One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: TigerLand on June 01, 2014, 06:51:55 PM
-
Understand some won't happen (Hampson/Foley) because of contract but this should be our playing list next year.
It's pretty common sense actually...
No. 1 Chris Newman
No. 2 Dylan Grimes
No. 3 Brett Deledio
No. 4 Dustin Martin
No. 5 Brandon Ellis
No. 6 Shaun Grigg (Trade to upgrade a 3rd rounder to a high 2nd rounder)
No. 7 Matt Dea
No. 8 Jack Riewoldt
No. 9 Trent Cotchin
No. 10 Shane Edwards (Trade to upgrade a 3rd rounder to a high 2nd rounder)
No. 11 Jake Batchelor
No. 12 David Astbury
No. 13 Ricky Petterd
No. 14 Bachar Houli
No. 15 Chris Knights
No. 16 Shaun Hampson
No. 18 Alex Rance
No. 19 Matt Thomas
No. 20 Ivan Maric
No. 22 Todd Banfield
No. 23 Daniel Jackson
No. 24 Ben Griffiths (Trade to upgrade a 3rd rounder to a high 2nd rounder)
No. 25 Troy Chaplin (Trade to upgrade a 3rd rounder to a high 2nd rounder)
No. 26 Anthony Miles
No. 27 Aaron Edwards
No. 28 Jake King
No. 29 Tyrone Vickery (Trade to upgrade a 2nd rounder to a mid 1st rounder)
No. 30 Reece Conca
No. 31 Nick Vlastuin
No. 32 Brad Helbig
No. 33 Kamdyn McIntosh
No. 34 Liam McBean
No. 35 Ben Lennon
No. 36 Matthew McDonough
No. 37 Orren Stephenson
No. 38 Steven Morris
No. 39 Nathan Gordon
No. 40 Cadeyn Williams
No. 41 Nathan Foley
No. 42 Sam Lloyd
No. 43 Todd Elton
No. 44 Matt Arnot
No. 45 Brett OHanlon
No. 48 Ben Darrou
-
Why bother Pope.
I get the feeling some of our 2015 list who aren't at the club now will be from other clubs.
Blair and Dimma together securing Richmond's apathy till our next finals window opens in 2023.
The Skata Cycle. 32 years and counting. Plop Plop Plop.©
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
-
I would keep helbig
-
Pettard and Banfield at VFL level are so far ahead of Mcintosh batch and ohanlon at the moment. F W I W.
i kind of see an upside to helbig but its more of a gut feel than anything
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
-
Pettard and Banfield at VFL level are so far ahead of Mcintosh batch and ohanlon at the moment. F W I W.
i kind of see an upside to helbig but its more of a gut feel than anything
Agree - Petterd's the one recycled hack I'd keep ....and I probably wouldn't pee off Banfumbles either, not without at least replacing his pace first.
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
Gordon is on the cheap and Foley signed a 3 yr contract towards the end of last year and there you have it another boneheaded list management blunder that holds us back.
The RFC forever disappointing the fans since 1982. :thumbsup
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
Gordon is on the cheap and Foley signed a 3 yr contract towards the end of last year and there you have it another boneheaded list management blunder that holds us back.
The RFC forever disappointing the fans since 1982. :thumbsup
Actually, think we're also stuck with Knights for another year aren't we? FMD.
-
The RFC, where every **%# gets 3 year contracts
-
I wouldn't keep anyone who is above 26 years of age unless they are in our top 15 players.
Petterd, Edwards, Banfield etc were drafted for depth, yet our moronic coach says we will stick with our best 22 and wait till they perform.
When other clubs are unearthing players like Hartung, Langford, Langdon, Cameron, Shelton etc, all from deep into the draft or in the rookie drafts. While our rookie list is the AFL's superannuation plan...
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
Gordon is on the cheap and Foley signed a 3 yr contract towards the end of last year and there you have it another boneheaded list management blunder that holds us back.
The RFC forever disappointing the fans since 1982. :thumbsup
Actually, think we're also stuck with Knights for another year aren't we? FMD.
You better believe it D. We are fornicated.
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
So you're saying it will happen?
