Opinion Drafting since 2003 (taken from the Myers thread)

[yaco55]

Another measurement is how long their hair is.

Both about as useful.

I don't need measurements to help me determine how good EFC's early draft picks are from 2003 - I use my eyes.

I suggested top 3 in the B and F, seeing that some are obsessed with measurements/stats - It doesn't make for pleasant reading.

But of course some want to forget about statistical measurements.

 

[yaco55]

Top 10 is a better measurement for the idiocrcy around here Yaco.. They can be top 10in there best and fairest.!! That means (about) the top 25% of the list.. Which means that they have to be in the top 150 players in the league to be considered a pass..

And here I was being selfish and wanting more top 35 (5% in the AFL) players with our first round picks..

I should be happy with b - c grade footballers.

Yoda

Things may turn out all right.

Heppell will be a star/Hurley should be a star/Ryder is still a chance/JD on pedigree should be a star - Given up on Myers/Gumbleton/Melksham.

 

[eth-dog]

Given up on Melksham after 1 year where he stagnated? Where it can be directly linked to putting on too much muscle too quickly?

Jesus BigFooty is stupid sometimes.

 

[yaco55]

I have given up on Melksham being a very good to elite player.

Has too many deficiencies in his game after nearly 70 games.

Should end up a decent player, but no world-beater.

 

[eth-dog]

I have given up on Melksham being a very good to elite player.

Has too many deficiencies in his game after nearly 70 games.

Should end up a decent player, but no world-beater.

After 3 years in the system- 2 of which were promising, he has too many deficiencies in his game.

Watson at 21 had shitloads of deficiencies, a lot more than Melk. Look how he turned out

 

[lamaros]

Young players usually stand or fail in their 4-6th years, and/or 50 games plus.

Of course some build from there to a late career peak that is notably higher in standard.

Guys like Stanton, Heppell, Zaharakis, and (to a lesser extent) Hurley and Ryder, who hit the ground running and are very quickly and easily best 22, are less common.

Kav, Melksham, Myers, etc are all given the inexperience proviso until they've played around 3 full seasons.

 

[lamaros]

Young players usually stand or fail in their 4-6th years, and/or 50 games plus.

Of course some build from there to a late career peak that is notably higher in standard.

Guys like Stanton, Heppell, Zaharakis, and (to a lesser extent) Hurley and Ryder, who hit the ground running and are very quickly and easily best 22, are less common.

Kav, Melksham, Myers, etc are all given the inexperience proviso until they've played around 3 full seasons.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

What other players do is irrelevant - The discussion is how good have our first round draft picks been from 2003.

And a measurement is top 3 in the B and F.

Riddle me this. Let's say the 2013 draft is complete rubbish. There are no players available that have the capacity to crack top 3 in the B&F. Whoever Essendon takes peaks at top 4. Are they a failed pick?

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Yoda, assuming that all drafts are roughly equal, and that the average elite player plays 13 years, we're talking about slightly less than 3 elite midfielders per draft. You're demanding that our first round pick should fall into that category every year or its a massive fail. Aside from the fact that no team has done that ever, our highest pick used on a midfielder since 2000 is pick 6 on Myers, then we have pick 8 on Heppell and into double figures. These are the picks you're demanding top 3 midfielders from the draft of as the pass/fail delineation.

And you have the nerve to label those who understand that your standards would be unattainably high even if none of the other teams turned up and the work experience kid had to pick based off a copy of the Age from the foyer as the "idiocrcy" [sic].

Incidentally, idiocracy is a synonym for idiosyncrasy and doesn't mean a ruling class of idiots, although I love the concept of Andrew Demetriou as an idiocrat.

 

[daffo]

After 3 years in the system- 2 of which were promising, he has too many deficiencies in his game.

Watson at 21 had shitloads of deficiencies, a lot more than Melk. Look how he turned out

Have to agree there. A lot of people have such a bad view of Melksham. I think it's because he has played so much footy people forget just how young he is. I expect good things from him. The injury this year will set him back a bit but he'll play 200 games for us easily.

 

[lamaros]

Have to agree there. A lot of people have such a bad view of Melksham. I think it's because he has played so much footy people forget just how young he is. I expect good things from him. The injury this year will set him back a bit but he'll play 200 games for us easily.

2009 Draft
#4: 23 games. Injured constantly but still a gun. No doubt!
#6: 22 games. Injured a bit, runs fast and is a GUN, though.
#7: 32 games. Building quietly behind West Coasts field of stars.
#8: 12 games. The Future! He even kicked a goal in a game once.
#9: 24 games. Potential young kid.
#11: 19 games. Gun. North had to beat off 700 other clubs to get him.
#12: 18 games. Star for sure, just waiting to flick the switch.
#15-19: 14-29 games. Future stars of the competition, still kids.

