Draft Review 2008 - Re-do the 2008 draft

[Patron]

All five contribute more to their clubs in one game than Naitanui does in a season

Lobbe - as has already been said, songle handledly destroyed West Coast and has the best numbers of any ruckman in his first 50 games - Destroyed west coast by losing the hitouts? was 37 to 33 in WCE favor. Lobbe has performed well thus far in his career and he is quality no doubt but NN was AA in his 4th season, Lobbe is in his fifth.

Warnock - do you need to get the tape out and see that tap to Lucas and the following buckley snap, he dominated the Eagles in that last quarter - Even if he did win the last quarter he clearly didn't outplay the Wce ruckman for the game as the hitouts were 55 to 27 in WCE favour, now thats what i call getting destroyed.

Maric - was probably in the top two ruckman in 2012, injury plagued the last few years - Funny you mention this as this is the year NN was the all australian ruckman, NN has also been plagued by injuries since then.

Pike - spent less time playing Football than Naitanui and yet is a far better kick amd mark, Pike would trump nic nat in two sports, Rugby and AFL - Your whole comment is irrelevant Stephen Hill is faster and a better kick than Joel selwood doesn't mean he is a better player, first and foremost ruckman are normally judged on their ability to ruck.

And Kreuzer - he's pretty much the antithesis of Nic Nat, gets his hands on the footy, knows the flow of the game, tackles hard, can mark up forward,, runs, bullocks and tries all day, the complete opposite of naitanui
Do you understand that NN gets his hands on the footy more than kreuzer?? he averages more possessions over his career per game, mainly due to NN ability to bullock in packs and win contested ball. On the ability up forward, do you realise that kreuzer averages less goals per game than NN? and has never kicked more than 13 goals in a season, NN has kicked 24. I would argue being the opposite of NN isn't a good thing.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Can someone explain to my why Sloane is rated so damn highly in this thread?

He's my favourite Adelaide player and would love to have him at Port, so it's not bias on my part.

I just don't see what others are seeing. His kicking is very average and his role seems to be the leader of effort. He's always going hard, he's always running hard and he'll lead his teammates into battle that way. Also a great tackler. I'd have Beams, Rockliff, Hannebury, Hartlett and Rich over him as midfielders... I think Sidebottom is a better attacking player, but Sloane is better at defending, so I'd have them on par. I think Ziebell's best is far better, but he has no consistency so I'd put Sloane above him for now.

I actually think his best direct comparison from the 2008 draft is Jack Redden. Both with iffy disposal at times, but both work hard, get the hard ball, tackle like beasts. What makes Sloane better than Redden?

I'd probably even take Motlop and Breust ahead of him because they are genuine match winners.

I really rate Sloane for the blue collar, hard working player that he is... but I'd say he's a player in the mould of a Callan Ward or a Brad Ebert. Hell, I can't believe he's rated above both of those players in almost every top 50 list out there.

I just don't see what others are seeing. I'd have him around the ~10 mark for this draft.

Edit: Now for the "biased" part of my post, when is Jackson Trengove gonna get a look in for a top 15 spot in some lists? I think he's been the best performed KPP from this draft so far. Amazingly consistent defender and general down back (rarely beaten), can go into the ruck and compete well, excellent decision maker, great leader.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Lol "averages more disposals"than kreuzer? He averages about 0.3 more per game, mostly because Kreuzer has had three or four games that he's been injured and only played half the game as well as two years worth of injury affected games where he was injured but still playing.

What's most telling in the comparison is the Kick and Mark stats, both essential components of an elite footballer

Kreuzer has twice as many kicks and twice as many marks as Nic Nat, which clearly shows he is the better footballer. Nic Nat doesn't trust his kicking because he can't kick so he doesnt do it, and his marking... you'd expect someone of his height and athletic ability to take hundreds of grabs, but he doesnt, probably because he doesn't read the play very well... because he's not a footballer, and he just doesn't have very good hands.

 

[Surkin]

Hartlett will finish up being the best from this draft.

