Miller's Drafting Record: 2003- present

[the ranger]

The fact that brown's injury caused our entire team to fold just highlights poor depth.

But if we'd had Kepler Bradley and Cameron Thurley, we'd be on top of the world!

 

[beaver fever]

But if we'd had Kepler Bradley and Cameron Thurley, we'd be on top of the world!

Ranger you are an idiot.

 

[the ranger]

What's the point you will just be wrong. Cotchin a part of our gun midfield and only a 4th gamer, that is hilarious.

He's special. Cotchin, Foley, Deledio, Tambling will be an elite midfield in 2-3 years.

 

[the ranger]

Ranger you are an idiot.

lol

Yes, this is true.

But it doesn't change the fact that your argument is weak as water. The chance that our list would look better today if we hadn't made the Brown trade is miniscule. There was very little talent to be had in that draft, so moving some picks for an elite player was the right decision. If he'd been 27-28 at the time, I could see your point but he was just 25 and about to enter the prime of his career. Even with the injury, he's been more useful to us than anything we were likely to get in the 2003 draft and continues to be one of our best players.

 

[tucker777]

What's the point you will just be wrong. Cotchin a part of our gun midfield and only a 4th gamer, that is hilarious.

maybe so but im looking towards the rest of the year

but how do we have the worst midfield

go on name names and explain

cos so far you sound like an angry man that just got to the bottom of the bottle

 

[astro_toby]

lol

Yes, this is true.

But it doesn't change the fact that your argument is weak as water. The chance that our list would look better today if we hadn't made the Brown trade is miniscule. There was very little talent to be had in that draft, so moving some picks for an elite player was the right decision. If he'd been 27-28 at the time, I could see your point but he was just 25 and about to enter the prime of his career. Even with the injury, he's been more useful to us than anything we were likely to get in the 2003 draft and continues to be one of our best players.

agree

 

[beaver fever]

lol

Yes, this is true.

But it doesn't change the fact that your argument is weak as water. The chance that our list would look better today if we hadn't made the Brown trade is miniscule. There was very little talent to be had in that draft, so moving some picks for an elite player was the right decision. If he'd been 27-28 at the time, I could see your point but he was just 25 and about to enter the prime of his career. Even with the injury, he's been more useful to us than anything we were likely to get in the 2003 draft and continues to be one of our best players.

I doubt very much you even grasp my argument. Look ranger I don't like to rip into you so sorry about the idiot call, but keep on thinking as you do because it may help you to get through the shit this club keeps serving us.

 

[beaver fever]

maybe so but im looking towards the rest of the year

but how do we have the worst midfield

go on name names and explain

cos so far you sound like an angry man that just got to the bottom of the bottle

No I'm not drunk you guys, I'm just fed up with the shit this club keeps serving us tiger fans. The loss last week was the last straw and compounded with the hyde call I'm more angry then ever.

Regarding midfield, I said one of the worst, and you can look at all the statistics you want, but all you really need is to look at it:
Johnson, Foley, Tuck then Deledio, Tambling, Hyde
then Cotchin (can't believe he is playing midfield), Brown in spurts and Tivendale.

Deplorable.

 

[tucker777]

No I'm not drunk you guys, I'm just fed up with the shit this club keeps serving us tiger fans. The loss last week was the last straw and compounded with the hyde call I'm more angry then ever.

Regarding midfield, I said one of the worst, and you can look at all the statistics you want, but all you really need is to look at it:
Johnson, Foley, Tuck then Deledio, Tambling, Hyde
then Cotchin (can't believe he is playing midfield), Brown in spurts and Tivendale.

Deplorable.

on the ones in bold i agree
hyde is shite and tiv is past it so is tucky
and kane is the worst on field leader this club has ever had

but what the hell is wrong with the others?!

 

[beaver fever]

on the ones in bold i agree
hyde is shite and tiv is past it so is tucky
and kane is the worst on field leader this club has ever had

but what the hell is wrong with the others?!

Nothing is wrong with them other then being too young. They should be our worst midfielders, but they aren't because they have no older players that are better then them. Cotchin is already in our top 5. Sure that's because he is an amazing player, but it also reflects the standard he is playing with.

Missed Brown sorry, what is wrong with him is that he isn't a midfielder.

 

[the ranger]

I doubt very much you even grasp my argument.

I don't, to be honest. I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's so obviously wrong that I must be missing something.

Look ranger I don't like to rip into you so sorry about the idiot call,

Don't worry about it.

but keep on thinking as you do because it may help you to get through the shit this club keeps serving us.

We all have our coping mechanisms. I've had darker periods, but right now I'm hopeful. I'm anti-Miller and becoming more anti-Wallace by the day, but I love the players. Even the hacks.

 

[beaver fever]

I don't, to be honest. I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's so obviously wrong that I must be missing something.

Hard to say if its right or wrong if you don't understand it

 

[PHX]

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

WHAT ____ING PROCESS? I feel like I'm trying to break into the Roswell site here with this process!

I reckon the process of the 2003 draft was simple, Greg Miller identified the draft pool was absolutely shit house and so he targeted the best player he could and gave away 6 and 20.

I have no problem with that process at all if that's what you're going on about.


If not, explain the bloody process you think should've happened that we havent got. Put it out there! lol.

 

[beaver fever]

Ok seems I haven't articulated my contention very well at all seeing that you guys are confused by what I am saying. So I'll try and do it in dot points.

- The list at the end of 2003 was shit

- In order to improve the list do we use the national draft or do we trade our picks for players?

- Given that the list was shit, and we needed to rebuild, draft picks should have been the way to achieve this. The process I am referring to is the process of list management (improving the list). We didn't respect the national draft and to an extent the club still doesn't respect the draft.

