View Full Version : The suprises!
RooMatera
22 Nov 2003, 12:29
For myself:
The steals are:
35. Collingwood - Brent Hall
Expected him to go early 2nd round.
44. Essendon - Ricky Dyson
Missed possible onballers at #6... so what? they should be laughing at picking up Dyson at 44.
No where to be seen:
Rowan Bonson
Callum Burges
Jacob Surjan - Wasn't only me thinking he wouldn't get picked up, the 16 selectors thought the same.
and
Port picking Rob Forster-Knight @ 39 shows how much faith the power have in the depth of the draft..... puddle deep.
Porthos
22 Nov 2003, 12:31
Hall not being at Adelaide
Chaplin to #9
McLean at #5
Robert Forster-Knight `What the?'
No Will Gayfer
pinkus maximus
22 Nov 2003, 12:36
Ryan Murphy at 12 was unexpected
Stanton at 13....i thought he may go second round..even third round.
Dyson is theft at 44....
lamby29
22 Nov 2003, 12:40
McLean was expected to go early first round... so not a huge surprise he went at 5.
Burges, Surjan, Herrington, Gayfer and Davey nowhere to be seen.
Forster-Knight at 39. :p
Kid Dynamite!
22 Nov 2003, 12:41
Didn't expect Thompson to get picked up, especially surprising seeing as Gayfer didnt go. Not too many people would have expected Waters to go so highly, either.
southjoy
22 Nov 2003, 12:43
Suprised with Furfaro, Pfitzner and Herrington not being taken. Herrington must of just had a red letter day aginst WA 18's!
tashibatts
22 Nov 2003, 12:43
Trotter at 9 for the Roos surprised me.. (I am surprised we didnt get Chaplin/Dunn..)
In fact.. all the Roos selections surprised me.. never heard of Brent LeCras in my life, but now that I have- I like the sound of him.
And Chad Jones.. another project.
We needed a couple of talls for KP possies down back, and we got them.
Very happy about Eddie Sansbury.. hehehee:D Eddie Eddie Eddie, Eddie, Eddie, Eddie:D So cool!
Biggest surprise from a roo point of view was taking all interstaters.
Go Roos
chaplin was a steal for port
GOALden Hawk
22 Nov 2003, 12:54
Where are all those WA fans who slated footyman for leaving Surjan and Burges out of his phantom draft? Never understood the fuss about either of them.
Gayfer is the surprise for me. Stewart must have real issues. Cosgriff and Herrington very unlucky.
Biggest surprise for a pick? Michael Davis from North Adelaide and Ben Hudson from Werribee. Cameron Thurley at 22 seemed over the odds as well.
redandblack
22 Nov 2003, 13:00
Don't be surprised about Beau Waters at 11. Plenty at West Adelaide rate him as high as Adam Cooney or better.
Originally posted by redandblack
Don't be surprised about Beau Waters at 11. Plenty at West Adelaide rate him as high as Adam Cooney or better.
Just what I wanted to hear ;)
Gayfer and Cosgriff are biggest the surprises for me. Walker's performance on Gayfer in the final seems to have torpedoed Gayfer.
Cosgriff looks a very good 3rd defender / HBF, he is maybe more or a surprise. I thought he was a revelation in the champs with his rebounding.
Brisbane will be looking forward to the rookie draft, Furfaro, Ryswyk, Rozynski, Cleary, Pask and Drummond are a good little pool to choose from.
Joel Campbell is another I thought would be taken.
And no one went for the young SA tall backmen, Grundy, Brakenridge or Chalen.
OldSchool
22 Nov 2003, 13:13
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Where are all those WA fans who slated footyman for leaving Surjan and Burges out of his phantom draft? Never understood the fuss about either of them.
Yes, it must be the time delay :)
GOALden Hawk
22 Nov 2003, 13:14
Yes, Brakenridge was another I thought who would go. Gayfer apparently turned in some shocking results at draft camp, and that is what torpedoed him, not his football.
Surely he will be rookie listed though. Agree on Cosgriff, a little bit of Hamill about him if you ask me.
Ben Clifton wasn't taken either.
no1bankteller
22 Nov 2003, 13:15
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Where are all those WA fans who slated footyman for leaving Surjan and Burges out of his phantom draft? Never understood the fuss about either of them.
Yet you had both of them in the middle of your second round of your phantom draft...