 

[ike2112]

Agree with Honeyboy’s comments.
Have to consider what the original thread title is; re-do the draft. Not rank the players picked in order of how successful they are. So taking into account that it’s a redo of the draft; hard-working but relatively unspectacular ball winners don’t go in the top 4 or 5. Matt Crouch and Luke Dunstan from 2013’s draft were obviously going to be ready to go almost from day one, and be 10yr AFL players. Dunstan might even be Saints captain in a few years. But teams would be mental to have thought of them in the top 10, as that’s where you chase after difference-makers based on all the pre-draft testing and hype. Sloane played early and played well because of the type of player he is. I think it’s well known that the big men take longer; usually rucks or KPF pinch-hitters especially.
Technically Sam Jacobs was available too in 2008, given he was re-drafted by Carlton, so if this was not a “redo the draft” thread and instead was “re-order the players drafted based on output” then you’d have Jacobs in the top 10 I’d say.
However I’d say 2008 is also a lesson for every team; Melbourne were stuck pretty much having to take Watts, Naitanui or maybe Daniel Rich because those first two were “difference-makers” that played forward (or fwd/ruck in NN case) and Rich was apparently the safe bet (evidenced by his rising star). If they took someone other than Watts I think they’d have failed anyway as there would have been major criticism of the Dees choice, and the pressure on that player would have been unbelievable.
Here’s the 30 or so players I reckon it seems were even worth drafting, roughly in order of talent (but accepting at pick 1, Melbourne would still have to go for NN or Hurley in order to draft a big man):

1 Dayne Beams
2 Tom Rockliff
3 Hamish Hartlett
4 Nic Naitanui
5 Michael Hurley
6 Daniel Hannebery
7 Chris Yarran
8 Rory Sloane
9 Jackson Trengove
10 Jack Ziebell
11 Ryan Schoenmakers
12 Steven Motlop
13 Mike Pyke
14 Stephen Hill
15 Michael Walters
16 David Zaharakis
17 Luke Shuey
18 Jack Redden
19 Matt Suckling
20 Daniel Rich
21 Jeff Garlett
22 Liam Shiels
23 Hayden Ballentyne
24 Nic Suban
25 Matthew Broadbent
26 Luke Breust
27 Zac Dawson
28 Jack Watts
29 Zac Clarke
30 Shane Savage

Also it shows why part of why Hawthorn are where they are; it's not just getting in superstars, it's going into a draft like 2008 that has some top players but isn't hugely deep in talent, and coming away with 4 solid contributors. Suckling, Schoenmakers, Shiels and Breust all play their part to supplement the core unit at the Hawks.

*EDIT*: I deleted Steele Sidebottom off my list of players accidentally. I think he is a very good player, and on output would be top 10 but given the type of player he is and not being an outright matchwinner, would probably place him at 12 in front of Motlop.
If Motlop ever stays healthy enough to reach close to his potential he'd obviously rise.

 

[MightyPies1]

Agree with Honeyboy’s comments.
Have to consider what the original thread title is; re-do the draft. Not rank the players picked in order of how successful they are. So taking into account that it’s a redo of the draft; hard-working but relatively unspectacular ball winners don’t go in the top 4 or 5. Matt Crouch and Luke Dunstan from 2013’s draft were obviously going to be ready to go almost from day one, and be 10yr AFL players. Dunstan might even be Saints captain in a few years. But teams would be mental to have thought of them in the top 10, as that’s where you chase after difference-makers based on all the pre-draft testing and hype. Sloane played early and played well because of the type of player he is. I think it’s well known that the big men take longer; usually rucks or KPF pinch-hitters especially.
Technically Sam Jacobs was available too in 2008, given he was re-drafted by Carlton, so if this was not a “redo the draft” thread and instead was “re-order the players drafted based on output” then you’d have Jacobs in the top 10 I’d say.
However I’d say 2008 is also a lesson for every team; Melbourne were stuck pretty much having to take Watts, Naitanui or maybe Daniel Rich because those first two were “difference-makers” that played forward (or fwd/ruck in NN case) and Rich was apparently the safe bet (evidenced by his rising star). If they took someone other than Watts I think they’d have failed anyway as there would have been major criticism of the Dees choice, and the pressure on that player would have been unbelievable.
Here’s the 30 or so players I reckon it seems were even worth drafting, roughly in order of talent (but accepting at pick 1, Melbourne would still have to go for NN or Hurley in order to draft a big man):

1 Dayne Beams
2 Tom Rockliff
3 Hamish Hartlett
4 Nic Naitanui
5 Michael Hurley
6 Daniel Hannebery
7 Chris Yarran
8 Rory Sloane
9 Jackson Trengove
10 Jack Ziebell
11 Ryan Schoenmakers
12 Steven Motlop
13 Mike Pyke
14 Stephen Hill
15 Michael Walters
16 David Zaharakis
17 Luke Shuey
18 Jack Redden
19 Matt Suckling
20 Daniel Rich
21 Jeff Garlett
22 Liam Shiels
23 Hayden Ballentyne
24 Nic Suban
25 Matthew Broadbent
26 Luke Breust
27 Zac Dawson
28 Jack Watts
29 Zac Clarke
30 Shane Savage

Also it shows why part of why Hawthorn are where they are; it's not just getting in superstars, it's going into a draft like 2008 that has some top players but isn't hugely deep in talent, and coming away with 4 solid contributors. Suckling, Schoenmakers, Shiels and Breust all play their part to supplement the core unit at the Hawks.

