we have to keep him as graham and patterson dont seem very good yet)
who will all retire within a year or two
So you talking about having 8 or 9 players being in the experienced category next year.
Our 20-23 year old brigade should be playing better with more games under their belts.
Of which we have 22 players in this age group but this is also the group we have recruited badly in, Meyer, JON etc and have picked up a number of recycled players who may or may not be duds. Thompson, Hislop.
If a player was to be dropped for age reasons it would probably be Tuck but his dad lasted forever, why wouldn't he?
You only drop/trade players for age reasons if they aren't high quality or won't be part of your next flag. I would fit Tucky into that category given he'll be 28 next year. You're better off (re-)building via youth even if it means more pain in short-term than trying to band-aid this 24-28 group by bringing in poor recycled players. The draft system 'rewards' lower finishes. You bottom out and then rely on your drafting to add more A-grade quality via early picks in the draft. The B-grade or lower older player you trade for as high a pick as reasonably possible.
Yep if there's a massive cull (including favourable trading to offload the contracted McMahon, Schulz, etc), we could even end up going into next year with just 6 Tigers older than 24.
Ages Round 1, 2010 (current number of games)
35: Richo (282)
31: Cousins (253)
-----------------------------
28: Tuck (110)
27: Newman (154)
26: King (41), Moore (65)
25: -
24: Foley (84)
23: Jackson (69), Polo (52), Thomson (30), Thursfield (53), McGuane (54), Morton (50), Tambling (95)
------------------------------
22: Deledio (106), Graham (18 ), White (54), Nahas# (19)
21: Hislop (19), Collins (10), Connors (10), Edwards (47), Riewoldt (46)
20: Putt (-), Post (7), Rance (15)
19: Cotchin (25), Vickery (9), Browne# (1), Gilligan# (-)
18: 2009 draftees
Oldies: 2
Prime: 12
Youth: 16 + 2009 newbies
Heights
Ruck size (3): Putt (202), Graham (200), Vickery (200)
Bigger Talls (2): Richo (195), Post (194)
Talls (5 ): Rance (192), Riewoldt (192), McGuane (191), Thursfield (191), Moore (189)
Tall Mids (5 ): Deledio (189), Tuck (189), Jackson (187), Polo (187)
Midsized Mids (7): Cotchin (185), Hislop (185), Morton (185), Collins (184), Connors (184), Thomson (184), Newman (183)
Small Mids (5): Edwards (180), Tambling (180), White (179), Foley (177), King (174)
-
Small Mids (5): Edwards (180), Tambling (180), White (179), Foley (177), King (174)
Is this too big a group? Collingwood may have a similar number of small mids but I doubt many (if any) other sides would.
-
Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.
Untouchables he has Richo and Moore ::)
Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! ::) ::)
-
Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.
Untouchables he has Richo and Moore ::)
Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! ::) ::)
If Melb offer picks 1 and 2 for Cotch what would you do?
:cheers
-
Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.
Untouchables he has Richo and Moore ::)
Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! ::) ::)
If Melb offer picks 1 and 2 for Cotch what would you do?
:cheers
Ever seen that movie Face/Off? :rollin
Send Cotch and Jordy in for surgery to have their faces swapped over, fill out Jordy's frame with some silicone and send him off to Demonland! :lol
-
Small Mids (5): Edwards (180), Tambling (180), White (179), Foley (177), King (174)
Is this too big a group? Collingwood may have a similar number of small mids but I doubt many (if any) other sides would.
Not necessarily too big a group (maybe one more than we need) but the quality to suit modern footy is lacking. When you're under six foot you need blistering pace and good or uncanny skills to have a long AFL career. From the above list Blingers fits that category. Foley had that pace in 2007/early 08 but we haven't seen those running and bouncing bursts out of stoppages since he's been carrying injuries. Edwards for mine is being played out of position despite some reasonable form. He's too small to be playing in defence long-term. IMO he needs to play as a small forward pushing up into the midfield (HFF/FP).
-
Not sure if it's been mentioned somewhere else, but Crawf was given the task of what list changes Richmond needed to make next year.
Untouchables he has Richo and Moore ::)
Trade Bait he had Tambling and .... wait for it... COTCHIN! ::) ::)
If we traded Cotch we might as well boarder up Punt Rd Oval :P.
-
Tambling I agree with as some would know I'm not his biggest fan.
But a definite no to Cotchin as trade bait.
-
Small Mids (5): Edwards (180), Tambling (180), White (179), Foley (177), King (174)
Is this too big a group? Collingwood may have a similar number of small mids but I doubt many (if any) other sides would.
Not necessarily too big a group (maybe one more than we need) but the quality to suit modern footy is lacking. When you're under six foot you need blistering pace and good or uncanny skills to have a long AFL career. From the above list Blingers fits that category. Foley had that pace in 2007/early 08 but we haven't seen those running and bouncing bursts out of stoppages since he's been carrying injuries. Edwards for mine is being played out of position despite some reasonable form. He's too small to be playing in defence long-term. IMO he needs to play as a small forward pushing up into the midfield (HFF/FP).
That leaves King, Foley or White as the left overs. I would have thought Foley has proven he can play, White is yet to prove it and King is suspension prone. I wonder which if any of these will be going?
