How did we rate Richmond's 2013 recruiting effort?

[RollsRoyce]

I voted wrapped, i am sure it is spelt rapt though !!

Yes it is, as in "rapture".  By the way WP, I don't know why you're not keen on Banfield. Looking at his highlights reel he seems to have the blistering pace we lost with Matty White's defection, a preparedness to tackle and harass, and a happy knack for kicking goals, which his stats bear out. The only question mark seems to be the possible extent of the injury that bogged him down this year, otherwise you'd have to wonder why the Lions delisted him. Personality clash with Voss maybe??

[WilliamPowell]

By the way WP, I don't know why you're not keen on Banfield. Looking at his highlights reel he seems to have the blistering pace we lost with Matty White's defection, a preparedness to tackle and harass, and a happy knack for kicking goals, which his stats bear out. The only question mark seems to be the possible extent of the injury that bogged him down this year, otherwise you'd have to wonder why the Lions delisted him. Personality clash with Voss maybe??

RR, agree with your comments about his "highlight" reel, he looks good but I also reckon he's a bit of "floater" during games = floats in and floats out of games . Reason I am not sold on Banfield isn't just becuase he didn't play at all this season. You raise the possibility of a personality clash with Voss, my thinking was could it be because he had hit the "there's no more improvment in him" and others had gone ahead of him?

Also, depsite being de-listed the Lions were comitted to taking him as a rookie, so that sugggest to me that the Lions viewed him like we do as being a back-up player, ready for senior footy. Also, would have liked us to take a kid or an untried mature aged player. I've always thought that with the rookie draft you should try your luck on at least one selection 

But as I said nothing ventured, nothing gained. I wish him and all our new recruits the best 

[RollsRoyce]

Perhaps, as you say WP, the Lions were going to rookie him, we beat them to it, and they were peeved (though not devastated) at losing him. Who knows? I must admit though, that as an unashamedly one-eyed Tiger supporter most of the "fringe" opposition players are a mystery to me. I know their names and not much else. So if as you say he's a floater who drifts in and out of games I will concede that unlike me, you have watched and assessed him in a "live" situation. Looks promising to me though IF he can re-capture his form. 

[mat073]

The highlights reel can be a little deceptive....only have to look at the Matt White video on the Port website. On that video Matty looks like Chris Judd in his Brownlow year .

[Eat_em_Alive]

The highlights reel can be a little deceptive....only have to look at the Matt White video on the Port website. On that video Matty looks like Chris Judd in his Brownlow year .

 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

The highlights reel can be a little deceptive....only have to look at the Matt White video on the Port website. On that video Matty looks like Chris Judd in his Brownlow year .

[1965]

The highlights reel can be a little deceptive....only have to look at the Matt White video on the Port website. On that video Matty looks like Chris Judd in his Brownlow year .

Just had a look at this. Hope he does well.

 

[Smokey]

RR, agree with your comments about his "highlight" reel, he looks good but I also reckon he's a bit of "floater" during games = floats in and floats out of games

The same could be said for most players of that type - the nippy, flashy, small forward.  Even Betts and Milne tend to do this more often than not and only occasionally dominate or stay involved  for 4 quarters.  Not that I have a problem with that as long as said forward is maintaining defensive pressure and sticking to the game plan then a couple of goals each week on average should be a reasonable output.

[blaisee]

By the way WP, I don't know why you're not keen on Banfield. Looking at his highlights reel he seems to have the blistering pace we lost with Matty White's defection, a preparedness to tackle and harass, and a happy knack for kicking goals, which his stats bear out. The only question mark seems to be the possible extent of the injury that bogged him down this year, otherwise you'd have to wonder why the Lions delisted him. Personality clash with Voss maybe??

RR, agree with your comments about his "highlight" reel, he looks good but I also reckon he's a bit of "floater" during games = floats in and floats out of games . Reason I am not sold on Banfield isn't just becuase he didn't play at all this season. You raise the possibility of a personality clash with Voss, my thinking was could it be because he had hit the "there's no more improvment in him" and others had gone ahead of him?

Also, depsite being de-listed the Lions were comitted to taking him as a rookie, so that sugggest to me that the Lions viewed him like we do as being a back-up player, ready for senior footy. Also, would have liked us to take a kid or an untried mature aged player. I've always thought that with the rookie draft you should try your luck on at least one selection 

But as I said nothing ventured, nothing gained. I wish him and all our new recruits the best 

The lions didn't want him , they sacked him with a year to go on his contract.
They would only have take Him as a rookie because they are paying his wage anyway.

