News Kev blames no forward thinking

[yodellinhank]

You can't just compare with the draft choice a club took next or with our lost pick. You have no idea who our recruiters would have picked up. Who was available on the rookie lists?, full remaining picks? is what you need to look at. We could have plucked another Lovett. Lost opportunities of experience for younger players.
(btw you mention Ibbotson for the Cole trade, we would have been rapt with that).

The way I look at it, is a take into account all players taken between the pick we took and the next one we had available. I believe it to be a sound method. We didn't miss out on Dane Swan for Shane Harvey, for example. We could have taken Swan instead of Reynolds or O'Keefe, he wasn't "missed" until we took Salmon and he was no longer available. It is also plausible to beleive that players taken around the same area would have generally been considered. Players that lasted another 20odd picks however, it is ridiculous to suggest in hindsight "could" have been taken.

I actually do look at the rookie drafts, pre season drafts and every pick in the national draft in between the picks we take. Don't dismiss the opinion that our picks were reasonable under the circumstances and then not provide an example.

We could have picked another Lovett. In which draft and for what player? We did try to pick players in rookie drafts. They were no good. Don't blame Mal Michael. Blame Dean Dick and Danny Chartres. Out of the entire 2007 rookie draft, the player pool it is reasonable to assume where overlooked in favour of Michael, the only two players I'd like on our list are Wellingham and Harbrow. That's 2 players out of a pool of 64 and using 20-20 hindsight. 2 players, and 62 other potential spuds.

It's just far too easy to presume there was some kid we clearly overlooked that would have bettered our situation and not provide an example.

Salmon, Murphy, Allan, Zantuck they were never going to win us a flag. Mal Michael was just a filler to keep us competitive and for Sheeds to hang on for his job. We just didn't have the team when these guys were brought in. What was the point of just being a slightly competitive middle of the road team? These decisions were not about creating our next premiership team.

Salmon was taken the year after a ruckman retired and we lost a grand final. Hardly a stupid decision given Sheedy may not have believed a 20 year old ruckman in Hille would be able to take over the duties of the bloke who left. It's ridiculous to suggest that the season after losing a grand final we should have thrown out all hope of winning the next and started playing the kids. Absolutely ridiculous.

Let's not even mention the ridiculous faith he had in guys like Henneman, Johns, Bolton towards the end, bringing back Heffernan after an average stint at Melbourne.

I was a fan of Sheeds but he lost the plot last few years.

We were delisting players as it was. Hence the amount of late round/pre season draft picks we took. Hence the number of those guys that subsequently needed de listing. Then have supporters criticise the fact that we haven't de listed more and picked up some gun with 6th and 7th round picks in the draft?

FFS Heffernan was the last player taken in 05. Going through the entire rookie draft of 60 players only gives me the names Alan Toovey, Heath Hocking, Daniel Hughes, Matt Priddis, Stephen Gillham, Ben McGlynn and Keiran Jack.

You're telling me our club is stuffed because we overlooked Alan Toovey?

 

[vast]

If sheeds was so concerned about losing Bradley as a forward why did he consistently play him in defence every time then drop after 2 bad games, only to bring him back after 5 weeks and play him in defence again, when it was obvious to everyone that he just wasnt a defender.

Im glad he wasnt around to offer McPhee a three year deal, coz we would be stuck with him playing the shocking football he has shown this year.
Good decision by the club not to offer more than 2 years and not there fault he walked out after we could organise a trade.

Maybe sheeds did have pressure on him to not drop down the ladder and have the chance to fully rebuild, but from 02-05 we had many young players that I feel he or the club did not give a decent chance to during that time. I remember guys like bullen, richards, haynes would never play more than 2 games in a row. I know that doesnt mean they would have been any good but maybe we could have developed one or two very good players.

He was even doing the same thing to jobe, even after jobe pulled his finger out. Mark Bolton was the worst footballer I have ever seen, in any league, but was undroppable under sheedy for over 3 years.

Love ya sheeds, always will, but move on mate, as the club is trying too.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

The way I look at it, is a take into account all players taken between the pick we took and the next one we had available. I believe it to be a sound method. We didn't miss out on Dane Swan for Shane Harvey, for example. We could have taken Swan instead of Reynolds or O'Keefe, he wasn't "missed" until we took Salmon and he was no longer available. It is also plausible to beleive that players taken around the same area would have generally been considered. Players that lasted another 20odd picks however, it is ridiculous to suggest in hindsight "could" have been taken.

