Draft hits and misses

[Partridge]

Yep, your memory is not quite long term enough: Lonergan debuted in 2005 versus the Kangas and kicked 2 goals. The Same game that Playfair kicked 3, and had many (including me, admittedly) that he was going to be the Next Big Thing. Lonergan started playing in defence in 2006 after missing almost the entire season. Played rd 21 vs the Dees, was playing arguably the game of his career and then got cleaned up by Miller when he backed into the contest. Missed the seniors for all of 2007 but played some pretty awesome VFL, and then came back into the team mid-2008 after Nathan was a no-show and Hawkins started getting hot spots in his feet. THEN was tried as a defender again in 2009 but never got settled and was dropped. So yeah my recall of Domsy's career is pretty good and it serves to remind us that um... Big guys take time. So anyone who is adamant that Brown has what it takes but thinks Walker is a bust, remember the Lonergan and Playfair scenario.

Don't think too many are that adamant to be honest LSV. The only definitive statements I see a lot is that Brown definitely absolutely will not make it, and shouldn't ever be given another game. Walker will make it, and much like Blicavs pretty much anywhere. Mostly it seems in his case because he's enthusiastic. That's wonderful. An ability to mark and kick at senior level would be nice as well. Last we saw he couldn't hold on to chest marks so needs to get better there.

I'd say Brown has more natural talent, and the one question mark is confidence - can he take his excellent VFL form to the seniors? Has all the attributes. I don't want him starring in the VFL again for another year without getting a chance. I'd rather 6-8 games in a row, if he's no good, fine, cut him loose.

With Walker it's the same. I'm worried about his kicking, and really he hasn't shown anything at senior level. But he's still young so plenty of time to get better. Just like Brown he's fully entitled to the opportunity to show what he can do.

 

[Partridge]

And watching Walker in the ruck, he doesn't get pushed around all that easily, you'd assume 90-91kg's, the opposing rucks would have no trouble doing as they please.
Like you say Void, he'd probably be closer to 99-100kg's

When I've seen Walker in the ruck at AFL level,the opposing rucks absolutely do as they please.

 

[Partridge]

I've seen them both up close and there's no way Walker is 92, he'd be almost 100. Sometimes the club plays funny fellows with stats to minimise a player's weight gain (Walker by my estimate jumped 10kg in a year, that tends to raise eyebrows in the wrong places these days).

There's no way they would let a player gain 10kg in a season, they'd lose all mobility.

 

[Partridge]

I know this sounds silly but I'd much rather have a player with poor kicking skills play forward than back, poor disposal in the back half is so costly.

The best CHF of the past decade can't really kick,either (cloke, reiwoldt)

I don't want a player with poor kicking skills getting selected full stop. Just hands the opposition a weakness.

 

[vinum coupe]

Really?? Wow I would have thought Walker was a lot bigger. Looks it to the naked eye anyway

I actually think Brown is bigger across the shoulders but Walker seems to have bigger legs and a bigger waist.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I know this sounds silly but I'd much rather have a player with poor kicking skills play forward than back, poor disposal in the back half is so costly.

The best CHF of the past decade can't really kick,either (cloke, reiwoldt)

It depends though. If everyone else in the backline is a good kick, you can get away with a guy who is a bit iffy in that regard. Lonergan has improved his kicking significantly over the past couple of years, but he's still never going to be the Cats' first choice to rebound out of defence. When he has to kick the ball, it will either be when he's under pressure or miles in the clear, so he can get away with the 'long and towards the boundary line' mantra, unless he has a teammate metres in the clear. He's a good mark, so he can also focus on that and have guys like Guthrie, Enright and Mackie running round the back for a handpass.

The other thing is that for some reason a lot of players who are exceptional field kicks go to water when you put some white sticks in front of them (see: Mooney, Richo...). Walker's technique suggests to me that he'd be a pretty ordinary kick anywhere, but I haven't seen enough of his field kicking to make that conclusion.

 

[Pivo]

Well, looking at selections similar to our picks this year since 1998 these are some names that, I think, could be considered misses.

