Richmond - time for a rebuild?

[Meteoric Rise]

Hewett, Gruzewski and McMullin are the players that were recruited with the traded selections.

It is correct.

I did not include the 4th rounders perhaps I should have.

Those are the players drafted with the picks Richmond gave, that part is correct. It is highly unlikely they would have been drafted by Richmond at picks 14, 22 and 34 if Richmond retained those picks.

Pick 49 was a 3rd rounder too, going back Richmond's way and used on Kaleb Smith.

They are just fair deals for all parties at the time they were struck. If Richmond retained the picks and eschewed Taranto and Hopper then sure, they get 4 more decent prospects in the door, but they would be reduced to trying to hook gun mids as free agents, then you run into another problem, the $700-750k deal is now a $900-$1m deal and that is if one or two of these types become available any time soon.

Here is the recent history of gun inside mid free agents(marquee wage $700k+ types) changing hands:

2022 - nil

2021 - nil

2020 - Zac Williams reportedly $850k+ recruited as a mid, total failure there

2019 - nil

2018 - nil

2017 - Rockliff?

2016 - nil

2015 - nil

2014 - nil

2013 - Dale Thomas, Del Santo?

2012 - nil

That is the whole history of marquee inside mids changing hands as free agents and I am not even sure some of those qualify, and you certainly wouldn't say any of them worked out very well for the new club. And Thomas and Williams aren't/weren't really even inside mids.

So you rule out getting a decent one as a free agent based on that. It leaves trading - which Richmond elected to do, and you pay the price in draft picks, or drafting and putting aside an extremely rare player like Tim Kelly, you are usually waiting 5 years for your guy you took in the draft to be a chance to start outplaying finals level inside mids in big games.

Richmond has a strategy, the strategy may or may not work out perfectly, but it looks very sound to me.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Those are the players drafted with the picks Richmond gave, that part is correct. It is highly unlikely they would have been drafted by Richmond at picks 14, 22 and 34 if Richmond retained those picks.

Pick 49 was a 3rd rounder too, going back Richmond's way and used on Kaleb Smith.

They are just fair deals for all parties at the time they were struck. If Richmond retained the picks and eschewed Taranto and Hopper then sure, they get 4 more decent prospects in the door, but they would be reduced to trying to hook gun mids as free agents, then you run into another problem, the $700-750k deal is now a $900-$1m deal and that is if one or two of these types become available any time soon.

Here is the recent history of gun inside mid free agents(marquee wage $700k+ types) changing hands:

2022 - nil

2021 - nil

2020 - Zac Williams reportedly $850k+ recruited as a mid, total failure there

2019 - nil

2018 - nil

2017 - Rockliff?

2016 - nil

2015 - nil

2014 - nil

2013 - Dale Thomas, Del Santo?

2012 - nil

That is the whole history of marquee inside mids changing hands as free agents and I am not even sure some of those qualify, and you certainly wouldn't say any of them worked out very well for the new club. And Thomas and Williams aren't/weren't really even inside mids.

So you rule out getting a decent one as a free agent based on that. It leaves trading - which Richmond elected to do, and you pay the price in draft picks, or drafting and putting aside an extremely rare player like Tim Kelly, you are usually waiting 5 years for your guy you took in the draft to be a chance to start outplaying finals level inside mids in big games.

Richmond has a strategy, the strategy may or may not work out perfectly, but it looks very sound to me.

The point is Richmond didn’t need both Hopper and Taranto. One of them (Taranto imo) would’ve been plenty.

Just last year Acres, Setterfield, Dunkley, Hunter, Mitchell (O’meara ) were traded for far less than what Hopper will end up costing Richmond. That is without considering the 7 years @ 700k. So it didn’t need to be a massive marquee double recruit if the midfield was an issue Richmond identified. They just needed to be smarter about it.

I think Richmond got ahead of themselves and it will ultimately bite them on the ass. I’m sure these comments will bite me on the ass in a few years but that’s how I see it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The point is Richmond didn’t need both Hopper and Taranto. One of them (Taranto imo) would’ve been plenty.

Just last year Acres, Setterfield, Dunkley, Hunter, Mitchell (O’meara ) were traded for far less than what Hopper will end up costing Richmond. That is without considering the 7 years @ 700k. So it didn’t need to be a massive marquee double recruit if the midfield was an issue Richmond identified. They just needed to be smarter about it.

