Richmond's 2004-07 drafting ranked 8th (Herald-Sun)

[the claw]

.............but sheesh just on these two yrs  geelong with much later picks have killed us.

Not saying it's your opinion Claw but to the forum in general who keep sprouting the importance of tanking for high picks, I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not the number of pick that you get, it's the effort and nouse you apply to choosing the right player that matters in the end.

as one who has advocated we tank since 05 i agree with what you say. no matter the pick you wont get it right without effort and nouse. but true quality or the elite once in a genaration players go very early.

 with tanking it means a pp usually two picks in the top 4 sometimes  top 6.  ive been okay with tanking in this time frame since 05  because i have firmly believed we have had to prune back very hard and bottom out. i think ive been proven right in this regard.
i believe there is stages in list development where gaining as much quality as possible takes precedence over all else. ask melb about this. as the list develops and grows the pendulum swings but you have to get the cattle in your system first.

look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it  showed a total lack of proper process as well..
so the coming 06 season we were not going to tank unfortunately we finished 9th we had to many wins on the board early and failed to beat top 8 sides. it was at the end of 06 even though we finished 9th that the real culling should have begun. it didnt happen we turn over just 6 players and 2 of those were retirements. we trade out of a top 10 pick still showing no idea about proper process,  history shows even without a cull we would finish last the following season no tanking required.
.
i have no doubt if we had cut deep in 06 and at the end of 07 with a final cleanout at the end of 08  without even thinking about tanking we would have had very low finishes and  our draft picks would have gone something like
07
2, 18, 19,35.
08
2, 4,21, 36.
09
2,4, 20 36.

we all know what 07 should have bought and it brings into play what you say about nouse and effort but we had a late pp it should have given us one of ward selwood or pears. it also showed we had learnt nothing and had no processes in place. so cotchin rance and say pears who was my pick at 19 35 went on morton who i thought we could have got cheaper.

08 would have  delivered any combination of natinui,hill, hartlett  hurley rich  at 2 and 4. with post at 26 and ashley smith.

09 would have yielded trengove and one of martin or morabito. or perhaps one of talia or butcher. 20 would have yielded griffiths perhaps or one of black carlisle  bastinac  bartlett. 36 astbury.

i have to say if we had bottomed out properly which is a big part of tanking if we had cleaned out the list when we should tanking would not have been mentioned it would just have happened.

what good did winning games against almost exclusively bottom 8 sides do us in 05  06 and 08.

for me the tanking issue was not just about  perhaps playing to many younger players or players out of position to ensure less than 5 wins. it was about starting from scratch pruning all deadwood as quickly as possible  ensuring low finishes and at the same time getting a double dip at the elite while we are bottoming out.

[Francois Jackson]

.............but sheesh just on these two yrs  geelong with much later picks have killed us.

Not saying it's your opinion Claw but to the forum in general who keep sprouting the importance of tanking for high picks, I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's not the number of pick that you get, it's the effort and nouse you apply to choosing the right player that matters in the end.

as one who has advocated we tank since 05 i agree with what you say. no matter the pick you wont get it right without effort and nouse. but true quality or the elite once in a genaration players go very early.

 with tanking it means a pp usually two picks in the top 4 sometimes  top 6.  ive been okay with tanking in this time frame since 05  because i have firmly believed we have had to prune back very hard and bottom out. i think ive been proven right in this regard.
i believe there is stages in list development where gaining as much quality as possible takes precedence over all else. ask melb about this. as the list develops and grows the pendulum swings but you have to get the cattle in your system first.

look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it  showed a total lack of proper process as well..
so the coming 06 season we were not going to tank unfortunately we finished 9th we had to many wins on the board early and failed to beat top 8 sides. it was at the end of 06 even though we finished 9th that the real culling should have begun. it didnt happen we turn over just 6 players and 2 of those were retirements. we trade out of a top 10 pick still showing no idea about proper process,  history shows even without a cull we would finish last the following season no tanking required.
.
i have no doubt if we had cut deep in 06 and at the end of 07 with a final cleanout at the end of 08  without even thinking about tanking we would have had very low finishes and  our draft picks would have gone something like
07
2, 18, 19,35.
08
2, 4,21, 36.
09
2,4, 20 36.

we all know what 07 should have bought and it brings into play what you say about nouse and effort but we had a late pp it should have given us one of ward selwood or pears. it also showed we had learnt nothing and had no processes in place. so cotchin rance and say pears who was my pick at 19 35 went on morton who i thought we could have got cheaper.