1998
#17 - Peter Street (17 games for Geelong)

1999
#15 - David Spriggs (64 games)
#17 - Ezra Bray (0 games)

Daniel Foster taken at 23 only played 17 games.

2001
#41 - Henry Playfair (52 games) (Charlie Gardiner selected at #23)

2003
#42 - Matthew Spencer (2 games)

Kane Tenace (59 games) picked at #7 while #22 was used on Cameron Thurley (6 games). On top of that the #5 Pre-season draft selection was used on Paul Koulouriotis.

2004
#32 - Brent Prismall (25 games)

2005
#35 - Stephen Owen (0 games)
#47 - Ryan Gamble (24 games)

2006
Nathan Djerrkura (4 games) was picked up with #25

2007
#44 - Scott Simpson (0 games)
#50 - Dan McKenna (0 games)

2008
#33 - Tom Gillies (13 games)

Obviously, some of these can be cancelled out by guys like Motlop (pick 39), Rooke (Rookie selection), Enright (#47), Ling (#38) & Josh Hunt (#44) (to name but a few) but I think it is fair to say we had a couple of misses along the way (and sometimes with decent picks).

All draft years are different, is there likely to be a Motlop or Enright or Christensen or Vardy around our pick 41 on Thursday? Who knows, but the above does make for some interesting reading.

Obviously picking the eyes out of 1999 and 2001 helped us out a fair bit.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Well, of course, the other thing to look at is which players were taken with the picks immediately following these misses, say, the five following picks (ignoring F/S selections):

Spriggs: David Haynes, Bray, Brad Green, Paul Wheatley, Scott Stevens
Bray: Green, Wheatley, Stevens, Ezra Poyas, Foster
Foster: Jason Blake, Brett Johnson, Cain Ackland, Brent Guerra, Adam Hunter

A couple of very handy players (Green, Blake, Guerra, Hunter), but also a lot of players who weren't much better than the guys we ended up with (if at all), besides Bray.

Playfair: Kieran McGuiness, Mark McGough, Ben Finnin, Nathan Clarke, Andrew Welsh

I'd say that's a pass.

Tenace: Raph Clarke, David Trotter, Ryley Dunn, Beau Waters, Ryan Murphy
Thurley: Matthew Moody, Chad Jones, Harry Miller, Daniel McConnell, Adam Campbell
Spencer: Brett Peake, Ricky Dyson, Amon Buchanan, Michael Pettigrew, Andrew Eriksen
Koulouriotis: Shane Harvey, Doug Scott, Michael Johnson, Jacob Surjan, Luke Weller

Tenace was arguably better than anyone selected in the five picks after him, besides Waters. Can you picture any of the guys drafted after Thurley? I'm drawing a blank. And there's a spectacular collection of list-cloggers from the guys picked after Spencer, guys who might have helped us, but probably would have found themselves behind much more talented teammates, like Tenace did. Michael Johnson has come good of the preseason draft picks, but would we have been as patient with him (and would he have been given as many chances)?

Prismall: Ackland, James Ezard, Fabian Deluca, Luke McGuane, Mark LeCras

Yeah, LeCras would have been nice, but Prismall's worst ever move in the AFL was requesting to leave Geelong. He would have been a certain starter in the 2008 grand final team, had he not done his knee in the qualifying final. LeCras is the only other player in that group who would be anywhere near good enough to be in a grand final side. If someone like Luke McGuane is a walk-up start in your AFL team, it says more about your team than it does about him.

Owen: Jake Edwards, Jack Anthony, Travis Casserly, Rhan Hooper, Robert Warnock
Gamble: Alan Obst, Michael Rix, Sam Lonergan, Matthew Laidlaw, Simon Buckley (there was a 'pass' in there too)

Warnock is the only one that I can see there that would have been of any use to us at all.

Djerrkura: Shane Edwards, Brad Howard, Chris Dawes, Eric MacKenzie, Ricky Petterd

Admittedly, a couple of players who might have been handy here (and still would be).

