One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: torch on October 20, 2012, 10:22:02 AM

Title: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: torch on October 20, 2012, 10:22:02 AM
What is happening with these four???

At the moment, we have four senior
positions available.

All four are out of contract.

Who do you think will be traded, delisted or
retained?

IMO:

Derickx - retain.
McGuane - trade (for 3rd round pick) or delist. (rookie list)
Post - trade (for 3rd round pick) or retain.
White - trade (for 3rd round pick) or retain.

Offer a two for one deal to GWS or Gold Coast for a 2nd round pick. eg: Post and White for 2nd round pick.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: the claw on October 20, 2012, 10:31:30 AM
if we were talking about performance by itself all 4 would go. unfortunately its not all about performance.

no way any more talls will be cut the list structure demands this. in fact the list structure demands we take 3 or 4 talls.
white well hes one i can not work out why we continually keep him he does not meet one demand in any area and his performances have been for yrs below that of an afl player.

Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: tigs2011 on October 20, 2012, 10:40:47 AM
If we were going to trade them I think it would be for upgrade of picks rather than delist. McGuane won't have any interest could have left as a Free Agent to any club that wanted him. No one did so we either keep on list or delist and rookie.

White not getting much interest and I think we will keep.

If we were to trade Post I'd want to get an upgrade for pick 34 to a low 20's. (Say Doggies 22)

Jackson is the other that may get traded. Saints have pick 24 don't they? Or is it 25 after compo picks. Ask for it straight out. Throw in 43 if we must.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on October 20, 2012, 10:56:08 AM
Jackson is the other that may get traded. Saints have pick 24 don't they? Or is it 25 after compo picks. Ask for it straight out. Throw in 43 if we must.

I reckon Jacko is as good as 0% chance of being traded
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: tigs2011 on October 20, 2012, 11:03:46 AM
Jackson is the other that may get traded. Saints have pick 24 don't they? Or is it 25 after compo picks. Ask for it straight out. Throw in 43 if we must.

I reckon Jacko is as good as 0% chance of being traded

I think you'll find the Saints want him rather than him being shopped. Will be interesting to see if we go for it.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Phil Mrakov on October 20, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
Derickx - go away
Mcguane - stays for forward line depth, NEVER TO BE PLAYED BACK AGAIN - 1 year contract
Post - Not fussed if he stays or goes but I'll give him 2 years MAX
White - 1 year contract for depth
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Judge Roughneck on October 20, 2012, 11:17:30 AM
If you get rid of the tall 3 our 2nds have no ruck. Chb. Or fb.

Try it - write A best 22 and then fill in another team with the remain rfc listed players.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Penelope on October 20, 2012, 11:20:31 AM
just click your heels together while saying "there no place like home" three times and problem solved
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Coach on October 20, 2012, 03:20:22 PM
Clinton Jones is better than Jacko
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Phil Mrakov on October 20, 2012, 04:16:15 PM
Clinton Jones is better than Jacko

So is Pushup's older brother Clinton King.

Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Coach on October 20, 2012, 04:21:49 PM
Clinton Jones is better than Jacko

So is Pushup's older brother Clinton King.



Is he mates with Chris Knights (son of Matthew Knights)
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: mightytiges on October 20, 2012, 04:53:35 PM
Derickx - will survive now that Gus is gone. I don't see him making it though at AFL level.

McGuane - survives because for the second year in a row no other club (even Adelaide) is stupid enough to trade for him and it looks like we won't delist him until one or more of the younger tall forwards cements themselves in our 22. If he plays for Richmond ever again for a significant period of time then we won't be playing finals.

Post - last chance next year if he isn't traded next week. If he doesn't come on in 2013 then it'll be bye-bye in 12 months time.

White - like McGuane will probably spend all of 2013 at Coburg. 
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Phil Mrakov on October 20, 2012, 04:57:35 PM
Clinton Jones is better than Jacko

So is Pushup's older brother Clinton King.



Is he mates with Chris Knights (son of Matthew Knights)

No but he will be soon
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Phil Mrakov on October 20, 2012, 04:58:52 PM
Derickx - will survive now that Gus is gone. I don't see him making it though at AFL level.

McGuane - survives because for the second year in a row no other club (even Adelaide) is stupid enough to trade for him and it looks like we won't delist him until one or more of the younger tall forwards cements themselves in our 22. If he plays for Richmond ever again for a significant period of time then we won't be playing finals.

