Brad Miller [merged]

[Mr Magic]

I don't like this decision but looks like it's going to happen.

Regardless he deserves all fans support.

[mightytiges]

and saving the two rookie salaries to fund the new gym equipment instead (which we need also otherwise the Club wouldn't be asking for supporters to contribute towards it).

I keep hearing this and I really don't understand the logic of these comments. Of course the club is going to ask and so they should. If they don't get enough money then they will no doubt fund the balance. I would expect Collingwood to ask also. Any money you can get funded from elsewhere frees up money for other things. If you as a supporter don't want to contribute then don't, some might quite like the idea of supplying some gym equipment. I have no problem with them asking. Don't ask, don't get.

Not really the point I was making. More emphasizing that IMO using the rookie list for "insurance" is a complete and utter waste of time (and money for that matter) in the long-run when you're 2nd last on the ladder and rebuilding the list. If Jack goes down with injury everything is still supposedly going to be okey dokey because we're going to replace a 78-goal-a-year Coleman medallist with someone who was surplus to a side that finished 12th this year and has no long-term playing future at Richmond either, has never kicked more than 26 goals in a season and has kicked 50 goals less than Jack has in his entire career despite Jack being 6 years younger ???. Hello development clogger! 

Personally I think it's up to the coaches to decide who they should or should not rookie. If they see worth in Miller and Hislop then it's their call. They're the ones with the plan and they can run it any way they like. I am quite sure if they saw no value in Hislop he'd be gone. Hardwick et al seem quite capable of making the hard call. If it doesn't work and he's gone at the end of the year then that is not an indication they have no idea, simply means that something they tried didn't work. Same deal as Roberts, same deal as the Hawks and Peterson.

That shouldn't make them above scrutiny though. It's not as though this "insurance" argument hasn't been fed to supporters before (eg: Howat, Humm, Silvester).

[mightytiges]

Don't min hislop on the rookie list.

At least he is not soft. Would be a very handy max rooke type player for coburg

Our rookie list should be for the development of potential AFL players for Richmond; not VFL players for Coburg  .

hislop is alot younger than miller.

Former high draft pick. Not impossible one day he ends ok afl player

26 Nahas, Robin  33 22yr 11mth 10 Nov 1987 176cm 67kg Oakleigh Chargers Forward 
16 Grigg, Shaun  43 22yr 6mth 19 Apr 1988 190cm 85kg Nth Ballarat Midfield 
42 O'Reilly, Jamie (R)  3 22yr 6mth 28 Apr 1988 184cm 78kg County Down, Ireland Midfield 
27 Hislop, Tom  22 22yr 4mth 7 Jun 1988 185cm 85kg Tassie Mariners Midfield 
46 Webberley, Jeromey  10 22yr 3mth 12 Jul 1988 181cm 74kg Clarence Defender 
19 Connors, Daniel  24 22yr 1mth 22 Sep 1988 184cm 82kg Bendigo Midfield 
10 Edwards, Shane  69 22yr  25 Oct 1988

High draft pick is irrelevant after a few years in the AFL system as we've just found out with Tambling as well as Meyer, Patto, Polo, JON, Cleve, Schulz, Gilmour and Fiora  . Hislop has had 4 years in the AFL system yet played just 22 games averaging 11 possies. He's only played in 3 wins where in each case he was in the bottom 6 for disposals. Hardly stuff to write home about and persevere with. The only thing Sloppy has in common with Grigg, Connors and Edwards is they were drafted in the same year. Webberley has had just one season of AFL yet is already with an average of 15 possies, O'Reilly just two coming from a gaelic background, while Nahas also in his 2nd year was found out this year.

Having a full playing roster where all players are part of the club's future and not back-ups while in rebuild mode > saving 70k

Added the bold bit.

[Penelope]

Not really the point I was making. More emphasizing that IMO using the rookie list for "insurance" is a complete and utter waste of time (and money for that matter) in the long-run when you're 2nd last on the ladder and rebuilding the list. If Jack goes down with injury everything is still supposedly going to be okey dokey because we're going to replace a 78-goal-a-year Coleman medallist with someone who was surplus to a side that finished 12th this year and has no long-term playing future at Richmond either, has never kicked more than 26 goals in a season and has kicked 50 goals less than Jack has in his entire career despite Jack being 6 years younger ???. Hello development clogger! 

Mt, you don't see maintaining structure as being important to development?

What happens if say Jack goes down in early in the season?