S.Simpson: Stuart Dew, Dennis Armfield, Toby Thoolen, Jarrad Boumann, Mitch Farmer
McKenna: Dean Putt, Bradd Dalziell, Kyle Cheney, Cale Hooker, Mark Johnson

Ok, it would have been a good idea in hindsight to draft Dew and then bury him in the VFL for a year. Armfield's not bad and the rest were about as impressive as Simpson. After McKenna, we have couple of hall of fame list cloggers in Dalziell and Cheney, a washed-up Mark Johnson, a guy I've never heard of (Putt) and Hooker, who may have stuck, but was not even close to being needed after we drafted Harry Taylor in the first round and were still very optimistic of Egan getting back on the ground.

Gillies: Liam Shiels, Jamie Bennell, Ash Smith, Zac Clarke, Matthew Broadbent

Another pick that turned out to be quite costly, as Clarke, Broadbent and possibly Shiels could have been handy players for Geelong.

So, if we're counting at home, I'd say Bray, Foster, Spencer, Djerrkura, McKenna and Gillies had more than 2/5 of the subsequent picks go on to have better careers than them (maybe Thurley too, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since I can hardly remember a thing about any of those players' AFL careers). And of those six, only Bray (Green), Foster (Blake, Guerra, Hunter), Djerrkura (MacKenzie) and Gillies (Clarke) had players drafted after them who could potentially have pushed for one of our premiership sides.

It seems like the damage has been minimal from our draft misfires.

 

[Rainfall]

Pick 16 - next corey
pick 36 - next chappy
Pick 41 - next enright

 

[Pivo]

I think it is fairly well established that the 2003 Draft was pretty much a stinker so perhaps we judge Tenace harshly considering his '03 class.

While I don't have a big issue with judging players based on the next 5 selections MC Extra Dollop, I do think there is any number of ways the debate can be conducted (depending on the argument one wants to put forward).

Take 2003.

It is a bit laughable, looking back, that Fergus Watts was selected at #14. Josh Willoughby, Billy Morrison and Llane Spaanderman take up selections 16, 17 and 18 respectfully.

However, Brent Stanton was #13, Troy Chaplin was #15 and David Mundy was #19.

Obviously the fact they were selected after Tenace means they were available. So, while the 5 picks directly after Tenace don't look too bad in comparision the fact Stanton, Chaplin and Mundy were still available does, I think, start to make the Tenace selection look a touch poor when viewed with the passage of time.

As we often say around here, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Likewise, Spencer taken at #42 doesn't look too bad when throwing up the names Peake, Dyson, Buchanan, Pettigrew and Eriksen (who??).

But consider the following names to be found at #53, #55 and #61 - Daniel Jackson, Sam Fisher and Michael Rischetilli. I think those 3 are a significant improvement on Spencer. Even more interesting is we passed on our final pick (#54) to, I assume, have a spot available for Koulouriotis (or, I seem to recall, Harvey) in the pre-season draft.

I think Fisher and Rischetilli both have Koulouriotis covered as well.

As a think piece it is always an interesting discussion as it is easy to argue when knowing how things have transpired. We could just as easily suggest that the draft order, each year, is actually correct at that moment in time, based on the information at hand.

As John Fletcher said "[o]f all forms of wisdom hindsight is, by general consent, the least merciful, the most unforgiving".

 

[LifeSpan-Void]

There's no way they would let a player gain 10kg in a season, they'd lose all mobility.

I can assure you that isn't true, and it has been done many times before. Even with our guys it has been done. Daniel Menzel springs to mind.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I think it is fairly well established that the 2003 Draft was pretty much a stinker so perhaps we judge Tenace harshly considering his '03 class.

While I don't have a big issue with judging players based on the next 5 selections MC Extra Dollop, I do think there is any number of ways the debate can be conducted (depending on the argument one wants to put forward).

Take 2003.

It is pretty laughable, looking back, that Fergus Watts was selected at #14. Josh Willoughby, Billy Morrison and Llane Spaanderman take up selections 16, 17 and 18 respectfully.

