Opinion Drafting since 2003 (taken from the Myers thread)

[yaco55]

He was before injury. But would I take 5 rucks before him, maybe. The three I named; definitely, Mumford, Jacobs and Maric would be next in line but haven't put together more than one good season, just like Ryder and he would be in that group. If Hird came out and said we will play Ryder as a stand alone ruckman I would, as thats when I think he plays his best football.

I agree that if Ryder played consistently in the ruck he could be a top 5 ruck.

As I wrote in an earlier post he still has time on his side.

 

[yaco55]

maybe because they're not good enough to go top 5? Ever thought of that?

Ok Einstein.

Go back and see where the top rucks were drafted - Off the top of my head - Jolly/Cox/Sandilands/Mumford/Jamar were rookie selections.

 

[yaco55]

Think the discussion is being led into into irrelevant statistics.

Bottom line is whether these top 10 drafts are very good/elite players.

And a good measuring stick is top 3 in the B and F ?

Stanton has 3 /4 from memory.
Heppell has 1.

And the rest ?

I am being generous with Stanton - he was pick 13 - But we need something to hand our hat on.

 

[eth-dog]

Ok Einstein.

Go back and see where the top rucks were drafted - Off the top of my head - Jolly/Cox/Sandilands/Mumford/Jamar were rookie selections.

sorry, misread, I thought you meant recently eg. Longer

Sam Jacobs too

 

[yaco55]

sorry, misread, I thought you meant recently eg. Longer

Sam Jacobs too

Think the era of rucks going top 5 may be gone - May even be a stretch to see them go top 10.

 

[Doss]

Yaco, I'm posting this in here because we are taking the other thread, which is about David Myers not our historical drafting, way off course.

Going back to the early 1990s serves very little purpose. The system was different then- you had mid-season drafts, zone selections and a very, very high miss rate in the ND. For example, from 1991, Michael Symons at #8 for us ended up playing the most games (only 109, mind you) of any of the top 10, just beating the illustrious Darren Kowal and then such football royalty as Marcus Seecamp, Andrew McGovern, Jason Norrish, Stephen O'Rielly and a few others that some have probably never heard of.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, frankly.

From what I can tell, we have never had an AA selection from a top 10 ND pick though. Scott Lucas would have come closest- he should have got one or two in his career, and he was #4 in 1994.

 

[yaco55]

Yaco, I'm posting this in here because we are taking the other thread, which is about David Myers not our historical drafting, way off course.

Going back to the early 1990s serves very little purpose. The system was different then- you had mid-season drafts, zone selections and a very, very high miss rate in the ND. For example, from 1991, Michael Symons at #8 for us ended up playing the most games (only 109, mind you) of any of the top 10, just beating the illustrious Darren Kowal and then such football royalty as Marcus Seecamp, Andrew McGovern, Jason Norrish, Stephen O'Rielly and a few others that some have probably never heard of.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, frankly.

From what I can tell, we have never had an AA selection from a top 10 ND pick though. Scott Lucas would have come closest- he should have got one or two in his career, and he was #4 in 1994.

This suggests that our top range drafting ( top 10 ) has been average in recent times which is what Yoda is suggesting in another thread. Yoda's point is simple - Which of these players are very good/elite ?

Are we the only club who has never had a top 10 draft pick, make AA ?

And we are discussing drafting from 2003 but much of the focus will be on top 10 drafting. I thought i would broaden and go back to the start of drafting.

Go back and look at the 2000 Premiership - made up of under 19's/ judicious trading/zone selections/ Lloyd as a compensation pick/F'S/And Lucas/Heffernan/Caracella Top 10 picks. This indicates that our drafting was solid at this point in time. But the reality is that we have been ordinary for 8 or 9 years - Which hasn't been helped by our Top 10 draft picks from 1999. I suggest there is a relationship with our overall performance.

I agree with Lucas - dudded not to ever be AA. The one I cry about is Winderlich - No 10 in 2002 - Given a fair break at it, would have been a good value selection.

 

[matt_bas]

I'd argue that Heppell is a star

Potential star, hasn't really proven himself yet imo

 

[Doss]

Again, there's little point in drawing the line at 1999, because we didn't have a top ten pick in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004.

Winderlich, Stanton and Monfries were 11, 13 and 14 respectively, which is outside this top ten parameter you seem so intent on.

So even if you want to go back to 1999 and go to the present, Essendon have still only had seven top 10 picks in 14 drafts:

1999- none
2000- none
2001- none
2002- none
2003- none
2004- none
2005- Ryder
2006- Gumbleton
2007- Myers
2008- Hurley
2009- Melksham
2010- Heppell
2011- none
2012- Daniher

That's seven.

