2004 / 2005 - The draft's that hurt us!

[Jaz]

Was going to post this in another thread supporting RL but i thought it could do with its own.

The 2004 draft in full here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_AFL_Draft

and 2005 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_AFL_Draft

2004 was a good draft and as such there were a few player trades to receive high draft picks, (Hawthorn ended up with 3 in top ten)

Were we went wrong in 2004: Heath black wanted to go to Freo and in turn we got Fiora. We should have done a straight swap for simmonds.


If we got Simmonds in 204 then in 2005 we wouldn't have had to get Rix with pick 47. Players that were taken after this and in the Pre-Season and Rookie drafts include:
M Stokes, S Lonergan, C Bartram, M Priddis, S Cox, B McGlynn, K Jack, C Stiller, S Gilham, S Armstrong (older so wouldn't want), J Roe, E Lower and the list goes on.

So there was clearly some talent left in this draft and who did we get?

Phillip Raymond - Gone
Justin Sweeney - Gone
Cathal Corr - Gone
Dylan Pfitzner - Gone

Also we traded pick #17 for Fergus Watts, The one good part of 2005 was picking Sam Gilbert with pick #33

And back to 2004 here are the players we picked:
#17 McQualter - Dropped then re-picked
#33 Ackland - Gone
#49 McGough - Gone
-- at this stage Simon Taylor, Chris Knights, Brad Moran and Mathew Egan are still available
#63 Gwilt (Been on the list for 4 years so its a fair return for such a low pick)

So from 2 drafts that for one gave hawthorn franklin, roughead, lewis, taylor, ellis, birchall, Guerra, McGlynn and gilham (and others still on the list) we got fiora, gilbert, gwilt and mcqualter.

Enough said!!

[plugger66]

Was going to post this in another thread supporting RL but i thought it could do with its own.

The 2004 draft in full here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_AFL_Draft

and 2005 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_AFL_Draft

2004 was a good draft and as such there were a few player trades to receive high draft picks, (Hawthorn ended up with 3 in top ten)

Were we went wrong in 2004: Heath black wanted to go to Freo and in turn we got Fiora. We should have done a straight swap for simmonds.


If we got Simmonds in 204 then in 2005 we wouldnt have thad o get Rix with pick 47. Players that were taken after this and in the other drafts include:
M Stokes, S Lonergan, C Bartram, M Priddis, S Cox, B McGlynn, K Jack, C Stiller, S Gilham, S Armstrong (older so wouldnt want), J Roe, E Lower and the list goes on.

So there was clearly some talent left in this draft and who did we get?

Phillip Raymond - Gone
Justin Sweeney - Gone
Cathal Corr - Gone
Dylan Pfitzner - Gone

Also we traded pick #17 for Fergus Watts, The one good part of 2005 was picking Sam Gilbert with pick #33

And back to 2004 here are the players we picked:
#17 McQualter - Dropped then re-picked
#33 Ackland - Gone
#49 McGough - Gone
-- at this stage Simon Taylor, Chris Knights, Brad Moran and Mathew Egan are still available
#63 Gwilt (Been on the list for 4 years so its a fair return for such a low pick)

So from 2 drafts that for one gave hawthorn franklin, roughead, lewis, taylor, ellis, birchall, Guerra, McGlynn and gilham (and others still on the list) we got fiora, gilbert, gwilt and mcqualter.

Enough said!!

Lets compare 2001 and 2000 to Hawthorn. They had priorty picks we had very high picks because we were up the top of the ladder.

[Mr Magic]

Actually we had picks 1 and 2 in 2000 (Roo and Kosi)
Hawthorn had pick 1 in 2001 (Hodge)
We ahd pick 2 (Ball)

So what was your point?

The OP was making the point that we didn't draft well in 2004/2005 compared with Hawthorn.
He wasn't comparing picks in the first 10 but picks all the way down to the end of the draft.

[n1ck]

We wanted Simmonds.

In fact, we tried extremely hard to get Simmonds down to Moorabbin, just like we tried extremely hard to get Cox down here, when Gardiner was the best mobile ruckman in the comp.

Fact is, Simmonds wanted a 5 year deal. We werent prepared to give another player a 5 year deal, so Simmonds turned us down.

[Jaz]

Well the point wasn't comparing to hawthorn that was just an example. But they did get Taylor at #47 and McGlynn at #55 in psd

[plugger66]

Actually we had picks 1 and 2 in 2000 (Roo and Kosi)
Hawthorn had pick 1 in 2001 (Hodge)
We ahd pick 2 (Ball)

So what was your point?

The OP was making the point that we didn't draft well in 2004/2005 compared with Hawthorn.
He wasn't comparing picks in the first 10 but picks all the way down to the end of the draft.