Sidebottom doesn't make this list? Surely an oversight?

 

[Heaps of fun]

Sidebottom doesn't make this list? Surely an oversight?

Nah, he's worse than Zac Dawson and Shane Savage put together.

 

[ike2112]

Sidebottom doesn't make this list? Surely an oversight?

Oh Jesus yeah - was working off a list of draftees and was just so keen to delete a few horror shows, Sidebottom must have gotten mixed up in it!
I'd say he suffers a little like Sloane does, in that he's been an AFL-ready but not spectacular midfielder, but certainly top 12 or so. Actually yeah put him at 12 based on better output than Motlop.
Reckon Motlop is a cracking player but all too often has missed the chance to make massive impact, often due to injury. Last year's finals he could have been the X-factor for Cats, but in the end it was Chappy they relied on just to kick-start them past Port.

 

[Kenny_01]

How is Yarran rated higher than Hill and Walters? Both Hill and Walters work extremely hard, are skillful and all about the team. Yarran is lazy.

 

[Todman]

fb Matt De Boer Ryan Schoenmakers Nic Suban

chb Matthew Broadbent Jackson Trengove Matt Suckling

c Dayne Beams Hamish Hartlett Rory Sloane

hf Luke Breust Jack Watts Michael Walters

ff Hayden Ballentyne Michael Hurley Steven Motlop

r Zac Clarke Stephen Hill Jack Ziebell

i Nic Naitanui Tom Rockliff Daniel Hannebery Daniel Rich

Not too many KPP for the draft

 

[Theo X]

Not many AA's in this draft. Please continue to lecture me on the thoughts of wce supporters. Naitanui has been injured since his AA year which has seriously effected his output, whilst that's a negative on his draft position it doesn't mean he is a hack... Only last year sheedy said he would trade every pick he had for naitanui. Which would have place his value > pick 1. You don't do that for hacks.

Lol Sheedy still thinks Tom Scully is the next Gary Ablett Junior, he has a few screws loose these days.
Jacobs was clearly the best Ruck in 2012, NN only got the nod because he's flashy.

 

[Ambrosia]

You're deluded.

Let me point out one fact about Matthew Lobbe.

He's the best Ruckman statistically in his first 50 games, in the last 20 years.

They mentioned it during the week on the couch or something like that.

Which is helped by the fact that he barely played in his first few season and when he started playing he played the majority of his games as sole ruckman. Lobbe is still not close to being a top AFL ruckman imo

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Lol "averages more disposals"than kreuzer? He averages about 0.3 more per game, mostly because Kreuzer has had three or four games that he's been injured and only played half the game as well as two years worth of injury affected games where he was injured but still playing.

What's most telling in the comparison is the Kick and Mark stats, both essential components of an elite footballer

Kreuzer has twice as many kicks and twice as many marks as Nic Nat, which clearly shows he is the better footballer. Nic Nat doesn't trust his kicking because he can't kick so he doesnt do it, and his marking... you'd expect someone of his height and athletic ability to take hundreds of grabs, but he doesnt, probably because he doesn't read the play very well... because he's not a footballer, and he just doesn't have very good hands.

So you were completely wrong then.

 

[Quinz]

So you were completely wrong then.

Why break the habit of a lifetime?

 

[WWSD]

Agree with Honeyboy’s comments.
Have to consider what the original thread title is; re-do the draft. Not rank the players picked in order of how successful they are. So taking into account that it’s a redo of the draft; hard-working but relatively unspectacular ball winners don’t go in the top 4 or 5. Matt Crouch and Luke Dunstan from 2013’s draft were obviously going to be ready to go almost from day one, and be 10yr AFL players. Dunstan might even be Saints captain in a few years. But teams would be mental to have thought of them in the top 10, as that’s where you chase after difference-makers based on all the pre-draft testing and hype. Sloane played early and played well because of the type of player he is. I think it’s well known that the big men take longer; usually rucks or KPF pinch-hitters especially.
Technically Sam Jacobs was available too in 2008, given he was re-drafted by Carlton, so if this was not a “redo the draft” thread and instead was “re-order the players drafted based on output” then you’d have Jacobs in the top 10 I’d say.
However I’d say 2008 is also a lesson for every team; Melbourne were stuck pretty much having to take Watts, Naitanui or maybe Daniel Rich because those first two were “difference-makers” that played forward (or fwd/ruck in NN case) and Rich was apparently the safe bet (evidenced by his rising star). If they took someone other than Watts I think they’d have failed anyway as there would have been major criticism of the Dees choice, and the pressure on that player would have been unbelievable.
Here’s the 30 or so players I reckon it seems were even worth drafting, roughly in order of talent (but accepting at pick 1, Melbourne would still have to go for NN or Hurley in order to draft a big man):

