Miller's Drafting Record: 2003- present

[beaver fever]

He could play another 2-3 seasons after this one. I expect us to play finals before 2011.

That doesn't make it a good trade. These are the trades that have ruined richmond's list.

 

[PHX]

Phoenix your point that you can't get drafting right all the time and every team has hits and misses is fine.

However if you want to critique the 2004 draft it is much more useful to do it from the perspective of how did it perform to fix our structural issues.

Only 1 KPP in the top 20 (not even genuine KPP), not 1 ruck, Pattison with obvious
kicking problems, McGuane with kicking problems. Not picking Wood ahead of Meyer and Pattison just doesn't make sense. You can do this with the 2005 draft as well.

I think the club really didn't think too far ahead concerning Roughead. They thought he would be a tiger, and therefore when we didn't pick him, we didn't have any other contingency plans.

Certainly a good point but thats a different kettle of fish picking players that we needed but didnt pick over simply players that have developed better.

Wood is overrated imo btw, hasnt shown he can be anything but a tap ruckman getting about 8 possessions a week. Maybe I'm missing something.

And yes the 2003 draft was the weakest over the past decade easily I reckon, the trade for Browny was right at the time, we werent to know he'd break his leg and stuff up his football for 3 years.

 

[the ranger]

That doesn't make it a good trade. These are the trades that have ruined richmond's list.

So we'd be looking better with Kepler Bradley and Sam Butler? Or Kane Tenace and Cameron Thurley? Or Raph Clarke and Matthew Moody? As it happens, our first pick was 21 and we used it on Alex Gilmour.

If we'd kept 6 and 20, we'd have probably got Bradley, Gilmour and Thurley. The latter two would be gone and Bradley would be the most criticized player on our list.

Instead we have one of the most exciting players in the league who would have already helped us into the finals if not for his sickening injury.

 

[the ranger]

And yes the 2003 draft was the weakest over the past decade easily I reckon, the trade for Browny was right at the time, we werent to know he'd break his leg and stuff up his football for 3 years.

Even with the injury woes, he's played more games for us than either of the guys selected at picks 6 and 20 have played.

 

[beaver fever]

Certainly a good point but thats a different kettle of fish picking players that we needed but didnt pick over simply players that have developed better.

Wood is overrated imo btw, hasnt shown he can be anything but a tap ruckman getting about 8 possessions a week. Maybe I'm missing something.

And yes the 2003 draft was the weakest over the past decade easily I reckon, the trade for Browny was right at the time, we werent to know he'd break his leg and stuff up his football for 3 years.

I agree concerning Wood's future, but at the time he would have been the best choice if we aren't going to use hindsight for our arguments.

Regarding Brown, I don't agree. You just don't trade for players like him when our list was in such disarray. We really needed to use the national draft, but we didn't and look where we are now.

 

[santa claws]

Which two would you have picked? Fact is, we kept drafting after most teams had stopped and got Tuck (#73) and Raines (#76), probably two of the better performed players from that draft class (yes, 2003 was that bad).

Brown for two picks in that draft was a good move.

so with that sort of logic we can build our list with late picks.
for what they were we did well with those picks but wheres the quality neither can kick what happened to the earlier picks.what happened to pick 81 archibald or pick 78 fletcher while we are at it.or hartigan at 70. sheesh they had 9 picks that draft and got 2 ordinary footballers out of it.

 

[beaver fever]

So we'd be looking better with Kepler Bradley and Sam Butler? Or Kane Tenace and Cameron Thurley? Or Raph Clarke and Matthew Moody? As it happens, our first pick was 21 and we used it on Alex Gilmour.

If we'd kept 6 and 20, we'd have probably got Bradley, Gilmour and Thurley. The latter two would be gone and Bradley would be the most criticized player on our list.

Instead we have one of the most exciting players in the league who would have already helped us into the finals if not for his sickening injury.

How about Beau Waters, Brent Stanton, Troy Chaplin, David Mundy, Jed Adcock, Sam Fisher, Michael Rischitelli? Selective argument there Ranger.

 

[santa claws]

I agree concerning Wood's future, but at the time he would have been the best choice if we aren't going to use hindsight for our arguments.

