Jon

[tigerdan]

lol at benny calling me an emo ***

jon and benjamin are similar, i stand by the fact if he was in last year draft he would be lucky to go top 25

I don't want to go round and round with this PLSC, but it's not a fact if it's hypothetical, is it.

 

[lids2004roar]

No doesn't this place your age. I'd say under 18.

Emos have been around since the 80's man. They are in pop music these days but I'm into 60's, 70's etc anyway. I'm 19 btw.

lol at benny calling me an emo ***

jon and benjamin are similar, jon had a good championship and thats what probably bumped him to us instead of being a 2nd rounder in a weak draft, i stand by the fact if he was in last year draft he would be lucky to go top 25

The difference between them is natural talent. And FWIW we would have picked JON over Shane Edwards imo, there is no way he would have gone to the 50's.

It doesn't matter now, we have a talented young player and whether we like it or not we have to wait for him to develop. Maybe it is frustrating waiting for his "type" to develop but it could be well worth it in the end

 

[santa claws]

for what its worth i rated both jon and benjamin 2nd round picks in their respective drafts. of the two i rated benjamin higher. carlton would have been over the moon to get benjamin at pick 51 it just goes to show how strong this past draft was with lots of so called 1st and 2nd round picks slipping.

 

[PLSC]

Emos have been around since the 80's man. They are in pop music these days but I'm into 60's, 70's etc anyway. I'm 19 btw.



The difference between them is natural talent. And FWIW we would have picked JON over Shane Edwards imo, there is no way he would have gone to the 50's.

It doesn't matter now, we have a talented young player and whether we like it or not we have to wait for him to develop. Maybe it is frustrating waiting for his "type" to develop but it could be well worth it in the end

who said 50's, i said he would of gone 30-50 in last years strong draft

2005 draft wasnt a strong one so it wasnt that bad

 

[santa claws]

Easy to say that now you clown... Who would've thought that Waters and Schmidt were the pick of the bunch. Its not as though Richmond were the only club that ****ed up.

You live in a world of blame Bentleigh, what a joke!

regardless of what picks we had in these 2 drafts. the point that some people make is. because of the state of the list (worst in the league) it was folly to be trading away early picks. we should have been offloading players while they still had some value for draft picks similar to what wallace did in 2004.
it was reasonable to say then these players will be past it or gone by the time we play finals.and like then it is reasonable to say today it was a mistake when one considers how much more work we have to do.

as miller was responsible for both the johnson and brown deals and these 2 drafts lets have a look at how many players miller drafted in this time and how many remain. 2002 johnson and schulz are only two of six that remain from that yr with schulz very borderline. nichols sipthorp fleming and blumfield make up the 6 players taken from this yr.

2003 miller took 12 players 5 of whom remain. they are brown,jackson on thin ice. hartigan on thin ice, raines and tuck.its not inconcievable just 3 of 12 will make it. the seven players gone from this draft are archibald, fletcher, gilmour, marsh, morrison, roach, and weller.

looking at this i dont think it unreasonable to say miller didnt do to well in these 2 yrs. its also not unreasonable to think just 4 of 18 players selected by him before wallace came to the club will give us good service. as i have said wallace has spent half his time getting rid of early miller picks.

 

[Weaver]

as miller was responsible for both the johnson and brown deals and these 2 drafts lets have a look at how many players miller drafted in this time and how many remain. 2002 johnson and schulz are only two of six that remain from that yr with schulz very borderline. nichols sipthorp fleming and blumfield make up the 6 players taken from this yr.

Between pick 20 and pick 71 in that draft (excluding the f/s picks) there were 46 players taken. 14 remain. Of those Luke Jericho, Callum Urch, Tim Boyle are borderline. Daniel Merrett hasn't done anything yet. Cameron Wight is barely getting a game. Blake Grima is struggling.

Missing Jarred Rivers, Brent Staker, Adam Selwood, Nick Malceski, Kade Simpson, Leigh Fisher, Brad Fisher and Ryan Ferguson.

Rivers, Simpson, L.Fisher, Selwood are probably the only ones to get fussed about.

Not getting a player late in that draft is not a condemnation of Miller.

2003 miller took 12 players 5 of whom remain. they are brown,jackson on thin ice. hartigan on thin ice, raines and tuck.its not inconcievable just 3 of 12 will make it. the seven players gone from this draft are archibald, fletcher, gilmour, marsh, morrison, roach, and weller.

