On 28/10/2018 at 07:07, ProDee said:

In hindsight.

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

Saying we should have taken Kelly at 2 is also in hindsight. I don't really see the difference. Were you advocating for us to take Kelly at the time? I don't recall.

Also, this was the draft between two eras; the Toumpas/Scully/Trengove/Watts/Morton with top 4 picks in the six drafts previous versus Petracca/Brayshaw/Oliver in the top 4 in the five drafts since

If top 12 add: (Clark trade)/Cook/Gysberts versus Weideman/(Weideman/Oliver trade - 2016)/(Lever trade - 2017)

If top 20 add: Tapscott/Blease/Strauss/Grimes versus (Lever trade - 2018)

Random saving fact for that draft - we got Harmes with the second pick in the Rookie Draft.

  On 28/10/2018 at 07:09, A F said:

Saying we should have taken Kelly at 2 is also in hindsight. I don't really see the difference. Were you advocating for us to take Kelly at the time? I don't recall.

No mate, this isn't "hindsight".  We all knew how good Kelly was, although some mistakenly thought he was soft.  It was written up straight away in the media that we'd stuffed up.  That said, I jumped on the Tyson/Salem deal as you want to trust the club.

Kelly was as smooth as Egyptian cotton.  My Brother and I were dead keen months out.

  On 28/10/2018 at 07:07, ProDee said:

In hindsight.

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

Exactly.

People get worked up over these drafts with the power of hindsight, but even Toumpas was a 'steal' at the time with him being a lock at pick two for the 18 months leading into that draft.  These threads and articles are good for light debate and analysis, but it's completely pointless the way many people get worked up.

 

  On 28/10/2018 at 07:08, A F said:

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.

Tyson has gone backwards but he was huge for us in 2014.  Not only did he give us some hope going forward, he, along with Vince  and Jones started giving us first use of the ball for the first time in close to a decade.  Averaged over 25 disposals a game, kicked 16 goals and polled 11 Brownlow votes - he made an immediate impact.

Kelly would have been knocked from pillar to post in his first three years with us.

  On 28/10/2018 at 07:14, ProDee said:

No mate, this isn't "hindsight".  We all knew how good Kelly was, although some mistakenly thought he was soft.  It was written up straight away in the media that we'd stuffed up.  That said, I jumped on the Tyson/Salem deal as you want to trust the club.

Kelly was as smooth as Egyptian cotton.  My Brother and I were dead keen months out.

Fair enough. That's what I was asking. Clearly you were keen and therefore it's not a hindsight call.

I certainly remember the likes of Barrett coming out and saying we'd stuffed another draft. 

Of course, you're right. We should have Kelly, but I love Cripps and would have loved him just as much. 

We made the safe call and haven't necessarily totally [censored] things up, especially if Salem ends up playing in a couple of flags off half back for us, ala Hodge.

It's a curiosity to me now though, not a matter of anguish because it was just another fork in the road to where we are now and I'm happy with that.

  On 27/10/2018 at 22:37, Radar Detector said:

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!

I take your point but the reality is we were going to take Billings. So in the real world, we wouldn’t have Kelly instead. We’d have Billings.

Of course that in and of itself would have been a blunder so it’s fair to downgrade as a result. But at least acknowledge it to be the case. Saying it is “essentially Tyson and Salem for Kelly” is misleading and incomplete analysis.

i think 7 is a fair rating when looking at the other club ratings, although there is a lot of creaming in pants over Sicily as the “steal of the draft”, whereas Harmes is almost mentioned in passing. That too doesn’t quite add up.

  On 28/10/2018 at 07:37, Fifty-5 said:

It's a curiosity to me now though, not a matter of anguish because it was just another fork in the road to where we are now and I'm happy with that.

Absolutely. We draft Kelly and then we perhaps win, or who knows lose, a couple of games and we end up with different picks down the track and we end up not picking Brayshaw or can’t upgrade to get Oliver.

Very happy with where we are at. Having said that I would throw everything at getting Kelly next year. He is my favourite non Melbourne player 

  On 28/10/2018 at 08:02, FarNorthernD said:

Absolutely. We draft Kelly and then we perhaps win, or who knows lose, a couple of games and we end up with different picks down the track and we end up not picking Brayshaw or can’t upgrade to get Oliver.

Very happy with where we are at. Having said that I would throw everything at getting Kelly next year. He is my favourite non Melbourne player 

He's a very good player, but player retention is the key to our future success, so he'd need to come across for under a million.

I see us saying we'll pay you $850k and make you a better player in a team going places, but him ultimately taking the $1-1.2mill offered by another club.

We then back in our current list to keep improving and snatch a flag or two between 2020-2025.

 

  On 27/10/2018 at 22:06, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

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.

 Agree with this, and i think there would be a fair argument for saying that GWS would have won one maybe two Flags if Sheedy had not coached them.

I think he chose the wrong mixture path, and i have thought it for a while.

I also can’t help but think that if Carlton absolutely nailed the draft in 2013 they wouldn’t be a total basketcase on the field in 2018.  

But maybe that’s an oversimplification ?

Hindsight 2020

  On 28/10/2018 at 08:46, P-man said:

I also can’t help but think that if Carlton absolutely nailed the draft in 2013 they wouldn’t be a total basketcase on the field in 2018.  

But maybe that’s an oversimplification ?

Unfortunately they got Cripps.  It's a pitty the did, imagine the complete basket case they'd be if they didn't fluke it and pick him up.

  On 27/10/2018 at 21:51, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

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.

The history of the draft is littered with 'how did we all miss him' and 'why didn't we choose xxxx' and 'why the f*** did we choose yyyy' moments. Just a few others...

