How does a player like Joel Selwood go number 6 in a draft?

[Kenny Hunter]

The question topic is pretty stupid , why? get to that in a minute

The reason that selwood went as late as Number 6 was his knee injury the year before. Just like Judd , in his year 3 players stood out Hodge, Ball and Judd , people downgraded Judd behind the others because of the shoulder problems

The reason i find the question stupid is ,just because you have the 1st pick in the draft doesn't mean you will get the best player, history tells us that in AFL, NBA and NFL drafts.

Clubs when picking have different needs.Players being compared are playing in different comps , for example Gibbs was playing in SA that year , Selwood Vic Jnrs but probaly didn't match up against each in State Games that year due to Selwood''s injury. Plus players develop at different ages

The important question is not how Selwood slipped to Number 6 but a player like Hird slipped to something like Number 70 or Dean Cox only picked up as a rookie

 

[Silvagnis]

Let me tackle this;

Gibbs - pretty sure there have been about 200 better 17 year olds then Gibbs, his first year was average at best. But he's coming along nicely now.

Seventh in the rising star award ahead of Ryder as a skinny 18 year old wasn't average.

Gibbs has a better track record than Pendlebury at 19, yet Pendlebury is supposed to be the next big thing and a rare talent.

And Mike Sheahan rates Pendlebury higher than Murphy, Deledio, Griffen and Goddard.

Sheahan could have started this thread about Selwood who is a manchild and a physically ready player as you will ever see play.

Funny that Murphy's first season was better than Judd's until he was injured.

Murphy was tagged in his second year and our number one mid after Stevens was injured.

Didn't even finish in the top ten in the B & F due to injury and being the number one target for the opposition.

They didn't worry about stopping Carrazzo who is an average kick.

I think Robert Harvey mentioned this in an interview after he joined our coaching panel.

Gumbleton - if he was chose at pick 80 instead of whatever you'd be calling for a delisting. If it wasn't for the early round investment that was made in him he'd be gone. Really, has he actually done anything when he has played a game? Because he looked below standard in the preseason when he was supposedly fit.

Does this apply to Ben Reid and Dawes?

Essendon should trade Gumbleton for Goldsack or Nathan Brown because they've played more football and future stars.

Injuries, Essendon's forwardline and playing a key position gives Gumbleton an out.

Kernahan didn't debut until he was 23...

Yet you're writing off Gumbleton after just two seasons.

Luenenberger - most overrated name in the league. Has frankly every excuse made for him about his age I've ever heard, and just gets smashed and can't find the ball. If he doesn't do something this year then the Lions made put him up (if they ever wake up about him)

I think you've mistaken Leuenberger for the overrated Cameron Wood.

Trading pick 14 for Wood was a laugh.

Check Leuenberger's stats against Lade, Brogan and Jolly in 2008 before you post that he can't get near the ball.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/games/2008/161920080405.html

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/games/2008/131920080412.html

You need strength to hold your own against ruckman.

Leuenberger would be your second ruckman.

 

[PapaHymen]

I won't be surprised if most of the players taken before him are considered better in 5 years time. In fact i'm confident the top 3 will be better.

 

[Winner]

I wouldn't write off anybody below Selwood yet, considering most were KPP.

 

[gaz15]

At least somebody recognises Gibbs ability. I know my opinion is blurred because I'm a Carlton supporter except but Gibbs is a gun. The only better young player than him is Selwood. (Well if Buddy counts then him too.) They will both catpain their clubs.

Also why did Hawthorn pick Thorp when in the previous draft they picked up Roughead and Franklin, two key position players? Look what it's done now, you've got a damn good key pos forward who can't get a game.

Thas true. i think we overloaded on talls. But another reason we didnt take selwood is the fact the previous drafts we took 2 big risks on players who were rated highly but had massive injury clouds over them. Muston (who was rated a top 5 pick before his knees played up) and dowler, who was also rated a top 5 pick before his accident. Taking another risk on selwood might have been a bit much. Though with hindsight it looks like a stuff up.
I could see selwood slotting in nicely along side mitch, bateman, lewis and sewell.

