Draft Review 2005 - Redo the 2005 Draft

[melbourne150]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Muston & Ellis will feature in the top 10 at season's end, but that is irrelevant to this point.

1. S. Pendlebury
2. M. Murphy
3. P. Ryder
4. G. Birchall ( talk about underated)
5. D. Thomas
6. S. Higgins
7. S. Hurn
8. N. Jones ( talk about overated)
9. M. Clark
10. C. Bartram/R. Warnock( a star)

This is what makes me hate Hawthorn supporters.......

 

[Cats fan 16]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Dont be bias Stokes is way to high your just cheating yourself

Stokes would have to be in the top 10...and im not biased as i believe Varcoe shouldn't be in the top 20. Stokes had a ripper year, including a brilliant grand final and 3 goals in the first quarter in the preliminary. He deserves top 10.
To the person that keeps mentioning Muston and Dowler..theyve played less than 5 afl games between them, how do you justify putting them in the top 20?

 

[Magpie Mick]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Pies clearly struck gold in this draft and alot of people would agree (and others would disagree at my take) but this is how it would go in most cases:

1. Scott Pendlebury

2. Dale Thomas

Throw a blanket over the rest.

Also recall Robbo doing a re-jig on various drafts and he too agreed Pendlebury/Thomas at 1/2 respectively.

That's exactly how I would do it, with Murphy at 3.

 

[Jono B]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Muston & Ellis will feature in the top 10 at season's end, but that is irrelevant to this point.

1. S. Pendlebury
2. M. Murphy
3. P. Ryder
4. G. Birchall ( talk about underated)
5. D. Thomas
6. S. Higgins
7. S. Hurn
8. N. Jones ( talk about overated)
9. M. Clark
10. C. Bartram/R. Warnock( a star)

Probably swap Thomas and Birchall and that would be my list. Jones has done very well but I just can't see how he can make the step up to elite.

 

[coley]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Muston & Ellis will feature in the top 10 at season's end, but that is irrelevant to this point.

1. S. Pendlebury
2. M. Murphy
3. P. Ryder
4. G. Birchall ( talk about underated)
5. D. Thomas
6. S. Higgins
7. S. Hurn
8. N. Jones ( talk about overated)
9. M. Clark
10. C. Bartram/R. Warnock( a star)

thomas (very good player {consistentcy growing})
bartram was my pick for the rising star early
birchall underated ball carrier ( can accept that im bias)
higgins was sollid in a few games but not consistent
jones i rate very highly
clarke obviously a good effort
murphy i think was a draft disaster so far but will improve (hopefully)

 

[micky_11]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

swallow very underated on here, rizzo the only one that has him anywhere near what he should be at.

doesn bother me tho, he will prove alot of people wrong this year!

 

[rizzo]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Dont be bias Stokes is way to high your just cheating yourself

Obviously didn't see how he ripped your mob a new hole.

Since being drafted he has averaged 15 disposals, 5 marks and 1.5 goals per game. Not a bad effort. Better then every player he is in front of.

Infact if you look at Thomas v Stokes, stoker has better stats
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=10&pid1=1663&tid2=5&pid2=1608

Maybe he should be higher then collingwoods little love child?

Gilbert, Stokes and Swallow before Ryder?

I'm embarrassed for you.

Ryder 10 disposals 5 marks
Gilbert 15 disposals 5 marks
See Above for Stokes
Swallow 14 disposals 3 marks

Obviously cant rate Ryder on stats alone as he is a key possy. However he plays a very similar game to Gilbert.

Essendon supporters are having a wank over a bloke whose output so far hasn't been as good as many others

I mentioned that this was ranked on output already, not on potential.

So hands off ya d*ick and into reality.

 

[Jono B]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Obviously didn't see how he ripped your mob a new hole.

Since being drafted he has averaged 15 disposals, 5 marks and 1.5 goals per game. Not a bad effort. Better then every player he is in front of.

Infact if you look at Thomas v Stokes, stoker has better stats
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=10&pid1=1663&tid2=5&pid2=1608

Maybe he should be higher then collingwoods little love child?



Ryder 10 disposals 5 marks
Gilbert 15 disposals 5 marks
See Above for Stokes
Swallow 14 disposals 3 marks

Obviously cant rate Ryder on stats alone as he is a key possy. However he plays a very similar game to Gilbert.

Essendon supporters are having a wank over a bloke whose output so far hasn't been as good as many others

I mentioned that this was ranked on output already, not on potential.

So hands off ya d*ick and into reality.

On output it is fair enough. But when you compare him to players who are 1 year (Swallow), 2 years (Gilbert) and 4 years (Stokes) older than him he does come out favourably.