Regarding Brown, I don't agree. You just don't trade for players like him when our list was in such disarray. We really needed to use the national draft, but we didn't and look where we are now.

agree again. noone says the 2004 draft approach was wrong everyone agrees it was the right process.well 2002 and 2003 was screaming out for this approach we had to start building from the ground up.

 

[the ranger]

so with that sort of logic we can build our list with late picks.
for what they were we did well with those picks but wheres the quality neither can kick what happened to the earlier picks.what happened to pick 81 archibald or pick 78 fletcher while we are at it.or hartigan at 70. sheesh they had 9 picks that draft and got 2 ordinary footballers out of it.

You can build a list with late picks. Most of the top teams today never spent years at the bottom getting the high picks.

We also got Daniel Jackson in that draft, so we did better from 2003 than just about anyone (excluding top 5 picks which we never had a chance at). We used nine picks and six were duds, but no other team has more than three players from that draft still playing for them.

 

[the ranger]

How about Beau Waters, Brent Stanton, Troy Chaplin, David Mundy, Jed Adcock, Sam Fisher, Michael Rischitelli? Selective argument there Ranger.

It looks like a complete stab in the dark with that draft. We found useful players with #53, #73 and #76 while the guys we took at #21 and #37 are long gone. You name 7 good players that we could have had, but odds are we'd have ended up with 2 of the other 60 duds that were available. Instead we got Browny.

 

[beaver fever]

It looks like a complete stab in the dark with that draft. We found useful players with #53, #73 and #76 while the guys we took at #21 and #37 are long gone. You name 7 good players that we could have had, but odds are we'd have ended up with 2 of the other 60 duds that were available. Instead we got Browny.

That is pure conjecture and relies on hindsight. Fact is the processes were all wrong. That is what the underlying problem is.

 

[Bojangles17]

You can build a list with late picks. Most of the top teams today never spent years at the bottom getting the high picks.

We also got Daniel Jackson in that draft, so we did better from 2003 than just about anyone (excluding top 5 picks which we never had a chance at). We used nine picks and six were duds, but no other team has more than three players from that draft still playing for them.

that's the benchmark we're looking for and ends the argument. Never fails to amaze me that smart assss can rattle off a list of bums expecting that we should have selected ea of them when in reality no other club fared much better...Case closed

 

[beaver fever]

that's the benchmark we're looking for and ends the argument. Never fails to amaze me that smart assss can rattle off a list of bums expecting that we should have selected ea of them when in reality no other club fared much better...Case closed

Yeah because winning 6 games compared to last years 3 makes us twice as good a team

 

[beaver fever]

Even our 2004 draft was spotty. No KPP's players selected.

With Miller's department can Sheedy oversee a few things?

Watch those posts jupsey you are regurgitating a lot of that other tosser's garbage.

 

[Bojangles17]

Yeah because winning 6 games compared to last years 3 makes us twice as good a team

season aint over yet pal, the washup will determine how much we have improved when we play out the next 11 games. Judgements should be deferred until that point rather than half arsed assesments during intermission

 

[the ranger]

that's the benchmark we're looking for and ends the argument. Never fails to amaze me that smart assss can rattle off a list of bums expecting that we should have selected ea of them when in reality no other club fared much better...Case closed

If I'm not mistaken, only two teams have as many players left from that draft:

Melbourne - #3 Sylvia, #5 McLean, #36 Johnson (f/s)
Essendon - #13 Stanton, #28 Nash, #44 Dyson

Footscray had two picks in the top four but couldn't find a third player. Interestingly, they dealt that #6 pick to Hawthorn for Jade Rawlings and Hawthorn dealt it onto Essendon for Danny Jacobs. Essendon then used the pick on Bradley.

I'll take Browny over all those players.

 

[beaver fever]

season aint over yet pal, the washup will determine how much we have improved when we play out the next 11 games. Judgements should be deferred until that point rather than half arsed assesments during intermission

Even if we beat all the dud teams and make the 8, it won't mean we are good enough to make the finals from here on in. Simmonds, Brown and Richardson get injuries and it puts us in a terrible position. No depth, no structure, thinking we will make finals is fanciful.