1 Dayne Beams
2 Tom Rockliff
3 Hamish Hartlett
4 Nic Naitanui
5 Michael Hurley
6 Daniel Hannebery
7 Chris Yarran
8 Rory Sloane
9 Jackson Trengove
10 Jack Ziebell
11 Ryan Schoenmakers
12 Steven Motlop
13 Mike Pyke
14 Stephen Hill
15 Michael Walters
16 David Zaharakis
17 Luke Shuey
18 Jack Redden
19 Matt Suckling
20 Daniel Rich
21 Jeff Garlett
22 Liam Shiels
23 Hayden Ballentyne
24 Nic Suban
25 Matthew Broadbent
26 Luke Breust
27 Zac Dawson
28 Jack Watts
29 Zac Clarke
30 Shane Savage

Also it shows why part of why Hawthorn are where they are; it's not just getting in superstars, it's going into a draft like 2008 that has some top players but isn't hugely deep in talent, and coming away with 4 solid contributors. Suckling, Schoenmakers, Shiels and Breust all play their part to supplement the core unit at the Hawks.

*EDIT*: I deleted Steele Sidebottom off my list of players accidentally. I think he is a very good player, and on output would be top 10 but given the type of player he is and not being an outright matchwinner, would probably place him at 12 in front of Motlop.
If Motlop ever stays healthy enough to reach close to his potential he'd obviously rise.

Suckling was taken in the 2006 rookie draft.

 

[ike2112]

Suckling was taken in the 2006 rookie draft.

Which Matt Suckling?..

He was however available before being redrafted with pick 81 in the 2009 rookie draft. Another team could have nicked him?

 

[TheWhiteRhino]

Hannebery and Beams are easily the two best big game players to date.

Hard to argue that the don't sit top 2 over everyone else from this draft.

 

[Bailey01]

Hannebery and Beams are easily the two best big game players to date.

Hard to argue that the don't sit top 2 over everyone else from this draft.

Say that when Hanners has a 40 possie game. Just let Hanners shows some consistent form.

 

[TheWhiteRhino]

AA last year wasn't good enough for you?

 

[Bailey01]

AA last year wasn't good enough for you?

Was excellent until he got tagged and had games under 15 touches. Needs to deal with that better if he is near Beams.

 

[TheWhiteRhino]

When does Beams ever get tagged?

Agree, Hanners does need to work on getting loose of the tag, but there aren't too many in 2008 draft who need to get tagged and he's started to handle it better - including Langford tonight.

 

[flipper83]

fb Matt De Boer Ryan Schoenmakers Nic Suban

chb Matthew Broadbent Jackson Trengove Matt Suckling

c Dayne Beams Hamish Hartlett Rory Sloane

hf Luke Breust Jack Watts Michael Walters

ff Hayden Ballentyne Michael Hurley Steven Motlop

r Zac Clarke Stephen Hill Jack Ziebell

i Nic Naitanui Tom Rockliff Daniel Hannebery Daniel Rich

Not too many KPP for the draft

Think Roughhead is a better fullback than Schoenmakers.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Hartlett will finish up being the best from this draft.

He better start catching up to beams then

 

[GutsyBug]

When does Beams ever get tagged?

Agree, Hanners does need to work on getting loose of the tag, but there aren't too many in 2008 draft who need to get tagged and he's started to handle it better - including Langford tonight.

Beams got tagged for the entire second half of 2012 - Look what he did then.

 

[MightyPies1]

1.) Dayne Beams
2.) Daniel Hannebery
3.) Tom Rockliff
4.) Steele Sidebottom
5.) Hamish Hartlett
6.) Nic Natinui
7.) Rory Sloane
8.) Jack Ziebell
9.) Luke Breust
10) Steven Motlop
11.) Mike Pyke
12.) Matt Suckling
13.) Luke Shuey
14.) Hayden Ballantyne
15.) Michael Hurley
16.) Stephen Hill
17.) David Zaharakis
18.) Daniel Rich
19.) Jackson Trengove
20.) Chris Yarran