I actually do look at the rookie drafts, pre season drafts and every pick in the national draft in between the picks we take. Don't dismiss the opinion that our picks were reasonable under the circumstances and then not provide an example.

We could have picked another Lovett. In which draft and for what player? We did try to pick players in rookie drafts. They were no good. Don't blame Mal Michael. Blame Dean Dick and Danny Chartres. Out of the entire 2007 rookie draft, the player pool it is reasonable to assume where overlooked in favour of Michael, the only two players I'd like on our list are Wellingham and Harbrow. That's 2 players out of a pool of 64 and using 20-20 hindsight. 2 players, and 62 other potential spuds.

It's just far too easy to presume there was some kid we clearly overlooked that would have bettered our situation and not provide an example.



Salmon was taken the year after a ruckman retired and we lost a grand final. Hardly a stupid decision given Sheedy may not have believed a 20 year old ruckman in Hille would be able to take over the duties of the bloke who left. It's ridiculous to suggest that the season after losing a grand final we should have thrown out all hope of winning the next and started playing the kids. Absolutely ridiculous.



We were delisting players as it was. Hence the amount of late round/pre season draft picks we took. Hence the number of those guys that subsequently needed de listing. Then have supporters criticise the fact that we haven't de listed more and picked up some gun with 6th and 7th round picks in the draft?

FFS Heffernan was the last player taken in 05. Going through the entire rookie draft of 60 players only gives me the names Alan Toovey, Heath Hocking, Daniel Hughes, Matt Priddis, Stephen Gillham, Ben McGlynn and Keiran Jack.

You're telling me our club is stuffed because we overlooked Alan Toovey?

Not at all. I'm just saying Kev shouldn't take pot shots re forward thinking. You're right, we may not have picked anyone better than those hacks we recruited. But the bottom line is that those hacks gave us absolutely nothing. Zero chance of gaining anything going forward.

Take into account 5 out of those 60 rookies would have been a good selection. I would have rather have taken a 12-1 shot.

A team has a better chance trying youngsters. Look at Geelong, look at Hawthorn.

 

[windyhill]

Just typical sheedy, you could just about count on one finger the times he ever said " I may have been wrong on that one" The most infuriating man in football.

 

[Summer Nights]

2001?

It still cuts me up.

Just had a look over that draft. Brian Lake (Harris) went at 71. Wow. Best late pick since Hird?

Of a really strong draft pool, we unluckily grabbed S.Harvey, J.Reynolds, S.O'Keefe, Welsh, Salmon, McAlister and Pass. The latter was a good one, though.

 

[Longy413]

If what is said is true in that article, in that we didn't wait an extra week to talk to Bomber about coaching us then my head will just about explode.

Where's Longy, fill us in if you can.

From what I understand, everyone had to go through "the process"

Bomber had commitments that stopped him from being able to do so.
That wasn't thought to be reasonable and Bomber had to enter the same process as everyone else.

He also had a dig at Essendon for losing McPhee for nothing; obviously can't recall the part where McPhee walked out on us after the trade period.

We knew before then that he was going to walk if he didn't get three years.
We tried to call his bluff, it failed.

Thus, for Sheedy to be taking pot shots at a guy who's been at the helme for only 2 and a half years for a lack of forward planning is hypocritical, and i suspect as usual, designed to direct much needed attention apon himself.

I won't discount for a second that Knights has had a mess to clean up, but I think it is unfair to say Sheeds had no forward planning.

In 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006, five of Sheeds' last seven drafts, he traded (forced or otherwise) to improve our draft position.

He also acquired young players via trade. Cupido, Cole, Alvey and McPhee.
Obviously only McPhee worked, Cupido did for about 20 games.
These guys were 20-22. The same age that we drafted Hardingham at, the same age as Barlow. Lovett and Davey.

We drafted some senior guys, that in hindsight were mistakes and I think the biggest mistake Sheedy made was that he didn't believe a team needed to go backwards to go forwards. He believed you could rebuild from the 8 and when we added McPhee and Cupido to the mix, along with Lovett we actually did look like we might have done a reasonable job of it.

