need some one to answer a question...please

[True Believer 1]

Help...who did we draft in the same year as Brock McLean..... :lol:

[deanox 9,915]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_AFL_Draft

here is a link...

sylvia at 3, brock at 5, CJ (father son at 36), elevated carroll from a rookie, and got holland thru a trade...accorind to that site.

[True Believer 1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_AFL_Draft

here is a link...

sylvia at 3, brock at 5, CJ (father son at 36), elevated carroll from a rookie, and got holland thru a trade...accorind to that site.

Sylvia was the name I was after...thanks a million

[deanox 9,915]

actually out of interest, does anyone have any thoughts on this draft? success or failure?

i rate holland as a success but at pick 20? having a look down the list of players taken 20 or later, yes there are some ok players but no stand outs, and the couple that i rate now are late draft smokeys...

CJ at pick 36 was speculative, and he hasnt lived up to his obvious skill and potential. thus far he is a failure. but could he develop or we get something for him?

mclean and sylvia. again not heaps of standouts behind them. farren ray? kepler bradley? beau waters? brett stanton? are the only names that stick out. have we done better than those listed with our selections?

i think we've done alright considering 2003 appears to be one of the weaker drafts...our success might come down to sylvia, i still havnt decided on him. and while we know mclean can play if he continues to struggle with close attention like this year that will definitely tip the scales against us.

[Jarka 767]

actually out of interest, does anyone have any thoughts on this draft? success or failure?

i rate holland as a success but at pick 20? having a look down the list of players taken 20 or later, yes there are some ok players but no stand outs, and the couple that i rate now are late draft smokeys...

CJ at pick 36 was speculative, and he hasnt lived up to his obvious skill and potential. thus far he is a failure. but could he develop or we get something for him?

mclean and sylvia. again not heaps of standouts behind them. farren ray? kepler bradley? beau waters? brett stanton? are the only names that stick out. have we done better than those listed with our selections?

i think we've done alright considering 2003 appears to be one of the weaker drafts...our success might come down to sylvia, i still havnt decided on him. and while we know mclean can play if he continues to struggle with close attention like this year that will definitely tip the scales against us.

When lookign back at a draft it's important to look at the other players who were rated as highly at the time. That means for us we did very well with McLean as most had him going later in the first round.

Sylvia at 3 is interesting because even though he hasn't been that great there really hasn't been any other players who were rated as highly at the time that have been a standout ie Ray, Bradley and Tenace have all been dissapointing.

CJ as a 3rd round is a loss but not a bad one.

I'm still not happy over the Holland deal, stupid move by the club.

[deanox 9,915]

When lookign back at a draft it's important to look at the other players who were rated as highly at the time. That means for us we did very well with McLean as most had him going later in the first round.

Sylvia at 3 is interesting because even though he hasn't been that great there really hasn't been any other players who were rated as highly at the time that have been a standout ie Ray, Bradley and Tenace have all been dissapointing.

CJ as a 3rd round is a loss but not a bad one.

I'm still not happy over the Holland deal, stupid move by the club.

RE the holland deal, who would you have had us pick up instead?

out of interest we have had 4 years service from holland with 64 games and 51 goals from him. based on CAC's comparrison of players holland would be considered a success- 50 games. he has been valuable at times, and considering we thought we were in premiership mode he wasnt a bad pick up. my big question is who would you have picked with 20 that will give us better service in the long run? and short run?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Good question Deanox.

Given what we needed at the time, and what we could control, you can't really question CAC here. CJ IS a good player, there's just something getting in the way. In all the ways a football scientist can dissect his game, he seems a logical choice, particularly as a F/S.

Sylvia has tested our patience, but has at times thrilled us and shown us that retaining him is a DEFINITE. He is being talked about as a trade option, and you don't get that if you're rubbish. Even opposition fans rate him higher than what we have seen of him, despite the last few years of relative mediocrity.

Before Brownlow Bruce gets on here and spouts some more sludge, you can fairly safely say McLean is the most proven player under 25 years of age at the club, even with the setbacks this year presented, with the possible exception of Rivers. (This is at least until the end of trade week ) Brock's reasons for struggling with heavy tags are numerous.

