Had some spare time and found our 1st round picks from 2001 to 2006

Molan (pick 9)

Bell (14) Smith(15)

Sylvia (3) McLean (5)

Moloney (traded for pick 12) Bate (13) Dunn (15)

Jones (12)

Frawley (12)

At this point in their careers I would only include Mclean as a very good player.

Thats only one in ten

Had some spare time and found our 1st round picks from 2001 to 2006

Molan (pick 9)

Bell (14) Smith(15)

Sylvia (3) McLean (5)

Moloney (traded for pick 12) Bate (13) Dunn (15)

Jones (12)

Frawley (12)

At this point in their careers I would only include Mclean as a very good player.

Thats only one in ten

What's the current criteria for Melbourne's drafting?

Accurate hand and foot disposal, pace and leadership?

How many of the 10 would have been picked up under that criteria I wonder

What's the current criteria for Melbourne's drafting?

Accurate hand and foot disposal, pace and leadership?

How many of the 10 would have been picked up under that criteria I wonder

Different criteria then....

Molan (pick 9) - Probably the unluckiest player taken high in the draft in a long time, no opportunity to shine IMO not the clubs or LM fault just bad luck

Bell (14) Smith(15) - Bell injury concerns still could have an impact, smith is the reason you don't draft KPP low 1st round big risks (Brad Hall is another that comes to mind)

Sylvia (3) McLean (5) - Both are and will continue to be excellent "hard nut" choices of which we were lacking at this stage

Moloney (traded for pick 12) Bate (13) Dunn (15) - As above for maloney, Bate/dunn still young and are forwards so should come on

Jones (12) - our weekest point was clearances at this stage and he was the clearance machine that year

Frawley (12) - Lots of potential

So based on this smith and bell are about the only question marks 2/9 is not a bad hit/miss rate. An interesting excercise would be to pick 2 or 3 other clubs with similar/later picks over this time and compare. I think we as a club are very hard on recruits for some reason more so then other clubs?? Surely these kids need the opportunity to develop.

I think we as a club are very hard on recruits for some reason more so then other clubs?? Surely these kids need the opportunity to develop.

If we "as a club are very hard on recruits" it's probably due to the fact that we have never really drafted a 'Superstar' in the mold of Buckley, Hird, Voss, Carey, Franklin et al.

Why we will finish first in 2011:

First round picks:

2003: McLean, Sylvia

2004: Bate, Dunn

2005: Jones

2006: Frawley

2007: Morton, Grimes

2008: Watts, Blease (end of first round priority)

2009: Butcher, Scully

Why we will finish first in 2011:

First round picks:

2003: McLean, Sylvia

2004: Bate, Dunn

2005: Jones

2006: Frawley

2007: Morton, Grimes

2008: Watts, Blease (end of first round priority)

2009: Butcher, Scully

Hate to burst your bubble but Essendon & Sydney will be fighting it out for the wooden spoon = no priority pick for us.

Had some spare time and found our 1st round picks from 2001 to 2006

Molan (pick 9)

Bell (14) Smith(15)

Sylvia (3) McLean (5)

Moloney (traded for pick 12) Bate (13) Dunn (15)

Jones (12)

Frawley (12)

At this point in their careers I would only include Mclean as a very good player.

Thats only one in ten

thats a [censored] strike rate. :angry:

Hate to burst your bubble but Essendon & Sydney will be fighting it out for the wooden spoon = no priority pick for us.

Firstly Sydney will make the 8, and if Melbourne win less then 5 games they get a priority pick.

This old chestnut again?

Half those players haven't even come near to coming to fruition. You're being way too harsh.

This old chestnut again?

Half those players haven't even come near to coming to fruition. You're being way too harsh.

I know. Maybe do some more research and look at the players 5 years beyond '01 (bar 99).

If we "as a club are very hard on recruits" it's probably due to the fact that we have never really drafted a 'Superstar' in the mold of Buckley, Hird, Voss, Carey, Franklin et al.

Ok thats 5 players across (15years x 16 clubs) = 1 in 48 chance of any club recruiting a legend/champion of the game each draft year. sorry but your drawing a very long bow there. Also I would suspect one of these is father son (Hird) so thats even less.

Also to put franklin in the league of the others is wrong. He has played good footy for 2 seasons.

Lets see where he and we are at in 10yrs time. In 2 years other clubs could well be hailing Jurrah in the same way. You never know.

Ok thats 5 players across (15years x 16 clubs) = 1 in 48 chance of any club recruiting a legend/champion of the game each draft year. sorry but your drawing a very long bow there. Also I would suspect one of these is father son (Hird) so thats even less. Also to put franklin in the league of the others is wrong. He has played good footy for 2 seasons.

