Our 2007 Draft Performance...

[kane249]

Ebert - knows how to get the ball, is a good mark, can run all day, works hard week in and week out.

Any guy with Ebert's dedication will get to be a better kick. Half the time you guys lump decision making with poor disposal.... There is nothing wrong with his decision making. Doesnt handball to stationary targets. Or to opponents. Just because he muffs up a kick, doesn't mean he has bad decision making.

And to kane, doubt Stevens got a kick that hit the target that wasnt from a free kick and without pressure. So no your wrong in both those categories. Stevens didnt even get enough of the ball in his very few games to even know whether he has good decision making.

I've seen many occasion this year where Ebert's chosen the wrong handball target by handballing to a stationary target or missing his target, and the end result was a turnover costing us a goal. His skills and decision making are poor at this stage, he's got a lot of work to do to get himself up to a passable level for the AFL.

I've seen Stevens a few times this year both pre-season and for the Sharks and his game is a lot better then Ebert.

 

[Spartan]

Anyone else think that its our development of kids and perhaps not the kids themselves that are the issue?

At the start of the Worsfold era I reckon we set the standard for player development. We produced elite playes.. especially in the midfield.. Judd, Cousins, Kerr, Cox and down back Glass were/are A+ players.

Then in recent years despite having high draft picks / highly rated youngsters our development has been somewhat average. Yes LeCras, Hurn and Kennedy have been coming along nicely but if you look at our kids from the last few drafts maybe they would be alot 'better' at other clubs (and not necessarily at 'better' clubs).

Scooter was (apparently) rated as the best of the Selwood kids. Masten was very highly rated pre-draft and Swift was rated as one of the best juniors the game has seen. Now obviously injuries have played a part but guys like Masten and Swift while showing glimpses have been underwhelming.

Our skills coaching has been shit across the board recently. Endurance not much better highlighted by our inability to run out games.

Notte to date is an epic fail.

I feel like Naitanui, bar the brilliant start to the season, has stagnated in growth and if anything his finish to last year was better than this year. Plus we now learn he has been playing with an injury for quite awhile.

Just playing the Devil's advocate for a change.

 

[The Passenger]

If someone said you could have:

3. Rioli
13. Grimes
20. Pears
22. Otten

...would you say no?

Hindsight is obviously wonderful, etc.

that's one way of putting it, but to do that would've been to pull out the perfect draft and no club is ever going to do that.

2007 has been a pretty weak draft and with how good Kruezer has looked over his first 3 seasons it is no wonder Carlton point blank refused to give up their number 1 pick.

The ones that's really hurt are seeing the WA boys who were right under our noses and we didn't pick up, particularly the two key defenders Harry Taylor and Tayte Pears. Throw one, or both, of those boys alongside McKenzie and Schofield and that is a very very solid key defensive unit developing. In fact we'd probably be in a position to trade one of them off to throw some strength into our midfield.

 

[The Passenger]

Anyone else think that its our development of kids and perhaps not the kids themselves that are the issue?

big time. our player development over the past few seasons seem to be very very poor. i find it hard to believe we went and drafted a bunch of youngster who all had poor foot skills.

and to see players go backwards between 2009 and 2010 was most concerning for me given i was overseas for 2007 and 2008 so i didn't really get too so much footy.

 

[wceblog]

Anyone else think that its our development of kids and perhaps not the kids themselves that are the issue?

Definitely - coaching, skills development and fitness are all areas I'd be scrutinising well before our recruiting, which has overall been good since Woodhouse took over in 2001 (assisted by high draft picks in 2007, 2008 and 2009).

 

[Pat_Footy]

Anyone else think that its our development of kids and perhaps not the kids themselves that are the issue?

At the start of the Worsfold era I reckon we set the standard for player development. We produced elite playes.. especially in the midfield.. Judd, Cousins, Kerr, Cox and down back Glass were/are A+ players.

