Draft Review 2005 - Redo the 2005 Draft

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

MK a lot of posters have no problem with you having your opinion. Analysis of the two players stats since starting having them very similar. However, you arrogantly dismissed valid opinions, no matter how subjective as baseless and then presented your own subjective opinions as fact.

Seriously dude; when you claim plenty of experts had Pendles in their AA team for 2009 and then don't front up with a single source when asked to, it is not me being arrogant to dismiss this as subjective and baseless. It's called put up or shut up. Had you backed up your comments and cited anything - such as I did with Murphy - then I wouldn't have dismissed what you said. I don't believe this an unusual standard for the D&T board.

A terrific example of objective/subjective was you claiming Pendles had "more disposals per game, better user of the ball, more contested marks and more creative" in 2009 and I actually went and got some stats; and they didn't entirely support your claims either. Even Hodgepodge noted that you "hide your opinions amongst the facts so they seem one and the same". So don't get annoyed that I dismiss some things you say as baseless and subjective ... because THEY ARE!

The only things I have claimed as fact - now read this carefully jabbers and please, don't make this ridiculous claim again without quoting me for accuracy - is that Murphy had surgery, virtually no preseason, couldn't train mid-week during the season and was clearly hampered by injury in 2010. Furthermore, that in 2009 he was selected in 4/11 "experts" All Australian Teams from 3AW and afl.com's All Australian Team while Pendles was not. I've not claimed anything else as fact.

What I have done is claim that my opinions and comments are at least based on these facts and that therefore, they have an objective basis. What was originally claimed was that I was just some biased Carlton supporter making illogical claims at odds with pretty much every football follower.

My comment about Pendlebury's vision and decision making in traffic being superior would be agreed by many posters. I believe he brings others into the game more which can be reflected in his much higher handball to kick ratio.

As another poster replied to you, Murphy is a different onballer with some different attributes. I explained to you at the time, that I wasn't about to engage you endless superlatives on each player. Rest assured though, I don't disagree that Pendles has great decision making in traffic.

 

[The Bomb]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Remind me what Ryder has done again?

Seems to be fairly overrated, potential is one thing, but you're placing him against guys that have been in the AA selection squads, at U/22 yrs of age, with a few being B&F winners already; thats a fair achievement.

I wouldn't have him anywhere near Swallow, Thomas or Murphy; they are the next generation of AA midfielders, with Pendlebury being there already.

Ryder may not be there just yet, But with his body shape would not have been expected to be, def aginst big bodied Ruckmen. 23 / 24 you will start to see what Ryder is made of. But Swallow, Murphy and Thomas arn't either. But when he does, and He will, I will asure you of that, his height and positions he can play will be more valuable then just a midfielder of AA quality. Can seriously Mark a ball, beautiful skill, has only played 2 seasons as a Ruck / Forward and is only getting better.
if the Draft was redone, Selectors would take this into account.

yes to date the others are ahead, but will their best be better then Ryders, or will they be as important to a teams structure, just a few thing to take into account.

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

A terrific example of objective/subjective was you claiming Pendles had "more disposals per game, better user of the ball, more contested marks and more creative" in 2009 and I actually went and got some stats; and they didn't entirely support your claims either. Even Hodgepodge noted that you "hide your opinions amongst the facts so they seem one and the same". So don't get annoyed that I dismiss some things you say as baseless and subjective ... because THEY ARE!


.

(2009) He did average more possessions, was more creative demonstrated by his much higher handball to kick ratio combined with higher disposal efficiency and I have to go by memory on contested marks, but I'm pretty confident he was higher here too.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Seriously dude; when you claim plenty of experts had Pendles in their AA team for 2009 and then don't front up with a single source when asked to, it is not me being arrogant to dismiss this as subjective and baseless. It's called put up or shut up. Had you backed up your comments and cited anything - such as I did with Murphy - then I wouldn't have dismissed what you said. I don't believe this an unusual standard for the D&T board.

A terrific example of objective/subjective was you claiming Pendles had "more disposals per game, better user of the ball, more contested marks and more creative" in 2009 and I actually went and got some stats; and they didn't entirely support your claims either. Even Hodgepodge noted that you "hide your opinions amongst the facts so they seem one and the same". So don't get annoyed that I dismiss some things you say as baseless and subjective ... because THEY ARE!