- He hasn't had to deal with it before really. It's a learning process.

- He had NO-ONE rated more highly than him playing in the guts all year. Jones was company, and McDonald has probably never been tagged. He's now prime meat for the run-with players out there. Come next year, with Bruce's leg healed, Jones becoming even more dangerous, Trav returning to fitness, Bartram back to be a thorn in opposition midfields' sides... the scales will tip in Brock's favour again. And I didn't even mention a certain player... Let's call him Chris J. .... Or better yet C. Judd.

- He was hurt.

As far as Holland goes, who did Richmond get for pick 20? Or did they on-trade it? Given what we needed, and what we got... coupled with the fact that Holland is one of the least talented players to rack up 200 games... He has been a very good player for us. He fulfills the role he's there for, and in the end, what more can you ask for?

[deanox 9,915]

well pick 20 was eventually sam butler to the WCE.

we traded 20 for holland. richmond traded 20 and 6 for nathan brown. peter street then got sent to the bulldogs from geelong in return for the pick 20. geelong finally traded pick 20 to WCE for Daniel Haynes plus pick 42.

so pick 20 was worth:

to the MFC: Ben Holland

to richmond: Nathan Brown (along with pick 6)

to the bulldogs: Peter Street

to geelong: Daniel Haynes (plus pick 42)

to the WCE: Sam Butler

I dont think we did too bad out of that...sam butler has played 40 games, but none in 2007.

peter street is tall but no good. daniel haynes is no longer on a list as far as i can tell...nathan brown is good, but has been very injured, and was also traded for pick 6.

since brown has been at richmond he has played 51 games and kicked 92 goals. holland is only 9 months older than nathan brown and has played 64 games for 51 goals for us (playing down back recently), but cost us a lot less (pick 6).

based on all this info it looks like holland was a pretty good trade...

[Jarka 767]

RE the holland deal, who would you have had us pick up instead?

out of interest we have had 4 years service from holland with 64 games and 51 goals from him. based on CAC's comparrison of players holland would be considered a success- 50 games. he has been valuable at times, and considering we thought we were in premiership mode he wasnt a bad pick up. my big question is who would you have picked with 20 that will give us better service in the long run? and short run?

There were still some very good players available at that pick - examples are Adcock, Peake, Buchanon, Rischitelli, Symes. But there were major questions about Holland at the time which in my opinion have proven to be correct, but really in any other team I doubt if he would have played even 20 games. He's looked good with us simply because of our lack of KPP's to compare him against. Not good enough to play up forward and too slow for a defender, and in reality if we hadn't have got him then Richmond would have delisted him when his contract ran out and we could have picked him up in the psd for nothing because no other club was interested in him.

My main query though is that we should be building a talented team through developing youth, and an early second round pick is still a good pick, and too valuable to waste on a reject from another club.

[deanox 9,915]

Adcock, 2nd round, 33

Peake, 3rd round, 43 (father son, so wasnt available)

Buchanon, 3rd round, 45

Rischitelli, 4th round, 61,

Symes, 2nd round, 30,

peake is out, and it looks like rischitelli wasnt rated by many as he was a late speculative pick. adcock is alright, but i don't know enough about the other two to comment.

my question is, was the footy dept confident that any of these players would turn out to be players? would any available players be able to hold a KP for 5 years, or pinch hit at either end of the ground. holland is not fashionable, but he has proved his worth on occasions. his biggest problem is between the ears - his kicking.

at the time we needed some depth KP. yes we needed to draft quality young KP's but were there any out there? the footy dept seems to have drafted to strengthen our list in the short/medium term...

[71 Molloy 266]

First rounders were as follows with first 3 picks priorities.