I think Richmond got ahead of themselves and it will ultimately bite them on the ass. I’m sure these comments will bite me on the ass in a few years but that’s how I see it.

Yeah I think your view is not right.

If you look at the history of Richmond's list management since the recruiting department was fully funded in 2014, these are not people who get ahead of themselves. I don't even think they are thinking get x player or y player and we stay in contention, win flags, have one last crack at it, or whatever. That is media talk. They are just trying to build a team to compete and hopefully contend and projecting forward to see what is needed and when. It is pretty clear if you want to be really competitive, and possibly contend, you need a functioning inside midfield. Richmond had a crack at drafting some players in that role who may have been coming into their own around now, Collier-Dawkins at pick 20 2018 and Thomson Dow at pick 21 2019. With those type of picks it is a bit of a long shot you get an AFL level inside mid. Dow is still just 21 and there remains a chance he can fill that role yet. Before those recruits the club went for Corey Ellis at pick 12 in 2014. Jack Graham at pick 53 in 2016 may have been another shot at it, but whilst he is a good player he is not an inside mid at AFL level. Vlastuin at pick 9 2012 another attempt who is a tremendous defender but just not an AFL level inside mid. Bolton pick 29 2016 is probably one who we do get useful inside mid time from unexpectedly, but he is not physical enough to be a full time inside mid. Jack Ross at pick 43 in 2018, but he is not explosive enough for the role.

So the club first recruited Prestia for 2017 onwards and now turns to similarly rated types Taranto and Hopper, at a similar cost in terms of picks and salary. After Prestia worked out so well, given the obvious need, why wouldn't you?

So with those players we drafted not looking like providing our inside midfield in years 2023-2028, and as we saw in my previous post the odds of a strong inside mid coming through free agency being next to no chance, and drafting players in the expected range of the picks traded also being little chance of turning up AFL level inside mids in the 2023-28 period, what real choice did the list management team have?

 

[Daka]

Shoulda flogged off Martin for some first round picks while he still had currency.
Cooked now.

No one was giving up some first round draft picks for a guy over 30.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

So with those players we drafted not looking like providing our inside midfield in years 2023-2028, and as we saw in my previous post the odds of a strong inside mid coming through free agency being next to no chance, and drafting players in the expected range of the picks traded also being little chance of turning up AFL level inside mids in the 2023-28 period, what real choice did the list management team have?

I did just list a bunch of real choices the list management team would have had that were cheaper than Taranto and Hopper.

You are clearly happy with the move. Let's see how it plays out.

 

[Simche]

No one was giving up some first round draft picks for a guy over 30.

Also the absurdity of trading out a club legend and all time great for a potentially speculative pick. Players remember that sort of thing and think when they're contemplating signing deals with clubs and it potentially hurts your ability to resign someone like a Shai Bolton if they think you're just going to flog them off at the first opportunity. It hurts you in the long term from a cultural and list management perspective unless there is a genuine willingness of the player to leave, which is clearly not the case.

 

[CCurnow3votes]

Would happily take the 3 cups regardless how we are playing now

Don’t get me wrong - I’ll take the premierships!

But that’s what makes their hesitancy to rebuild so good - premiership envy.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I did just list a bunch of real choices the list management team would have had that were cheaper than Taranto and Hopper.

You are clearly happy with the move. Let's see how it plays out.

There is no doubt you could get cheaper players than Taranto and Hopper. The comparable one is Dunkley. The rest of your list are either way older(Mitchell,) or not proven genuine quality inside mids(Acres, Hunter are wingers, Setterfield not an established inside mid.)

So the 3 choices you provide that could be realistic alternatives to recruiting Hopper, are:

1. Dunkley, who appears at least the equal player of Hopper(but Richmond may not rate him as good a trade target), but was not available to Richmond at a cheaper price in terms of draft picks and salary. He took a 6 year deal at Brisbane on a similar salary to Hopper who took 7 years at Richmond. Remembering Richmond and Brisbane were rated roughly equal in terms of expected finishing positions, Dunkley and 2 late 3rd rounders cost Brisbane 2022 pick 24 + 2023 1st and 2nd round picks. At the trade table Hopper and 2 similar but slightly lesser value picks, cost Richmond 2022 pick 34 and a 2023 first round pick. So at the point of the trade, Dunkley cost appreciably more in draft picks, in fact after getting Taranto, Richmond could not have met that asking price without trading out a player like say Jack Graham or say Liam Baker. Add to this Hopper comes with an understanding of working with Taranto, and has no known queries on his character. Dunkley I think there were some questions on his relationship with people at Bulldogs. For whatever reason, Richmond never appeared to be seriously in the race for Dunkley.