08 would have  delivered any combination of natinui,hill, hartlett  hurley rich  at 2 and 4. with post at 26 and ashley smith.

09 would have yielded trengove and one of martin or morabito. or perhaps one of talia or butcher. 20 would have yielded griffiths perhaps or one of black carlisle  bastinac  bartlett. 36 astbury.

i have to say if we had bottomed out properly which is a big part of tanking if we had cleaned out the list when we should tanking would not have been mentioned it would just have happened.

what good did winning games against almost exclusively bottom 8 sides do us in 05  06 and 08.

for me the tanking issue was not just about  perhaps playing to many younger players or players out of position to ensure less than 5 wins. it was about starting from scratch pruning all deadwood as quickly as possible  ensuring low finishes and at the same time getting a double dip at the elite while we are bottoming out.

AGREED.

for once id like to see us bottom out for more than 1 year in a row and collect the rewards like the Blues, Eagles and Hawks have done.

I have no doubt the dees will be a force in the next 3 years because they played the game smart

Dimma has done what no coach has done in the last 15 years and thats keep all the draft picks. I hope he has the brains to realize that a finish around 10-14 is a complete waste of time for us this year.

Id rather finish last and show signs of improvement for the year, than finish 10th with a goal after the siren by Mclovin

[jackstar is back again]

i tend to disagree.
You mention blues and eagles , why ??
And if we finish bottom, it doesnt mean we will pick the correct players does it.
Finishing last in 2010 will hurt the club big time.
Keeping in mind in 2 years time we will have extra 2 games interstate .
The players need to believe in their own ability and strive to win as many games as possible.
Our club has been dogged by loser mentality for long enough

[Judge Roughneck]

I do not want to finsh last.

What is the point?

Between Gold Coast & West Shitney where will be few picks left.

The time to tank was 04-09. We should have done it then. No point now.

stuff the 4th best player.

[HKTiger]

........look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it  showed a total lack of proper process as well..

This is the bit I never get with you Claw.  All of you valid observations and criticisms are undone, because you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the club actually acknowledges and gets this point and has made the changes needed to resolve this.

Miller is gone (a point you have belaboured elsewhere).  There was no recruiting budget or process in 2004 and 2005.  It was back of the envelope stuff.  Processes and metrics commenced in 2006 and no earlier.

Craig Cameron assume list control in 2008.  Constantly criticising items before budget, resources and process was in place no longer serves any purpose.  If you have issues with the current process comment on that.  Of this discussion the validity of RFC lying 8th would then appear to come from the 2006 and 07 drafts.  Drafts where a more appropriate process (and metrics)were in place.  The discussion should evolve to:  Are our metrics and processes good enough.  And what measurements would you (should be) in place to validate the process.

[Penelope]

i tend to disagree.
You mention blues and eagles , why ??
And if we finish bottom, it doesnt mean we will pick the correct players does it.
Finishing last in 2010 will hurt the club big time.
Keeping in mind in 2 years time we will have extra 2 games interstate .
The players need to believe in their own ability and strive to win as many games as possible.
Our club has been dogged by loser mentality for long enough

Got to agree with you on this one Jack. It never ceases to amaze me that some people condone their club to deliberately loose, to cheat.

Think back to the Melbourne game where McMahon kicked that goal after the siren. Look at the reaction of the Melbourne players when he marked it. Look at them after the game. They were spent and shattered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbFil3lspL0

What must really hurt these guys though, is knowing that while they were slogging their guts out trying to win, their coach was trying to make them loose.

How much respect could you have for your coach knowing that???

Winning is the only culture I want to see installed in the club, and the confidence that come with it.

[Infamy]

Not sure the point of bottoming out for consecutive years now the priority picks are on hold

[the claw]

i tend to disagree.

