One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Stalin on October 07, 2015, 01:09:09 PM

Title: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Stalin on October 07, 2015, 01:09:09 PM
Cause sir Alex Dimma and friends

Rate Hampson and Chaplin really

Really highly ??
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Willy on October 07, 2015, 01:13:48 PM
I've heard various reports that we are looking for a ruckman?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: mat073 on October 07, 2015, 01:14:26 PM
Is trade week over ?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: YellowandBlackBlood on October 07, 2015, 01:16:08 PM
Is trade week over ?
Accrding to many on here yes!
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 07, 2015, 01:18:57 PM
I've heard various reports that we are looking for a ruckman?

Oh thank god

Which ones?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 07, 2015, 01:22:57 PM
Is trade week over ?

'Apparently'

 ;)
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: WilliamPowell on October 07, 2015, 01:41:48 PM
Is trade week over ?
Accrding to many on here yes!

Knew if I had a couple of drinks last night I'd miss something
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Chuck17 on October 07, 2015, 01:44:02 PM
Also why arent we looking at a swingman
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: YellowandBlackBlood on October 07, 2015, 02:02:12 PM
Also why arent we looking at a swingman
At this point I'd be happy with a swagman!!
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Willy on October 07, 2015, 02:03:22 PM
I've heard various reports that we are looking for a ruckman?

Oh thank god

Which ones?

tall ones, I hope.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: YellowandBlackBlood on October 07, 2015, 02:34:27 PM
I've heard various reports that we are looking for a ruckman?

Oh thank god

Which ones?

tall ones, I hope.
:lol
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Eat_em_Alive on October 07, 2015, 02:45:24 PM
#bigfishorbust  :shh

  :lol
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Hard Roar Tiger on October 07, 2015, 04:48:23 PM
Also why arent we looking at a swingman

I'd be happy with a swinger
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: WA Tiger on October 07, 2015, 04:51:04 PM
No need for that, back on topic please.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Andyy on October 07, 2015, 05:39:29 PM
Why aren't we looking at:

Bugg
Townsend
Redden
Suckling

Carlisle
Henderson
Tomlinson
Talia
Schoenmakers

Leuenberger
Redden
Smith

Honestly I'd even go so far as to throw the whole kitchen at Hogan. Tell him $1million/year for 8 years or something stupid.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Chuck17 on October 07, 2015, 05:40:46 PM
Why aren't we looking at:

Bugg
Townsend
Redden

Carlisle
Henderson
Tomlinson
Talia

Leuenberger
Redden
Smith

Honestly I'd even go so far as to throw the whole kitchen at Hogan. Tell him $1million/year for 8 years or something stupid.

How do you know we arent
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Diocletian on October 07, 2015, 05:41:57 PM
Because we're locked, loaded and cherry ripe!
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Andyy on October 07, 2015, 05:53:11 PM
Why aren't we looking at:

Bugg
Townsend
Redden

Carlisle
Henderson
Tomlinson
Talia

Leuenberger
Redden
Smith

Honestly I'd even go so far as to throw the whole kitchen at Hogan. Tell him $1million/year for 8 years or something stupid.

How do you know we arent

I don't, but these are mostly high profile players and it's not often they get traded without any information leaking beforehand.

Do you have any knowledge to the contrary?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Eat_em_Alive on October 07, 2015, 06:00:50 PM
Why aren't we looking at:

Bugg
Townsend
Redden

Carlisle
Henderson
Tomlinson
Talia

Leuenberger
Redden
Smith

Honestly I'd even go so far as to throw the whole kitchen at Hogan. Tell him $1million/year for 8 years or something stupid.

How do you know we arent

I don't, but these are mostly high profile players and it's not often they get traded without any information leaking beforehand.

Do you have any knowledge to the contrary?

from what I heard today

Bugg to Melbourne
Carlisle to Saints
Henderson to Cats
Tomlinson to Blues
Luenberger to Essendon

and...
Sinclair to swans for Jetta
also Craig Bird to be traded from swans to ??
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Diocletian on October 07, 2015, 06:20:15 PM
..and Redden to West Coast...Smith to Geelong...
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Gigantor on October 07, 2015, 06:30:58 PM
No point crying over things...we tried for treloar,Bennel,Hannebury..and we missed out for whatever reason..
Maybe for a second straight season we go to the draft and a few seasons down the track we have a smorgasboard of guns.
But then again trade week hasnt even started yet
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Andyy on October 07, 2015, 06:49:49 PM
We also failed on Tyson, Armitage, Shiel.

