News "This will kill everyone"

[Simmonds2Hislop]

2001 hodge ,ball,judd,x clarke, hale, Molan, R cole ,N dal santo

Hodge - Star
Ball - good/average
Judd - Star
X Clarke - Absolute Hack
Hale - Done **** all in 8 seasons. Worse than Kosi
Molan - Hack
R Cole - Hack
Dal Santo - Star

2002 goddard,wells, brennan, J Mcviegh,Mackie, j winderlich ,H Mackintosh, Byron Schammer,

nicholas smith

Goddard - Star
Wells - Mediocre
Brennan - Good/Average (took years to reach mediocrity)
J McVeigh - Good Player
Mackie - Good at playing loose
Winderlich - Average/below average (for a mid)
Macintosh - Gun
Schammer - averge
Smith - LOL

That hardly looks like a flag winning midfield. In fact it would be in the bottom half of current midfields.

2003 cooney,walker, sylvia,mclean, tenace,trotter, b waters , stanton

You think Tenace made it???? Wtf?

Cooney is a gun, Sylvia and Stanton are good, Walker and Waters are ok. McLean is average.

Again would be one of the worst midfields at present

2004 deledio, griffen , roughhead, franklin, J lewis, J russell,A thompson,M bate

3 good mids (good not great) and 2 good forwards, 1 defender.


Bate is a hack

 

[santa claws]

I've got a task for you, get the top 10 draft picks from any of the years 2000-2004, thats 5 drafts, and put them into a hat, then get you and 4 other people to take picks, with you getting 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 & 9 while they get 1 pick each. If you manage to land 6 players that are now considered established stars I'd be amazed.

You see you just can't sit there and look at those that made it in isolation and simply say that GC/GWS will get the same type of players with each of their picks for the simple reason that 4 other clubs also get a crack at one of the top 10 kids.

why not 04 to 09 more recent and more an indicator of how much recruiting has become more precise. sheesh even richmond is puttting money into this area in acknowledgement of how important it is.

 

[_RT_]

why not 04 to 09 more recent and more an indicator of how much recruiting has become more precise. sheesh even richmond is puttting money into this area in acknowledgement of how important it is.

Because most players haven't really been given the chance to establish themselves, but taking a look at 04-06 would show you that from 04 first rounders Meesen Thomson Egan Meyer Pattison & Willits failed to make it, from 05 Dowler JON Drum & Pfieffer haven't come on like expected, while Bailey is hanging on by a thread after multiple knee reconstructions. 2006 has Thorp & O'Keefe delisted after 2 & 0 games, then you have guys like Armitage Sellar Reid & Everitt who have all struggled to establish themselves despite being in the system for nearly 4 years already. Thats 17 first rounders 50-60 odd picks in 3 years that haven't succeeded/developed as expected.

 

[santa claws]

Because most players haven't really been given the chance to establish themselves, but taking a look at 04-06 would show you that from 04 first rounders Meesen Thomson Egan Meyer Pattison & Willits failed to make it, from 05 Dowler JON Drum & Pfieffer haven't come on like expected, while Bailey is hanging on by a thread after multiple knee reconstructions. 2006 has Thorp & O'Keefe delisted after 2 & 0 games, then you have guys like Armitage Sellar Reid & Everitt who have all struggled to establish themselves despite being in the system for nearly 4 years already. Thats 17 first rounders 50-60 odd picks in 3 years that haven't succeeded/developed as expected.

so in the first rnd in 04 you have a 69.5 % chance of picking at the least a core group player geez isnt that what the first rnd is a bout finding a player with a high success rate. geez even with the top 5 picks you had a 80% chance of getting a very good/elite player.

05 including bailey the success rate or chance of finding at least a core list player is 73.7% give me the first rnd picks please. the top 5 picks is 60% with kennedy and ellis still improving.

06 still early days especially for talls. i would not be writing of any of sellar reid everitt just yet but for the sake of the exercise have included them as failures the success rate of finding at the least a core list player is 62.5%

the top 5 picks only one has thus far shown himself to be very good a low 20%

to me this is what people keep missing when talking draft picks or earlyish picks. surely having early picks is aimed at guaranteeing you find at least good solid medium to long term players. obviously picks inside the top 5 or even ten you are hoping for higher.

if you were to do the exercise for 07 one would speculate that there is a good chance 80% plus will at the least be decent players with many already showing signs of being very good or better.
the process is getting better and better without a doubt.