Sorry I thought he mentioned Roughead, Lewis, Ellis and Franklin. I will read again.

Yes he did. Maybe they were late picks. I havent got the draft in front of me.

[JeffDunne]

So explain to me how a team that won the flag in 2004 and beat us by a kick in the PF could manage a GF appearance last season but we couldn't even manage the 8?

Did they have a younger list in 2004? Nope.

Did they draft better than us in 2004 & 2005? Nope.

2004:

#11 Adam Thomson
#19 Ryan Willits
#34 James Ezard
#35 Fabian Deluca
#51 Benjamin Eckermann

They did rookie Danyle Pearce (interestingly they had only 2 rookies)

2005:

#30 Nick Lower
#44 Alipate Carlile
#58 Hugh Minson
#70 Jonathan Giles

They did rookie 4 this year which I presume saved the coach, but I'm not sure if Rischbieth, Bentley , Looby or Logan really helped them going forward.



So why can Port remain a contender year after year even when they have crappy drafts?

[plugger66]

So explain to me how a team that won the flag in 2004 and beat us by a kick in the PF could manage a GF appearance last season but we couldn't even manage the 8?

Did they have a younger list in 2004? Nope.

Did they draft better than us in 2004 & 2005? Nope.

2004:

#11 Adam Thomson
#19 Ryan Willits
#34 James Ezard
#35 Fabian Deluca
#51 Benjamin Eckermann

They did rookie Danyle Pearce (interestingly they had only 2 rookies)

2005:

#30 Nick Lower
#44 Alipate Carlile
#58 Hugh Minson
#70 Jonathan Giles

They did rookie 4 this year which I presume saved the coach, but I'm not sure if Rischbieth, Bentley , Looby or Logan really helped them going forward.



So why can Port remain a contender year after year even when they have crappy drafts?

Dont mention Port Adelaide. It will wreck his arguement. Only mention sides that got priorty picks 2 years running.

[Jaz]

You still havn't read the post have you. It was not a comparison to Hawthorn. I mentioned them at the end as an example. I will remove that if it helps you to understand that that is not what the post is about.

If you cant be bothered to read it basically we took about 10 players who have all been moved on when there were 10 -15 senior quality players below them

[Jaz]

So explain to me how a team that won the flag in 2004 and beat us by a kick in the PF could manage a GF appearance last season but we couldn't even manage the 8?

Did they have a younger list in 2004? Nope.

Did they draft better than us in 2004 & 2005? Nope.

2004:

#11 Adam Thomson
#19 Ryan Willits
#34 James Ezard
#35 Fabian Deluca
#51 Benjamin Eckermann

They did rookie Danyle Pearce (interestingly they had only 2 rookies)

2005:

#30 Nick Lower
#44 Alipate Carlile
#58 Hugh Minson
#70 Jonathan Giles

They did rookie 4 this year which I presume saved the coach, but I'm not sure if Rischbieth, Bentley , Looby or Logan really helped them going forward.



So why can Port remain a contender year after year even when they have crappy drafts?

I would more than happy to swap our picks with there's For one nearly all of these players are still on the list. They have 2 senior players at the moment ( Carlile and Pearse) 3 are ruckmen who take a long time to develop (Minson, deluca and giles) and they also got daniel motlop

[JeffDunne]

I am talking about their performance in 2007 vs ours (since you want to defend Lyon). Some of those players may prove their worth in the future but they haven't really contributed much so far.

2004 we almost beat Port on their dung heap so I presume we were pretty close talent wise. They have lost seior players since then, us too. They had crappy drafts in 2004/5 in terms of input in 2007, us too.

I really would like to know the difference.

[plugger66]

You still havn't read the post have you. It was not a comparison to Hawthorn. I mentioned them at the end as an example. I will remove that if it helps you to understand that that is not what the post is about.

If you cant be bothered to read it basically we took about 10 players who have all been moved on when there were 10 -15 senior quality players below them

Thinking about it I cannot beleive we didnt draft all those players you mentioned. How stupid all JB had to do is build a time machine and go into the future and he would have seen how good those players would be. Also how the saints didnt get Simmonds is beyond me. He probably had already worked out a 5 year deal with the Tigers but surely he should have come to us even if he didnt want to.

[Jaz]

Thinking about it I cannot beleive we didnt draft all those players you mentioned. How stupid all JB had to do is build a time machine and go into the future and he would have seen how good those players would be.

Well that's the role of a recruiter, To establish which players are going to be good. Maybe if we spent more money on the department, like we are now then it would have made his job easier and we could have recognized one of these talents.

[123]

Thinking about it I cannot beleive we didnt draft all those players you mentioned. How stupid all JB had to do is build a time machine and go into the future and he would have seen how good those players would be.