The only things I have claimed as fact - now read this carefully jabbers and please, don't make this ridiculous claim again without quoting me for accuracy - is that Murphy had surgery, virtually no preseason, couldn't train mid-week during the season and was clearly hampered by injury in 2010. Furthermore, that in 2009 he was selected in 4/11 "experts" All Australian Teams from 3AW and afl.com's All Australian Team while Pendles was not. I've not claimed anything else as fact.

What I have done is claim that my opinions and comments are at least based on these facts and that therefore, they have an objective basis. What was originally claimed was that I was just some biased Carlton supporter making illogical claims at odds with pretty much every football follower.



As another poster replied to you, Murphy is a different onballer with some different attributes. I explained to you at the time, that I wasn't about to engage you endless superlatives on each player. Rest assured though, I don't disagree that Pendles has great decision making in traffic.

You are a hypocrite. You criticise Jabbers for putting facts and opinions in together and then write this. Saying he was clearly hampered by an injury is your opinion. I didn't see him so clearly hampered by an injury whilst he was playing. He had some excellent matches all the way through the season.

Also are you saying that Marc Murphy went all 24 odd weeks of his season last year without training once?? Is that fact is it?? Proof please.

 

[lamaros]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Remind me what Ryder has done again?

Seems to be fairly overrated, potential is one thing, but you're placing him against guys that have been in the AA selection squads, at U/22 yrs of age, with a few being B&F winners already; thats a fair achievement.

Ryder goes at a goal a game for a ruckman, which is excellent, but 12d/19h is nothing to write home about for a guy of his athletiscm, especially as he was the sole ruckman for most of last season, those stats are probably even inflated.

As a comparison, Leunburger and Goldstein average similar numbers, despite having their TOG% slashed as second ruckman.

Ryder is a mobile ruckman who has hardly any comparison in the game at the moment. As such he is rarer than Pendles, Murphy, Thomas and Swallow, who are all probably better players on output, but midfielders.

There are a lot of good midfielders in this competition. There are only a few quality ruckmen. There are even fewer who have the flexibility of Ryder and the scope to improve.

If you are re-doing a draft you are still doing a draft. You are picking on what you would like to have for your team now and in the future.

Ryder has played key back, sole ruckman, forward/ruckman, and will probably get a run this year as a key forward. He has done well in every role, often being brilliant, and has improved every year. He has also had a good run with his body, missing only 3 games in the last 4 seasons, so there is little risk of injuries cutting his potential short.

With a goal a game, 4-5 tackles, 12 touches, 20 hitouts, an excellent mark (he is very rarely beaten in the air, at worst he gets a sopil in), good pace and a great kick he is clearly a quality player.

If you look at Luenberger for example, that's twice the tackles, 10 times as many goals while the same number of hitouts and similar touches. Kreuzer is on par with Ryder in pretty much everything apart from goals, where Ryder is again clearly ahead. Mitch Clark gets a couple more touches, half the hitouts, and half the goals.

There is no other player that has his current flexibility, output or potential.

There are always a few quality midfielders in every draft. There are very few Ryders.

He has yet to take that step up to match winner often enough to go in the first couple of picks, but I would have him before any other key position player and probably at 3, 4 at the worst.

P.S. He hasn't really been sole ruckman all that much. In the past two seasons he's gotten the ~20 hitouts both years. And last year Hille played 16 games at ~15 HOs and Bellchambers 5 at ~11.

Hille is a decent player, but he has never matched Ryder's 2010 stats wise in his whole career.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

You are a hypocrite. You criticise Jabbers for putting facts and opinions in together and then write this. Saying he was clearly hampered by an injury is your opinion. I didn't see him so clearly hampered by an injury whilst he was playing. He had some excellent matches all the way through the season.

This really is quite a ridiculous statement. Seriously, go speak to the player himself or the club's performance manager. You being ignorant of the facts doesn't relegate them to being MY opinion yeah.

Link - The Age
Marc Murphy had a solid year in 2010 when severely hampered by an interrupted pre-season.

Not actual evidence of anything, but at least it shows it's not MY subjective opinion; most people in the know will tell you the same thing.

That you praise his injury affected 2010 performances only adds to my argument that uninjured, he could potentially be elite; and this needs to be properly assessed before I can conclude on a draft re-do. You and others can do as you please.

And I criticised jabbers for sooking about me dismissing things he's said as subjective and baseless after making statements and not backing them up when asked to. If you agree with his whine then you're welcome to one another ... I can't be bothered with rubbish like that. Especially when you call me a hypocrite despite having backed up most of what I've said the whole way through.

