| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Johnson#26
Joined: 18 Dec 2003
|
| Post subject: Best Ever Draft Crop |  |
|
What year was our best ever crop? In my opinion, 1999 or 2001 were the most prosporous years for us.
1999:
-Josh Fraser
-Danny Roach
-Rhyce Shaw
-Leon Davis
-Ben Johnson
-Dale Baynes
-Michael Clark
-Nick Stone
2001:
-Richard Cole
-Tom Davidson
-Mark McGough
-Dane Swan
-Tristan Walker
I'll go with 2001, as it is our future. Fraser, Johnson, Davis and Shaw should be coming into their own by now, and the first two are. The other two have work to do. 2001 has guys like Cole and Davidson, who the core of our side for the next seven or so years will be built around. Swan *could* become a player if he gets fitter and adds skill to his talents while Tex could be anything.
Your thoughts?....
BTW - Lets hope the 2004 crop will be our best ever! |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| A while ago. |
|
|
|
|
piedys 
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
1999 would have produced our best ever crop, bringing home the silverware in 2002, had those morons drafted Pavlich instead of "Timmy" Roach.
Until that day arrives, our best drafting was 1987, 1988 & 1989 in selecting Barwick [poached], Kelly, Francis & Russell. They got us the LONG awaited tin mug.
Dyso
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
Maida Vale Mauler 
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Drafting isn't quite as simple as that piedys. To call the club morons for not drafting Pavlich is a little extreme. Dissapointing ... yes, absolutely! With him on our list we probably would have won 2002. But you've got to remember that there were other clubs that didn't draft him as well.
Why?
Cause the draft is a tricky thing. Clubs have got a lot better at it over the years, but it still can be quite hit and miss.
The classic example is Judd. Hawthorn bypassed him for Hodge. Not many people at the time laughed at the decision because the top 3 players were all rated fairly equal. But now Judd is so far above the others it's not funny. And Hawthorn looks like a laughing stock (which happily they are anyway).
I'm dissapointed with some of our drafts, with Roach being high on that list. But I don't think you can call the club morons for making a decision which is made up at least partially of educated guess work. |
|
|
|
|
piedys
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Maida Vale Mauler wrote: | Drafting isn't quite as simple as that piedys. To call the club morons for not drafting Pavlich is a little extreme.
Cause the draft is a tricky thing. Clubs have got a lot better at it over the years, but it still can be quite hit and miss.
The classic example is Judd. Hawthorn bypassed him for Hodge.
I'm dissapointed with some of our drafts, with Roach being high on that list. But I don't think you can call the club morons for making a decision which is made up at least partially of educated guess work. |
MVM,
Pissing away a top 10 draft pick can cost a club a premiership, or a finals berth at least. The ONLY other club that had a selection before us after our wooden spoon effort of 1999 was Richmond, with the #3 we gave them for McKee and pick #7 (Roach). As i've said in another thread, they wasted it on Fiora. Freo are still laughing - although pinching Clement and Holland from them was some justice. Regardless, we pissed away 2 top-10 picks. refer: Cmon Get Real, We Won't Get Caracella in The Draft and Trade Talk forum
http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=20543&start=45
We know Hawthorn's idiocy regarding Judd. They will NEVER live that down, and rightly so.
And yes, I think I can call the club morons for making a decision which is made up at least partially of educated guess work, and part chocklotto.
Anyway, we've hijacked this thread away from it's original question...
Dyso |
|
|
|
|
Johnson#26
Joined: 18 Dec 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | | although pinching Clement and Holland from them was some justice |
Don't forget the draft pick we trade to them ended up being Adam McPhee! They lost two All-Australian's as well as a good player.  |
|
|
|
|
CP
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In my opinion, if you can add two or three players that will provide the genuine quality of your list over their careers, each year from the draft, then you're doing a pretty good job.
For example, after 5 years of drafting, we should have up to 15 players that will provide the nucleus of our team for about 8 seasons thereafter. Then you keep drafting so that you continually top up and have a list that is brought through together from a young age and you don't have to rely on trading to provide "ready made" players.
This has happened since '99 and if Cole, Walker and Davidson all deliver upon the glimpses they've shown so far, then the 2001 crop could be one of the most pivotal drafts in our clubs history...as I feel the 2004 draft will be.
This is why it takes a good 5 years to determine genuine success at the draft table.
It's also a reason that calls for Malthouse's head are ridiculous and stupid. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Thanks for telling me. I am not sure about your hypothesis. Sorry CP I don't do math. Can you think of another example? |
|
|
|
|
Johnson#26
Joined: 18 Dec 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CP wrote: | | In my opinion, if you can add two or three players that will provide the genuine quality of your list over their careers, each year from the draft, then you're doing a pretty good job. |
Although that is very difficult, given you only have about 4 picks - so 3/4 would be an excilent resalt. |
|
|
|
|
CP
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Johnson#26 wrote: | | CP wrote: | | In my opinion, if you can add two or three players that will provide the genuine quality of your list over their careers, each year from the draft, then you're doing a pretty good job. |
Although that is very difficult, given you only have about 4 picks - so 3/4 would be an excilent resalt. |
My plan is based on trading for good picks as well.
You can only do this once you have built enough desirable depth in your list, as we are beginning to do.
Over the past few seasons, we've all seen us struggle to trade for quality given that the opportunity cost would prove to big a loss to our structure. In the next few seasons, this will change due to having amassed good quality depth - especially in our KPP area.
Some drafts you'll have your 5 or 6 picks, some drafts you'll only have 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