Between pick 30 and pick 83 ... there are now just 18 players still on team lists. We have 4 of them Jackson, Hartigan, Tuck, Raines.

looking at this i dont think it unreasonable to say miller didnt do to well in these 2 yrs. its also not unreasonable to think just 4 of 18 players selected by him before wallace came to the club will give us good service. as i have said wallace has spent half his time getting rid of early miller picks.

But that is normal and league-wide. Clubs churn over players and the majority of draft picks don't make the grade.

I think you have unrealistic expectations of draft day. Any draft where your combination of draft picks, rookie picks and trades delivers 2-3 players for the senior side is a good draft. And it is completely normal to spend 8-10 picks getting them.

 

[Weaver]

for what its worth i rated both jon and benjamin 2nd round picks in their respective drafts. of the two i rated benjamin higher. carlton would have been over the moon to get benjamin at pick 51 it just goes to show how strong this past draft was with lots of so called 1st and 2nd round picks slipping.

Benjamin and JON are not similar. Benjamin played most of his rep footy at CHB and was clearly not suited for that role in senior company. When he steped out onto the wing he struggled to get the ball, was a squib, and couldn't kick.

JON in contrast played wing/HFF in junior rep. Got the footy. Showed a willingness to compete, and in senior WAFL company showed he could play inside and use his leap to take a turn in the ruck. JON tested off the scales.

There is no question that JON would have gone before Urquhart, Hislop, Grigg who were 19-21. If Melbourne wanted a running, defender they'd probably have taken JON before Frawley at 12. JON might have dropped into the teens but no further.

 

[santa claws]

Benjamin and JON are not similar. Benjamin played most of his rep footy at CHB and was clearly not suited for that role in senior company. When he steped out onto the wing he struggled to get the ball, was a squib, and couldn't kick.

JON in contrast played wing/HFF in junior rep. Got the footy. Showed a willingness to compete, and in senior WAFL company showed he could play inside and use his leap to take a turn in the ruck. JON tested off the scales.

There is no question that JON would have gone before Urquhart, Hislop, Grigg who were 19-21. If Melbourne wanted a running, defender they'd probably have taken JON before Frawley at 12. JON might have dropped into the teens but no further.

either i over rate benjamin or you over rate jon time will tell who turns out to be the better player. no ones doubting they both have talent but at 51 to my way of thinking benjamin is the better pick up. and no one can deny we had an opportunity in 05 draft to look after some list needs but went with a very skinny outside hbf.yes outside the 4 or 5 times i saw him play he struggled to find the footy and was very much outside. imo it was only his draft results that pushed him up the order he was in the top few for pace and agility.

 

[Bentleigh]

either i over rate benjamin or you over rate jon time will tell who turns out to be the better player. no ones doubting they both have talent but at 51 to my way of thinking benjamin is the better pick up. and no one can deny we had an opportunity in 05 draft to look after some list needs but went with a very skinny outside hbf.yes outside the 4 or 5 times i saw him play he struggled to find the footy and was very much outside. imo it was only his draft results that pushed him up the order he was in the top few for pace and agility.

Connors > Benjamin

 

[UpTheGuts]

what's an emo? I've been around since well before the 80's and have never encountered that expression in my life. Maybe I should get out more?

 

[PLSC]

what's an emo? I've been around since well before the 80's and have never encountered that expression in my life. Maybe I should get out more?

bunch of little **** who want to be different but dress the same

and they cry when they run out of nail polish

 

[lids2004roar]

imo it was only his draft results that pushed him up the order he was in the top few for pace and agility.

I think he was 1st for agility and 2nd for sprints.

That's what Wallace wants, plus he actually has a footy brain and has shown he can compete against the bigger bodies

 

[santa claws]

But that is normal and league-wide. Clubs churn over players and the majority of draft picks don't make the grade.

I think you have unrealistic expectations of draft day. Any draft where your combination of draft picks, rookie picks and trades delivers 2-3 players for the senior side is a good draft. And it is completely normal to spend 8-10 picks getting them.

ia few yrs ago a ratio of draft picks per club making it was published most clubs success rate was near 60% if i remember correct. i would have been happy with a 40% rate from miller in his first 2 yrs.
and let me tell ya i would much rather we try kids with our early picks and fail at least the process would be right. rather than chase the big name players every draft at the expense of down trading or trading away our early picks.