Just for the record I am not trying to criticise you as your effort on profiling players is second to none and I would not be capable of anything like that... However IMO by saying that "Never understood the fuss about either of them." you are actuallly contradicting your own thoughts at the time you posted your draft and I think that you have done an excellent job without now devaluing your own opinions.
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Ben Clifton wasn't taken either.
Apparently the Eagles were very keen and would have taken him at 26 if McConnell had already gone. Just goes to show there isn't much between being a top 30 pick and missing out all together.
GOALden Hawk
22 Nov 2003, 13:19
Originally posted by no1bankteller
Yet you had both of them in the middle of your second round of your phantom draft...
Just for the record I am not trying to criticise you as your effort on profiling players is second to none and I would not be capable of anything like that... However IMO by saying that "Never understood the fuss about either of them." you are actuallly contradicting your own thoughts at the time you posted your draft and I think that you have done an excellent job without now devaluing your own opinions.
Burges was based purely on the hype coming out of WA. I've learnt my lesson there, the kid is obviously overrated.
As for Surjan, I do believe he should have been picked up. However, most WA people were saying "certain 1st round selection" and couldn't believe he wouldn't even go past 20.
He will be rookie listed for sure.
no1bankteller
22 Nov 2003, 13:26
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Burges was based purely on the hype coming out of WA. I've learnt my lesson there, the kid is obviously overrated.
As for Surjan, I do believe he should have been picked up. However, most WA people were saying "certain 1st round selection" and couldn't believe he wouldn't even go past 20.
He will be rookie listed for sure.
Personally and I have said this on few occassions I think WCE and to lesser degree, only b/c I know far less about the way they function, Freo were hoping some of the local talent would miss out and then they could rookie list them...it has definately worked fo WCE in the past so whu not go again...
The sentimentalist in me is hoping Surjan is rookie listed by WC, would like to see him an Jak play together...
GOALden Hawk
22 Nov 2003, 13:32
Originally posted by no1bankteller
Personally and I have said this on few occassions I think WCE and to lesser degree, only b/c I know far less about the way they function, Freo were hoping some of the local talent would miss out and then they could rookie list them...it has definately worked fo WCE in the past so whu not go again...
The sentimentalist in me is hoping Surjan is rookie listed by WC, would like to see him an Jak play together...
As pointed out in another thread, a lot WA boys are coming east, whilst a lot of Victorians are going west. I'm sure you'd like your side to pick locals, but they have to go for what they think is the best available or fill weaknesses on their list.
A lot of phantom drafts seemed to have Burges and Surjan going 10 and 11 simply because they were WA boys and it was a logical fit. I guess today showed that it's not SOO and clubs will take interstate kids to improve their list.
Remember two years ago West Coast supporters were annoyed they took Judd over Polak. Might be an inspired decision to skip the WA boys, especially if you can squeeze Surjan onto a rookie list.
southjoy
22 Nov 2003, 14:19
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Burges was based purely on the hype coming out of WA. I've learnt my lesson there, the kid is obviously overrated.
As for Surjan, I do believe he should have been picked up. However, most WA people were saying "certain 1st round selection" and couldn't believe he wouldn't even go past 20.
He will be rookie listed for sure.
Goalden Hawk I too have enjoyed reading your posts and it is only over the net that Vic, Sa and Wa fans can go to lenghts to discuss young players that you obviously can't watch. I for one am interested in hearing more about Sam Butler.
I can however tell you that Burgess is a very good player, but young and would not of been in calculations media wise if not for a supposed leak. Callum needs to play a full year of colts and then 18's against the best players in Aust; then I am pretty sure you will be talking about this player in similar reigns to Farren Ray this year.
Both of these players as well as Hall , Chris Johnson and Spandermaan could play 18's again for WA but because we don't have the player resources they gain earlier opportunities to shine. I'm sure the Vics have other players almost as good as Betts to come up next year.
The fact that Burgess only played one colts game and a season of school football is obviuosly too big a gamble for clubs to make. The WA clubs have done this in the past so as to rookie list good players. Daniel Gilmour is a player Freo last year rookied and this kid can play.
Geez they can all play but AFL is AFL and many a good player doesn't get a go
Fall Out Boy
22 Nov 2003, 14:54
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Cameron Thurley at 22 seemed over the odds as well.
He'd want to be the next Medhurst, or Wells' head will be on the block.
He went for a smoky in Mackie last year, and went with another one this time round, overlooking Moody in the process.