Also are you saying that Marc Murphy went all 24 odd weeks of his season last year without training once?? Is that fact is it?? Proof please.

Why distort what I've said? I mean, it's right there at the top of this page - "he couldn't even train mid-week right through the season until the back end." And the proof ...

Link - Fox Sports
Murphy missed most of the 2010 pre-season because of hip surgery and admitted yesterday he did not get his body right until the final six weeks of the season. "Last year, training mid-week was almost non-existent, so it was pretty frustrating," Murphy said.

If you don't know, or can't accept, the fact Murphy had ongoing injury issues throughout 2010, it's simply not my problem. It's yours.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

(2009) He did average more possessions, was more creative demonstrated by his much higher handball to kick ratio combined with higher disposal efficiency and I have to go by memory on contested marks, but I'm pretty confident he was higher here too.

Not going over it again; I already did it here. You never back up anything you say so don't sook when it gets dismissed. And get used to it too, as you'll find this attitude on most BF boards.

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Not going over it again; I already did it here. You never back up anything you say so don't sook when it gets dismissed. And get used to it too, as you'll find this attitude on most BF boards.

I thought I did back up. Fact: He led Murphy in the categories I mentioned and you 'remembered' Murphy leading the contested marks! Who isn't backing things up again?

 

[Pykie]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

But when he does, and He will, I will asure you of that, his height and positions he can play will be more valuable then just a midfielder of AA quality.if the Draft was redone, Selectors would take this into account.
.

Than "just" a midfielder of AA quality?


Check what you've just said, midfielders win matches in modern footy, if your an AA midfielder, you are elite.

We are talking the Montagna's, Hayes, Boyd's, Harvey's etc of this world.

Ryder is a mobile ruckman who has hardly any comparison in the game at the moment

FFS, you're not serious?

In terms of athleticism;

NN, Daw, Hampson etc are all of the same modern protype, easily comparible.

NN athletic attributes far outweight those of Ryders.

If you look at Luenberger for example, that's twice the tackles, 10 times as many goals while the same number of hitouts and similar touches. Kreuzer is on par with Ryder in pretty much everything apart from goals, where Ryder is again clearly ahead. Mitch Clark gets a couple more touches, half the hitouts, and half the goals.

There is no other player that has his current flexibility, output or potential.

There are always a few quality midfielders in every draft. There are very few Ryders.

Its interesting that he wasn't even in the AA squad then going by that analysis?


Mumford has him completely covered, in the ruck, in defensive pressure, and gets similar ball around the ground.

Jolly averages similar numbers, easily comparable, Ryder isn't anywhere near as effective in the ruck contests though.





Murphy, Swallow and Thomas will all be AA's within 2-3 season, I'm not confident Ryder will ever be an AA ruckman.

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

I thought I did back up. Fact: He led Murphy in the categories I mentioned and you 'remembered' Murphy leading the contested marks! Who isn't backing things up again?

Where did you back it up? Where did you back anything up? Quotes dude! When you say something, I'm the one who goes and gets the stats or whatever is required to back up or refute what you say; and you're not always right.

And when you say something like Pendles is better because he gets more of the ball, and that more consists of 0.2 disposal p/game, it simply doesn't support your contention, so don't get upset that I dismiss it.

Now what I actually said was that "I know in 2009 up to round 20 Murphy led contested mark average". Not that "I remembered". Why do you blokes insist on distorting everything? I'm not prepared to reveal how I know, but it's not like you ever backed up your original claim, so I don't really feel any need to. If you choose to dismiss what I've claimed, trust me, I'm not going to get all sooky about it.

So how about the rest of the linked post; you getting some idea what I'm talking about re objective vs subjective yet? Have you produced a post with even a tenth the amount of sourced material?

As for the name calling, sums you up perfectly dude! Waste of my time.

 

[jabbers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Where did you back it up? Where did you back anything up? Quotes dude! When you say something, I'm the one who goes and gets the stats or whatever is required to back up or refute what you say; and you're not always right.

And when you say something like Pendles is better because he gets more of the ball, and that more consists of 0.2 disposal p/game, it simply doesn't support your contention, so don't get upset that I dismiss it.

Now what I actually said was that "I know in 2009 up to round 20 Murphy led contested mark average". Not that "I remembered". Why do you blokes insist on distorting everything? I'm not prepared to reveal how I know, but it's not like you ever backed up your original claim, so I don't really feel any need to. If you choose to dismiss what I've claimed, trust me, I'm not going to get all sooky about it.

