The Fox Report - 11/8/08

[maverick]

The drafts of 03, 04 & 05 after the top 10 were extremely ordinary, yes we struggled, but there was very little decent at our picks or after in those drafts (excluding BJ).

.

So you believe that every club performed just as badly as the Saints in recruiting over those years??


YES GT topped up to win a flag...and that YES is a valid tactic.
Problem was that GT got his topping up picks wrong. His top ups did not produce any reall extra talent or even true depth.

It was HIS call...and it did not pan out. ...his top-ups did not turn out.

At the end of the day whether it was just bad luck, or poor judgement his long line of trades , bar Gram did not pan out....and that is way too low a strike rate.

Winners are grinners...

But Downers are Frowners...and GT decreased down the value of our list, he weakened it rather than strenthened it.


With Lyon....if Schneider does not pull his finger out over the remainder of the year, Lyon will cop more flak...and deservedly so for it was his call.

But the other mature picks cost squat all.

Yeah the trades are all bad, most clubs have tales of woe.
Hawthorn traded pick 8 for Danny Jacobs
Collingwood traded pick 3 for McKee
Carlton traded pick 4 for Hamill
Fremantle traded pick 1 in the best draft ever for Croad

So give me some players after the Ackland 2nd rounder in 04 that would be in our best 18 comfortably.

What about 05 can you give me some reasonable stuff after the Watts trade?

That would at least be something to debate instead of the rhetoric you keep posting.

[Mr Magic]

From the 2005 draft the following were all taken later
Rhan Hooper
Andrew Swallow
Ryan Gamble
Joel Patful
Justin Sherman
Mathew Stokes

[saintsRrising]

Well if the buck stops with coach with building a team then why are we argueing. Even though Gt didnt win us a flag he built a side that made 3 finals in a row

GT did well in his early years. That I have never denied.

The recruiting by Blight and the Waldron/RB/GT team just prior gave him a huge leg up though. But he made the most of it...early on....but then his decisions started destroying list value.

and at the moment RL has built a side that may playin one final out of 2 but isnt really going anywhere.

I ask you this is the list RL has bulit going to improve next year in your opinion?

Next year:

On the going anywahere...we lack GOOD young talent.....and do not really have any true young stars emerging.

Steven will start to emerge,,,but will still be a kid.

Ben too...but will start to be useful.
Armo will be that bit better.
Geary will have muscled up ..will be no star but will be useful.

Eddy will be better for this years run...but again looks to be an average player.

Allen... I really do not knwo. But IF he could becomea useful tall up forward it would help Lyon and our structurea great deal.

2009 draft kids will be more for 2009+

Harvey will be a loss. GTrain not.

So for Lyon to have a more competitive team in 2009 he is going to have to mainly rely on extracting more consistency out of the list. This has been missing post streak though.

Can Madden teach Kosi to ruck???? Be lovely if he could learn to tap and use his body well.


BUT midfield is our greatest prblem.. in modern football midfield is key.

lately we have seen Gram and sam take rotations there...and BJ a bit more too.

Midfield takes time to learn....and I havea string feeling that all 3 will feature more in our midfeid next year..and with each game will slowly improve and give us some extra bite that we soely need there.

We are probably one classy mid short though. Would Lyon makea play for Kerr?

Will Armo surprise us???


These are all unknown, but are all key to us havinga much better 2009.

Constinency....
Kicking skills.... these are our two biggset problems. The first is perhaps more easy to change...but for 4 seasons the players have lacked in it.

Confidence helps with kicking....but this year our kicking has been a big achilles heel.

Hopefuly over summer kicking skills will be a key target for improvement...but there is alimit to such improvement.

So to answer your question..yes I think we can have a better 2009.....but our solution is probably more long tera, to keep our core players like Roo, BJ, Ball, Sam, Gram and Dal etc together for the next 5 seasons and to each and every year add a bit more talent to it.

I am not a believer in quick fixes.

I would also tend to think that last years bulge of older players was more of an aberation driven by opportunity.

Teams do not noramally give away players like King for nothing....

[saintsRrising]

.
Hawthorn traded pick 8 for Danny Jacobs
.

Yes the Hawks stuffed up then...before they lifted their game.

The asinst in the BW/RB/GT/MK era did some wonderful trades....but it all then fell apart. Not having Blight asa carrot did not help.

PS If you want to see the players for each draft just go to footywire.com and click on drafts and then pick the year.

[maverick]

.
Hawthorn traded pick 8 for Danny Jacobs
.