Well that's the role of a recruiter, To establish which players are going to be good. Maybe if we spent more money on the department, like we are now then it would have made his job easier and we could have recognized one of these talents.

Heath Black for Fiora... that hurt.

[bobmurray]

I would more than happy to swap our picks with there's For one nearly all of these players are still on the list. They have 2 senior players at the moment ( Carlile and Pearse) 3 are ruckmen who take a long time to develop (Minson, deluca and giles) and they also got daniel motlop

Minson's gone.....

He had to retire through illness or injury......

[bobmurray]

Thinking about it I cannot beleive we didnt draft all those players you mentioned. How stupid all JB had to do is build a time machine and go into the future and he would have seen how good those players would be.

It might have made him a better recruiter than he's ended up being....

[JeffDunne]

Heath Black for Fiora... that hurt.

Actually it didn't.

Some might argue nothing for Black would have been a better option but that was the choice, Fiora or nothing.

[joffaboy]

Thank God GT is on record as saying he had absolutely nothing to do with the recruiting and left it all to John Beveridge.

Thats right a senior AFL coach abbrogated all drafting decisions and the future of the playing stocks to one man.

Thank god the GT haters cant hold him to account for all of those poor selections. Isn't that right?

[saintsRrising]

Heath Black for Fiora... that hurt.

Actually it didn't.

Some might argue nothing for Black would have been a better option but that was the choice, Fiora or nothing.

The or nothing...was only due to the person doing the negotiating.

Now with Waldron gone...who was doing the negotiating???

Yes GT's negotiating skills were wonderful weren't they??

The Black deal...3 clubs involved. Tigers did well, Freo did well....only Saints got screwed. And remember Freo is normally the club that is easy meat for other clubs!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brooks for two picks!!!!

Hamill's 5 year contract???

About the only deal that GT did which could be argued to have been fair value was Gram.


All this from someone that was lauded to be the master at negotiations and contracts...

I mean the guys record is not just bad, it is pitiful.

[JeffDunne]

Heath Black for Fiora... that hurt.

Actually it didn't.

Some might argue nothing for Black would have been a better option but that was the choice, Fiora or nothing.

The or nothing...was only due to the person doing the negotiating.

Excuse me?

"Only due"????

Oh please do tell sRr, because it sounds to me like you're claiming you know what/who/how the negotiations were handled.

Or is this simply yet another topic where you'll be caught out lying again?

[Saints43]

The or nothing...was only due to the person doing the negotiating.

Now with Waldron gone...who was doing the negotiating???

Yes GT's negotiating skills were wonderful weren't they??

The Black deal...3 clubs involved. Tigers did well, Freo did well....only Saints got screwed. And remember Freo is normally the club that is easy meat for other clubs!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brooks for two picks!!!!

Hamill's 5 year contract???

About the only deal that GT did which could be argued to have been fair value was Gram.


All this from someone that was lauded to be the master at negotiations and contracts...

I mean the guys record is not just bad, it is pitiful.

Wouldn't the fact that Black wanted to go back to WA put us in a slightly difficult bargaining position? Especially considering he had wanted to go back the previous season and we just happened to have trouble with our fax machine which caused the previously agreed deal not to go through.

You criticise Hamills' 5 year deal (which you know full well was a four year deal renegotiated to spread over five years for salary cap relief) but this is the reason we didn't get Simmonds. We weren't willing to offer a contract of that length. Richmond were. Do you support five year deals or not? Or only if the player involved doesn't get injured? Simmonds was terrible in his first year at Richmond if memory serves and I don't remember anyone crying that we'd missed out then.

GT's version of the Brooks deal (last weekend on SEN) was that Brooks had already gone as an early pick in what Beveridge considered a stronger draft than the current one so it wasn't seen as a massive strech to use the picks we did. Claimed is was Beveridge's decision. Described it as a "terrible deal". Probably shows how desperate we were for a ruckman after shipping Everitt out to Hawthorn - apparently releasing 10-15% of our salary cap. (Who wrote that contract?)

[meher baba]

To put all of this debate in perspective, I thought I’d take a look at the record of another club over the 2001-06 period.

In 2001, this club managed to pick up a superstar at pick 8 and another at pick 40 under the father /son rule as well as an erratic but highly skilled player at pick 24 and an OK smoky at pick 81, but then wasted pick 23 and pick 41 on two forwards who were inconsistent contributors and highly inaccurate in front of goal who they persevered with for a number of years before trading away for not much in exchange. In picking these two, they ignored players of the calibre of Mitchell, Medhurst, Lake and Schneider further down the list. They also used pick 69 for a dud, but we can hardly hold that against them.

