2004 Draft Revisited

[parrot]

... many of the recruiters believed tambling was second best in teh draft ...

..but most didn't. And that is the point. Some serious questions need to be asked about the Tiges recent list mis-mangement.

 

[parrot]

... AFL's Phantom Draft had:..

Is that another website Terry uses to make his drafting decisions?

 

[_RT_]

..but most didn't. And that is the point. Some serious questions need to be asked about the Tiges recent list mis-mangement.

Is that another website Terry uses to make his drafting decisions?

You may watch the game on the field Parrot but you have little idea about what goes on off the field. Nearly every respect journalist had Tambling rated as Number 2 in 04 and Franklin was no better than 4.

 

[juddy_Like]

..but most didn't. And that is the point. Some serious questions need to be asked about the Tiges recent list mis-mangement.

Troll of the Highest order. Please quote/ state the people who didnt rate Tamlbing that high??? Should be quite easy as you say 'most' people did.

Until you do this, please refrain from quoting such dillusional sh1te.

 

[dipper86]

As you have been pointing out constantly Tambling gets his possessions up the ground, as a link man between the defenders and forwards. He does not have to stay home and kick goals. We had more than enough players kicking goals during 06 that we did not have to rely on 2-3 like the Hawks did.

Tambling is a forward pocket who can't get a touch so he runs up the ground and onto the wings to inflate his stats. He has no influence what so ever on matches.

You also say that he might have won the ball in other contested situations to kick his 6 goals against the Tigers and for that fact the Blues. The stats show he had a total of 3 contested possessions for a total of 12 goals, in those 2 games, he also had a total of 9 marks (2R 7C) and of those 9 only 2 were contested. As much as people choose not to take notice of stats the fact is in this case they don't lie, Buddy does not win contested situations you clsim he does.

In fact he to show just how 'good' he was in the contests in the Tigers game he had his Career best in Uncontested Possession (16). So while his opponent was trying to win the ball(which is stupid when you are a defender) Buddy would just hang out of the contest and wait for the loose ball or the handball out the back. KP prospects don't do that they go and win their own ball, no wonder the Tigers did not select him. We prefer our KP to win their own ball rather than hang out the back of packs.

If you compare Franklin to the seasoned AFL player Matthew Richardson,

Richardson avgs 1.5 xtra contested marks and 1 xtra contested possession, he's doing more than enough as a young KPP.

The fact remains Franklins output has been outstanding, he roved packs outrun, baulked and outclassed your defenders, he won the match of his own boot kicking some glorious goals, his contested part of his game is only just down from your seasoned and best forward in Richardson.

Franklin's output is leaps and bounds ahead of Tambling who is an uncontested ball king who has no presence on the ground.

The fact also remains he kicked 6 goals, which is the ultimate aim of a forward.

 

[UpTheGuts]

poor parrot - he threw in a comment with no factual basis and has been caught on it. Don't expect to see any evidence of his claim, as it doesn't exist.

LOL at parrot....

ps: where do andrew raines & shane tuck fit in relation to your assertion of RFC's utter mismanagement in the last 5 years? I have my issues with some of our choices in that period - what fanatical supporter with 20/20 hindsight doesn't? - but your claims are uneducated at best and in reality indefensible.

Maybe you should have that as your tag - "I'm uneducated at best". It fits.

 

[dipper86]

Not only did they have it rated that way but Matt Burgan the guy that does the AFL's Phantom Draft had:
1. Brett Deledio Richmond
2. Richard Tambling Hawthorn
3. Ryan Griffen WB
4. Jarryd Roughead Richmond
5. Lance Franklin Hawthorn

I would take the opinion of a guy that actually talks to recruiters at the clubs.

Well you're a fool, his lists consist of what he has heard from sources and what clubs are rumored to take, not who he thinks is the best player.

 

[Melbdave81]

Tambling is a forward pocket who can't get a touch so he runs up the ground and onto the wings to inflate his stats. He has no influence what so ever on matches.




If you compare Franklin to the seasoned AFL player Matthew Richardson,

Richardson avgs 1.5 xtra contested marks and 1 xtra contested possession, he's doing more than enough as a young KPP.

The fact remains Franklins output has been outstanding, he roved packs outrun, baulked and outclassed your defenders, he won the match of his own boot kicking some glorious goals, his contested part of his game is only just down from your seasoned and best forward in Richardson.

Franklin's output is leaps and bounds ahead of Tambling who is an uncontested ball king who has no presence on the ground.