 

[gaz15]

Selwood - very good, jury's out on him until Geelong go bad and we'll see where he's at.

You idiot! He has champion written all over him. Even blind freddy can see that.

 

[Monkey King]

Wow that's f***ing impressive! And to think Ratten has Gibbs playing in the backline....

Yes. Ratten is taking the opportunity in Gibbs' first few years at AFL level to develop his game. It was thought that, as with many junior stars, his defensive game needed working on to make him a more rounded player. That's why you've seen him in defensive roles all around the ground thus far.

As for the OP it's easy as piss to sit down post fact and make such comments. This is not a matter of just spotting talent, but rating that talent and its potential against a crop of other very talented youngsters. No doubt Selwood's talent was rated highly (as were his leadership qualities)... could you imagine a kid coming off several knee ops being taken at pick 7 in a superdraft if he wasn't. It's just that when comparing his potential to others, those knee concerns had to be factored in. Fortunately for Geelong, and footy lovers, those concerns have so far not been an issue.

Clubs tend to look for a sure thing with those very early picks, which is why pick 1 is not always the best player from the draft. IMO pick 5-7 was the right place for Selwood to be taken at the time. Of course in hindsight...

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

If Geelong go bad, then at LEAST one (prob 2) of Ablett, Bartel, Corey, Selwood are either gone, terribly injured, or something seriously gone wrong with their heads.

Selwood will be 25+ before Geelong go "Bad". Even if their defence falls over in 10 or 11, their midfield is good enough to keep them 4-8 for years to come.

 

[THE_GUN]

Yes. Ratten is taking the opportunity in Gibbs' first few years at AFL level to develop his game. It was thought that, as with many junior stars, his defensive game needed working on to make him a more rounded player. That's why you've seen him in defensive roles all around the ground thus far.

As for the OP it's easy as piss to sit down post fact and make such comments. This is not a matter of just spotting talent, but rating that talent and its potential against a crop of other very talented youngsters. No doubt Selwood's talent was rated highly (as were his leadership qualities)... could you imagine a kid coming off several knee ops being taken at pick 7 in a superdraft if he wasn't. It's just that when comparing his potential to others, those knee concerns had to be factored in. Fortunately for Geelong, and footy lovers, those concerns have so far not been an issue.

Clubs tend to look for a sure thing with those very early picks, which is why pick 1 is not always the best player from the draft. IMO pick 5-7 was the right place for Selwood to be taken at the time. Of course in hindsight...

you see this is the part that really get me !!!
judd didnt need to tagg
ablett didnt need to tagg
delidio or sewood
williams,raines,harvey,crawford, the list goes on

the reason ratten played gibbs on the back half & tagging roles is because the kid was strugling in his first year & ratten didnt want to drop him for 2 reasons. 1) dent his confidence 2) didnt have anybody better to bring into the team.
2008 was better but so far has shown potential but he isnt the gun player carlton supporters make him out to be YET

he might become an elite player ( the jury is still out untill he actually plays mid)

but not yet !!!

 

[Thrust]

How can a thread that's about a topic that has been discussed ad nauseum where the OP has a basic thing wrong like draft number wrong be considered AFL board worthy yet a serious and worthy thread about the tackling genius of A. Joseph be relegated to Bay 13?

Especially when Hawthorn had pick 6, which is the team the OP goes for. It's not like it's hard to even look up a couple of draft threads prior to 06...

 

[bombersrbest05]

Seventh in the rising star award ahead of Ryder as a skinny 18 year old wasn't average.

Gibbs has a better track record than Pendlebury at 19, yet Pendlebury is supposed to be the next big thing and a rare talent.

And Mike Sheahan rates Pendlebury higher than Murphy, Deledio, Griffen and Goddard.

Sheahan could have started this thread about Selwood who is a manchild and a physically ready player as you will ever see play.

Funny that Murphy's first season was better than Judd's until he was injured.


Murphy was tagged in his second year and our number one mid after Stevens was injured.

