View Full Version : 2004 Trade/draft period.
Was just looking over things from the 04 draft and thought to myself, have we ever basically rebuilt a midfield before in one go? Thompson, VB and Knighta are all going to be great for the next 10 years and with M&M&G we're just about guaranteed 2 very good rucks.
That's a fair effort but have we ever done better?
But James was useless apparently :confused:
Good pick up Eggz
Crow Envy
17 May 2007, 12:48
But James was useless apparently :confused:
Good pick up Eggz
Was that the same draft we ignored Pearce?
Was that the same draft we ignored Pearce?
Everyone ignored him .. rookie listed
Crow Envy
17 May 2007, 12:52
Everyone ignored him .. rookie listed
Exactly, we didnt even take a punt on him in the rookie draft
Exactly, we didnt even take a punt on him in the rookie draft
So blame 15 other Recruiting Officers as well...
We got Hinge in the Rookie Draft of that year too. Ok, he's got a lot to prove yet but he's still on our list and shows some signs he might make it.
Capitalist
17 May 2007, 13:32
Exactly, we didnt even take a punt on him in the rookie draft
so ? no one took a shot with Rutten, Mattner or Bock ?
i have when pesky supporters crap on about 1 player that wasn't picked up against a large number who were
seriously you can't pick up every good player/ smokey in the draft :rolleyes:
CarnCrows
17 May 2007, 13:51
seriously you can't pick up every good player/ smokey in the draft :rolleyes:
Spot on. Passing on players that turn out to be stars is not solely an Adelaide issue. It really gives me the ####'s especially things like the Pav debate. EVERY TEAM ignored him. EVERY TEAM ignored Pearce. EVERY TEAM ignored EVERY OTHER ROOKIE.
RoosterLad
17 May 2007, 13:55
Agree with everything in here. We missed some good players but also picked up good players which other clubs missed. No point having a cry over it.
Punchy Bassett
17 May 2007, 14:10
So can I say that Port's recruiting is crap because they didn't pick Rutten, Hentschel, Knights, Johncock etc :rolleyes:
Crow Envy
17 May 2007, 14:51
You guys are so defensive. Pearce was a standout in the draft camp. He is also a local boy so we should have had the inside knowledge on him. Our team was/is yearning for some pace and we had a player staring at us in the face.
And not every club passed on him because Port picked him up. And my pet peave is hiding behind "well no other club picked him up". I dont give a stuff what another club did or didnt do, I am only concerned that we didnt.
It is ok to admit the club do stuff up once and awhile, it doesnt mean your not a supporter. Im sure even people at the club would admit we got that one wrong.
It is ok to admit the club do stuff up once and awhile, it doesnt mean your not a supporter. Im sure even people at the club would admit we got that one wrong.
Ok lets backtrack to the 2 original posts
This board has had its fair share of James Fantasia detractors and I was responding to that memory, I think overall James did an ok job. Some bad decisions, some good , some bloody fantastic ones. Also noting the Coaches had the final say a lot of times. James puts names up, coach picks Angwin
Yes James got it wrong at times, but my 3rd point stands...so do all the other 15 clubs
James23
17 May 2007, 15:07
i think its more of an issue with pearce cos he was right under our noses attending our 'rookie camp' and didnt pick up on his talent there
Southerntakeover
17 May 2007, 15:08
You guys are so defensive. Pearce was a standout in the draft camp. He is also a local boy so we should have had the inside knowledge on him. Our team was/is yearning for some pace and we had a player staring at us in the face.
And not every club passed on him because Port picked him up. And my pet peave is hiding behind "well no other club picked him up". I dont give a stuff what another club did or didnt do, I am only concerned that we didnt.
It is ok to admit the club do stuff up once and awhile, it doesnt mean your not a supporter. Im sure even people at the club would admit we got that one wrong.
We might have overlooked him, but its foolish to start blaming the club for every gun player we dont get, especially when every other club also apparently had doubts about him.
Port DID pass on him, they picked him up as a Rookie. If theyd rated him so much, they would have taken him early in the real draft, rather than as an afterthought.
i think its more of an issue with pearce cos he was right under our noses attending our 'rookie camp' and didnt pick up on his talent there
Matt Priddis Board
Capitalist
17 May 2007, 15:25
You guys are so defensive. Pearce was a standout in the draft camp. He is also a local boy so we should have had the inside knowledge on him. Our team was/is yearning for some pace and we had a player staring at us in the face.