Yes the Hawks stuffed up then...before they lifted their game.

The asinst in the BW/RB/GT/MK era did some wonderful trades....but it all then fell apart. Not having Blight asa carrot did not help.

PS If you want to see the players for each draft just go to footywire.com and click on drafts and then pick the year.

I know where they are.

I want YOU to tell me who YOU think would have been walk up starts into our team in those drafts.

As i say lts of p!ss and wind but little opinion, 3 posts to avoide the question sofar and counting

(not expecting a response now other to say nothing as per usual)

[Mr Magic]

Maverick,
I did as you asked and listed 6 players from the 2005 draft - no response?

I also saw some news report today that stated that Nathan Von Berlow was a future captain so he certainly would fit your 'criteria'.

[HarveysDeciple]

[quote="Mr Magic"]From the 2005 draft the following were all taken later
Rhan Hooper - average player
Andrew Swallow - stuck in the twos
Ryan Gamble - looks promising
Joel Patful - good defender
Justin Sherman - average player
Mathew Stokes - gun

[rodgerfox]

Maverick,
I did as you asked and listed 6 players from the 2005 draft - no response?

I also saw some news report today that stated that Nathan Von Berlow was a future captain so he certainly would fit your 'criteria'.

Is it these ones?

Rhan Hooper
Andrew Swallow
Ryan Gamble
Joel Patful
Justin Sherman
Mathew Stokes


If so, do you think any of them would make a difference to us right now?

I don't. Stokes maybe, but only maybe.


Also, how many of them have done an ACL or broken their leg since they were drafted?

[Mr Magic]

Maverick,
I did as you asked and listed 6 players from the 2005 draft - no response?

I also saw some news report today that stated that Nathan Von Berlow was a future captain so he certainly would fit your 'criteria'.

Is it these ones?

Rhan Hooper
Andrew Swallow
Ryan Gamble
Joel Patful
Justin Sherman
Mathew Stokes


If so, do you think any of them would make a difference to us right now?

I don't. Stokes maybe, but only maybe.


Also, how many of them have done an ACL or broken their leg since they were drafted?

All of them have been better than Watts turned out, even if that was because of his broken leg.

Given that we had Roo, G-Train and Kosi at the time, why the need to take a single-position player (could only ever have played FF) like Watts?

I have absolutely no idea as to their internal thinking at that time but he was going to have to turn into a 'gun FF' or they were always going to get grief from that selection. Remember when we decided to get Watts, G-Train was the reigning Coleman Medallist.


The question posed was who if anybody was better in that draft that we could have taken instead of Watts.

I just picked out 7 randomly - go have a look at the full list - there are probably many more.

[maverick]

Maverick,
I did as you asked and listed 6 players from the 2005 draft - no response?

I also saw some news report today that stated that Nathan Von Berlow was a future captain so he certainly would fit your 'criteria'.

yes you did just noticed now, still waiting for SRR.

Not bad, but I would doubt any of them would be in our best 22.

Whilst Swallow has shown a bit and Stokes and Gamble are playing well at the Cats, how they would have gone at the Saints is anybody's guess.

Still not much really, as for Van Berlo, I remember a time when Begley was touted as a future captain as well

[Mr Magic]

Maverick,
I did as you asked and listed 6 players from the 2005 draft - no response?

I also saw some news report today that stated that Nathan Von Berlow was a future captain so he certainly would fit your 'criteria'.

yes you did just noticed now, still waiting for SRR.

Not bad, but I would doubt any of them would be in our best 22.

Whilst Swallow has shown a bit and Stokes and Gamble are playing well at the Cats, how they would have gone at the Saints is anybody's guess.

Still not much really, as for Van Berlo, I remember a time when Begley was touted as a future captain as well

Maverick,
Injury can curtail any career adn my question is more why they (those that made the decision) decided they 'had' to get him? See my response to rodgerfox re his inability to play anywhere else other than FF.

Obviosuly his existing Club felt the deal we were offering was of more value than the player, otherwise they wouldn't have proceeded with the trade.
Were they so well off for FF options that they could afford to clear this one?
Were they in a better position re FF than we were, with the current Coleman Medallist, plus Kosi (remember we had already taken Brooks to alleviate the Ruck situation so I assume that Kosi would be released to play elsewhere?).

It is the logic of trading for a FF that's got me confused? WHy did we so desperately need to do it then? Didn't we have other more pressing needs than a FF back then?

