It is a very interesting period, because i don't think that the best defender in the 18s (despite not playing this year) will be turned into a midfielder.

I might be wrong and 'Chaser' would probably have the answer but didn't Dangerfield play a lot of his U18 championship footy as a defender?

That article was written with a bent that Adelaide had picked the wrong kid, purely because of group think among 'experts.'

Rendell backs himself, the AFC back him too, and he recruits the best player of that draft.

We take the talent in that draft at ND4 that 'we have to take' and he is gone 5 years later.

The 'tenth best player' in a draft was a generational talent - does that give you pause?

Do you think Rendell would have "reached" for Wines? I would have

I have this gut wrenching feeling St Kilda might take Brayshaw at pick 1. For some reason he appeals to me more than Petracca. Just seems to be the complete AFL prototype midfielder we need.

I agree and I see Brayshaw in the same light I saw Wines in, that is ready to go, plug and play so to speak. Get the sense he really suits our needs, I'd be devastated if we don't get the chance to call out his name!

I might be wrong and 'Chaser' would probably have the answer but didn't Dangerfield play a lot of his U18 championship footy as a defender?

Not wrong. Predominantly played off half-back.

Story goes that Rendell wanted to see what he was like in midfield and asked the coach to give him a spell in midfield to see how he went.

After Dangerfield dominated, he quickly asked him to get him back to the flank!

The other the thing to consider when reviewing the Dangerfield pick is that the draft rules at the time allowed 17 year olds (turning 18 the following year) to be included in the pool. Dangerfield was a bottom ager in his draft year, and a lot of clubs were inclined to go with older age prospects as safer bets (due to greater exposed form of the older draftees I suppose). Rule changes came in when the new franchises came in (and subsequently given priority access to the best 17 year olds).

Edited November 19, 201410 yr by ChaserJ

Not wrong. Predominantly played off half-back.

Story goes that Rendell wanted to see what he was like in midfield and asked the coach to give him a spell in midfield to see how he went.

After Dangerfield dominated, he quickly asked him to get him back to the flank!

Back flank is a little different to key position back, which is more what i was talking about with Lever.

That said, JPK was a forward turned mid and Watts is being mould into a high hff/mid.

I would love Dangerfield in our team, but i am still of the thought that he is overrated by most especially in media.

Not wrong. Predominantly played off half-back.

Story goes that Rendell wanted to see what he was like in midfield and asked the coach to give him a spell in midfield to see how he went.

After Dangerfield dominated, he quickly asked him to get him back to the flank!

The other the thing to consider when reviewing the Dangerfield pick is that the draft rules at the time allowed 17 year olds (turning 18 the following year) to be included in the pool. Dangerfield was a bottom ager in his draft year, and a lot of clubs were inclined to go with older age prospects as safer bets (due to greater exposed form of the older draftees I suppose). Rule changes came in when the new franchises came in (and subsequently given priority access to the best 17 year olds).

Thanks 'Chaser'.

Do you think Rendell would have "reached" for Wines? I would have

That decision is not the one that give me nightmares (yet). Although I was attached to the kid before the draft (I hate when that happens...).

It's 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008 (later picks not really Jack), 2009, and 2011.

(shivers)

It's not so much about being a similar player but about the recruiter having a good eye for talent and sticking to his view. It also tells me a lot of the things that seem to be held so dear to the experts, leadership being the big one may not really mean a lot as far as being a generational player is concerned.

Out of the big 3, Ablett, Judd and Hodge were any of them considered outstanding individuals and future leaders before they were drafted. I would think Judd has never had leadership attributes, Ablett has developed them to a degree later in his career and we all know Hodge is a great leader now, don't know how he was seen as a junior.

A players talent dictates whether they will be a generational player, their leadership capabilities are typically an indicator of work ethic/ commitment - you don't find many lazy/ uncommitted players in leadership groups.

FWIW - Judd was captain of Vic Metro, Ablett was drafted after 1 year in the TAC (you don't get named captain in your first year) and Hodge didn't have any leadership roles (Bartel was captain of his TAC side & Vic Country).

A players talent dictates whether they will be a generational player, their leadership capabilities are typically an indicator of work ethic/ commitment - you don't find many lazy/ uncommitted players in leadership groups.

FWIW - Judd was captain of Vic Metro, Ablett was drafted after 1 year in the TAC (you don't get named captain in your first year) and Hodge didn't have any leadership roles (Bartel was captain of his TAC side & Vic Country).

An indicator...and an indicator that is often talked up a bit much by the likes of 'shifter' to my mind.

That decision is not the one that give me nightmares (yet). Although I was attached to the kid before the draft (I hate when that happens...).

It's 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008 (later picks not really Jack), 2009, and 2011.

(shivers)

Agree with most, but what did we do wrong in 04?

Matthew Bate at pick 13.

And IMO while he has been serviceable over the past 2 years, Lynden Dunn has not been a value first round pick (15)

And I know Newton cops a bath on this site and unfairly too, he was taken about pick 43 and at that stage you are punting a bit on talent.