And not every club passed on him because Port picked him up. And my pet peave is hiding behind "well no other club picked him up". I dont give a stuff what another club did or didnt do, I am only concerned that we didnt.
It is ok to admit the club do stuff up once and awhile, it doesnt mean your not a supporter. Im sure even people at the club would admit we got that one wrong.
no one is argueing that - but FFS why do we always have to bring up the ones we overlooked ? why do people like you need to remind the rest of us what we already know and have been over 100 times, its the same as the 6 billion threads on Pavlich - yes we know he could have come here but he didn't.
no offence but is your type of person is the one that sits at the football and complains about everything and avoid any discussion on the positive points, there is understanding clubs make mistakes and lingering on things that are in the past.
get the **** over it :rolleyes:
Crow Envy
17 May 2007, 15:32
no one is argueing that - but FFS why do we always have to bring up the ones we overlooked ? why do people like you need to remind the rest of us what we already know and have been over 100 times, its the same as the 6 billion threads on Pavlich - yes we know he could have come here but he didn't.
no offence but is your type of person is the one that sits at the football and complains about everything and avoid any discussion on the positive points, there is understanding clubs make mistakes and lingering on things that are in the past.
get the **** over it :rolleyes:
No offence but you dont know jack shit about me
Capitalist
17 May 2007, 16:10
no one is argueing that - but FFS why do we always have to bring up the ones we overlooked ? why do people like you need to remind the rest of us what we already know and have been over 100 times, its the same as the 6 billion threads on Pavlich - yes we know he could have come here but he didn't.
no offence but is your type of person is the one that sits at the football and complains about everything and avoid any discussion on the positive points, there is understanding clubs make mistakes and lingering on things that are in the past.
get the **** over it :rolleyes:
No offence but you dont know jack shit about me
thats right - hence the people "like" you part
i can only draw from what i read :)
Stiffy_18
17 May 2007, 16:16
You guys are so defensive. Pearce was a standout in the draft camp. He is also a local boy so we should have had the inside knowledge on him. Our team was/is yearning for some pace and we had a player staring at us in the face.
And not every club passed on him because Port picked him up. And my pet peave is hiding behind "well no other club picked him up". I dont give a stuff what another club did or didnt do, I am only concerned that we didnt.
It is ok to admit the club do stuff up once and awhile, it doesnt mean your not a supporter. Im sure even people at the club would admit we got that one wrong.
He was a standout at the draft camp but what exactly does that tell you about his football ability?!
Sure we stuffed that up but FFS he got overlooked in the National Draft by every other club. Even in the rookie draft he was the last pick in the first round. So in other words, 16 clubs overlooked him at least 3 times and he was overlooked by 15 clubs at least 4 times.
He will not be the first one or the last one to slip through the cracks. I think overall we have done a sensational job in 2004 draft. Only Gibson is not on the list anymore and even he was a good punt at the time.
We pretty much rebuilt our midfield and rucks in one draft. That is a FANTASTIC achievement by anyone's standards.
And for the record, Rutten was 4th round pick in the rookie draft. You win some, you lose some. No use crying over spilt milk but anyone who can knock the club's work in this draft really has no ****ing idea just how difficult it is to pull of that sort of effort in one year.
ams4crows
17 May 2007, 16:20
Rutten absolute Gun!! can we please focus on the great ones we have picked up instead of the ones we missed!
CrowHop
17 May 2007, 16:21
He was a standout at the draft camp but what exactly does that tell you about his football ability?!
Sure we stuffed that up but FFS he got overlooked in the National Draft by every other club. Even in the rookie draft he was the last pick in the first round. So in other words, 16 clubs overlooked him at least 3 times and he was overlooked by 15 clubs at least 4 times.
He will not be the first one or the last one to slip through the cracks. I think overall we have done a sensational job in 2004 draft. Only Gibson is not on the list anymore and even he was a good punt at the time.
We pretty much rebuilt our midfield and rucks in one draft. That is a FANTASTIC achievement by anyone's standards.
