How did we rate Richmond's 2013 recruiting effort?

[YellowandBlackBlood]

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.

I agree. I know he is only 61kg but Richard Bourne has speed and football smarts by the bucket full. Kicks both feet, kicks to advantage and hits players at full speed lace out. Why not rookie him instead and see if we can develop his body as he ticks most other boxes.
I hope Banfield can develop his game to the next level.  If Jacko can do it I guess anyone can if they want it badly enough.

[Gigantor]

Claw how many players in the AFL tick all the boxes?..maybe a dozen tops

[Chuck17]

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

He went through a patch where he slipping over every quarter (probably a slight exaggeration)

[tigs2011]

Claw how many players in the AFL tick all the boxes?..maybe a dozen tops

 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

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

Hardwick gave him chances to prove his worth.  Nahas failed each time.  And yes it was a shocker.

[the claw]

Claw how many players in the AFL tick all the boxes?..maybe a dozen tops

so why not apply some basics like kicking pace and footy smarts. of course most players have weaknesses but  why not insist the basics at the least are okay. for 30 something yrs we have taken so many players who have lacked in basics. we continue to think it seems we can improve players who lack in basics. im here to tell all it rarely happens.

look lets say your looking at an inside mid an extractor. for me things like size, motor, hands, and smarts.  can off set a lack of pace, and maybe poor foot skills did i just say that . they need to be damn good in the former to offset the latter but they are still limited.

quite frankly players like nahas i would not even look at yet alone give em a game.ask yourself what do you need as a sml forward in todays game and nahas lacks in nearly every one of them. he doesnt have a redeeming quality imo. bllody hell a little fella who falls over all the time. a little fella with poor skills. and i have to say it a undersized player who is not overly quick for his type, a little fella who isnt nearly always one touch and clean. imo. im gob smacked we actually took him yet alone hung onto him for as long as we did.

[tigs2011]

Must have been pretty gobsmacked when the little idiot nailed 29 & 34 goals in 2011 & 2012 respectively. 

[wayne]

Brett Anderson ‏@BrettAndersonIF

As per @kristianpisano, ex-Geelong and more recently Carlton recruiter, Luke Williams has joined Richmond. Great get by the Tiges! #AFL

[Tigger]

Must have been pretty gobsmacked when the little stuffer nailed 29 & 34 goals in 2011 & 2012 respectively. 

tigs...please don't let the facts get in the way of a good Clawing....

[the claw]

Must have been pretty gobsmacked when the little stuffer nailed 29 & 34 goals in 2011 & 2012 respectively. 

and yet a club like us with a history of at least keeping players until long service leave kicks in got rid of him.
i keep on telling anyone who will listen any vfl standard sml forward  could kick 20 plus goals a yr.its when hes not getting cheapies over the top that is the problem. ffs that is it im pulling the boots back on. if a skillless hack like robin can get so many games surely i could get one.

[the claw]

on the thread title. lol just one 18 yr old says it all.locked and loaded arre we. sheesh even the reserves supp players are vets.
gonna say it again gf or bust this yr.

[Phil Mrakov]

on the thread title. lol just one 18 yr old says it all.locked and loaded arre we. sheesh even the reserves supp players are vets.
gonna say it again gf or bust this yr.

and what about the year after ?

[tigs2011]

on the thread title. lol just one 18 yr old says it all.locked and loaded arre we. sheesh even the reserves supp players are vets.
gonna say it again gf or bust this yr.

and what about the year after ?

Recruited from the local retirement homes so Spoon or bust the year after. 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

on the thread title. lol just one 18 yr old says it all.locked and loaded arre we. sheesh even the reserves supp players are vets.
gonna say it again gf or bust this yr.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating claw. I just think that the recruiting team decided physically more developed  23 year old players were better choices at 50 and 66 than the 18 year olds that were left. That may be a fair call. We will find out in 10 months time.

[tigs2011]

on the thread title. lol just one 18 yr old says it all.locked and loaded arre we. sheesh even the reserves supp players are vets.
gonna say it again gf or bust this yr.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating claw. I just think that the recruiting team decided physically more developed  23 year old players were better choices at 50 and 66 than the 18 year olds that were left. That may be a fair call. We will find out in 10 months time.

What they decided was Gordon and Lloyd were better players short and LONG term than the 18 year olds left. Are they perfect players? No. Were the 18 year olds left? No. At the end of the day any 18 year old taken late you're waiting until they are 22+ to have an impact at AFL level anyway.

We had kids on our rankings but they were taken earlier. I've said it before, it wasn't a plan to take older players. They took best available on THE CLUBS list rather than anyone here's list, including mine. I wanted Templeton at 50 though I understand why he went rookie. I was surprised he actually went then. And there are a few I'd have preferred as rookies over Banfield and Thomas though I understand they needed to replace White/Tuck straight away not in the future.

Just because Gordon wasn't my preferred choice at 50 doesn't make it a bad pick. And I wanted Lloyd at 66 so that makes me happy.