If Griff wasnt available we would have gone:
3: Martin
19: Astbury
35: Ayden Kennedy
43: Dea
51: Taylor
Griff has played more games than Kennedy. 
what rubbish.
we had the option at pick 19 of talls carlisle, black, and griffiths. easily the best 3 talls available at that pick. smalls bastinac fyfe and bartlett were also available.
What's rubbish about it? And lol Griff>Bastinac. 
mate its garbage your trying to tell me we would have taken astbury at 19 if griffiths was not there. i pointed out two kpps who were much much better options than astbury and highly rated, both were touted to go first round. and i pointed out the fact that two potential A grade mids were also available at that pick. if it wasnt going to be griffiths at 19 it most certainly was not going to be astbury i can tell you now.
on bastinac hes done as much as any player from that draft to date and he missed most of last yr with a serious knee injury.
bartlett well he was an outstanding pick brisbane must have been beside themselves getting him where they did. trouble is you need a crystal ball to be able to foresee two knee reconstructions.
black well if possible hes had as much injury as griffiths has, he will be a player. he was a skinny kid unlike griffiths and was going to take a little time anyway.was good against men before getting drafted.
carlisle sheesh hes only played about 15 20 games what is there to not like about him. of the talls mentioned he is the best performed to date.
okay our boy.
griffiths. was a huge risk he only played about 10 games in two yrs before we drafted him he only showed glimpses. and we took him knowing he had serious shoulder probs.
athletically he was the best tall available at pick 19, but performance wise there were others in front of him with no risk.
there was also two potential A grade mids available as well. again we were not going to take astbury at 19.
not against us getting him and not against him. but i did and still do query the risk with such a pick.
with what he showed against hawthorn he will be a player.
i have always said i would have taken one of carlisle or black before him if we were to go tall, both will be players. but my preference was bastinac because i felt he could be elite. there was nothing to prevent us targeting tall areas with picks 35 onwards.
i have never been against griffiths or said he wont make it or had no talent ive always said i prefered those others for the reasons ive given.
just a question we targeted two kpfs in griffiths and astbury yet it seems neither will play as forwards atm. did we fail to address our forward needs or a better way to ask it did we get it wrong or fail to address those forward needs if neither become forwards.
taking todd elton last yr at pick 26 sort of says perhaps the club thinks we did.also with griffiths playing back perhaps astbury will now go to his rightful position at chf when he returns from injury.
anyway heres hoping we have found a big piece to the puzzle weather that be at chb or ff. would still like to see him in the forward line. for me he is a developing player rather than an established player and has a awful lot to prove before i will call him an afl player.
the rest of the yr playing every week weather that be all games at richmond or some time back at coburg is what he needs. his kicking and movement look to be real weapons if he can start clunking his fair share of contested marks and find his fair share of ball on a regular basis we will indeed have a player.
So what I said we would have done is garbage because you personally think it wasn't the right option? lol ok then. Didn't read the rest of the jibberish after the highlighted part. 
lol so what you ask. you dont read peoples posts because your and ignorant nuff nuff i would never be that discouteous to a fellow poster. if you cant read posts dont answer them.
well you talked rubbish astbury before any of those mentioned was not going to happen any fool with half a brain knows it. you only had to loosly folow the kids thru the yr to know that. the fact the lot of em went before astbury says it all.
dont talk rubbish and you wont get pulled up for it. difference between you and me is i know they would not have taken astbury in front of any of those mentioned you only think you know. does any one around here use common sense . did astbury remotely look like he had elite written all over him or even A grader of course he didnt. silly thing is i had him pencilled in at 35 or 44 depending who was available.
ive had people call me an idiot because ive said both astbury and griffiths were taken as key forwrds sheesh griffiths was touted the next plugger and astbury was a pure hit up forward. they were drafted on the back of playing forward and supposedly would address the gaping holes in the forward half.
those same holes that were created by delisting and trading schulz, polak, hughes and pattison. leaving just a steadily improving riewoldt and post.
again if astbury and griffiths are defenders did we fail to address our needs did we assess those players wrong when we drafted them.
today the only key forwards on the list are todd elton first yr. , riewoldt the only truly established up to afl standard tall forward we have., miller who is a hack, post who we no longer know what he is because hes been pulled from pillar to post.
his preseason was geared up as a defender and his one game he played defense. so is post a forward or not? it may all be irrelevant as it seems his papers have been stamped the way hes been treated.
finally and people will insist hes a kpf vickery who to date has had 3 very odinary seasons in 4 . the only saving grace with vickery to date has been 36 goals in a season he looks ordinary in most other aspects of the game to date.
the 09 draft
3 martin/morabito were the only options we were all over martin from get go. im sure if we had the choice between martin scully and trengove we would have taken martin.
19 if not griffiths and we were to go tall it most certainly would have been one of carlisle or black. black was tipped to go at around pick 12 and was probably the most inform tall going into that draft he went so well he broke into peels seniors late in the season and did well. he also tested very well at the draft camp in some critical areas. carlisle was rated along with talia.
griffiths had hardly played a game in two seasons before the draft about 10 i think.
if we went small bastinac would have been the man fyfe was under most peoples radar and bartlett while coming off a knee was regarded as one of the best kids in the country before he did it.
ive heard rubbish like we would not have taken martin if we didnt take griffiths ffs how does that work and ive heard we would have taken astbury in front of a fair few players who quite frankly everyone knew were better credentialled players than astbury. ffs you people cant even get the draft picks right we had pick 35 and that is where we took astbury.
noone is disagreeing with griffiths potential no one is saying he cant play but some of us had others in front of him. every single club overlooked griffiths and there was talk he would last to the 30s because of his shoulder. its the same reason why bartlett slipped with a knee.
its typical richmond supporters though. griffiths has now played one decent game for us . yes he did nothing in his previous 9 apart from a glimpse of his kicking and movement.
while not my choice in the draft i think he will probably turn out to be a good pick but i for one wont be acclaiming him a player until he actually puts the runs on the board with good consistent performances.