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
if gordon is looked upon as a half fwd id keep 30yo azza edwards in front of him. why keep less talented worse perfoming players just because they are a bit younger.
if given the opportunity over again to get chapman and it was a choice between him or gordon id take 32 yr old chapman thanks.
iweather knights works out for us or not, im happy with us taking him and taking a punt that he would get an injury free run. the bloke can play and bloody didnt cost us pick 50 in the nd.
we used pick 50 on 24 yr old gordon when we most likely could have rookied him. that is where he should have been taken.
if you dont rate gordon and hes no good why hang onto him at all. cut the losses and move on.why treat him different to the better performed older players.
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
if gordon is looked upon as a half fwd id keep 30yo azza edwards in front of him. why keep less talented worse perfoming players just because they are a bit younger.
if given the opportunity over again to get chapman and it was a choice between him or gordon id take 32 yr old chapman thanks.
iweather knights works out for us or not, im happy with us taking him and taking a punt that he would get an injury free run. the bloke can play and bloody didnt cost us pick 50 in the nd.
we used pick 50 on 24 yr old gordon when we most likely could have rookied him. that is where he should have been taken.
if you dont rate gordon and hes no good why hang onto him at all. cut the losses and move on.why treat him different to the better performed older players.
Couldn't have said it better myself claw. :clapping
-
Reckon Gordon would have a 2 year contract so he isn't going anywhere
-
Reckon Gordon would have a 2 year contract so he isn't going anywhere
Only one year after this one though.
-
Reckon Gordon would have a 2 year contract so he isn't going anywhere
Only one year after this one though.
Yep which means he will be on our list in 2015, so isn't going anywhere in 2015
-
Reckon Gordon would have a 2 year contract so he isn't going anywhere
Only one year after this one though.
Yep which means he will be on our list in 2015, so isn't going anywhere in 2015
Maybe we can trade him back to Sydney for a third to second round upgrade.. ;D
-
I dont know why your keeping Gordon and dumping Foley and Knights. If Knights knee doesn't come good, sure dump him but if it does then I'd keep him.
Gordon did have his chances and got dropped cos he couldn't get the ball, I concede Foley may be past it, he is 29.
I don't rate Gordon, but getting rid of a fit 25 year-old after one season to keep injury prone 29 & 30 year-olds way past their best would be downright idiotic and is exactly that kind of boneheaded list management that holds us back.
if gordon is looked upon as a half fwd id keep 30yo azza edwards in front of him. why keep less talented worse perfoming players just because they are a bit younger.
if given the opportunity over again to get chapman and it was a choice between him or gordon id take 32 yr old chapman thanks.
iweather knights works out for us or not, im happy with us taking him and taking a punt that he would get an injury free run. the bloke can play and bloody didnt cost us pick 50 in the nd.
we used pick 50 on 24 yr old gordon when we most likely could have rookied him. that is where he should have been taken.
if you dont rate gordon and hes no good why hang onto him at all. cut the losses and move on.why treat him different to the better performed older players.
I'd rather get rid of them all and I agree we paid overs....but I'll still take the younger dud who can still be turned into servicable depth over the an injury prone near 30 year old on 300 k a year. Gordon also at least has a bit of pace which is another thing we desperately lack.
As for A. Edwards....he had two main assets...his marking and his conversion in front of goal and now he doesn't even have the latter, that he might be a better option than Vickery right now has stuff all to do with Gordon. ...and I wouldn't have taken Chapman either as it's only a matter of time before he breaks down too. Taking blokes with noted injury problems is stupid as is hanging on to them forever. Taking older blokes with injury problems is even stupider.
-
please tell over the yrs what injuries has chapman had that makes him injury prone. that is just a furphy. hes had one long term injury in his career since 2003 and hes injury prone, that is laughable. chris knights has been ijury prone chapman has been remarkably durable.
we went and got lloyd and gordon plus lennon to help fix a mid/fwd deficiency yet chaplin kills em in every single area of the game. why not chapman for two yrs and have lennon learn from him.
you see this is where we differ. while my main aim is to build the list long term with kids thru the nd in the short term im happy to improve the overall standard of the list with any player who can play and improves us regardless of age. i prefer to do it with state league players but solid players from other clubs should not be ignoored just because theyy arent a kid.