Lets see where he and we are at in 10yrs time. In 2 years other clubs could well be hailing Jurrah in the same way. You never know.

I could go on,

Ricciuto, Mcleod, Brown, Black, Judd, Lloyd, Lucas, Fletcher, Pavlich, half the geelong Midfield, Hodge, Boomer Harvey, Richo, Riewoldt, Goodes, Cox, Kerr, Brad Johnson, S. West, Akermanis just to name a few.

Agree on Jurrah, lets hope he can go to those heights.

We finished last in 2008 because since our finals appearance in 2006 most of that team has retired or been delisted. We had 10 years with basically the same team with out he ultimate success, we had to strip our list back and build on the under 23 that we had. IMO we had a team since 1998 that was good enough to make finals but not good enough to win a flag with the exception of maybe the 1998 team which I still think had the best forward Ive ever seen. We persisted with players for 6 years that couldn't take us forward only stay the same. Don't blame the players we drafted that have been mentioned blame our list management through our period of finals and the lack of courage to make some tough calls on some senior players.

We finished last in 2008 because since our finals appearance in 2006 most of that team has retired or been delisted. We had 10 years with basically the same team with out he ultimate success, we had to strip our list back and build on the under 23 that we had. IMO we had a team since 1998 that was good enough to make finals but not good enough to win a flag with the exception of maybe the 1998 team which I still think had the best forward Ive ever seen. We persisted with players for 6 years that couldn't take us forward only stay the same. Don't blame the players we drafted that have been mentioned blame our list management through our period of finals and the lack of courage to make some tough calls on some senior players.

[/quote yeah neale daniher had to many pet projects>

I agree with you re: Molan, Bell and Smith. Other than that, you're either selling players short, writing them off too early or failing to take into consideration that there werent any better options available.

Sylvia (3) McLean (5): McLean looks like he'll be a club stalwart and a possible captain- as a worst case scenario, if he doesnt improve at all from here on (and he will) he will still be a good player. Sylvia has shown enough to convince me that he'll be handy as well- he's disappointing for a number 3, but it was a disappointing draft in general; in my opinion both of them were pretty good selections with all things considered.

Moloney (traded for pick 12): Fair enough, but I don't think anyone could have foreseen Moloney's injury worries.

Bate (13): Pretty good pick up if you ask me. Bate needs to work on a few areas of his game, but all in all I'm pretty excited about him. Who should we have taken, in your opinion, instead of Bate?

Dunn (15): I think he's unfairly maligned on this site. In retrospect he probably wasn't the best choice, but I'd hardly call Dunn at 15 a disaster.

Jones (12): Excellent pickup. Wont be a superstar, but will be a key component of our side for the next ten years, and a leader in years to come. McLean and Jones could be the cornerstone of a genuinely fearsome midfield in a few years time.

Frawley (12): It was always expected that Frawley would take time to develop. I agree that he probably needs to carve out a regular spot in the best 22 next year, and the decision to pick him surprised alot of people (myself included)- I think most people would have thought we'd get Jack Riewoldt if he was available. Fact is, Riewoldt has yet to set the world on fire and Frawley is developing at about the rate that was probably expected of him- in my opinion its far too early to say this was the wrong decision.

I dont think anyone would argue with your contention that so far, McLean is the only 1st round draft pick who you could call a "very good footballer". But all the other names (except arguably Bell and Moloney) have a significant amount of development left in them, so I dont think we should be lamenting our "wasted" first round draft picks just yet.

We finished last in 2008 because since our finals appearance in 2006 most of that team has retired or been delisted. We had 10 years with basically the same team with out he ultimate success, we had to strip our list back and build on the under 23 that we had. IMO we had a team since 1998 that was good enough to make finals but not good enough to win a flag with the exception of maybe the 1998 team which I still think had the best forward Ive ever seen. We persisted with players for 6 years that couldn't take us forward only stay the same. Don't blame the players we drafted that have been mentioned blame our list management through our period of finals and the lack of courage to make some tough calls on some senior players.

Almost Agree with you except i think 2000 was a better side than 1998 by a whisker. Stephen Tingay was a major barometer of our success. When he fired the Team did. G lyons Back was shot by Prelim 98. 2000 The wiz was Peaking.

I agree with you re: Molan, Bell and Smith. Other than that, you're either selling players short, writing them off too early or failing to take into consideration that there werent any better options available.