And if we finish bottom, it doesnt mean we will pick the correct players does it.

if we have no confidence that we can pick the right players with ordinary picks we are going nowhere anyway. having pps actually makes it easier to get it right. sheesh 08 we get natinui and rich or we forgo these players for some very ordinary wins against strugglers like freo melb  at the time wce essendon.
where did those nothing wins get us.and more importantly to ask what did they cost us.
 by the way in regards ladder position  all those clubs mentioned have shot past us.so winning a few meaningless games finishing mid table has allowed lower finishing clubs to go past.

Finishing last in 2010 will hurt the club big time.

how is this so? no one expects many wins this yr. the club itself has repeatedly said this. improvement is expected but not on the win/ loss front.
 if we are to have a low finish this is the yr to have it. no disappointment no recriminations no spin no hype.
the way i see it unrealistic high expectations has hurt the club big time. 9th to 16 when finals are being unrealistically shouted from the roof tops  has done mega damage.

The players need to believe in their own ability and strive to win as many games as possible.
Our club has been dogged by loser mentality for long enough

its one thing for the players  to believe in their ability its another all together different reality if the players dont actually have enough ability to succeed. make no mistake you need players with enough ability to succeed.
you dont think the club or the players have not striven to win as many games as possible.

hmm loser mentality it may be the case but a bigger problem has been  unrealistic expectation and failure to do what is needed to be done to get the neccesary cattle into our club.

heres a scenario for you. its the last game of the yr we have 4 wins with 2 other sides.  if we win we jump 3 spaces on the ladder. if we lose we know we get pick 4 and a crack at one of scully martin moraboito and tregove who we know are the 4 outstanding juniors in the draft and are a good way in front of the next rated players.i know what i would do and expect the club to do as well. if this scenario occured in a yr where a pp was involved as well you would be ropeable.
at the end of the day its all about who can get their hands on the best players. one or two wins or the best players in the comp there is no contest you work within the system provided to get your hands on the best.

[the claw]

........look given wallace wanted a chance to take the older blokes to finals, 05 a was season we were not going to tank.even so at the end of 05 the decision to use just 3 nd picks was mindblowing. it  showed a total lack of proper process as well..

This is the bit I never get with you Claw.  All of you valid observations and criticisms are undone, because you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the club actually acknowledges and gets this point and has made the changes needed to resolve this.

Miller is gone (a point you have belaboured elsewhere).  There was no recruiting budget or process in 2004 and 2005.  It was back of the envelope stuff.  Processes and metrics commenced in 2006 and no earlier.

Craig Cameron assume list control in 2008.  Constantly criticising items before budget, resources and process was in place no longer serves any purpose.  If you have issues with the current process comment on that.  Of this discussion the validity of RFC lying 8th would then appear to come from the 2006 and 07 drafts.  Drafts where a more appropriate process (and metrics)were in place.  The discussion should evolve to:  Are our metrics and processes good enough.  And what measurements would you (should be) in place to validate the process.

you see this is where we disagree. i dont believe any good processes have been putin place until the arrival of hardwick. wheather we have those processes right are yet to be seen.

[Penelope]

heres a scenario for you. its the last game of the yr we have 4 wins with 2 other sides.  if we win we jump 3 spaces on the ladder. if we lose we know we get pick 4 and a crack at one of scully martin moraboito and tregove who we know are the 4 outstanding juniors in the draft and are a good way in front of the next rated players.i know what i would do and expect the club to do as well. if this scenario occured in a yr where a pp was involved as well you would be ropeable.
at the end of the day its all about who can get their hands on the best players. one or two wins or the best players in the comp there is no contest you work within the system provided to get your hands on the best.

So you would actually sit down and watch the game hoping Richmond would loose?

Here's another hypothetical,
Round 22 and the side we are playing will make the finals if we loose, we are no chance. A wealthy supporter of that club stands to make a lot of money if they make the finals, so he informs RFC that he has a friend who is a Richmond supporter who is willing to donate $2m dollars to the club, as long as they loose the last match. Gee an injection of that sort of money does a lot for a struggling club. would you be happy to accept?

Which clubs that have tanked have actually gained anything from it??

Look at Richmonds finishing position for the last 10 years. (I know we traded away some draft picks, but it's still a good indication of the picks you get and where it leads you to)

1999 12th
2000 9th
2001 3rd
2002 14th
2003 13th
2004 16 th
2005 12th
2006 9th
2007 16th
2008 9th
2009 15th

So since our last finals appearance we have had high draft picks on five occasions, but where has that got us?