Happy overall though. Tenace at 7 is a steal, and Spencer is value at 42 (most expected him to go around the 20 mark).
anonymous Joe
22 Nov 2003, 15:05
Originally posted by Porthos
Hall not being at Adelaide
Chaplin to #9
McLean at #5
Robert Forster-Knight `What the?'
No Will Gayfer
If its been red n black Port will have it what a joke Robert Forster-Knight @ 39 was selected @ 76 then delisted a few years later but he's a bomber so Port had to have him.
Adam Bentick and Ron Davis were two blokes I thought would get picked up.
But the three biggest shock non-selections for mine would have to be Stewart, Gayfer and Surjan. Without a doubt.
Geelong must be ****ing themselves getting Kane Tenace at #7. As would Essendon getting Ricky Dyson at #44. Would have thought both Jay Nash and Luke Peel would have gone higher.
Originally posted by bozza
But the three biggest shock non-selections for mine would have to be Stewart, Gayfer and Surjan. Without a doubt.
The biggest surprise for me is definitely Surjan, closely followed by Cosgriff, Stewart and Gayfer.
Originally posted by dasler
The biggest surprise for me is definitely Surjan, closely followed by Cosgriff, Stewart and Gayfer.
Wouldn't feel too bad Dasler, All clubs missed Matthew Pavlich in his first draft.
BigCat1
22 Nov 2003, 16:40
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Cameron Thurley at 22 seemed over the odds as well.
What a joke. Surely this guy would have been available at 54 if we wanted him so bad. 3 years of VFL in which he has been good without being sensational.
The thing I loved was how quick Brisbane blurted out: 'player number #*!^# - Matthew Moody, South Fremantle' as soon as Geelong finished their pick. It really was laughable. :( . I will have nightmares every time i see Moody play
Just seems to make no sense at all. I can't wait to here Thompson's reaction to this. All this for a forward pocket. :confused: Other than this we did very well.
Falconer02
22 Nov 2003, 16:50
Would of liked Surjan Dyson Nash Stewart Burges before the thurley guy.
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Where are all those WA fans who slated footyman for leaving Surjan and Burges out of his phantom draft? Never understood the fuss about either of them.
Gayfer is the surprise for me. Stewart must have real issues. Cosgriff and Herrington very unlucky.
Biggest surprise for a pick? Michael Davis from North Adelaide and Ben Hudson from Werribee. Cameron Thurley at 22 seemed over the odds as well.
Well why did you put Surjan and Burges as second round picks?
I think you mean Matt Davis, if you check back you'll find that I told you that Sydney would take a smokey late in the Draft.
I believe stewart is still young (turns 18 in february) so that might explain why he wasnt picked.
I cannot understand though why gayfer wasnt picked.
Burges was maybe hyped up by the eagles so that other clubs would take him early, when really he isnt worthy of a 1st/2nd round pick. If they were planning that, it didnt work obviously.
Surjan was a big shock. I thought essendon were seriously considering him for pick 28, but it is understandable that they took nash. I thought someone would surely take him after that though.
The rookie draft will be very interesting as there are some real good quality players still available.
footyman
22 Nov 2003, 17:33
I always feel sorry for the kids who missed out today cos many of them would be really disappointed. Certainly Adam Bentick and Ben Clifton from Calder are two blokes who were a bit unluckly to be overlooked. Ben Cosgriff from Murray is another and the comment weaver made before is pretty accurate, Will Gayfer from the same club in that position as well. There are four players from the two Grand Final sides in the TAC Cup. All these guys will be most likely taken pre season/rookie drafts.
Nobody was sucked in by Herrington which shocked me a bit, but he returns to the TAC Cup next year, along with guys like Chris Stewart.
The first one I raised eyebrows at was Ryan Murphy being a first round pick. Good young footballer though and certainly deserved to be taken.
Originally posted by YAKUZA
I think you mean Matt Davis, if you check back you'll find that I told you that Sydney would take a smokey late in the Draft.
You were certainly very persistent with that suggestion Yakuza and obviously were spot on. I'm curious - do you know the guy personally and thus knew that the Swans were showing interest? Or are you Ricky Barham?;)
Fall Out Boy
22 Nov 2003, 18:51
Originally posted by bozza
Geelong must be ****ing themselves getting Kane Tenace at #7.
We are.
Expected us to land Ryley Dunn or Brock McLean, but we've gone a much better version now.