In 2002, again they wasted picks 7, 23 and 36 on players who have never amounted to anything much when they could have had Byron Schammer, Brent Staker, Robert Shirley, Hamish McIntosh, Jason Winderlich and others further down the list.

In 2003, they managed to waste pick 7 and 22 on mediocre players, but got a good father/son pick at 38 before passing with pick 54. But they could have had Jed Adcock, Beau Waters, Amon Buchanan, Ben Hudson, Shane Tuck or our own Sam Fisher.

In 2004, they traded a promising young player and a first round draft pick for a troubled recycled player from a struggling club: a trade widely seen as an enormous risk at the time, although it has worked out rather well. They also picked up a dud at pick 32, another pretty good father/son at 48 and another good smoky at 62. But they could have had Justin Sherman or Daniel Pratt if they’d been more on the ball.

In 2005, they were back to their old tricks, drafting mediocre or worse players at picks 15, 31, 35 and 47 while missing out on the likes of Sam Gilbert, Joel Patfull and others. However, they did get a reasonable smoky at 61.

In 2006, they finally struck lucky with pick 7 and got a total gem of a player, along with a first rate father/son at 41.

To sum up, they – like St Kilda – had a first rate 2001, aided by the father/son rule and a really clever pick at 81. After this, they have more or less blown a lot of draft picks: 3 first round picks, 6 second round picks and 2 third round picks. However, the bad choices were partly offset by a few first rate father/son picks and 3 good smokies at the bottom of the draft.

However, take the father/son picks out of the picture, and their drafting record – given the picks that they have had and those they have blown – is far worse than ours over the same period.

All that terrible recruiting must have really hurt them…..NOT!! I’ll leave it to you to work out which club I’m talking about here.

[Apu]

You mentioned father and son picks a number of times.......Therefore it must be Geelong?

[spert]

It will be good when we move on from GT on this forum.. Ok we have recruited badly and for short term fixes only in typical St Kilda fashion ,as has sadly always been done. I am hoping Lyon and the current board looks at, and values long-term development of players for success, as opposed to previous coaches and boards.

[Otiman]

No doubt that '04 and '05 were weak drafts across the board. Having later picks due to finishing higher up the table made us trade for recycled players rather than have a go at some of the kids.

In 2004, aside from the top 5, none of the other players (Except probably Bate) would be considered in their sides top10, and would be considered for further development, depth, or delisting. Looking at it, if selections were made with the current crew at the helm, there's a high chance we would have went for Cameron Wood.

First Round, 2004.

Round Pick Player
Priority 1 Brett Deledio
Priority 2 Jarryd Roughead
Priority 3 Ryan Griffen
4 Richard Tambling
5 Lance Franklin
6 Tom Williams
7 Jordan Lewis
8 John Meesen
9 Jordan Russell
10 Chris Egan
11 Adam Thomson
12 Danny Meyer
13 Matthew Bate
14 Angus Monfries
15 Lynden Dunn
16 Adam Pattison
17 Andrew McQualter
18 Cameron Wood
19 Ryan Willits


Moving onto '05, looking at the top 20 picks again. Nothing stands out. Which is why we probably thought that pick 17 for Watts was a good deal. Again, aside from the top 5, possibly Ryder, Hurn, Higgins, Jones, and Varcoe stand out as quality AFL level players. Marcus Drum was delisted by Freo this year too, and put onto their rookie list ala McQualter.

Priority 1 Marc Murphy
Priority 2 Dale Thomas
Priority 3 Xavier Ellis
4 Josh Kennedy
5 Scott Pendlebury
6 Beau Dowler
7 Patrick Ryder
8 Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls
9 Mitchell Clark
10 Marcus Drum
11 Shaun Higgins
12 Nathan Jones
13 Shannon Hurn
14 Grant Birchall
15 Travis Varcoe
16 Richard Douglas
17 Darren Pfeiffer
18 Max Bailey
19 Courtenay Dempsey

We are already seeing the fruits of '06 with Armitage playing games, and Allen looking strong. Even Howard is playing some decent footy for the Scorpions (very impressed with his progress this year, but still a ways to go).

Of the '07 brigade, it's looking likely that Jack Steven and Ben McEvoy will be players. It's highly likely given other teams selections (Rookie Elevations, Scholarship Elevations) our Pick 59 (used on Gehrig) would have been used to pick up Eljay, so we can't really see Gehrig as a "lost chance at a kid".

I think our '06 and '07 drafts are 8/10, and staying out of '04 and '05 was a calculated risk that didn't pay off. The club has learnt, and topping up with AFL players is NOT the way to go. CJ and Miles (yet to be seen) have shown that topping up through mature aged WAFL players through the Rookie Draft provides better results than players who have been tried (and failed) in the AFL system.