Options to provide two tall forwards, and where they stand from what we have seen so far are;

Griffiths; probably the only real option that has shown he can make the forward line function,so far. A second year player who has dodgy shoulders. It was stated that getting Miller means there will be no pressure on Griffiths to come back before he is ready. Even if he was ready from his shoulders point of view, is he ready to take pole position with another youngster in the forward line?

Post, has really only shown glimpses in his two years. Right now it would be hard to argue he has the maturity, nouse, development or work ethic to hold down a KF position, particularily No. 1 spot.

Vickery; a third year tall who still has a long, long way to go. Really seems like a ruckman who can plonk in the goal square on occasions rather than a long term KPF.

Astubry; may be capable, but looks to be groomed as a CHB. At this stage he shows signs he could make that position his own long term. Moving him forward for any period of time would be robbing peter to pay paul.

Browne and Gus; young ruckmen who are still a long way off. The fact they were not tried as a second tall up forward when players like mcguane and thursty were in an attempt to find that structure speaks volumes .

Goo, seems bookmarked for FB, again would be robbing peter to pay paul.

Rance; hasnt looked like cementing his place in the team, let alone a KF position. Cant recall him taking too many overhead marks, let alone a contested one.

Westoff; yeah, someone has actually suggested that he could be tried, a young, raw, stick insect who has not even played a senior coburg game. expecting him to step up and play that role would be reminiscent of Bruce reid in that 12th man tape!

There is much more to developing players than simply throwing them to the wolves. Sometimes you get to a situation where you need a short term fix to stop everything unravelling or to protect those that are not ready. Many people bagged the decision to ask simmonds to go around again, particularly when he pulled the pin mid season, but the question these people probably never even considered is, was gus ready at the start of the season? Sure he probably wasn't as ready as the coaching staff would have liked when he had to step up, but what we saw from him compared to what we saw early in the season suggests to me that that extra 2 months of development at the lower level made the world of difference.

One or two injuries to key big men and we are in for a bucket load of hurt. How long can the coach keep saying, my gameplan /structures do work, just that I dont have the players to execute it properly when the midfield keeps pumping the ball into the forward line for very little return, or even a hint that the return is close to happening?

Just as with so many things in life, you hope for the best, but plan for the worst. To do otherwise would be derelict in your duties.

Miller as a rookie is not about trying to gain a few extra goals in the vain hope of pinching a few extra wins for short term glory.

It is about maintaining structure without having to risk players who are not ready from a physical, mental and development point of view. While it is a short term action, it is one taken with a long term view by a coach that is from all accounts, very intelligent, diligent and meticulous.


 

[wayne]

Mt, you don't see maintaining structure as being important to development?

I see this as very important and have no problem with Miller.

If we have a back-up for Jack and Griff if they are injured, then the gameplan does not need to be altered and allows the team to keep learning the gameplan.

2011 is still a learning year for us.

[Smokey]

Mt, you don't see maintaining structure as being important to development?

...........................

It is about maintaining structure without having to risk players who are not ready from a physical, mental and development point of view. While it is a short term action, it is one taken with a long term view by a coach that is from all accounts, very intelligent, diligent and meticulous.

Spot on Al, very good post.  Having and maintaining structure means all components in the team are learning and developing in each and every game.  Having structure in the forward line is not about Miller winning a Coleman Medal as Jack's replacement - it's about the mids knowing how to deliver into the forward line to our advantage, it's about the small forwards knowing where to position themselves around a key forward playing to team rules, it's about the confidence the kids get in seeing team rules and game plans achieve success.  And if, God forbid, Jack and/or Griffiths go down then we need to plug that hole before we risk much of the learning going down the drain as young heads drop.

[Oiafi]

and saving the two rookie salaries to fund the new gym equipment instead (which we need also otherwise the Club wouldn't be asking for supporters to contribute towards it).

I keep hearing this and I really don't understand the logic of these comments. Of course the club is going to ask and so they should. If they don't get enough money then they will no doubt fund the balance. I would expect Collingwood to ask also. Any money you can get funded from elsewhere frees up money for other things. If you as a supporter don't want to contribute then don't, some might quite like the idea of supplying some gym equipment. I have no problem with them asking. Don't ask, don't get.

