Terry just can't help himself

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wallace has done more damage than Frawley.
At least you were in a Prelim final when Frawley topped up so in theory it was worth a try.
You were last when Wallace topped up and have continued to be down the bottom as he has continued to top up.
 
HAWKER44 said:
Wallace has done more damage than Frawley.
At least you were in a Prelim final when Frawley topped up so in theory it was worth a try.
You were last when Wallace topped up and have continued to be down the bottom as he has continued to top up.
Click to expand...

Who exactly has Wallace recruited that you see as a "top up" player?

And I wouldn't say that being one position away from making the finals would be "down the bottom".

Adding a 20 year old and a 22 year old is hardly going to ruin us now is it? It's not like they're both 30 and on their last legs.
 
HAWKER44 said:
Wallace has done more damage than Frawley.
At least you were in a Prelim final when Frawley topped up so in theory it was worth a try.
You were last when Wallace topped up and have continued to be down the bottom as he has continued to top up.
Click to expand...

Frawley made the prelim on the back of the current list (Knights, Campbell, Richo, etc).

After the prelim, he did a massive top up and 2-3 years later we won the wooden spoon.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

M.Graham, T.Knobel, J.Humm, K.Kingsley, G.Polak, T.Cartledge, C.Collard, J.McMahon

Terrible choices that Wallace had the say on.

The jury is out on Thompson and Hislop.

Morton seems a decent pick up at this stage and Troy Simmonds for Fiora was a win.
Two decent pick ups in five years is not a great track record.
 
HAWKER44 said:
Wallace has done more damage than Frawley.
At least you were in a Prelim final when Frawley topped up so in theory it was worth a try.
You were last when Wallace topped up and have continued to be down the bottom as he has continued to top up.
Click to expand...
I suggest you do some homework.Since Wallace has taken over we have turned over 34 players.
Of those who have replaced the 34 the only "recycled" that did cost a bit was Mcmahon[pick 19].Notwithstanding personal opinions on Mcmahon he still can give the club close to 10yrs service.
Do you really want to continue down the Wallace bashing path?
 
HAWKER44 said:
M.Graham, T.Knobel, J.Humm, K.Kingsley, G.Polak, T.Cartledge, C.Collard, J.McMahon

Terrible choices that Wallace had the say on.
Click to expand...
Geez you really have nailed Terry:rolleyes:
Graham[Last pick]
Knobel[Psd]
Humm[Rookie list]
Kingsley[Pick 200]
Polak[Cost us Practically nothing]
Cartlidge[Rookie draft]
Collard[Rookie draft]
 
Back to the OP.
You are much better of taking an untried bottom aged 17 year old with your last pick or taking a risk on a rookie and hope you get another Thursfield or Foley than take delisted players from other clubs.
 
tiger of old said:
Geez you really have nailed Terry:rolleyes:
Graham[Last pick]
Knobel[Psd]
Humm[Rookie list]
Kingsley[Pick 200]
Polak[Cost us Practically nothing]
Cartlidge[Rookie draft]
Collard[Rookie draft]
Click to expand...
Tiger, you missed McMahon from your list. Accidental surely? :D
 
HAWKER44 said:
Back to the OP.
You are much better of taking an untried bottom aged 17 year old with your last pick or taking a risk on a rookie and hope you get another Thursfield or Foley than take delisted players from other clubs.
Click to expand...

Well, that is certainly a clear opinion. And you are entitled to have that.

Doesn't mean everyone else has to agree.

It is an interesting suggestion though.

I'd suggest the history of recycled players vs late draftee kids is would break about even. To "test" this hypothesis I have quickly reviewed all picks taken after pick 60 through to and including PSD picks from 2003 and 2004 (i.e. a 2 year sample size), and not counted guys such as Stevens to Carlton and Rawlings to WB who were more to do with contractual disputes into the PSD rather than strict delists.

Of the 14 delisted players retreaded in this period with late ND or PSD picks, five went on to play 40 or more games for their new clubs.

Of the 19 kids picked up with alte ND or PSD picks, six went on to play 40 or more games for their new clubs.

That is a strike rate of about 30% for both categories.

Certainly there can be on-going arguments about the role the individual players played - did they contribute to success or did they list-fill, did they fulfill an important development or list depth need, did the retread have a long term future, etc.

However, I think the track record of guys like Mahoney, Rodan, Craig Bolton and Daniel Pratt suggests that there is certainly opportunity to get value for money from a late pick used on a delisted player.

But hey, that is my opinion!
 
I can't think of to many delisted players that have gone on to bigger and better things without a reason such as Rodan - needed time to recover from injury, or Guerra - swapped from a forward to a back. If a player is just delisted and then redrafted to play in the same position if normally does not work. Like anything there are always excpetions, Daniel Pratt being one.

Craig Bolton quit Brisbane.
 
HAWKER44 said:
Wallace has done more damage than Frawley.
At least you were in a Prelim final when Frawley topped up so in theory it was worth a try.
You were last when Wallace topped up and have continued to be down the bottom as he has continued to top up.
Click to expand...


To say a comment like this shows us you know bugger all.What is your obession with the tigers mate is it sour grapes cause we beat you's fair square not bad for a side your claiming us to be.Heres a few names you need a reminder of since you dont mention your team ever getting a player.I suppose the hawks shit doesnt stink.

Dent
Jacobs
Hunter
Offarell
Guerra still a hack

You get the message peanut
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

db26 said:
To say a comment like this shows us you know bugger all.What is your obession with the tigers mate is it sour grapes cause we beat you's fair square not bad for a side your claiming us to be.Heres a few names you need a reminder of since you dont mention your team ever getting a player.I suppose the hawks shit doesnt stink.