 

[NQTIGER]

so in the first rnd in 04 you have a 69.5 % chance of picking at the least a core group player geez isnt that what the first rnd is a bout finding a player with a high success rate. geez even with the top 5 picks you had a 80% chance of getting a very good/elite player.

05 including bailey the success rate or chance of finding at least a core list player is 73.7% give me the first rnd picks please. the top 5 picks is 60% with kennedy and ellis still improving.

06 still early days especially for talls. i would not be writing of any of sellar reid everitt just yet but for the sake of the exercise have included them as failures the success rate of finding at the least a core list player is 62.5%

the top 5 picks only one has thus far shown himself to be very good a low 20%

to me this is what people keep missing when talking draft picks or earlyish picks. surely having early picks is aimed at guaranteeing you find at least good solid medium to long term players. obviously picks inside the top 5 or even ten you are hoping for higher.

if you were to do the exercise for 07 one would speculate that there is a good chance 80% plus will at the least be decent players with many already showing signs of being very good or better.
the process is getting better and better without a doubt.

I think we agree on this santa and with the high draft picks GC will be very competetive.

And the seventeen year olds are cream.

 

[_RT_]

so in the first rnd in 04 you have a 69.5 % chance of picking at the least a core group player geez isnt that what the first rnd is a bout finding a player with a high success rate. geez even with the top 5 picks you had a 80% chance of getting a very good/elite player.

05 including bailey the success rate or chance of finding at least a core list player is 73.7% give me the first rnd picks please. the top 5 picks is 60% with kennedy and ellis still improving.

06 still early days especially for talls. i would not be writing of any of sellar reid everitt just yet but for the sake of the exercise have included them as failures the success rate of finding at the least a core list player is 62.5%

the top 5 picks only one has thus far shown himself to be very good a low 20%

to me this is what people keep missing when talking draft picks or earlyish picks. surely having early picks is aimed at guaranteeing you find at least good solid medium to long term players. obviously picks inside the top 5 or even ten you are hoping for higher.

if you were to do the exercise for 07 one would speculate that there is a good chance 80% plus will at the least be decent players with many already showing signs of being very good or better.
the process is getting better and better without a doubt.

Using your figures of 69-70% success rate(04-05 drafts) in regards to finding a core list player from the first round and applying it to the GCs 12 17yr olds & 9 first round picks, that means 7 of the 21 won't make it.

Of the 14 that do make it, how many are going to be players like Deledio Franklin & Murphy star from the get go and play week in and week out? How many are going to be Tambling Monfries & Thomas types that play 100 games in 5 years but are nothing more than servicable with occassional standout games? Finally how many are going to be like Williams Bate Dunn Hurn Russell Clark Varcoe who are in and out of the side for the first 3-4 years because of injury/poor form/slow development?

Thats the point I've been trying to get across, the 2 new teams aren't guaranteed success just beacuse they have had access the top end talent. If that was a sure fire way of guaranteed success then how come we're still at the arse end of the ladder despite having 13 first rounders on our list? How come Geelong who haven't had access to top draft picks have been the most dominant side over the last 3.5 years?

 

[Mr Magic]

A couple of things for those going anti high draft picks are good for progress.

When Swans and West Coast won the GF Geelong had the better team and should have won but underperformed.

St Kilda probably should have won last year but played Geelong.

Selwood was a top 3 pick plus Hawkins and extras gave them an absurd list.

Mackie is not a good player he is a very good player.

Goddard is not just a star he is elite

G Ablett was rated higher by some. He was getting picked by Geelong so his U18 efforts could be misleading
Having said this I am not sure Ablett is the best player in the comp. He wins the stats comp but in terms of true effectiveness others IMO are not far behind if behind at all. In any event Gary Ablett snr would still touch him up but their is no shame in that.

The top10, first round etc.. is irrelevant it is the top 7 which should be focused on.

No matter what you say the success rate trendwise has consistently been improved and more players are picking footy over other sports due to the money so I have little doubt that GC and GWS will have very good lists.