Have to wonder what the issue is...
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: bojangles17 on October 07, 2015, 07:13:14 PM
Cause sir Alex Dimma and friends

Rate Hampson and Chaplin really

Really highly ??
how did our backline perform this year, all BS and bluster aside  ::)
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: JP Tiger on October 07, 2015, 07:46:57 PM
We also failed on Tyson, Armitage, Shiel.

Have to wonder what the issue is...
Nobody on this site knows all of the details involved in these trades or non-trades.  :P

Anybody with access to all of the relevant facts wouldn't dare post it in here anyway ...   :shh
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 07, 2015, 08:51:05 PM
Cause sir Alex Dimma and friends

Rate Hampson and Chaplin really

Really highly ??
how did our backline perform this year, all BS and bluster aside  ::)

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1375559760_img_EHk0cl.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 08, 2015, 03:55:40 PM
Is trade week over ?

looks a bit that way  :clapping

AFL 24/7
‏@AFLTrade
Richmond are officially out of the race for GWS' Adam Treloar.. St Kilda now slowly entering the race. #AFL #AFLTrade

https://twitter.com/AFLTrade/status/651963899185491968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


Harley Bennell could announce that Fremantle as his club of choice as early as today.

Bennell is being offered a 3 year deal from the Dockers.

https://twitter.com/traderadio
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Diocletian on October 08, 2015, 04:51:23 PM
 HARTLEY! :clapping :bow :clapping :gotigers
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 09, 2015, 10:26:14 PM

Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender

Cause sir Alex Dimma and friends

Rate Hampson and Chaplin really

Really highly ??



 :facepalm


“We have two needs that we have identified

— one a rebounding defender, which is hopefully (Carlton’s) Chris Yarran,

 and the other is an inside midfielder,” Tigers football boss Dan Richardson said on Friday.


“Ideally we would have liked to have got an elite mid like (Adam) Treloar, but that’s not going to happen.

 “You never say never, but the reality is we’ve been connected to everyone. Some of it’s true and some of it’s not. If we can bring those two players in we’ll be quite happy.”

http://www.themercury.com.au/afl-trades-2015-richmond-shows-interest-in-gws-midfielder-jacob-townsend/story-fnj3twbb-1227563687972


 :facepalm
Title: Tigers are not in the market for a ruckman this offseason: Dan Richardson (HSun)
Post by: one-eyed on October 09, 2015, 10:32:25 PM
The Tigers are not in the market for a ruckman and will back Ivan Maric and Shaun Hampson for another season.

“It’s probably something we’ve got to address over the next 12 to 18 months, but at this stage Ivan is obviously still our No.1 ruckman,” Tigers' boss Dan Richardson said.

“We brought Shaun in a couple of years ago to be that taller option. He’s had some injury and (issues with) durability, but he’s also showed signs here of improving. We need to back that in.”

http://www.themercury.com.au/afl-trades-2015-richmond-shows-interest-in-gws-midfielder-jacob-townsend/story-fnj3twbb-1227563687972
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 09, 2015, 10:34:18 PM
 
The Tigers are not in the market for a ruckman and will back Ivan Maric and Shaun Hampson for another season.

“It’s probably something we’ve got to address over the next 12 to 18 months, but at this stage Ivan is obviously still our No.1 ruckman,” Tigers' boss Dan Richardson said.

“We brought Shaun in a couple of years ago to be that taller option. He’s had some injury and (issues with) durability, but he’s also showed signs here of improving. We need to back that in.”

http://www.themercury.com.au/afl-trades-2015-richmond-shows-interest-in-gws-midfielder-jacob-townsend/story-fnj3twbb-1227563687972

woooow, you couldnt make it up if you tried ...

:rollin :rollin :rollin
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: WA Tiger on October 09, 2015, 10:34:58 PM
 :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Oh now listen to the back peddling crap...it's embarrassing...

RFC stay out of the press you sound like a bunch of stuffing losers :gotigers
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Chuck17 on October 10, 2015, 06:10:02 AM
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Oh now listen to the back peddling crap...it's embarrassing...

RFC stay out of the press you sound like a bunch of stuffing loosers :gotigers

It's losers
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: 🏅Dooks on October 10, 2015, 09:20:18 AM
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Oh now listen to the back peddling crap...it's embarrassing...

RFC stay out of the press you sound like a bunch of stuffing loosers :gotigers

Couldn't agree more.

Stuffing Amatuers who have each others backs to protect jobs.

The incompetence and lack of accountability is just stunning
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 10, 2015, 11:22:01 AM
we brought Shaun in a couple of years ago to be that taller option. He’s had some injury and (issues with) durability, but he’s also showed signs here of improving. We need to back that in.”