And for the record, Rutten was 4th round pick in the rookie draft. You win some, you lose some. No use crying over spilt milk but anyone who can knock the club's work in this draft really has no ****ing idea just how difficult it is to pull of that sort of effort in one year.
Quality post. It was a great draft for us, and people are still complaining we didnt pick up Pearce !
Stiffy_18
17 May 2007, 16:28
Quality post. It was a great draft for us, and people are still complaining we didnt pick up Pearce !
And then when you consider that we also got Hinge AND Griffin in the rookie draft that year, well.... its just a bloody BRILLIANT effort by the club.
betterthanu
17 May 2007, 16:47
.................................Picks Still Active Games Ave Games(Since Drafted)
National .......................34 .........20 .......753........... 22.1
National 1st Round.......... 7 ..........6 .........88 ...........12.6
National 2nd Round.......... 5 ..........3 .........46............ 9.2
National 3rd Round........... 7......... 4........ 163 ...........23.3
National 4th Round+ ........15......... 7........ 456.......... 30.4
Pre-Season.................... 6........... 2.........199......... 33.2
Rookie.......................... 31......... 11........ 407......... 13.1
Total............................ 71........ 33........ 1359 .........19.1
amazing that we've done better in the later rounds in regards to games played than early. **** you angwin and watts.
2nd rounds been a black hole for us. C'mon Tippett.
Stiffy_18
17 May 2007, 16:53
.................................Picks Still Active Games Ave Games(Since Drafted)
National .......................34 .........20 .......753........... 22.1
National 1st Round.......... 7 ..........6 .........88 ...........12.6
National 2nd Round.......... 5 ..........3 .........46............ 9.2
National 3rd Round........... 7......... 4........ 163 ...........23.3
National 4th Round+ ........15......... 7........ 456.......... 30.4
Pre-Season.................... 6........... 2.........199......... 33.2
Rookie.......................... 31......... 11........ 407......... 13.1
Total............................ 71........ 33........ 1359 .........19.1
amazing that we've done better in the later rounds in regards to games played than early. **** you angwin and watts.
2nd rounds been a black hole for us. C'mon Tippett.
vB was a 2nd rounder :D :thumbsu:
betterthanu
17 May 2007, 17:02
vB was a 2nd rounder :D :thumbsu:
yeah well by the time vB plays his 500th game hopefully that average has risen greatly. Tippett will also surely play 300+:):thumbsu:
You guys are so defensive. Pearce was a standout in the draft camp. He is also a local boy so we should have had the inside knowledge on him. Our team was/is yearning for some pace and we had a player staring at us in the face.
And not every club passed on him because Port picked him up. And my pet peave is hiding behind "well no other club picked him up". I dont give a stuff what another club did or didnt do, I am only concerned that we didnt.
It is ok to admit the club do stuff up once and awhile, it doesnt mean your not a supporter. Im sure even people at the club would admit we got that one wrong.
Oh my goodness you are the biggest whinger!:eek:
Do you realise the fact that we have 2 of our 4 rookies still on our list from that draft? That's an astonishing strike rate! you only have to look at the rookies we picked up in 2005 to note that!
With our 3rd and 4th rounders we picked players of the calibre of Ivan Maric and Chris Knights, players whom i think will be more valuable in the long run then Pearce! Seriously the players we chose before Pearce were Meesen, VB, Gibson, Maric, Knights and Nye. With hindsight we can only say that Pearce will be better then two of the six players we chose ahead of him, that is a great strike rate in drafting!
betterthanu
17 May 2007, 17:22
drafting if not science, its mostly guess work. Lately we have done better than anyone considering we never have high picks.
Macca19
17 May 2007, 17:41
Pearce may have burned at Draft Camp, but his U18 games that year were quite unimpressive. It was a bit of a risk. Especially given he was very thin as well.
His meteoric rise from mid 05 through to now has been extraordinary. Noone would have picked it. Yes he may have been right under your nose at your rookie camp and yes you may be screaming out for pace but ah well. You cant draft everybody. For every Pearce or Priddis you missed out on, or every Angwin or Watts who were top pick blunders, youve had a Knights, Johncock, Rutten etc. Its all evened out pretty well.
With those stats from betterthanu, that lack of 2nd round action is pretty strange. Who were those players?
dyertribe
17 May 2007, 17:43
Pearce well and truly slipped through the cracks - through no fault of anyone's.
