Grimes was preseason draft. Ready made player.
Am I reading your post the right way, that Grimes taken in the pre-season draft was a ready am player?
We drafted him straight out of the TAC cup as an 18yo (he's now 20) don't think that qualifies as "ready made"
Sorry if I've missed read your posts
Thanks for picking up on that William and being polite about it. It was poorly worded.
What I meant was preseason draft picks are traditionally used on ready made players. So you would have expected a ready made player there.
You could argue we haven't done a great job developing Grimes either considering the nature of his injuries. But that is a fair bit more subjective than the Nason or Webberley picks for example.
Just a note on Reiwoldt and Vickery. They were high draft picks so you would have higher expectations of them and their development.
I get what you mean by traditionally used on ready made players. But it is also used on kid's that are over looked in the draft and its a bit unfair to expect more from Grimes because he was taken in the national draft
I totally agree. Grimes was a good draft pick, especially for preseason draft. Are his injuries bad luck or poor player management?
Outside of our top 4 draft picks, we pretty much had a 0 percent success rate of Hardwick's kids in 2009. Its been three years and three of those havent proven that they are good enough yet. Its an issue. Some supporters want to blame past coaches for everything. It doesn't solve what is happening right under their noses.
na i think most of us are saying you dont judge players on their first 2 or 3 seasons. thats especially true for talls or any player that is very skinny when drafted. plain old common senses and history tells us all they take time not just at richmond but at all clubs. i dont see anyone blaming pat coaches for picks taken since 09 of course the likes of miller and jackson have coppd it because of performances prior to 09.
history also tells us that there is not a great success rate with picks after the 3rd round, again that applies to all clubs. gp look for yourself.
the number of genuine mids taken in 09 10 and 11 is just 5 this is a list management problem not a recruitment problem.i say this because its more likely to be mids who can make an immediate impact in the first two or three seasons. of those mids 3 have been more than good for the amount of time they have been in the system. martin, conca, and ellis.
helbig has been injured and as a latish pick was never expected to get a lot of games was he. arnot at 55 is the other and most realistic people would not be too concerned that he hasnt got a game to date.
itds pretty easy to make blanket statements and criticise its easy to point the finger.
2011 nd picks first yr players what are realistic expectations.
ellis - played every game with decent output thats a big pass imo.
elton - 196cm kpp undersized. a realistic expectation would be he spends at least 2 yrs at coburg lbuilding up his body aand learning to cope against men any game he got this yr or next yr would be more for the experience than him being ready.
arnot - well ive already mentioned him above pick 55 in a compromised draft wtf do people expect.
2010 nd picks
conca - yes hes not heppell but his contribution has been very good for a second yr player.
batchelor - see conca.
helbig. - foe a skinny 3rd round pick he exceeded expectations in his first yr i suppose hes a failure to some because he hasnt played thru injuryu in yr 2 lol.
macdonald - was a risk and it didnt work out. we move on. do we slash our wrists over pick 51.
derickx - a mature recruit at pick 63 imo probably a rookie pick but still 63 is cheap.he dominated at claremont and in the wafl high up finishes in the b&fs he does have a lot of good attributes to play at afl level was well worth taking the punt with such a cheap pick. we may not have got the player but the process we went thru was spot on.
2009
martin - say no more we got this pick right. he has a bit of work to do still though.
griffiths - most argued he was the most talented big man available and should have been a top 5 pick bar his shoulder. he was not my cup of tea as i rated 3 or 4 others higher than him and had concerns about his shoulder. with injury in mind what was a realistic expectation of this bloke. ito put it in perspective a damn lot of talls dont even play a game till their 3rd yr. how we canm call this a good or bad pick is beyond me time will determine that.
astbury - pick 35 in a lot of ways resembles griffiths with injury after yr one he was tracking way in front of schedule. injuries since have stopped his progress in its tracks. do we blame the recruiters for the injuries hes copped, some here would it seems.
dea - basketball background new to the game and imo when considering this hes where he needs to be. realitically hes slightly in front of expectations imo.
big upside still to this kid. personally i hhad a few talls pencilled in at this pick but how anyone can call this pick a failure to this point in time is mindboggling again time will tell.
taylor - was easily the most talented kid left in the draft. 4th rnd pick still the risk with his background was there for all to see. we took the risk and lost. with a 4th rounder it as not a huge gamble. dont have a problem in taking him and the risk on, but i dont think we learned from the mistake and made the same one again that i have a problem with.
webberley - imo we needed talls genuine mids and just bigger bodies and argued about it at the time. but webberley ticked a lot of boxes we talk about processes well we went thru a good one with this bloke. we failed with pick 67 again so many late picks fail at all clubs.
nason - well he fit the kicking mantrsa and little else was a very poor selection imo even with pick 71.
when looking at the whole picture recruiting in 09 10 11 has not been that bad it certainly is way too early to make a call on any of those drafts.
finally i have to reiterate again HARDWICK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR RECRUITING. STOP KIDDING YOUR SELVES.