1 Adam Cooney 87 games

2 Andrew Walker 74 games Avg 20 disposals.

3 Colin Sylvia 52 games

4 Farren Ray 62 games

5 Brock McLean 61 games Avg 18 disposals

6 Kepler Bradley 49 games Avg 12 disposals

7 Kane Tenace 53 games (9 2007) Avg 17 disposals

8 Raphael Clarke 30 games Avg 11 disposals.

9 David Trotter - Delisted

10 Ryley Dunn - 5 games, (1 in 2007)

11 Beau Waters - 53 games, 2006 premiership

12 Ryan Murphy - 31 games (7 2007)

13 Brent Stanton - 76 games Avg 26

14 Fergus Watts - Traded to St Kilda. 1 senior game

15 Troy Chaplin - 42 games Avg 18 disposals

16 Josh Willoughby - Delisted

17 Billy Morrison - Delisted

18 Llane Spaanderman - Delisted

It's a bit hard to rank them as some were de-listed without playing a senior game. Also, injury and lack of opportunity may allow more movement as all are still young but I would break them into the following groups and rank accordingly:

Established:

1. Beau Waters. Would kill to have this guy in Red and Blue, tough as they come.

2. Troy Chaplin. In front of Brock mainly due to playing a key position and a better 2007.

3. Brock McLean. Injury effected 2007 after probably being ranked #1 at the end of 2006. Hard, good in the clinches and a terrific user of the ball, but looks like future captain.

4. Adam Cooney. Another who in 2007 was a little of the boil. Electrifying when on song but has the tendency to may bad errors and go missing for long periods of the game.

Emerging:

1. Brent Stanton. Tapered of in 2007 after some excellent performances early on. Not sure if he is a top liner but a really good player.

2. Andrew Walker. Is marked hard due to the #2 pick tag. More of an athlete than footballer when drafted was always going to take longer to develop. Pagan used him in run with roles to round out his education and will get better as the Blues develop. Needs to improve ball use, if he can do this he will be a very good player.

3. Farren Ray. Not sure about this guy, looks serviceable to me at best. Could be trade bait.

4. Ryan Murphy. Had a good final against the Dees in 2006 but fell back in the pecking order with the arrival of Tarrent. The fact he is key position saves him from the 'in trouble' list. Big and powerful overhead, will develop with time and opportunity.

Injury Effected:

1. Colin Sylvia. All here know the story. Has had injuries and shown glimpses of potential but may may end up living up to John Ralph's tag of him as a member of Melbourne's 'serial talent wasters' squad. Needs to get off the dance floor and get serious.

2. Raphael Clarke. Just can't get going, many questioned his position that high in the draft and has shown nothing to dispel those queries.

3. Fergus Watts. Broken leg and complications in 2006 save him from the 'in trouble' list. Must step up in 2008 or even his old man won't save him.

In trouble:

1. Kepler Bradley. If your an unfashionable defender and even Sheedy has lost faith in you.......Say no more.

2. Kane Tenace. Struggled in 2007 in a strong line up. Could be said out of favour behind harder working fringe players such a Byrnes, Stokes and Varcoe. Would have played more games at weaker clubs this season.

3. Ryley Dunn. Don't know too much about him but 5 games doesn't stack up well.

Delisted:

David Trotter

Josh Willoughbyd

Billy Morrison

Llane Spaanderman

All in all our 1st rounders stack up well, if Sylvia can come good I can't see how we could have done any better. Would still take our picks over any in the top 5, the only other 1st rounder I would take over our two is Waters and maybe Chaplin although a fit Rivers would lessen our need.

[Jarka 767]

Adcock, 2nd round, 33

Peake, 3rd round, 43 (father son, so wasnt available)

Buchanon, 3rd round, 45

Rischitelli, 4th round, 61,

Symes, 2nd round, 30,

peake is out, and it looks like rischitelli wasnt rated by many as he was a late speculative pick. adcock is alright, but i don't know enough about the other two to comment.

my question is, was the footy dept confident that any of these players would turn out to be players? would any available players be able to hold a KP for 5 years, or pinch hit at either end of the ground. holland is not fashionable, but he has proved his worth on occasions. his biggest problem is between the ears - his kicking.

at the time we needed some depth KP. yes we needed to draft quality young KP's but were there any out there? the footy dept seems to have drafted to strengthen our list in the short/medium term...