The fact also remains he kicked 6 goals, which is the ultimate aim of a forward.

Don't bring up facts dipper, that'll confuse them

 

[UpTheGuts]

Well you're a fool, his lists consist of what he has heard from sources and what clubs are rumored to take, not who he thinks is the best player.

So he speaks to people presumably in the know (eg. recruitment mgrs, Kevin Sheehan) and on that basis he makes his predictions. Thus, most of those people had Tambling ahead of Buddy, thereby refuting any claims that our decision to take tambling was in any way unexpected or, at that time, ill-advised.

Logic's pretty easy you know - give it a try

 

[dipper86]

Don't bring up facts dipper, that'll confuse them

Realistic Tiger loves his stats, trouble is thats all he watches is stats, he should actually try watching a game of footy.

But you got to admire his dedication to Terry Tan's drafting blunder and not letting it go.

Poor guy, getting sucked in by Terry

Franklin >>>>>>>>>>> Tambling

 

[_RT_]

Tambling is a forward pocket who can't get a touch so he runs up the ground and onto the wings to inflate his stats. He has no influence what so ever on matches.

If you compare Franklin to the seasoned AFL player Matthew Richardson,

Richardson avgs 1.5 xtra contested marks and 1 xtra contested possession, he's doing more than enough as a young KPP.

The fact remains Franklins output has been outstanding, he roved packs outrun, baulked and outclassed your defenders, he won the match of his own boot kicking some glorious goals, his contested part of his game is only just down from your seasoned and best forward in Richardson.

Franklin's output is leaps and bounds ahead of Tambling who is an uncontested ball king who has no presence on the ground.

The fact also remains he kicked 6 goals, which is the ultimate aim of a forward.

I finally figured you out, the reason you defend Buddy so much. It is because the Hawks selected a KPP who takes 1 contested mark a week, wins as much contested ball as Tambling (0.7 difference) & makes more errors(4.3) per game than the other top 5 players of the 04 draft(They are all under 3). You talk him up as a star but all he has really done is shown in 2 games and he did that by hanging out the back of packs getting the easy ball. Don't get me wrong the guy has talent but to be proclaiming him as a star is down right wrong. Just to make a further point Schulz has played 1 game more than Buddy and has averaged more Contested marks and has also kicked 6 goals* does that make him a better player?

*For the Record Schulz kicked his 6 agasint the Lions in 04 taking 8 marks 4 contested against Michael & Leppitsch without Richo playing.

 

[UpTheGuts]

If you compare Franklin to the seasoned AFL player Matthew Richardson,

.........

The fact also remains he kicked 6 goals, which is the ultimate aim of a forward.

OK then......... if you insist on making comparisons, and noting your view that the ultimate aim of a forward is to kick goals (I'd say the ultimate goal of a forward is to ensure goals are kicked - by him or any other forward, but I appreciate that point may be a little subtle for you) Richo kicked 56 goals in his second season of AFL footy.... How many did Lance jag in 2006, being his second season?

I think you'd be best not to start comparing Buddy to Richo... Franklin's not yet fit to clean Richo's boots

 

[dipper86]

So he speaks to people presumably in the know (eg. recruitment mgrs, Kevin Sheehan) and on that basis he makes his predictions. Thus, most of those people had Tambling ahead of Buddy, thereby refuting any claims that our decision to take tambling was in any way unexpected or, at that time, ill-advised.

Logic's pretty easy you know - give it a try

Not necessarily, who says most? He goes by club sources in order by picks, Hawthorn had showed the most intrest in Tambling therefore he picked him at 2, Doesn't mean the other clubs thought he was the best player.

I know for a fact that the Western Bulldogs were always going to pick Griffen even if they had pick 1, it doesn't mean that Griffen is the best player well its certainly not what Richmond think, thats why they picked Deledio.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Not necessarily, who says most? He goes by club sources in order by picks, Hawthorn had showed the most intrest in Tambling therefore he picked him at 2, Doesn't mean the other clubs thought he was the best player.

So....... he had Tambling at 2 because:

1. Most people he spoke to believed Tambling was more attractive to Hawthorn than Lance;
2. He spoke to Hawthorn and was advised they would take Tambling before Franklin given the choice;
3. Most people/ he reckoned Tambling was a better bet than Franklin; or
4. All of the above.

I really can't see how any Hawthorn fan could accuse the Tiges of stuffing up, even if Tambling does turn out to be inferior to Franklin.

