As I remember it, NicNat was the standout talent of the 08 draft pool, but he was still raw and a project player, and was always going to take a while. Melbourne were utterly awful and seemed to decide they needed someone who could meaningfully impact in their first year (and as Taj pointed out, the Dees would have had a lot of trouble developing Naitanui to his potential anyway). I still would have rolled the dice on NicNat if I were them though.
Watts was an odd one. He got some big numbers in the champs and even running around in the middle in the TAC Cup, but he never was really tested and he thoroughly failed to convince me. Bit like Ben Griffiths, he made his name beating up on lesser opponents. His big bag of goals at the champs was against a very weak NSW side, and of the three big name kpds in the draft that year, he basically played on none of them all year. Trengove was injured all season, Phil Davis hurt himself in the first qtr of the SA/VM game when he was matched up with Watts, and when Hurley and Wattsâ TAC sides met up, Watts played through the middle and racked up numbers while going nowhere near the forward line, while Hurley dominated the defensive 50, stopped anyone from scoring, and won the game for his team before (if I remember right) sneaking forward to score a goal or two. Watts did test really well at draft camp, and It was well-known a fair bit before the draft that Melb were going to take him at 1, but Iâve never really been able to work out why. He certainly didnât scream âstar in the makingâ to me.
however they drafted, their no expectations for three years, just take it easy and get comfortable with yourself as a person, weâre gonna be tanking anyway development strategy ruined the talent he did have.
Hartlett is IMHO the best player in that group by far.
By far?
Is Hurley in the group? Because I wouldnât swap Hurley for anybody in that top 10.
Theres a few in the teens and 20âs Iâd more than consider it though.
Very Impressive draft overall.
Agree - at this stage of their careers Hurley would go to #1 or #3 at worst.
Extremely rare for a player to be very good at holding down both key back and key forward positionsâŚyouâd have to go back to Scott Lucas who last did that winning B&Fs at both CHF & CHB.
As I remember it, NicNat was the standout talent of the 08 draft pool, but he was still raw and a project player, and was always going to take a while. Melbourne were utterly awful and seemed to decide they needed someone who could meaningfully impact in their first year (and as Taj pointed out, the Dees would have had a lot of trouble developing Naitanui to his potential anyway). I still would have rolled the dice on NicNat if I were them though.
Watts was an odd one. He got some big numbers in the champs and even running around in the middle in the TAC Cup, but he never was really tested and he thoroughly failed to convince me. Bit like Ben Griffiths, he made his name beating up on lesser opponents. His big bag of goals at the champs was against a very weak NSW side, and of the three big name kpds in the draft that year, he basically played on none of them all year. Trengove was injured all season, Phil Davis hurt himself in the first qtr of the SA/VM game when he was matched up with Watts, and when Hurley and Wattsâ TAC sides met up, Watts played through the middle and racked up numbers while going nowhere near the forward line, while Hurley dominated the defensive 50, stopped anyone from scoring, and won the game for his team before (if I remember right) sneaking forward to score a goal or two. Watts did test really well at draft camp, and It was well-known a fair bit before the draft that Melb were going to take him at 1, but Iâve never really been able to work out why. He certainly didnât scream âstar in the makingâ to me.
.
This was at the point when one of their main recruiters had an account on here, registered with his @melbournefc.com.au email address - and used to troll people like you - wasnât it?
As I remember it, NicNat was the standout talent of the 08 draft pool, but he was still raw and a project player, and was always going to take a while. Melbourne were utterly awful and seemed to decide they needed someone who could meaningfully impact in their first year (and as Taj pointed out, the Dees would have had a lot of trouble developing Naitanui to his potential anyway). I still would have rolled the dice on NicNat if I were them though.
Watts was an odd one. He got some big numbers in the champs and even running around in the middle in the TAC Cup, but he never was really tested and he thoroughly failed to convince me. Bit like Ben Griffiths, he made his name beating up on lesser opponents. His big bag of goals at the champs was against a very weak NSW side, and of the three big name kpds in the draft that year, he basically played on none of them all year. Trengove was injured all season, Phil Davis hurt himself in the first qtr of the SA/VM game when he was matched up with Watts, and when Hurley and Wattsâ TAC sides met up, Watts played through the middle and racked up numbers while going nowhere near the forward line, while Hurley dominated the defensive 50, stopped anyone from scoring, and won the game for his team before (if I remember right) sneaking forward to score a goal or two. Watts did test really well at draft camp, and It was well-known a fair bit before the draft that Melb were going to take him at 1, but Iâve never really been able to work out why. He certainly didnât scream âstar in the makingâ to me.
.