.at least with chapman we get a quality player and we get at least two yrs good service out of him, at 300k with his quality hes cheap.
i dont get it you still prefer to take a young dud who we will cut in two yrs anyway over a proven quality player who is most likely to give you two yrs of good service and quality football.
mate a young dud is a young dud they arent depth if they cant play. if they cant play what good is their pace. again chapman cost nothing bar a very fair salary.if we gave up pick 32 for him like we did hampson id be hopping mad.
azza edwards is the best performed fwd we have had outside of riewoldt when hes played yep that just my opinion.
he has heaps to do with gordon, both are considered fwd options gordon was taken on the back of his fwd form.azza edwards poos all over him as a fwd.
i whole heartedly disagree. we had either 195cm -200cm fwds ot runts like king and nahas and only 19 yr old ohanlon as a type remotely like azza edwards. the way i see it edwards gave us a type of player we didnt have bar the the very raw ohanlon and gave time to ohanlon to develop. isnt that the process we want.
again edwards has been servicable imo, that pick 79 we used to get him at the last minute would never have been used, if it was it would have gone on a kid who most likely would have taken a spot on the list for two yrs never played a game struggled to bulk up had a shedload of deficiencies that were insurmountable and got cut after two yrs. bud this is the norm for such late nd and rookie picks.
you may think it a poor thing to do but all i can see is a damn good process which cost us virtually nothing. azza edwards and chapman if we had got him filled a list need in the short term.
in fact the processes we have gone thru to get mature players has been good and that beside the players taken or the number. we have taken poor players and too many no argument.
no disrespect but it seems to me your a little blinkered when it comes to the need for both mature players and kids. you dont believe in short term fixes where as i think its fine as long as we look after the kids in the nd side of it first and it addresses a need and allows juniors time to develop.
i keep on saying it. taking mature players is not the problem, taking poor mature players is. but that applies equally to kids as well.
you need balance not all of one or all of the other. we ignore mature players to our own detriment.
-
Chapman missed at least 6 weeks (could have been longer) last season with a very serious hamstring injury. Think you'll find he had hammy or calf problems the previous season as well
Was one of the reasons why the Cats didn't offer him a new contract
-
Chapman missed at least 6 weeks (could have been longer) last season with a very serious hamstring injury. Think you'll find he had hammy or calf problems the previous season as well
Was one of the reasons why the Cats didn't offer him a new contract
do your homework .
22, 25, 19,22,19,19,20,24,23,21, 8 last yr,and 8 out of 10 this yr hardly the record of an injury prone player. since 2003 the only yr hes missed a significant amount of games was last yr.
hes been suspended a few times as well which impacts those numbers.
the yr before last he played 21 games. from 03 to the start of last yr he ave 21.4 games a yr. id take that every day of the week.
imo geelong people created this myth to help justify cutting a bloke who was still performing at an elite level.
-
I agree with claw. He really wasn't injury prone. Even if he was, he brings winning culture to the club. Something that we need desperately.
-
Cats probably regret the Chapman decision but they needed to get some games into their younger brigade in fear of bottoming out with a core group. They turned over their list pretty well.
My argument for playing younger players is the basic philosophy of creating a premiership list. We get absolutely no where by having Aaron Edwards on the list. Absolutely no where. Why keep him next year ahead of Gordon? Aaron Edwards can't possibly be playing in 2 years time at AFL level, there is debate whether he is currently good enough now. 2 years on he will be long finished. Gordon who may not reach the mediocre heights of Edwards atleast has a chance to break out / to click into gear with some pre seasons and experience. You never know.
There is a 5% chance that Gordon will turn into an A Grade player that is part of our next premiership team. There is 0% chance Aaron Edwards will be apart of it. Why on earth is he on our list then? To be depth for a mid table club at best. Awful list management.
Same with Petterd, Same with Stephenson, Same with Hampson, Same with Thompson, Same with Banfield, Same with Knights. Why is our depth filled with average players post 25? Surely our depth is meant for the future? Guys like Foley, Newman can mentor the kids in the 2s under a VFL contract if we want some mentoring in the 2nds, not on an AFL list.
-
Chapman missed at least 6 weeks (could have been longer) last season with a very serious hamstring injury. Think you'll find he had hammy or calf problems the previous season as well
Was one of the reasons why the Cats didn't offer him a new contract
do your homework .
22, 25, 19,22,19,19,20,24,23,21, 8 last yr,and 8 out of 10 this yr hardly the record of an injury prone player. since 2003 the only yr hes missed a significant amount of games was last yr.
hes been suspended a few times as well which impacts those numbers.
the yr before last he played 21 games. from 03 to the start of last yr he ave 21.4 games a yr. id take that every day of the week.
imo geelong people created this myth to help justify cutting a bloke who was still performing at an elite level.