 

[Rough_Edges]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

LOL at the bias in this thread.

Murphy, Pendlebury, Birchall, Thomas, Hurn - My top 5 in order.

 

[Schmick]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

1 (1) Marc Murphy
2 (5) Scott Pendlebury
3 (2) Dale Thomas
4 (7) Patrick Ryder
5 (12) Nathan Jones
6 (14) Grant Birchall
7 (42) Robert Warnock
8 (43) Andrew Swallow
9 (13) Shannon Hurn
10 (11) Shaun Higgins
11 (33) Sam Gilbert
12 (9) Mitch Clark
13 (60) Clint Bartram
14 (61) Matthew Stokes
15 (4) Josh Kennedy
16 (15) Travis Varcore
17 (3) Xavier Ellis
18 (41) Rhan Hooper
19 (10) Marcus Drum
20 (19) Courtenay Dempsey

 

[Schmick]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Obviously didn't see how he ripped your mob a new hole.

Since being drafted he has averaged 15 disposals, 5 marks and 1.5 goals per game. Not a bad effort. Better then every player he is in front of.

Infact if you look at Thomas v Stokes, stoker has better stats
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=10&pid1=1663&tid2=5&pid2=1608

Maybe he should be higher then collingwoods little love child?



Ryder 10 disposals 5 marks
Gilbert 15 disposals 5 marks
See Above for Stokes
Swallow 14 disposals 3 marks

Obviously cant rate Ryder on stats alone as he is a key possy. However he plays a very similar game to Gilbert.

Essendon supporters are having a wank over a bloke whose output so far hasn't been as good as many others

I mentioned that this was ranked on output already, not on potential.

So hands off ya d*ick and into reality.

How do they play a similar game? I admit iv'e only seen a few games of Gilbert but to me he seemed like more of a running player who plays off half back/wing and can run and carry the ball, therefore he'd naturally get alot more of the ball, where as Ryder played as KPP/3rd Tall most of the time so he's not expected to get as much of the ball, just keep his opponent quiet.

 

[rizzo]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

How do they play a similar game? I admit iv'e only seen a few games of Gilbert but to me he seemed like more of a running player who plays off half back/wing and can run and carry the ball therefore he'd naturally get alot more of the ball, where as Ryder played as KPP/3rd Tall most of the time.

Saints struggled for KPP last year so i think Gilbert took on a taller role. However with Macguire back i think he will play the role you mentioned.

 

[Cats fan 16]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

thomas (very good player {consistentcy growing})
bartram was my pick for the rising star early
birchall underated ball carrier ( can accept that im bias)
higgins was sollid in a few games but not consistent
jones i rate very highly
clarke obviously a good effort
murphy i think was a draft disaster so far but will improve (hopefully)

murphy a disaster? How do you figure?

 

[Smyth94]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

LOL at the bias in this thread.

Murphy, Pendlebury, Birchall, Thomas, Hurn - My top 5 in order.

Thats what all these "re-draft" threads are all about - insert your team's draftees

Seriously though, only Pendlebury and Murphy are ahead of Ryder, and Ryder has more talent than both of them.

If he moves into the middle ala Goodes, mark him down for a Brownlow.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Thats what all these "re-draft" threads are all about - insert your team's draftees

Seriously though, only Pendlebury and Murphy are ahead of Ryder, and Ryder has more talent than both of them.

If he moves into the middle ala Goodes, mark him down for a Brownlow.

It's amusing you follow up your first line with that utterly biased bullshit.

 

[mark73]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

16.7 disposals and nearly a goal a game isn't shocking.

I like the way he plays. He's tough and works hard.

Well thats interesting. I could've sworn you argued at pains how irrelevant stats were but I see you don't mind using them to support your own arguments. Must be just other people huh?

McGlynn is an ordinary player.

 

[coley]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

murphy a disaster? How do you figure?

for the no1 draft pick in that draft and all the hype i think he has'nt been nearly as good as thomas.birchall. pendlebury and the like. he does however have finishing skill when he's got the ball but i question his ability to get the ball when nobody else can

i will give him one thing, the players mentioned above murphy hav all slotted in to there senior side amazingly well for such young players and the bar has been set very high.

i have little doubt he wont be a great player but i think hes fallen victim to the hype around him and stigma atached to the no1pick

disaster more on carltons part not marcs

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Nah i rate Birchall he is a reciever which every team needs but no way top 5 he he isnt anywhere near Murphy, Thomas, Pendlebury, Jones, Hurn,
Warnock is a funny one i think he is a top10 pick because there is such a demand for a good Ruckman and there so hard to pick so if a club knew warnock would be a good player he would go early thats how i look at it

you clearly lack knowledge about him. and the draft. re-done now, Pendlebury would be 1, birchall number 2 (at this exact point in time, not for the future, right now!)

