Could Richmond’s two top-five picks weaken the midfield they are meant to build?
Richmond has Picks 2 and 5, but the word “midfielder” does not establish that Sam Lalor, Taj Hotton and Josh Smillie already provide three available AFL roles. That is the dilemma behind spending heavily on another young group before the club knows what its existing investments can deliver. Lalor produced senior impact against Carlton but played 12 games in an interrupted season. Hotton built a late run of ten appearances, ending with a revealing game at Geelong. Smillie has not played AFL football, and Richmond protected his recovery rather than risk two late VFL matches. These are different evidence bases, not interchangeable promises. In the full feature, we examine how trading Pick 22 and three 2027 selections for Pick 5 changes Richmond’s two-pick planning problem.
The stakes rose when Richmond traded Pick 22 and three 2027 selections to Port Adelaide for Pick 5. National recruiting manager Rhy Gieschen has defended choosing the best long-term footballer rather than passing on talent because a position looks crowded. That principle is persuasive, but it does not answer how another recruit will learn, whose minutes may change, or what functions the team gains. Lalor and Hotton are contracted through 2029; commitment, however, does not settle their roles or establish Smillie’s eventual capacity. Richmond must assess the next prospect against what these players have actually shown, while accounting for the future flexibility it surrendered. In our Members investigation, we compare the trio’s distinct senior evidence with Richmond’s best-available philosophy and the roles it must still develop.
What can Richmond count as evidence rather than hope?
Lalor’s Carlton performance offers unusually concrete evidence: 16 disposals, nine contested possessions, four clearances, five inside-50s and two goals. Richmond coach Adem Yze noted the value of seeing him work inside and then become dangerous forward. That combination matters because it shows contest involvement and scoring threat in one senior match, not because it settles his best position. More stoppage work could develop his midfield craft; more time forward could make his scoring valuable. Either allocation carries an opportunity cost, and a new recruit could change the balance. The question is what assignment best develops Lalor while making the team more functional. In the full feature, we dissect Lalor’s Carlton numbers and the unresolved trade-off between developing his stoppage craft and using his forward threat.
Twelve AFL appearances establish that Lalor has contributed at senior level, but they do not show how much midfield responsibility he can sustain across a season. His interruptions explain the limited sample; they are neither proof of fragility nor a guarantee of future availability. Richmond must consider whether another midfielder could cover demanding minutes if Lalor is unavailable, or whether existing players can provide that depth while he develops. Recruiting primarily from fear of another interruption could create unnecessary competition when players are fit. Assuming uninterrupted availability could leave too few workable combinations. The club’s planning depends on evidence-based contingencies, not hopeful arithmetic or one match elevated into a verdict. In our Members investigation, we examine what Lalor’s 12 appearances can establish about availability and how Richmond could plan credible midfield contingencies.
What do Lalor’s and Hotton’s senior games actually show?
Hotton’s ten consecutive senior appearances supplied a late-season sample that earlier disruption had delayed. His final game against Geelong included 19 disposals, 14 contested possessions, three clearances and 13 handballs. Those numbers offer evidence of difficult-ball involvement and release by hand; they do not prove consistency across roles, opponents or a full season. The useful shift is that his midfield projection now has senior contest evidence alongside the movement and creativity already associated with him. Richmond still needs to test whether those decisions and physical contests hold when he starts elsewhere or faces closer attention. A draftee should be assessed against that developing capability, not an outdated label. In the full feature, we trace what Hotton’s Geelong contested possessions and handball release reveal, and what one late-season game cannot prove.
Smillie presents a different uncertainty: Richmond did not risk a late return when only two VFL matches remained and his training exposure was limited. That documented choice explains why he did not play; it cannot establish his return date or eventual AFL role. His junior projection remains a possibility awaiting meaningful senior assessment after quad surgery and a further setback in 2026. The club must protect a credible development pathway without reserving a role indefinitely. Another recruit might complement Smillie’s eventual strengths, or compete for similar opportunities. Neither conclusion is yet supported as fact, so Richmond needs a plan that can adjust as evidence emerges. In our Members investigation, we examine the late VFL non-return decision and the limits of what it establishes about Smillie’s future role.
How can two picks strengthen the midfield without crowding its development?
Two top-five picks create a construction problem: each choice changes the opportunities, pairings and teaching available for the other. Richmond could choose complementary midfield skills, or select a player elsewhere who improves midfield function without claiming the same development minutes. Experienced teammates can teach and protect younger players, but they also shape access to meaningful repetitions. Counting names cannot reveal whether contest work connects to running, release and defence. The club must explain how Lalor, Hotton and Smillie can develop within the chosen mix, and what progress would justify it. The central question remains open: what combination makes the side more functional without assuming the answer in advance? In the full feature, we test how Richmond’s two selections could build complementary functions and what observable development would make that plan accountable.
Not a member yet? Join RTSSG for the complete investigation and more Richmond research.
Richmond news by Richmond people, for Richmond people.
Comments