As has been said, he had a stellar draft camp but his form at the U18 Championships and for Sturt was rather ordinary - looked every bit like your classic case of an athlete who excelled at physical testing but was a bit naff on the footy field.
As it turns out you need to be able to see the footy in order to get it - and after Pearce was diagnosed with significant short-sightedness a couple of contact lenses have turned him from a raw athlete to a highly accomplished footballer.
At the time I didn't see my eyesight affecting me, but when I got the glasses and lenses I really noticed a definite improvement, especially with night training and night games," - Link (http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/ports-magic-ingredient/2006/08/17/1155407955678.html).
CrowMagnum
17 May 2007, 18:08
Pearce well and truly slipped through the cracks - through no fault of anyone's.
As has been said, he had a stellar draft camp but his form at the U18 Championships and for Sturt was rather ordinary - looked every bit like your classic case of an athlete who excelled at physical testing but was a bit naff on the footy field.
As it turns out you need to be able to see the footy in order to get it - and after Pearce was diagnosed with significant short-sightedness a couple of contact lenses have turned him from a raw athlete to a highly accomplished footballer.
At the time I didn't see my eyesight affecting me, but when I got the glasses and lenses I really noticed a definite improvement, especially with night training and night games," - Link (http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/afl/ports-magic-ingredient/2006/08/17/1155407955678.html).
Remember him playing in the SANFL and while he was fast his skills, especially disposal, were very underwhelming. He wasn't even that highly regarded at Sturt. Turns out he just needed glasses!
Perhaps they should do eye checks at draft camps instead of beep tests.
betterthanu
17 May 2007, 18:22
With those stats from betterthanu, that lack of 2nd round action is pretty strange. Who were those players?
Sorry i forgot to say those stats are only from 2000 onwards. In that time we have only had 5 round 2 picks. Include players such as Joshua Krueger, vB, Tippett, Gibson and X factor.
Carl Spackler
17 May 2007, 19:17
One thing often gets ignored when analysing the success draft picks and that is the effect (+ve or -ve) the club itself has had on the player since being drafted.
The Richard Tambling vs Lance Franklin argument has been talked about lately. Richmond fans see Franklin kicking bags of 9 goals and think if only we had made a different decision at the draft then we would have a young centre half forward being touted as the next big thing. Would they?
If Franklin had been drafted to Richmond would he be any good? Would he have progressed as much as he has at Hawthorn? Pearce got picked up by Port in 2004 and we all look now at Pearce and think about what might have been. If the Crows had drafted him would he be playing as well as he is now for Port? I'd say no. At Port, Pearce was able to get plenty of league football as a teenager. They struggled in 2006 and to a lesser extent 2005 so the youngsters have got an extended run which has aided their development. At Adelaide we seem to be a bit more protective of our draftees so maybe he wouldn't have played so many games so early. Plus we were trying to win a flag so were less likely to experiment with youth.
The reason Tambling is struggling is not because the Tigers made a bad choice at draft day. It is because Richmond is a shit club with a shit culture and shit coaches and no player will develop well in that environment.
It doesn't stand to reason that if we'd have drafted Pearce, we'd have a gun on our hands just because that is what he is doing at Port. The environment, the coaching, the confidence, the culture and the opportunities available are all key ingredients in determining whether a draft pick turns to be the 'right' decision or not. The quality of a draftee is not predetermined. They literally could be anything.
Crow-mo
17 May 2007, 19:32
But James was useless apparently :confused:
lol :D
only to the same select group of people.
Crow-mo
17 May 2007, 19:34
Exactly, we didnt even take a punt on him in the rookie draft
he wasn't first pick in the rookie draft either ;)
Crow-mo
17 May 2007, 19:37
You guys are so defensive. Pearce was a standout in the draft camp. He is also a local boy so we should have had the inside knowledge on him. Our team was/is yearning for some pace and we had a player staring at us in the face.
And not every club passed on him because Port picked him up. And my pet peave is hiding behind "well no other club picked him up". I dont give a stuff what another club did or didnt do, I am only concerned that we didnt.
It is ok to admit the club do stuff up once and awhile, it doesnt mean your not a supporter. Im sure even people at the club would admit we got that one wrong.