 :o
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: 🏅Dooks on October 10, 2015, 11:27:32 AM
Stuff me
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Andyy on October 10, 2015, 11:55:29 AM
There ya go matey. Confirmation we aren't looking at rucks and KPP's. Only an inside mid and a rebounding HBF.


Personally I'd be chasing all of these positions. Yarran HBF, Townsend InMid, Smith ruck, Tomlinson KPP.


Crazy that DR thinks we can just go and address the ruck issue in 12-18 months. Hampson and Maric will probably both be truly finishing in 12-18 months. Not to mention we can't get a new ruckman in '18 months' during the season...


Why aren't we looking at:

Bugg
Townsend
Redden

Carlisle
Henderson
Tomlinson
Talia

Leuenberger
Redden
Smith

Honestly I'd even go so far as to throw the whole kitchen at Hogan. Tell him $1million/year for 8 years or something stupid.

How do you know we arent
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Francois Jackson on October 10, 2015, 12:53:06 PM
we brought Shaun in a couple of years ago to be that taller option. He’s had some injury and (issues with) durability, but he’s also showed signs here of improving. We need to back that in.”



 :o

 :xmassign
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 15, 2015, 12:08:37 PM
we wants needles

someone has a clue  :cheers :cheers
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: tdy on October 15, 2015, 05:32:11 PM
I really hope Soldo comes on quick or we're stuffed in the ruck if Maric goes down. Is Soldo even on the list proper? How many VFL games has he played?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: YellowandBlackBlood on October 15, 2015, 06:07:58 PM
I really hope Soldo comes on quick or we're stuffed in the ruck if Maric goes down. Is Soldo even on the list proper? How many VFL games has he played?
You forgot our secret weapon, Hampson. :shh
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: WilliamPowell on October 15, 2015, 08:45:18 PM
I was pondering while I was sitting in traffic trying to get home but going nowhere

Now the Bombers have Luenenberger Should we consider Jon Giles ex Giant who Bombers bought in this season, that Hird wouldn't play?

He was a reasonable ruckman for the Giants. Even remember a few on here suggesting we should go after him a few years back

Would be a significant upgrade on Hampson as he can actually take a mark around the ground more than once a game
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: YellowandBlackBlood on October 15, 2015, 08:47:36 PM
Didn't Hammer take 2 against Carlton? :shh
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Andyy on October 15, 2015, 10:55:42 PM
I was pondering while I was sitting in traffic trying to get home but going nowhere

Now the Bombers have Luenenberger Should we consider Jon Giles ex Giant who Bombers bought in this season, that Hird wouldn't play?

He was a reasonable ruckman for the Giants. Even remember a few on here suggesting we should go after him a few years back

Would be a significant upgrade on Hampson as he can actually take a mark around the ground more than once a game

Careful mate, I suggested this and got slammed for it.

Personally I think he's a worthy backup.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: WilliamPowell on October 16, 2015, 06:59:32 AM

Careful mate, I suggested this and got slammed for it.

Personally I think he's a worthy backup.

Sorry I must have missed that

I would have backed you, reckon as a back up he'd be OK.

He's been treated abysmally by the Bombers. You'd get him for a 4th rounder I reckon
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Go Richo 12 on October 16, 2015, 08:13:16 AM
Didn't Hammer take 2 against Carlton? :shh
Marks against Carlton are not to be used as evidence.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 26, 2015, 12:18:42 PM
47   Soldo, Ivan (R)   0   19yr 6mth   14 Apr 1996   204cm   
34   Mcbean, Liam   2   21yr 2mth   25 Aug 1994   202cm   
16   Hampson, Shaun   78   27yr 7mth   21 Mar 1988   201cm   
20   Maric, Ivan   154   29yr 9mth   4 Jan 1986   200cm   102kg   
24   Griffiths, Benjamin   48   24yr 1mth   17 Sep 1991   200cm   
29   Vickery, Tyrone   102   25yr 4mth   31 May 1990   200cm   
42   McKenzie, Reece   0   19yr 6mth   28 Mar 1996   197cm   
43   Elton, Todd   2   22yr 5mth   29 Apr 1993   197cm   100kg   
8   Riewoldt, Jack   180   26yr 11mth   31 Oct 1988   195cm   
12   Astbury, David   41   24yr 7mth   26 Feb 1991   195cm   95kg   
25   Chaplin, Troy   207   29yr 8mth   23 Feb 1986   195cm   
18   Rance, Alex   130   26yr   9 Oct 1989   194cm   
2   Grimes, Dylan   63   24yr 3mth   16 Jul 1991   193cm   
33   Mcintosh, Kamdyn   23   21yr 6mth   3 Apr 1994   192cm   
6   Grigg, Shaun   147   27yr 6mth   19 Apr 1988   190cm   
3   Deledio, Brett   232   28yr 6mth   18 Apr 1987   188cm   
11   Batchelor, Jake   75   23yr 8mth   13 Feb 1992   188cm