[rodgerfox]

It is the logic of trading for a FF that's got me confused? WHy did we so desperately need to do it then? Didn't we have other more pressing needs than a FF back then?

Ironically, at the time Watts was seen as great 'contester' and highly regarded for his forward line pressure.

That type of player would be extremely handy right now.

If only he didn't break his leg in half.

[saintsRrising]

The Saints in the BW/RB/GT/MK era did some wonderful trades....but it all then fell apart. Not having Blight asa carrot did not help.

PS If you want to see the players for each draft just go to footywire.com and click on drafts and then pick the year.

I know where they are.

I want YOU to tell me who YOU think would have been walk up starts into our team in those drafts.

As i say lts of p!ss and wind but little opinion, 3 posts to avoide the question sofar and counting
(not expecting a response now other to say nothing as per usual)

1/ Avoid the question? If you read it again you will see that I posted a site so that you can see ALL the draft picks for all three years. There is no shortage of players in each year.

I could retype all of the years...even though anyone can already see thaem at the site I have listed.

But for the sake of YOUR exercise since you appear unwilling to read what is already shown on another site:

Lets take 2004

After our first pick (McQualter) players taken in that year that have played significant football include :
Cameron Wood
Dean Polo
Thomas Murphy
Sean Rusling
Nathan Van Berlo
Matthew Rosa
Jarred Moore
Brent Prismall
Luke McGuane
Mark Lecras
Travis Cloke F/S
Ivan Maric
Mitch Morton F/S
Justin Sherman
Henry Slattery
Nathan Ablett F/S
Jadyn Attard
Simon Taylor
Chris Knights
Jesse Smith F/S
Matthew Egan
Chis Bryan
Daniel Pratt
Will Thursfield
Joshua Gibson
Danyle Pearce
Clinton Young
Dale Morris
Heritier Obrien
Matthew Warnock
Scott McMahon
Ryan Crowley
Aaron Edwards
Josh Drummond
Scott Harding


So that is 35 players = MORE than 2 AFL players per team. AFTER the first round and from JUST the one year.

…and then there is a pool of others in that year such as Fabian Deluca, Heath Grundy etc who are playing, but less regularly and are a rung down. ie depth players, or players that may take longer to bloom.



2/ However as I have posted before. There is no point just cherry picking in hindsight (even though the above clearly shows that IF you were good enough there were players to be had) over one particular pick......and nor do I expect each draft selection to be a first 18 player. that would be silly.


HOWEVER if you want to be the best team in the competition you need to OUTPERFORM most, if not all teams to build a better list.

For several years the Saints did exactly that. We outperformed other teams in improving the quality of our list.

Stating that there were not players avaialble in these years is not true.

Lets compare ouselves for example with Essendon, a team that was middle of the rung in that period...and surely a team that we would want to be doing far better than:

2003

Bradley
Stanton
Nash
Dyson

R Clarke
Guerra
S Fisher
Callaghan


2004
McQualter (delisted and then rookied later)
Ackland
McGough
Gwilt

Monfries
Andrew Lee
Slattery
Paul Thomas

2005
Watts
Gilbert
Rix
Sweeney

Ryder
Demspey
Neagle F/s
Lucy

Now as I said no one gets it perfect, and if you want to compare recruiting you really need to compare all the picks over a period of time.

Did we outperform the Dons?

No.


As I have stated before our drafting in the years of 2003/04/05 was poor . We were out-performed by other teams.


There were players avaiable and even if the years were leener than other years, or if we did not have a low first round pick, there were players available if we were good enough.

Fact is our drafting/trading was poor, and we in this period fell short of even the bare minimum to replace players againg, let alone be good enough to improve our list.

Our list went backwards in this period....our recruiting was poor.

[Mr Magic]

It is the logic of trading for a FF that's got me confused? WHy did we so desperately need to do it then? Didn't we have other more pressing needs than a FF back then?

Ironically, at the time Watts was seen as great 'contester' and highly regarded for his forward line pressure.

That type of player would be extremely handy right now.

If only he didn't break his leg in half.

But rodger, my question remains. Did we need to go 'hammer and tong' to get a FF. notwithstanding that he had great wraps (not eough to keep him at his existing Club who accepted the trade for him)?

Why not get a top flite on-baller or FB etc?

I'm not questioning his ability, just our thought processes in going after him?

I understand teh thinking on going for Brooks, our dire position with ruckmen. Ditto going after Acland. But Watts still has me puzzled?

[saintsRrising]

PS...you will also note too Maverick that in just that one year of picks after the first round that there were players available in all of the areas that we need extra in...

