Draft Review 2003 - Redo the Draft

[gandaal]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

1. Adam Cooney
2. Aaron Davey
3. Brent Stanton
4. Brock McLean
5. Sam Fisher
6. Heath Shaw
7. Nathan Foley
8. Andrew Carrazzo
9. Andrew Lovett
10. Michael Rischitelli
11. Ben Hudson
12. Daniel Jackson
13. Mark Blake
14. Shane Tuck
15. Jed Adcock
16. David Mundy
17. Josh Drummond
18. Amon Buchanan
19. Colin Sylvia
20. Troy Chaplin
21. Daniel Pratt
22. Nathan Lovett-Murray
23. Zac Dawson
24. Andrew Raines
25. Farran Ray
26. Andrew Walker
27. Brett Peake
28. Brad Stymes
29. Kepler Bradley
30. Raphael Clarke

 

[year of the cat]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

1. Adam Cooney
2. Aaron Davey
3. Brent Stanton
4. Brock McLean
5. Sam Fisher
6. Heath Shaw
7. Nathan Foley
8. Andrew Carrazzo
9. Andrew Lovett
10. Michael Rischitelli
11. Ben Hudson
12. Daniel Jackson
13. Mark Blake
14. Shane Tuck
15. Jed Adcock
16. David Mundy
17. Josh Drummond
18. Amon Buchanan
19. Colin Sylvia
20. Troy Chaplin
21. Daniel Pratt
22. Nathan Lovett-Murray
23. Zac Dawson
24. Andrew Raines
25. Farran Ray
26. Andrew Walker
27. Brett Peake
28. Brad Stymes
29. Kepler Bradley
30. Raphael Clarke

Josh Drummond and Lovett-Murray should be above Blake.

This was a very ordinary draft.

 

[gandaal]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Josh Drummond and Lovett-Murray should be above Blake.

This was a very ordinary draft.

Decent ruckman are rare and while Blake isn't the best ruckman going around he's still holds value. Also I don't rate Lovett-Murray.

Yep, it was a crap draft.

 

[Roger Rogerson]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

lol dreaming cooney is a brownlow medielst best player in this draft bye a mile!

Agree - what an absolute joke that is. Cooney is in a completely different class to Sylvia. Don't doubt that Sylvia has ability but so far it hasnt been put into action anywhere near the same level of Cooney.

It is just a very mediocre draft that one.

Cooney, Davey, Fisher, Heath Shaw, Foley, Lovett are genuinely good players. Then the next tier down like Stanton, Mundy, Chaplin, McLean, Carazzo, Hudson, etc are servicable. No superstars in the draft.

 

[Enforcer25]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Cooney is clearly ahead at this stage, but both players at their absolute best form displayed so far are neck and neck.

Sylvia's pulled his head in and his years of suffering OP are behind him.
If his body continues to hold up he'll be in brownlow form in 2010.

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Im very happy with Beau Waters and Sam Butler.

Both are preimership players, that have suffered from very serious injuries.

Both are on the comeback trail, and would easily be best 22.

Beau Waters is very important if he can get back to his good form again.

 

[Wally Carter]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

My attempt, not looking at team needs:
1. A.Cooney
2. S.Fisher
3. A.Davey
4. H.Shaw
5. C.Sylvia
6. J.Adcock
7. T.Chaplin
8. B.McLean
9. B.Stanton
10. J.Drummond
11. M.Johnson
12. B.Hudson
13. N.Foley
14. A.Walker
15. F.Ray
16. P.Duffield
17. M.Rischatelli
18. M.Blake
19. B.Waters
20. D.Mundy
21. Z.Dawson
22. S.O'hAilpan
23. R.Dyson
24. A.Carazzo
25. N.Lovett-Murray
26. K.Bradley

(A.Lovett left out)

Ummm, Michael Firrito has played 120 games of footy and would get in to that list ahead of Farren Ray.

It's a pity about David Trotters injury issues. He could actually play.

Brayden Shaw could also play.

 

[Trav 20]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

My attempt, not looking at team needs:
1. A.Cooney
2. S.Fisher
3. A.Davey
4. H.Shaw
5. C.Sylvia
6. J.Adcock
7. T.Chaplin
8. B.McLean
9. B.Stanton
10. J.Drummond
11. M.Johnson
12. B.Hudson
13. N.Foley
14. A.Walker
15. F.Ray
16. P.Duffield
17. M.Rischatelli
18. M.Blake
19. B.Waters
20. D.Mundy
21. Z.Dawson
22. S.O'hAilpan
23. R.Dyson
24. A.Carazzo
25. N.Lovett-Murray
26. K.Bradley

(A.Lovett left out)

I am genuinely staggered that you put McLean ahead of Stanton.

I suppose all those years of Melb fans talking up and waiting for McLean to actually do something worked.

Then again, you have Foley and Duffield too low.

 

[Crow-mo]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

in the main part, clubs would trade out of this draft in hindsight.

truly horrible.