Dent
Jacobs
Hunter
Offarell
Guerra still a hack

You get the message peanut
Click to expand...
Yeah, Schwab did take mature age players, he was bagged for it, and rightly so.

Every mature age player Clarkson has taken (Gilham, Dew, Guerra) turned into premiership players for basically nothing. All play important roles in the side.
 
cschreuder61 said:
Yeah, Schwab did take mature age players, he was bagged for it, and rightly so.

Every mature age player Clarkson has taken (Gilham, Dew, Guerra) turned into premiership players for basically nothing. All play important roles in the side.
Click to expand...

I agree with you mate totally at least your not bias
 
db26 said:
To say a comment like this shows us you know bugger all.What is your obession with the tigers mate is it sour grapes cause we beat you's fair square not bad for a side your claiming us to be.Heres a few names you need a reminder of since you dont mention your team ever getting a player.I suppose the hawks shit doesnt stink.

Dent
Jacobs
Hunter
Offarell
Guerra still a hack

You get the message peanut
Click to expand...

It's a very simple exercise to see with method is more effective.

In 2004 Richmond were 16th and Hawthorn were 15th.

Clarkson decided to stick to the draft. Hawthorn have not traded in one player since Clarkson took over. He drafted kids and only swayed away with this for players he knew well from Port - Guerra PSD, Gilham Rookie Draft and coaxed Dew out of retirement for a 3rd round pick.

Wallace decided to try and take every short cut in the book. Traded for a ruckman, traded for KKP's and picked up anything he could in the draft to get a quick fix.

Wallace has added a wooden spoon and has not made the finals.
Clarkson has improved the ladder position each year and Hawthorn are now the Premiers.

Check mate.
 
cschreuder61 said:
Yeah, Schwab did take mature age players, he was bagged for it, and rightly so.

Every mature age player Clarkson has taken (Gilham, Dew, Guerra) turned into premiership players for basically nothing. All play important roles in the side.
Click to expand...


I hate this "premieship player" tag as if it actually means something.
There are alot of very ordinary footballers with premieship medals because they were lucky enough to fill a hole in a good side.
Look at West Coast last year, they were still running around with 15 or so "premiership players" in the side but without Judd and Cousins (and Kerr spending half the season out) they finished second bottom. Great players make average footballers look good.
 
If Freo ever (and that is a big if) lift the Cup you wil be proud to call the 22 Premiership Players. It's not an easy thing to do. Just ask Robert Harvey.
 
HAWKER44 said:
It's a very simple exercise to see with method is more effective.

In 2004 Richmond were 16th and Hawthorn were 15th.

Clarkson decided to stick to the draft. Hawthorn have not traded in one player since Clarkson took over. He drafted kids and only swayed away with this for players he knew well from Port - Guerra PSD, Gilham Rookie Draft and coaxed Dew out of retirement for a 3rd round pick.

Wallace decided to try and take every short cut in the book. Traded for a ruckman, traded for KKP's and picked up anything he could in the draft to get a quick fix.

Wallace has added a wooden spoon and has not made the finals.
Clarkson has improved the ladder position each year and Hawthorn are now the Premiers.

Check mate.
Click to expand...


Traded for what Ruckman??? and KKP'S?? .Knoble was a free pre season pick where Polak was a exchange for first round picks.You make no sense pls check your facts out.Pick anything in the draft I suppose that goe's for our developing backline and midfield .You have no clue PEANUT.:D
 
HAWKER44 said:
Every year at Richmond Wallace has recycled one or more players.
When will he learn? Not many delisted players go on to star at another club and why oh why would you pass and save a pick for the PSD? Going to put more junk in the trunk?
With the Gold Coast coming into the draft why wouldn't they take a couple of bottom aged 17 year old who could go much higher next year?
Some things never change.
Click to expand...

Why would we take 17 year olds just for the sake of taking 17 year olds?

We passed on the last pick because all the guys we were keen on were gone, now this gives us a chance to have an in depth look at some undrafted guys for our PSD selection, a smart move by Richmond.

You talk about Hislop like he is 28 and washed up, he was only cut by Essendon for off-field troubles, and with pick 58 is well worth the risk especially when you consider we were extremely keen on him in the 06 draft.

But I realise all these points are probably worthless to you given you're a notorious troll. Get a life you joke of a human being.
 
HAWKER44 said:
It's a very simple exercise to see with method is more effective.

In 2004 Richmond were 16th and Hawthorn were 15th.

Clarkson decided to stick to the draft. Hawthorn have not traded in one player since Clarkson took over. He drafted kids and only swayed away with this for players he knew well from Port - Guerra PSD, Gilham Rookie Draft and coaxed Dew out of retirement for a 3rd round pick.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. Don't checkmate, me!:D

I'd suggest that Hawthorn's success has as much to do with better use of early picks and a ruthless willingness to trade mature players than to do with not trading in with late picks (which they have effectively done to get Guerra and Dew, anyway).

Equally, I think Hawthorn had a better base to build from courtesy of the 2001 draft. Richmond had struggled for a while with a severe case of mid-table'itis which denied them the access to early and priority picks.

Had Richmond taken Franklin instead of Tambling, or been able to trade away a solid contributor to Freo for pick 1 and get him back for pick 10 then maybe the story would be a little different.

Oh, and by the way, I think the Clarkson has been an overall excellent coaching appointment. Wallace, I think, has not delivered on his promises. However, I suggest it is more than just a problem with recycled players.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top