Key defenders
Ruck
Small and medium forwards
Mids

In fact just from those players....and excluding the "unavailable" father sons (which is a pity as Cloke at CHF would improve the structure, as would Ablett in the pocket) you get the following team:

Drummond Morris O’Brien
Gibson Egan Young
Van Berlo Prismall Slattery
Pearce Thursfield Polo
Rusling Edwards Moore

Taylor Crowley Sherman

Bryan Harding Rosa Pratt

[plugger66]

Maverick,
I did as you asked and listed 6 players from the 2005 draft - no response?

I also saw some news report today that stated that Nathan Von Berlow was a future captain so he certainly would fit your 'criteria'.

Is it these ones?

Rhan Hooper
Andrew Swallow
Ryan Gamble
Joel Patful
Justin Sherman
Mathew Stokes


If so, do you think any of them would make a difference to us right now?

I don't. Stokes maybe, but only maybe.


Also, how many of them have done an ACL or broken their leg since they were drafted?

All of them have been better than Watts turned out, even if that was because of his broken leg.

Given that we had Roo, G-Train and Kosi at the time, why the need to take a single-position player (could only ever have played FF) like Watts?

I have absolutely no idea as to their internal thinking at that time but he was going to have to turn into a 'gun FF' or they were always going to get grief from that selection. Remember when we decided to get Watts, G-Train was the reigning Coleman Medallist.


The question posed was who if anybody was better in that draft that we could have taken instead of Watts.

I just picked out 7 randomly - go have a look at the full list - there are probably many more.

Were any of them around pick 17. No use giving us every name in the draft otherwise you could say we missed Sam fisher twice before we got him.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger,
Why do they need to be around pick 17?
Surely if we kept the pick instead of trading it away we could have chosen any player still available.

That some of the players were taken in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's is immaterial to the question.

The only relevant point is if they were available for selection when that particular pick came around. the answer to that question is yes.

Conversely, we can ask every other CLub why they allowed Sam Fisher to 'escape' until we selected him?

I'm not suggesting Fergus Watts was a dud (we'll never know how good/bad he was because of injury), but I'm questioning the thought process that saw us trade for him when we were seemingly well off for players of his 'type'.

[plugger66]

Plugger,
Why do they need to be around pick 17?
Surely if we kept the pick instead of trading it away we could have chosen any player still available.

That some of the players were taken in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's is immaterial to the question.

The only relevant point is if they were available for selection when that particular pick came around. the answer to that question is yes.

Conversely, we can ask every other CLub why they allowed Sam Fisher to 'escape' until we selected him?

I'm not suggesting Fergus Watts was a dud (we'll never know how good/bad he was because of injury), but I'm questioning the thought process that saw us trade for him when we were seemingly well off for players of his 'type'.

You have to use the picks that around 17 because up until about pick 25 there are not many smokies unless you pick someone like Howard and that has worked a treat. If you go through any draft you miss plenty if you include every pick as my case in point with Sam Fisher. Why didnt we pick him with our first pick and not let every other club have a crack at him because he was a bit of a smokey.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger,
Why do they need to be around pick 17?
Surely if we kept the pick instead of trading it away we could have chosen any player still available.

That some of the players were taken in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's is immaterial to the question.

The only relevant point is if they were available for selection when that particular pick came around. the answer to that question is yes.

Conversely, we can ask every other CLub why they allowed Sam Fisher to 'escape' until we selected him?

I'm not suggesting Fergus Watts was a dud (we'll never know how good/bad he was because of injury), but I'm questioning the thought process that saw us trade for him when we were seemingly well off for players of his 'type'.

You have to use the picks that around 17 because up until about pick 25 there are not many smokies unless you pick someone like Howard and that has worked a treat. If you go through any draft you miss plenty if you include every pick as my case in point with Sam Fisher. Why didnt we pick him with our first pick and not let every other club have a crack at him because he was a bit of a smokey.

I'm sorry, I disagree. If we had that pick instead of trading it we could have selected anybody we wanted who had not been already taken (including any Father/sons).

Who we or other clubs chose is up to the same hindsight ridicule as all other picks, whether they are highly regarded, half smokies or full smokies.

Now, what about the point I have been making?
Why trade for a FF?

[plugger66]

Plugger,
Why do they need to be around pick 17?
Surely if we kept the pick instead of trading it away we could have chosen any player still available.

That some of the players were taken in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's is immaterial to the question.

The only relevant point is if they were available for selection when that particular pick came around. the answer to that question is yes.