Not really the point I was making. More emphasizing that IMO using the rookie list for "insurance" is a complete and utter waste of time (and money for that matter) in the long-run when you're 2nd last on the ladder and rebuilding the list. If Jack goes down with injury everything is still supposedly going to be okey dokey because we're going to replace a 78-goal-a-year Coleman medallist with someone who was surplus to a side that finished 12th this year and has no long-term playing future at Richmond either, has never kicked more than 26 goals in a season and has kicked 50 goals less than Jack has in his entire career despite Jack being 6 years younger ???. Hello development clogger! 

Then you shouldn't bring the money up in your post. Sorry MT, you've received a bit of my frustration over people complaining about being asked to fund gym equipment and using it to imply the club is strapped for cash and mismanaged. I have seen in other posts and on other forums. Personally regard the idea of asking the members if they want to contribute as a good idea and frees up money for something else.

I do understand the point you are making above but it is not what I was addressing. I don't understand the role they have in mind for Miller since it is supposedly a bit different. I'm going to wait and see what transpires but I do agree with the idea of the importance of structure in a young team. Look what happened when Griff went down last year, goals were a hell of a lot harder to come by. Griff kicked what ... 2 goals last year? But having him in the forward line allowed Jack a lot more freedom and he was absolutely on fire during the Griff games. What's better for Jack. Learning to dominate or struggling under a double, triple, quadruple team? 

Personally I think it's up to the coaches to decide who they should or should not rookie. If they see worth in Miller and Hislop then it's their call. They're the ones with the plan and they can run it any way they like. I am quite sure if they saw no value in Hislop he'd be gone. Hardwick et al seem quite capable of making the hard call. If it doesn't work and he's gone at the end of the year then that is not an indication they have no idea, simply means that something they tried didn't work. Same deal as Roberts, same deal as the Hawks and Peterson.

That shouldn't make them above scrutiny though. It's not as though this "insurance" argument hasn't been fed to supporters before (eg: Howat, Humm, Silvester).

No they should be accountable but at the beginning of his 2nd year as coach I think we can wait a little to judge Hardwick. His first year was not bad in my opinion. He definitely should not be held accountable for Howat, Humm, Silvester. That's just silly. (I'm not going to argue the merits of those players since it's off topic and not relevant to this discussion).

[Con65]

Whilst we are looking at Miller...the papers today said that Melbourne were looking at Mitch Thorp.

[Judge Roughneck]

polo patto Jon gilmour Should simply not been taken that high in the draft.

Cleave was not high draft pick

Don't min hislop on the rookie list.

At least he is not soft. Would be a very handy max rooke type player for coburg

Our rookie list should be for the development of potential AFL players for Richmond; not VFL players for Coburg  .

hislop is alot younger than miller.

Former high draft pick. Not impossible one day he ends ok afl player

26 Nahas, Robin  33 22yr 11mth 10 Nov 1987 176cm 67kg Oakleigh Chargers Forward 
16 Grigg, Shaun  43 22yr 6mth 19 Apr 1988 190cm 85kg Nth Ballarat Midfield 
42 O'Reilly, Jamie (R)  3 22yr 6mth 28 Apr 1988 184cm 78kg County Down, Ireland Midfield 
27 Hislop, Tom  22 22yr 4mth 7 Jun 1988 185cm 85kg Tassie Mariners Midfield 
46 Webberley, Jeromey  10 22yr 3mth 12 Jul 1988 181cm 74kg Clarence Defender 
19 Connors, Daniel  24 22yr 1mth 22 Sep 1988 184cm 82kg Bendigo Midfield 
10 Edwards, Shane  69 22yr  25 Oct 1988

High draft pick is irrelevant after a few years in the AFL system as we've just found out with Tambling as well as Meyer, Patto, Polo, JON, Cleve, Schulz, Gilmour and Fiora  . Hislop has had 4 years in the AFL system yet played just 22 games averaging 11 possies. He's only played in 3 wins where in each case he was in the bottom 6 for disposals. Hardly stuff to write home about and persevere with. The only thing Sloppy has in common with Grigg, Connors and Edwards is they were drafted in the same year. Webberley has had just one season of AFL yet is already with an average of 15 possies, O'Reilly just two coming from a gaelic background, while Nahas also in his 2nd year was found out this year.

Having a full playing roster where all players are part of the club's future and not back-ups while in rebuild mode > saving 70k

Added the bold bit.

[Coach]

Whilst we are looking at Miller...the papers today said that Melbourne were looking at Mitch Thorp.

They can have the arrogant yet useless hack

Miller is better than him 

[torch]

Here's Miller training with us...

Lookin foward to seeing him play for the yellow and black 

Looking forward seeing Pia around Tigerland!