Post - last chance next year if he isn't traded next week. If he doesn't come on in 2013 then it'll be bye-bye in 12 months time.

White - like McGuane will probably spend all of 2013 at Coburg.

Lol at Adelaide taking Gus but not Mcguane.

Mcguane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gus

and yes I mean as a ruck
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: tigs2011 on October 20, 2012, 05:42:44 PM
Derickx - will survive now that Gus is gone. I don't see him making it though at AFL level.

McGuane - survives because for the second year in a row no other club (even Adelaide) is stupid enough to trade for him and it looks like we won't delist him until one or more of the younger tall forwards cements themselves in our 22. If he plays for Richmond ever again for a significant period of time then we won't be playing finals.

Post - last chance next year if he isn't traded next week. If he doesn't come on in 2013 then it'll be bye-bye in 12 months time.

White - like McGuane will probably spend all of 2013 at Coburg.

Lol at Adelaide taking Gus but not Mcguane.

Mcguane >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gus

and yes I mean as a ruck

 :clapping
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: the claw on October 20, 2012, 09:44:12 PM
have to say again as much as i would love to cut mcguane and derickx at this stage there is no way we can do it not unless we target mature talls in the rookie draft.

we all agree we need another ruckman in our system.
depending on where you place utilities astbury and griffiths most have them as defenders we need at least two possibly three tall forwards.

okay  tall defenders including astbury griffiths.

grimes chaplin rance astbury griffiths and the maligned post.  thats 6 and that is ideal take out griffiths and astbury and play em forward and your two short.

tall forwards

riewoldt, vickery, elton, and the below standard mcguane.  two short  three if you include mcguane as a short term player.  put astbury and griffiths here and you have your ideal.

rucks
maric derickx.  definately need two one for cover and one long term development.

richmond
b/  grimes -  chaplin -  #####
hb/  ##### - rance  -  #####
ruck / maric
hf/  ##### - griffith - #####
f/  ##### -  riewoldt -  vickery for/ruck

coburg
b/  #####  -  darrou -  #####
hb/  ##### - post -  #####
ruck/ derickx
hf/  ##### - astbury - #####
f/  ##### -  mcguane - elton ruck/for

as of this moment we have the bare minimum number of talls required. we are forever asking every yr why do we lack depth with talls. its simple our list management in this area is shizen.
7 of the 13 we have are not yet up to standard and are development players. they may or may not make it. sooner or later we have to address this area the longer we leave it the more painful it will be.

yep as much as people moan about mcguane post and derickx we are in no position to be cutting tall players.  of the 4 mentioned in the op matt white really should be cut.
knights king nahas edwards all in front of him hes poor in the midfield he hardly touches the ball and his skills and decision making have always been below standard i really cant work out why we keep him hes not even good depth.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Tigershark on October 20, 2012, 09:49:16 PM
I like Matty White cos he bleeds yellow and black blood.  He's happy just to be at the Tiges even if hes only a bit player. keep  Him for depth cos you know he will give 150%
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Ruanaidh on October 20, 2012, 10:57:52 PM
The four of them are safe for now IMO. But look out next year.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: the claw on October 21, 2012, 01:32:26 PM
I like Matty White cos he bleeds yellow and black blood.  He's happy just to be at the Tiges even if hes only a bit player. keep  Him for depth cos you know he will give 150%
so we keep him for no other reason than he bleeds yellow and black and hes happy to be a tiger.
hes not even a bit player that would imply he can do several roles at a decent level. he cant perform any role at a decent level for us.
hes not needed for depth because hes so far back in que and you certainly dont keep players for no other reason than they try hard or give 150%.tim fleming  and plenty others like him tried hard.

what good to anyone is a 25yr old  7 yr 179cm player who has poor skills. who  only touches the ball 10 or 12 times a game kicks 0.5 goals a game is a liability when in the midfield and is behind king edwards nahas and now knights as a forward.
fair dinkum we should be taking a kid like max duffy in the nd and try and find a decent player. he literally is taking the spot of a kid.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on October 21, 2012, 01:43:46 PM
We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Ruanaidh on October 21, 2012, 03:59:32 PM
We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.
MT can you tell me what you see in Post that others can't, including me.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on October 21, 2012, 04:30:34 PM
We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.
MT can you tell me what you see in Post that others can't, including me.