Daniher hasn't played a game yet- irrelevant to the discussion.

Using Heppell's failure to make an AA squad is, at this point, silly- he has played two years.
Same goes for Melksham- how many, if any, 2009 draftees have? Can't think of one.

Myers and Gumbleton's failure to get near AA level cannot definitively be put down solely to lack of ability. Both have been savaged by injury and when one averages nine games a year and the other barely over four because of those injuries, I'm not sure what relevance AA has to them either. Also, their failure doesn't reflect on the recruiters if that failure has been mainly due to injury, as you can't foretell that.

Which leaves Hurley from 2008, and Ryder from 2005. Hurley's 22 and still to figure out where his best position his. I'm not pressing panic buttons about his lack of AA. Only Naitanui and Beams from that draft class have made AA so far.

Ryder has been inconsistent, I think everyone would acknowledge that. But his path to AA has been significantly hampered by the fact a certain D.Cox has made the team every year from 2005-08 and then again the last two years. This is not to say Ryder has ever been the second best ruckman in the competition, just to point out that a ruckman not making AA in the years his career has encompassed is not as big a deal as you seem to think it is.


Our top end drafting from 2002 onwards has been mostly solid to good. The thing that killed us for ages was the horror period from 1997 to 2001 from the ND- in five seasons we literally got two decent to good players in McVeigh and Hille, another trier in Welsh, and basically nothing else. We wasted pick 4 in 1997 on Mark Bolton, for pete's sake.

 

[yaco55]

You are right that the period from 1998 to 2002 was barren, hence my desire to look back to 1990 for comparison purposes.

You did forget Rama pick 9 in 1998 - Would have been an elite player. And Laycock was pick 10 in 2003/2004.

Yoda's and Rines' point still stands that we have got on average, solid citizens, rather than very good/outstanding picks.

And there are hardly a plethora of top 3 placings in the B and F.

 

[Doss]

You are right that the period from 1998 to 2002 was barren, hence my desire to look back to 1990 for comparison purposes.

You did forget Rama pick 9 in 1998 - Would have been an elite player. And Laycock was pick 10 in 2003/2004.

Rama was pick 12. But yes, cancer robbed him of the best years of his career.

I did forget Laycock, he was pick ten in 2002. He was an undeniable failure.

Rines/Yoda were claiming we'd been crap because we'd picked up solid citizen types rather than out and stars.

Which in isolation is a point (the solid citizen bit, not necessarily why we've been crap IMO), but we also haven't bombed as spectacularly as others, and they ignored that point (which was made repeatedly by lamaros and BTG). We haven't made any Thorp/Dowler style blunders.

The crux of my view is, expecting everyone to be a gun/star is setting the bar too high. The number a player is picked at will not usually correlate to where that player can be ranked, retrospectively, in their given cohort, and nor should it. The players are not selected purely in order of how good they are both at the time, and on anticipated improvement. Clubs recruit based on their needs at the time, and looking forward; and clubs often have very different needs at any given point in time, because of the age and positional profile of their lists.

 

[lamaros]

It gets to a point where the idiocy of others becomes too much, and a man just has to bow out before he starts killing fools.

Yaco: I will leave you with a homework assignment:

What PERCENTAGE of the next ten picks after our top ten picks have made AA status (absurd metric that that is)?

Your standing in this community and your reputation as someone worth engaging in discussion rests heavily on your answer.

 

[Drummer_19]

I knew it was a bad idea to open this thread, yet here I am.

 

[Yoda_]

It gets to a point where the idiocy of others becomes too much, and a man just has to bow out before he starts killing fools.

On that note lamaros, I just want to say thanks for the debate, I don't think I got my point across very well or it was misinterpreted but good discussion anyways, I'm going to leave it at this.. I'm sure this old chestnut will pop up again

 

[Ambrosia]

Potential star, hasn't really proven himself yet imo

I think its more in reference to his draft class/age bracket

 

[rines]

FWIW I think Hurley will move to a 'win' and I also hold very strong hope that Ryder and Jetta will both move to 'win' by the end of their careers...

I also would state, clearly and for the record, that I do not believe our drafting has been 'crap' in the last 5 years.. I think we ALL acknowledge there was a very bad patch of recruiting in the last 90's and early 2000's.. since then I believe we have been solid.

I think we missed two golden opportunities with the Gumby and Myers picks.. Myers more so because rioli and Dangerfield were in the field, both of which I rated much higher than myers..

Other than that I think you would say that EFC recruiting has been middle to good.. and the last three years would have to be, at first glance, probably considered good to great.

