Miller's Drafting Record: 2003- present

[the ranger]

Just for the record, I want Miller out and I'm very close to the same for Wallace. I just don't see the point in being overly negative and critical of everything.

And, no, that doesn't mean that I "accept mediocrity". It's just that I support my team and prefer to think good thoughts about it

 

[beaver fever]

Just for the record, I want Miller out and I'm very close to the same for Wallace. I just don't see the point in being overly negative and critical of everything.

And, no, that doesn't mean that I "accept mediocrity". It's just that I support my team and prefer to think good thoughts about it

Well ranger if most tiger supporters didn't think like that I doubt we'd have many left.

 

[Heisenberg_]

my god 2003's list makes me feel physically ill and reminds how much of a complete ____ing halfwit Frawley is

 

[santa claws]

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.

boy oh boy talk about delusional.no one builds decent lists with late picks wheres this rubbish coming from.

jackson tuck and raines would have been delisted by now if they had been on any other list.

its this abundance of deficient glass half full types like tuck raines and jackson that has us fighting out another bottom 4 finish.
i have no doubt that if our recruiting was just half decent in the last 4 drafts these duds would not be at the club. it really is a vicious circle.

given all the results and all the facts most reasonable people would agree the 2003 draft was a unmitigated disaster.which lacked common sense vision or any semblance of decent list management.

 

[peejay]

It angers me that folks say ......................Howat

Kelvin Moore ????

 

[beaver fever]

Kelvin Moore ????

Come on peejay that isn't called for. Better comparison to Moore is Casserly because of injuries. Howat is just a squib.

 

[1980GFVideo]

Brown gives us credibility. Doesnt matter where you are as a club, if you can get a player like him then you go for it.

Dont forget the ones that he couldnt pull off but was willing to go for it and was willing to give up what it took.

Solomon would have backfired given what we would have paid him, although he is looking ok at the moment.

And we we would have given up plenty to get Carey if he hadnt dismissed us.

Imagine if we got Carey and were today lamenting lost draft picks because of a bloke who would have nothing to do with us today.

 

[the ranger]

boy oh boy talk about delusional.no one builds decent lists with late picks wheres this rubbish coming from.

jackson tuck and raines would have been delisted by now if they had been on any other list.

its this abundance of deficient glass half full types like tuck raines and jackson that has us fighting out another bottom 4 finish.
i have no doubt that if our recruiting was just half decent in the last 4 drafts these duds would not be at the club. it really is a vicious circle.

given all the results and all the facts most reasonable people would agree the 2003 draft was a unmitigated disaster.which lacked common sense vision or any semblance of decent list management.

Which team did better without a top 5 pick?

And by "late picks" I didn't mean picks in the 70s like Raines and Tuck. I just meant that you don't need to spend years at the bottom stockpiling top 5 picks to build a good list.

 

[beaver fever]

Which team did better without a top 5 pick?

And by "late picks" I didn't mean picks in the 70s like Raines and Tuck. I just meant that you don't need to spend years at the bottom stockpiling top 5 picks to build a good list.

Sorry ranger but you really aren't giving this much thought.

 

[astro_toby]

to be honest - i do agree with your arguement - but you sure made a mess of it

put it this way..


2003
16 Gilmore (adcock went at 33)
37 - Tommy Roach ( 38 Mark Blake - 45 Amon Buchanan)
53- Jackson (55 S.Fisher, 58 Ben Hudson, 62 Michael Rischitell )
73 tuck - Tick
76 - raines - Tick

2/5 picks were "winners" - both in the 70's.

Result - Fail - pretty pathetic if you can only get two players from picks in the 70's - we totally wasted our earlier picks (also traded 6 & 20 for N.Brown)

could have had Buchanan, Adcock & Richitelli - instead got Gilmore, Roach & Jackson

2004

1 - Deledio TICK
4 - Tambling (Franklin at 5, Lewis @ 7)
12 - Meyer (Bate @ 13, Monfries @ 14)
16 - Pattison (Wood @ 18)
20-Polo (Van Berlo @ 24, Rosa @ 29)
36 - McGuane (mitch morton @ 46 - Lecras @ 37, sherman @ 45,)
52 - Limbach (62 matthew Egan)

Result - Close call so i say perhaps slightly below Par - consdiering the picks we had. - the fact we alos missed out on Davey in the PSD cos we took Knobel instead & Franklin alone though suggest we FAIL

we ended up with Deledio, Bling, Meyer, Pattison, Polo, McGuane & Limbach, Knobel
could have had Deledio, Franklin, Monfries,Wood, LeCras, Sherman, Egan & Davey

i would say we only got 2/7 - With Deledio and McGuane being the only showing "Value for Pick" - is pattison worth a pick 16? considering we are using him as a ruckman now and wood went at 18 - goes to show terrible insight - as Wood is much more of a natural tap ruckman than patto
Missing out on Sherman and Egan hurts like hell