So how about the rest of the linked post; you getting some idea what I'm talking about re objective vs subjective yet? Have you produced a post with even a tenth the amount of sourced material?

As for the name calling, sums you up perfectly dude! Waste of my time.

Happy to link the stats I've claimed. The fact that Pendlebury won more of theball combined with the 'subjective' opinion of most posters that he is a superior user of the ball is a strong argument in itself. Happy to wait for your contested mark link.

Good to see that presumptuous arrogance still resonating from every line in each of your posts.

Nice manipulation of the truth too. Murphy had an underdone pre-season and was barely training until the last quarter of the season when he was fully fit!

 

[Monkey King]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Happy to link the stats I've claimed. The fact that Pendlebury won more of theball combined with the 'subjective' opinion of most posters that he is a superior user of the ball is a strong argument in itself. Happy to wait for your contested mark link.

Mate; you made the claim about contested marks, up to you to provide the stats. I simply noted that I know as at Round 20, Murphy was ahead and hence I questioned your claim. You, of course, never fronted with the proof and now you're asking me to

While you're getting your stats sources, can you also get some for your claim that plenty of experts had Pendles in their 2009 AA Team? Or you just going to leave that one lying there?

But on this note, it's not just pulling out stats; they should actually make sense in terms of backing up your claims. No point saying Pendles had a better year because he got more of the ball, when the difference is just 0.2 p/game and Murphy had more in total.

Nice manipulation of the truth too. Murphy had an underdone pre-season and was barely training until the last quarter of the season when he was fully fit!

No manipulation of the truth. In this thread I've been very clear; Murphy had surgery in December and "virtually no preseason" after that. "Underdone" is really a poor description of the reality. I never claimed he couldn't train mid-week for every single round; on the contrary, I clearly said "he couldn't even train mid-week right through the season until the back end". Murphy's exact words "Last year, training mid-week was almost non-existent".

I assume you've latched on to the - he did not get his body right until the final six weeks of the season - part to make this accusation. I'd actually like to know what Murphy said for starters, as these are the authors words, not his. Nonetheless, "the last 6 weeks" fits pretty neatly with my "until the back end" claim; but let's just assume Murphy said the exact words "get his body right" for a minute. To me, that means either at this point the injury was no longer an issue in terms of being able to train, or that the injury was resolved completely and he could start playing in terms of a player with an "underdone preseason".

If that's what you mean by "fully fit" then potentially this is the case. But how does this make me have manipulated anything? It's pretty much exactly what I said.

 

[BrownPearHookers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Than "just" a midfielder of AA quality?

Check what you've just said, midfielders win matches in modern footy, if your an AA midfielder, you are elite.

We are talking the Montagna's, Hayes, Boyd's, Harvey's etc of this world.

FFS, you're not serious?

In terms of athleticism;

NN, Daw, Hampson etc are all of the same modern protype, easily comparible.

NN athletic attributes far outweight those of Ryders.

Its interesting that he wasn't even in the AA squad then going by that analysis?

Mumford has him completely covered, in the ruck, in defensive pressure, and gets similar ball around the ground.

Jolly averages similar numbers, easily comparable, Ryder isn't anywhere near as effective in the ruck contests though.

Murphy, Swallow and Thomas will all be AA's within 2-3 season, I'm not confident Ryder will ever be an AA ruckman.

Look compare his out put with all ruckmen, Super Coach and Dream team give a pretty clear picture.

Sandilands Dt 97.9 Sc 114
Cox Dt 84.7 Sc 88
Ryder Dt 85.8 Sc 85.7
McIntosh Dt 80.5 Sc 81.6
Mumford Dt 79.9 SC 92.6
Jolly Dt 79.7 Sc 79.8
Kreuzer Dt 76.2 Sc 82
Jamar Dt 73 Sc 82.3
Leunberger Dt 77.4 Sc 68.5
Naitanui Dt 62 Sc 71.2

at 22 Ryder is just getting past his teething stages as a ruckman, and we will now start to see how good he really is. Ryder is defenetly going to be AA quality.
I actually think he will oneday kick 40+ goals in a season as a ruckman pushing forward, He has only rucked and played forward for 2 years and is already in the top couple in the comp for a goal kicking ruckman.