Our record of drafting KPP's is deplorable so I'm confident that the club would have stuffed up that selection if they had of gone for a kid instead....But back to Holland, in my opinion he is ordinary at best but let's fast forward 5 years. Due to the decisions of Daniher and co, Bailey has inherited a list that is desperately lacking in quality talls, and the Holland trade is just another one to add to our pile of poor recruiting decisions. Of recent years only one KP recruiting move has been successful, and that's Rivers (Newton has yet to establishment himself yet).

[deanox 9,915]

Our record of drafting KPP's is deplorable so I'm confident that the club would have stuffed up that selection if they had of gone for a kid instead....But back to Holland, in my opinion he is ordinary at best but let's fast forward 5 years. Due to the decisions of Daniher and co, Bailey has inherited a list that is desperately lacking in quality talls, and the Holland trade is just another one to add to our pile of poor recruiting decisions. Of recent years only one KP recruiting move has been successful, and that's Rivers (Newton has yet to establishment himself yet).

good point. the ND era did pick up bate and dunn expecting them to be KPP but im not confident that will be the case...

2 years ago the miller at pick 55 looked an inspired choice for a KPP...

there have been a number of blunders. we have managed to develop a number of decent ruckmen however, which is strange. do you think im correct in saying the best KPP are often high draft picks? we havnt had many high draft picks (with the exception of 2003, and there wasnt much in the way of KPP in that draft...

the question still stands, was there a KPP in that draft you feel we should have taken instead of trading for holland? you are confident the club would have got it wrong, but you are yet to suggest an alternative...

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

At the time MFC needed to attract a ready made KPP with the retirement of the Ox, greenness of Miller.

Out of interest if MFC had not gone for Holland, which other KPP player was available at 20 given Adcock, Peake, Buchanon, Rischitelli, Symes are not midfield players?

[deanox 9,915]

Adcock, 184 cm

Peake, 185 cm

Buchanon, 179 cm

Rischitelli, 184 cm

Symes 187 cm

jarka, which of the above players would have allowed the bailey era to have better KPP? notwithstanding possible trades now...

[Dee man 303]

I think Holland has been a more than handy pickup. Whether he was worth pick 20 will be determined in the coming years, but he has given us good service up forward and recently down back. In his limited opportunities this year he was pretty good to very good in pretty much all of them. BOG against Bulldogs IMO and was close to it against the Pies.

Remember, too, that he was in superb form as a defender mid-2006. When he, Rivers, Wheels were all fit, our defence was for once looking decent. Subsequently, Carroll was much more confident and was able to stick to his guns, and was one of the best full backs, and biggest improvers of the league in 2006. Look at this year, Carroll had virtually no one back there to support him (Bell and Brown playing more up field) and subsequently had a shocking season.

I say if Bailey can turn P Johnson or Miller into the next Ben Holland, he will be very satisfied.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I say if Bailey can turn P Johnson or Miller into the next Ben Holland, he will be very satisfied.

He will be a magician if he can do that!

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

based on all this info it looks like holland was a pretty good trade...

Very concise Dean. Thanks.

He will be a magician if he can do that!

No surprises in response to the Miller part, but Jeez people have really gone off PJ haven't they? I missed the last 4 rounds for travel, but I had him on my keepers list. I reckon he's ok.

[deanox 9,915]

no worries, when i started doing a bit of research i found it was pretty interesting...ive always wondered about that pick 20 deal too but in hindsight, when you sit down and crunch the numbers we actually have come out pretty well, contrary to what people commonly believe. and the nathan brown comparison was interesting aswell. could holland have been a more valuable player for us than nathan brown has been for richmond, considering the brown suffered a terrible injury he hasnt really re-payed what they bought him for has he?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

As far as the Brown part is concerned, I think you draw a VERY long bow. The real clincher there was the pick 6 part. The pick 20 was probably more of a sweetener, albeit an attractive one.

But I take your point. The fact that Brown has played relatively few games, and had restricted effect, given his talent... And the fact that Dutchy has probably proven more effective than he should have... Yes, it seems the scales are tipped more to our favour than you would have expected 4 years ago...