2. Mitchell. A fair bit cheaper in terms of draft picks, but the Tigers already have a key midfielder - Prestia - around a similar age(30 odd.) Mitchell's salary I would expect is higher than Hopper's. Collingwood gave up Oliver Henry, picks 41 & 50 to get pick 28 and Mitchell in that deal. So this means Mitchell cost about pick 25 value imo. Richmond got Hopper - who is almost 4 years younger - for pick 34 and a pick with an expected value of around 15. I don't think you could fairly say Richmond overpaid in comparison.

3. Setterfield. Bargain basement. Next to zero trade value. If he turns out a marquee midfielder then he would have been a great get. However, based on his record, this looks highly unlikely. He perhaps could have played a role for Richmond, but the Tigers clearly rate Hopper way higher, and Richmond last picked up a player with this type of profile when they signed Mav Weller as an SSP prior to the 2019 season. Before that Jacob Townsend before the 2016 season. These type of guys come up all the time, Brodie, Lyons, Dunstan are three that come to mind. Richmond just don't want them due to their mediocrity amongst AFL midfielders.

So in fact Dunkley was more expensive than Hopper at the trade table. Mitchell likely more expensive in salary and perhaps not a good fit for Richmond's list and not as much cheaper in trade terms as you might have thought. And Setterfield would just not be seen as the answer to Richmond's needs. And this is assuming any of these were actually available to Richmond in the first place.

 

[Freomaniac]

This is the price we are paying for our dominance. Equalisation is working.

Freo and Gold coast are still Garbage though LoL

 

[Freomaniac]

The rebuild on the run started 2 years ago. Right or wrong, the club believes it has a strong crop of kids from drafts prior to the Hopper & Taranto deals so missing the top end of one years draft is far from catastrophic. I tend to agree

The clubs list management over the last decade or so has been among the best in the league. Time will tell if they’ve got this right. I don’t mind the work they’ve done so far, in fact I think we may be in a better position if some of our younger players had been allowed to take over roles in the seniors sooner

I think the tigers are well placed. I mean lookin' back at the 2017, 2019 and 2020 flags, 2019 was the one that was dead certain the tigers would win. Even when Alex Rance was injured.

Tigers squad might be old but there's a bit moderation in that squad. Meaning tigers best 23 has balance.

Sure they know Riewoldt, Cotchin and Martin are near the end. But their players aged 24-27 are good. And they got some good talent aged 23 or under.

 

[Freomaniac]

It’s not time for a rebuild yet…

Way too much fun watching them decompose.

You want Richmond to rot slowly like Essendon did In the past 20 years. Fair enough

 

[VinnieB]

There is no doubt you could get cheaper players than Taranto and Hopper. The comparable one is Dunkley. The rest of your list are either way older(Mitchell,) or not proven genuine quality inside mids(Acres, Hunter are wingers, Setterfield not an established inside mid.)

So the 3 choices you provide that could be realistic alternatives to recruiting Hopper, are:

1. Dunkley, who appears at least the equal player of Hopper(but Richmond may not rate him as good a trade target), but was not available to Richmond at a cheaper price in terms of draft picks and salary. He took a 6 year deal at Brisbane on a similar salary to Hopper who took 7 years at Richmond. Remembering Richmond and Brisbane were rated roughly equal in terms of expected finishing positions, Dunkley and 2 late 3rd rounders cost Brisbane 2022 pick 24 + 2023 1st and 2nd round picks. At the trade table Hopper and 2 similar but slightly lesser value picks, cost Richmond 2022 pick 34 and a 2023 first round pick. So at the point of the trade, Dunkley cost appreciably more in draft picks, in fact after getting Taranto, Richmond could not have met that asking price without trading out a player like say Jack Graham or say Liam Baker. Add to this Hopper comes with an understanding of working with Taranto, and has no known queries on his character. Dunkley I think there were some questions on his relationship with people at Bulldogs. For whatever reason, Richmond never appeared to be seriously in the race for Dunkley.