We topped up and made more finals and at the time I thought that was fantastic, I reckon we all did. We all relished the fact that we at Essendon don't believe in bottoming out and that we could return to the top by staying in the mix. None of us, including Sheeds wanted to face the reality of having to go back to the bottom and draft with top picks. Eventually, a lack of early picks came back to hurt us.

We had pick 9 in 1999 (McVeigh).
Following that, our first picks were 40 (salary cap penalties), 17, 18, 6 (traded for) and 14. We didn't have a lot of access to elite talent. When we did, Ryder, Gumbleton, I reckon we did alright.

Sheeds left us in a mess, but I think it is unfair to blame a lack of forward thinking on that. We did draft some top up players, but in the end they account for 5-6 of 50 picks in National/Preseason drafts since 2000. We still drafted a hell of a lot of young players.

We made bad drafting mistakes, we had some bad luck, we didn't have access to early picks, we had salary cap penalties, we didn't spend enough on recruiting...but we did draft a shitload of young players.

It was time for Sheeds to go, we needed to start again and as the man at the top, he should be the one to fall on his sword for not having a great list at the end of 2007, not withstanding the number of premiership players that retired in the years previous.

But lets look beyond the 5 or so mature players that Sheeds drafted and recognise that he also drafted a lot of good young talent and that he isn't the only one to blame. He'd asked for more recruiting resources, but he also needed to realise that we needed to bottom out at some stage.

I wonder how we would have taken it, had it happened back in 2002/2003.

 

[Knight Ryders]

I think the points being made are all very valid and have made for some good reading.

A couple of things I'm thinking is:
*You can go through draft pick by draft pick, but Sheedy's ideaology of the latter part of his career was not healthy for the list or the club. It screamed of a bloke trying to save his job.

*Knights is not sure who is in our best 22. Who is genuinely first picked atm? Our group is very even from around 7-35 - he needs to sit down and work out who is genuinely a player that is good enough to be in a top 2-3 side. Some experience is still required, but pick them wisely. Hille and Fletcher are non-negotiable if fit and willing. This is the forward thinking required.

 

[The House]

From what I understand, everyone had to go through "the process"

Bomber had commitments that stopped him from being able to do so.
That wasn't thought to be reasonable and Bomber had to enter the same process as everyone else.



We knew before then that he was going to walk if he didn't get three years.
We tried to call his bluff, it failed.



I won't discount for a second that Knights has had a mess to clean up, but I think it is unfair to say Sheeds had no forward planning.

In 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006, five of Sheeds' last seven drafts, he traded (forced or otherwise) to improve our draft position.

He also acquired young players via trade. Cupido, Cole, Alvey and McPhee.
Obviously only McPhee worked, Cupido did for about 20 games.
These guys were 20-22. The same age that we drafted Hardingham at, the same age as Barlow. Lovett and Davey.

We drafted some senior guys, that in hindsight were mistakes and I think the biggest mistake Sheedy made was that he didn't believe a team needed to go backwards to go forwards. He believed you could rebuild from the 8 and when we added McPhee and Cupido to the mix, along with Lovett we actually did look like we might have done a reasonable job of it.

We topped up and made more finals and at the time I thought that was fantastic, I reckon we all did. We all relished the fact that we at Essendon don't believe in bottoming out and that we could return to the top by staying in the mix. None of us, including Sheeds wanted to face the reality of having to go back to the bottom and draft with top picks. Eventually, a lack of early picks came back to hurt us.

We had pick 9 in 1999 (McVeigh).
Following that, our first picks were 40 (salary cap penalties), 17, 18, 6 (traded for) and 14. We didn't have a lot of access to elite talent. When we did, Ryder, Gumbleton, I reckon we did alright.

Sheeds left us in a mess, but I think it is unfair to blame a lack of forward thinking on that. We did draft some top up players, but in the end they account for 5-6 of 50 picks in National/Preseason drafts since 2000. We still drafted a hell of a lot of young players.

We made bad drafting mistakes, we had some bad luck, we didn't have access to early picks, we had salary cap penalties, we didn't spend enough on recruiting...but we did draft a shitload of young players.

It was time for Sheeds to go, we needed to start again and as the man at the top, he should be the one to fall on his sword for not having a great list at the end of 2007, not withstanding the number of premiership players that retired in the years previous.

But lets look beyond the 5 or so mature players that Sheeds drafted and recognise that he also drafted a lot of good young talent and that he isn't the only one to blame. He'd asked for more recruiting resources, but he also needed to realise that we needed to bottom out at some stage.