 :-\
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: one-eyed on October 27, 2015, 03:15:30 AM
David Schwarz on SEN:
Dan, any concerns in the ruck? Ivan isn't getting any younger; I know you've brought Shaun Hampson over from Carlton; Ty Vickery can pinch hit in there. Is that something you will look at in the draft, or in the next year or so, to bolster up that position?

Dan Richardson:
At some stage as Ivan gets a little bit older, it's something we will need to continue to look at. We did bring .... well, we thought Ivan had a terrific year. The only time Ivan does at times struggle is, by his own admission, because he's not the tallest ruckman going around compared to those big opposition. That's the reason why we brought Shaun Hampson in a couple of years ago. Through injury and opportunity [lack of], he hasn't quite delivered what we would like to date. But we still think at 25-26 years of age, that there's still improvement in him and we saw that at times in the middle part of the year; then he got injured towards the latter part of the year. We'll back him in - in terms of profile and the type of ruckman we need - you know getting up a bit higher [in the ruck contest], getting us first use of the footy and getting the ball moving forward. We believe he can be that player. 

https://audioboom.com/boos/3720910-dan-richardson-on-chris-yarran
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: YellowandBlackBlood on October 27, 2015, 07:07:06 AM
David Schwarz on SEN:
Dan, any concerns in the ruck? Ivan isn't getting any younger; I know you've brought Shaun Hampson over from Carlton; Ty Vickery can pinch hit in there. Is that something you will look at in the draft, or in the next year or so, to bolster up that position?

Dan Richardson:
At some stage as Ivan gets a little bit older, it's something we will need to continue to look at. We did bring .... well, we thought Ivan had a terrific year. The only time Ivan does at times struggle is, by his own admission, because he's not the tallest ruckman going around compared to those big opposition. That's the reason why we brought Shaun Hampson in a couple of years ago. Through injury and opportunity [lack of], he hasn't quite delivered what we would like to date. But we still think at 25-26 years of age, that there's still improvement in him and we saw that at times in the middle part of the year; then he got injured towards the latter part of the year. We'll back him in - in terms of profile and the type of ruckman we need - you know getting up a bit higher [in the ruck contest], getting us first use of the footy and getting the ball moving forward. We believe he can be that player. 

https://audioboom.com/boos/3720910-dan-richardson-on-chris-yarran
It's nice when the Footy manager takes 2 to 3 years off your age...... :whistle
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: MintOnLamb on October 27, 2015, 07:08:52 AM
The ruck discussion.
IMHO, sandilands is almost unstoppable, yet freo loses.

First hands in the pill is important, but if you can read the tap what does it matter?

Taps to advantage is an interesting stat, nor all that conclusive.

Prhaps an athletic agile player around 200 is all we need and we have mcbean, vickery, hampson, griffiths, soldo,. Sure none are perfect and all encompassing but the reality is they are our  list.

What is the point getting another one?

The only one who is almost avaiilable is Goldstein. Would you throw a bucket of money at him? Eg 5 mill over 5 years?

Inside mids, around 188-190 are probably a better option,??
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on October 27, 2015, 09:24:06 AM
The ruck discussion.
IMHO, sandilands is almost unstoppable, yet freo loses.

First hands in the pill is important, but if you can read the tap what does it matter?

Taps to advantage is an interesting stat, nor all that conclusive.

Prhaps an athletic agile player around 200 is all we need and we have mcbean, vickery, hampson, griffiths, soldo,. Sure none are perfect and all encompassing but the reality is they are our  list.

What is the point getting another one?

The only one who is almost avaiilable is Goldstein. Would you throw a bucket of money at him? Eg 5 mill over 5 years?

Inside mids, around 188-190 are probably a better option,??
do you by chance have access to taps to advantage stats?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 27, 2015, 12:40:26 PM
David Schwarz on SEN:
Dan, any concerns in the ruck? Ivan isn't getting any younger; I know you've brought Shaun Hampson over from Carlton; Ty Vickery can pinch hit in there. Is that something you will look at in the draft, or in the next year or so, to bolster up that position?