Obviously he's a fair way off his peak but you don't go throwing away 22 year old talls like him. I see plenty of improvement with a good run of games. We saw glimpes of it against Freo and Essendon. If he had been given a few more games over the last 2 years instead of Griffiths and Miller, he'd probably be on a new 2 year contract already. His opponents have hardly scored. 1 on 1 he's very hard to beat. Gets a fist in most contests. Dermie rates him pretty well. I'd have him in the 22 next year well ahead of Astbury and probably equal with Griffiths. I remember how crappy Lonergan looked in defence at Geelong a while back. Now he's a very good defender. He's 28 now. Post is only 22 and came to our club as a 19 year old(a year later than most players)
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Coach on October 21, 2012, 04:38:31 PM
He's 24 next year. He ain't some kid that "needs a run of games". If he wants a run of games then he needs to perform at a high standard in pre-season. No excuses for Post. Just perform or stuff off.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: tigs2011 on October 21, 2012, 04:39:27 PM
We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.
MT can you tell me what you see in Post that others can't, including me.

Obviously he's a fair way off his peak but you don't go throwing away 22 year old talls like him. I see plenty of improvement with a good run of games. We saw glimpes of it against Freo and Essendon. If he had been given a few more games over the last 2 years instead of Griffiths and Miller, he'd probably be on a new 2 year contract already. His opponents have hardly scored. 1 on 1 he's very hard to beat. Gets a fist in most contests. Dermie rates him pretty well. I'd have him in the 22 next year well ahead of Astbury and probably equal with Griffiths. I remember how crappy Lonergan looked in defence at Geelong a while back. Now he's a very good defender. He's 28 now. Post is only 22 and came to our club as a 19 year old(a year later than most players)

If you were Blair Hartley and Brisbane said what do you want for him? What would you ask for?
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on October 21, 2012, 04:46:01 PM
We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.
MT can you tell me what you see in Post that others can't, including me.

Obviously he's a fair way off his peak but you don't go throwing away 22 year old talls like him. I see plenty of improvement with a good run of games. We saw glimpes of it against Freo and Essendon. If he had been given a few more games over the last 2 years instead of Griffiths and Miller, he'd probably be on a new 2 year contract already. His opponents have hardly scored. 1 on 1 he's very hard to beat. Gets a fist in most contests. Dermie rates him pretty well. I'd have him in the 22 next year well ahead of Astbury and probably equal with Griffiths. I remember how crappy Lonergan looked in defence at Geelong a while back. Now he's a very good defender. He's 28 now. Post is only 22 and came to our club as a 19 year old(a year later than most players)

If you were Blair Hartley and Brisbane said what do you want for him? What would you ask for?

The only player with afl experience we should be trading for now is a ruckman. I don't think Brisbane will give us Leunberger. We should stick with what we have now. If the club have hopes for Derrickx as a ruckman then I can't see any more changes to our list. Just the national and rookie drafts. Get Browne back on the rookie list
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Smokey on October 21, 2012, 06:55:35 PM
We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.
MT can you tell me what you see in Post that others can't, including me.

Obviously he's a fair way off his peak but you don't go throwing away 22 year old talls like him. I see plenty of improvement with a good run of games. We saw glimpes of it against Freo and Essendon. If he had been given a few more games over the last 2 years instead of Griffiths and Miller, he'd probably be on a new 2 year contract already. His opponents have hardly scored. 1 on 1 he's very hard to beat. Gets a fist in most contests. Dermie rates him pretty well. I'd have him in the 22 next year well ahead of Astbury and probably equal with Griffiths. I remember how crappy Lonergan looked in defence at Geelong a while back. Now he's a very good defender. He's 28 now. Post is only 22 and came to our club as a 19 year old(a year later than most players)

If you were Blair Hartley and Brisbane said what do you want for him? What would you ask for?

The paperwork and where do I sign.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Smokey on October 21, 2012, 06:58:15 PM

We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.