 

[yaco55]

It gets to a point where the idiocy of others becomes too much, and a man just has to bow out before he starts killing fools.

Yaco: I will leave you with a homework assignment:

What PERCENTAGE of the next ten picks after our top ten picks have made AA status (absurd metric that that is)?

Your standing in this community and your reputation as someone worth engaging in discussion rests heavily on your answer.

I raised a valid point that in the history of the draft none of Efc's Top 10 picks have made AA - That is an undeniable fact.

Why dont we look at the high draft picks and see how many have made top 3 in the B and F - After all this award is voted on by the coaches - It makes for poor reading ! Hopefully this will improve with Hurley/Heppell/J.Daniher on board - And I still have hope for Ryder.

I am not interested in other clubs - All my discussion has clearly been about Essendon's selections in the draft. I have never raised the names of other clubs selections - It is you who throws a red herring into the debate about metrics/stats etc.

I am happy with my opinion about Essendon drafted players - You can discuss players from other clubs.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

FWIW I think Hurley will move to a 'win' and I also hold very strong hope that Ryder and Jetta will both move to 'win' by the end of their careers...

I also would state, clearly and for the record, that I do not believe our drafting has been 'crap' in the last 5 years.. I think we ALL acknowledge there was a very bad patch of recruiting in the last 90's and early 2000's.. since then I believe we have been solid.

I think we missed two golden opportunities with the Gumby and Myers picks.. Myers more so because rioli and Dangerfield were in the field, both of which I rated much higher than myers..

Other than that I think you would say that EFC recruiting has been middle to good.. and the last three years would have to be, at first glance, probably considered good to great.

I think you're holding the recruiters to unattainably high standards.

No one will be drafting perfectly every year. The fact that Myers and Gumby are the bottom two first rounders we've had since 2005 is a very big tick for our recruiters.

If the worst we're doing is two players who have shown plenty of glimpses but haven't had a run at AFL level due to injury then we're in a very good position.

 

[lamaros]

*crickets*

I suspected as much.

It's all a bit sad, really.

 

[The Prosecutor]

I am not interested in other clubs - All my discussion has clearly been about Essendon's selections in the draft. I have never raised the names of other clubs selections - It is you who throws a red herring into the debate about metrics/stats etc.

I am happy with my opinion about Essendon drafted players - You can discuss players from other clubs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the best way to rate a teams drafting is to compare their picks with those around them?

It's all well and good to say our picks were poor, however that means nothing unless you compare the players that went around them.

In essence, you're deliberately ignoring any context to our picks because it doesn't suit your argument.

 

[rines]

I'm not sure why you are taking a ping at me BTG.. other than to score cheap points as usual with your 'gang' of five on here..

I rated our recruiting as poor pre 2000, middle-good in 2003-2008, and good-great 2008-2012... exactly how is that holding them to 'unattainable standards'??????

Tell me which assessment you disagree with and we can hold a debate about that...

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I'm not sure why you are taking a ping at me BTG.. other than to score cheap points as usual with your 'gang' of five on here..

I rated our recruiting as poor pre 2000, middle-good in 2003-2008, and good-great 2008-2012... exactly how is that holding them to 'unattainable standards'??????

Tell me which assessment you disagree with and we can hold a debate about that...

I'm not sure you quite appreciate the irony of your first line, given that I was trying to have a sensible discussion, and you're the one looking for cheap points there.

I think 60% is an excellent return for a recruiting team (a figure ant555 refers to often). All this talk about "missed opportunities" is silly. Every pick is a missed opportunity except for a couple. Name a club that hasn't "missed opportunities" in the last 6-7 years of drafting. Every club passed on Fyfe except Brisbane, Collingwood, Hawthorn and St Kilda. All of those except Collingwood passed on Darling. But don't worry, because Collingwood passed on Jack Riewoldt. Every club passes on better players than those they pick. Sometimes they pass on very, very good players like Patrick Dangerfield and Cyril Rioli. But other times they pick that player that everyone else regrets passing on, like Dyson Heppell.

So that is exactly what I mean by unattainable standards. You want our recruiters to perform at a level far beyond what any recruiter would ever dream of.

 

[rines]

Again I would re-iterate:

I rated our recruiting as poor pre 2000, middle-good in 2003-2008, and good-great 2008-2012... exactly how is that holding them to 'unattainable standards'??????

Tell me which assessment you disagree with and we can hold a debate about that...

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Why don't you try reading my post, you'll find I addressed what I disagreed with there.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Why don't you try reading my post

What? We don't do that sort of thing here!