One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on October 12, 2007, 11:09:32 AM

Title: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: mightytiges on October 12, 2007, 11:09:32 AM
If the trades reported are right then we only have 2 picks in the top 50  :-\. We really need to find another pick in the top 25-30 by 2pm today. Picking up just 2 kids is nowhere near enough for where we are at.

Our picks 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Title: Re: Our picks
Post by: Ramps on October 12, 2007, 11:12:01 AM
each club is also required to have 3 picks. We will be picking at 51 lol. Someone at Coburgs gonna get real lucky, real lucky.
Title: Re: Our picks
Post by: julzqld on October 12, 2007, 12:28:32 PM
What about one of those Caruso (??) boys - Nat or Fort?
Title: Re: Our picks
Post by: {X} on October 12, 2007, 12:35:21 PM
If the trades reported are right then we only have 2 picks in the top 50  :-\. We really need to find another pick in the top 25-30 by 2pm today. Picking up just 2 kids is nowhere near enough for where we are at.

Our picks 2, 18, 51, 67, ...

if say gourdis gets through to 18 , then our picks wont be an issue

picks can be very over rated.  we have mitch, who is still very young and really a quality player. we may get his bro from the dawks, and he is younger and has good size and prob better than any 191 cm player we have.

if we get cotchin/cale morton at 2, and say gourdis at 18, we will end pretty good and maybe better if a damn good player falls into the psd

jordy is also still young and this yr is a pretty week draft and maybe the rfc brainstrust have considered this
Title: Re: Our picks
Post by: mightytiges on October 12, 2007, 03:19:49 PM
When you see the Eagles having 4 picks in the top 22 and we as wooden spooners have just 2 in the top 50 it shows what we are up against. In next year's draft, no matter where we finish, we need to draft a whole bunch of kids to make up for this year. Not drafting enough kids is how we ended up with the huge middle age-bracket hole we have now in the first place  :scream.   

What about one of those Caruso (??) boys - Nat or Fort?
Silvester and Neville would be in the mix too.
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: jezza on October 12, 2007, 03:50:09 PM
We need to take into account the players we've added in trades as well though. We can't acquire good players without giving up picks, best to look at the draft and trade period as a whole to see what we've gained. No we don't have many high picks, but those picks are no guarantee to be any good.
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: {X} on October 12, 2007, 03:55:47 PM
agree jezza, and really mitch is a top 10 pick, even top 5

he is still young , very young, and our list is still young. draft means nothing to us this yr, as we already have enough kids.

history shows that most kids in the draft dont even last 3 yrs anyway and draft 2007 wont be one to brag about in yrs to come 4 most clubs
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: Darth Tiger on October 12, 2007, 06:01:42 PM
agree jezza, and really mitch is a top 10 pick, even top 5

he is still young , very young, and our list is still young. draft means nothing to us this yr, as we already have enough kids.

history shows that most kids in the draft dont even last 3 yrs anyway and draft 2007 wont be one to brag about in yrs to come 4 most clubs

Then how do you develop your future players & stars if you don't draft and have the appropriate development resopurces in place?

Do you just trade ??  Trading recycled players has not won a single premiership.

When will RFC learn ??
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: {X} on October 12, 2007, 06:17:37 PM
agree jezza, and really mitch is a top 10 pick, even top 5

he is still young , very young, and our list is still young. draft means nothing to us this yr, as we already have enough kids.

history shows that most kids in the draft dont even last 3 yrs anyway and draft 2007 wont be one to brag about in yrs to come 4 most clubs

Then how do you develop your future players & stars if you don't draft and have the appropriate development resopurces in place?

Do you just trade ??  Trading recycled players has not won a single premiership.

When will RFC learn ??

hello, mitch is only what 20! jordan isnt that old either and still has at leat 7 yrs in him.

you dont have to just develop kids from the draft , that is not the only way, picking up young players and allowing them to develop further and better themselves is not a sin or bad way about doing things.

at least by picking up tried young players you know what u r getting, unlike the draft where its a lottery.

