Jump to content

  • Latest Podcast: Josh Mahoney Interview



Engorged Onion

Rating the 2013 Draft (afl.com)

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

The way I like to see it, the universe aligned for us to steal Clarry who, at the end of his career, will likely be one of our modern greats. Would that have happened if we'd taken Kelly? Who knows what our draft position would have been?

Salem is coming along nicely, and is such a good user of the ball. Dom is gone,  but was good for us when we were pus.

That rookie draft was good for us. Harmes has gone next level, and we all know how good Lord Nev is. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to the specific question of whether we won the Kelly trade, the answer is clearly no .Salem has been generally ok and a reasonable get at 9  .All in all Dom gave pretty good service especially earlier in his time with us . .But Kelly is an out and out champion ,So  no win on that part of the draft .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Frustrated Demon said:

Hell no we lost that trade by a [censored] tonne. 

It is what it is... I’m happy with Salem, Hunt and Preuss over Billings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Frustrated Demon said:

Hell no we lost that trade by a [censored] tonne. 

The alternate reality is not Kelly. It is Billings. I prefer our current reality with Salem and Preuss...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to Kevin Sheedy at a marketing function in Sydney in early 2014. We’d each had about 15 beers, but my recollection of the conversation is crystal clear.

He said, unequivocally, that he couldn’t believe the deal we negotiated, and that Kelly was going to be a legitimate superstar. 

I said it was ‘a win, win’ because we got two top ten draft pick players for the price of one etc, and he just laughed - said Tyson was tres ordinarie and kept repeating that Kelly would be an absolute gun. He maintained that GWS ‘won’ the trade, which I didn’t accept (obviously).

This chat stuck in my mind ever since.

I really rate Salem, but given that Tyson is now at North - perhaps Sheedy was right (even though it seems we would’ve picked Billings anyway).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s interesting to also note that Kelly was eligible for the mini-drat that netted us Hogan.  He was thought to be at the time the third best prospect behind Jack Martin (clear no 1) and Jesse.

Melbourne had a very good look at Kelly then, but chose Hogan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rpfc said:

The alternate reality is not Kelly. It is Billings. I prefer our current reality with Salem and Preuss...

with respect that is not an answer to the question who won the trade We got Salem and Tyson, GWS got Kelly and clearly won the trade .I agree that if we had not made that trade and then drafted Billings over Kelly that would have  been an even worse outcome .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given Tyson is now Preuss it depends on how this big boy fares...!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got rammed right up the backside on that one, if you ask Jason Taylor which trade he would take back and it would be that one by a country mile.

#rearendedbigtime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’d expect a professional AFL writer to be aware that the club intended on picking Billings, not Kelly, which turns the debate on its head. It’s not as though it’s a well kept secret. That information is in the public domain and has been for years now.

Again, maybe my expectations of people who get paid to research this stuff is too high. Or maybe they are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, it’s poor journalism.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And around a dozen clubs missed picking up Patrick Cripps when they could have.  I like Salem, but Salem Vs Cripps?  A midfeild of Viney, Oliver, Brayshaw, Cripps - how unstoppable would that midfeild be?  Pretty much all 18 clubs passed up on Ben Brown several times.

But if you look at it on ballance, the draft is what it is - a bit of a weighted lottery in which good knowledge/recruiters can manipulate to their favour.  I'm pretty happy with the ballance of players we bought through that year - Tyson (was important for a while), Salem, Vince, Nev, Harmes, Cross and who knows maybe Hunt and JKH could even end up as premiership players one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

I spoke to Kevin Sheedy at a marketing function in Sydney in early 2014. We’d each had about 15 beers, but my recollection of the conversation is crystal clear.

He said, unequivocally, that he couldn’t believe the deal we negotiated, and that Kelly was going to be a legitimate superstar. 

I said it was ‘a win, win’ because we got two top ten draft pick players for the price of one etc, and he just laughed - said Tyson was tres ordinarie and kept repeating that Kelly would be an absolute gun. He maintained that GWS ‘won’ the trade, which I didn’t accept (obviously).

This chat stuck in my mind ever since.

I really rate Salem, but given that Tyson is now at North - perhaps Sheedy was right (even though it seems we would’ve picked Billings anyway).

 

Because Sheedy was gifted so many top 10 draft picks in that period he didn't have to make the compromises that others had to did he.  I have respect for Sheedy in so far as I would have loved the MFC to have won the premierships he has, but beyond that, really can't stand the guy - he has this overpowering smugness about him.  The smugness thing really came through in the $cully steal too.

Edited by Rodney (Balls) Grinter
Correct spelling of '$'cully
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, P-man said:

You’d expect a professional AFL writer to be aware that the club intended on picking Billings, not Kelly, which turns the debate on its head. It’s not as though it’s a well kept secret. That information is in the public domain and has been for years now.

Again, maybe my expectations of people who get paid to research this stuff is too high. Or maybe they are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, it’s poor journalism.

I actually don’t see how it changes the analysis for the writer at all. We started with pick 2 and turned it into Tyson and Salem (give or take) and could otherwise have had anyone in the draft other than Boyd. That is the benchmark against which an unbiased assessment of our loot that year should be made.

I think the assessment is ok relative to how others have been graded other than we don’t get enough credit for Harmes and Jetta which I think could have bumped us up to an 8.

