Author Topic: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe  (Read 28423 times)

Offline Tiger Khosh

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4461
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #90 on: March 26, 2024, 01:11:36 AM »
Our midfield through the dynasty years consisted off the top of my head of cotch, dusty, Prestia, edwards, Grigg, lambert, Bolton.

Now I’m not going to bother looking up all of their individual heights or what the avg afl midfielders height is but just based on the eye test, I’d say only Grigg would be classified as a tall midfielder out of that lot. cotch & dusty you’d say are avg (dusty maybe slightly above) and the rest you’d think would have to be classified as short.

If you’re moreso looking for the bulky types, again all these guys had years in the system before they put on their muscle mass. You could say lambo (mature age pickup) and dusty maybe had some mass to them when they were drafted but everyone else was just a scrawny little kid or traded from other sides having already spent years in the system.

Then on the opposite side, you could reel off plenty of names who we traded in to satisfy that profile who failed in that role and were either moved elsewhere or delisted.
- RCD: delisted, hasn’t played an afl game since.
- Matt Thomas: delisted, hasn’t played an afl game since.
- Towner: didnt work as a mid, moved to the forward line and won a flag.
- Caddy: didn’t work as a mid, moved to the forward line and wing and won a couple of flags.
- Martyn: didn’t work as a mid (although I don’t think he got too many games), delisted and hasn’t played an afl game since.
- Graham: didn’t work as a mid, moved to half forward line, won 3 flags.
- Ross: seems to have been thrown into the midfield now but for the most part has been played off the wing.

Just draft midfielders who can find the ball and use it well, again who gives a toss how tall they are or how much they can bench.

Offline Andyy

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9972
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #91 on: March 26, 2024, 11:56:17 AM »
Good points TK, although I submit that our goal should be to find big mids who actually win the ball rather than big mids that don't or small mids that do.

RCD was a bust but not a bad attempt at filling a need IMO.

Matt Thomas was a Moneyball flop.
Towner also but had some success.
Caddy more than Towner.
Martyn sucked.
Graham not a big mid but not bad given he was pick 53 or so.
Ross is the one that I think hasn't been developed appropriately.

Offline Simonator

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2888
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #92 on: March 26, 2024, 11:58:34 AM »
Kane is a pick 40. Yes players will slip from time to time but imo just get the best midfielder available regardless of stature. You look at the best mids in the comp by team and they are littered with top 10 picks.. so what do we need to do?

Offline the claw

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4259
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #93 on: March 26, 2024, 06:18:30 PM »
 :bow
another year of  ONLY MY OPINION MATTERS, if you don’t agree with me , you will be receiving  capitals in response , LOL

Lol i have never said only my opinion matters. But boy if i think im right im going to defend that opinion. Last time i looked we are having a debate and to debate there has to be differing opinions.
I see your derogatory reply must mean you dont actually have a counter to what has been said.

My opinion is and has been for a long while now we do not draft enough Big mids or talls. You dont agree because you don't like to hear it but its a fact. that imo  is pretty well backed by the bleeding obvious.

We had no choice but go and trade for Taranto and Hopper because we just did not address in any large degree the need.

I suppose when most other clubs take a punt on  these types they are wrong, nope the RFC is right taking punts  runts because there just isnt any good bigger mids left after the first round.If you can't see we have been negligent in this then whats the point most kids could see it.

I suppose there wasn't any better options than Higgins at 17 in 2017. lol Even when we have good picks we ignore the most pressing needs.

2018 we took two good sized mids  RCD and Ross then proceeded to load up with 5 runts but hey they were best available and we didn't have any. ffs give me a break.

Then we   Rookied Towner who should have been delisted only to let him go the following year, geez how often have we done that,  and we also  rookied Weller hardly a big mid and an outright mistake. Yep there wasnt any other decent  types worth giving a go to.

It reads similar right up to now. And im not going to go thru every draft just because your feeling a bit precious.

I can't believe you think it good list management when all we can draft is basically RCD and McAuliffe two  big mids in 7 drafts. Yeah there is Martyn and Ross you can hardly call them mids after all we developed them on a wing and hbf.
Lol thats it thats all we have done but hey its okay to keep picking runts willy nilly everywhere because clearly they are best available  ::)

Nope right throughout there just was not any  better types worth taking other  than the  skinny deficient project  flankers and small runts we did draft.

We will never ever know if good talls or good bigger sized mids are any good because we generally dont even look. That is borne out by our drafting.