Dan Richardson:
At some stage as Ivan gets a little bit older, it's something we will need to continue to look at. We did bring .... well, we thought Ivan had a terrific year. The only time Ivan does at times struggle is, by his own admission, because he's not the tallest ruckman going around compared to those big opposition. That's the reason why we brought Shaun Hampson in a couple of years ago. Through injury and opportunity [lack of], he hasn't quite delivered what we would like to date. But we still think at 25-26 years of age, that there's still improvement in him and we saw that at times in the middle part of the year; then he got injured towards the latter part of the year. We'll back him in - in terms of profile and the type of ruckman we need - you know getting up a bit higher [in the ruck contest], getting us first use of the footy and getting the ball moving forward. We believe he can be that player. 

https://audioboom.com/boos/3720910-dan-richardson-on-chris-yarran
It's nice when the Footy manager takes 2 to 3 years off your age...... :whistle

Hampson is only 25

Maric and Chaplin 26

Future is bright  :lol
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Raoul Duke on October 27, 2015, 04:49:17 PM
But we still think at 25-26 years of age
Not hard to work out why its hard to land a quality recruit.
 :facepalm
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Francois Jackson on October 27, 2015, 05:09:22 PM
But we still think at 25-26 years of age
Not hard to work out why its hard to land a quality recruit.
 :facepalm

 :yep
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: 🏅Dooks on October 27, 2015, 06:35:05 PM
David Schwarz on SEN:
Dan, any concerns in the ruck? Ivan isn't getting any younger; I know you've brought Shaun Hampson over from Carlton; Ty Vickery can pinch hit in there. Is that something you will look at in the draft, or in the next year or so, to bolster up that position?

Dan Richardson:
At some stage as Ivan gets a little bit older, it's something we will need to continue to look at. We did bring .... well, we thought Ivan had a terrific year.

https://audioboom.com/boos/3720910-dan-richardson-on-chris-yarran

 :gobdrop
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 27, 2015, 08:06:30 PM
But we still think at 25-26 years of age
Not hard to work out why its hard to land a quality recruit.
 :facepalm

^^
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: the claw on October 27, 2015, 10:15:14 PM
Freakin funny.
On  a serious note young ruck,  i hope they have a look at a kid called Mathew Flynn at least with a rookie pick.Or god forbid just look at him.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: MintOnLamb on October 27, 2015, 11:27:39 PM
The ruck discussion.
IMHO, sandilands is almost unstoppable, yet freo loses.

First hands in the pill is important, but if you can read the tap what does it matter?

Taps to advantage is an interesting stat, nor all that conclusive.

Prhaps an athletic agile player around 200 is all we need and we have mcbean, vickery, hampson, griffiths, soldo,. Sure none are perfect and all encompassing but the reality is they are our  list.

What is the point getting another one?

The only one who is almost avaiilable is Goldstein. Would you throw a bucket of money at him? Eg 5 mill over 5 years?

Inside mids, around 188-190 are probably a better option,??
do you by chance have access to taps to advantage stats?
Tried googling no luck but i recall if is surprisingly low, like less than 40% for Sandilands. Natainui is 20%, i dont know how they calculate the stat though.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Yeahright on October 28, 2015, 01:55:34 AM
David Schwarz on SEN:
Dan, any concerns in the ruck? Ivan isn't getting any younger; I know you've brought Shaun Hampson over from Carlton; Ty Vickery can pinch hit in there. Is that something you will look at in the draft, or in the next year or so, to bolster up that position?

Dan Richardson:
At some stage as Ivan gets a little bit older, it's something we will need to continue to look at. We did bring .... well, we thought Ivan had a terrific year. The only time Ivan does at times struggle is, by his own admission, because he's not the tallest ruckman going around compared to those big opposition. That's the reason why we brought Shaun Hampson in a couple of years ago. Through injury and opportunity [lack of], he hasn't quite delivered what we would like to date. But we still think at 25-26 years of age, that there's still improvement in him and we saw that at times in the middle part of the year; then he got injured towards the latter part of the year. We'll back him in - in terms of profile and the type of ruckman we need - you know getting up a bit higher [in the ruck contest], getting us first use of the footy and getting the ball moving forward. We believe he can be that player. 

https://audioboom.com/boos/3720910-dan-richardson-on-chris-yarran
It's nice when the Footy manager takes 2 to 3 years off your age...... :whistle

1-2 years. If you're going to correct someone make sure you're right.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 12:03:36 PM
David Schwarz on SEN:
Dan, any concerns in the ruck? Ivan isn't getting any younger; I know you've brought Shaun Hampson over from Carlton; Ty Vickery can pinch hit in there. Is that something you will look at in the draft, or in the next year or so, to bolster up that position?

