Revisitng the 2005 Draft

[Old Spice]

Inspired by discussion about the success of our recruiting over recent years, I have decided to list the 2005 AFL Draft picks as they went and then re-asses them to see what teams did well.

Too hard to actually order them, so will use a 5 star system

Player Rating
1. Murphy 4
2. Thomas 3.5
3. Ellis 3
4. Kennedy 2.5
5. Pendlebury 4
6. Dowler 1
7. Ryder 3.5
8. Oakley-Nicholls 1
9. Mitch Clarke 3.5
10. Drum 2.5
11. Higgins 4
12. N Jones 3.5
13. Hurn 3
14. Birchall 3.5
15. Varcoe 3
16. Douglas 3
17. Pfeiffer 0
18. Bailey 0
19. Dempsey 2.5
20. Bower 3.5
21. Stanley 2
22. Muston 2.5
23. Cook 2
24. Hughes 1
25. Mills 0
26. Ibbottson 2.5
27. Addison 2.5
28. Riggio 2.5
29. McKinley 2
30. Lower 2
31. West 1
32. Vince 4
33. Gilbert 4
34. Spangher 2
35. Owen 0
36. Edwards 1
37. Anthony 3.5
38. T Tuck 2.5
39. Neagle 2
40. Casserley 0
41. Hooper 2
42. Warnock 2
43. Swallow 3.5
44. Carlile 2.5

Then it gets pretty ugly, with a few exceptions: Patful at 56 (3.5) and Stokes at 61 (3).

The Rookie Draft threw up some decent players, of note:

Player Rating
2. Possum Eyes 2.5
7. Duffield 4
20. Hocking 2
31. Priddis 3.5
33. Cox 3
34. Gilham 3.5
49. Stiller 3
55. McGlynn 3.5
57. Jack 2.5

Between picks 23 and 37 (Cook and Anthony) we missed out obviously on Bernie Vince and Sam Gilbert, but so did everyone else.

For the national draft I've given for our 5 pick-ups and average of 3/5 which is not too bad. Cook and Stanley were disappointments, but most of the field was after those picks anyway.

Re the Rookie Draft we had moderate success with Cox and Toovey. Hawthorn did particularly well with Gilham and McGlynn, although that was far outweighed by their crappy national draft picks.

 

[hellfire]

Are you ranking them on how good they are now?

If so, I'd have Thomas 3 stars, not 3.5. Murphy and Pendlebury 4.5, because they're both AA standard. Hurn probably 3.5, Jones 3, Cook and Stanley 1.5....

 

[smiddaz123]

Harsh on Carlise. Quality defender.

Clark is at 4 at least imo

 

[Old Spice]

Ranking them at where they are currently. Could make a case for 4.5 I guess, 5 would be for your Swans, Abletts, Reiwoldts and Judds and 4.5's maybe for your Bartels, Mitchells, etc. Yeah, maybe 4.5 is more appropriate, but this is as scientific as studies at the Pond's Institute.

 

[Frankie23]

Stanley and Cook are too high imo, they have shown nothing and looking back were the wrong choices...

 

[robertg22]

Struggle with a 5 pt rating system, would have them in 5 different groups:

Group 1 (clearly the best from the group)
Murphy
Pendlebury

Group 2 (not far behind)
Higgins
Vince
Gilbert
Clark

Group 3 (good solid players, coming along nicely)
Hurn
Birchall
Thomas
Ryder
N Jones
Anthony
Bower
Swallow
Priddis
Duffield

Group 4 (shown a bit but not quite there yet)
Ellis
Kennedy
Tuck
Dempsey
Douglas
Varcoe
Ibbotson
McKinley
Gillham
Stiller
McGlynn

Group 5 - either not shown anything or not shown enough to rate just yet.

the rest

 

[Old Spice]

You may be right there Frankie. I gave old Stanley a subtle paddling earlier in the year, but I wonder if he might be given one last pardon or repreive? That said, he is maybe clogging the list for our saucy class of 2009.

 

[smiddaz123]

Warnock, Spangher in group 4.
Carlisle in group 3.
Kennedy and Dempsey bumped up to group 3.
Vince down to group 3.

IMO.

Other than that, pretty much spot on.

 

[mdc]

Vince down to group 3.

Eh, I'd be more inclined to move Clark and Gilbert to Group 1 and leave Higgins and Vince in their own group. I'd prefer Vince to Higgins atm fwiw.

I also disagree with a bunch of the group 3 and group 4 guys (for example, Kennedy is clearly ahead of Bower for mine), but overall not too bad an effort.

 

[smiddaz123]

Eh, I'd be more inclined to move Clark and Gilbert to Group 1 and leave Higgins and Vince in their own group. I'd prefer Vince to Higgins atm fwiw.

I also disagree with a bunch of the group 3 and group 4 guys (for example, Kennedy is clearly ahead of Bower for mine), but overall not too bad an effort.

It's hard to group them into just 5 groups really. There's always going to be guys in, say, group three who are closer to two, and others are closer to four, but on paper they're on the same level.