2. Mitchell. A fair bit cheaper in terms of draft picks, but the Tigers already have a key midfielder - Prestia - around a similar age(30 odd.) Mitchell's salary I would expect is higher than Hopper's. Collingwood gave up Oliver Henry, picks 41 & 50 to get pick 28 and Mitchell in that deal. So this means Mitchell cost about pick 25 value imo. Richmond got Hopper - who is almost 4 years younger - for pick 34 and a pick with an expected value of around 15. I don't think you could fairly say Richmond overpaid in comparison.

3. Setterfield. Bargain basement. Next to zero trade value. If he turns out a marquee midfielder then he would have been a great get. However, based on his record, this looks highly unlikely. He perhaps could have played a role for Richmond, but the Tigers clearly rate Hopper way higher, and Richmond last picked up a player with this type of profile when they signed Mav Weller as an SSP prior to the 2019 season. Before that Jacob Townsend before the 2016 season. These type of guys come up all the time, Brodie, Lyons, Dunstan are three that come to mind. Richmond just don't want them due to their mediocrity amongst AFL midfielders.

So in fact Dunkley was more expensive than Hopper at the trade table. Mitchell likely more expensive in salary and perhaps not a good fit for Richmond's list and not as much cheaper in trade terms as you might have thought. And Setterfield would just not be seen as the answer to Richmond's needs. And this is assuming any of these were actually available to Richmond in the first place.

Considerably cheaper than Hopper. Hawks paying a large part of his salary.
And wrong on the trade. Pies received pick 25 (became 28) from Geelong as well as basically Copper Stephens who went to Hawthorn with picks 41 (or 46) and 50 (or 51) which the Pies were not using. We received Pick 25 (or 28) + Mitchell for Henry. Geelong received Henry. Hawks received Stephens + pick 41 (or 46) and 50 (or 51).

You are paying Hopper $700k pa for the next 7years and traded pick 31 (which became 34) + what looks to be a top 5-7 pick.

 

[Warwick]

Gee I’d be disappointed if Dunkley became “at least the equal player of Hopper”.

My goodness.

 

[Ctl]

Richmond U27 side

Quality players, good age profile
Young players that look like long term contributors

Gibcus	Balta	Brown
Baker	Young	Rioli
Banks	Hopper	Ralphsmith
Bolton	Bradtke	Clarke
Cumberland	Ryan	Rioli Jnr
Soldo	Taranto	Short
Campbell	Dow	Graham
Bauer
Sonsie	Ross	Green
Smith

Thin on forward targets, short on game changers and need some youngsters to pop to improve the 15-23 range. Not completely dire though and the skeleton of a rebuild is already there

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Considerably cheaper than Hopper. Hawks paying a large part of his salary.
And wrong on the trade. Pies received pick 25 (became 28) from Geelong as well as basically Copper Stephens who went to Hawthorn with picks 41 (or 46) and 50 (or 51) which the Pies were using. We received Pick 25 (or 28) + Mitchell for Henry. Geelong received Henry. Hawks received Stephens + pick 41 (or 46) and 50 (or 51).

You are paying Hopper $700k pa for the next 7years and traded pick 31 (which became 34) + what looks to be a top 5-7 pick.

What details do you think I was wrong on? I studied all the same detail as you have listed before posting. Collingwood gave up picks 41 and 50 which were then traded to Brisbane who presumably used them as points towards their father/sons. That pick at 41 if retained by Collingwood would have been taken around 40 in the draft. The pick at 50 would have been taken around pick 47.

So Collingwood have given up picks 40 47 and Henry to get Mitchell and pick 28 essentially. Henry would be worth roughly pick 20, and I downgraded that to 25 to account for the pick differences. What part of that is wrong? What amount do you think Collingwood are paying Mitchell and what amount are Hawthorn paying him?

The Hopper trade was 34 and our first rounder with an expected value of around 15 at time of trade. That allows for Richmond being expected to finish around 5th or 6th. You are saying that pick is now likely to be in the 5-7 range would would require Richmond finishing no higher than about 13th or 14th. Do you think that Richmond finishes 2023 in the 13-16th range?