Then in recent years despite having high draft picks / highly rated youngsters our development has been somewhat average. Yes LeCras, Hurn and Kennedy have been coming along nicely but if you look at our kids from the last few drafts maybe they would be alot 'better' at other clubs (and not necessarily at 'better' clubs).

Scooter was (apparently) rated as the best of the Selwood kids. Masten was very highly rated pre-draft and Swift was rated as one of the best juniors the game has seen. Now obviously injuries have played a part but guys like Masten and Swift while showing glimpses have been underwhelming.

Our skills coaching has been shit across the board recently. Endurance not much better highlighted by our inability to run out games.

Notte to date is an epic fail.

I feel like Naitanui, bar the brilliant start to the season, has stagnated in growth and if anything his finish to last year was better than this year. Plus we now learn he has been playing with an injury for quite awhile.

Just playing the Devil's advocate for a change.

I'm going to stop you right there. You are comparing Scott Selwood, Masten and Swift to Cousins, Kerr and Judd. Pretending as the raps on these players were one and the same. Selwood and Swift were taken in the 20's of the draft so they were not highly rated... Joel swelwood was taken at 7. Kerr, Cousins and Judd were all taken in the top 10 of the draft. It's not fair to go off drafting positions but in reality the statistics show that the stars are taken in top 10.

 

[kane249]

Swift only slid due to his knee problems, if he had stayed injury free he would have easily been top 10 if not top 3 given how highly rated he was prior to doing his knee.

 

[Goldfish]

Kerr, Cousins and Judd were all taken in the top 10 of the draft. It's not fair to go off drafting positions but in reality the statistics show that the stars are taken in top 10.

Kerr was pick 18 and Cousins was a father-son selection. The only top 10 pick was Judd.

 

[Pat_Footy]

Kerr was pick 18 and Cousins was a father-son selection. The only top 10 pick was Judd.

I could have sworn Kerr was pick 8 but you're right...

On the swift sliding... No. Judd slid to pick 3 because of his shoulders. Pick 22 is not a top 3 injury slide. Their was always raps on cousins back when he was drafted - he would have been a top 10.

The whole point was the previous poster was saying that our pick 20 selections should be on par with our top 10 prospects. And thats just incorrect. Give the draftees a break

 

[wceblog]

BTW Spartan, I don't think anyone ever said Scott was the best of Selwood brothers seriously - I'm guessing someone on BigFooty who probably saw his 3 minutes draft day highlight package may have proposed he "could be the the best of Selwood's" and others ran with it as per usual on internet message boards.

Joel was an U18 AA and in the TAC Cup TOTY in 2005 as an ineligible to be drafted 17 year old year (missed most his 2006 draft year with a knee injury), Scott was in neither in his draft year (also 17 years old).

Colin Wisbey considered Scott a "poor man's version of Joel" and other well versed U18 observers, Weaver ("much blunter weapon than Joel") and ant555 ("He isn’t as classy as Joel") thought likewise.

 

[Pat_Footy]

BTW Spartan, I don't think anyone ever said Scott was the best of Selwood brothers seriously - I'm guessing someone on BigFooty who probably saw his 3 minutes draft day highlight package may have proposed he "could be the the best of Selwood's" and others ran with it as per usual on internet message boards.

Joel was an U18 AA and in the TAC Cup TOTY in 2005 as an ineligible to be drafted 17 year old year (missed most his 2006 draft year with a knee injury), Scott was in neither in his draft year (also 17 years old).

Colin Wisbey considered Scott a "poor man's version of Joel" and other well versed U18 observers, Weaver ("much blunter weapon than Joel") and ant555 ("He isn’t as classy as Joel") thought likewise.

Their were raps on scott at a very young age. I remember recruiters saying that the 4th brother was the best prospect but of course that was when he was playing under 12's.

 

[r dub 19]

Judd, Cousins and Kerr would of been guns at any club. We didn't develop Judd at all he was ready to go from his first wafl game.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Judd, Cousins and Kerr would of been guns at any club. We didn't develop Judd at all he was ready to go from his first wafl game.