Geez, it isnit doom and gloom, we havent given up picks 4 recyled old hacks, we actuallu gave up picks for young skillful players with alot to offer.

wow we gave pick 35 away ,  :whistle and 19. can tell you now, that no one in this yrs draft passed pick 20 will become a top liner. we gave up stuff all for 2 very handy players ,  2players that are much better than most of our list

mitch and jordy will put pressure an many of our duds to shape up or ship out.

kids in the draft are no guarantee 4 success, look how many kids that get drafted are gone within 3 yrs
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: Francois Jackson on October 12, 2007, 06:22:58 PM
agree jezza, and really mitch is a top 10 pick, even top 5

he is still young , very young, and our list is still young. draft means nothing to us this yr, as we already have enough kids.

history shows that most kids in the draft dont even last 3 yrs anyway and draft 2007 wont be one to brag about in yrs to come 4 most clubs

Then how do you develop your future players & stars if you don't draft and have the appropriate development resopurces in place?

Do you just trade ??  Trading recycled players has not won a single premiership.

When will RFC learn ??

they will never learn im sure.

can someone tell me what the hell is happening with oakley-nicholls and casserly.

come this time next year id say we will be referring to those 2 as we do now with meyer and schulz.

ive had enough of these duds getting a game at punt rd and not putting in the effort.

player development i believe is the issue and whoever is in control of this area should be sacked immediately.
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: bluey_21 on October 12, 2007, 06:40:34 PM
agree jezza, and really mitch is a top 10 pick, even top 5

he is still young , very young, and our list is still young. draft means nothing to us this yr, as we already have enough kids.

history shows that most kids in the draft dont even last 3 yrs anyway and draft 2007 wont be one to brag about in yrs to come 4 most clubs

Then how do you develop your future players & stars if you don't draft and have the appropriate development resopurces in place?

Do you just trade ??  Trading recycled players has not won a single premiership.

When will RFC learn ??

they will never learn im sure.

can someone tell me what the hell is happening with oakley-nicholls and casserly.

come this time next year id say we will be referring to those 2 as we do now with meyer and schulz.

ive had enough of these duds getting a game at punt rd and not putting in the effort.

player development i believe is the issue and whoever is in control of this area should be sacked immediately.


wash your mouth out. Cass will be a very good player for us
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: Francois Jackson on October 12, 2007, 06:50:57 PM
i stand corrected then..but whats his deal. where is he???

and oakly-nicholls. would love to know your thoughts on him.

personally i think he will not cut it..
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: mightytiges on October 12, 2007, 06:52:08 PM
We need to take into account the players we've added in trades as well though. We can't acquire good players without giving up picks, best to look at the draft and trade period as a whole to see what we've gained. No we don't have many high picks, but those picks are no guarantee to be any good.
Agree with all that jezza except the last bit. IMO you can't be afraid of drafting kids. If you bring through 4-5 kids each year on average then even if half don't make it you still end up with 2-3 who do. Do that for 6 years and you replenish your whole side and end up with a well-balanced list over time. Drafting only 2 kids increases your risk exposure as you're relying on virtually both kids to make it otherwise you're not replenishing your list and it ends up unbalanced like ours is still now. With half our list or more under 22 we may get away with it once. However IMO we can't repeat a similar result of ending up with so few picks in next year's draft or we'll start paying for it down the track.   
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: bluey_21 on October 12, 2007, 06:56:00 PM
i stand corrected then..but whats his deal. where is he???

and oakly-nicholls. would love to know your thoughts on him.

personally i think he will not cut it..

cass is struggling with injury but he is a class act and the reason i'd prefer not to take Cale Morton. Plays beautifully on the rebound and would be top 5 in terms of kicking at the club. beautiful natural technique and nice connection.

JON i'm struggling with. He had me excited in his U18 days but seems to have stagnated. In his junior days he could make something out of nothing, was suprisingly a very solid kick and looked like a good prospect. I honestly don't know if he will make it. He has the talent, don't let the bad reports knock the talent he has, and i certainly hope with him it is these 'confidence' issues resulting in his poor performances.

I pray he has a strong preseason and show what he is made of. If he continues to dissapoint i will be off his bandwagon
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: one-eyed on October 14, 2007, 05:08:39 AM
Here's each club's picks. Most clubs have 2 picks inside the top 30. West Coast has the most with 5  :o while the Pies have none lol.