- Drafting for ready made stars is ok, as long as it is justified long term and actually goes to fix an important structural issue ala Brad Ottens to Geelong, Chris Judd to Carlton

- Nathan Brown is a flashy flanker, and would make a good team great, but for a shit team he could only make them good, but that team would be very vulnerable if he gets injured as what happened in 2005.

- Everyone has been saying but those picks would have brought in duds, well that is the fault of the recruitment team, not the list management team. There were good players to be had still.

- I guess the whole thing comes down to the fact that the club wasn't in rebuild mode, but should have been, and further trading of our picks worsened our youth pool at the time, which is now the reason why we don't have enough players coming into that golden 23-27 age bracket. So when I say the trade was shit I am looking at it from a long-term list perspective and not a Brown= Bradley + Butler perspective.

 

[PHX]

Ok now I have a clear idea of what you're saying however I still stand by my comments of why we gave away 6 and 20. I'm sure it was because Miller saw the draft pool as reletively weak and not worth the risk of picking a player rather than a "dud" which may have been likely in a weak pool no matter how much research you do the %s are still there you'll ____ it up.

Now for the player selection itself, did we pick the right player for the time? Possibly not, however for the first 10(?) rounds of the 2003 season it looked like we just might have. Would trading for a KPP been more valuable for the list at the time? Arguable, we still had Gaspar at FB, Richo dominating all space in the forward line, but probably no true CHB. The spine was nearly full. How would've Richo reacted with another big key forward by his side? History says it probably would've created more confusion and clashing than anything else. Brown was able to to be a player who could work around that, had strong hands but was a smaller guy that could crumb and goal as well as work in the midfield cleanly. I'm staying on the other side of the fence to you after writng all that Beav.

I still think it was the right thing to do in the situation, but that's ok I do see the angle you're coming from, I just dont agree with it.

 

[the ranger]

What if they were looking at the list of draftees and had absolutely no idea which of them were going to be decent players? They could see that it was a weak draft class and didn't like their chances of getting two viable players out of it, so instead they traded for a 25 year old star. You would expect a player that age to give you 5-7 more years of great footy as well as lift the profile of the club, whereas wasting two high picks would only bring more ridicule.

Most of the good players in that draft were either top 5 or after pick 40, so it shows that RFC were not the only club that didn't know what they were doing. I understand what you're saying, and in most cases you'd probably be right (I think Carlton overpaid for Judd, personally) but with the Brown deal, I think they went for the safe option and that decision has been vindicated, even taking into account Brown's broken leg.

 

[beaver fever]

I still think it was the right thing to do in the situation, but that's ok I do see the angle you're coming from, I just dont agree with it.

Yes I understand your side as well mate. If we didn't have differing opinions this place would be one huge love fest, and who wants that?

 

[beaver fever]

What if they were looking at the list of draftees and had absolutely no idea which of them were going to be decent players? They could see that it was a weak draft class and didn't like their chances of getting two viable players out of it, so instead they traded for a 25 year old star. You would expect a player that age to give you 5-7 more years of great footy as well as lift the profile of the club, whereas wasting two high picks would only bring more ridicule.

Most of the good players in that draft were either top 5 or after pick 40, so it shows that RFC were not the only club that didn't know what they were doing. I understand what you're saying, and in most cases you'd probably be right (I think Carlton overpaid for Judd, personally) but with the Brown deal, I think they went for the safe option and that decision has been vindicated, even taking into account Brown's broken leg.

That is the whole thing I was carrying on about concerning the list management process. For a professional organisation, to have no idea about the talent available could only lead to disaster.

Thank-fully the club is investing more money into this most important area, and hopefully we start to actually respect the national draft for once.

 

[PHX]

Yes I understand your side as well mate. If we didn't have differing opinions this place would be one huge love fest, and who wants that?

lol a sexy party!?

Or a . .

 

[the ranger]

But to be fair, pretty much every other club was just as clueless that year. So, trading out of the top of the draft was actually a smart move. We effectively got pick #20 back (#21) for Ben Holland, so really the price of Brown was #6 and Holland. And then we did surprisingly well with late picks.

 

[beaver fever]

But to be fair, pretty much every other club was just as clueless that year. So, trading out of the top of the draft was actually a smart move. We effectively got pick #20 back (#21) for Ben Holland, so really the price of Brown was #6 and Holland. And then we did surprisingly well with late picks.

Like I said....HINDSIGHT!!!!

Anyway this discussion really is over don't you think. Let's talk about other Miller gaffs, like Kane Johnson

 

[the ranger]

Like I said....HINDSIGHT!!!!

Anyway this discussion really is over don't you think. Let's talk about other Miller gafts, like Kane Johnson

Yeah, we're going in circles now.

The Kane Johnson trade was genius.

 

[C-Dog]

Apart from 2003 which was a disaster I could do a post like that with nearly every other club.

2003 is apalling, but agree its the same for every club.

people dont seem to understand that drafting isnt a certainty to get good players, some kids maybe be freakish youngster but never be able to adapt to afl level.

Just look at the NFL in the US. Something like 50% of the top 10 picks wont be playing the league after 5 years. And think of how much money they are able to spend on recuiting and drafting!

The point is, drafting is not a gurantee for a great player, and also its very important how you develop your kids and the type on footy they play.

 

[PHX]

Like I said....HINDSIGHT!!!!

I know you hate this hindsight by the sounds of you but you have to accept the thoughts that it was a weak draft class at the time turned out to be spot on.

So by saying hindsight he isn't saying anything changed or he'd like to go back and change something. Simply everything stayed the same as the thoughts at the time proving the correct notion of trading instead of drafting.

 

[beaver fever]

Why are we discussing it further? We agreed to disagree.