Same could be said for any star.

We did however manage to organise a structure of using less talented blokes like Rowan Jones and Tyson Stenglein to provide blocks and create space for said gentelmen.

 

[Spartan]

The whole point was the previous poster was saying that our pick 20 selections should be on par with our top 10 prospects. And thats just incorrect. Give the draftees a break

I didn't say our first round picks taken recently should be 'on par' with the first round picks taken at the start of the Woosha era. 'Thats just incorrect'.

As already pointed our Kerr and Cousins were not first round picks.

However if you want to make that kind of comparison, Masten was taken at #3 just like Judd. Judd won a brownlow in his 3rd year.

My point is that we haven't developed our recent early draft picks, especially the midfielders, as well as we did at the start of the Woosha era. In general our skills are shit, arguably the worst in the league. Our player development is nothing like what it used to be.

Masten, Ebert, etc were rated highly for a reason. I'm suggesting the reason for their relative dissapoint to date could be more an issue to due with club development rather than personnel related.

BTW Spartan, I don't think anyone ever said Scott was the best of Selwood brothers seriously - I'm guessing someone on BigFooty who probably saw his 3 minutes draft day highlight package may have proposed he "could be the the best of Selwood's" and others ran with it as per usual on internet message boards.

Joel was an U18 AA and in the TAC Cup TOTY in 2005 as an ineligible to be drafted 17 year old year (missed most his 2006 draft year with a knee injury), Scott was in neither in his draft year (also 17 years old).

Colin Wisbey considered Scott a "poor man's version of Joel" and other well versed U18 observers, Weaver ("much blunter weapon than Joel") and ant555 ("He isn’t as classy as Joel") thought likewise.

Pat_Footy answered below, perhaps that was what I was remembering. Still do you ever wonder if that was Scooter at Geelong he might be at a Joel like level?

Their were raps on scott at a very young age. I remember recruiters saying that the 4th brother was the best prospect but of course that was when he was playing under 12's.

 

[Spartan]

Judd, Cousins and Kerr would of been guns at any club. We didn't develop Judd at all he was ready to go from his first wafl game.

Perhaps.

However that being said history shows a number of early first round picks that have failed to live up to expectations, some of which have been epic fails.

They were obviously picked highly for a reason.. I think the development of a player by a club plays a huge part on the levels he can reach on a footy field. There might be exceptions to the rule (perhaps Judd) but I'd suggest that they are more exceptions than the norm.

 

[r dub 19]

IMO most elite players will always reach their level regardless of "development" by a club. I think "development" is best applied to average and mid tier players that step up to the next level. This is where we have failed: Rosa, Waters, Butler, Nicoski etc are guys that we all expected to take that next step and become very good players.

 

[Spartan]

IMO most elite players will always reach their level regardless of "development" by a club. I think "development" is best applied to average and mid tier players that step up to the next level. This is where we have failed: Rosa, Waters, Butler, Nicoski etc are guys that we all expected to take that next step and become very good players.

What pick does a player need to be taken to be considered elite?

Top 5 pick?

2000:
Kozi #2
Livingston #2
McDougall #5

2001:
Polak #4
X.Clarke #5

2002:
Walsh #4

2003:
Ray #4
McLean #5

etc, etc

So thats 8 out of 20 picks over those 4 years who range from epic fail to average.

I haven't included guys like Brennan, McVeigh, Sylvia during this time etc who were all very high picks and not what I would call elite players.

 

[yeah_nah]

Its too hard to tell who will be elite when they are only 17.
If the draft age was 21 instead of 18 then we would see far less epic fails with top 5 draft picks.

I agree that elite players are going to be elite before they are drafted.
You can put anybody in the AFL environment and they will improve, but they wont all become elite.

 

[r dub 19]

What pick does a player need to be taken to be considered elite?

Top 5 pick?