I wonder how we would have taken it, had it happened back in 2002/2003.

i didn't say sheedy had no forward planning.

i said in his latter years sheedy showed very poor forward planning, and it is not only hypocritical for him to take pot shots at knights, but also comes off desperate for attention [hence my aker comparison].

....and the worst part is, it's happening all too regularly these days, and he's losing credibility fast.

 

[Longy413]

*You can go through draft pick by draft pick, but Sheedy's ideaology of the latter part of his career was not healthy for the list or the club. It screamed of a bloke trying to save his job.

You're probably right, but I think it also screamed of an Essendon culture of not accepting that we had to go backwards to go forward.

Whether it was to save his skin, or just poor recognition of where the game was going, he had to go for it. But I do wonder how we would have accepted a philosophy back in 2002 that saw us miss the finals for three or four years to be back at the top. I guess in the end, all he did was delay the inevitable, unfortunately the game penalises you for being successful and we were too proud, too stubborn or too naive (maybe all three) to recognise it.

Hille and Fletcher are non-negotiable if fit and willing. This is the forward thinking required.

Speaking forward thinking, we copped a lot of shit for making Hille captain a few years ago. It seemed to progress his leadership and his footy.

 

[Longy413]

i said in his latter years sheedy showed very poor forward planning

In his last two years, he drafted five first year players in each national draft.
Plus got Hocking.

Knights has taken four players in each of his three national drafts.

Sheedy took Campo, Michael and Heff.
Knights has added Skipworth and Williams. And redrafted Rama.

Their drafting strategies, don't look a whole lot different.

I think Sheeds showed a lot of forward planning in his last two years, it was the years before that where we lacked it. Poor strategy, lack of access to picks, lack of resources and poor drafting in general.

....and the worst part is, it's happening all too regularly these days, and he's losing credibility fast.

Really? I think he's done very well to steer clear of talking about Essendon.
I wonder whether these comments would have even come about if we didn't have the 2000 reunion.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I think the biggest issue with Sheeds is early picks being wasted on guys like James Davies (next pick: Kerr) and Shane Harvey (next pick: Gram). Obviously I don't know how much was Dodoro and how much was Sheedy, but given the former's record since Sheedy stopped being involved, I'm inclined to blame Sheeds.

The recycled players are a side-effect if you like. Instead of pumping 20 games into Harvey, realising he was shit then playing Alvey, we could have pumped 20 games into Gram, realised he was good, then kept playing him.

 

[Longy413]

Davies was a bad pick, we took him from high school and overstated his physical attributes in leiu of his football attributes.

Kerr was a surprise to go as high as he did, he wasn't highly rated at all. Davies v Kerr is an unfair and unrealistic comparison. West Coast obviously saw something that no other team did. It was a draft that was full of hits and misses.

Not sure we can consider pick 17 a high pick, 5 of the top 11 were out and out failures.
And another two are on the cusp of being failures. We shouldn't have drafted Davies, we should have let him go to later on, but we could have ended up with Ries, Hadley or Ablett and not been a whole lot better off.

Forget Kerr, we were never going to take him. We did consider Kane Cornes, but wrote him off because of the go home factor. We were still burnt by Wanganeen and thought Kane would run home to SA.


I still maintain Shane Harvey was the right pick.
In 2001 we missed Bewick, Harvey was the replacement. He was a huge talent and we identified two players we wanted. Kelly and Harvey.

Kelly went the pick before us and we took Harvey. Harvey was the player we needed and he started like a house on fire. We had a player.
Except he was a flog, he was lazy and he didn't want to be at EFC, despite him telling us several times otherwise. He thought it was his given right to walk up to NMFC and play with his brother. Little wonder he's now playing local footy.

Sometimes things don't work out, again I wouldn't consider 18 a high pick. Davies was a bad selection, Harvey wasn't. He was just one that didn't work out. We could have taken Gram, of course. But we could also have taken Elstone.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I wasn't comparing Kerr or Gram to Davies or Harvey. I was making a point about the talent still there. Kane Cornes, Drew Petrie, Mark Coughlan all went before we picked Teddy up in the Davies draft. Matt Maguire, Steve Johnson, LRT all went between Harvey and Joel Reynolds.

Obviously there's plenty of misses amongst those hits, but it's the fact that we consistently missed across those drafts and had very few hits (Welsh is the only one still on the list) that hurts.