Ryders are the hardest types of players to find, defenetly with his quality, never wastes the ball, up with the strongest pair of hands in the comp.

I would take Ryder top 2 in this draft, Pendles is elite already, so you would have to take him for he is already there.

 

[longdaveyjetta]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Than "just" a midfielder of AA quality?


Check what you've just said, midfielders win matches in modern footy, if your an AA midfielder, you are elite.

We are talking the Montagna's, Hayes, Boyd's, Harvey's etc of this world.




FFS, you're not serious?

In terms of athleticism;

NN, Daw, Hampson etc are all of the same modern protype, easily comparible.

NN athletic attributes far outweight those of Ryders.






Its interesting that he wasn't even in the AA squad then going by that analysis?


Mumford has him completely covered, in the ruck, in defensive pressure, and gets similar ball around the ground.

Jolly averages similar numbers, easily comparable, Ryder isn't anywhere near as effective in the ruck contests though.





Murphy, Swallow and Thomas will all be AA's within 2-3 season, I'm not confident Ryder will ever be an AA ruckman.

LOL... how can you mention Daw and Hampson in the same breath as Paddy Ryder, NN was pick 2. Only one of them has a football brain...
Crikey you are seriously tripping if you cant see how good Ryder is...
Daw and Hampson will be lucky to play 50games between them..
FFS you are showing your ignorance. You have no idea...

 

[The Bomb]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Than "just" a midfielder of AA quality?


Check what you've just said, midfielders win matches in modern footy, if your an AA midfielder, you are elite.

We are talking the Montagna's, Hayes, Boyd's, Harvey's etc of this world.




FFS, you're not serious?

In terms of athleticism;

NN, Daw, Hampson etc are all of the same modern protype, easily comparible.

NN athletic attributes far outweight those of Ryders.






Its interesting that he wasn't even in the AA squad then going by that analysis?


Mumford has him completely covered, in the ruck, in defensive pressure, and gets similar ball around the ground.

Jolly averages similar numbers, easily comparable, Ryder isn't anywhere near as effective in the ruck contests though.

Murphy, Swallow and Thomas will all be AA's within 2-3 season, I'm not confident Ryder will ever be an AA ruckman.

He rates with some of the best rucks in the AFL @ 22,
Do yourself a favour, just watch him play, Then give a opinion.
Thanks

 

[Quigley]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

And he rates with others as being pretty midfield.

He has a hit out to advantage percentage of only 17% which is the lowest of the top 10 hit winners. He has never, even when playing in a key position won over 12 possessions a game and I have to laugh at the 40 goal per season scoring. It was a big jump last year when he went to 21.

He can take a mark and moves nicely around the ground but he is never going to be a dominant ruck. Despite his athleticism he is giving away too much height. I think we are going into an era of some great ruck prospects and Ryder I think will quickly be overtaken by those coming through.

Looking at the guys under 25 and leaving aside Leuenberger and Clark who I might be a bit biased in favour of, I personally would rather have Mumford and Goldstein this coming season than Ryder and give it a couple of years and NN and Smith should be much better than he is. Kruezer I do not rate in the ruck contest but around the ground he will also be very valuable and should offer more than Ryder. If Bailey can get his body right he offers a lot in the ruck contest and Trengove is going to show a lot around the ground this year. Now not all of those are going to be better than Ryder or do everything that he can do but Ryder is not going to do what they can do either. Upper midpack maybe but I don't rate him higher than that.

 

[BrownPearHookers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

And he rates with others as being pretty midfield.

He has a hit out to advantage percentage of only 17% which is the lowest of the top 10 hit winners. He has never, even when playing in a key position won over 12 possessions a game and I have to laugh at the 40 goal per game scoring. It was a big jump last year when he went to 21.

He can take a mark and moves nicely around the ground but he is never going to be a dominant ruck. Despite his athleticism he is giving away too much height. I think we are going into an era of some great ruck prospects and Ryder I think will quickly be overtaken by those coming through.

Looking at the guys under 25 and leaving aside Leuenberger and Clark who I might be a bit biased in favour of, I personally would rather have Mumford and Goldstein this coming season than Ryder and give it a couple of years and NN and Smith should be much better than he is. Kruezer I do not rate in the ruck contest but around the ground he will also be very valuable and should offer more than Ryder. If Bailey can get his body right he offers a lot in the ruck contest and Trengove is going to show a lot around the ground this year. Now not all of those are going to be better than Ryder or do everything that he can do but Ryder is not going to do what they can do either. Upper midpack maybe but I don't rate him higher than that.