You really are digging yourself a hole here...

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The 6 goals he got against the Tigers was achieved with him taking 2 marks for the game. IF you say both marks resulted in goals that leaves 4 he got from cheap uncontested ball. Now is that what you want from a KP prospect.

You really are a TWIT.
Because a player doesn't get his goals from marks, they are lesser goals? Idiot.

As for calling them uncontested? I would have thought the fact Buddy kicked 4 goals from reading the play and losing his opponent is not his fault.
More power to a forward who can kick 4 goals from supposed 'uncontested possesions'. it just shows the backman, in this case Ray hall and Joel Bowden, copped a bath.
Man him up FFS.

And as so many people have pointed out already, if Buddy continues to have supposed low numbers of contested marks or even marks for that matter, are we really goin to give a toss if he kicks 6 goals during the game?
I know i won't.

That goal against the Blues where he ran front and square of a pack that had formed under a kick inside 50, hit the ball at full speed and snapped a goal within 5 steps of having the ball in his hand was something I'd pay to see week in, week out.

 

[UpTheGuts]

That goal against the Blues where he ran front and square of a pack that had formed under a kick inside 50, hit the ball at full speed and snapped a goal within 5 steps of having the ball in his hand was something I'd pay to see week in, week out.

Wouldn't we all.... but will you pay to see it one game every 3 months? Speak to Roos fans about Wells - his highlight reel is insane, but the rest of the time it's very patchy indeed.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Wouldn't we all.... but will you pay to see it one game every 3 months? Speak to Roos fans about Wells - his highlight reel is insane, but the rest of the time it's very patchy indeed.

So because Wells has been inconsistent Buddy will be too?

That's a bit of a long bow to draw. Are we to then expect any Aboriginal to be inconsistent? I doubt it very much.
Well's inconsistency has as much to do with injury and mis-use of him by the coach as it does with the actual player.

 

[dipper86]

I finally figured you out, the reason you defend Buddy so much. It is because the Hawks selected a KPP who takes 1 contested mark a week, wins as much contested ball as Tambling (0.7 difference) & makes more errors(4.3) per game than the other top 5 players of the 04 draft(They are all under 3). You talk him up as a star but all he has really done is shown in 2 games and he did that by hanging out the back of packs getting the easy ball. Don't get me wrong the guy has talent but to be proclaiming him as a star is down right wrong. Just to make a further point Schulz has played 1 game more than Buddy and has averaged more Contested marks and has also kicked 6 goals* does that make him a better player?

*For the Record Schulz kicked his 6 agasint the Lions in 04 taking 8 marks 4 contested against Michael & Leppitsch without Richo playing.

Ouch someones a touch upset, The only people that say Tambling is and will be better than Franklin are Richmond supporters, rather sad and clinging onto hope considering the comprehensive way Franklin has performed better than Tambling.

Franklin has performed better in every facet of the game apart from uncontested possessions ( Tambling has him well covered in that aspect of the game )

Franklin has shown alot more than Tambling who for a forward pocket lerks up at the wings to inflate his stats and has no effect on games what so ever, He avgs less contested possies even though he avgs more possies per game, that ratio from contested to uncontested is once again greater than Franklins proving once again Tambling is the uncontested ball king.

As for Shulz, well he's playing in the backline now, that pretty much sums that one up.

What a joke.

 

[dipper86]

So....... he had Tambling at 2 because:

1. Most people he spoke to believed Tambling was more attractive to Hawthorn than Lance;
2. He spoke to Hawthorn and was advised they would take Tambling before Franklin given the choice;
3. Most people/ he reckoned Tambling was a better bet than Franklin; or
4. All of the above.

I really can't see how any Hawthorn fan could accuse the Tiges of stuffing up, even if Tambling does turn out to be inferior to Franklin.

You really are digging yourself a hole here...

Argh NO, he spoke to Hawthorn, and Hawthorn was intrested in him, That doesn't mean other clubs had him as there prefered pick, I also know the Western Bulldogs were very intrested in Franklin.

If Deledio and Griffen were gone, Franklin would be at the Bulldogs.

 

[parrot]

...As for Shulz, well he's playing in the backline now, that pretty much sums that one up.

What a joke.