#10: 59 games. First team regular, big wraps from the coaches. Confirmed dud of the highest order. Delist now. Salt the ground...

Wait... what?

If Melksham had been developing in the seconds people would be saying he was a young kid and still developing, give him time. The fact that he has played nearly every game since being drafted is causing them to lose touch with reality.

 

[NAB777]

After 3 years in the system- 2 of which were promising, he has too many deficiencies in his game.

Watson at 21 had shitloads of deficiencies, a lot more than Melk. Look how he turned out

Totally disagree. Jobe was a very good player at 21. The club doc told me in early 2006 (Jan/Feb) that Jobe was a diesel Williams in the making. Ended up runner up in the B&F (would have won it if Sheedy didn't have a chip on his shoulders about the Watsons), and became an absolute ball magnet. He was leading the AFL at one point that year for possessions vs time on ground.

You only had to watch Jobe for 5 minutes to know he had special vision & awareness. Jobe had two issues - getting himself fit, (which he did pre season 2006) and his kicking. You can work on both of those, and he did.

Melksham needs to take the next step this year.

 

[lamaros]

Totally disagree. Jobe was a very good player at 21. The club doc told me in early 2006 (Jan/Feb) that Jobe was a diesel Williams in the making. Ended up runner up in the B&F (would have won it if Sheedy didn't have a chip on his shoulders about the Watsons), and became an absolute ball magnet. He was leading the AFL at one point that year for possessions vs time on ground.

You only had to watch Jobe for 5 minutes to know he had special vision & awareness. Jobe had two issues - getting himself fit, (which he did pre season 2006) and his kicking. You can work on both of those, and he did.

Melksham needs to take the next step this year.

At the same stage of his career Jobe had played 13 games over three years.

What the **** are you smoking?

 

[BrunoV]

Why can't we all just wait a few weeks until the season starts and these players, Myers, Melksham, Hooker, and whoever else our fans want to sink their boots into, are running on top of the ground again?

 

[Doss]

Jobe was drafted at 17, Jake at 18.

 

[BrunoV]

Jobe Watson was still being heckled by EFC fans in 2008/09 because he was slow and couldn't hit the side of a barn.

 

[lamaros]

Jobe was drafted at 17, Jake at 18.

Still three years in an afl system, though.

 

[Doss]

Still three years in an afl system, though.

Precisely. The comparable point for the two is thus to look at Jobe's standing at the end of 2005.

I distinctly remember many being surprised at the end of 2005....surprised that he hadn't been delisted.

Who knows, some still stay that he would have been turfed if he wasn't Tim's son.

 

[BrunoV]

He wouldn't have been drafted if he wasn't Tim son.

 

[Doss]

Yeah, that too.

 

[rines]

Watson had a slow start to his career.. no doubt! I also think that Sheedy didn't particularly like him and hence he was played 'out' of position a lot, or used sparingly at best...

His disposal was the only thing holding him back and a commitment to take his fitness to the 'elite' level. He sorted out the fitness within three years and disposal has been on the improve since he entered the system.

Having said that.. Melksham is still waaaay too young to make a decision either way.. this year will be interesting for the milkshake.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Why is Melksham too young but Myers not? Melksham's about half a season ahead in terms of games played.

 

[NAB777]

At the same stage of his career Jobe had played 13 games over three years.

What the **** are you smoking?

I was replying to the post that referred to Jobe at 21.

The year Jobe turned 21, he was a very good footballer. Pretty simple. Crichton Medal runner up. His 'potential' was obvious. Some supporters decried his kicking, but his hands were sublime, and anyone with half a brain could see that he was going to be a player.

At a similar point, Melksham has played 60 games, and his 'potential' is far less obvious.

 

[eth-dog]

I was replying to the post that referred to Jobe at 21.

The year Jobe turned 21, he was a very good footballer. Pretty simple. Crichton Medal runner up. His 'potential' was obvious. Some supporters decried his kicking, but his hands were sublime, and anyone with half a brain could see that he was going to be a player.

At a similar point, Melksham has played 60 games, and his 'potential' is far less obvious.

Really? I see Melksham having a sharp footy brain, good skills and silky outside class

 

[lamaros]

I was replying to the post that referred to Jobe at 21.

The year Jobe turned 21, he was a very good footballer. Pretty simple. Crichton Medal runner up. His 'potential' was obvious. Some supporters decried his kicking, but his hands were sublime, and anyone with half a brain could see that he was going to be a player.

At a similar point, Melksham has played 60 games, and his 'potential' is far less obvious.

To who? The coaches? Who have picked him every time he is fit, and sent him in the select group to train at altitude?

Obviously they don't see anything in him, hey?

Give it a break.