One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on January 26, 2014, 05:16:14 PM
-
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-
-
Locked and loaded
-
Chucked and loaded :clapping
-
Cue The Craw.
This is going to be good.
-
Cue The Craw.
This is going to be good.
It's not Craw, it's Craw!!!
-
:rollin
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.
-
:rollin
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.
-
name of the 'Rookie' list is redundant these days. Should be renamed the 'Supplementary' List.
-
Yes or emergency list
-
name of the 'Rookie' list is redundant these days. Should be renamed the 'Supplementary' List.
Yep, that's becoming the truth.
-
"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.
-
:rollin
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?
-
:rollin
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
because the club retained two promising young rookies from last year, williams and darrou
-
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.
In two years of AFL Longer averages 3.5 kicks , 1.8 marks and 3.6 handballs per game. Eff me , I could average those stats !
Didn't see too many clubs clamouring for his services at the trade period and I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone in the AFL that would think he was worth a first round pick.
Blokes like Grundy and Nicholls have been playing for 2 minutes and they're well ahead of him
-
why is that? just because we use it that way most other clubs still tend to balance it out.
Not quite true Claw. Using a current age (today) of over 21 as an older player and under 21 as a kid, here is the break-up of all clubs:
Adel - 4 kids, 1 older
Bris - 5 kids, 1 older
Carl - 3 kids, 4 older
Coll - 1 kid, 5 older
Ess - 0 kids, 5 older
Freo - 4 kids, 1 older
Geel - 4 kids, 2 older
Suns - 2 kids, 2 older
GWS - 0 kids, 1 older
Haw - 4 kids, 2 older
Melb - 3 kids, 2 older
NthM - 2 kids, 3 older
Port - 2 kids, 3 older
Rich - 2 kids, 4 older
StK - 2 kids, 3 older
Syd - 4 kids, 3 older
WstC - 3 kids, 1 older
WBul - 2 kids, 2 older
So 8 clubs have more kids than older rookies, 8 clubs have more older rookies than kids, and 2 clubs have the same amount of each. Looks to me that the thinking is based more around what suits a particular list structure at the time rather than a general leaning one way or the other.
-
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.
In two years of AFL Longer averages 3.5 kicks , 1.8 marks and 3.6 handballs per game. Eff me , I could average those stats !
Didn't see too many clubs clamouring for his services at the trade period and I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone in the AFL that would think he was worth a first round pick.
Blokes like Grundy and Nicholls have been playing for 2 minutes and they're well ahead of him
3.5? Not in 2013
Billy two kicks
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--billy-longer
-
3.5? Not in 2013
Billy two kicks
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--billy-longer
3.5 per game for 2012 / 2013 combined.
So yeh , he went backwards last year did old 'two kick' Longer ;D
-
3.5? Not in 2013
Billy two kicks
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-st-kilda-saints--billy-longer
3.5 per game for 2012 / 2013 combined.
So yeh , he went backwards last year did old 'two kick' Longer ;D
Crickey even Big Bad Benny G is in front of that spud
-
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.
In two years of AFL Longer averages 3.5 kicks , 1.8 marks and 3.6 handballs per game. Eff me , I could average those stats !
Didn't see too many clubs clamouring for his services at the trade period and I think you'd be hardpressed to find anyone in the AFL that would think he was worth a first round pick.
Blokes like Grundy and Nicholls have been playing for 2 minutes and they're well ahead of him
hes had two yrs as a 18yo and 19yo. played just 9 games and his stats are on par or better than most young ruckmen at the same age.
we are talking ruckmen here and its his ruck work and stats in this area that has him well in front of most at the same age.
like most young ruckmen he needs to up the ante in a lot of areas but as a ruckman hes better than most and hes better than a lot of mature ruckmen.
our boy hampson disposal wise was much worse than longer so was maric. neither looked as good as longer as a ruckman at the same age.
ignorance really is bliss in a way im glad we didnt get longer with pick 12 the expectations on a 9game 20yo ruckman would be over the top. people have the hide to talk about development.
with what hes shown to date in the ruck i would gladly have traded 12 and 50 for longer and 25.
sydney saw a potential big combative ruckman in jolly and gave up pick 15. he had similar sort of stats to longer and had not performed as well as longer in the ruck.
yep its no good trying to get longer but its okay to get hampson who hasnt done much as a ruckman had 7 yrs played 63 games and still only goes at 3.6 kicks a game and 8 possessions.
yep the short term mentality is here and alive and well.
the truth of the matter is we took so many mature players late nd and rookie list because so many on the list proper are borderline.