Didn't even finish in the top ten in the B & F due to injury and being the number one target for the opposition.

They didn't worry about stopping Carrazzo who is an average kick.

I think Robert Harvey mentioned this in an interview after he joined our coaching panel.

Does this apply to Ben Reid and Dawes?

Essendon should trade Gumbleton for Goldsack or Nathan Brown because they've played more football and future stars.

Injuries, Essendon's forwardline and playing a key position gives Gumbleton an out.

Kernahan didn't debut until he was 23...

Yet you're writing off Gumbleton after just two seasons.

I think you've mistaken Leuenberger for the overrated Cameron Wood.

Trading pick 14 for Wood was a laugh.

Check Leuenberger's stats against Lade, Brogan and Jolly in 2008 before you post that he can't get near the ball.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/games/2008/161920080405.html

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/games/2008/131920080412.html

You need strength to hold your own against ruckman.

Leuenberger would be your second ruckman.

This guy know's what he is talking about, just owned that ignorant pies supporter. It's laughable that all you pies supporter think Pendlebury will be better than Gibbs, I know who I'd be taking.

As for Selwood is a freak and dissapointed that we didn't get him but i'm still excited about Gumbleton and I believe in 10 years this will be know as one of the strongest draft classes ever.

 

[THE_GUN]

This guy know's what he is talking about, just owned that ignorant pies supporter. It's laughable that all you pies supporter think Pendlebury will be better than Gibbs, I know who I'd be taking.

As for Selwood is a freak and dissapointed that we didn't get him but i'm still excited about Gumbleton and I believe in 10 years this will be know as one of the strongest draft classes ever.

doubt that very much.
2001, 2004 were very very good

 

[Falchoon]

Fair enough but it appears clubs also didn't see his talent because you'd think the knees would have been assessed a bit better.

Gotta wonder how someone like Gibbs created a media frenzy at number one when in reality he is one of the poorer number one picks we've seen. He has talent but not in the same league as most number one rated mids of recent drafts.

I hate Carlton as much as the next man but I would suggest at this stage he has shown at least as much as Cooney, Goddard, Fraser, Hodge, Deledio and Kruezer have in their first season or 2.

 

[Power King]

It's easy to make a thread like this in hindsight.

 

[THE_GUN]

I hate Carlton as much as the next man but I would suggest at this stage he has shown at least as much as Cooney, Goddard, Fraser, Hodge, Deledio and Kruezer have in their first season or 2.

dont know about the others but delidios first 2 years were excellent.

kreuezers 1st year was not half as good as lids.

 

[OzBomber]

It's like saying how did James Hird go no. 72 in the draft.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[mediumsizered]

[/B]
doubt that very much.
2001, 2004 were very very good

Among those taken in the Top 20 of the 2004 draft are Tambling, Meesen, Russell, Chris Egan, Adam Thomson, Meyer, Pattison, McQualter & Willits. As you keep going down through the draft you encounter Jesse Wells (who?), Adam Hartlett, Matt Little, Pat Garner, Chad Gibson, Andrew Lee, Cain Ackland, James Ezard, Fabian DeLuca Damien McCormack & these are all players taken inside the Top 40.

I think most people would agree the 2004 draft will not stack up very well against the 2006 draft by the time the players taken in the respective drafts have finished their careers.

 

[Furn]

Let me tackle this;

Gibbs - pretty sure there have been about 200 better 17 year olds then Gibbs, his first year was average at best. But he's coming along nicely now.

Gumbleton - if he was chose at pick 80 instead of whatever you'd be calling for a delisting. If it wasn't for the early round investment that was made in him he'd be gone. Really, has he actually done anything when he has played a game? Because he looked below standard in the preseason when he was supposedly fit.

Luenenberger - most overrated name in the league. Has frankly every excuse made for him about his age I've ever heard, and just gets smashed and can't find the ball. If he doesn't do something this year then the Lions made put him up (if they ever wake up about him)

Boak - not bad, should be playing for Adelaide with that name

Selwood - very good, jury's out on him until Geelong go bad and we'll see where he's at.