Compare that to say , Sydney a side that never seems to drop right off (pricks) and is always too professional, strong and well drilled for us on the field.

1999 8
2000 10
2001 7
2002 11
2003 4
2004 5
2005 1
2006 2
2007 7
2008 6
2009 12

Except for 2001 they finished higher than us so had lower draft picks, but still continue to outperform us, easily.

What is more important than, overall, than the actual picks is how you use those picks and how you develop the players selected. The structure and culture at the club is what will make or break you.

Again lets compare clubs, this time hawthorne

          RFC  HFC
1999 12th  9th
2000 9th    6th
2001 3rd    4th
2002 14th  10th
2003 13th  9th
2004 16 th 15th
2005 12th  14th
2006 9th    11th
2007 16th   6th
2008 9th     1st
2009 15th   9th

Generally over that period they finished higher than us, but not by much. When they did finish lower it was never more than two positions lower, so in terms of access to draft picks Richmond have had a slightly 'better' run overall, yet two years after finishing a mere two spots lower than us in 2006, they were celebrating another premiership win.

You don't need to cheat to be succsessful, you need to have an organisation where everyone works together focussed on one goal. You need to know where you are going and what it takes to get there. This is what Richmond have lacked, not early draft picks

You need hard work and you need that mongrel never say die attitude, something that is not fostered by match fixing.

Deliberately loosing games is not part of the equation. Just as winning is a habit, so is loosing.

[Stripes]

Chicken and egg argument really but you present a pretty compelling argument their al. Seems pretty clear it has been our recruitment (or lack there of), resources and development that has been lacking at Tigerland for decades. We struggle to find good player but even when we do they seem to go to the dogs. To me that says yes we need to keep recruiting well and taking advance of bad years by securing good players but even more importantly, working to teach the new players and indoctrinate them into the sort of culture that promotes success and ultimately a flag.

People may shoot me down for this but I am happy that our older players are gone. For all the onfield worth they brought to the club they carried the disease of failure along with them. They were part of a long era of pain, they had been taught failure, either consciously or subconsciously, from those before them and the instability of the administration and coaches above them. They knew how to survive as individuals but had no idea how to cultivate a ethos that would draw the team around them and demand success at all cost regardless of the pain. They had no idea what it took and no idea how to teach it.

Hardwick has a new team and new club around him. Everything is starting from scratch. He brings with him a group of new coaches that are all aligned and share a joint vision. He leads by his actions and he is unbending in his direction. Hardwick has the backing of those above him and those below him. He is straight forward and uncomplicated which the players understand and respect. He has the basis for success in his hands - the hard part is to keep everyone unified and on the same path regardless of the obstacles and fears that beset us.

At this moment I think I agree with al - we need to work with what we have. We need to develop success in the players that are with us now. Our culture has been our biggest problem and regardless of whether we finish 1st or last it is this culture and player education that should be the zenith of our efforts. Any players we gain from the draft from here on out should be treated as bonuses and to replace those who can not follow the future goals that are set.

Really this is Year 0 and whatever happens from here is built upon the 2010 foundation. I just hope it is sturdy enough to take what is yet to come....

Stripes

[Penelope]

People may shoot me down for this but I am happy that our older players are gone. For all the onfield worth they brought to the club they carried the disease of failure along with them. They were part of a long era of pain, they had been taught failure, either consciously or subconsciously, from those before them and the instability of the administration and coaches above them. They knew how to survive as individuals but had no idea how to cultivate a ethos that would draw the team around them and demand success at all cost regardless of the pain. They had no idea what it took and no idea how to teach it.

Beautifully put stripes.

Oh, as for the chicken and the egg, the egg came first 

[tony_montana]

Eagles would be my No.1. They have made the most of Judd and Cuz leaving and have drafted a number of good kids from recent drafts. They'll probably be back in finals this year. A great effort for a club that won the flag only 4 years ago and played in back-to-back GFs.

On its own our drafting between 2004-07 was ordinary and it was a disgrace we had so few picks in 2005, 07 and 08 for a club that was meant to be rebuilding from scratch. But other clubs didn't do well in that period either which is why we are ranked 8th.

^this^

I'm just gobsmacked that we took so few picks in that time frame