I'm not going to comment on who was the right pick at the time, because I was more interested in trading Pokemon cards than trading players at that age.

 

[The House]

In his last two years, he drafted five first year players in each national draft.
Plus got Hocking.

Knights has taken four players in each of his three national drafts.

Sheedy took Campo, Michael and Heff.
Knights has added Skipworth and Williams. And redrafted Rama.

Their drafting strategies, don't look a whole lot different.

I think Sheeds showed a lot of forward planning in his last two years, it was the years before that where we lacked it. Poor strategy, lack of access to picks, lack of resources and poor drafting in general.



Really? I think he's done very well to steer clear of talking about Essendon.
I wonder whether these comments would have even come about if we didn't have the 2000 reunion.

By his latter years i'm referring to his last 6 or so years....and again i didn't say NO forward planning, i said POOR forward planning. Big difference.

Also please be aware that forward planning isn't just drafting some young players....it's also very much about who you are giving opportunities to.

 

[stander]

We knew before then that he was going to walk if he didn't get three years.
We tried to call his bluff, it failed.

Some would suggest McPhee was quite agreeable to a two year deal with the Dons before they all went away, but shifty Harvs got in his ear later on with a juicy 3 and he walked out, leaving EFC with nothing. Can't see any bluffing there.

 

[TheDon35]

That's great, Sheeds can blame no 'Forward' thinking because that's the only area he put any thought into.

A more scathing article could be written about 'Sheedy lacks 'Midfield' thinking' as we did not unearth 1 A grade midfielder in the last 10 years of his coaching stint. (Maybe harsh on Jobe.

Let me be clear if I haven't already been. I don't rate Knights and don't believe he's the man for the job. But, for Sheedy to come out and use loosing Keppler Bradley as a poor list management decision is a disgrace. Sheeds, what was poor list management was drafting bradley with a top 10 pick.

It's also a cheap effort in self promotion given that the forward line was the only area he did look at in his later years albeit with questionable success:

Lonergan - C - D Grader
Gumbleton - Still unknown as a #2 selection from a supposed super draft
Davey - Poor mans David Rodan
Jetta - C grader that hasn't come on.
Reimers - C grader that hasn't come on.
Neagle - C grader that hasn't come on.
Bradley - C grader that didn't perform.
Monfries - C - B grader
Andrew Lee - Recruited as tall forward - Dud.
Richard Cole - Dud

Hardly makes for good reading.

 

[TheDon35]

While I pretty much agree with what you've said...How?

They're not similar at all, apart from skin tone, and even then it's not the same.

Ummmm...

Ultra quick of the mark, slick in traffic, very low to the ground, very small, excellent peripheral movement, both swing onto the left.... do you want me to go on?

 

[yodellinhank]

That's great, Sheeds can blame no 'Forward' thinking because that's the only area he put any thought into.

A more scathing article could be written about 'Sheedy lacks 'Midfield' thinking' as we did not unearth 1 A grade midfielder in the last 10 years of his coaching stint. (Maybe harsh on Jobe.

Point out to me where these A grade mids where lurking that he could've got? Ben raised Gram before, not exactly A grade but a quality player. But it took him 2 clubs for somebody to find this potential.

et me be clear if I haven't already been. I don't rate Knights and don't believe he's the man for the job. But, for Sheedy to come out and use loosing Keppler Bradley as a poor list management decision is a disgrace. Sheeds, what was poor list management was drafting bradley with a top 10 pick.

You need to get over the pick number. Pick 6 in 2003 is not equal to pick 6 in 2001, or 08. A pick is only as good as the players available at the time. The list of players taken after Keplar and before our next pick (Stanton):

Kane Tenace
Raphael Clarke
David Trotter
Ryley Dunn
Beau Waters
Ryan Murphy

In a perfect world, Waters? The story I've always heard was that Sheedy overruled on the wishes to take Kane Tenace in order to pick Bradley.

Bradley is actually getting a game at Freo, and playing OK. Tenace?

 

[Kong]

Ummmm...

Ultra quick of the mark, slick in traffic, very low to the ground, very small, excellent peripheral movement, both swing onto the left.... do you want me to go on?

lol yes. Absolutely go on.

If you think they're similar types of players, you're having a laugh.

 

[TheDon35]

lol yes. Absolutely go on.

