One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on September 29, 2014, 11:25:17 PM
-
Blaisee on BF's main board:
Vickery is exploring his options and there are 6 clubs interested.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/list-of-trade-free-agency-rumours-2014.1075505/page-27#post-35344646
-
Get him to gws for Shiels
-
Awesome :thumbsup
-
Hallelujah
-
Will come back to bite us... :-\
-
stiff
-
send him to the dogs for the 1st rounder, they'll be desperate now that Liam Jones is gonski.
Can replace him with Giles or Sinclair from wce who will come cheaper.
-
He was a pick 8...
Top 5 pls
-
I believe rumours are Port Melbourne are chasing him :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
-
:lol
trade radio asked Hine if Vickery was plan b for the pies if they miss out on M.Clarke and he laughed at them :lol
-
Should we be deleting the threads on here bagging Vickery?
-
:lol
trade radio asked Hine if Vickery was plan b for the pies if they miss out on M.Clarke and he laughed at them :lol
Should keep then. Pies track record with identifying talls later has been bang on. Lynch and White. :lol
-
:lol
trade radio asked Hine if Vickery was plan b for the pies if they miss out on M.Clarke and he laughed at them :lol
Should keep then. Pies track record with identifying talls later has been bang on. Lynch and White. :lol
Would be funny except hes been a hell of a lot more successful overrall than our recruiters
-
If norf were smart they'd target Vickery instead of Waite
-
Should we be deleting the threads on here bagging Vickery?
Absolutely, and create some fictitious superhero ones to replace them
Do you think the opposition clubs will buy it?
-
I think Tyrone would be handy as a trade BUT where does he want to go. The best options for the club are interstate but would he go.
it would be nice to replace him on the list with another ruckman as posted but it makes no sense to have a straight swap of ruck for ruck.
What could work me is to trade Conca back home to West Coast in exchange for one of their rucks - Lycett or Sinclair.
I understand that FJ was very keen on Lycett at the draft and was stymied.
Probably West Coast would not trade away Scott as they see him as the Dean Cox heir but it's worth asking as an opening bid. He's from Ceduna in SA.
Sinclair went from Melbourne to Subiaco and got drafted in 2013 and is still a rookie. May be surplus to their requirements.
I was a big fan of Lycett pre-draft and thought Sinclair was too old but checking I see he's only 25.
Obviously Richmond would want a sweetener if the trade was Conca for Sinclair.
Conca 22 yo 185cm 83kg Midfielder 71 games
Lycett 22yo 203cm 103kg Ruckman 22 games
Sinclair 25yo 200cm 98kg Ruckman 9 games ROOKIE LIST
Then you hope that Vickery could be convinced to go to GWS Giants to get one of their young mids - O'Rourke or Shiel - or even one of the key defenders - Jaksch or Frost.
All of those guys are from Melbourne and most have said publicly they want to come home. The problem is convincing someone to go the other way.
I prefer O'Rourke of them all mainly because he's a midfielder with a bit of size but any of them would fit at Richmond remembering Chaplin is old and Astbury was injured.
Again I think a sweetener for Richmond is in order for any one-on-one trade. Maybe a two player for one and a pick is possible.
Vickery 24yo 200cm 98kg Ruckman 87 games
O'Rourke 20yo 188cm 78kg Midfielder 9 games
Shiel 21yo 181cm 83kg Midfielder 50 games
Jaksch 20yo 196cm 90kg Key Defender 7 games
Frost 21yo 194cm 93kg Key Defender 21 games.
It would be nice for the club to bite the bullet at last and take a risk but we seem unable to be that clinical about our list, particularly with favourites like Conca and Vickery.
-
Should we be deleting the threads on here bagging Vickery?
Absolutely, and create some fictitious superhero ones to replace them
Do you think the opposition clubs will buy it?
Dunno but it cant hurt
-
Why would GWS want Vickery? Got plenty of tall forwards. Got plenty of rucks.
-
Why would GWS want Vickery? Got plenty of tall forwards. Got plenty of rucks.
They wouldn't. As I have said many times they need experienced backmen which is why Batchelor and if possible Grimes are probably the only two we could offer up.
-
Sinclair is not AFL standard at all. Handy WAFL or VFL player only.
-
Sinclair is not AFL standard at all. Handy WAFL or VFL player only.
So, worth a second rounder then
-
Sinclair is not AFL standard at all. Handy WAFL or VFL player only.
So, worth a second rounder then
Get it done, Blair :clapping
-
He's signed.
What else u got.
-
So we are suggesting that we trade Vickery struggles to get the ball but who can kick goals and hit targets for Shiel who can find his own ball but butchers it when he kicks. :huh :huh
-
How could he be exploring options when he s contracted, if this was true it would be RFC exploring,options regarding a trade , it doesn't surprise me in the least clubs would be interested, see him as a very good follower
-
How could he be exploring options when he s contracted, if this was true it would be RFC exploring,options regarding a trade , it doesn't surprise me in the least clubs would be interested, see him as a very good follower
If both parties agree it doesn't matter there is a contract. How hard is that to work out??
-
very hard
-
very hard
:lol
-
Dimmers love child.
Forget it.
-
There's about 3 clubs that have enquired about Ty's availability.
Depends what these clubs are offering.