Dan Richardson:
At some stage as Ivan gets a little bit older, it's something we will need to continue to look at. We did bring .... well, we thought Ivan had a terrific year. The only time Ivan does at times struggle is, by his own admission, because he's not the tallest ruckman going around compared to those big opposition. That's the reason why we brought Shaun Hampson in a couple of years ago. Through injury and opportunity [lack of], he hasn't quite delivered what we would like to date. But we still think at 25-26 years of age, that there's still improvement in him and we saw that at times in the middle part of the year; then he got injured towards the latter part of the year. We'll back him in - in terms of profile and the type of ruckman we need - you know getting up a bit higher [in the ruck contest], getting us first use of the footy and getting the ball moving forward. We believe he can be that player. 

https://audioboom.com/boos/3720910-dan-richardson-on-chris-yarran
It's nice when the Footy manager takes 2 to 3 years off your age...... :whistle

1-2 years. If you're going to correct someone make sure you're right.

Im not a mathematician but if you take what he said and take how old Megan will be in round 1 it is indeed three years off ... yet another worryingly bizarre comment from a key member of the richmonds brain-trust 

i like how they are just telling people before trade periods now we are not going to get anyone good, and making up peoples ages  :clapping
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on October 28, 2015, 01:11:16 PM
just out of curiosity, once they knew they were not going to get the bigger names they targeted, what would you have wanted them to say?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 01:12:42 PM
just out of curiosity, once they knew they were not going to get the bigger names they targeted, what would you have wanted them to say?

They knew a few days before trade week had started?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 01:17:37 PM
it took trelor like four days to become official to collingwood

they couldnt have .... you know, tried?

instead of claiming defeat via press statement before the official period began
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on October 28, 2015, 01:23:58 PM
it took trelor like four days to become official to collingwood

they couldnt have .... you know, tried?

instead of claiming defeat via press statement before the official period began
when the treloar saga dragged on they said early on they were no longer interested.

we can only speculate as to why. for all we know treloar may have said that if he goes anywhere else it would only be on a one year contract, as Dangerfield did with Geelong.

but rightly or wrongly, they knew their position.

so what would you rather them say?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 03:43:21 PM
it took trelor like four days to become official to collingwood

they couldnt have .... you know, tried?

instead of claiming defeat via press statement before the official period began
when the treloar saga dragged on they said early on they were no longer interested.

we can only speculate as to why. for all we know treloar may have said that if he goes anywhere else it would only be on a one year contract, as Dangerfield did with Geelong.

but rightly or wrongly, they knew their position.

so what would you rather them say?

Do you think it's somewhat 'emo' to declare your self official not a big player in trade week, before it starts?

Seeing as it's one if your favoured topics
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 03:50:28 PM
I guess the


   " we won't get a big fish in trade week "

 " our good players will just have to play better"

     " we are very happy with Chaplin and Hampson"

"We don't rest, vital people before finals, cause pagan is against it"

"Hampson is 25"


(Paraphrased, but not much).


Comments theme of recent times, at least keeps things interesting. Yeah, na, take it one week at a time
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Diocletian on October 28, 2015, 04:17:44 PM
Club would also have us believe that Townsend "kicks goals from clearances"....has kicked 4 in 28 AFL matches and only 11 in a full NEAFL season last year.....come in spinner...
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on October 28, 2015, 04:44:54 PM
it took trelor like four days to become official to collingwood

they couldnt have .... you know, tried?

instead of claiming defeat via press statement before the official period began
when the treloar saga dragged on they said early on they were no longer interested.

we can only speculate as to why. for all we know treloar may have said that if he goes anywhere else it would only be on a one year contract, as Dangerfield did with Geelong.

but rightly or wrongly, they knew their position.

so what would you rather them say?

Do you think it's somewhat 'emo' to declare your self official not a big player in trade week, before it starts?

Seeing as it's one if your favoured topics
do you think, that once, just once, maybe you may address the subject/question rather than twisting it into something else and going down the rabbit hole?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on October 28, 2015, 04:46:24 PM
Club would also have us believe that Townsend "kicks goals from clearances"....has kicked 4 in 28 AFL matches and only 11 in a full NEAFL season last year.....come in spinner...
yeah, that is staggering and worthy of any criticism it gets.
Its just pure garbage
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 04:56:23 PM
Re read what your written. It wouldn't pass as queens English.

They conceded defeat on the trelor front prior to trade week.

There was no real chance of getting him as negations wore on, as we had already played our hand.