2000:
Kozi #2
Livingston #2
McDougall #5

2001:
Polak #4
X.Clarke #5

2002:
Walsh #4

2003:
Ray #4
McLean #5

etc, etc

So thats 8 out of 20 picks over those 4 years who range from epic fail to average.

I haven't included guys like Brennan, McVeigh, Sylvia during this time etc who were all very high picks and not what I would call elite players.

I'm not referring to draft picks at all. I'm saying guys like Judd, Pav, Goodes, Buddy, Riewoldt were going to be elite regardless of the club they played at.

 

[Spartan]

Its too hard to tell who will be elite when they are only 17.
If the draft age was 21 instead of 18 then we would see far less epic fails with top 5 draft picks.

I agree that elite players are going to be elite before they are drafted.
You can put anybody in the AFL environment and they will improve, but they wont all become elite.

I'm not sure what we're defining as 'elite'.

Like I said there are exceptions to the rule for players such as Judd.

But in general I think at 17 you can tell if a player has the potential to be an elite player based on what he shows to date. Thats why they are rated highly and taken with a high draft pick.

Its then up to the club to develop that kid to his full potential. Some clubs do it successfully, others don't. This also applies to those taken later in the draft. Natural ability might attach a ceiling level as to how high a player can reach, but its the club that helps the player reach that ceiling.

 

[Spartan]

I'm not referring to draft picks at all. I'm saying guys like Judd, Pav, Goodes, Buddy, Riewoldt were going to be elite regardless of the club they played at.

Ok.. and I agree with that.. like I said there are exceptions to the general rule.. I'm referring to selecting highly rated youngsters (who logically have a better chance at become A graders) and then failing to develop them to their potential.

 

[r dub 19]

Ok.. and I agree with that.. like I said there are exceptions to the general rule.. I'm referring to selecting highly rated youngsters (who logically have a better chance at become A graders) and then failing to develop them to their potential.

The problem is they are rated against each their other draftees therefore a player selected in pick 3 in one draft may well be pick 10 in another even though the players ability doesn't change.

 

[Spartan]

The problem is they are rated against each their other draftees therefore a player selected in pick 3 in one draft may well be pick 10 in another even though the players ability doesn't change.

Agreed, and thats the arguement why a pick #3 in a strong draft is more likely to 'succeed' than a pick #3 in a weak draft.

That being said the principle and concept remains the same, high (for arguements sake top #5 picks) should develop into atleast 'good' AFL players.. however history shows thats not strictly the case.

 

[tesseract]

I could have sworn Kerr was pick 8 but you're right...

On the swift sliding... No. Judd slid to pick 3 because of his shoulders. Pick 22 is not a top 3 injury slide. Their was always raps on cousins back when he was drafted - he would have been a top 10.

The whole point was the previous poster was saying that our pick 20 selections should be on par with our top 10 prospects. And thats just incorrect. Give the draftees a break

Swift slid to pick 20 because he missed 2 years of football. I'm amazed that he went as high as he did considering the scouts didn't get to watch him play over that period. He got picked on reputation due to his amazing U16's form.
We can only speculate on where Swift would've been drafted had he played those 2 years. But given his U16's form, had that continued, Swift would've likely been a top 5 pick. A more knowledgeable, semi-professional, pundit in Colin Wisbey says so too. He labeled Swift's talent as worthy of pick 2 in a pre-draft profile. Saying otherwise is your opinion, but it's contrary to that of a far more knowledgeable source. Wisbey's opinions are sort after by Joe blows like us and professional recruiters. His views are highly respected by most.

In a way, Swift, was in a similar boat to that of Cousins. Both highly rated, but both had other factors involved in being selected as late as they did. I'm aware that the circumstances weren't the same.

 

[TurleyBurley]

I'm not referring to draft picks at all. I'm saying guys like Judd, Pav, Goodes, Buddy, Riewoldt were going to be elite regardless of the club they played at.

What if they went to Richmond (pre-Hardwick)?