 

[Black Saab]

have some good young pieces. should come right in 3-4 years. more interesting thing is i think dimma has stated he has no intention of hanging around for a rebuild. wonder if he goes to another team at the end of this year.

Imagine if he left and we got Ken Hinkley

 

[PrinceCharles]

Richmond U27 side

Quality players, good age profile
Young players that look like long term contributors

Gibcus	Balta	Brown
Baker	Young	Rioli
Banks	Hopper	Ralphsmith
Bolton	Bradtke	Clarke
Cumberland	Ryan	Rioli Jnr
Soldo	Taranto	Short
Campbell	Dow	Graham
Bauer
Sonsie	Ross	Green
Smith

Thin on forward targets, short on game changers and need some youngsters to pop to improve the 15-23 range. Not completely dire though and the skeleton of a rebuild is already there

That looks dire to me, just my opinion though. Nothing wrong with rebuilding however, most clubs need to do it.

 

[My Tilly]

That looks dire to me, just my opinion though. Nothing wrong with rebuilding however, most clubs need to do it.

You can still be challenging for finals without having to bottom out though.
As long as you are continually bringing through younger players. Not just playing for the sake of gaining exposure on the big stage but ensuring they are contributing.

 

[Trav 20]

Richmond U27 side

Quality players, good age profile
Young players that look like long term contributors

Gibcus	Balta	Brown
Baker	Young	Rioli
Banks	Hopper	Ralphsmith
Bolton	Bradtke	Clarke
Cumberland	Ryan	Rioli Jnr
Soldo	Taranto	Short
Campbell	Dow	Graham
Bauer
Sonsie	Ross	Green
Smith

Thin on forward targets, short on game changers and need some youngsters to pop to improve the 15-23 range. Not completely dire though and the skeleton of a rebuild is already there

Under 27 side ?

Who ever posts ''under 27'' sides ?

You obviously had a couple of players that suited that age narrative. Had to squeeze Hopper in somehow

 

[Ctl]

Under 27 side ?

Who ever posts ''under 27'' sides ?

You obviously had a couple of players that suited that age narrative. Had to squeeze Hopper in somehow

Its pretty normal no?
18-23 development years
23-29 prime years
29+ tail end of a career

Hopper is 26 fyi

 

[Trav 20]

Its pretty normal no?
18-23 development years
23-29 prime years
29+ tail end of a career

Hopper is 26 fyi

No, it's not.

And yes, of course I know Hopper is 26, i.e. ''under 27''.

 

[Mr Meow]

Bollocks.

Richmond drafted 5 players inside the Top 30 in the 2021 draft, just a year after their 2020 flag. At what stage did the Hawks do this?

Also, Hawthorn traded out club legends Hodge, Lewis and SMitchell (as well as soon-to-be Isaac "Norm" Smith as free agent, and now Jack Gunston) to other clubs for a pittance, thus decimating their club leadership. In contrast, Richmond have rewarded the likes of Cotchin, Riewoldt, Grimes, Houli and Edwards extended contracts so as to see out their respective careers in yellow and black, thus entrenching them forever as Tiger champions to the end, and most importantly keeping their onfield leadership in-house.

In addition, Richmond have not moved on a single best-22 player to another club in the last 6 years. Butler, Higgins, Naish, CCJ, Ellis and Markov were all fringe players struggling to break into the senior team when moved on. In comparison, in the handful of years after their last flag, the Hawks traded out 1st XXII players Brad Hill, Ryan Burton and Taylor Duryea. Don't ask me about Ceglar - I'm not sure where he sat in the Hawks pecking order.

Richmond have brought in one single free agent - a superstar who has been worth every single penny and some. Neither the 2019 or the 2020 premiership cups would be at Tigerland if it were not for the recruitment of Tom Lynch. Meanwhile the Hawks soaked up valuable salary cap on really poor free agent (or late pick) choices Tom Scully, Tyrone Vickery, Darren Minchington, Tom Phillips and Jon Patton. You get a credit for Henderson - he was a fine recruit.

Bringing in Hopper and Taranto for a late-1st, an unknown-1st and an early-2nd rounder is not the equivalent of emptying your trade cupboard on the likes of Impey, O'Meara, TMitchell and Scrimshaw.

Richmond have made some mistakes, but they're definitely not the same mistakes Hawthorn have made.