PSD-1 Knoebl ( 4 Davey)


2005

8 - JON ( 9-M.Clarke - 11. Higgins, 12N.Jones, 12.Hurn 14.BirchallO)
24 - Hughes
40 - Casserley ( Warnock at 42, Hooper @ 41, Gamble @ 47,
56 - traded for P.Bowden (Patefull @ 56, Bartram @ 60, stokes @ 61)

Ended with JON, Hughes, Casserley & P.Bowden
Could have ended with Clarke,/Higgins, Hughes, Warnock & Bartram

Based on JON alone i say a FAIL. 5 players went directly after him that have proven to be miles above him - Clarke is the one that most underlines this as a fail - as we needed t Key position forward mroe than anything this year . Hughes at 24 i think is a win, as not much really went after him between our next pick - which suggest the projected draft had not much else on offer.

Casserley is meant to be a player - but at this stage we look like we made a real mess of our later picks this season - especially if we trade for Warnock at seasons end. once again it is the complete lack on insight to draft players in positions which we are completely lacking in. ruckman KPforwards and defenders

2006

Pick 8 traded - for Polak and pick 13 ( could have had 10. N.Brown, 8.J.Reid 12.A.Everitt)

Pick 13 - Reiwoldt
Pick 26 - Edwards ( Tippert @ 32 A.Davey @ 36 )
58 - Connors
60 - Peterson (63Goldsack, 71 Westhoff)
73 - Collins

Got Polak, Reiwoldt, Edwards, Connors, Peterson & Collins
Could Have had - N.Brown, Tippert, Connors, Westhoff & Collins

The Apparent "super Draft" - i think this one got a Pass - but it could have been much better if we had the club had more forsight. We dearly needed a KP defender and we traded our pick 8 away for polak and Riewoldt - when we could have ended up with N.Brown, and i have a feeling that this kid will be one of the best KP defenders of the next decade. But i still think we got a good bounty here - despite Polak disappointing, Reiwoldt looks good, and even though Tippert would be a perfect fit for usw - edwards look very exciting. The main negative with this draft was again a total lack of KP defenders and ruckman drafted - i really dont understand what our club was thinking - as good as edwards is, the logical selection would have been Tippert, who was actually rated very highly prior to the draft also.

2007

Still a bit early to judge, but i think a PASS is on hand. Cotchin, Rance, Putt all look great, and more importantly, fit PERFCTLY with our LONG TERM needs of a KPP Defender, a silky midfielder and a Big bodied Ruckman (who appears to have the ability to also be a KPP forward)
- but once again - should have been much much better if we had held our nerve and not traded pick 19 for McMahon. Selwood, Ward & Pears all addressed a more pressing need than McMahon. a running, soft inconsistent half back was the last thing this club needed.


Overall - i thin the Miller reign has been a FAIL.. even our "Pass" years come with an* and some pretty major regretts. The biggest thing that makes it a fail though is that in several years in a row, they have completely neglected several key positions which we so obviously have needed -and their have shown to be plenty of quality kidws to take those positions. ruckman, Key Forwards & Key position Defender have eluded this club - and we have shown to be pathetic at having
a) the guts to select these more "longer term" developing investments
&
b) when we do select them - we get it wrong.

closer look at Millers reign clearly shows that we have once again fell into the trap of trying to "cut corners" and ultimately it has cost us Genuine quality in many key roles.

 

[PHX]

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.

\

And hindsight says it was a crap pool of players compared to every other recent draft, that year was the worst.

I bet after 10 rounds in the season before Browny did his leg you were loving him.

 

[PHX]

astro_toby your approach is basically the same expect you've attrivuted it to each player.

You could still pick a club and do basically the same thing picking and prodding at different players.

 

[Madtiger2006]

Hey, don't knock Millers draft. It's a nice beer

 

[astro_toby]

astro_toby your approach is basically the same expect you've attrivuted it to each player.

You could still pick a club and do basically the same thing picking and prodding at different players.

well i added in a bit of a what our actual needs were and what we missed out on in those needs. I think that actually sums up how you rate how a draft has gone


you can do that other one mate - this isnt homework for me

 

[Crumden]

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.
.

Wood is a bogfooty special. A few amateurs on here rated him before the draft, so he became a good player in people's minds without playing a game, despite the fact that Patto has shown 4 times the potential since.

 

[the ranger]

Sorry ranger but you really aren't giving this much thought.

I'd say it's the people criticizing the trade that aren't putting enough thought into their opinion. Picks 6 and 20 sounds like a lot for a guy that missed 2 years of footy and is now 30.

But at the time, he was an elite player, 25 years old, and the draft class was terribly weak. It was a good trade.