 

[beaver fever]

If I'm not mistaken, only two teams have as many players left from that draft:

Melbourne - #3 Sylvia, #5 McLean, #36 Johnson (f/s)
Essendon - #13 Stanton, #28 Nash, #44 Dyson

Footscray had two picks in the top four but couldn't find a third player. Interestingly, they dealt that #6 pick to Hawthorn for Jade Rawlings and Hawthorn dealt it onto Essendon for Danny Jacobs. Essendon then used the pick on Bradley.

I'll take Browny over all those players.

You are thinking about it far too superficially. It is the process that was wrong. Whether the players made it or not is not what is important here. That's hindsight.

 

[Bojangles17]

Even if we beat all the dud teams and make the 8, it won't mean we are good enough to make the finals from here on in. Simmonds, Brown and Richardson get injuries and it puts us in a terrible position. No depth, no structure, thinking we will make finals is fanciful.

Im not thinking finals, however if we can win 8-10 games and we finish 9th-10th then in 2008 that proves we are better than 6 or 7 sides where in 2007 we proved to be better than no #$@!, I'll let you be the judge on that score

 

[beaver fever]

Im not thinking finals, however if we can win 8-10 games and we finish 9th-10th then in 2008 that proves we are better than 6 or 7 sides where in 2007 we proved to be better than no #$@!, I'll let you be the judge on that score

2004: 16th
2005: 12th
2006: 9th
2007: 16th

Just because we improved our win/loss to 2007 doesn't mean we have actually improved.

 

[the ranger]

You are thinking about it far too superficially. It is the process that was wrong. Whether the players made it or not is not what is important here. That's hindsight.

Just maybe it was a good trade? Maybe they saw how weak the draft was and took the opportunity to acquire a star player? It worked out to be a good use of those picks, so I'm willing to give Miller and Frawley the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Im not thinking finals, however if we can win 8-10 games and we finish 9th-10th then in 2008 that proves we are better than 6 or 7 sides where in 2007 we proved to be better than no #$@!, I'll let you be the judge on that score

So, 6 years after Miller arrived we are really really hoping to win enough games in the last half of this year so that we finish 9th??

Whoopeeee!!

Thank heavens phoenix isn't on our Board - Miller would be settling into another 6 year deal.

Wake up and smell the coffee. We have some good players on our lost, but nowhere near as many very good ones as we should have. If you accept Miller's record as a pass, then we really do deserve to get beaten this Sunday.

 

[Bojangles17]

So, 6 years after Miller arrived we are really really hoping to win enough games in the last half of this year so that we finish 9th??

Whoopeeee!!

Thank heavens phoenix isn't on our Board - Miller would be settling into another 6 year deal.

Wake up and smell the coffee. We have some good players on our lost, but nowhere near as many very good ones as we should have. If you accept Miller's record as a pass, then we really do deserve to get beaten this Sunday.

Im No Miller apoligist, said that in the beginning , the fault lay more in an amateurish under resourced approach than blame a solitary figure. Thats easy, get in loine after a loss and point the finger. I prefer to take an objective view considering all the facts at my disposal rather than shoot from the hip

 

[beaver fever]

Just maybe it was a good trade? Maybe they saw how weak the draft was and took the opportunity to acquire a star player? It worked out to be a good use of those picks, so I'm willing to give Miller and Frawley the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Ah, well sorry about to think that would be to ignore reason. I can't do it personally, but I wish I could do it. Ignorance is bliss and all that after all.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Also lol at rating Moran, Murphy, Dunn and even Monfries to an extent as decent players.

So you'd have Meyer over any of those guys? Geez, Moran would be handy and each of the others would be/ are getting a game. Meyer is a spud. All hail Greg!!!

Arguments along the lines of "Ah yeah but at least we didn;t draft Chris Egan" hold no weight for me. 6 years after Miller arrived, we are faced with multiple threads on this board as to the logic of tanking. Again.

That's cheerio time. There hasn't been sufficient accountability at Richmond for a long long time and guys like phoenix and, to a lesser extent, Bojangles making excuses will just prolong the acceptance of utter mediocrity at Punt Road.