Conversely, we can ask every other CLub why they allowed Sam Fisher to 'escape' until we selected him?

I'm not suggesting Fergus Watts was a dud (we'll never know how good/bad he was because of injury), but I'm questioning the thought process that saw us trade for him when we were seemingly well off for players of his 'type'.

You have to use the picks that around 17 because up until about pick 25 there are not many smokies unless you pick someone like Howard and that has worked a treat. If you go through any draft you miss plenty if you include every pick as my case in point with Sam Fisher. Why didnt we pick him with our first pick and not let every other club have a crack at him because he was a bit of a smokey.

I'm sorry, I disagree. If we had that pick instead of trading it we could have selected anybody we wanted who had not been already taken (including any Father/sons).

Who we or other clubs chose is up to the same hindsight ridicule as all other picks, whether they are highly regarded, half smokies or full smokies.

Now, what about the point I have been making?
Why trade for a FF?

That I cannot answer. In hindsight a stupid move but G was getting older and GT was on record as saying Kosi was a ruckman so we needed a replacement. Also in hindsight he was probably right about Kosi because he certainly isnt a FF.

[Mr Magic]

Plugger,
Why do they need to be around pick 17?
Surely if we kept the pick instead of trading it away we could have chosen any player still available.

That some of the players were taken in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's is immaterial to the question.

The only relevant point is if they were available for selection when that particular pick came around. the answer to that question is yes.

Conversely, we can ask every other CLub why they allowed Sam Fisher to 'escape' until we selected him?

I'm not suggesting Fergus Watts was a dud (we'll never know how good/bad he was because of injury), but I'm questioning the thought process that saw us trade for him when we were seemingly well off for players of his 'type'.

You have to use the picks that around 17 because up until about pick 25 there are not many smokies unless you pick someone like Howard and that has worked a treat. If you go through any draft you miss plenty if you include every pick as my case in point with Sam Fisher. Why didnt we pick him with our first pick and not let every other club have a crack at him because he was a bit of a smokey.

I'm sorry, I disagree. If we had that pick instead of trading it we could have selected anybody we wanted who had not been already taken (including any Father/sons).

Who we or other clubs chose is up to the same hindsight ridicule as all other picks, whether they are highly regarded, half smokies or full smokies.

Now, what about the point I have been making?
Why trade for a FF?

That I cannot answer. In hindsight a stupid move but G was getting older and GT was on record as saying Kosi was a ruckman so we needed a replacement. Also in hindsight he was probably right about Kosi because he certainly isnt a FF.

Fair enough.
But this is a perfect case for the argument that what gets posted on here too often is complete uninformed BS.

Since none of us have put their hand up to say we know definitively we can only assume that this whole discussion is based on outside perceptions without any real knowledge of what was being discussed by those who ultimately made the decisions.

We are all sitting here second-guessing those decisions with teh benefit of hindsight and without knowing the ins and outs of why certain decisions were being made.

The same thing can be said for what's going on today at the Club.

We're (only us morons of course!) voicing opinions on what coaches/players/administrators are doing based on our perceptions, again with very little (probably zero) knowledge of what is actually going on.
But yet so many of us speak with the 'voice of authority' on these matters when the truth be told we have NFI.

[saintsRrising]

when the truth be told we have NFI.

though if we all knew....there would be little reason for this forum.

The forum has divers uses from getting your frustrations out oftera loss, to celbratinga win....to pondering what ifs......to analysising anything and everything about the Saints.

[Mr Magic]

when the truth be told we have NFI.

though if we all knew....there would be little reason for this forum.

The forum has divers uses from getting your frustrations out oftera loss, to celbratinga win....to pondering what ifs......to analysising anything and everything about the Saints.

We could have a 'love-in' instead.
I'm old enough to remember!

[saintsRrising]

As i say lts of p!ss and wind but little opinion, 3 posts to avoide the question sofar and counting

(not expecting a response now other to say nothing as per usual)

Well I have replied in detail showing that there were enough players available to do better than we did if we had been competent enough to have identified them and not with hindsight, but just at the rate that at least the average teams were doing.

So how about you now demonstrate why our recruiting was not poor in that period when compared to what was available and what the average to better recruiting teams achieved in that period?

Or are you just "p!ss and wind as you say?

I mean if you are going to have a go about lack of substance surely you are willing to post the necessary detail to back up that your opinion is well thought through and based on hard facts.