 

[Crumden]

Reality on the Brown trade is that we only traded Ben Holland so we could get an extra pick to trade and also fit Brown in the cap. Tenace was widely picked to go with pick 6 and the bombers surprised with bradley. Most likely if we hadn't got Brown we would have had Tenace and Holland instead. But I'm sure plenty will still prefer their own revisionist history.

 

[astro_toby]

Reality on the Brown trade is that we only traded Ben Holland so we could get an extra pick to trade and also fit Brown in the cap. Tenace was widely picked to go with pick 6 and the bombers surprised with bradley. Most likely if we hadn't got Brown we would have had Tenace and Holland instead. But I'm sure plenty will still prefer their own revisionist history.

either way - ben holland & Tennace for Nathan Brown is a great trade.

 

[Catsace]

Nathan Brown at age 25 was as good a player as for example a Didak, a S.Johnson or maybe a R.O'Keefe. He was top drawer, and i maintain that his freak and cruel injury, absolutely unforseen and unplannable, cost the Tigers so dearly. He was in great form, the Tigers were 7-2 in 2005, and i am certain that with him playing a full season, the Tigers would have threatened a solid finals place that season. The 2003 draft is by far the softest draft in recent memory, just imagine if Hawthorn chose 2003 as one of their 'tanking' years, they may have got themselves say Ray and Sylvia for example!! Cooney aside, there's not a lot else from that draft of significance, althotugh McLean is a handy player.

 

[beaver fever]

\

And hindsight says it was a crap pool of players compared to every other recent draft, that year was the worst.

I bet after 10 rounds in the season before Browny did his leg you were loving him.

Why is hindsight relevant to this? The processes were wrong. That is what matters here.

 

[astro_toby]

Nathan Brown at age 25 was as good a player as for example a Didak, a S.Johnson or maybe a R.O'Keefe. He was top drawer, and i maintain that his freak and cruel injury, absolutely unforseen and unplannable, cost the Tigers so dearly. He was in great form, the Tigers were 7-2 in 2005, and i am certain that with him playing a full season, the Tigers would have threatened a solid finals place that season. The 2003 draft is by far the softest draft in recent memory, just imagine if Hawthorn chose 2003 as one of their 'tanking' years, they may have got themselves say Ray and Sylvia for example!! Cooney aside, there's not a lot else from that draft of significance, althotugh McLean is a handy player.

100% correct - Brown breaking his leg was purely bad luck. He would have been one of the top 10 players in the league right now if not for that

Holland + Tenace <<<<<<<<<<<<< N.Brown prior to the worst broken leg possible to a human being

 

[beaver fever]

I'd say it's the people criticizing the trade that aren't putting enough thought into their opinion. Picks 6 and 20 sounds like a lot for a guy that missed 2 years of footy and is now 30.

But at the time, he was an elite player, 25 years old, and the draft class was terribly weak. It was a good trade.

Just helping my argument posting that ranger. It has nothing to do with whether or not the players made it or not. Stop using hindsight to back up your arguments, because doing so validates all the Franklin/Tambling threads.

 

[astro_toby]

Just helping my argument posting that ranger. It has nothing to do with whether or not the players made it or not. Stop using hindsight to back up your arguments, because doing so validates all the Franklin/Tambling threads.

no you are wrong beaver fever.

nathan brown for B.Holland & Tenace is a great trade - before or even after his shattered leg.

we sold holland just before he became a giant rotten tomatoe ( since that year he would be lucky to be worth a pick above 50 ) and Tenace would be lucky to get a 2nd round pick these days.

RFC have made so many trading blunders in the past 5-6 years - but the trade for N.Brown was not one.

 

[beaver fever]

no you are wrong beaver fever.

nathan brown for B.Holland & Tenace is a great trade - before or even after his shattered leg.

we sold holland just before he became a giant rotten tomatoe ( since that year he would be lucky to be worth a pick above 50 ) and Tenace would be lucky to get a 2nd round pick these days.

RFC have made so many trading blunders in the past 5-6 years - but the trade for N.Brown was not one.

I am sick of repeating myself but given the state of the list at the time that Nathan Brown was traded for, it was not a good trade. You like every other brown trade lover are using hindsight to back up your arguments. Folly.

Given how shit the list was, we needed to rebuild much earlier then when Wallace came to the helm did we not? Trading our top picks for a flanker (a good one granted) did nothing but hurt us long-term. Wonder why we don't have any mid age players, it's because we traded those picks for players. The result of those picks is irrelevant, it is the fact we traded away our future for a quick fix that in the end did nothing for us.

Like I said in another post, the odds are that Brown will never play a finals game for the RFC. What a good trade indeed.

 

[the ranger]

Just helping my argument posting that ranger. It has nothing to do with whether or not the players made it or not. Stop using hindsight to back up your arguments, because doing so validates all the Franklin/Tambling threads.

I guess I don't even understand your argument. Judged on what people knew at the time, it was a good trade. Based on what we know now, even taking into account Brown's horrific injury, it was a good trade.