The game is not about making finals year after year. That is what coaches or other staff may want. The game is about winning premierships. So Collingwood is a failure and I do not care how big the are they are. You win premierships or you build to win premierships. There is no in between.

So the tigers need the best draft picks possible to compete with GC and GWS and to become relevant and financially viable in the future when times get tough!!

 

[Mr Magic]

Here is another thing.

You can't include secondhanders like Thomson and McMahon in top draft pick anaylsis for us as they were second hand for us and their prospects well and truely reduced by then

 

[NQTIGER]

A couple of things for those going anti high draft picks are good for progress.

When Swans and West Coast won the GF Geelong had the better team and should have won but underperformed.

St Kilda probably should have won last year but played Geelong.

Selwood was a top 3 pick plus Hawkins and extras gave them an absurd list.

Mackie is not a good player he is a very good player.

Goddard is not just a star he is elite

G Ablett was rated higher by some. He was getting picked by Geelong so his U18 efforts could be misleading
Having said this I am not sure Ablett is the best player in the comp. He wins the stats comp but in terms of true effectiveness others IMO are not far behind if behind at all. In any event Gary Ablett snr would still touch him up but their is no shame in that.

The top10, first round etc.. is irrelevant it is the top 7 which should be focused on.

No matter what you say the success rate trendwise has consistently been improved and more players are picking footy over other sports due to the money so I have little doubt that GC and GWS will have very good lists.

The game is not about making finals year after year. That is what coaches or other staff may want. The game is about winning premierships. So Collingwood is a failure and I do not care how big the are they are. You win premierships or you build to win premierships. There is no in between.

So the tigers need the best draft picks possible to compete with GC and GWS and to become relevant and financially viable in the future when times get tough!!

Dont worry the counter argument to high draft picks = succesfull clubs is being written by our mod.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

so in the first rnd in 04 you have a 69.5 % chance of picking at the least a core group player geez isnt that what the first rnd is a bout finding a player with a high success rate. geez even with the top 5 picks you had a 80% chance of getting a very good/elite player.

Deledio - Gun
Roughead - Gun
Griffin - Gun
Tambling - Fail (look what he's dishing up after 6 years)
Franklin - Superstar
Williams - Looks Ok. Taken forever to do anything
Lewis - Gun
Messon - Hack
Russell - Good
Egan - Fail
Thomson - Fail
Meyer - Fail
Bate- Hack. Fail.
Monfries - Mediocre. Not a star but does an ok job.
Dunn - No thanks
Adam Pattison - Fail
McQualter - Below average nothing player
Wood - Fail

8/19 from that draft were at least serviceable. Hardly 69.5%.

If they get 21 first round picks that would be 9 that turn out to be at least average if it's of similar quality to 04.

 

[Mr Magic]

I keep saying it . The top 7 should be the focus regarding high draft picks for % success.

I think Monfries is better than mediocre. If everyone thinks he is mediocre maybe we should pick him up on the cheap with a trade!

 

[santa claws]

Using your figures of 69-70% success rate(04-05 drafts) in regards to finding a core list player from the first round and applying it to the GCs 12 17yr olds & 9 first round picks, that means 7 of the 21 won't make it.

Of the 14 that do make it, how many are going to be players like Deledio Franklin & Murphy star from the get go and play week in and week out? How many are going to be Tambling Monfries & Thomas types that play 100 games in 5 years but are nothing more than servicable with occassional standout games? Finally how many are going to be like Williams Bate Dunn Hurn Russell Clark Varcoe who are in and out of the side for the first 3-4 years because of injury/poor form/slow development?

Thats the point I've been trying to get across, the 2 new teams aren't guaranteed success just beacuse they have had access the top end talent. If that was a sure fire way of guaranteed success then how come we're still at the arse end of the ladder despite having 13 first rounders on our list? How come Geelong who haven't had access to top draft picks have been the most dominant side over the last 3.5 years?

of course they arent guaranteed success and wont have any if they fail with their picks. the thing is scott clayton is not greg beck or greg miller hes one of the better recruiting officers going around.
you dont need to ask why we are at the arse end of the ladder still you know why. gc17 are not going to make the same inept mistakes that we did. why because they have proven people in charge of their footy dept.
the simple fact is if they get the majority of their picks right they will be a force to be reckoned with.

and mentioning geelong though you cant see it just strengthens the case what is someone like clayton going to do with so many early picks you can ask the same about geelongs wells what would happen. well if he can get so many so called later picks right hed certainly get earlier ones correct.his percentage ratio would go thru the roof.

finally geelong bar one season and including this yr have been a very powerful team for 7yrs.
but ask yourself how many make up their top 22 who were taken after 2003.

the best player taken after 03 was selwood and he was pick 7.taken in the one down yr they have had in recent times.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

A couple of things for those going anti high draft picks are good for progress.