 

[Weaver]

ia few yrs ago a ratio of draft picks per club making it was published most clubs success rate was near 60% if i remember correct. i would have been happy with a 40% rate from miller in his first 2 yrs.

Depends entirely on what 'making it' is supposed to mean.

Over time the 'success' rate is going to be the same for all clubs. Each club has 22 x 22 games to give away every year. Someone has to play them. It is a closed model in that sense.

Richmond were hugely 'successful' in the 2003 draft.

Brown (40+ games), Roach (11), Jackson (21+), Morrison (8), Hartigan (34+), Tuck (47+), Raines (29+), Fletcher (6), Marsh (7), Weller (7), Gilmour and Archibald.

10/12 players 'made it'. 83% 'success' rate. Would have to be amongst the best results ever.

Three 100-game players, and a 50 (?) in Hartigan. Can't do much better than that.

 

[PLSC]

Depends entirely on what 'making it' is supposed to mean.

Over time the 'success' rate is going to be the same for all clubs. Each club has 22 x 22 games to give away every year. Someone has to play them. It is a closed model in that sense.

Richmond were hugely 'successful' in the 2003 draft.

Brown (40+ games), Roach (11), Jackson (21+), Morrison (8), Hartigan (34+), Tuck (47+), Raines (29+), Fletcher (6), Marsh (7), Weller (7), Gilmour and Archibald.

10/12 players 'made it'. 83% 'success' rate. Would have to be amongst the best results ever.

Three 100-game players, and a 50 (?) in Hartigan. Can't do much better than that.

games played means nothing

i like to look at the impact those bloke have made to the side

 

[santa claws]

Depends entirely on what 'making it' is supposed to mean.

Over time the 'success' rate is going to be the same for all clubs. Each club has 22 x 22 games to give away every year. Someone has to play them. It is a closed model in that sense.

Richmond were hugely 'successful' in the 2003 draft.

Brown (40+ games), Roach (11), Jackson (21+), Morrison (8), Hartigan (34+), Tuck (47+), Raines (29+), Fletcher (6), Marsh (7), Weller (7), Gilmour and Archibald.

10/12 players 'made it'. 83% 'success' rate. Would have to be amongst the best results ever.

Three 100-game players, and a 50 (?) in Hartigan. Can't do much better than that.

useing a bit of common sense i would assume it to mean players who survive more than a couple of yrs unlike most of millers selections in this time.

 

[santa claws]

We all said that about Shane Tuck too. If anything Tuck was lighter and rawer than any of our pencils when the Hawks rookied him. It took him a long time to get his body right and learn the game. We have a hard inside midfielder now. No reason at all the JON won't follow the same path. He likes to compete, played as a junior ruckman despite his lack of height, and was good at stoppages in the WAFL colts.

tucky was also delisted and very nearly didnt make it he also wasnt a top 10 pick. at pick 70 odd there was no risk. he was still young had bulked up and started showing a bit at his south australian club.
theres no complaints about jons potential or upside but upside is not everything.

 

[Weaver]

useing a bit of common sense i would assume it to mean players who survive more than a couple of yrs unlike most of millers selections in this time.

You come up with a defination of what this magic 60% 'made-it' number means and we can talk.

 

[polakthetiger]

You come up with a defination of what this magic 60% 'made-it' number means and we can talk.

When you can spend $3000 a week on coke!

 

[tugga]

When you can spend $3000 a week on coke!

Prefer Pepsi myself, but seriously, 3k a week on soft drink? Talk about a drinking problem!

 

[lids2004roar]

useing a bit of common sense i would assume it to mean players who survive more than a couple of yrs unlike most of millers selections in this time.

That was Weaver's point

Some statistics can mean anything if you don't think about where they come from.

 

[Bentleigh]

games played means nothing

i like to look at the impact those bloke have made to the side

That was the point intended.

 

[Infamy]

ia few yrs ago a ratio of draft picks per club making it was published most clubs success rate was near 60% if i remember correct. i would have been happy with a 40% rate from miller in his first 2 yrs.

That ratio was for first round draft picks, not the entire draft, may have even been Top 10

 

[lids2004roar]

I just read a post by CC Tiger that JON said he doesn't even drink soft drinks!!

He is a PROFESSIONAL!!

 

[PLSC]

wow the kid doesnt drink soft drinks because of the sugar, if their was one player who needed his insulin levels up its jon becase he is a stick