Did I say he was injury prone, just gave some stats regarding his lady 2 seasons at Geelong and why they didn't give him another contract. Personally couldn't care less.
-
I wouldn't keep anyone who is above 26 years of age unless they are in our top 15 players.
Petterd, Edwards, Banfield etc were drafted for depth, yet our moronic coach says we will stick with our best 22 and wait till they perform.
When other clubs are unearthing players like Hartung, Langford, Langdon, Cameron, Shelton etc, all from deep into the draft or in the rookie drafts. While our rookie list is the AFL's superannuation plan...
I also favour this method
The people in question are
Pettard
Houli
Grigg
Hampson
Thomas
Knights
Jackson
Chaplin
Foley
King
AEdwards
Orren
Newman.
Deledio and Maric would be in the category you would keep and try build around. I would look at retaining Foley and perhaps Knights to add some experience.
Sadly a dozen changes is hard to do over the course of a single off season and be replaced by quality. Over a two year period is more realistic. In the mean time it's important to see which half of that group you can get something out of for 12 months in the seniors or twos
M concern is the current coaching group think we will win a premiership with the players in this lot.
-
No. 19 Matt Thomas
No. 29 Tyrone Vickery (Trade to upgrade a 2nd rounder to a mid 1st rounder)
I'd be happy to leave Thomas on the rookie list BUT would rather he be used as depth like he was meant to be, not a walk up start like he has been ::). On Vickery that trade would be a bit disappointing considering we used pick 8 on him, although I don't think we could do much better :-\.
Other than that I agree with your list
-
The RFC, where every **%# gets 3 year contracts
Except Matt White
-
Cats probably regret the Chapman decision but they needed to get some games into their younger brigade in fear of bottoming out with a core group. They turned over their list pretty well.
My argument for playing younger players is the basic philosophy of creating a premiership list. We get absolutely no where by having Aaron Edwards on the list. Absolutely no where. Why keep him next year ahead of Gordon? Aaron Edwards can't possibly be playing in 2 years time at AFL level, there is debate whether he is currently good enough now. 2 years on he will be long finished. Gordon who may not reach the mediocre heights of Edwards atleast has a chance to break out / to click into gear with some pre seasons and experience. You never know.
There is a 5% chance that Gordon will turn into an A Grade player that is part of our next premiership team. There is 0% chance Aaron Edwards will be apart of it. Why on earth is he on our list then? To be depth for a mid table club at best. Awful list management.
Same with Petterd, Same with Stephenson, Same with Hampson, Same with Thompson, Same with Banfield, Same with Knights. Why is our depth filled with average players post 25? Surely our depth is meant for the future? Guys like Foley, Newman can mentor the kids in the 2s under a VFL contract if we want some mentoring in the 2nds, not on an AFL list.
at the end of the day we are not really that far apart. i firmly believe you build for the long term with nd picks you find your long term quality players with these picks . im all for useing plenty of em and have constantly argued this. so we agree.
look at last yr i wanted us to use picks 12 32 50 66 and 78 on kids. i was even prepared to trade 12 for longer a kid himself and 25.
thing is i wanted us to take laidler and chapman as f/as as well.why because there is always a place for good solid players on your list regardless of age. i wanted us to use a rookie pick on sully and cameron. one mature one a junior. do it right and you can take mature players to add depth and immediately fill holes. ive desperately over recent yrs wanted us to target more of the state league players but not at the expense of juniors. i argued all od gordon, lloyd and miles should have been rookie listed. i argued petterd should never have been promoted of the rookie list freeing up a nd pick for a kid.
lists are things that evolve and grow. the player who fills a hole and performs a role for you today may not be needed in two yrs time. taking mature players is a legitimate way of growing your list and should not be ignored. taking mature players is not a long term solution it is a short to medium term fix.
me ive argued we take our fair share of mature players 22 plus yr olds with late nd picks, psd, or rookie picks. about 50% mature 50% juniors. ive wanted this done with mainly state league picks.
why here why so late. mainly because all the stats tell us for nearly all clubs, very few kids go on to even play a game with these types of picks. clubs have em for two yrs and they dont even get a game out of em.
the other reason is i believe there is a good chance of finding a good player a decent role player in the state leagues and stats bear this out, again what you get from these players compared to kids is chalk and cheese. there are a lot of players in state leagues who are better players than those currently on lists and it is remiss of every club to ignore em.