All this coming from a poster who says he wants to make finals next year!   :o
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Yeahright on October 21, 2012, 07:19:05 PM
have to say again as much as i would love to cut mcguane and derickx at this stage there is no way we can do it not unless we target mature talls in the rookie draft.

we all agree we need another ruckman in our system.
depending on where you place utilities astbury and griffiths most have them as defenders we need at least two possibly three tall forwards.

okay  tall defenders including astbury griffiths.

grimes chaplin rance astbury griffiths and the maligned post.  thats 6 and that is ideal take out griffiths and astbury and play em forward and your two short.

tall forwards

riewoldt, vickery, elton, and the below standard mcguane.  two short  three if you include mcguane as a short term player.  put astbury and griffiths here and you have your ideal.

rucks
maric derickx.  definately need two one for cover and one long term development.

richmond
b/  grimes -  chaplin -  #####
hb/  ##### - rance  -  #####
ruck / maric
hf/  ##### - griffith - #####
f/  ##### -  riewoldt -  vickery for/ruck

coburg
b/  #####  -  darrou -  #####
hb/  ##### - post -  #####
ruck/ derickx
hf/  ##### - astbury - #####
f/  ##### -  mcguane - elton ruck/for

as of this moment we have the bare minimum number of talls required. we are forever asking every yr why do we lack depth with talls. its simple our list management in this area is shizen.
7 of the 13 we have are not yet up to standard and are development players. they may or may not make it. sooner or later we have to address this area the longer we leave it the more painful it will be.

yep as much as people moan about mcguane post and derickx we are in no position to be cutting tall players.  of the 4 mentioned in the op matt white really should be cut.
knights king nahas edwards all in front of him hes poor in the midfield he hardly touches the ball and his skills and decision making have always been below standard i really cant work out why we keep him hes not even good depth.

Out of curiousity, who are the 4 up to standard?
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: tigers_of_old_1980 on October 21, 2012, 07:22:25 PM
Derickx - will survive now that Gus is gone. I don't see him making it though at AFL level.

McGuane - survives because for the second year in a row no other club (even Adelaide) is stupid enough to trade for him and it looks like we won't delist him until one or more of the younger tall forwards cements themselves in our 22. If he plays for Richmond ever again for a significant period of time then we won't be playing finals.

Post - last chance next year if he isn't traded next week. If he doesn't come on in 2013 then it'll be bye-bye in 12 months time.

White - like McGuane will probably spend all of 2013 at Coburg. 
Is there any chance we'll re-Rookie Browne?
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on October 21, 2012, 07:48:24 PM
Derickx - will survive now that Gus is gone. I don't see him making it though at AFL level.

McGuane - survives because for the second year in a row no other club (even Adelaide) is stupid enough to trade for him and it looks like we won't delist him until one or more of the younger tall forwards cements themselves in our 22. If he plays for Richmond ever again for a significant period of time then we won't be playing finals.

Post - last chance next year if he isn't traded next week. If he doesn't come on in 2013 then it'll be bye-bye in 12 months time.

White - like McGuane will probably spend all of 2013 at Coburg. 
Is there any chance we'll re-Rookie Browne?

I have a feeling we will. I reckon he's ok.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Dubstep Dookie on October 21, 2012, 08:14:40 PM

We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.

All this coming from a poster who says he wants to make finals next year!   :o

Exactly  :facepalm
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: MADTIGER2010 on October 21, 2012, 08:22:34 PM

We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.

All this coming from a poster who says he wants to make finals next year!   :o

You saying we won't because I think we should keep those players?
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Smokey on October 21, 2012, 09:20:30 PM

We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.

All this coming from a poster who says he wants to make finals next year!   :o

You saying we won't because I think we should keep those players?

It sure won't help.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: Crumden on October 21, 2012, 09:40:32 PM
Don't think any of those 4 will have any bearing on whether we play finals. I'd expect them to be bit parts at best.
Title: Re: Derickx, McGuane, Post and White???
Post by: tigs2011 on October 22, 2012, 01:23:56 AM

We should keep all 4.
Post-should be given 1 year minimum. Reckon he can be one of our best key talls
Derrickx-worth another season. Has only played 2 games remember. At 202cm, he could be handy in the ruck
White-worth another season. Can be pretty good sometimes an messy other times. Needs to become consistent
Mcguane-should be given 1 year minimum. Experience is needed while our young talls develop.

All this coming from a poster who says he wants to make finals next year!   :o

You saying we won't because I think we should keep those players?

It sure won't help.

 :lol