For some reason they wanted to see the back if him , must be a very frustrating talent

[the claw]

By the way WP, I don't know why you're not keen on Banfield. Looking at his highlights reel he seems to have the blistering pace we lost with Matty White's defection, a preparedness to tackle and harass, and a happy knack for kicking goals, which his stats bear out. The only question mark seems to be the possible extent of the injury that bogged him down this year, otherwise you'd have to wonder why the Lions delisted him. Personality clash with Voss maybe??

RR, agree with your comments about his "highlight" reel, he looks good but I also reckon he's a bit of "floater" during games = floats in and floats out of games . Reason I am not sold on Banfield isn't just becuase he didn't play at all this season. You raise the possibility of a personality clash with Voss, my thinking was could it be because he had hit the "there's no more improvment in him" and others had gone ahead of him?

Also, depsite being de-listed the Lions were comitted to taking him as a rookie, so that sugggest to me that the Lions viewed him like we do as being a back-up player, ready for senior footy. Also, would have liked us to take a kid or an untried mature aged player. I've always thought that with the rookie draft you should try your luck on at least one selection 

But as I said nothing ventured, nothing gained. I wish him and all our new recruits the best 

The lions didn't want him , they sacked him with a year to go on his contract.
They would only have take Him as a rookie because they are paying his wage anyway.

For some reason they wanted to see the back if him , must be a very frustrating talent

yep they wanted him out.

i dont get it so he looks great on highlight reels but if we take time to look at highlight reels why dont we dig a bit deeper.

imean to say hes been at brisbane for 5 yrs people have had ample opportunity to have a good look at him.

what i dislike is hes another in a long list of players we have taken who have poor footskills.
hes supposedly a sml forward but he goes at just on 1 goal a game.  i could kick ave that at afl level. he regularly goes missing in games and he just doesnt find much ball.
im not sure he even uses his pace well in a defensive role. in many ways hes a worse performed clone of matt white and believe me matt white was always a player we had to find better than,

what is even more perplexing is we took a shedload of sml/med forwards so why continue on with another one who has such glaring weaknesses and such a poor performance record.
bloody hell we had other areas of real need we should have been trying to address and at the least take a punt on.
there is no logic to this selection.
you know at least with a matt thomas type he addresses a real need. what  with tuck retireing  we did need a big bodied inside mid we chose thomas who at the least  has come of a good yr in a state league and fills the need.

[Danog]

By the way WP, I don't know why you're not keen on Banfield. Looking at his highlights reel he seems to have the blistering pace we lost with Matty White's defection, a preparedness to tackle and harass, and a happy knack for kicking goals, which his stats bear out. The only question mark seems to be the possible extent of the injury that bogged him down this year, otherwise you'd have to wonder why the Lions delisted him. Personality clash with Voss maybe??

RR, agree with your comments about his "highlight" reel, he looks good but I also reckon he's a bit of "floater" during games = floats in and floats out of games . Reason I am not sold on Banfield isn't just becuase he didn't play at all this season. You raise the possibility of a personality clash with Voss, my thinking was could it be because he had hit the "there's no more improvment in him" and others had gone ahead of him?

Also, depsite being de-listed the Lions were comitted to taking him as a rookie, so that sugggest to me that the Lions viewed him like we do as being a back-up player, ready for senior footy. Also, would have liked us to take a kid or an untried mature aged player. I've always thought that with the rookie draft you should try your luck on at least one selection 

But as I said nothing ventured, nothing gained. I wish him and all our new recruits the best 

The lions didn't want him , they sacked him with a year to go on his contract.
They would only have take Him as a rookie because they are paying his wage anyway.

For some reason they wanted to see the back if him , must be a very frustrating talent

hes supposedly a sml forward but he goes at just on 1 goal a game.  i could kick ave that at afl level.

 

[Hard Roar Tiger]

I just wonder why de-list Nahas and pick up Banfield, better the Tiger you know than the Lion you dont

[YellowandBlackBlood]

I just wonder why de-list Nahas and pick up Banfield, better the Tiger you know than the Lion you dont

Maybe Banfield has a left foot and doesn't slip on perfect surfaces......

[Gigantor]

Y&B are you refering to one particular incident when Robbie went A over T this past season on the G?....It was an absolute shocker

[the claw]

I just wonder why de-list Nahas and pick up Banfield, better the Tiger you know than the Lion you dont

because nahas was never good enough and had to go. isnt the whole idea about attempting to find players with enough good attributes to make the grade. you should be asking why banfield to replace him a player with just as many weaknesses and probably worse performed.

why are we continually taking players  and also hanging onto players who only tick say half the boxes they should.
clearly banfield was taken to replace white. but why a quick player with such a poor performance record and shoddy skills for the type he is. its simple if they cant tick fundamental boxes dont take em at all.