-
The club is using a very small risk policy when it comes to recruiting and trading. It has chosen to use the rookie draft on experienced players that offer a consistent output rather than a youth who has only a small percentage chance of making it. A successful rookie could potentially give you a greater return eventually but the probability is very slight particularly given the lack of depth in this draft . This is why we have gone for the best players available now rather than taking the risk that all our rookies will never see a game.
This approach is why we have made the gradual yet undeniable improvements to our list to this point. No high risk drafting or trading.
-
The club is using a very small risk policy when it comes to recruiting and trading. It has chosen to use the rookie draft on experienced players that offer a consistent output rather than a youth who has only a small percentage chance of making it. A successful rookie could potentially give you a greater return eventually but the probability is very slight particularly given the lack of depth in this draft . This is why we have gone for the best players available now rather than taking the risk that all our rookies will never see a game.
This approach is why we have made the gradual yet undeniable improvements to our list to this point. No high risk drafting or trading.
if they are taking no risk players in the nd after the 1st round then they are getting plenty wrong still. i cant name one of 17 players taken in the nd, after the first round , in hardwicks time who have become consistent regulars. not one. and they are no risk picks give me a break.
they are taking so many mature players and rookies because they cant find a decent player weather it be junior or mature. the record for both is poor. hardwick mentions the need for the 2010 draft to step up but doesnt mention the 09 draft.
of 7 nd picks in 09 only martin has become a consistent decent player.three are gone already and griffiths astbury and dea have struggled and are on notice.ffs even the trade we did a jackson special in farmer has gone and the two promoted rookie players who we really should have had an inkling about are gone as well. so much for the start of the rebuild under hardwick eh.
i dont buy into this spurious argument that there were no juniors left in our case after pick 12 :o who were not worth taking and developing. if this is the belief then no wonder they cant find decent players after the first round.they arent doing the ground work. this is what we have done just one junior at 12 and there wasnt a kid good enough to take after it lol
. not one junior player after pick 12 and when one remotely suggests our recruiting was a bit too lopsided this yr your howled down. if its a one off yr fine but we need to remember we do get many of our mature picks wrong and to think theres no risk is a nonsense.
in taking mature players im hoping hampson can become a good player for us because we need this to happen. im hoping the likes of lloyd gordon and miles were not taken just for cover to injury. we need em to surpass some of the ordinary ones that are getting regular games. this is the problem.
the talk of no risk what a joke. wehave taken our fair share of risky players both nd and mature and rookie s since hardwick has been there.
how the hell were webberley,nason,farmer not risks or griffiths dea batchelor and taylor. with his 7 yr record how is hampson not a risk.you can go on and on.hislop, roberts macdonald gourdis all came with obvious weaknesses or problems yet we traded or drafted for em. what about the irish men definate risks. do i need go on.
all i suggest is we could have found a better balance in trades, nd, and rookie draft this yr. for sure take worthy mature players where ever but ffs dont give up on youth altogether.
i would have been happy to go after mature players some i liked was chapman, laidler sully waldhuter cain., i even acknowledge the need to get a ruckman in hampson hes not my choice though because of the inherent risk. ffs ive argued on this site in previous yrs the very need to take our fair share of mature players mainly state leaguers late nd and rookie draft. but go about it in a balanced way. if we give up on juniors and the draft we are doomed.
im more than happy with the selection of miles and gordon. there was in fact many mature types we could have targeted but we needed to imo balance it out with a decent amount of juniors.
-
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4FavRN1IFUXjdEpG0I_GNp1zUPEqV3n1KZo0pB6mS7_UvHWbwzdCfjasheA)
-
I didn't say no risk claw, I said small risk. They are trying to play by the numbers and minimize the risk where-ever possible. Rather than take a high risk high reward player they have taken players, other than Lennon, who are proven players. Taking younger players with your rookie picks is a definite risk given your picks are effectively 80+ NB picks. The club chose to take players who are young enough to still be part of our future for 7+ years but can also be brought straight into the side if required or their form warrants it. A young unproven player will statistically never play a game and if they do only play after years of development.
Even players like Gordan, Lloyd and Miles fit this mold. The club has chosen to use their rookie picks on emergency players that can play now if required rather than potential players that could make it but most likely won't. I think its a good strategy particularly with the talent pool that was offered in the last draft.