Nic Nat was also coming off shoulder injuries so he wasnât going to be ready for around 10 to 15 weeks. As it turned out, he played in the WAFL for a few months before softly debuting.
I remember the AFL / media hype machine saying Vickery and Nic Nat were the future of rucks. A few years later they then went at it again with Majak and Nic Nat.
His tackling and work around stoppages (more so being another midfielder than rucking) set him apart from everyone else. I think he still struggles to read the game in open space. If there are a lot of players around, itâs a simpler âsee ball get ballâ game.
That was a pretty good draft year. Hannebery, Sloane, Beams and Motlop all going late second, early third round. Suckling, Clancee Pearce and Breust as rookie selections too.
As I remember it, NicNat was the standout talent of the 08 draft pool, but he was still raw and a project player, and was always going to take a while. Melbourne were utterly awful and seemed to decide they needed someone who could meaningfully impact in their first year (and as Taj pointed out, the Dees would have had a lot of trouble developing Naitanui to his potential anyway). I still would have rolled the dice on NicNat if I were them though.
Watts was an odd one. He got some big numbers in the champs and even running around in the middle in the TAC Cup, but he never was really tested and he thoroughly failed to convince me. Bit like Ben Griffiths, he made his name beating up on lesser opponents. His big bag of goals at the champs was against a very weak NSW side, and of the three big name kpds in the draft that year, he basically played on none of them all year. Trengove was injured all season, Phil Davis hurt himself in the first qtr of the SA/VM game when he was matched up with Watts, and when Hurley and Wattsâ TAC sides met up, Watts played through the middle and racked up numbers while going nowhere near the forward line, while Hurley dominated the defensive 50, stopped anyone from scoring, and won the game for his team before (if I remember right) sneaking forward to score a goal or two. Watts did test really well at draft camp, and It was well-known a fair bit before the draft that Melb were going to take him at 1, but Iâve never really been able to work out why. He certainly didnât scream âstar in the makingâ to me.
.
This was at the point when one of their main recruiters had an account on here, registered with his @melbournefc.com.au email address - and used to troll people like you - wasnât it?
Lol! I hadnât heard about that. Wasnt me he was trolling, thatâs before I got really serious about watching the u18s and forming my own opinions. He probably had a go at guys like ant555 and mojo311, who were really knowledgeable but who arenât really around here any more.
Makes sense though, the Dees drafting was so terrible around that time, maybe cos their recruiters wasted all their time arguing with random strangers on the Internet rather than recruitingâŚ
Was their drafting so bad or their development? I mean, lots of these guys were highly rated by everyone. Sure, others wouldnât have taken Watts #1 but he wouldnât have got past Carlton and #7 if heâd been available, and might have gone #3 if Melbourne had drafted Naitanui. Similar stories with a lot of their other top picks. At most many of them would have gone in the next half-dozen picks.
As I remember it, NicNat was the standout talent of the 08 draft pool, but he was still raw and a project player, and was always going to take a while. Melbourne were utterly awful and seemed to decide they needed someone who could meaningfully impact in their first year (and as Taj pointed out, the Dees would have had a lot of trouble developing Naitanui to his potential anyway). I still would have rolled the dice on NicNat if I were them though.
Watts was an odd one. He got some big numbers in the champs and even running around in the middle in the TAC Cup, but he never was really tested and he thoroughly failed to convince me. Bit like Ben Griffiths, he made his name beating up on lesser opponents. His big bag of goals at the champs was against a very weak NSW side, and of the three big name kpds in the draft that year, he basically played on none of them all year. Trengove was injured all season, Phil Davis hurt himself in the first qtr of the SA/VM game when he was matched up with Watts, and when Hurley and Wattsâ TAC sides met up, Watts played through the middle and racked up numbers while going nowhere near the forward line, while Hurley dominated the defensive 50, stopped anyone from scoring, and won the game for his team before (if I remember right) sneaking forward to score a goal or two. Watts did test really well at draft camp, and It was well-known a fair bit before the draft that Melb were going to take him at 1, but Iâve never really been able to work out why. He certainly didnât scream âstar in the makingâ to me.
.
This was at the point when one of their main recruiters had an account on here, registered with his @melbournefc.com.au email address - and used to troll people like you - wasnât it?
Was their drafting so bad or their development? I mean, lots of these guys were highly rated by everyone. Sure, others wouldn't have taken Watts #1 but he wouldn't have got past Carlton and #7 if he'd been available, and might have gone #3 if Melbourne had drafted Naitanui. Similar stories with a lot of their other top picks. At most many of them would have gone in the next half-dozen picks.