Everyone had a chance to select Nat Fyfe before he went at 20 Everyone had at least one chance to grab Jack Darling before he went at 26. Everyone had at least two shots at Sam Mitchell before he went at 36.

In a good draft (2007), I think that after Kreuzer and Cotchin went, every club that held picks 3-9 would want to reconsider who they chose. Wile Masten (198), Henderson (158) and McEvoy (187) have reached 150 games, none are a patch on Dangerfield. Cale Morton will not go down as the best ever #4 selection, or MFCs wisest draft choice.

I still look back on those compromised drafts that GCS and GWS basically ravished (11 of the first 14 picks to GWS in 2011 for example) and firmly believe that those clubs that happened to bottom out over that period are still suffering today. Bottoming out and getting you first draft selections in the 15-25 area does not help a rebuild.

Edit - And on Kelly, the person that said that the fact that MFC would have chosen Billings just compounds the error is correct. The trade away of selection 2 was a poor one, just as GCS giving away pick 2 for Weller in 2017 was a poor one. 

Edited October 28, 20186 yr by Aus in Engerland
Addition on Kelly comment

  On 28/10/2018 at 11:34, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Unfortunately they got Cripps.  It's a pitty the did, imagine the complete basket case they'd be if they didn't fluke it and pick him up.

At pick 13.

A great pick up yes but Cripps and Docherty aside, check out the rest of their haul: 

Luke Reynolds, Cameron Wood, Blaine Johnson, Heath Scotland, Ciaran Sheehan, Ciaran Byrne, Cameron Giles, Nick Holman, Dale Thomas, Andrejs Everitt.

Yikes.

 

 

 

  On 28/10/2018 at 14:26, P-man said:

At pick 13.

A great pick up yes but Cripps and Docherty aside, check out the rest of their haul: 

Luke Reynolds, Cameron Wood, Blaine Johnson, Heath Scotland, Ciaran Sheehan, Ciaran Byrne, Cameron Giles, Nick Holman, Dale Thomas, Andrejs Everitt.

Yikes.

 

 

 

Two players named Ciaran in one draft? Did they not know which was which so just took both?

  On 29/10/2018 at 08:34, Nasher said:

Two players named Ciaran in one draft? Did they not know which was which so just took both?

I think the aim was to have enough Irishmen to field a Gaelic football side in case the AFL thing didn’t work out.

You people have short memories. Our list in 2013 was shite, we won 2 games. Our top 5 in the Bluey were: NJones, Garland, Terlich, MJones and Sylvia.

Roos was appointed and knew that we needed to get talent into our list. Kelly was always going to be a gun but taking him was a risk in our position. The chance to get two top 10 players was a chance to get much-needed talent on to our list. We couldn't afford to take one player.

It was a deal we had to do. We wouldn't do that deal today. 

  On 29/10/2018 at 10:11, jnrmac said:

You people have short memories. Our list in 2013 was shite, we won 2 games. Our top 5 in the Bluey were: NJones, Garland, Terlich, MJones and Sylvia.

Roos was appointed and knew that we needed to get talent into our list. Kelly was always going to be a gun but taking him was a risk in our position. The chance to get two top 10 players was a chance to get much-needed talent on to our list. We couldn't afford to take one player.

It was a deal we had to do. We wouldn't do that deal today. 

Firstly, I doubt anyone here needs a history lesson on the 2 win/54% 2013 team. 

And secondly, it was still the wrong decision.  Kelly was very good from the outset. 

  On 29/10/2018 at 08:58, P-man said:

I think the aim was to have enough Irishmen to field a Gaelic football side in case the AFL thing didn’t work out.

Do they play Gaelic football on a Friday night?

  On 28/10/2018 at 08:01, P-man said:

I take your point but the reality is we were going to take Billings. So in the real world, we wouldn’t have Kelly instead. We’d have Billings.

Of course that in and of itself would have been a blunder so it’s fair to downgrade as a result. But at least acknowledge it to be the case. Saying it is “essentially Tyson and Salem for Kelly” is misleading and incomplete analysis.

i think 7 is a fair rating when looking at the other club ratings, although there is a lot of creaming in pants over Sicily as the “steal of the draft”, whereas Harmes is almost mentioned in passing. That too doesn’t quite add up.

Either way, our recruiters messed it up. If they were able to identify how good Kelly was and how limited Tyson was then they would have advised the club against proceeding with the trade. It seems they also overrated what would be available at pick 9. Other clubs rated Kelly a lot higher than we did and it shows that they were on the mark.

Kangaroos are on the record as saying they tried to get a pick in the mini draft to get him. We had 2 shots to get him and elected not to on both occasions.

 

 

  On 27/10/2018 at 15:37, 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.

Is this fact from within the club or just Roos speak?

I always had the impression Ross spruiked this line whenever the conversation came up about missing out on Kelly. He has claimed he didn't miss out on Kelly cause we wouldn't have picked him anyway. 

  On 27/10/2018 at 21:51, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

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.

Carlton would have taken Salem before Cripps if Melbourne hadn't taken Salem.

  On 30/10/2018 at 06:38, Watts the matter said:

Either way, our recruiters messed it up. If they were able to identify how good Kelly was and how limited Tyson was then they would have advised the club against proceeding with the trade. It seems they also overrated what would be available at pick 9. Other clubs rated Kelly a lot higher than we did and it shows that they were on the mark.

Kangaroos are on the record as saying they tried to get a pick in the mini draft to get him. We had 2 shots to get him and elected not to on both occasions.

 

 

Disagree. Cripps is a better player than Kelly for mine, who was taken outside the top 10.