Higgins is a genuine freak imo. If it wasn't for injuries he'd be with Murphy and Pendlebury in group 1.

I'd also have Ryder and Hurn on a similar level to Vince.

Thinking about it, it'd probably make more sense just to move Hurn/Ryder up to group 2, and Gilbert/Clark up to group 1, as you said.

 

[OniAu]

very good draft for us, i suppose youd wanna get it right considering we had 4 picks inside the top 25. Ironically we missed on two of those in cook and stanley, anyone who still sees potential in these guys are clutching at straws. They have shown nothing at all, the likes of sidebotoom, wellingham,beams and clarke have gone past these two guys, id even say barham is worth perservering with over the likes of cook and stanley.


Couldnt be more happy with thomas,pendles and Jack. Loving tooves even more with every game he plays , just needs to iron out his rainbow kicks. Cox could be a top shelf back flanker if he gave it everything, feels like he doesnt though.

 

[Thommo 42]

Dreaming if you think Clark is only a 3.5 and kennedy is only 2.5.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Sure this wasn't inspired by the Mitch Clark thread?

Seriously, overall, the 05 Draft I think is still the best one that's ever been. In general.

SOOOOO many current and future guns on that list.

 

[Trojan82]

Higgins is a genuine freak imo. If it wasn't for injuries he'd be with Murphy and Pendlebury in group 1.

Completely agree. He is one of the Bulldogs most important players (If not the most important).

 

[Old Spice]

Dreaming if you think Clark is only a 3.5 and kennedy is only 2.5.

Kennedy has potential, but so does everyone. At this stage I can't see how you could rate him much higher. Meh.

 

[TwisTz]

Cox too high at 3. More like 2.

Toovey should be around 3 based on this year.

 

[HotPies#36]

Cox too high at 3. More like 2.

Toovey should be around 3 based on this year.

Definantly that's what i was just 'bout to say.

 

[Bay Pie]

It is a real shame that it looks like we have missed with picks 21 & 23.

Neither Cook nor Stanley look likely to make it with us. We would have hoped that at least one of them became a major part of our team.

They are behind Sidey, Beams, McCarthy & Wellingham. All these guys are younger.

 

[Two Eyes]

It is a real shame that it looks like we have missed with picks 21 & 23.

Neither Cook nor Stanley look likely to make it with us. We would have hoped that at least one of them became a major part of our team.

They are behind Sidey, Beams, McCarthy & Wellingham. All these guys are younger.

Spot on. What made this draft for us was JA with our final pick. Got the quality players we should have with 2-5 but completley missed with the next two.

 

[Coin_Toss]

Thomas should be put in the same group as Pendlebury and Murphy, for mine. He might not be as consistent every week, but he's going to be a very good player during a long career. He's better than Gilbert and Vince from Group 2.

 

[smiddaz123]

^^^ Not based on 2009, he isn't.

 

[DaVe86]

Anthony at 37 is a huge steal. Would've loved to get my hands on Swallow in the 2nd round. Can't believe no team was willing to look at him...must've purely been based on footskills. He is a real go-er.


Out of the draft, we will get 3 genuine star players in Pendlebury, Thomas and Anthony. Pendlebury is just about there, Anthony is enjoying his first full season of footy so has plenty of improvement...whilst Thomas is still learning a lot about his game and how to get the most of himself...but has been very good this year.


The 2nd round was a shame. 4 picks in the top 25 was a huge opportunity, but fortunately the recruitment of Jack made up for it. Though I feel Stanley has proven to be a real quality player...just perhaps not AFL standard. I still reckon if given a month of football that he would develop into a really quality in and under.

 

[DaVe86]

It is a real shame that it looks like we have missed with picks 21 & 23.

Neither Cook nor Stanley look likely to make it with us. We would have hoped that at least one of them became a major part of our team.

They are behind Sidey, Beams, McCarthy & Wellingham. All these guys are younger.

But it does highlight the strength of Hine's recruiting strategy.

It seems he follows a pattern. He highlights the deficiency in the side, and stocks up with a number of players from that position. Ultimately, not all are going to make it....but you increase the chances of filling a void by overloading the depth.


2005: All mids with first 4 picks
2006: All KPP's
2007: Ruck then best available
2008: All mids with first 4 picks

2009: going by that pattern...it looks likely we will recruit atleast 2 KPP's with early picks. Perhaps it will be a ruckman/forward + KPP defender.

So we may have missed the boat with Stanley and Cook.....but Beams and Sidebottom take that spot. So no major loss.


It also seems Hine is looking for versatility in his picks. Reid recruited to be a FF, Anthony to be a FB. Both will make a name for themselves in the opposite position.

 

[Dylz48]

Thomas should be put in the same group as Pendlebury and Murphy, for mine. He might not be as consistent every week, but he's going to be a very good player during a long career. He's better than Gilbert and Vince from Group 2.

Vince and Gilbert have arguably had better seasons then Daisy

 

[Quicky]

Vince and Gilbert have arguably had better seasons then Daisy

Not sure there is much arguably about it. Fortunately a season doesn't make a career - Daisy will be fine when he pulls it all together, which I have no doubt he will.