Having said all of this, it matters little. We have a great list now. The subjective assessment of our take in a particular year is really meaningless overall. It’s awesome that we don’t need to pin our relevance to the draft anymore!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

I spoke to Kevin Sheedy at a marketing function in Sydney in early 2014. We’d each had about 15 beers, but my recollection of the conversation is crystal clear.

He said, unequivocally, that he couldn’t believe the deal we negotiated, and that Kelly was going to be a legitimate superstar. 

I said it was ‘a win, win’ because we got two top ten draft pick players for the price of one etc, and he just laughed - said Tyson was tres ordinarie and kept repeating that Kelly would be an absolute gun. He maintained that GWS ‘won’ the trade, which I didn’t accept (obviously).

This chat stuck in my mind ever since.

I really rate Salem, but given that Tyson is now at North - perhaps Sheedy was right (even though it seems we would’ve picked Billings anyway).

 

 

21 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

It’s interesting to also note that Kelly was eligible for the mini-drat that netted us Hogan.  He was thought to be at the time the third best prospect behind Jack Martin (clear no 1) and Jesse.

Melbourne had a very good look at Kelly then, but chose Hogan.

I wonder if we were scared off Kelly by his frame and outside strength, given we had selected Toumpas in the mini draft year and had decided to prioritise what we hoped would be a generational KPF in Hogan? Then again, Billings was of a similar variety to Toumpas. I guess we just got it wrong.

Having said that, Tyson served us well in 2014 and gave us depth in 2018 when we needed it during Viney's absence. Salem is a beautiful user and an improving defender that could (in time) also legitimately roll through the midfield, so even though GWS got an undoubted star, we got two good players for one. Where our list was positioned, IMO, we made the right calls on Hogan and the Tyson/Salem trades.

The thing about Sheedy is he's so clearly blinded by his hatred of Melbourne that I wouldn't trust a word that came out of his mouth. He was also a representative of GWS at the time. I remember you writing this at the time, Ron and I remember saying a similar thing then.  

Edited by A F
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are on a Sheedy theme I was staying at a hotel close to the G a couple of years ago for the Anzac eve match.

The next morning Sheedy was at breakfast (I assume for the Essendon V Pies match) and during which he was asked for his photo perhaps a dozen times. Each time he was polite and seemingly happy to give his time as his breakky was going cold. 

i have never been a Sheedy fan but he certainly went above and beyond for the fans in this instance 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, FarNorthernD said:

While we are on a Sheedy theme I was staying at a hotel close to the G a couple of years ago for the Anzac eve match.

The next morning Sheedy was at breakfast (I assume for the Essendon V Pies match) and during which he was asked for his photo perhaps a dozen times. Each time he was polite and seemingly happy to give his time as his breakky was going cold. 

i have never been a Sheedy fan but he certainly went above and beyond for the fans in this instance 

 

He clearly loves being 'important'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, FarNorthernD said:

While we are on a Sheedy theme I was staying at a hotel close to the G a couple of years ago for the Anzac eve match.

The next morning Sheedy was at breakfast (I assume for the Essendon V Pies match) and during which he was asked for his photo perhaps a dozen times. Each time he was polite and seemingly happy to give his time as his breakky was going cold. 

i have never been a Sheedy fan but he certainly went above and beyond for the fans in this instance 

 

Sheeds was a regular where I worked....he was always great with the fans and a lot of fun.

I had him sucked in one off season when I said that I had seen an opposition player going into a clandestine meeting with him across the road.

He was most relieved when I told him I was only joking but it was pretty obvious from his reaction that he was there for that meeting. 

I just didn't know who it was with.

One of my favourite Sheeds stories though is about his first season at GWS. The story comes 2nd hand from one of the players who was there at the time and may well be apocryphal but it's a good one.

He really was the front person (Williams did the hard coaching yards) and initially didn't really know the players.

Phil Davis (one of the co captains) walked up to him at breakfast to introduce himself and Sheeds thought he was a fan and started signing an autograph for him.

I know he gets a lot of stick on here but he is a good bloke and very good for footy. He does a lot of work pushing the game all over the world. He believes our game is the best in the world and he is probably it's greatest ambassador.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However you want to slice it or dice it we made a mistake.

Taking Billings would have been just another blunder.

I know why we did it, but we should have kept pick 2 and taken Kelly.  

It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the fatalist in me that makes me so at peace with that trade - if we hadn't made the Salem/(Preuss)/Hunt 'blunder' we would have made the Billings blunder.

It was the best of all possible blunders...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Toumpas recruitment was a much larger blunder and even the very best recruiters get it wrong. Wells is roundly accepted as one of the best, but his 2013 year on paper was a shocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ProDee said:

However you want to slice it or dice it we made a mistake.

Taking Billings would have been just another blunder.

I know why we did it, but we should have kept pick 2 and taken Kelly.  

It is what it is.

Or... we should have still done the trade and taken Cripps.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Or... we should have still done the trade and taken Cripps.  

In hindsight.

At the time most thought Carlton had overreached taking Cripps where they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Or... we should have still done the trade and taken Cripps.  

It seemed to me at the time that we couldn't split the top 10, so we played it safe and took two players, instead of one. It turns out Kelly became a star, but plenty of top 2 picks have been relative busts. Still the right call at the time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×