Matt Dea [merged]

[Dice]

Dea has had 8 games too many
Has no idea at AFL level and can't get a kick
Enough is enough
At least guys like Webberley can get a kick
Dea can't

No worries Jack 

[Loui Tufga]

Dea has had 8 games too many
Has no idea at AFL level and can't get a kick
Enough is enough
At least guys like Webberley can get a kick
Dea can't

No worries Jack 

 

[Go Richo 12]

All first rounders, WP. Not sticking you're neck out too much there. And everyone loved Riewoldt and Conca from the start

Bring back Gourdis

"Loved Conca fromt he start" you are kidding coach. A lot on here had major concerns about young Reece

Ditto poor Jack, after he won the Coleman was when alot jumped on board

And BTW does this "gotta give time to develop, gotta give them more games" apply to every player?

Example: How many games did Nason play? Was he given enough time? How many games do you give them? Less than 20, more than 20? what is the criteria

Now before people start a "whacking" I am simply asking the question. People are saying after 8 games Dea hasn't been given enough time, Nason played less than 25 was he given enough time?

The only thing with the Nason analogy, WP, is that he was drafted as a mature age player. I guess, physically at least, he had developed.
Having said that i agree that some players seem to get longer to develop than others. What is the criteria for the amount of time allowed to develop? It must be different for each individual and i think this is what you are saying!?

[Coach]

All first rounders, WP. Not sticking you're neck out too much there. And everyone loved Riewoldt and Conca from the start

Bring back Gourdis

"Loved Conca fromt he start" you are kidding coach. A lot on here had major concerns about young Reece

Ditto poor Jack, after he won the Coleman was when alot jumped on board

And BTW does this "gotta give time to develop, gotta give them more games" apply to every player?

Example: How many games did Nason play? Was he given enough time? How many games do you give them? Less than 20, more than 20? what is the criteria

Now before people start a "whacking" I am simply asking the question. People are saying after 8 games Dea hasn't been given enough time, Nason played less than 25 was he given enough time?

Ah, forgot I was on OER for a minute. I think most Richmond fans were on the Concatruck from the start. Back when I posted on Y&B Riewoldt was one of the more popular players. Everyone called for him to get more games in 07 and 08. Not sure what was being said about him here in those years, but surely he had a lot of support still? Just because a couple whack players 20 times a week doesn't mean they're not popular with most supporters.

Nason was given too many. He's a SANFL player at best, IMO. Debuted at 21, didn't he? You expect draftees of that age to be able to come in and contribute. Nason played some decent games but that was it. Only cost us pick 68 though so it doesn't really matter.

Dea is still young and needs more time. Dunno if he will make it, have doubts. Shows some good signs but really needs to clean up his disposal and decision making. We'll know more by the end of 2013

[Coach]

The Dice Man loves a kid with heart like Dea.

[Dubstep Dookie]

How many goals did Shuey kick? They ended up moving him at one stage to get away from the beast.

Who were his other opponents?

Played on Hill
Hill kicked 3 goals
Hams first goal was a result of a head high tackle from Dea

  Lawl you really have no idea

Stop embarrassing yourself

[Dubstep Dookie]

The Dice Man loves a kid with heart like Dea.

The Dice Man loves rolling a lucky 7. It's his fav number

[gerkin greg]

All first rounders, WP. Not sticking you're neck out too much there. And everyone loved Riewoldt and Conca from the start

Bring back Gourdis

"Loved Conca fromt he start" you are kidding coach. A lot on here had major concerns about young Reece

Ditto poor Jack, after he won the Coleman was when alot jumped on board

And BTW does this "gotta give time to develop, gotta give them more games" apply to every player?

Example: How many games did Nason play? Was he given enough time? How many games do you give them? Less than 20, more than 20? what is the criteria

Now before people start a "whacking" I am simply asking the question. People are saying after 8 games Dea hasn't been given enough time, Nason played less than 25 was he given enough time?

The only thing with the Nason analogy, WP, is that he was drafted as a mature age player. I guess, physically at least, he had developed.
Having said that i agree that some players seem to get longer to develop than others. What is the criteria for the amount of time allowed to develop? It must be different for each individual and i think this is what you are saying!?