You miss my point

I stated that at this point in their career 9 out of 10 are not "very good" players. I am not suggesting they will not be in the future. I still have hope for Bate Sylvia etc

I just think that if you looked at other teams their last ten first rounds picks would produce greater than 10%

When I get time I will compare to Ricmond 2001 to 2006

I agree with you re: Molan, Bell and Smith. Other than that, you're either selling players short, writing them off too early or failing to take into consideration that there werent any better options available.

Sylvia (3) McLean (5): McLean looks like he'll be a club stalwart and a possible captain- as a worst case scenario, if he doesnt improve at all from here on (and he will) he will still be a good player. Sylvia has shown enough to convince me that he'll be handy as well- he's disappointing for a number 3, but it was a disappointing draft in general; in my opinion both of them were pretty good selections with all things considered.

Moloney (traded for pick 12): Fair enough, but I don't think anyone could have foreseen Moloney's injury worries.

Bate (13): Pretty good pick up if you ask me. Bate needs to work on a few areas of his game, but all in all I'm pretty excited about him. Who should we have taken, in your opinion, instead of Bate?

Dunn (15): I think he's unfairly maligned on this site. In retrospect he probably wasn't the best choice, but I'd hardly call Dunn at 15 a disaster.

Jones (12): Excellent pickup. Wont be a superstar, but will be a key component of our side for the next ten years, and a leader in years to come. McLean and Jones could be the cornerstone of a genuinely fearsome midfield in a few years time.

Frawley (12): It was always expected that Frawley would take time to develop. I agree that he probably needs to carve out a regular spot in the best 22 next year, and the decision to pick him surprised alot of people (myself included)- I think most people would have thought we'd get Jack Riewoldt if he was available. Fact is, Riewoldt has yet to set the world on fire and Frawley is developing at about the rate that was probably expected of him- in my opinion its far too early to say this was the wrong decision.

I dont think anyone would argue with your contention that so far, McLean is the only 1st round draft pick who you could call a "very good footballer". But all the other names (except arguably Bell and Moloney) have a significant amount of development left in them, so I dont think we should be lamenting our "wasted" first round draft picks just yet.

Ha Ha Love your Username! "Get your own Chat show Two sheds!!" Brilliant.

A good side is built around the 24-27 age bracket. Our issue last year is with the talent gap in that area amongst other issues and not because of the point you make. Whilst I agree those picks may have not set the world on fire you cannot look at who we picked in isolation. If you look at the 10 players picked after that choice in each draft you will find aside from 2001 we have actually have done quite well considering.

I have noted for each of those drafts the players I would state were better than what we picked:

2001 (Molan) Dal Santo, Reilly, Ladson, Kelly

2002 (Bell, Smith) - Minson (debatable), Gilham (delisted prior to making it).

2003 (Sylvia, Mclean) - Troy Chaplin compared to Sylvia. None compared to Mclean.

2004 (Bate, Dunn) - None

2005 (Jones) - Birchall

2006 (Frawley) too early to tell but none that stand out so far

We finished last in 2008 because of poor leadership, lack of quality talls and no depth. Lack of genuine classy players doesn't help either.

Edit: As an afterthought I think the biggest thing that's hurt us over the last half dozen years has been poor player development

You miss my point

I stated that at this point in their career 9 out of 10 are not "very good" players. I am not suggesting they will not be in the future. I still have hope for Bate Sylvia etc

I just think that if you looked at other teams their last ten first rounds picks would produce greater than 10%

When I get time I will compare to Ricmond 2001 to 2006

I am confused, admittedly that is a normal occurrence for me but that is another topic for another time.

Your thread is Titled "Why we finished last in 2008".

You then go on to list our draft picks for the last few years and make an observation that "At this point in their careers I would only include Mclean as a very good player."

Now like Two Sheds I thought " you're either selling players short, writing them off too early or failing to take into consideration that there werent any better options available."

Why? because of the only available information you provided in your thread ie. the title and the body leads me to that conclusion.

So my question to you and please I am asking purely out curiosity and not because I am one of those picky pedantic people who likes to pull apart every thread and the replies.

What is your point? because I am still curious to see why you think we finished last in 2008.

Felix

Firstly Sydney will make the 8, and if Melbourne win less then 5 games they get a priority pick.

you forget the wce and freo either of them are capable of winning less then 5 this year. If pav goes down inj freo is in big trouble and wce game on sat night reminded me of some of our pre season games last year.

What a pointless topic. Your post doesn't match the heading, and if you think thats why we

finished last in 2008 then god have mercy on us all

Uummm, why did we finish last in 2008?