God knows why. Maybe a similar reason to why we put on te website who we will draft before te event occurs ...

The lunnies are running the nuthouse I tells ya
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 04:58:27 PM
Or just type 'rabbit hole' a few more times , either way  :gotigers
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on October 28, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Re read what your written. It wouldn't pass as queens English.

They conceded defeat on the trelor front prior to trade week.

There was no real chance of getting him as negations wore on, as we had already played our hand.

God knows why. Maybe a similar reason to why we put on te website who we will draft before te event occurs ...

The lunnies are running the nuthouse I tells ya

 :thatsgold
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on October 28, 2015, 05:00:09 PM
do you think, that once, just once, maybe you may address the subject/question rather than twisting it into something else
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Yeahright on October 28, 2015, 05:01:09 PM
David Schwarz on SEN:
Dan, any concerns in the ruck? Ivan isn't getting any younger; I know you've brought Shaun Hampson over from Carlton; Ty Vickery can pinch hit in there. Is that something you will look at in the draft, or in the next year or so, to bolster up that position?

Dan Richardson:
At some stage as Ivan gets a little bit older, it's something we will need to continue to look at. We did bring .... well, we thought Ivan had a terrific year. The only time Ivan does at times struggle is, by his own admission, because he's not the tallest ruckman going around compared to those big opposition. That's the reason why we brought Shaun Hampson in a couple of years ago. Through injury and opportunity [lack of], he hasn't quite delivered what we would like to date. But we still think at 25-26 years of age, that there's still improvement in him and we saw that at times in the middle part of the year; then he got injured towards the latter part of the year. We'll back him in - in terms of profile and the type of ruckman we need - you know getting up a bit higher [in the ruck contest], getting us first use of the footy and getting the ball moving forward. We believe he can be that player. 

https://audioboom.com/boos/3720910-dan-richardson-on-chris-yarran
It's nice when the Footy manager takes 2 to 3 years off your age...... :whistle

1-2 years. If you're going to correct someone make sure you're right.

Im not a mathematician but if you take what he said and take how old Megan will be in round 1 it is indeed three years off ... yet another worryingly bizarre comment from a key member of the richmonds brain-trust 

i like how they are just telling people before trade periods now we are not going to get anyone good, and making up peoples ages  :clapping

Who said anything about next year :huh
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on October 28, 2015, 05:06:04 PM
Alice probably mentioned it to him:shh
Title: No rucking issue for Tigers: Dan Richardson (RFC)
Post by: one-eyed on November 23, 2015, 05:06:33 PM
Dan Richardson, on the 'Talking Tigers' podcast, discussing our ruck stocks ...

VIDEO: http://afl.com.au/video?guid=799682


* We’re well aware there are times when a taller ruckman, who can get his hand up a bit higher and get the ball going our way, is an area, particularly against opposition taller ruckmen, that we need to look at. That’s the reason we brought Shaun Hampson in two years ago.

* Shaun’s had some injury hiccups and we possibly haven’t backed him enough in terms of selections.  But I’m sure we’ll be doing that in 2016. I think he showed signs midway through the year he can be that player. Statistically, in terms of getting first hand on the ball in the ruck contest, he’s as good as any other ruckman out there, even the elite ruckmen in the AFL. Yes, there’s work for him to do around the ground and some other aspects of his game but that’s an area Ivan’s outstanding at. So, if we can get those two to complement each other over the course of the year, a little bit better than perhaps we have over the last 12 months, then we’ve got ruckmen on our list.

* And then we’ve obviously got the likes of Ty and ‘Griff’, and even Liam McBean, who can pinch hit in the ruck too.

Full article: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2015-11-23/no-rucking-issue-for-tigers
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Penelope on November 23, 2015, 05:09:17 PM
OH, so the theory is we get an all round ruckman out of two players?
Title: Re: No rucking issue for Tigers: Dan Richardson (RFC)
Post by: mightytiges on November 23, 2015, 05:34:56 PM
Quote
* Shaun’s had some injury hiccups and we possibly haven’t backed him enough in terms of selections.  But I’m sure we’ll be doing that in 2016. I think he showed signs midway through the year he can be that player. Statistically, in terms of getting first hand on the ball in the ruck contest, he’s as good as any other ruckman out there, even the elite ruckmen in the AFL. Yes, there’s work for him to do around the ground and some other aspects of his game but that’s an area Ivan’s outstanding at. So, if we can get those two to complement each other over the course of the year, a little bit better than perhaps we have over the last 12 months, then we’ve got ruckmen on our list.
:huh3 If only he could tap the ball to a teammate or to their advantage most of the time.