When Swans and West Coast won the GF Geelong had the better team and should have won but underperformed.

St Kilda probably should have won last year but played Geelong.

Are you serious?!

Besides the fact that is pure speculation, NEVER should a club be gifted a premiership because they were potentially a better team. Wow!

The top10, first round etc.. is irrelevant it is the top 7 which should be focused on.

That is totally just your opinion, and probably a selective opinion favoured to backup your post

So the tigers need the best draft picks possible to compete with GC and GWS and to become relevant and financially viable in the future when times get tough!!

Not necessarily, we can definitely compete by heading along the path we are on, taking whatever draft picks we get. From this point on, as long as we draft wisely, and develop the right personalities (in particular with regards to leadership and team oriented players), we will be competitive building on the core we currently have, IMO. Early signs suggest to me that we are certainly beginning to get things right off the field, and that's the place to start. All things going well, our current promising core group of players we have recruited will not be wasted, for once.

 

[santa claws]

Deledio - Gun
Roughead - Gun
Griffin - Gun
Tambling - Fail (look what he's dishing up after 6 years)
Franklin - Superstar
Williams - Looks Ok. Taken forever to do anything
Lewis - Gun
Messon - Hack
Russell - Good
Egan - Fail
Thomson - Fail
Meyer - Fail
Bate- Hack. Fail.
Monfries - Mediocre. Not a star but does an ok job.
Dunn - No thanks
Adam Pattison - Fail
McQualter - Below average nothing player
Wood - Fail

8/19 from that draft were at least serviceable. Hardly 69.5%.

If they get 21 first round picks that would be 9 that turn out to be at least average if it's of similar quality to 04.

in replying to RT i only went by the 6 players he considered failures. of course from person to person how each player is rated will differ imo RT with his six is close to the mark.

look if it was miller in charge at gc i would say they will struggle because the majority of picks would be misses. but they have a bloke overseeing recruitment whos record is as good as anyones.

unlike the rfc gc have the horse in front of the cart they have people in place who will get the picks right in the main.
the rfc well what havent we got wrong.
at the end of the day we will all see how quickly gc become strong or not.
personally i think top 4 within 5 yrs with the concessions they have id be confident of being capable of getting them in that situation within 5 yrs.

its funny ive been an advocate of a proper draft process for our club despite us not having the personall to implement it. its not the process that is the problem but the people implementing it. hence for far to many yrs now ive been calling for footy dept heads. i dont see that problem at gc i can understand peoples scepticism because of how poor we have been but comparing gc and what we have been thru with our structures and personell is like chalk and cheese.
thankfully i can see the tide turning with off field changes at the club and this makes it even more imperative we get our hands on early picks because for once like gc we are likely to use them well.
at the end of the day it all comes down to how we rate our players our list and those in charge.
while we have promising kids and have done well in recent drafts we are still in dire need of quality players if we are to genuinely compete as a top 8 side. to me the age and experience of the players and the amount that still have to go suggests to me for this yr and next the win loss column is totally irrelevant if possible this yr we should be aiming for no more than 4 wins and if in the same situation next yr ditto.

i reckon ive made my position pretty clear on both gc and its concessions, and what the rfc needs to do and where i think its at .i will leave the debate for others to continue as all i will do is repeat what ive said.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

in replying to RT i only went by the 6 players he considered failures. of course from person to person how each player is rated will differ imo RT with his six is close to the mark.

look if it was miller in charge at gc i would say they will struggle because the majority of picks would be misses. but they have a bloke overseeing recruitment whos record is as good as anyones.

unlike the rfc gc have the horse in front of the cart they have people in place who will get the picks right in the main.
the rfc well what havent we got wrong.
at the end of the day we will all see how quickly gc become strong or not.
personally i think top 4 within 5 yrs with the concessions they have id be confident of being capable of getting them in that situation within 5 yrs.