-
Best jumper puncher going around, that alone should ensure we get a premium in a trade
-
Won't be going anywhere. :rollin
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Lids :lol
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Dunno wtf it is with these pets like Grigg and Petterd etc.
Honestly I'd trade them for almost anything...
-
:facepalm
-
Let's trust bigfooty lol
-
Let's trust bigfooty lol
Isn't it gospel?
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Dunno wtf it is with these pets like Grigg and Petterd etc.
Honestly I'd trade them for almost anything...
but would you keep vickery are you prepared to make a call on him. petts and grigg give mor than the pea heart to date.
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Dunno wtf it is with these pets like Grigg and Petterd etc.
Honestly I'd trade them for almost anything...
but would you keep vickery are you prepared to make a call on him. petts and grigg give mor than the pea heart to date.
Turn it up santa - Petterd fair enough but even Vickery's an also ran in the peaheart stakes compared to Grigg.
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Dunno wtf it is with these pets like Grigg and Petterd etc.
Honestly I'd trade them for almost anything...
but would you keep vickery are you prepared to make a call on him. petts and grigg give mor than the pea heart to date.
Turn it up santa - Petterd fair enough but even Vickery's an also ran in the peaheart stakes compared to Grigg.
soft as butter is soft as butter no matter how you spin it. ffs we resigned all of these hacks when we should be going hard at replacements.
the real trouble is they cant see the need to take a step backwards to take two or three fwds.we have been here before and failed and the way we are going we will fail again.
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Dunno wtf it is with these pets like Grigg and Petterd etc.
Honestly I'd trade them for almost anything...
but would you keep vickery are you prepared to make a call on him. petts and grigg give mor than the pea heart to date.
Turn it up santa - Petterd fair enough but even Vickery's an also ran in the peaheart stakes compared to Grigg.
soft as butter is soft as butter no matter how you spin it. ffs we resigned all of these hacks when we should be going hard at replacements.
the real trouble is they cant see the need to take a step backwards to take two or three fwds.we have been here before and failed and the way we are going we will fail again.
If you had to choose Vickery or Biff to stay and trade out the other one, who would it be?
I'd keep Vichery everyday of the week. (No offense YBB :whistle)
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Dunno wtf it is with these pets like Grigg and Petterd etc.
Honestly I'd trade them for almost anything...
but would you keep vickery are you prepared to make a call on him. petts and grigg give mor than the pea heart to date.
I think Vickery is structurally more important but would trade him if there was a good offer in return.
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
Dunno wtf it is with these pets like Grigg and Petterd etc.
Honestly I'd trade them for almost anything...
but would you keep vickery are you prepared to make a call on him. petts and grigg give mor than the pea heart to date.
Turn it up santa - Petterd fair enough but even Vickery's an also ran in the peaheart stakes compared to Grigg.
soft as butter is soft as butter no matter how you spin it. ffs we resigned all of these hacks when we should be going hard at replacements.
the real trouble is they cant see the need to take a step backwards to take two or three fwds.we have been here before and failed and the way we are going we will fail again.
If you had to choose Vickery or Biff to stay and trade out the other one, who would it be?
I'd keep Vichery everyday of the week. (No offense YBB :whistle)
despite the current griffiths debate which for me is more about where hes got too and his overall performances to date which lets be honest are not much to shout about id prefer griffiths. they are both pretty poor in key areas.
as i have said before they were resigned trade one out, early in the yr it was vickery then he got resigned so it left griffiths uncontracted, now hes resigned theres no one to trade. to me we dont need the three of vickery, griffiths and mcbean, none to me are key fwds of high quaity and none are high quality ruckmen.
for me even in keeping all three we must get a a quality kpf i like mccartin he wont get to us, i firmly believewe are screaming out for a tom lamb type and id definately take a player like kietel for depth and development.the ideal would be all three, but we know that wont happen we wont even look at a tall fwd yet its imo our greatest need.
i keep on asking what is the better list management and better set up. a set up along the lines of
riewoldt, elton, mccartin as kpfs, lamb and kietel as agile tall fwds with kietel in time perhaps becoming kp. with griffiths and mcbean as ruck/fwds. its this sort of set up we need to be aiming at over the next few yrs
or the current set up of
riewoldt, elton as kpfs yet elton looks like he will fail, no quick tall agile types and three ruck fwds in vickery, griffiths, and mcbean.
list is screaming out for real kpfs and tall fwds at least 3 regardless of weather we cut players or not.
-
Gee thanks for the prompt insight.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-02/richmond-eyes-greenwood-but-vickery-to-stay
Says in that article that we won't be sacrificing Grigg to get Greenwood. Whoever is making that call needs to be removed from the footy club immediately.
I would sacrifice ramps to get greenwood. Literally.
-
I would sacrifice Vickery for a chicken dinner. Or a drummette. Maybe even a single wing if they threw in some stuffing
-
I would sacrifice Vickery for a chicken dinner. Or a drummette. Maybe even a single wing if they threw in some stuffing
You'd need to go a long way to get good chicken stuffing.
-
I would sacrifice Vickery for a chicken dinner. Or a drummette. Maybe even a single wing if they threw in some stuffing
You'd need to go a long way to get good chicken stuffing.
It wouldn't need to be good to do the trade.... :whistle
-
Pulped feathers and abattoir sweepings and it's a win - win for everyone