-
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4FavRN1IFUXjdEpG0I_GNp1zUPEqV3n1KZo0pB6mS7_UvHWbwzdCfjasheA)
:lol
-
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4FavRN1IFUXjdEpG0I_GNp1zUPEqV3n1KZo0pB6mS7_UvHWbwzdCfjasheA)
Classic Dwaino, may have to borrow that
-
I didn't say no risk claw, I said small risk. They are trying to play by the numbers and minimize the risk where-ever possible. Rather than take a high risk high reward player they have taken players, other than Lennon, who are proven players. Taking younger players with your rookie picks is a definite risk given your picks are effectively 80+ NB picks. The club chose to take players who are young enough to still be part of our future for 7+ years but can also be brought straight into the side if required or their form warrants it. A young unproven player will statistically never play a game and if they do only play after years of development.
Even players like Gordan, Lloyd and Miles fit this mold. The club has chosen to use their rookie picks on emergency players that can play now if required rather than potential players that could make it but most likely won't. I think its a good strategy particularly with the talent pool that was offered in the last draft.
last yr we rookied petterd.lonergan,stephenson and williams. traded for edwards chaplin and knights, this yr banfield, miles, and thomas traded for hampson and wrongly imo promoted petterd. so in two rookie drafts our club could only find one junior worth rookieing. and in two nds find just 4 juniors worth takeing.what exacerbates this is we could only take one junior in the nd as well. pick 12 and not one kid after. thats almost unbelievable and id say unheard of.
i understand what your saying ive advocted on this site for yrs that we take more mature players especially state leaguers but not almost exclusively.ive regularly pointed out the percentage of young rookies that make it but even in knowing this i would never ever advocate we take exclusively mature players.its not the taking of some mature players who can immediately offer more but the failure to adequately take enough juniors im bitching about.
can i ask what mature proven player of afl standard did we take. not one. if they were proven their previous clubs would not be delisting them. not even hampson who we gave up a second rounder for is proven. i even question the need to take him when we have orren stephenson, who is the better ruckman to date?.we take em because right now they will give more than kids ie hampson will give more than say longer ??? mcbean if hes a ruckman but will he be better in 3 yrs time. that is what is being forgotten will they be better than all those kids in 3 or 4 yrs time.
i will say again the main reason they have gone down this path is they have got so many picks wrong this is the problem. if we had enough proven players on our list there would be no need to go down this path. there is still great need to find good,vgood, and elite players. you wont be finding too many of these with retreads.
to say there was no talent left is a furphy. maybe its a good thing they went mature because they sure arent getting many junior picks right after the first rnd.to me its this rather than a lack of talent that has become the problem.
even trading for hampson i have to ask will he give more as a ruckman than stephenson i really doubt it based on what hes dished up to date.
-
Its not a straight longer v hampson
It must be taken into account what each cost
- longer may be better than hampson. But is he significantly superior to justify missing out on Lennon?
As for hamoson v orren, orren is not of the age where he can be relied on long term. Hence a ruck of about hampson age (or there about) was required for list balance
-
Clutching at Claws...
-
:lol
Getting more irrational is young claw.
-
Its not a straight longer v hampson
It must be taken into account what each cost
- longer may be better than hampson. But is he significantly superior to justify missing out on Lennon? geez you have high hopes for an outside half forward type.
the answer is in the eye of the beholder and what the overall deal is.
personally id have taken longer, dumont, and hewitt over hampson and lennon. one thing for sure we werent going to lose.
As for hamoson v orren, orren is not of the age where he can be relied on long term. Hence a ruck of about hampson age (or there about) was required for list balance
geez you have high hopes for what is atm an outside half forward type who has good skills. there is no guarantee with this kid either. the answer is we have differing opinions on worth and cost.
for me longer dumont and hewitt instead of hampson and lennon is a win.
hampson isjust two yrs younger than ivan and is yet to establish his bonafides. when hawthorn took 24 yo mcevoy at least mcevoy had showed he can play the position consistently.
hawthorn at least took a proven player who is still improving and we took a player who should be at or near his best and has struggled to get a game.
this love for a player like hampson is unbelievable. very few if any one is questioning what hampson has bought to the table so far in his career. im certain if he was still at carlton and his name came up every man and his dog would be ripping into him for the underperformer he has been.
its no given that this bloke will be any better for us than he was for carlton. its almost like, well they got the maric trade right so they will get the hampson trade right lets not question what they have done. there are many different circumstances between the two.
anyway
31yo stephenson. imo a better ruckman than hampson to date.
28yo maric ivan has 3 or 4 yrs in him
26yo hampson. i agree we could do with a proven ruckman at around 24yrs of age. hampson is neither proven imo and he is no upgrade on stephenson to date. this is where the 24 yo vickery should be coming into his own but that hasnt worked out.