Im talking about at the time of the draft!! Not now.

Recruiters dont have a time machine, maybe you do.



Gibbs was 3rd in the B&F in a senior SANFL team at 17. Name the 200 other 17 yrs olds that did this?

Gumbleton has hardly got on the park since being drafted. Predraft he was better than Roughhead. He was worth pick 2 at the time.

Leunberger. Again predraft he was number one pick most years. So overrated because ruckmen always dominate at 20 dont they?

Next time think before you post.

 

[Monkey King]

you see this is the part that really get me !!!
judd didnt need to tagg
ablett didnt need to tagg
delidio or sewood
williams,raines,harvey,crawford, the list goes on

Forget the oldies... different game back then. Even in defensive roles Gibbs has shown more than Ablett did in his first 2 years, ditto Delidio.

the reason ratten played gibbs on the back half & tagging roles is because the kid was strugling in his first year & ratten didnt want to drop him for 2 reasons. 1) dent his confidence 2) didnt have anybody better to bring into the team.

Crap! Pagan said they would do this before a ball was bounced. With a midfield that couldn't stem the flow he was very keen to get a defensive mind set into the boy and Carlton were in the position of being able to focus on his development as a player.

For a 17yo kid I think it was a good idea, but they really should unleash him this year IMO if he's to take the next step in his development.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The important question is not how Selwood slipped to Number 6 but a player like Hird slipped to something like Number 70 or Dean Cox only picked up as a rookie

Because Dean Cox was an unco youngster who struggled badly early on, and I'm pretty sure Essendon kept very quiet about Hird until they drafted him. Think he played junior footy in Canberra hidden away.

 

[THE_GUN]

Among those taken in the Top 20 of the 2004 draft are Tambling, Meesen, Russell, Chris Egan, Adam Thomson, Meyer, Pattison, McQualter & Willits. As you keep going down through the draft you encounter Jesse Wells (who?), Adam Hartlett, Matt Little, Pat Garner, Chad Gibson, Andrew Lee, Cain Ackland, James Ezard, Fabian DeLuca Damien McCormack & these are all players taken inside the Top 40.

I think most people would agree the 2004 draft will not stack up very well against the 2006 draft by the time the players taken in the respective drafts have finished their careers.

you will come up with a similar list in 2 years time for the 2006 drafted players as well .

an extra 2 years will tell you a bit more, atm selwood is the only standout for me & the jury is still out untill gibbs stop playing loose man,tagger,and plays mid.

franklin,roughead,delidio,griffin,lewis,t.cloke..........looks ok to me

 

[mediumsizered]

you will come up with a similar list in 2 years time for the 2006 drafted players as well .

an extra 2 years will tell you a bit more, atm selwood is the only standout for me & the jury is still out untill gibbs stop playing loose man,tagger,and plays mid.

franklin,roughead,delidio,griffin,lewis,t.cloke..........looks ok to me

But if you compare that to the Top 20 from 2006, I think you can safely lock in Selwood, Gibbs, Leuenberger, Boak, Nathan J Brown, Everitt, Frawley, Jack Riewoldt as long term players, with the jury still out on Gumbleton, Hansen, Armitage & Mitch Brown.

I would be very confident that there will be more long term players from the Top 20 of the 2006 draft than from the Top 20 of the 2004 draft. Particularly when you consider that Meesen, Egan, Meyer, Thomson & Willits have already been either delisted or traded by their respective club & Tambling, Russell, Pattison & McQualter are just hanging in there on their respective club lists.

 

[Lach72]

Selwood - very good, jury's out on him until Geelong go bad and we'll see where he's at.

Cobblers

 

[Parallel Andy]

He is not overly quick and disposes by hand rather than foot. Is one dimensional in the sense that he is naturally an inside midfielder.
That's my theory.

 

[windyhill]

With each game he plays he is making the decision to overlook (by the clubs in question) him more and more embarassing. Would love Essendon "recruiting guru" adrian dodoros thoughts on the matter