Originally posted by liz
You were certainly very persistent with that suggestion Yakuza and obviously were spot on. I'm curious - do you know the guy personally and thus knew that the Swans were showing interest? Or are you Ricky Barham?;)
No liz I am not RB, lets just say I was in the know.
CharlieG
22 Nov 2003, 20:01
Originally posted by YAKUZA
No liz I am not RB, lets just say I was in the know.
Have you seen Davis play? We are crying out for details about him...
Rooboy36
22 Nov 2003, 20:10
CANNOT BELIEVE BENTICK, AND CLIFTON NOT GETTING PICKED!!!!
And to top it off a guy names Michael Rischitelli being drafted is an absolute joke especially before these two and certainly over other big names like gayfer, cosgriff, surgen etc. What i wanna know is what the afl recruiting staff actually look for in todays players!!!! Its got me beat.
Originally posted by Rooboy36
CANNOT BELIEVE BENTICK, AND CLIFTON NOT GETTING PICKED!!!!
And to top it off a guy names Michael Rischitelli being drafted is an absolute joke especially before these two and certainly over other big names like gayfer, cosgriff, surgen etc. What i wanna know is what the afl recruiting staff actually look for in todays players!!!! Its got me beat.
Ditto...
I am absolutely flabbergasted.
Add Paul Duffield to you list.
footyman
22 Nov 2003, 22:20
Originally posted by Rooboy36
CANNOT BELIEVE BENTICK, AND CLIFTON NOT GETTING PICKED!!!!
Michael Rischitelli being drafted is an absolute jokeWhat i wanna know is what the afl recruiting staff actually look for in todays players!!!! Its got me beat.
He played 8 TAC Cup games this year for an average of 13 posssessions. I think he's a wing/flanker as well so I always think 18-20 minimum is a good benchmark there.
I think he was injured early in the year with some groin trouble and perhaps Brisbane felt that had he been fit and firing all year he would've had a much better season. I'm pretty sure the Jets were happy wiht how he played late in the season.
As for Adam Bentick and Ben Clifton they were pretty unlucky. In fact I thought the clubs snubbed a lot of talent from the Calder Cannons.
Bentick played 40 games of TAC Cup footy over the last three years and would've averaged 20 possessions across the last two seasons.
Ben Clifton was eyed off last year at screening and then went to draft camp this year so clubs were obviously keen to have a look further at him. I reckon he's got loads of potential as a player because he still does a fair bit wrong.
They should get rookie spots, hopefully along with Dylan Kent, Jarrod Silvester and Chris Goullet. Also some good players back there next year with Dale May, Jackson Barling, Adam Iacobucci, Ben Jolley, James Ezard, Ronnie Davis and Daniel Anglin plus a few others I like the look of for next year.
Originally posted by CharlieG
Have you seen Davis play? We are crying out for details about him...
Several times Charlie in country SA, he is very athletic has a good pair of hands and very good skills, he should develop into a handy player and I am sure the Sydney fans will be impressed.
CharlieG
22 Nov 2003, 22:44
Originally posted by YAKUZA
Several times Charlie in country SA, he is very athletic has a good pair of hands and very good skills, he should develop into a handy player and I am sure the Sydney fans will be impressed.
What position do you think he's best suited to? What would you estimate would be his approximate height and weight?
GOALden Hawk
23 Nov 2003, 12:39
Originally posted by YAKUZA
Several times Charlie in country SA, he is very athletic has a good pair of hands and very good skills, he should develop into a handy player and I am sure the Sydney fans will be impressed.
Yeah, credit to you Yakuza, did very well on that tip (although a name would have been nice. ;) ) That was who I meant. When his name was read out I had no idea, and felt a little better when Kevin Sheahan was fumbling through his notes and drew a blank as well! He is 190cm and 90kg and described as a midfielder!
Explained my thoughts on Surjan and Burges in the previous page. What I meant by "not understanding all the fuss" was the way everyone had them as 1st round selections. Didn't mean I didn't think Surjan wouldn't get selected at all.
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Yeah, credit to you Yakuza, did very well on that tip (although a name would have been nice. ;) ) That was who I meant. When his name was read out I had no idea, and felt a little better when Kevin Sheahan was fumbling through his notes and drew a blank as well! He is 190cm and 90kg and described as a midfielder!