So you dont think he will ever be able to kick 40+ goals in a season?
you say he has never got over 12 touches playing Key Position, he has done that at least 40+ times, so stop making crap up.

 

[Quigley]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Gees you need to spell things out for the Essendon supporters. One little typo throws them right off.

I will be shocked if he ever scores over 30 goals in a season.

He has never averaged over 12 possessions a game in any of his 5 years in the competition. Yes he might do it occasionally in one particularly game but he is never going to be a high possession winner.

 

[Quigley]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

FWIW 21 goals is actually an excellent return on goals for a ruck and makes him one of the most dangerous floating forward in the competition. He also recovers quickly and makes tackles. He does those things well I just don't think he is good in the actual ruck contest itself nor around the grounds when he is playing in the ruck. He does not get separation and make space and consequently every possession he gets is a contested one.

 

[Gibbo_88]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Ryder is a mobile ruckman who has hardly any comparison in the game at the moment. As such he is rarer than Pendles, Murphy, Thomas and Swallow, who are all probably better players on output, but midfielders.

There are a lot of good midfielders in this competition. There are only a few quality ruckmen. There are even fewer who have the flexibility of Ryder and the scope to improve.

If you are re-doing a draft you are still doing a draft. You are picking on what you would like to have for your team now and in the future.

Ryder has played key back, sole ruckman, forward/ruckman, and will probably get a run this year as a key forward. He has done well in every role, often being brilliant, and has improved every year. He has also had a good run with his body, missing only 3 games in the last 4 seasons, so there is little risk of injuries cutting his potential short.

With a goal a game, 4-5 tackles, 12 touches, 20 hitouts, an excellent mark (he is very rarely beaten in the air, at worst he gets a sopil in), good pace and a great kick he is clearly a quality player.

If you look at Luenberger for example, that's twice the tackles, 10 times as many goals while the same number of hitouts and similar touches. Kreuzer is on par with Ryder in pretty much everything apart from goals, where Ryder is again clearly ahead. Mitch Clark gets a couple more touches, half the hitouts, and half the goals.

There is no other player that has his current flexibility, output or potential.

There are always a few quality midfielders in every draft. There are very few Ryders.

His best comparison is Mitch Clark. I can't see how you can clearly argue that Ryder is ahead of Clark or the other way round. If you had watched lions game last year (not many good ones so who would) you would have seen that Clark hardly played in the ruck.

I would say he would have been lucky to get 20% of time in the ruck. Played as a midfielder and played ruck only when Leuey was off the ground. The last 3 games he played key forward with Brown missing. Poor comparison considering the different roles they played last year. 2009 is a good year to compare these 2 players and Clark was clearly the better player then, just about every stat backs that up. Before 2009 Ryder had him easily covered.

Comparing him to leuenberger is also not a great comparison. He was drafted a year after Ryder and then had to miss 2009 through injury and infection where he lost 10 kgs so he is really only going into his 4th year. He averaged more hitouts and more disposals last year than Ryder who has 1 or 2 years on him.

 

[lamaros]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

First, thanks for a reasoned and unbiased reply. It's rare stuff.

He can take a mark and moves nicely around the ground but he is never going to be a dominant ruck. Despite his athleticism he is giving away too much height. I think we are going into an era of some great ruck prospects and Ryder I think will quickly be overtaken by those coming through.

I agree that he is not great as a starting ruck, but he is very good around the ground and he is ahead of every other ruck with his tackling, marking and movement. He is easily the best forward ruck, kicking a number of goals from stoppages. I can't think of a ruckman with better footskills.

On the stats points. Hit-outs to advantage are often as much a matter of your midfield being on top as anything, and Essendon's midfield has been well document for its lack of class in recent years.

The goals thing is silly. Ryder never played forward until last year, when he played ruck/forward, and he immediately started averaging one goal a game and finishing 3rd on the clubs goalscoring list. If you don't think that shows forward potential then I'd advise you to watch his tally this year. I expect it to top 30 if he plays the same role and doesn't miss games.

You have to remember Ryder played his first few seasons as a key defender. He first season in the ruck was in 2009, when Hille went down and he stepped up. Last year with Hille back he moved position again, spending as much time forward as in the ruck. He has grown into each role as he has taken it and it is not unreasonable to expect him to continue to improve as he learns more about his position.