Their drafting strategy was completely wrong - they went for âoutsideâ ball types who looked good in space and playing uncontested footy: Watts, Morton, Blease. Thereâs a stat going around that I think shows that only those players taken in the Top 30 of the draft that can win at least 33% (give or take) of their possessions as contested actually make it at AFL level. None of Watts, Morton or Blease fall into this category. Same reason why Leroy Jetta doesnât make it but Ollie Wines & Dyson Heppell are instant hits at AFL level.
As I remember it, NicNat was the standout talent of the 08 draft pool, but he was still raw and a project player, and was always going to take a while. Melbourne were utterly awful and seemed to decide they needed someone who could meaningfully impact in their first year (and as Taj pointed out, the Dees would have had a lot of trouble developing Naitanui to his potential anyway). I still would have rolled the dice on NicNat if I were them though.
Watts was an odd one. He got some big numbers in the champs and even running around in the middle in the TAC Cup, but he never was really tested and he thoroughly failed to convince me. Bit like Ben Griffiths, he made his name beating up on lesser opponents. His big bag of goals at the champs was against a very weak NSW side, and of the three big name kpds in the draft that year, he basically played on none of them all year. Trengove was injured all season, Phil Davis hurt himself in the first qtr of the SA/VM game when he was matched up with Watts, and when Hurley and Wattsâ TAC sides met up, Watts played through the middle and racked up numbers while going nowhere near the forward line, while Hurley dominated the defensive 50, stopped anyone from scoring, and won the game for his team before (if I remember right) sneaking forward to score a goal or two. Watts did test really well at draft camp, and It was well-known a fair bit before the draft that Melb were going to take him at 1, but Iâve never really been able to work out why. He certainly didnât scream âstar in the makingâ to me.
.
This was at the point when one of their main recruiters had an account on here, registered with his @melbournefc.com.au email address - and used to troll people like you - wasnât it?
Youâre kidding? Is that fair dinkum?
Yep, canât remember who confirmed it, I think foggy.
This is on Old Blitz I think (maybe even Old Old Blitz).
Was their drafting so bad or their development? I mean, lots of these guys were highly rated by everyone. Sure, others wouldn't have taken Watts #1 but he wouldn't have got past Carlton and #7 if he'd been available, and might have gone #3 if Melbourne had drafted Naitanui. Similar stories with a lot of their other top picks. At most many of them would have gone in the next half-dozen picks.
Their drafting strategy was completely wrong - they went for âoutsideâ ball types who looked good in space and playing uncontested footy: Watts, Morton, Blease. Thereâs a stat going around that I think shows that only those players taken in the Top 30 of the draft that can win at least 33% (give or take) of their possessions as contested actually make it at AFL level. None of Watts, Morton or Blease fall into this category. Same reason why Leroy Jetta doesnât make it but Ollie Wines & Dyson Heppell are instant hits at AFL level.
also they tanked through the development years of those guys. whats that broke a nail? have a few weeks off. Jebus dude donât go so hard out there itâs not worth getting you injured this year. Itâs not fair to expect good football out of Jack Watts after only 3 years. etc
Was their drafting so bad or their development? I mean, lots of these guys were highly rated by everyone. Sure, others wouldn't have taken Watts #1 but he wouldn't have got past Carlton and #7 if he'd been available, and might have gone #3 if Melbourne had drafted Naitanui. Similar stories with a lot of their other top picks. At most many of them would have gone in the next half-dozen picks.
It was a few factors.
1 - they got rid of their older players early and played youth regardless of form.
2 - they didn't worry about losses. Just give em game time. Very few players earned a game, it was gifted to them.
3 - too many poor coaching choices leading to too many coaching changes. The differing messages really screws around with a young group. If players aren't improving after three years under the one coach, move them on and focus on other players.
4 - due to point 1, no one really mentored and teached the players how to play footy and how to deal with crap outside of footy (media, money, drinking, etc).
5 - they expected to get the best talent and just watch them develop and in three years they'd be good. Not enough went into the players and I wouldn't be surprised if they kept changing development coaches at the time.
6 - I also wouldn't be surprised if they worked off the Bulldogs model for success which was build a large group of outside midfielders. They got away with a 'soft' footy style for a long time. When Melbourne got to implement that style, the game changed to a heavily contested style of game.
Was their drafting so bad or their development? I mean, lots of these guys were highly rated by everyone. Sure, others wouldn't have taken Watts #1 but he wouldn't have got past Carlton and #7 if he'd been available, and might have gone #3 if Melbourne had drafted Naitanui. Similar stories with a lot of their other top picks. At most many of them would have gone in the next half-dozen picks.