20yo longer. we also need a junior ruckman. the bonus here is hes had two yrs of development is ready to play and in just 9games has shown hes a better ruck prospect than hampson.imo he could adequately play second ruck for us this yr while developing. also i firmly believe while we havent taken longer we should have rookied a junior ruckman here.
why well if hampson fails and theres a chance he will. with orren 32 yrs old and ivan almost a veteran we need a proper succession plan in place.
some will say mcbean the club reckon they took him to be a ruckman they said the same about vickery as well. but even at this stage you can see mcbean going down the vickery path where he looks more like a kpp and if he is to play ruck it will be as a forward who pinch hits.
in 3 or 4 yrs time when/if hampson fails maric is shot and stephenson is long gone longer would just be entering his prime with his best footy in front of him. isnt that how it should work seamless succession with your needs always covered.
-
Its not a straight longer v hampson
It must be taken into account what each cost
- longer may be better than hampson. But is he significantly superior to justify missing out on Lennon? geez you have high hopes for an outside half forward type.
the answer is in the eye of the beholder and what the overall deal is.
personally id have taken longer, dumont, and hewitt over hampson and lennon. one thing for sure we werent going to lose.
As for hamoson v orren, orren is not of the age where he can be relied on long term. Hence a ruck of about hampson age (or there about) was required for list balance
geez you have high hopes for what is atm an outside half forward type who has good skills. there is no guarantee with this kid either. the answer is we have differing opinions on worth and cost.
for me longer dumont and hewitt instead of hampson and lennon is a win.
hampson isjust two yrs younger than ivan and is yet to establish his bonafides. when hawthorn took 24 yo mcevoy at least mcevoy had showed he can play the position consistently.
hawthorn at least took a proven player who is still improving and we took a player who should be at or near his best and has struggled to get a game.
this love for a player like hampson is unbelievable. very few if any one is questioning what hampson has bought to the table so far in his career. im certain if he was still at carlton and his name came up every man and his dog would be ripping into him for the underperformer he has been.
its no given that this bloke will be any better for us than he was for carlton. its almost like, well they got the maric trade right so they will get the hampson trade right lets not question what they have done. there are many different circumstances between the two.
anyway
31yo stephenson. imo a better ruckman than hampson to date.
28yo maric ivan has 3 or 4 yrs in him
26yo hampson. i agree we could do with a proven ruckman at around 24yrs of age. hampson is neither proven imo and he is no upgrade on stephenson to date. this is where the 24 yo vickery should be coming into his own but that hasnt worked out.
20yo longer. we also need a junior ruckman. the bonus here is hes had two yrs of development is ready to play and in just 9games has shown hes a better ruck prospect than hampson.imo he could adequately play second ruck for us this yr while developing. also i firmly believe while we havent taken longer we should have rookied a junior ruckman here.
why well if hampson fails and theres a chance he will. with orren 32 yrs old and ivan almost a veteran we need a proper succession plan in place.
some will say mcbean the club reckon they took him to be a ruckman they said the same about vickery as well. but even at this stage you can see mcbean going down the vickery path where he looks more like a kpp and if he is to play ruck it will be as a forward who pinch hits.
in 3 or 4 yrs time when/if hampson fails maric is shot and stephenson is long gone longer would just be entering his prime with his best footy in front of him. isnt that how it should work seamless succession with your needs always covered.
If you believe stats, McEvoy had the worst tap to advantage percentage in the league. Hampson was one of the best!
-
when your only hitting it 10 11 times does it matter. he may be effective when he gets his hands on it but he aint getting it too often.
look a simple question. who here based on his performances to date over 7yrs at carlton would contemplate giving up a 2nd round pick to get him. who here would explore all options before going down this path.
look im critical because frankly he hasnt really done anything to warrant enthusiasm.
i want this bloke to succeed we really need it to happen and if it works out i will gladly acknowledge him when he plays well. even if he works out i still strongly believe we need another junior ruckman in our system.
-
when your only hitting it 10 11 times does it matter. he may be effective when he gets his hands on it but he aint getting it too often.
look a simple question. who here based on his performances to date over 7yrs at carlton would contemplate giving up a 2nd round pick to get him. who here would explore all options before going down this path.
look im critical because frankly he hasnt really done anything to warrant enthusiasm.
i want this bloke to succeed we really need it to happen and if it works out i will gladly acknowledge him when he plays well. even if he works out i still strongly believe we need another junior ruckman in our system.
I think we all agree we need another junior ruckman. A year or two ago I was keen on us rookie listing Sandilands' younger brother.
-
The season is almost upon us,soon we will know if the Hampson deal is boom or bust.At this point I am more than happy to back Hartley and crew on this,they haven't done much wrong lately
-
When we took Maric the club were debating whether to go after him or Hampson at the time. They are now very happy to have both