Has to be different for every player, but you'd think it'd be more than 8 

Thing with Dea is he's a project player from a basketball background. Whether we should be drafting projects from other sports is entirely another debate, but he's here now.

He's gone from spudding it up with 2 touches a game at VFL level to being able to compete to being named in the bests. Clear progression and development. After how many games at that level?

He still can't get a kick at AFL level, but defensively he did his job. Let's see if his game grows like it has the level down with some more time, development and confidence. You say he looks lost, he trains with RFC, plays with Coburg. Will take some games to settle. Probably don't need to give him 6+ years like some though....

Only at RFC does an 8 gamer generate such debate 

[Go Richo 12]

All first rounders, WP. Not sticking you're neck out too much there. And everyone loved Riewoldt and Conca from the start

Bring back Gourdis

"Loved Conca fromt he start" you are kidding coach. A lot on here had major concerns about young Reece

Ditto poor Jack, after he won the Coleman was when alot jumped on board

And BTW does this "gotta give time to develop, gotta give them more games" apply to every player?

Example: How many games did Nason play? Was he given enough time? How many games do you give them? Less than 20, more than 20? what is the criteria

Now before people start a "whacking" I am simply asking the question. People are saying after 8 games Dea hasn't been given enough time, Nason played less than 25 was he given enough time?

The only thing with the Nason analogy, WP, is that he was drafted as a mature age player. I guess, physically at least, he had developed.
Having said that i agree that some players seem to get longer to develop than others. What is the criteria for the amount of time allowed to develop? It must be different for each individual and i think this is what you are saying!?

Has to be different for every player, but you'd think it'd be more than 8 

Thing with Dea is he's a project player from a basketball background. Whether we should be drafting projects from other sports is entirely another debate, but he's here now.

He's gone from spudding it up with 2 touches a game at VFL level to being able to compete to being named in the bests. Clear progression and development. After how many games at that level?

He still can't get a kick at AFL level, but defensively he did his job. Let's see if his game grows like it has the level down with some more time, development and confidence. You say he looks lost, he trains with RFC, plays with Coburg. Will take some games to settle. Probably don't need to give him 6+ years like some though....

Only at RFC does an 8 gamer generate such debate 

Every club has these types of players on their list. I don't troll through opposition forums, i wonder they carry on as much as we do?
Me personally, i seen him do something yesterday that many before him in the previous 30 years have failed to do and that is show courage and bleed for the club when not impacting the stats sheets heavily. I am not saying that others haven't done what he has but at least he shown he is not willing to accept an easy paycheck.
Good for him regardless of how much talent he has.

[WilliamPowell]

Having said that i agree that some players seem to get longer to develop than others. What is the criteria for the amount of time allowed to develop? It must be different for each individual and i think this is what you are saying!?

Yep that's what I am saying. There seems to be different rules for different blokes? Why?

When it's all said and done it comes down to how much time do you give them? Do you base it on years on the list? Number of games? Anything else?

I used Nason because I knew someone would say he was picked as mature aged player but it still highlights the massive gap between 2nd tier and the AFL.  Seems to be you come from the under age comps yuo'll be given more time and that's fair enough but agqain how long do you give them and what do they have to show in that time.

Another good example is JON - he played a handful a games (less than 20) but most people thought early on that he wasn't going to make it, so people called for him to be de-listed. Why are people not allowed to raise the same questions about Dea? What's the difference? 

[Coach]

Difference is Dea is improving. He has also been playing footy for a short amount of time

[Dubstep Dookie]

Dea has had 8 games too many
Has no idea at AFL level and can't get a kick
Enough is enough
At least guys like Webberley can get a kick
Dea can't

No worries Jack 

 

Lawl

Do you think Jack-star has an agenda against Dea because the club recognizes the qualities in Dea that Jack-star knows he himself doesn't have? Commitment, courage, integrity, the ability to self-reason?

[Penelope]

 

[Willy]

Good point Gerks and Davey are making about showing improvement. It was pretty obvious that JON was a spud early on.  Rancey has shown that decision making and disposal can be improved with hard work. At the very least Dea has size, athleticism and courage. not bad building blocks.

[Jackstar is back again]

Difference is Dea is improving. He has also been playing footy for a short amount of time

You would have to be joking
he doesnt kick the ball. How many kickless games has he had ?