[maverick]

The Saints in the BW/RB/GT/MK era did some wonderful trades....but it all then fell apart. Not having Blight asa carrot did not help.

PS If you want to see the players for each draft just go to footywire.com and click on drafts and then pick the year.

I know where they are.

I want YOU to tell me who YOU think would have been walk up starts into our team in those drafts.

As i say lts of p!ss and wind but little opinion, 3 posts to avoide the question sofar and counting
(not expecting a response now other to say nothing as per usual)

1/ Avoid the question? If you read it again you will see that I posted a site so that you can see ALL the draft picks for all three years. There is no shortage of players in each year.

I could retype all of the years...even though anyone can already see thaem at the site I have listed.

But for the sake of YOUR exercise since you appear unwilling to read what is already shown on another site:

Lets take 2004

After our first pick (McQualter) players taken in that year that have played significant football include :
Cameron Wood IGNORE
Dean PoloBefore IGNORE
Thomas Murphy IGNORE
Sean Rusling IGNORE
Nathan Van Berlo IGNORE
Matthew Rosa IGNORE
Jarred Moore IGNORE
Brent Prismall IGNORE
Luke McGuane AVERAGE
Mark Lecras AVERAGE
Travis Cloke F/S WHY LISTED?
Ivan Maric NO GOOD
Mitch Morton F/S WHY LISTED?
Justin Sherman AVERAGE
Henry Slattery VERY AVERAGE
Nathan Ablett F/S WHY?
Jadyn Attard DELISTED BY LIONS
Simon Taylor AVERAGE
Chris Knights OK
Jesse Smith F/S WHY?
Matthew Egan GOOD 1
Chis Bryan NO GOOD
Daniel Pratt OK 2
Will Thursfield ROOKIE
Joshua Gibson ROOKIE
Danyle Pearce ROOKIE
Clinton Young ROOKIE
Dale Morris EOOKIE
Heritier Obrien EOOKIE
Matthew Warnock ROOKIE
Scott McMahon ROOKIE
Ryan Crowley DELISTED then ROOKIE
Aaron Edwards ROOKIE
Josh Drummond ROOKIE
Scott Harding ROOKIE


So that is 35 players = MORE than 2 AFL players per team. AFTER the first round and from JUST the one year.

…and then there is a pool of others in that year such as Fabian Deluca, Heath Grundy etc who are playing, but less regularly and are a rung down. ie depth players, or players that may take longer to bloom.



2/ However as I have posted before. There is no point just cherry picking in hindsight (even though the above clearly shows that IF you were good enough there were players to be had) over one particular pick......and nor do I expect each draft selection to be a first 18 player. that would be silly.


HOWEVER if you want to be the best team in the competition you need to OUTPERFORM most, if not all teams to build a better list.

For several years the Saints did exactly that. We outperformed other teams in improving the quality of our list.

Stating that there were not players avaialble in these years is not true.

Lets compare ouselves for example with Essendon, a team that was middle of the rung in that period...and surely a team that we would want to be doing far better than:

2003

Bradley
Stanton
Nash
Dyson

R Clarke
Guerra
S Fisher
Callaghan


2004
McQualter (delisted and then rookied later)
Ackland
McGough
Gwilt

Monfries
Andrew Lee
Slattery
Paul Thomas

2005
Watts
Gilbert
Rix
Sweeney

Ryder
Demspey
Neagle F/s
Lucy

Now as I said no one gets it perfect, and if you want to compare recruiting you really need to compare all the picks over a period of time.

Did we outperform the Dons?

No.


As I have stated before our drafting in the years of 2003/04/05 was poor . We were out-performed by other teams.


There were players avaiable and even if the years were leener than other years, or if we did not have a low first round pick, there were players available if we were good enough.

Fact is our drafting/trading was poor, and we in this period fell short of even the bare minimum to replace players againg, let alone be good enough to improve our list.

Our list went backwards in this period....our recruiting was poor.

Way to twist a soapbox, I am very impressed.
I thought the complaint was about GT and his drafting of recycled players, ordinary drafting is down to Beveridge, why no call to move him on?

You list players before the 2nd pick, father sons and rookies.
Rookies are not drafted by any team, so EEVRYONE missed them, good twist though...

FWIW I have responded to the players you list, i reckon two are walk up starts, the others are no better or worse than Eddy, Geary, Gwilt etc who are average at best....

And comparing us to the Bombers including Ryder who was 10 picks above our first is laughable. Other tha Ryder, we stack up fairly well.

If you are going to throw up a defence make it a fair fight if you can open both eyes.