In any case, it's highly unlikely for a 27 year old to vastly improve and correct his poor kicking and marking skills.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Diocletian on November 23, 2015, 05:59:05 PM
Delusion & Denial.....it's as if the club's being run by Big Footy posters....

OH, so the theory is we get an all round ruckman out of two players?

Yes, all hale Ivaun Marichamspud aka Frankenruck...
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: WilliamPowell on November 23, 2015, 06:19:23 PM
I read it

Shrugged my shoulders and shook my head

And under my breath said

Terrific, just terrific TM
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Diocletian on November 23, 2015, 06:28:47 PM
Sheer incompetence if we go into next year with no additions to our ruck or KPD stocks....surely we'll at least rookie another ruck....
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on November 23, 2015, 10:04:01 PM
all hale Ivaun Marichamspud aka Frankenruck...


(http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/YFritz.jpg)
Title: Re: No rucking issue for Tigers: Dan Richardson (RFC)
Post by: the claw on November 23, 2015, 10:26:01 PM
Dan Richardson, on the 'Talking Tigers' podcast, discussing our ruck stocks ...

VIDEO: http://afl.com.au/video?guid=799682


* We’re well aware there are times when a taller ruckman, who can get his hand up a bit higher and get the ball going our way, is an area, particularly against opposition taller ruckmen, that we need to look at. That’s the reason we brought Shaun Hampson in two years ago.

* Shaun’s had some injury hiccups and we possibly haven’t backed him enough in terms of selections.  But I’m sure we’ll be doing that in 2016. I think he showed signs midway through the year he can be that player. Statistically, in terms of getting first hand on the ball in the ruck contest, he’s as good as any other ruckman out there, even the elite ruckmen in the AFL. Yes, there’s work for him to do around the ground and some other aspects of his game but that’s an area Ivan’s outstanding at. So, if we can get those two to complement each other over the course of the year, a little bit better than perhaps we have over the last 12 months, then we’ve got ruckmen on our list.

* And then we’ve obviously got the likes of Ty and ‘Griff’, and even Liam McBean, who can pinch hit in the ruck too.

Full article: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2015-11-23/no-rucking-issue-for-tigers
If you want some comedy and light hearted relief just read a rfc press release.If these blokes are serious about what they are saying then we will never win a premiership. Sad thing is by their actions they believe the bull shiiite they sprout.
Im surprised there are still bright eyed unthinking  little possums out there who lap it all up.
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or key defender
Post by: Stalin on November 25, 2015, 01:49:05 PM
Gach Nyuon

201

(http://www.sportsfan.com.au/Portals/BPS/images/214/214566_18_1.jpg)

 :pray

Jesse Glass-McCasker

 :pray
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Diocletian on November 25, 2015, 03:12:25 PM
Darcy Cameron

Glass-McCasker

Jed Adcock (not really a key defender but would bring experience, skill and composure and good short term cover to the backline.)

Jake Wilson

Ash Close

Gach Nyuon






Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: WilliamPowell on November 25, 2015, 06:18:02 PM
Jed Adcock will be rookies by the Bulldogs
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: YellowandBlackBlood on November 26, 2015, 08:32:33 AM
He'd Adcock will be rookies by the Bulldogs
Obviously on your phone WP! ;D
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Stalin on November 26, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Suckling
Adcock
Murphy
Boyd
Morris

 :o
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Penelope on November 26, 2015, 09:11:39 AM
HTF did you manage to post that bents? if i  quote your post the inbuilt filter has kittens

It clearly has a dirty mind and doesnt like the first two names together.

How did you sweet talk it into letting you post them together?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Smokey on November 26, 2015, 09:28:42 AM
Maybe it just doesn't trust you??   :snidegrin
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Penelope on November 26, 2015, 09:37:59 AM
i was being subtle  :lol

does make you wonder how one person can post but another cant quote that post, though?
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: WilliamPowell on November 26, 2015, 10:07:03 AM
He'd Adcock will be rookies by the Bulldogs
Obviously on your phone WP! ;D

Nope - bloody iPad  :banghead
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Stalin on November 27, 2015, 11:19:39 AM
thank goodness we got a (big) Sudanese kid

(http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/3/b/6/j/9/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.zssh9.png/1404267402380.jpg)

Muslims, aboriginals, Africans phhoaw

#diversity
Title: Re: Is the reason, we are apparently not in for a ruck or Key Back / #RookieDraft
Post by: Stalin on November 27, 2015, 11:48:19 AM
Moore has the athletic attributes to play as a key defender

 :pray