It's interesting, Roost It, that you say Tapscott is too short.

Are you aware of how he compares in height to a guy like Paul Chapman, who he is often compared to, & is a Norm Smith medallist & 2-time premiership player..?

Chapman doesn't play in defence, and Roost It - at least in his recent posts - was talking about the viability of Tapscott as a defender.

Hey, I think you know very well that I was referring to your comments prior to the game.

His bag of tricks is so much bigger than you gave him credit for (one-trick I believe you said?) as was evidenced in his very first outing at the top level. Is it really so hard to admit you got it wrong?

Roost It has already admitted he was wrong.

Great hit, but if he had gone for the ball he probably would have prevented an inside 50...

At this stage of our development, I think the hit was more important than the inside 50. It makes & inspires our players to stand tall with another tough nut willing and able to put his weight behind the tackle when warrented. Not many in recent times. he can take the footy on the next occaision. He's just announceed himself to the team & the AFL.

Confidence inspiring.

Chapman doesn't play in defence, and Roost It - at least in his recent posts - was talking about the viability of Tapscott as a defender.

At least someone reads my posts before crapping on

Roost It has already admitted he was wrong.

Thankyou. Anyway back to Tapscott. he may well become a very handy forward or he may remain in defence. Either way comparing him to Chapman is surely too early, but hey being one to not shy away from making calls go right ahead. If Sylvia and Petterd remain as semi permanent forwards and we have Watts, Jurrah, Wonaeamirri and Bennell then maybe he's more likely to find a home down back. In saying that it seems unlikely that he wouldn't, from time to time, get exposed for height and agility down back. Again time will tell.

He will get exposed at times which is why he will need to perform his strengths very well to make it.

This is what I don't get - why will he get exposed ?

What are his weaknesses that will expose him.

Can he play on someone 192cm and 100kg ? - probably not - but the coaching staff wouldn't match him up on someone like that.

There are numerous small defenders of his size that don't get exposed as they play on suitable opponents - Campbell Brown played most of his football as a backman - 178cm. Jarrod Harbrow is 178 cm. Leon Davis is being turned into a defender - 177cm. And of course Matthew Whelan - 180cm

Paul Chapman - although a forward ( which Tapscott was in the TAC - and i think he will end up part time forward part time onballer) is 179cm.

Where exactly do you see his weakness that will see him exposed ?

Thankyou. Anyway back to Tapscott. he may well become a very handy forward or he may remain in defence. Either way comparing him to Chapman is surely too early, but hey being one to not shy away from making calls go right ahead. If Sylvia and Petterd remain as semi permanent forwards and we have Watts, Jurrah, Wonaeamirri and Bennell then maybe he's more likely to find a home down back. In saying that it seems unlikely that he wouldn't, from time to time, get exposed for height and agility down back. Again time will tell.

I'm sorry - you have to called on this post - way too early to call on a comparison to Chapman ( where you can see by his efforts in one game that he exhibited the same bull at a gate approach, a good leap, and adequate pace) but you are ready to call that he from time to time will get exposed for height and agility down back ? You can't have it both ways.

Unless you want to express that he may get caught out for agility by Rioli - and get caught out for height for Sandilands then your opinions doesnt stand the rigour of logic.

This is what I don't get - why will he get exposed ?

What are his weaknesses that will expose him.

Can he play on someone 192cm and 100kg ? - probably not - but the coaching staff wouldn't match him up on someone like that.

There are numerous small defenders of his size that don't get exposed as they play on suitable opponents - Campbell Brown played most of his football as a backman - 178cm. Jarrod Harbrow is 178 cm. Leon Davis is being turned into a defender - 177cm. And of course Matthew Whelan - 180cm

Paul Chapman - although a forward ( which Tapscott was in the TAC - and i think he will end up part time forward part time onballer) is 179cm.

Where exactly do you see his weakness that will see him exposed ?

Campbell Brown was regularly exposed for pace, height and agility. Jarrod Harbrow is way faster and more agile than Tapscott but not nearly as strong or as good a kick. Leon Davis - Please. Whealn had great pace and agility as well as great strength. Tapscott would do well to watch some classic Whelan footage and remember if you use the body as a battering ram your effectiveness and career will be limited.

He has obvious strengths and some weaknesses. Or are you saying he's the complete package and has no weaknesses. Careful now you may have to think.

Campbell Brown was regularly exposed for pace, height and agility. Jarrod Harbrow is way faster and more agile than Tapscott but not nearly as strong or as good a kick. Leon Davis - Please. Whealn had great pace and agility as well as great strength. Tapscott would do well to watch some classic Whelan footage and remember if you use the body as a battering ram your effectiveness and career will be limited.

He has obvious strengths and some weaknesses. Or are you saying he's the complete package and has no weaknesses. Careful now you may have to think.

No I think you need to think - think after seeing more than one senior game - you have jumped to unbelievable conclusions .

I have no idea if he is the complete package as I am suggesting that you have no idea as to him not being the complete package.

(also Campbell Brown - international rules, 2006 ,2008 , all Australian 2007 - he has had a very impressive career).

So I will test your opinion - Can I please have a hands up of everyone on the site who is prepared to say after seeing a couple of VFL games and practice games and one senior games that Tapscott does not possess the pace and agility compared to Matthew Whelan ?

If I get enough people to say that the consensus is that Tapscott doesnt have the pace or agility of Whelan then I will stop posting on this subject.I am saying - how on earth can you be so definitive after one senior game viewing ?

( just to remind a few people - there were question marks on Bennells pace after his first couple of games - Bennell is just always that little bit faster than his opposition)

Reading all the data on Tapscott at draft time - no problem with agility and pace - strength was strength, kicking and played much taller than 180cm good hands and leap - the only knock is that he didnt get the ball enough

I just believe that you have made great leaps of imagination based on little to no actual data.