 

[Crow-mo]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

14. Adelaide - Daniel Jackson - good tagger midfielder that crows would like

yeah we would like him to be somewhere else.

he wouldn't get a game with us.

 

[WN123]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

I am genuinely staggered that you put McLean ahead of Stanton.

I suppose all those years of Melb fans talking up and waiting for McLean to actually do something worked.

Then again, you have Foley and Duffield too low.

Me too. Stanton has been a serviceable to good player almost since Day 1. Has his weaknesses and will never be a superstar but he works his butt off and gets 25 possessions a week.

 

[Trav 20]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Me too. Stanton has been a serviceable to good player almost since Day 1. Has his weaknesses and will never be a superstar but he works his butt off and gets 25 possessions a week.

Stats don't always tell the whole story, but they're usually a reasonable reference point.

Over their careers Stanton has played roughly 30 more games due to McLean's injury history.

They both commenced playing in 2004. Throughout their 6 seasons of playing I'd suggest that McLean shaded Stanton in only one of those years - 2006. Every other year Stanton has edged McLean, including the most recent history, which is 2009.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...ame3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1349,1399,

McLean didn't even come in the top 10 in our B&F. I'm not suggesting that there's a world of difference, but Stanton deserves a higher ranking at this point in time.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...ame3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1349,1399,

 

[Blueboys7]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Stats don't always tell the whole story, but they're usually a reasonable reference point.

Over their careers Stanton has played roughly 30 more games due to McLean's injury history.

They both commenced playing in 2004. Throughout their 6 seasons of playing I'd suggest that McLean shaded Stanton in only one of those years - 2006. Every other year Stanton has edged McLean, including the most recent history, which is 2009.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...ame3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1349,1399,

McLean didn't even come in the top 10 in our B&F. I'm not suggesting that there's a world of difference, but Stanton deserves a higher ranking at this point in time.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...ame3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1349,1399,

Funny how McLean goes from being a star (according to Melbourne supporters) to a spud when he is traded to Carlton.

FWIW Brock is having a terrific pre-season and fitting in well, we expect big things from him if he stays injury free (obviously the problem). Let's hope he can recapture his 2006 form.

 

[Enforcer25]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

You might not have realised, but Brock had a lot of critics at the beginning of 2009 and lost most of his supporters by the time the season was over.

His body made it hard for him, but also his lack of versatility - unless he was stuck in the middle he is useless to the team. You can't put him on a flank in defence or attack, and he cannot tag anyone.

I think for Carlton he will be much much better than he ever was at Melb - if all he has to do is win the hard ball and feed it out to judd, gibbs or Murphy. He is purpose built for that task. Once you expect him to do much more than that, that's when he'll fall down.
He reads the play exceptionally well and runs to the right spots, but he's slow moving with the ball and his kicking, whilst it can be quite good, is erratic at best.
He'll be fantastic value as long as he isn't made to be accountable, because his flaws will be far too obvious, but i think carlton have enough talent to cover for his shortcomings.

From melb's perspective, we already have Jones and Moloney who performed the same role that we required of Brock, but they were better.
A lot of melb supporters are happy to have got pick 11 for Brock because we know, had Carlton known Ball would be available, we'd have either got a lot less for him or been stuck with a player who is your 3rd choice for his role and has major flaws we couldn't hide.

 

[cannons]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Funny how McLean goes from being a star (according to Melbourne supporters) to a spud when he is traded to Carlton.

FWIW Brock is having a terrific pre-season and fitting in well, we expect big things from him if he stays injury free (obviously the problem). Let's hope he can recapture his 2006 form.

If you wish to go back through last season's posts on the Melbourne board, you won't find too many kind words directed at Brock and his associated performances.

I distinctly remember numerous references to his lack of pace and errant disposal, all of which I found difficult to disagree with.

I think he is a good leader on the field, as well as a solid contributor, but I wouldn't be expecting miracles from him.

 

[WN123]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Stats don't always tell the whole story, but they're usually a reasonable reference point.

Over their careers Stanton has played roughly 30 more games due to McLean's injury history.

They both commenced playing in 2004. Throughout their 6 seasons of playing I'd suggest that McLean shaded Stanton in only one of those years - 2006. Every other year Stanton has edged McLean, including the most recent history, which is 2009.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...ame3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1349,1399,

McLean didn't even come in the top 10 in our B&F. I'm not suggesting that there's a world of difference, but Stanton deserves a higher ranking at this point in time.

http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...ame3=&PlayerName4=&SelectedPlayers=1349,1399,

Probably just add in reference to the B and F finish that Stanton has been near the Top in our B & F for five years now.