[mightytiges]

polo patto Jon gilmour Should simply not been taken that high in the draft.

Cleave was not high draft pick

I agree with the first sentence but they were still taken high. They all didn't live up to their high selection and so were cut. Cleve was pick 24; no that much difference to Hislop who was pick 20 the following year nor Polo (#20 in 2004) and Gilmour (#21 in 2003).

[mightytiges]

Mt, you don't see maintaining structure as being important to development?

Not when it comes at the expense of development with a 27 year old who won't be part of our future line-up playing ahead of a youngster who will. It then becomes only building a gameplan around a short-term structure. Say Griffiths is the one who misses most of next season so Miller plays alongside Jack up forward. What happens this time next year ... does 2011 become a true reflection of where we are at and how far we are away from the better sides when we have a temp. up forward? What if we do win a few more games with Miller in the side than without him .... does our poorer draft position help us long-term? What if Jack goes down in 2012 .... does Miller go around again or do we start from scratch with our structure playing a totally inexperienced young tall who could have had a season of experience in the seniors behind him had we stuck to getting as many games into the cubs as we can?

At this stage in our rebuild it should still be about as much gametime for our cubs as possible. The Club needs to plan and focus on what is best for us in 2013-14 and beyond when our playing list starts hitting its peak; not 2011 playing it one year at a time again as we as a club have a bad habit of doing and making it up as we go along . Add to that Miller has shown no history over his entire career of carrying and leading a forward line for more than a handful of games. Sorry al, IMO it's a waste of time having "back-ups" on our list when we are in full rebuild mode.

What happens if say Jack goes down in early in the season?

We'll struggle but that's going to happen next year anyway as we did this year even with Jack kicking 78 goals. Supporters are just going to have to accept there's more pain to come before we improve. I could also mention the advantages of gaining a priority pick(s) but I have enough posters as it is disagreeing with me over my objection to the recruitment of Miller .

Options to provide two tall forwards, and where they stand from what we have seen so far are;

Griffiths; probably the only real option that has shown he can make the forward line function,so far. A second year player who has dodgy shoulders. It was stated that getting Miller means there will be no pressure on Griffiths to come back before he is ready. Even if he was ready from his shoulders point of view, is he ready to take pole position with another youngster in the forward line?

Post, has really only shown glimpses in his two years. Right now it would be hard to argue he has the maturity, nouse, development or work ethic to hold down a KF position, particularily No. 1 spot.

Vickery; a third year tall who still has a long, long way to go. Really seems like a ruckman who can plonk in the goal square on occasions rather than a long term KPF.

Astubry; may be capable, but looks to be groomed as a CHB. At this stage he shows signs he could make that position his own long term. Moving him forward for any period of time would be robbing peter to pay paul.

Browne and Gus; young ruckmen who are still a long way off. The fact they were not tried as a second tall up forward when players like mcguane and thursty were in an attempt to find that structure speaks volumes .

Goo, seems bookmarked for FB, again would be robbing peter to pay paul.

Rance; hasnt looked like cementing his place in the team, let alone a KF position. Cant recall him taking too many overhead marks, let alone a contested one.

Westoff; yeah, someone has actually suggested that he could be tried, a young, raw, stick insect who has not even played a senior coburg game. expecting him to step up and play that role would be reminiscent of Bruce reid in that 12th man tape!

All fair and reasonable points about each tall al but since we are talking about hypothetical situations what happens if both Jack and Miller go down? We'll be forced to make do with what we've got anyway.

Recall this time last year when Richo announced his retirement, we (as in all of us here) questioned and debated where our goals were going to come from 2010. It was no certainty we could rely on Jack. Some here who shall remain nameless with the initial "R"   even wanted to trade him  . In the end Jack stepped up in his 4th year and won a Coleman medal when he was handed the responsibility of No.1 key forward and in return the Club knows it has a top footballer on its hands. Imagine instead if we had Miller on the rookie list this year as insurance because we felt Jack and the rest of the talls weren't ready. Miller would've been in the way of Jack's development. Eventually the youngsters need to play and be given the responsibility especially those in their 3rd/4th years so we can determine if they are up to it or not.

There is much more to developing players than simply throwing them to the wolves. Sometimes you get to a situation where you need a short term fix to stop everything unravelling or to protect those that are not ready. Many people bagged the decision to ask simmonds to go around again, particularly when he pulled the pin mid season, but the question these people probably never even considered is, was gus ready at the start of the season? Sure he probably wasn't as ready as the coaching staff would have liked when he had to step up, but what we saw from him compared to what we saw early in the season suggests to me that that extra 2 months of development at the lower level made the world of difference.