Just to repeat one more time - I will not claim Tapscott to be anything except impressive in his first game - based on what I saw I did not see obvious weaknesses - give me 20 more games and I may form an opinion. My objection to your opinion is that you stated more than once his "obvious weaknesses". After 80 minutes TOG you have have got him down for obvious weaknesses ?????

Edited March 30, 201114 yr by nutbean

Can I please have a hands up of everyone on the site who is prepared to say after seeing a couple of VFL games and practice games and one senior games that Tapscott does not possess the pace and agility compared to Matthew Whelan ?

Oh please.

NO BODY has the pace and agility of Matthew Whelan. Or any other of his attributes.

took a kick-out, played on and his kick cleared the centre circle easily, that was 2 minutes into his AFL career

i find this thread to be more pathetic and borning than the tom scully & jack watts threads.

Seriously who cares if RoostIt got it wrong about Tapscott? Its a far more trivial matter than whether we've wasted our number 1 picks on a traitor and a dud!

(that last sentence is a joke )

The kid has played one game and the discussion is getting as heated as it gets about Watts. Talking about "potential" and comparing him to other players at this stage is useless - how about we let him play out the season and discuss his performances on each game rather than trying to make predictions. Let's just relax for the moment and pray he gets even better with each game, and then we go forth loving him for many years to come?

*Wanders in, reads thread and has to double check he is not on the Richmond forum*

Tappy played well, had a good first game and should play many more like that.

That's all we need to know. All the other stuff can wait for a bit.

Seriously who cares if RoostIt got it wrong about Tapscott?

Its defending the indefensible that gets up my nose.

Well, at least RI is fully committed to his ridiculous writing off of Tapscott, even if now he has added the caveat of him being played in defense.

I'm prepared to give a kid who has played 1 game a bit more time to prove himself.

cannot beleive that a thread on a debuting kid, who did have a great debut by the way has polarised the demonland forumites in such a way. 265 replies 25,000 views. Still a long way to go to catch up with Watts and Scully threads but Jeesssuuusss, move on kiddies. Let him crack a few games, even a season or 2 (he is contracted till the end 2012 BTW) before we write him off or hail him as the all conquering messiah.

i'm willing to bet he will run through someone, a la the Shaw hit, every game he plays this year B) , unfortunately this may well leave him out of contention from a rising star bid but hey I'd love to see it. I can see it now Hodge running on after being used as the sub this week and runs straight into the freight train Tappy, who knocks him into tomorrow. He'd be a bigger cult figure than 'Balls' Grinter. Fingers crossed

The thing about Tappy is that he brings some really important qualities to the team that we really need - strength & hardness, ability at contested footy, great disposal, and willingness & ability to take the game on. These are important additions to the team's mix of abilities.

As someone suggested, he just won't be played where his lack of pace & agility will be a headache for us. They're not going to just blindly pick him on HBF every week. Against Carlton, for example, we'd be insane to expect him to keep either Betts or Garlett under control. But he could really get amongst their defence and create havoc.

So, like a number of his teammates, there will need to be some thought at selection about where he plays, and on whom, so that we use his assets to our advantage and don't get exposed by his deficiencies. He's not alone in that.

The thing I liked the most, is that in an age article about the use of Indian batons for fitness training, the Sydney fitness coach nominated Rhyce Shaw as one of the strongest guys pound-for-pound at the Swans.

And a first-gamer obliterated him.

Love it.

Well, at least RI is fully committed to his ridiculous writing off of Tapscott, even if now he has added the caveat of him being played in defense.

I'm prepared to give a kid who has played 1 game a bit more time to prove himself.

You clearly haven't read my posts since sunday. Far from writing him off I was simply attempting to discuss his possible positive and negative attributes.

I haven't actually.

You sorta set a precedent and as a result I've only been skimming your posts.

You can't really blame me when you came out with that original crap.

Yes, height-wise, it would be better if he was a few inches taller.

But I don't think his height will hold him back as an AFL player - he still has a long & successful career ahead of him.

I'd say long term Tappy will play the fwd/midfield role. I can see him becoming our Chapman. Strong bodied, straight line player who's strong overhead and can kick a long goal. He's built for finals footy.

I'd say his current position in the backline has everything to do with his elite kicking skills and our desperate need for clean disposal out of defence. Strauss was meant to be this player, but he hasn't come on (yet). An elite kicking 'quarterback' is a must with modern forward zones.

Well stated.

I haven't actually.

You sorta set a precedent and as a result I've only been skimming your posts.

You can't really blame me when you came out with that original crap.

Yes, height-wise, it would be better if he was a few inches taller.

But I don't think his height will hold him back as an AFL player - he still has a long & successful career ahead of him.

So you condemn me for making unfounded statements and in response you make unfounded statements. Go Figure.

Then at the end of it all you agree with me.... I'm confused

So you condemn me for making unfounded statements and in response you make unfounded statements. Go Figure.

Then at the end of it all you agree with me.... I'm confused

Clearly I am too!

No, I haven't really paid too much attention because this thread went all stupid, and I think you should take credit for a lot of that.

My opinion is that he may be shorter than we'd like, but it still won't prevent him from being a capable, even valuable, backman, and I think he'll succeed even further upfield.

I wouldn't want him playing any deeper in attack than the HFF, because you'd be wasting his kicking skills.

In fact, the best place for him to use them may be the HBF.

He's not nippy enough for a wing.

"Buddy is on the lead ....Oooh Frawley just dropped back on him and takes the mark...Bailey has a great zone set up against the Hawks forwards here... Frawley quickly hand passes it off to Tapscott who "roosts it"...that must have gone 70 flat and hard metres straight onto the chest of Petterd."

Edited March 31, 201114 yr by Robbie57