However, Brent Stanton was #13, Troy Chaplin was #15 and David Mundy was #19.

Obviously the fact they were selected after Tenace means they were available. So, while the 5 picks directly after Tenace don't look too bad in comparision the fact Stanton, Chaplin and Mundy were still available does, I think, start to make the Tenace selection look a touch poor when viewed with the passage of time.

As we often say around here, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Likewise, Spencer taken at #42 doesn't look too bad when throwing up the names Peake, Dyson, Buchanan, Pettigrew and Eriksen (who??).

But consider the following names to be found at #53, #55 and #61 - Daniel Jackson, Sam Fisher and Michael Rischetilli. I think those 3 are a significant improvement on Spencer. Even more interesting is we passed on our final pick (#54) to, I assume, select Koulouriotis in the pre-season draft.

I think Fisher and Rischetilli both have Koulouriotis covered as well.

As a think piece it is always an interesting discussion as it is easy to argue knowing how things have transpired. We could easily suggest that the draft order each year is correct...at that moment in time.

As John Fletcher said "[o]f all forms of wisdom hindsight is, by general consent, the least merciful, the most unforgiving".

I can't argue with much of that. And as it gets to the mid-late rounds of the draft the difference between 10-15 picks in the order is much less than what it is between the first 30 or so picks, because they're more speculative and the recruiters are relying more on a hunch. I can't remember back to the 2003 draft that clearly, but I think in general, to think that someone who ultimately went #19 would be given much consideration by the team picking at #7 would be pretty unrealistic most years. As mentioned, the later rounds become a bit of a roll of the dice, so perhaps showing the equivalent of one round of the draft after the pick would give a fairer indication. I just think it's too easy to make any club/recruiting department look silly by trawling back over national drafts and picking out the half dozen needles in the haystack after about pick #40 that went on to make a name for themselves in the AFL.

 

[Pivo]

I can't argue with much of that. And as it gets to the mid-late rounds of the draft the difference between 10-15 picks in the order is much less than what it is between the first 30 or so picks, because they're more speculative and the recruiters are relying more on a hunch. I can't remember back to the 2003 draft that clearly, but I think in general, to think that someone who ultimately went #19 would be given much consideration by the team picking at #7 would be pretty unrealistic most years. As mentioned, the later rounds become a bit of a roll of the dice, so perhaps showing the equivalent of one round of the draft after the pick would give a fairer indication. I just think it's too easy to make any club/recruiting department look silly by trawling back over national drafts and picking out the half dozen needles in the haystack after about pick #40 that went on to make a name for themselves in the AFL.

Well, the thread is discussing 'hits' and 'misses'.

Much like a punter we're good at telling people about the wins but often keep the losses to ourselves.

However, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. It is very easy to bemoan "the ones that got away" but we always have to try and remember that decisions made on the day of the draft are made with the best possible intel and there may be a whole heap of variables that influence certain decisions. As supporters we aren't going to be privy to these.

Was someone like Tenace a miss? Personally I think he was but I also understand I am making that judgement with the benefit of seeing how everything unfolded 10 years down the track.

 

[Partridge]

I can assure you that isn't true, and it has been done many times before. Even with our guys it has been done. Daniel Menzel springs to mind.

When? After 2011? In which case I'll go out on a limb and say it hasn't exactly been a roaring success.

10kg is a lot of weight to suddenly gain or drop.

 

[El Dubya]

Is it just Geelong? Because James Hird has him beat. Pick 79. Although his coaching career is a bit of a shambles. But good on Boris. Def has a great career.

Would James Hird be in contention for the Team of the Century? Boris would. And Boris has won more flags. Boris also doesn't work with convicted drug smugglers...

 

[Partridge]

Would James Hird be in contention for the Team of the Century? Boris would. And Boris has won more flags. Boris also doesn't work with convicted drug smugglers...

Shouldn't be now. Apparently character is meant to be part of the equation. It won't stop them for St.James though.