Repeating the Rough, Buddy, Lewis Draft

Remove this Banner Ad

Its why, when people talk about premiership windows, or clocks, I like to think of it as tidal.
upload_2015-12-2_11-58-16.jpeg

Tidal ranges are caused by combined factors, usually the daily rang causes by the earths rotation compared to the moon, and a longer component caused by the moons movement around the earth.

If a club scores a high point in a couple of drafts about 3-4 years apart, there's a cumulation which takes the overall list strength up, but when you draft more than average number of players, you also retire a large amount so theres a weakening elsewhere.

What im saying is theres not one rebuid as we know it, but up to three mini rebuilds in an average players career span. the trick to rebuilding is not needing to dive so low, but the ten-twelve year cycle will get you in the end
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Don't forget David Spriggs, Ezra Bray and Daniel Foster

True, but if you look at who was between Joel Corey and David Spriggs there was Darren Glass and Luke McPharlin and the Cats already had Scarlett and Harley and if you look between Spriggs and Foster then maybe Brad Green. Chapman at 31, Ling at 38 and Enright at 47 were easily the best players in the draft after Corey at 8 that they could have picked up. There were one or two others, but they were taken f/s so Geelong didn't have a shot at them.

The only player I would say was better than Corey, Chapman, Ling and Enright and that Geelong could definitely used was Pavlich but he was gone before Geelong had a pick. Ryan O'Keefe at 56 was probably the only other out and out gun in the draft along with that Cat trifecta after the Spriggs pick.
 
Clearly geelong and hawks recently showed how this can work if all goes well. And how quickly, Clarko getting a premiership in his fourth year, the first without a PP, although has been said, the hawks wasted pps in 05 and 06

Not sure there is any point debating the finer points between the hawks and the cats. Both teams are now turning the efforts to showing how you can keep successful without going so far down the ladder
 
I would have thought that the Rough, Buddy, Lewis draft was an inferior repeat of the Ablett, Bartel, Johnson, Kelly draft. :D

Definitely nailed it, but I think the difference is that 2001 ... there was a stupid amount of talent going around and a lot of clubs got great value for their picks

2004 ... we literally made off like bandits, picking the best 3 (or damn close to it, I can't be bothered arguing) from a really average crop

Not discounting Geelong 2001 at all, but I think contextually, the 2004 draft is a little more impressive.
 
AS a general rule I believe that draft reviews are useless until the players have at least 3 years in them. At this stage you can see how key position players are going.

Whilst Melbourne look to of done well out of the 2014 draft, remember Richard Tambling looked alright in 2005 too.
2013 for Brisbane is looking alright at this stage but give it another year and we'll be able to judge much better.
 
I have my doubts that any of these individuals will get a chance to exhibit that at Carlton.

Oh, I agree with that. I was responding to the OP's picture.
 
Definitely nailed it, but I think the difference is that 2001 ... there was a stupid amount of talent going around and a lot of clubs got great value for their picks

2004 ... we literally made off like bandits, picking the best 3 (or damn close to it, I can't be bothered arguing) from a really average crop

Not discounting Geelong 2001 at all, but I think contextually, the 2004 draft is a little more impressive.

And you only had a start of first round priority pick! Look where you got the talent mate, Cats in 01 is far more impressive.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Clearly geelong and hawks recently showed how this can work if all goes well. And how quickly, Clarko getting a premiership in his fourth year, the first without a PP, although has been said, the hawks wasted pps in 05 and 06

Not sure there is any point debating the finer points between the hawks and the cats. Both teams are now turning the efforts to showing how you can keep successful without going so far down the ladder

Hodgey was a PP if I'm reading your last sentence in the first paragraph right. Or maybe I'm not :confused:
 
Whatever makes you sleep at night mate

Let's have a look at what you've said again.

Definitely nailed it, but I think the difference is that 2001 ... there was a stupid amount of talent going around and a lot of clubs got great value for their picks

2004 ... we literally made off like bandits, picking the best 3 (or damn close to it, I can't be bothered arguing) from a really average crop

Not discounting Geelong 2001 at all, but I think contextually, the 2004 draft is a little more impressive.

It's pretty easy to "make off like bandits" with picks 2,5, and 7...

Cats didn't have a pick until 8 in 2001 :rolleyes:
 
Richmond's premiership wasn't built in a single super draft like this. We did, though, have a bloody good Rookie draft in 2014, with two premiership players in Lambert and Castagna and two others (Short and Soldo) who are on our list and played games this year. Honourable mention also to the 2007 draft which landed us Cotchin and Rance. Nitpickers will say that we should have taken Dangerfield in that draft, but I wouldn't swap either ouyr Captain or Rance for him - especially as we were going to get Dusty anyway.
 
Ablett, Bartel, Kelly and Steve Johnson in one draft is the greatest get. You won't find anyone doing better than that.

According to afl.com. Hawks and Cats two each in the top 5

Still maintain hawks got the most value available for pick 1

Even Ablett who's rated higher buggered off for his prime years Ablett wasnt available for hawks
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top