Yeah Schulz is pretty terrible. He's just not a natural forward. Doesn't read the play well, and can't time leads properly. The only thing he's effective at is providing the occasional block for Richo. May be suited as a Ray Hall type defensive spolier. I think Cleve Hughes is much better prospect than Schulz, and they should give this guy more opportunity. Richo has been a star, espcially in the latter part of his career once his dummy-spits abated, but he's well into his 30's, and only one injury or 12 months away from retirement. The whole tragedy about the Tambling draft gaff, was not so much that the Tiges missed out on better talent with their valuable draft pick, but the player they missed out was a talented KP forward prospect, an area of major deficiency on their list. Just to compound the problem, they overlooked Sellar. If it wasn't for Terry's unbelievable drafting incompetence, the Tiges could have had Sellar and Franklin lining up alongside Richo in 2007- an excellent forward structure to build on. Instead they have Kent Kingsley. Bizarre list management.

 

[UpTheGuts]

So because Wells has been inconsistent Buddy will be too?

That's a bit of a long bow to draw. Are we to then expect any Aboriginal to be inconsistent? I doubt it very much.

The point is, tiny brain, that one swallow does not make a spring.

Buddy is clearly capable of the exceptional, as he showed at times this year. He also demonstrated a tendency to be an all or nothing player - he's either hot or not - I recall Healy making similar comments about him and suggesting some time in the VFL may be in order to hone all parts of his game. Enter the Wells comparison who can be brilliant one week/ quarter and invisible the next. Travis Johnstone until the last couple of years would be another example.

I don't recall making any link to Aboriginals and inconsistency, though I'm happy to hear your theories if you insist on bringing it up...

I'd be looking for Franklin to be getting 8 marks a game, consistent efforts without the ball, 15 touches and 2 goals a game before hoping/ expecting weekly examples of what you described above... and for Buddy, that's his challenge for 2007.

For Tambling, his challenge is 20+ games with 75% of game time, avg 18+ ppg, 1 goal a game, improved ball usage/ acqusition and some time in the middle on most days.

 

[dipper86]

OK then......... if you insist on making comparisons, and noting your view that the ultimate aim of a forward is to kick goals (I'd say the ultimate goal of a forward is to ensure goals are kicked - by him or any other forward, but I appreciate that point may be a little subtle for you) Richo kicked 56 goals in his second season of AFL footy.... How many did Lance jag in 2006, being his second season?

I think you'd be best not to start comparing Buddy to Richo... Franklin's not yet fit to clean Richo's boots

The aim of a forward is to kick goals thats why they are there, if you're not kicking goals you're not doing your job.

And as for Richo, well footy was a whole different game back then, Richo is a great player no doubting that, i was just stating that Franklin's stats for this year were quite favourable compared to Richos who's a seasoned AFL player.

By the way Richo played 5 more matches in 94.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The point is, tiny brain, that one swallow does not make a spring.

Buddy is clearly capable of the exceptional, as he showed at times this year. He also demonstrated a tendency to be an all or nothing player - he's either hot or not - I recall Healy making similar comments about him and suggesting some time in the VFL may be in order to hone all parts of his game. Enter the Wells comparison who can be brilliant one week/ quarter and invisible the next. Travis Johnstone until the last couple of years would be another example.

I can sort of see where you got a comparison from but one is a forward, one is a midfielder and they did not go one after the other in the same draft. So to bring wells into it only makes sense if you're trying to relate their characteristics and playing styles, and even then they are two very different players.

BTW, I'm not interested in debating anything about Tambling, I've already said my peice about him earlier on, I'm just here to argue against the BS being written about Franklin.

p.s. Try not to stoop to personal insults.

 

[UpTheGuts]

If Deledio and Griffen were gone, Franklin would be at the Bulldogs.

whatever you say.....

Your club, and our club, rated Tambling ahead of Franklin - that seems agreed. Had Hawthorn had pick 4 and us 5, Tambling would be at Hawthorn. I presume but cannot be sure that Franklin would be with us.

Whatever happens, I won't ever be angry at Richmond for taking Tambling because that was consensus amongst those who knew at the time of his drafting. Anyone can be wise in hindsight - hey, I wished in 2002 we had taken Malceski ahead of Daniel Sipthorp and I bet you wish you had taken a wheelbarrow and a slab of VB before Luke Brennan.

At the time of the 2004 Draft, Tambling was rated ahead of Franklin and we chose accordingly.

 

[UpTheGuts]

p.s. Try not to stoop to personal insults.

Sorry if me calling you tiny brain has you upset.

Maybe you should apologise for calling Realistic Tiger an idiot and a TWIT (your caps) in the one post, you black kettle you....