The issues are how high value were the trades and what purpose do they sustain over the next 5 years?

Geelong obtained Dangerfield in exchange for Dean Gore as well as picks No.9 and No.28. Best player in the comp to drive a bunch of further years contending - 2015 being the aberration as they turned a few players over. Taranto for No.12 and No.19 just doesn't scream the same value. He's been good, but not top 10 or 20 players in the comp good. However if it flicked the switch for a good midfield to turn great and pushing top 4 it might be worth it. If it's for a side that then slides the opposite side of the ladder, maybe the picks to help build the core of young players would've been preferable. I know there are other reasons for Richmond's temporary decline but the same questions would've been asked if Geelong went backwards from 2014/2015.

Similarly if you look at another top up addressing a serious need - Jeremy Cameron. Picks 13, 15, 20 (two funded by Kelly going to the Eagles) and a future fourth rounder out, but two second round picks came back - probably worth one late first rounder. If Hopper ends up being pick 31 and a top 10 pick this draft you haven't paid that much less overall. If it maintains an assault on the premiership and adds on two vital cogs to lead the next generation it might be worth it. But otherwise it looks like overs when those picks could've (I know, no guarantees) landed your next Martin, Rance, Cotchin's etc to drive a flag tilt starting in 5 years and going for another 5.

The Taranto one alone: maybe. Hopper, I'm not so sure about.

 

[VinnieB]

What details do you thing I was wrong on? I studied all the same detail as you have listed before posting. Collingwood gave up picks 41 and 50 which were then traded to Brisbane who presumably used them as points towards their father/sons. That pick at 41 if retained by Collingwood would have been taken around 40 in the draft. The pick at 50 would have been taken around pick 47.

So Collingwood have given up picks 40 47 and Henry to get Mitchell and pick 28 essentially. Henry would be worth roughly pick 20, and I downgraded that to 25 to account for the pick differences. What part of that is wrong? What amount do you think Collingwood are paying Mitchell and what amount are Hawthorn paying him?

The Hopper trade was 34 and our first rounder with an expected value of around 15 at time of trade. That allows for Richmond being expected to finish around 5th or 6th. You are saying that pick is now likely to be in the 5-7 range would would require Richmond finishing no higher than about 13th or 14th. Do you think that Richmond finishes 2023 in the 13-16th range?

Yes. I said at the start of the season I didn't think Richmond would make the 8. You have won 1 game for the season. '5-7' range is actually 12-14th on the ladder. Seems about right.

Basically, to get Henry, Geelong gave up pick 25 and Cooper Stephens.
Cooper Stephens + pick 41 and pick 50 went to Hawthorn for Mitchell.

Mitchell's cost was pick 41+ pick 50 + Stephens. This is what you're comparing to the cost of Hopper. And it seems the Hawks are probably paying about 50% of Mitchell's salary. The article below indicates the Hawks are contributing $750k between Mitchell and O'Meara's salaries.

Hawks will pay traded stars O’Meara, Mitchell $750,000 in 2023

Hawthorn will pay about $750,000 next year for the salaries of traded veterans Tom Mitchell and Jaeger O’Meara, who will be playing at other clubs.

www.theage.com.au

Hopper cost Richmond 7 yrs at $700k-$750k pa.
Pick 34 in the 2022 AFL draft and likely a top 10 (possibly 5-7) pick in what is considered to be a very strong 2023 AFL draft.

No matter how you want to spin it, it is nowhere near the same price as Mitchell.

 

[CCurnow3votes]

You want Richmond to rot slowly like Essendon did In the past 20 years. Fair enough

The beauty of it is - they either self destruct now which will be glorious to watch - or they slow burn, gradually coming apart at the seams until ready to go to the draft - but only after Tassie D’s have had their lot.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No, it's not.

And yes, of course I know Hopper is 26, i.e. ''under 27''.

Bullshit. There was a whole thread on here devoted to each clubs' 26yo and under teams that gained a lot of interest.

Trav 20

Your clubs 26 and under side

Now 26 years and under/ born no later than 1994 is an arbitrary number but hopefully gives teams enough players to select a best 22 pre the draft on Wednesday with the reduced lists. keen to see who will be potentially looking decent in 3 plus years times B: Hayden Mckay Young HB: McDonald...

www.bigfooty.com