But I feel as though the point is moot. Really, you can only judge a trade on the landscape that existed at the time of the trade. You could NEVER have predicted wrecker would have done what he did. It would be absurd to suggest the footy departments of the dogs, demons or toiges factored in a future break of that leg... so I'm not sure you can credit anyone with the favourable outcome we see today.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Very concise Dean. Thanks. surprises in response to the Miller part, but Jeez people have really gone off PJ haven't they? I missed the last 4 rounds for travel, but I had him on my keepers list. I reckon he's ok.

He has had fair opportunity to show his colours this year and IMO he just goes.He is not a long term option. He stays only because Jamar goes. If we get a Meeson or another ruckman, PJ would be third in line. I would hope we would rookie a good green young ruckman to develop and move PJ on in due course.

As far as the Brown part is concerned, I think you draw a VERY long bow. The real clincher there was the pick 6 part. The pick 20 was probably more of a sweetener, albeit an attractive one.

Agree with that.

But I feel as though the point is moot. Really, you can only judge a trade on the landscape that existed at the time of the trade. You could NEVER have predicted wrecker would have done what he did. It would be absurd to suggest the footy departments of the dogs, demons or toiges factored in a future break of that leg... so I'm not sure you can credit anyone with the favourable outcome we see today.

I disagree with that. You can certainly review the value of a trade over a period of time if you make reasonable allowance for injury which is largely unpredictable except where there was a pre existing ailment. Contingent events like knee injuries etc should not be based for condemning a deal despite what some posters do on this site.

However, other issues can be validly judged and assessed over time.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

However, other issues can be validly judged and assessed over time.

Mmmm.

Probably right. I think what I'm trying to say is that given the wide array of info these days, and the relative transperancy of the recruiting game, I feel as though I can conservatively judge the recruiters based on their INTENTIONS more than the outcome of trades. ie, I was unhappy that we weren't more aggressive with last year's trading, I think if I was Freo I'd have been very annoyed my club had traded such a high pick for Tarrant... etc. etc.

But yes, I take your point, the goal here is not to have your heart in the right place, but to use your powers of prediction to secure better players... when you look at it like that I suppose the only ironclad evidence is games/premierships/goals etc etc... which all take time to accumulate.

[deanox 9,915]

sorry just to clarrify, im not saying that we've done better than richmond, or that richmond made a mistake with that deal. what i am saying that looking back, thus far we have perhaps got the better value out of the draft pick. we couldnt have got brown, nor did we want him. but looking back, there were no clubs imo that made better use of pick 20 that year, the only one coming close was richmond and to date it is an interesting comparison, given they had to trade pick 6 also.

[Jarka 767]

good point. the ND era did pick up bate and dunn expecting them to be KPP but im not confident that will be the case...

2 years ago the miller at pick 55 looked an inspired choice for a KPP...

This brings up an interesting question - Are we drafting the right players or do we fail to development them properly?

there have been a number of blunders. we have managed to develop a number of decent ruckmen however, which is strange. do you think im correct in saying the best KPP are often high draft picks? we havnt had many high draft picks (with the exception of 2003, and there wasnt much in the way of KPP in that draft...

There have been a number of KPP's drafted late, here are some examples

2006

82 Edwards North (Not big but can take a contested mark)

71 Westhoff Port

64 Nick Gill Ade

63 Goldsack Coll

32 Tippet Ade

2005

42 Warnock Freo

33 Gilbert StK

2004

62 Egan Geel

40 Maric Ade

2003

63 Bower Carl

58 Hudson Ade

46 Pettigrew Port

2002

72 Brad Fisher

55 S.Fisher Stk

51 Boyle Haw

I didn't put too much effort into that so I'm sure there have been some that I've missed. I'm not happy that we've continued to give away decent picks for mature players on the decline. I also question whether we have been able to develop ruckman, I don't rate either Jamar or PJ as a ruck and Simmonds and Jolly played their best footy in other states.

the question still stands, was there a KPP in that draft you feel we should have taken instead of trading for holland? you are confident the club would have got it wrong, but you are yet to suggest an alternative...

It would be unfair of me to say that we should have gone for player 'x' with the wonderfull asset of hindsight backing me up, so I'll refrain from that. I will say though that the attitude of going for 'best available' and not going for a specific position with the early picks is what I favour. Leave your later picks and rookie selections to try to solve problems with positions.