Looking at the guys under 25 and leaving aside Leuenberger and Clark who I might be a bit biased in favour of, I personally would rather have Mumford and Goldstein this coming season than Ryder and give it a couple of years and NN and Smith should be much better than he is. Kruezer I do not rate in the ruck contest but around the ground he will also be very valuable and should offer more than Ryder. If Bailey can get his body right he offers a lot in the ruck contest and Trengove is going to show a lot around the ground this year. Now not all of those are going to be better than Ryder or do everything that he can do but Ryder is not going to do what they can do either. Upper midpack maybe but I don't rate him higher than that.

If I could pick two rucks I woud l pick Mumford and Ryder. They are very different ruckmen and could compliment each other perfectly. I don't think it is a problem to be rated with Mumford. But again, Mumford is not a Ryder style player, his skill-set is quite different.

NN will never have the footy smarts and 1%s of Ryder. I doubt NN will ever become a great player. Kruezer doesn't have the flexibility of Ryder to play as a key position player. He doesn't have the speed or leap. I would like to know what you think he can give around the ground that Ryder can't.

Bailey and Trengove are really scraping the barrel as far as comparisons go.

 

[BrownPearHookers]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

First, thanks for a reasoned and unbiased reply. It's rare stuff.



I agree that he is not great as a starting ruck, but he is very good around the ground and he is ahead of every other ruck with his tackling, marking and movement. He is easily the best forward ruck, kicking a number of goals from stoppages. I can't think of a ruckman with better footskills.

On the stats points. Hit-outs to advantage are often as much a matter of your midfield being on top as anything, and Essendon's midfield has been well document for its lack of class in recent years.

The goals thing is silly. Ryder never played forward until last year, when he played ruck/forward, and he immediately started averaging one goal a game and finishing 3rd on the clubs goalscoring list. If you don't think that shows forward potential then I'd advise you to watch his tally this year. I expect it to top 30 if he plays the same role and doesn't miss games.

You have to remember Ryder played his first few seasons as a key defender. He first season in the ruck was in 2009, when Hille went down and he stepped up. Last year with Hille back he moved position again, spending as much time forward as in the ruck. He has grown into each role as he has taken it and it is not unreasonable to expect him to continue to improve as he learns more about his position.



If I could pick two rucks I woud l pick Mumford and Ryder. They are very different ruckmen and could compliment each other perfectly. I don't think it is a problem to be rated with Mumford. But again, Mumford is not a Ryder style player, his skill-set is quite different.

NN will never have the footy smarts and 1%s of Ryder. I doubt NN will ever become a great player. Kruezer doesn't have the flexibility of Ryder to play as a key position player. He doesn't have the speed or leap. I would like to know what you think he can give around the ground that Ryder can't.

Bailey and Trengove are really scraping the barrel as far as comparisons go.

excellent write up lamaros

 

[Gus]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

Kruezer doesn't have the flexibility of Ryder to play as a key position player. He doesn't have the speed or leap. I would like to know what you think he can give around the ground that Ryder can't.

Carlton played Kruezer as a CHF at times and he did well.

 

[Wizard]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

NN will never have the footy smarts and 1%s of Ryder. I doubt NN will ever become a great player. Kruezer doesn't have the flexibility of Ryder to play as a key position player. He doesn't have the speed or leap. I would like to know what you think he can give around the ground that Ryder can't.

Bailey and Trengove are really scraping the barrel as far as comparisons go.

Didn't see Kruezer tear Port apart from FF in the wet at AAMI in his first season?
He would be a better forward then Ryder ever would be.

 

[Rough_Edges]

Re: 2005 Afl draft Re-Done

less sooking more lists

here is mine - I have included the Rookie and Pre-Season draft. Fairly tough thing to do.

1. S. Pendlebury
2. D. Thomas
3. A. Swallow
4. M. Murphy
5. B. Vince
6. P. Ryder
7. K. Jack
8. S. Gilbert
9. S. Higgins
10. M Clark
11. J. Kennedy
12. T. Varcoe
13. P. Duffield
14. S. Hurn
15. R. Douglas
16. G. Birchall
17. R. Warnock
18. J. Porplyzia
19. N. Jones
20. A. Carlile

Ibbotson, Ellis, Dempsey, Bower, Stokes, McGlynn all in the mix for the last few spots where I found it tough. 18-20 could be any of the above.

Apologies if I have missed any obvious ones.