2005 3rd
2006 4th
2007 6th
2008 3rd
2009 3rd

 

[whelan=legend]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

1. Adam Cooney
2. Aaron Davey
3. Brent Stanton
4. Brock McLean
5. Sam Fisher
6. Heath Shaw
7. Nathan Foley
8. Andrew Carrazzo
9. Andrew Lovett
10. Michael Rischitelli
11. Ben Hudson
12. Daniel Jackson
13. Mark Blake
14. Shane Tuck
15. Jed Adcock
16. David Mundy
17. Josh Drummond
18. Amon Buchanan
19. Colin Sylvia
20. Troy Chaplin
21. Daniel Pratt
22. Nathan Lovett-Murray
23. Zac Dawson
24. Andrew Raines
25. Farran Ray
26. Andrew Walker
27. Brett Peake
28. Brad Stymes
29. Kepler Bradley
30. Raphael Clarke

LOL

The only player i'd consider taking before Sylvia in this draft is Cooney.

 

[Go_Dogs]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Cooney is clearly ahead at this stage, but both players at their absolute best form displayed so far are neck and neck.

Sylvia's pulled his head in and his years of suffering OP are behind him.
If his body continues to hold up he'll be in brownlow form in 2010.

I'm not convinced they're neck and neck, but Sylvia is certainly a talented player.

Cooney has only had 1 full pre-season in his time with the Dogs after suffering OP and a few knee injuries along the way too. The year he did have a full pre-season, he won the Brownlow. I'm fairly confident in saying that he ticks a few more boxes than Sylvia.

 

[Enforcer25]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

LOL

The only player i'd consider taking before Sylvia in this draft is Cooney.

*cough* Davey??!

Sorry, I'd take Cooney and Davey any day before Sylvia, maybe a few others too. Ok, maybe not, but definitely these 2.

Davey revolutionized the forward line and what was expected of a forward in terms of defensive pressure.
Winning a brownlow in 2010 still won't quite bring Col's worth level with Cooney.

Col has shown he may have the goods now, but its taken him 5 unproductive seasons to get to that stage.

 

[Enforcer25]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

I'm not convinced they're neck and neck, but Sylvia is certainly a talented player.

Cooney has only had 1 full pre-season in his time with the Dogs after suffering OP and a few knee injuries along the way too. The year he did have a full pre-season, he won the Brownlow. I'm fairly confident in saying that he ticks a few more boxes than Sylvia.

I think Cooney's had a better supporting cast over the course of his career to date.

Think of all the time Cooney has missed due to injury and realise Sylvia has missed a lot more.

Sylvia - 87 games
Cooney - 135 games

Sylvia's games when he has been ON have been just as good as any I've seen of Cooney. You can't say Cooney has done better than 37 touches and 4 goals against the reigning premier*. Cooney still gets the edge for consistency and many many more games of this calibre.

Hurt factor should be considered, but i think both players are wrecking balls. I think Sylvia can be more damaging, but i'm biased.
Cooney is a smarter footballer anyway.

I'd take Cooney NOW, but I think by the end of 2010 I'll say Sylvia.
That's assuming you'd be drafting a player NOW for their future potential, not what they have done in the past.

 

[Burzum]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Missing two years with injury after playing 74 games before he turned 22 is the big disappointment.

Walker was better than Ray and Dawson before recurrent shoulders brought him down.

More talented than those two hacks.

Fisher is the only player I'd take in hindsight, yet the Saints rated Clarke ahead of him.

Walker is a hack. That's the disappointment.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Sylvia??? Really?

Cooney, then a huge, huge gap, then probably Davey, then throw a blanket over about 8. Pretty sad that Kepler's still one of the better "talls" of the draft - tells a tale.

 

[Trav 20]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

Funny how McLean goes from being a star (according to Melbourne supporters) to a spud when he is traded to Carlton.

The reality is that if McLean became the player we'd hoped and expected him to be he'd still be wearing red and blue.

 

[Enforcer25]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

You, like many other non-melb supporters, obviously have not been paying attention to Sylvia.

Don't be surprised if he's top 5 in the brownlow this year. His style of game is the type that racks up votes.

 

[Dazb86]

Re: redo the 2003 draft now that we have seen them

I think Cooney's had a better supporting cast over the course of his career to date.

Think of all the time Cooney has missed due to injury and realise Sylvia has missed a lot more.

Sylvia - 87 games
Cooney - 135 games

Sylvia's games when he has been ON have been just as good as any I've seen of Cooney. You can't say Cooney has done better than 37 touches and 4 goals against the reigning premier*. Cooney still gets the edge for consistency and many many more games of this calibre.

Hurt factor should be considered, but i think both players are wrecking balls. I think Sylvia can be more damaging, but i'm biased.
Cooney is a smarter footballer anyway.

I'd take Cooney NOW, but I think by the end of 2010 I'll say Sylvia.
That's assuming you'd be drafting a player NOW for their future potential, not what they have done in the past.

Cooney has had those types of figures several times over his career so far. The best game I can recall him playing was against Sydney when he had something like 35 touches (16 of which were contested) 5 goals and 10 clearances.

I do like Sylvia though and think he could become a genuine match winner if he can become consistent.

Cooney will have had his 2nd proper pre season this year and I'm fairly certain he will still end out on top of Sylvia by the end of 2010.