1. this idea that we have an advantage with local boys is a myth perpetuated by Victorian clubs to explain their poor recruiting.
2. he was about the 100th player picked that year. no one gets credit not even Port on that scale.
3. we invited him to our rookie camp and by all accounts had intended to take with one of our picks. I think he was port's 2nd or 3rd rookie pick.
4. it's not about admitting to stuff up's, it's first about agreeing whether there was a stuff up at all. it's a very selective view that suggests we should hold the can here.
Crow-mo
17 May 2007, 19:41
Good post Carl, environment does matter.
you can argue the merits of one environment over another, but everyone should agree that it is a big contributing factor to the success of a player.
Macca19
17 May 2007, 21:24
1
3. we invited him to our rookie camp and by all accounts had intended to take with one of our picks. I think he was port's 2nd or 3rd rookie pick.
Pretty sure he was our first - pick 16.
MickyCrow
17 May 2007, 21:37
Seriously we should start a James Fantasia thank you so much thread for the 2004 Draft :thumbsu:
FACT: Gary Ayres was an overbearing ******** in regards to drafting/trading
FACT: This draft was the first draft in 5 years where James was under NO pressure to go a certain way from the head coach and was free to do HIS JOB HIS WAY
FACT: In this period he netted us:
a) Scott Thompson for Tyson Stenglien. At least broke even in this trade
b) At the national draft: At the very least three potential 200+ gamers in Chris Knights, Nathan Van Berlo and Ivan Maric. John Meesen could go either way but was the best ruckman in the draft at the time, and Gibson could have been great but attitude? held him back (my sincere apologies drummond;) )
c) At the rookie draft: OK Nye was a dud with a bad attitude but Hinge has the chance to be a 50+ game, honest defender, pretty good for pick 120 in the draft and HE DISCOVERED AND HID AWAY JONATHAN GRIFFIN
and we are started to see this boy may have been the gem of the draft
SO....Is any one still moaning about Danyle Pearce
I say be greatful for what we have instead of bitching about the one that got away
... But thats just my opinion ;)
Crow-mo
17 May 2007, 22:14
Pretty sure he was our first - pick 16.
my bad. :thumbsu:
macca23
17 May 2007, 22:16
Pretty sure he was our first - pick 16.
He was.
I remember that clearly because I was shattered that we hadn't drafted him - I had him down for our 2nd pick in that draft - but thought we would have been a certainty to take him with our first rookie pick, as we desperately needed that quick little crumbing type forward.
We took Nye instead, who turned out just to be one of those vanilla run-of-the-mill types that there are plenty of, but nobody wants.
Port took him with their first rookie pick and got themselves a bargain.
Pearce was a good gamble IMO as he had a point of difference. The big bonusthough, as DT also pointed out, was a bit of correction to the eye-sight and voila - an almost instant star on the horizon. :thumbsu:
Crow-mo
17 May 2007, 23:03
I feel Bock's best position is CHB, and that he is one of the best in the league at that possie.
Rutten is clearly the best FB in the league at present.
that's a mighty FB/CHB combo to have gotten from one rookie draft.
we can forgive ourselves over Pearce.
relapse
17 May 2007, 23:48
Everyone ignored him .. rookie listed
Actually he was training with us, but as others said we missed out on him and went for Ryan Nye with our first pick I actually thought it was Hinge that was our first pick, but looks like I was mistaken.
Actually he was training with us, but as others said we missed out on him and went for Ryan Nye with our first pick I actually thought it was Hinge that was our first pick, but looks like I was mistaken.
We took 3 rookies in that draft:
#5 Ryan Nye
#21 Jonathon Griffin
#35 John Hinge
The final rookie spot was occupied by Matthew Smith, who was retained on the rookie list. Poor fool us.
Still, 2 out of 3 ain't bad - even if we did miss out on Pearce.
Crow-mo
18 May 2007, 19:35
We took 3 rookies in that draft:
#5 Ryan Nye
#21 Jonathon Griffin
#35 John Hinge
The final rookie spot was occupied by Matthew Smith, who was retained on the rookie list. Poor fool us.
Still, 2 out of 3 ain't bad - even if we did miss out on Pearce.
if you check the odds, 2 out of 3 is blooming phenomenal.