Adelaide: 10, 27, 38, 59, 75, 91
Brisbane: 8, 25, 41, 52, 57, 73, 89
Carlton:    1, 36, 46, 68, 84
Coll'wood: 31, 47, 63, 95, 96 (Barham)
Essendon: 6, 23, 39 (Daniher), 55, 71, 87
Fremantle: 7, 24, 40, 56, 72, 88
Geelong:   17, 34, 44, 50, 62, 82, 90, 98 (Donohue)
Hawthorn:  12, 29, 45, 61, 77, 93
Kangaroos: 15, 32, 37, 64, 80
Melbourne:  4, 14, 21, 53, 69, 85
Port Adel:   16, 28, 33, 49, 65, 81, 97
Richmond:   2, 18, 51, 67, 83
St Kilda:      9, 42, 58, 74
Sydney:      11, 26, 60, 76, 92
West Coast: 3, 13, 20, 22, 30, 54, 78, 94
Bulldogs:      5, 19, 35, 43, 48, 66, 70, 86
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: Bull on October 14, 2007, 08:45:03 AM
18 to 51 is too bigger gap.

We should have taken 28 for Shultz, giving us 3 picks inside 30.

Take a look at Port, they now how to keep their list developing.

Miller and Wallace keep talking about the age bracket rubbish, how can they achieve this if they trade our picks away.
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: Fwoy3 on October 14, 2007, 01:10:01 PM
Here's each club's picks. Most clubs have 2 picks inside the top 30. West Coast has the most with 5  :o while the Pies have none lol.

Adelaide: 10, 27, 38, 59, 75, 91
Brisbane: 8, 25, 41, 52, 57, 73, 89
Carlton:    1, 36, 46, 68, 84
Coll'wood: 31, 47, 63, 95, 96 (Barham)
Essendon: 6, 23, 39 (Daniher), 55, 71, 87
Fremantle: 7, 24, 40, 56, 72, 88
Geelong:   17, 34, 44, 50, 62, 82, 90, 98 (Donohue)
Hawthorn:  12, 29, 45, 61, 77, 93
Kangaroos: 15, 32, 37, 64, 80
Melbourne:  4, 14, 21, 53, 69, 85
Port Adel:   16, 28, 33, 49, 65, 81, 97
Richmond:   2, 18, 51, 67, 83
St Kilda:      9, 42, 58, 74
Sydney:      11, 26, 60, 76, 92
West Coast: 3, 13, 20, 22, 30, 54, 78, 94
Bulldogs:      5, 19, 35, 43, 48, 66, 70, 86

Didn't WCE trade away the pick 30 with 35 for the Doggies 22?
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: mightytiges on October 14, 2007, 07:01:00 PM
Didn't WCE trade away the pick 30 with 35 for the Doggies 22?
Yep you're right fwoy. The Age has it wrong. Adelaide has pick 30 which they got from the doggies.
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: one-eyed on October 15, 2007, 08:49:32 PM
What draft picks 2, 18, 51 and 67 have produced in the past decade:

Pick 2

1998: Justin Longmuir
1999: Paul Hasleby
2000: Justin Koschitzke
2001: Luke Ball
2002: Daniel Wells
2003: Andrew Walker
2004: Jarryd Roughead
2005: Dale Thomas
2006: Scott Gumbleton

Pick 18

1998: Daniel Schell
1999: Rhyce Shaw (F/S)
2000: Daniel Kerr
2001: Shane Harvey
2002: Kris Shore
2003: Llane Spaanderman
2004: Cameron Wood
2005: Max Bailey
2006: Leroy Jetta

Pick 51

1998: David Loats
1999: Ricky O'Loughlin
2000: Dion Woods
2001: Pass (next player was Andrew Browne)
2002: Tim Boyle
2003: Matthew Ball
2004: Ben Eckermann
2005: Matthew Laidlaw
2006: Clint Benjamin

Pick 67

1998: Brett Backwell
1999: Robert Shirley
2000: Graham Johncock
2001: Pass (next player was redrafted Chris Hyde)
2002: Steven Alessio
2003: Pass (next player was Jordan Bannister)
2004: Tony Stribling
2005: Pass (next player was Heath Neville)
2006: Joe Anderson
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: Gordon Bennett on October 16, 2007, 08:50:32 AM


Pick 18

1998: Daniel Schell

2001: Shane Harvey
2002: Kris Shore
2003: Llane Spaanderman


and people focus on our alleged bad recruiting. Look at these 4 examples from opposition clubs.
Title: Re: Our picks - 2, 18, 51, 67, ...
Post by: Ramps on October 16, 2007, 11:56:47 AM


Pick 18

1998: Daniel Schell

2001: Shane Harvey
2002: Kris Shore
2003: Llane Spaanderman


and people focus on our alleged bad recruiting. Look at these 4 examples from opposition clubs.


Why do you always seem to be making excuses for our performance which has been nothing short of disgraceful for 2 decades ::)