But we did trade pick 29 for Paul Johnson....ugh.

We traded pick 12 for Moloney.

Edited November 19, 201410 yr by Qwerty30

Matthew Bate at pick 13.

And IMO while he has been serviceable over the past 2 years, Lynden Dunn has not been a value first round pick (15)

And I know Newton cops a bath on this site and unfairly too, he was taken about pick 43 and at that stage you are punting a bit on talent.

But we did trade pick 29 for Paul Johnson....ugh.

We traded pick 12 for Moloney.

Pretty harsh on Dunn i reckon Qwerty.

Played 139 games to date and not completely unrealistic to think he may finish up around 200. As has been mentioned in the press Lynden is nigh impossible to beat one on one and is one of the few great kicks in the side. Yesterday Dom Tyson said he was the most underrated players in the side.

Finally he has been reported twice (in one game) for hitting Boomer Harvey. The defence rests

Pretty harsh on Dunn i reckon Qwerty.

Played 139 games to date and not completely unrealistic to think he may finish up around 200. As has been mentioned in the press Lynden is nigh impossible to beat one on one and is one of the few great kicks in the side. Yesterday Dom Tyson said he was the most underrated players in the side.

Finally he has been reported twice (in one game) for hitting Boomer Harvey. The defence rests

you had me at being reported once for hitting Harvey

Bloody hope not!

Brayshaw's possibly a future captain of the MFC.

He's the player I most want of the three at the club.

Happy with either of the other two as well, after Brayshaw that is.

Hyperbole... not.

Pretty harsh on Dunn i reckon Qwerty.

Played 139 games to date and not completely unrealistic to think he may finish up around 200. As has been mentioned in the press Lynden is nigh impossible to beat one on one and is one of the few great kicks in the side. Yesterday Dom Tyson said he was the most underrated players in the side.

Finally he has been reported twice (in one game) for hitting Boomer Harvey. The defence rests

Dunn was struggling up until two years ago. I now feel he has really cemented his spot and will be a strong contributor for the next 4-6 years.

So I think he will end up a win.

I think people need to accept that St Kilda will just simply not pass on Petracca.

Its already had a few leaks into the media that the Saints are already locked him in.

Petracca to the saints is about 99.5% done. The rest just needs to be officially read out.

Matthew Bate at pick 13.

And IMO while he has been serviceable over the past 2 years, Lynden Dunn has not been a value first round pick (15)

And I know Newton cops a bath on this site and unfairly too, he was taken about pick 43 and at that stage you are punting a bit on talent.

But we did trade pick 29 for Paul Johnson....ugh.

We traded pick 12 for Moloney.

Not many players get to 200 games. Dunn is well on his way to achieving that.

He may not have set the world on fire in his early years but to suggest he has not given value as a (late) first round pick is unfair.

Dunn has been really good value. He has been a victim of his own versatility and been made to plug holes at the expense of settling into one position.

Recently he has been in All Australian form and is still only mid-career.

Many late first round picks have done less.

Dunn has been really good value. He has been a victim of his own versatility and been made to plug holes at the expense of settling into one position.

Recently he has been in All Australian form and is still only mid-career.

Many late first round picks have done less.

lets not be too revisionist...he was crap to begin with...last 2-3 years he's realsed he CAN play footy and does

I wouldn't have thought assessing someone over the span of their whole career is being revisionist.

So excited to see Angus Brayshaw, looks a dominant mid to me

Agree with most, but what did we do wrong in 04?

Dunn's last two years does well to save that draft but what low expectations we have, hey?

Bate at 13, Newton with 43, P Johnson trade with 29, Scott Thompson replaced by Beamer is a loss, a mitigated loss, but still a loss.

ND12, 13, and 15 should really still be here and only Dunn is...

In all fairness how many are left from the 04 draft? Point is, stuff up draft picks and the ramifications are still felt some 10 years on!

Dunn's last two years does well to save that draft but what low expectations we have, hey?

Bate at 13, Newton with 43, P Johnson trade with 29, Scott Thompson replaced by Beamer is a loss, a mitigated loss, but still a loss.

ND12, 13, and 15 should really still be here and only Dunn is...

Heh, I suppose we learn to manage expectations when we're in the midst of a rebuild of a rebuild.

I'm not so harsh on the Bate selection, thought it was a good pick at the time and he did give us some (admittedly intermittent) good games across his first four years. Given we got 102 games out of him, I'm more inclined to grade it an average pass. Especially when you consider the hit rate after our selections doesn't read all that well. Lots of good average players, many of whom are also out of the game. FS selection Cloke at pick 39. Rosa, LeCras and Van Berlo the notable exceptions.

Thompson for Moloney really was a case of making the best of a bad situation, not really a draft crime.

Overall, the 04 draft has given us six 200 game players, 5 of which were selected inside the first 7 selections. Of those 5, 3 were drafted by Hawthorn.

McCartin up forward will do no more damage next year then what Frawley did. If anything he'll have less of an impact so I don't see big things happening their if we draft him.

Happy to take Brayshaw