I would say Simmonds in 2010 supports my point. Playing him in those 6 games made little difference to our structure as we were totally uncompetitive in every match early on and got flogged in the ruck anyway. Fortunately for the team's sake Simmo did retire so Gus and co. could play most of the rest of the season. If Simmonds' crook knee was still adequate for him to play out the season we wouldn't have the clearer picture we have now of where our 3 rucks are at. Postie wouldn't have played as 2nd ruck either so we'd be in the dark about how well that would work as well.

I'm not expecting miracles from our youngsters but I do expect the cubs to get gametime preference over those who aren't part of our future. Especially those coming into their 3rd/4th seasons who need to start showing they can play at AFL level.

One or two injuries to key big men and we are in for a bucket load of hurt. How long can the coach keep saying, my gameplan /structures do work, just that I dont have the players to execute it properly when the midfield keeps pumping the ball into the forward line for very little return, or even a hint that the return is close to happening?

Just as with so many things in life, you hope for the best, but plan for the worst. To do otherwise would be derelict in your duties.

Miller as a rookie is not about trying to gain a few extra goals in the vain hope of pinching a few extra wins for short term glory.

It is about maintaining structure without having to risk players who are not ready from a physical, mental and development point of view. While it is a short term action, it is one taken with a long term view by a coach that is from all accounts, very intelligent, diligent and meticulous.

We'll have to agree to disagree al. As I said if Jack and Miller himself go down then we'll still be in for a bucket load of hurt. I won't be blaming Hardwick if we struggle next year as I expect we will struggle anyway even if Jack stays healthy. Footy is a team sport of 22 players. One player doesn't solve structural issues especially with our forward line absent of any quality and classy HFs and dangerous small forwards, our defence lacking quality and sizable key talls and our midfield lacking quality mature rucks, outside run at ground level and depth. We are still like Swiss cheese structurally across the park.

[Stripes]

You know I usually agree with you MT but I feel the Miller trade will be benefical to our club. I understand your argument and in any other year I would problem be arguing along side with you but this year circumstances are markedly different.  

Yes al's argument of recruiting Miller for structural insurance seems perfectly sound to me. You mentioned that we should give out young forwards the opportunity to stand up when a 'hole' is created such as what happened with Jack when Richo retired. The problem with this theory is that you are assuming that for every young player that is exposed early to this type of pressure/attention/responsibility it is benefical. The reality of this scenerion though is that it is often harmful. Young players can injuried, lose their confidence, learn negative habits etc all from being exposed to situations such as these too early. Jack was a fouth year player with confidence to burn so the risk of giving him the responsibility of our leading forward was always minimal at best. Having Miller there to allow our young players the time to learn the structures, developed their bodies and slowly absord the pressure and responsibility of the position is extremely important.

It is extremely important to give Jack, Griff  and the other smaller forwards time together to learn how each other plays and what structures works best but if injury or form warrants it having a ready-made forward to step in for a few weeks is much better than throwing in a young forward before they are ready where you could not only damage their future but also disrupt the education of rest of the team when they throw out the game plan/structure they are all still attempting to learn.

Another even more important factor is Miller's role as an educator. One of the biggest influences on the recuiters was Millers ability to assist in the development of the young forwards and players in general. From all reports he is a ready made coach and has a huge amount of leadership and understanding of the game. Miller will spend much of his time training with the squad and playing with the younger draftees down at Coburg where he can fast track them as players and, most importantly, instill the team first culture that Hardwick believes is most important to future premiership success.

Lastly the greatest reason to bring Miller to the club is through necessity. This draft tails off far earlier than other drafts due to the consessions made to the GC. While there is still good players to be found in the early rounds the later rounds thin out dramatically. Miller is effectively taking the place of Pick 214 (145 ND picks plus 7 PSD Picks plus our Rookie pick 62). We will still be using first 4 rounds of the rookie draft to choose speculative/project players but can you really see at rookie taken at round 5, in additional to all the talent GC has already pillaged from the draft pool, worth the money and time we would invest in them. Miller will require no development time and infact will give us additional scope to invest other young players.

Presented with the situation we have been this year, I think taking Miller is a clever move. We'll have to agree to diagree on this one MT.  

Stripes

[Judge Roughneck]

If miller is such a great teacher why have melbourne let him go whb the like of jurrah and watts are still so young?