its funny ive been an advocate of a proper draft process for our club despite us not having the personall to implement it. its not the process that is the problem but the people implementing it. hence for far to many yrs now ive been calling for footy dept heads. i dont see that problem at gc i can understand peoples scepticism because of how poor we have been but comparing gc and what we have been thru with our structures and personell is like chalk and cheese.
thankfully i can see the tide turning with off field changes at the club and this makes it even more imperative we get our hands on early picks because for once like gc we are likely to use them well.

i reckon ive made my position pretty clear on both gc and its concessions, and what the rfc needs to do.i will leave the debate for others to continue as all i will do is repeat what ive said.

Don't disagree with anything there santa. With regards RFC, I think it just comes down to a tanking debate, and that has been done to death. IMO, there is no right or wrong in that debate, just opinions.

With regards GC, I think as big a part as the recruiting/drafting is the appointment of coaches. I really believe we have got our hands on some of the best coaching staff we've had for some time at RFC, but I am not that convinced with GC's, but believe it may well change a little before 2011 anyway. As you say, only time will really tell. Personally, I think finals will be beyond them in their first 5 years, since IMO they will struggle to appoint any quality mature age players, with appropriate leadership skills.

 

[santa claws]

Don't disagree with anything there santa. With regards RFC, I think it just comes down to a tanking debate, and that has been done to death. IMO, there is no right or wrong in that debate, just opinions.

With regards GC, I think as big a part as the recruiting/drafting is the appointment of coaches. I really believe we have got our hands on some of the best coaching staff we've had for some time at RFC, but I am not that convinced with GC's, but believe it may well change a little before 2011 anyway. As you say, only time will really tell. Personally, I think finals will be beyond them in their first 5 years, since IMO they will struggle to appoint any quality mature age players, with appropriate leadership skills.

hmm i agree with much of what you say. i dont think to many are really that far apart.

as for gc17 managing to appoint quality mature age players.
i dont think it important or neccesary that they snare an ablett or judd. the quality will come from all those kids. i think it more important for them to get their hands on solid core list players who can wear the brunt of battle while the kids develop.
how does one put it well lets go back to geelong in recent times they have lost players like king prismall mumford etc decent players but because of circumstances were not getting a game its these types that will end up at gc for the simple reason they can pay much more and guarantee a game..

sheesh i can think of hampson at carlton who may want out west at geelong not world beaters but at the least short term solutions in the ruck while kids develop. rumour has it lynch boak and one or two others have already signed.
they will pick the eyes out of uncontracted players and entice the odd decent contracted player. they can have 16 players one from each club they dont have to get them all in yr one.

 

[ize_]

Deledio -Gun
Roughead - Gun
Griffin - Gun
Tambling - Fail (look what he's dishing up after 6 years)
Franklin - Superstar
Williams - Looks Ok. Taken forever to do anything
Lewis - Gun
Messon - Hack
Russell - Good
Egan - Fail
Thomson - Fail
Meyer - Fail
Bate- Hack. Fail.
Monfries - Mediocre. Not a star but does an ok job.
Dunn - No thanks
Adam Pattison - Fail
McQualter - Below average nothing player
Wood - Fail

8/19 from that draft were at least serviceable. Hardly 69.5%.

If they get 21 first round picks that would be 9 that turn out to be at least average if it's of similar quality to 04.

Are you kidding me? Sorry I know it's kind of irrelevant but I have to pick this out, Bate is a gun. Maybe not quite there yet but he will be, well on his way already. To say he is a hack and a fail is complete ignorance. Have you seen a Melbourne game this year? Did you see him carve us up? And Tambling isn't a failure, he's still easily best 22, probably best 10 when it comes down to it. He just hasn't lived up to pick 4 status. McQualter is an important best 22 player in one of the best sides in the comp. You have seriously under rated that list.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

Are you kidding me? Sorry I know it's kind of irrelevant but I have to pick this out, Bate is a gun. Maybe not quite there yet but he will be, well on his way already. To say he is a hack and a fail is complete ignorance. Have you seen a Melbourne game this year? Did you see him carve us up? And Tambling isn't a failure, he's still easily best 22, probably best 10 when it comes down to it. He just hasn't lived up to pick 4 status. McQualter is an important best 22 player in one of the best sides in the comp. You have seriously under rated that list.