Offline mat073

  • Perth's biggest tiger tragic.
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4802
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #94 on: March 27, 2024, 01:46:34 PM »
Tony Greenberg might not be the most balanced source but he said on Talking Tigers that he hasn’t been this excited for a debut since Cotch and Dusty .
Unleash the tornado

Offline MintOnLamb

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3744
  • You have to think anyway, so why not think big? DT
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #95 on: March 27, 2024, 07:04:09 PM »
:bow
another year of  ONLY MY OPINION MATTERS, if you don’t agree with me , you will be receiving  capitals in response , LOL

Lol i have never said only my opinion matters. But boy if i think im right im going to defend that opinion. Last time i looked we are having a debate and to debate there has to be differing opinions.
I see your derogatory reply must mean you dont actually have a counter to what has been said.

My opinion is and has been for a long while now we do not draft enough Big mids or talls. You dont agree because you don't like to hear it but its a fact. that imo  is pretty well backed by the bleeding obvious.

We had no choice but go and trade for Taranto and Hopper because we just did not address in any large degree the need.

I suppose when most other clubs take a punt on  these types they are wrong, nope the RFC is right taking punts  runts because there just isnt any good bigger mids left after the first round.If you can't see we have been negligent in this then whats the point most kids could see it.

I suppose there wasn't any better options than Higgins at 17 in 2017. lol Even when we have good picks we ignore the most pressing needs.

2018 we took two good sized mids  RCD and Ross then proceeded to load up with 5 runts but hey they were best available and we didn't have any. ffs give me a break.

Then we   Rookied Towner who should have been delisted only to let him go the following year, geez how often have we done that,  and we also  rookied Weller hardly a big mid and an outright mistake. Yep there wasnt any other decent  types worth giving a go to.

It reads similar right up to now. And im not going to go thru every draft just because your feeling a bit precious.

I can't believe you think it good list management when all we can draft is basically RCD and McAuliffe two  big mids in 7 drafts. Yeah there is Martyn and Ross you can hardly call them mids after all we developed them on a wing and hbf.
Lol thats it thats all we have done but hey its okay to keep picking runts willy nilly everywhere because clearly they are best available  ::)

Nope right throughout there just was not any  better types worth taking other  than the  skinny deficient project  flankers and small runts we did draft.

We will never ever know if good talls or good bigger sized mids are any good because we generally dont even look. That is borne out by our drafting.
Minimum weight for a draftee midfielder should be 80 kg, plus fast, and preferably 6’ tall

Offline camboon

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #96 on: March 27, 2024, 09:23:27 PM »
I don’t know what your smoking but it must be good stuff , sounds like your debating your which is funny , are you winning

Offline Damo

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4494
  • Member of famed “Gang Of Four”. Ground the airbus!
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #97 on: March 28, 2024, 12:47:49 AM »
Can’t believe claw doesn’t have in his in’s

Offline the claw

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4259
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #98 on: March 28, 2024, 06:39:18 PM »
Can’t believe claw doesn’t have in his in’s

There will be plenty of kids because at least i acknowledge where we are at unlike some imbeciles around here.

Offline Gigantor

  • Premiership Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #99 on: March 28, 2024, 06:46:05 PM »
So if people don’t agree with you they are imbeciles?

Offline Tiger_In_Sicily

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 872
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #100 on: March 28, 2024, 07:21:05 PM »
Can anyone enlighten me as to why he wasn't selected in this week's team to debut?

Offline Knighter

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #101 on: March 28, 2024, 07:41:36 PM »
Can anyone enlighten me as to why he wasn't selected in this week's team to debut?

Must have had a crack at Yze daughter. I’m boycotting the game now.

Offline Diocletian

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19427
  • RWNJ / Leftist Snowflake - depends who you ask....
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #102 on: March 28, 2024, 08:11:18 PM »
Probably waiting see if he can back up his debut and isn't just a one hit wonder or inconsistent...or some such stuffing bollocks... :propeller
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good...."

- Thomas Sowell


FJ is the only one that makes sense.

Offline Simonator

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2888
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #103 on: March 28, 2024, 10:42:47 PM »
1 game in the vfl guys there is no rush

Offline Tiger_In_Sicily

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 872
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Pick 40: Kane McAuliffe
« Reply #104 on: March 28, 2024, 10:52:03 PM »
Can anyone enlighten me as to why he wasn't selected in this week's team to debut?


Must have had a crack at Yze daughter. I’m boycotting the game now.
Or maybe they want to debut him in South Australia Infront of family and friends . Which I don't agree with, you should be selected when worthy not by the fixture