 

[mark73]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

for the no1 draft pick in that draft and all the hype i think he has'nt been nearly as good as thomas.birchall. pendlebury and the like. he does however have finishing skill when he's got the ball but i question his ability to get the ball when nobody else can

When Murphy is able to compete for a full season without any ailments and others come on so he at 19 isn't being the first player tagged, he'll leave all the players you mentioned for dead, bar "maybe" Pendlebury.

I think Carlton have made some blunders with their early picks (Walker, Kennedy and Gibbs can't possibly live up to the media hype, it's not possible although not his fault), but not with Murphy.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Well thats interesting. I could've sworn you argued at pains how irrelevant stats were but I see you don't mind using them to support your own arguments. Must be just other people huh?

McGlynn is an ordinary player.

I argued you can't say one player is better than another just because their stats look better. That is it. learn the difference.

I think it is reasonable to say that over 15 touches and close to a goal a game is decent output. But that doesn't mean he's a better player than someone who averages 13 disposals.

May I ask why you still haven't replied to that thread by the way?

 

[mark73]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

I argued you can't say one player is better than another just because their stats look better. That is it. learn the difference.

Translation = I've been caught out talking shit.

I think it is reasonable to say that over 15 touches and close to a goal a game is decent output. But that doesn't mean he's a better player than someone who averages 13 disposals.

Desperation at it's finest.

May I ask why you still haven't replied to that thread by the way?

Because it was like driving down a dead end street trying to find a way out.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Translation = I've been caught out talking shit.

No I haven;t. I don't think you can compare two players based solely off a stats sheet. I maintain that. Is that talking shit?

Desperation at it's finest.

Er...how is that desperate?

Because it was like driving down a dead end street trying to find a way out.

Hahahaha.

Dude, I proved you totally wrong and you refuse to even go back to the thread. Totally pathetic.

 

[mark73]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

No I haven;t. I don't think you can compare two players based solely off a stats sheet. I maintain that. Is that talking shit?

Pretty much when you then go and try and defend a players case by saying he averages 16.7 poss a game and a goal and virtually shitcanning CrazyQ for doing it. Make no mistake, you were caught out.

Er...how is that desperate?

By doing what you did before and trying to shift angles.

Hahahaha.

Dude, I proved you totally wrong and you refuse to even go back to the thread. Totally pathetic.

You proved me totally wrong? How? As you would say, I said Lucas and Mooney are more important than T.Cloke and "I maintain that".

 

[AGC]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

This is how I think they'll end up:

1. Ryder (calling it early, but anyone who can hold down CHB in their 2nd season the way he did was impressive)
2. Murphy- Will be extremely good, but maybe overshadowed by the Blues class mids.
3. Pendlebury- Pure class
4. Higgins- Really rate him
5. JOnes- Really good hard nut in the Dees midfield. Very good player (needs to grown some hair)
6/7. Ellis- Only had one season really- will be a good player
7/6. Swallow- great player. Really can't split Ellis and Swallow.
8. Thomas- Is a really classy player, and maybe this is ignorant, but he seems rather "Didak-esque". Gun player, but a live-wire IMO more than a hard player like those above. Pies fans obviously think different, but that's just my opinion.
9. Kennedy- SHown enough to suggest he might be ok- with a good midfield he might start to bloom.
10. Birchall- Good player with good stats, but wouldn't be in the same effectiveness as some of those above.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Pretty much when you then go and try and defend a player by saing he's good because he averages 16.7 poss a game and a goal and virtually shitcanning CrazyQ for doing it. Make no mistake, you were caught out.

I wasn't caught out. I think his numbers show he has been useful to his club. But the numbers don't show he is better than another player with less impressive stats.

By doing what you did before and trying to shift angles.

I've tried to shift nothing. I said I don't think you can say somebody who averages 16 disposals and almost a goal a game is better than someone who averages 13 disposals a game. I believe you can get a general idea of the output of a player absed on stats. I don't believe you can say for sure whether a player is better than another based on stats though. I honestly don't know how much simpler I can put that for you.

You proved me totally wrong? How? As you would say, I said Lloyd and Mooney are more important than T.Cloke and "I maintain that".

You started whinging at me because apparently I went off topic talking about importance. You accused me of initiating the talk about importance and trying to divert it from the actual topic, which was about the best player. I then showed you the post where you originally brought it up, and I responded to it. But don't let that get in the way.