If you think they're similar types of players, you're having a laugh.

Similar players no. Similar skills / strengths. Absolutely. Davey is more one dimensional in that he can't go into the middle. Sorry if that's difficult for you to understand.

 

[Kong]

Rodan's also near-impossible to tackle and wins many a hard ball. He's a rare player of brute strength and explosive speed.

Davey has only the latter.

I would've thought Alwyn was a poor man's Aaron, if anything.

 

[TheDon35]

Point out to me where these A grade mids where lurking that he could've got? Ben raised Gram before, not exactly A grade but a quality player. But it took him 2 clubs for somebody to find this potential.



You need to get over the pick number. Pick 6 in 2003 is not equal to pick 6 in 2001, or 08. A pick is only as good as the players available at the time. The list of players taken after Keplar and before our next pick (Stanton):

Kane Tenace
Raphael Clarke
David Trotter
Ryley Dunn
Beau Waters
Ryan Murphy

In a perfect world, Waters? The story I've always heard was that Sheedy overruled on the wishes to take Kane Tenace in order to pick Bradley.

Bradley is actually getting a game at Freo, and playing OK. Tenace?

To your first point. The following class midfielders were all available to Essendon at the time of their picks:

1997:

Luke Power
Nick Stevens
Simon Black
Adam Goodes

1999:

Lindsay Gilby
Ryan O'Keefe
Cameron Bruce

2000

Kerr
Cornes
Coughlan

2001

Gram
Montagna

2006

Boak
Selwood


These are just the class players. There's plenty more in there. The decision to trade out picks in '99 proved pretty costly given that it cost us crack at a couple of relatively handy players in Chapman and Ling...

Re your second point, Bradley is merely an example of our drafting of that period of time which was shocking.

Are you happy with our recruiting between '97 and 2006?

 

[TheDon35]

Rodan's also near-impossible to tackle and wins many a hard ball. He's a rare player of brute strength and explosive speed.

Davey has only the latter.

I would've thought Alwyn was a poor man's Aaron, if anything.

Ok, if that's how you want to look at it then fair enough.

Probably a little of the track with regard to the overall posts theme.

 

[Kong]

Yeah fair enough.

 

[yodellinhank]

To your first point. The following class midfielders were all available to Essendon at the time of their picks:

1997:

Luke Power: Mistake
Nick Stevens: Happy with Solomon
Simon Black: Would have been handy, but Solomon was a big part of 2000
Adam Goodes: A diamond in the rough. One name out of about 40 duds

1999:

Lindsay Gilby: Instead of Hille. Would definately have needed Kepler then.
Ryan O'Keefe: See above
Cameron Bruce: Would we have won the flag in 2000 without Barnes? (And Hille!)

2000

Kerr: Ouch
Cornes: Ouch
Coughlan:Not as ouch, but still. James Davies a massive mistake, given the amount of talent we passed on. At the time, other clubs supposedly thought we pulled a swifty and there was claims of draft tampering.

2001

Gram: A tribute to St Kilda's trading and development. Did nothing for the club who drafted him
Montagna: Also Sam Mitchell

2006

Boak:
Selwood: Here's hoping, Gumby


These are just the class players. There's plenty more in there. The decision to trade out picks in '99 proved pretty costly given that it cost us crack at a couple of relatively handy players in Chapman and Ling...

The picks weren't all traded out. We were excluded from the first 2 rounds due to salary cap breaches that occurred 1991-94. We traded out Andrew Ukovic and actually upgraded pick 48 to pick 40 for Jonathon Robran I believe. Chappy and Ling taken 31 and 38 respectively.

Re your second point, Bradley is merely an example of our drafting of that period of time which was shocking.

My point was that everyone else after us, with the exception of West Coast, took a dud player until we got Stanton. Did Geelong, St Kilda, North and Freo (twice) stuff up their drafting, or was it just a weak pool? Thats nearly a third of the competition...

Are you happy with our recruiting between '97 and 2006?

Some answers in bold.

It's regrettable that we weren't able to get better players from 97-03. We finished high on the ladder during these years, and weren't able to make the right trades. The 99 penalties killed us, and what happened to the best talent we drafted during this time (Rama) could not have been foreseen.

There was some bad picks, but also bad luck.

Good to see someone actually put some thought into a post, rather than simply say we did poorly based on no evidence. I appreciate it