lastly what did edwards bring.
he bought a type of player we did not have bar 19yo brett ohanlon. he was always going to be a short term fix he was always buying ohanlon some time.
he cost us a small salary and a pick in the nd we were not going to use. there was nothing wong with taking edwards.
edwards is no slouch he is a decent player imo.hence why i was happy to get him for the short term .
if ohanlon shows enough improvment and with the drafting of lennon for sure cut azza. ive already advocated that, he was taken as a short term fix to allow some time and perform a role he was type we didnt have.
its harsh but hes served a purpose and performrd a role.i personally dont think we have played him enough to perform that role. but i agree it is time to move on.
me ive advocated we draft a player similar to jack gunston to replace edwards.
on knights again i have no problems. he didnt cost a pick hes got real talent and he can actually play thats my opinion. the risk was always his injury history. he was taken as a 26yo. dunno if you looked at the time or even now but the list screamed out for and still screams out for improvement in mids and sml/med fwds.
as for most of the other mature hacks they have taken, well just far too many, no balance for me, and most had such obvious and chronic weaknesses in their games it was laughable we would even look at em.
anyway we will have to disagree when it comes to mature players. im all for kids but i really believe we can and should take our quota of mature players especially in f/a or late nd rookie draft.
-
Who reckons our list is in better shape than norf's for the future?
-
:clapping
-
I wouldn't keep anyone who is above 26 years of age unless they are in our top 15 players.
Petterd, Edwards, Banfield etc were drafted for depth, yet our moronic coach says we will stick with our best 22 and wait till they perform.
When other clubs are unearthing players like Hartung, Langford, Langdon, Cameron, Shelton etc, all from deep into the draft or in the rookie drafts. While our rookie list is the AFL's superannuation plan...
I also favour this method
The people in question are
Pettard
Houli
Grigg
Hampson
Thomas
Knights
Jackson
Chaplin
Foley
King
AEdwards
Orren
Newman.
Deledio and Maric would be in the category you would keep and try build around. I would look at retaining Foley and perhaps Knights to add some experience.
Sadly a dozen changes is hard to do over the course of a single off season and be replaced by quality. Over a two year period is more realistic. In the mean time it's important to see which half of that group you can get something out of for 12 months in the seniors or twos
M concern is the current coaching group think we will win a premiership with the players in this lot.
if we talk players who are in question and done little,you can add, in fact most of those on your list have performed better than the following., arnot, banfield, batchelor,darrou, dea, s edwards, elton, gordon, griffiths, helbig, lloyd, ohanlon,vickery,and williams.
oh if you think just 12 players need replacing and your looking to replace em with quality you had better look way past 2 yrs. with our record of recruiting it will take 8 to 12 yrs to find quality replacements. thats what happens when you can only find 1 or two decent players out of each nd.
pointless taking any kids until we actually fix this problem eh.
-
While I understand your point - seeing as there is at least a dozen senior players that are very questionable. I do not see the point focusing on the like of ohanlon. mDea. Griff etc. As they are young and potentially reasonable
-
While I understand your point - seeing as there is at least a dozen senior players that are very questionable. I do not see the point focusing on the like of ohanlon. mDea. Griff etc. As they are young and potentially reasonable
theres 16 players uncontracted on the list proper. theres also 6 rookies so to me we can focus on 22 players.
the following juniors should be safe, arnot, elton,mcbean,mcdonough,mcintosh.
i think development players astbury, dea and griffiths will be safe but griffiths could be put up for trade.
as for rookies i think thomas and miles will be safe.
that leaves a total of 12 uncontracted players left in the gun.
they are list proper - knights - injury, king, batchelor, a edwards, newman,petterd, and helbig. these blokes to me are the most in danger from the list proper
the rookies - darrou, stephenson,banfield,williams these are the rookies most in danger imo.
i also think one of vickery/griffiths should be used as trade bait it could be griffiths as hes uncontracted.
i dont think for one minute CONTRACTED players will be delisted. we should try and trade one or two though.
how many go will depend on how many we want to cut.
-
2015
---
B. dea. Astbury. Grimes.
Hb. Mcdonuts. aRance. ?
C. ? Miles. Conca ?
Hf. Lennon. Griffiths. ?
F. ? Jack. ?
Ob. Maric. Vlastuin. Cotchin
I ? ? ?
+ ?