Explained my thoughts on Surjan and Burges in the previous page. What I meant by "not understanding all the fuss" was the way everyone had them as 1st round selections. Didn't mean I didn't think Surjan wouldn't get selected at all.
I did say I would give you a clue after the Draft commenced however, due to circumstances electronic I was unable to do so and for that I apologize. I had intended to give you his initials and State.
Point taken on Surjan and Burges but like you I was somewhat surprised by Surjans omission. I really wonder about some Clubs and their future planning eg., Richmond, Carlton etc., when they leave youngsters like Surjan, Bentick and several others for re-cycled hacks like Fletcher etc.
goaldrush
23 Nov 2003, 14:04
Originally posted by marcuz
Stanton at 13....i thought he may go second round..even third round.
Dyson is theft at 44.... He was absolutely rapt with the club though. I saw him on the highlights special on ch.10 yesterday. Congrats to him.
Black Thunder
23 Nov 2003, 20:09
The big suprise was Will Gayfer not getting drafed - i thought he was an outside chance to go top 10, probably goingi n the teens, and no way passing pick 30.
Surjan and Burges were a bit of a surprise too not to get drafted, while most people thought Michael Johnson was going to get picked up in the 20's.
Troy Chaplin at 15 is robbery.
Ricky Dyson at 44 is armed robbery.
Murphy (12) and Stanton (13) were suprisingly high.
Picking up Forster-Knight at 39 seems a very strange decision, while Thurley at 22 also is a huge risk.
Spencer at 42 is a great pick up.
Probalby close to the hardest draft to pick ever.
Go through most people phantom drafts, and struggle to find anyone who didn't have Gayfer top 20.........
GOALden Hawk
24 Nov 2003, 08:23
Originally posted by YAKUZA
I did say I would give you a clue after the Draft commenced however, due to circumstances electronic I was unable to do so and for that I apologize. I had intended to give you his initials and State.
Point taken on Surjan and Burges but like you I was somewhat surprised by Surjans omission. I really wonder about some Clubs and their future planning eg., Richmond, Carlton etc., when they leave youngsters like Surjan, Bentick and several others for re-cycled hacks like Fletcher etc.
I too find it incredible that Simon Fletcher could be considered a better option that Gayfer, Bentick or Cosgriff. But then again, it is Richmond we are talking about. :p
Porthos
24 Nov 2003, 08:45
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
I too find it incredible that Simon Fletcher could be considered a better option that Gayfer, Bentick or Cosgriff. But then again, it is Richmond we are talking about. :p I guess Frawley is using the `scorched earth' policy and not leaving his 2004 replacement much to work with besides a #1 draft pick ;)
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
I too find it incredible that Simon Fletcher could be considered a better option that Gayfer, Bentick or Cosgriff. But then again, it is Richmond we are talking about. :p
Bit harsh. They took 6 kids and 2 essentially untried guys (Morrison and Tuck) and only one recycled guy in Fletcher. If a club uses 32-34 players in a year having too many more than 6-8 development players on a list of 39 becomes a problem. Particularly when you consider that none of Richmond's picks will be ready next year.
GOALden Hawk
24 Nov 2003, 10:14
Originally posted by Weaver
Bit harsh. They took 6 kids and 2 essentially untried guys (Morrison and Tuck) and only one recycled guy in Fletcher. If a club uses 32-34 players in a year having too many more than 6-8 development players on a list of 39 becomes a problem. Particularly when you consider that none of Richmond's picks will be ready next year.
Yeah, but Fletcher? The guy has failed at 2 clubs and is an honest toiler at very best. He was just delisted from one of the weakest sides of the decade. And don't the Tigers already have blokes who can do his job (ie Fleming, Nicholls).
Smacked of a Wayne Brittain special to me.
Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Yeah, but Fletcher? The guy has failed at 2 clubs and is an honest toiler at very best. He was just delisted from one of the weakest sides of the decade. And don't the Tigers already have blokes who can do his job (ie Fleming, Nicholls).
Smacked of a Wayne Brittain special to me.
Exactly.
In all seriousness, I honestly thought prior to the draft that Richmond may consider Glenn Manton. I wouild not be surprised if they take him in the PSD
dees_best
5 Dec 2003, 09:33
Surjan,Furfaro,Cosgriff,McQualter,Fredericks and Herrington were the most unlucky.
Michael Johnson wasn't unlucky IMO.He played all games this year for Perth and only managed to finish 9th in their Best and Fairest.