-
Ages Round 1, 2010 (current number of games)
35: Richo (282)
31: Cousins (253)
-----------------------------
28: Tuck (110)
27: Newman (154)
26: King (41), Moore (65)
25: -
24: Foley (84)
23: Jackson (69), Polo (52), Thomson (30), Thursfield (53), McGuane (54), Morton (50), Tambling (95)
Woulld also be happy to moveon Tuck, Jackson or Moore if a good trade came up.
-
There havent been enough sackings at Punt Rd for my liking. The axe needs to come out again, we need more sackings, more people need to end up at Centrelink
-
Patience. No use sacking people when you may be able to get something worthwhile for them. There's plenty of time.
Apart from anything else, if we sack them all now we won't have anything to talk about later in the year. ;D
-
Patience. No use sacking people when you may be able to get something worthwhile for them. There's plenty of time.
Apart from anything else, if we sack them all now we won't have anything to talk about later in the year. ;D
LOL wise words
-
There havent been enough sackings at Punt Rd for my liking. The axe needs to come out again, we need more sackings, more people need to end up at Centrelink
There shouldn't be anymore "sackings" until after trade week. Let's see if we can gettting something (aka anything) for anyone else they may want to move on ;D
-
A very solid point WP.
-
So now we have:
Kane Johnson
Joel Bowden
Nathan Brown
Mark Coughlan
Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls
Kayne Pettifer
Cleve Hughes
Plus Raines traded.
Next looks like Polak.
Hopefully the trade to get rid of McMahon is still on and hopefully they retire Simmonds.
-
Schulz to. Dont forget Schulz. We need more sackings. :gotigers
-
Schulz to. Dont forget Schulz. We need more sackings. :gotigers
I get the feeling Schulz's 2010 contract will save him, ramps.
-
Schulz to. Dont forget Schulz. We need more sackings. :gotigers
I get the feeling Schulz's 2010 contract will save him, ramps.
He still remains my roughie for our top 10 players next year! :pray ;D
-
Schulz to. Dont forget Schulz. We need more sackings. :gotigers
I get the feeling Schulz's 2010 contract will save him, ramps.
He still remains my roughie for our top 10 players next year! :pray ;D
If Richo retires and if a new coach can get him motivated and if they put him in one spot and leave him there.
:cheers
-
New coach Damien Hardwick is ringing the changes, with up to a dozen players set to be moved on.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26079584-5018851,00.html
1. Johnson (retired)
2. Bowden (retired)
3. Brown (delist)
4. Coughlan (delist)
5. JON (delist)
6. Pettifer (delist)
7. Hughes (delist)
8. Raines (trade)
9. Tuck (trade)
10. ?
11. ?
12. ?
-
10 is the absloute minimum, 12 is an OK result and 35 would be perfect :gotigers ;D
-
My guess is -
1. Johnson (retired)
2. Bowden (retired)
3. Brown (delist)
4. Coughlan (delist)
5. JON (delist)
6. Pettifer (delist)
7. Hughes (delist)
8. Raines (trade)
9. Tuck (trade)
10. McMahon (attempt to trade)
11. Patto (attempt to trade)
12. Schulz (attempt to trade)
-
That would be my preference too. The easy option would be to chop guys like Connors and Putt, but I'd much rather give them another year than guys who we know aren't going to get any better and aren't up to standard.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Putt was delisted and then perhaps rookied
Thought he went backwards this year (and believe me I've watched him alot over the last 2 years)
-
If he has gone backwards why delist him only to bring him back.
I would rather take on someone fresh than someone who is not improving.
But as you have said it wouldn't suprise you if we did it. So that sort of answer's it.
-
I would keep Connors over Putt.
Putt has struggled and does not look close to a senior game. Connors if Dimma can get into his mind and extinguish those brain fades may be worth punting on for another year.
Would think 14 to 15 would be an ideal number if a few trades come to fruition.
Somehow I think Schulz will stay on the list due to the fact he is worth nothing and I am hoping that St Kilda interest in McMahon is not a mirage in the desert.
Would like to see a bigger name than Tuck on the trade table like a Newman just to see what would be offered. You never know we may get a first rounder. We swapped Barrott for Stewart in 71. For those old enough to remember this was it seen as crazy?
I know Barrott didn't want to go.
-
My guess ...
1. Johnson (retired)
2. Bowden (retired)
3. Brown (delist)
4. Coughlan (delist)
5. JON (delist)
6. Pettifer (delist)
7. Hughes (delist)
8. Raines (trade)
9. Tuck (trade)
10. McMahon (attempt to trade to Saints) :pray
11. Silvester (rookie delist)
12. Gourdis (rookie delist)
9 senior listed players gone and 2 rookies.
Promote Nahas to senior list to give us 7 National Draft picks plus a Pre-Season Draft pick.
N.D. picks:
#3
#19
#25ish (Tuck)
#35
#44 (Raines)
#51
#67 or better (McMahon). Last pick to be used on Josh Free (F/S).
PSD pick:
#2
Rookie picks: (nb. GC17 has first 5 selections)
7, 23, 39, 55, 71, 87 - will we use them all?
-
The AFL site has a "Rate your 2009 playing list" page for Richmond where you vote to either keep or trade every Tiger player
http://www.afl.com.au/offseason/richmond/rateyourlist/tabid/15091/newsid/84820/default.aspx
-
If he has gone backwards why delist him only to bring him back.
Only because he is 20 and talls take longer to develop and most of all it's a new coaching panel
And BTW I wouldn't be at all surprised if Silvestor stays and is elevated to the senior list (NB I don't know anything it's just a feeling I have) ;D
-
Thanks for that WP now I understand why.