Retain: mcintosh. Bachelor. Darrou. Llyod. Ohanlon. Ellis (pull finger out). Elton. Helbig. McBean. Gordon. Tyrone
-
While I understand your point - seeing as there is at least a dozen senior players that are very questionable. I do not see the point focusing on the like of ohanlon. mDea. Griff etc. As they are young and potentially reasonable
theres 16 players uncontracted on the list proper. theres also 6 rookies so to me we can focus on 22 players.
the following juniors should be safe, arnot, elton,mcbean,mcdonough,mcintosh.
i think development players astbury, dea and griffiths will be safe but griffiths could be put up for trade.
as for rookies i think thomas and miles will be safe.
that leaves a total of 12 uncontracted players left in the gun.
they are list proper - knights - injury, king, batchelor, a edwards, newman,petterd, and helbig. these blokes to me are the most in danger from the list proper
the rookies - darrou, stephenson,banfield,williams these are the rookies most in danger imo.
i also think one of vickery/griffiths should be used as trade bait it could be griffiths as hes uncontracted.
i dont think for one minute CONTRACTED players will be delisted. we should try and trade one or two though.
how many go will depend on how many we want to cut.
The situation is so dire the like of Grigg and Chaplin should be removed from the club - regardless of contract
-
Pettard
Houli
Grigg
Hampson
Thomas
Knights
Jackson
Chaplin
Foley
King
AEdwards
Orren
Newman.
only 3 of which played this weekend
-
Richmond Tigers 2015 Players
Name Height Weight Position
L Mcbean 202cm 86kg Forward
S Hampson 201cm 104kg Ruck
T Vickery 200cm 97kg Forward
B Griffiths 200cm 104kg DefenderForward
I Maric 200cm 102kg Ruck
T Elton 197cm 97kg Forward
R McKenzie 196cm 100kg Forward Ruck
T Chaplin 195cm 99kg Defender
D Astbury 195cm 96kg Defender
J Riewoldt 195cm 94kg Forward
A Rance 194cm 96kg Defender
D Grimes 193cm 88kg Defender
K Mcintosh 192cm 87kg Defender
B Lennon 190cm 79kg Forward
S Grigg 190cm 85kg Midfield
C Menadue 188cm 69kg
N Gordon 188cm 86kg Midfield
J Batchelor 188cm 87kg Defender
B Deledio 188cm 88kg Midfield
N Vlastuin 187cm 86kg Defender Midfield
D Martin 187cm 89kg Midfield Forward
M Thomas 186cm 87kg Midfield
M Dea 186cm 87kg Defender
C Ellis 185cm 76kg Midfield
S Morris 185cm 83kg Defender
R Conca 185cm 83kg Midfield
R Petterd 185cm 85kg Defender Forward
T Cotchin 185cm 85kg Midfield
C Knights 184cm 84kg Forward
T Hunt 183cm 80kg Midfield
C Newman 183cm 81kg Defender
S Lloyd 182cm 84kg Forward
S Edwards 182cm 83kg Midfield Forward
D Butler 181cm 79kg Defender Midfield Forward
N Drummond 181cm 85kg Midfield
B Ellis 181cm 81kg Midfield
M Mcdonough 180cm 84kg Forward
B Houli 180cm 84kg Defender
A Miles 179cm 78kg Midfield
N Foley 178cm 79kg Mid
Soldo
Rookies
Locked&loaded
-
McKenzie has put on 7kg since last night Judge. :gotigers
-
McKenzie has put on 7kg since last night Judge. :gotigers
I copied that from footywire.com
But other sources have him 108kg/107
:shh
-
He is on the Relton Diet, they stuffed up and sent that diet to him instead of Menadue, Menadue was sent the slimfast diet that was meant to go to Plugger Pig MkII. Menadue is now 62kegs...
-
McKenzie has put on 7kg since last night Judge. :gotigers
I copied that from footywire.com
But other sources have him 108kg/107
:shh
Yeah it is different all over the place but I reckon the 107/8 camp seems to be more recent and credible sources.
Be very interested to know his skin folds.
-
McKenzie has put on 7kg since last night Judge. :gotigers
I copied that from footywire.com
But other sources have him 108kg/107
:shh
Be very interested to know his skin folds.
It doesn't fold, it kneads.
-
:lol
(http://media.giphy.com/media/cdtnU46YTOMTe/giphy.gif)