I don't rate either of them. They've both been around for 6 years and are still mediocre at best.

As for Tambling I don't rate a guy who gets the ball maybe a dozen times a game and turns it over with half of them. He was good for most of last year but I'm seriously over him. If they take guys like Tambling with their top picks they'll be spooning for years to come.

 

[Mr Magic]

Dea Day,

Re: "This will kill everyone"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Magic
A couple of things for those going anti high draft picks are good for progress.

When Swans and West Coast won the GF Geelong had the better team and should have won but underperformed.

St Kilda probably should have won last year but played Geelong.
Are you serious?!

Besides the fact that is pure speculation, NEVER should a club be gifted a premiership because they were potentially a better team. Wow!


Yes I am serious. I am saying Geelong should have won. I am not saying they deserved to win. I am saying they failed in the years WC and Sydney won because they should have won.

Think about it. When Sydney won the premiership Geelong got beat by Davis at the end of the game before Sydney got to the GF in Sydney(fact). At the time Ablett was not fit and Johnson was not fair dinkum based on reports apart from other problems(fact). The fact is Geelong needed a bad culture to aquire the list they have as the fell too far down the ladder to pick up Selwood etc.. Geelong the following year fell further down the ladder when their team development wise should have improved. So Geelong greatly underperformed. The fact Geelon are belting teams now without King and their all australian CHB from injury is indicate of that. This is all my opinion. Of course it is. The whole forum is about opinion.

Any comments about top10 and first round are also an opinion in some cases utilised to support a particular argument. That is why the forum is here I would have thought to discuss and assess/ debate as people see fit.

The Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Magic
So the tigers need the best draft picks possible to compete with GC and GWS and to become relevant and financially viable in the future when times get tough!!
Not necessarily,

Thats right, not necessarily, but I think, apart from Richmond it is pretty obvious clubs without great lists need to get better lists through development and recruiting. It is obvious to me the draft is the primary controllable method , from and admin perspective, to improve your list and hopefully the football department and players will develop together as one. Having said this the best picks enhance the probablilty for greater output on the field. You cannot deny the Goddard's , Deledios, etc...

The fact Lids has won the last two BF is enough of an indicator I would have thought!!!

 

[Mr Magic]

Dea Day, I don't really have to answer the following:

The Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Magic
So the tigers need the best draft picks possible to compete with GC and GWS and to become relevant and financially viable in the future when times get tough!!
Not necessarily,

Why is this you may ask? It is because it already is answered for me!
I will help you out.

Who knows more than most about the AFL, U18 etc.. and have fingers in every pie. AFL HQ.

AFL HQ want to grow the game with two knew clubs and will support their success. What do they do? They do not give the club a stimulus package and say you can buy all players on the market necessary to be competitive. The experts say you can have draft picks , very good draft picks. Furthermore, picks 1-3 cannot be traded such is their importance placed on the teams success. So if the AFL experts say draft picks are the main driver of the new clubs success and we need to compete with these clubs in the future due to the age of their lists it seems reasonable and follow the benchmark of the experts and get good draft picks as well.

The other thing, Dea Day, about the importance of recruitment which cannot be denied in creating high performance teams to succeed is look at this year.

You have to recruits in Barlow and Pod with no development or AFL winning culture embedded in their pysche instantly step in, and not just compete, but excel in the most competitive environments.

So good recruitment IMO is absolutely critical to a teams premiership success and high draft picks, in that regard, help significantly which cannot be denied!!

 

[ize_]

I don't rate either of them. They've both been around for 6 years and are still mediocre at best.

As for Tambling I don't rate a guy who gets the ball maybe a dozen times a game and turns it over with half of them. He was good for most of last year but I'm seriously over him. If they take guys like Tambling with their top picks they'll be spooning for years to come.

Jesus Christ, I can't believe your ignorance here. Have you seriously watched Bate? He's a gun. And McQualter may not be the most fashionable of footballers but he consistently gets a game at St Kilda and does his job, kicks goals to. I can't see how you can just say "I don't rate him." Also Tambling does not turn it over, that's a ridiculous misconception. He's one of the better ball users in our team.