Their drafting strategy was completely wrong - they went for âoutsideâ ball types who looked good in space and playing uncontested footy: Watts, Morton, Blease. Thereâs a stat going around that I think shows that only those players taken in the Top 30 of the draft that can win at least 33% (give or take) of their possessions as contested actually make it at AFL level. None of Watts, Morton or Blease fall into this category. Same reason why Leroy Jetta doesnât make it but Ollie Wines & Dyson Heppell are instant hits at AFL level.
I would be very interested in seeing that quote, as well as stats to say those players didnât win any contested footy. But I donât think youâre being fair on them. They got Watts as a KPF, and in addition to Blease and Morton also got guys like Tapscott, Gysberts, Trengove, Scully, Strauss, Grimes, Cook and Viney with top 30 picks. That is a fair selection of playing types, with a decent amount of grunt if it had been developed right.
also they tanked through the development years of those guys. whats that broke a nail? have a few weeks off. Jebus dude don't go so hard out there it's not worth getting you injured this year. It's not fair to expect good football out of Jack Watts after only 3 years. etc
Tanking didn't hurt Bulldogs push to two preliminaries, St Kilda's push up the ladder, WCE's development of Judd or Hawthorn's development of Buddy, Roughead and Lewis. Bad development probably stuffed up Richmond for years, not the priority picks. I think it was far more development than tanking.
Was their drafting so bad or their development? I mean, lots of these guys were highly rated by everyone. Sure, others wouldn't have taken Watts #1 but he wouldn't have got past Carlton and #7 if he'd been available, and might have gone #3 if Melbourne had drafted Naitanui. Similar stories with a lot of their other top picks. At most many of them would have gone in the next half-dozen picks.
It was a few factors.
1 - they got rid of their older players early and played youth regardless of form.
2 - they didn't worry about losses. Just give em game time. Very few players earned a game, it was gifted to them.
3 - too many poor coaching choices leading to too many coaching changes. The differing messages really screws around with a young group. If players aren't improving after three years under the one coach, move them on and focus on other players.
4 - due to point 1, no one really mentored and teached the players how to play footy and how to deal with crap outside of footy (media, money, drinking, etc).
5 - they expected to get the best talent and just watch them develop and in three years they'd be good. Not enough went into the players and I wouldn't be surprised if they kept changing development coaches at the time.
6 - I also wouldn't be surprised if they worked off the Bulldogs model for success which was build a large group of outside midfielders. They got away with a 'soft' footy style for a long time. When Melbourne got to implement that style, the game changed to a heavily contested style of game.
Factors #2, #3, #4, #5 and partly #1 are all about development failures, not bad drafting. Hawthorn showed that you can tank and still develop players.
Was their drafting so bad or their development? I mean, lots of these guys were highly rated by everyone. Sure, others wouldn't have taken Watts #1 but he wouldn't have got past Carlton and #7 if he'd been available, and might have gone #3 if Melbourne had drafted Naitanui. Similar stories with a lot of their other top picks. At most many of them would have gone in the next half-dozen picks.
Their drafting strategy was completely wrong - they went for âoutsideâ ball types who looked good in space and playing uncontested footy: Watts, Morton, Blease. Thereâs a stat going around that I think shows that only those players taken in the Top 30 of the draft that can win at least 33% (give or take) of their possessions as contested actually make it at AFL level. None of Watts, Morton or Blease fall into this category. Same reason why Leroy Jetta doesnât make it but Ollie Wines & Dyson Heppell are instant hits at AFL level.
I would be very interested in seeing that quote, as well as stats to say those players didnât win any contested footy. But I donât think youâre being fair on them. They got Watts as a KPF, and in addition to Blease and Morton also got guys like Tapscott, Gysberts, Trengove, Scully, Strauss, Grimes, Cook and Viney with top 30 picks. That is a fair selection of playing types, with a decent amount of grunt if it had been developed right.
They managed to neglect âgoodâ, âgreatâ, and even âusefulâ playing types.
Sure ticked off the âsoftcock tall skinny guyâ and âsoftcock small skinny guyâ boxes, double and triple ticked them off.
As far as I recall WCE didnât tank for Judd. Judge just sucked. The worst year they had was 5 wins / 66%. They got Judd at pick 3 off a 7.5 win / 92% year.
Thereâs a big big difference between making the most of one uncompetitive/injury-ravaged year, and setting out to suck for multiple years.
And the whole point is that setting out not to win majorly affects development.
As far as I recall WCE didn't tank for Judd. Judge just sucked. The worst year they had was 5 wins / 66%. They got Judd at pick 3 off a 7.5 win / 92% year.
There's a big big difference between making the most of one uncompetitive/injury-ravaged year, and setting out to suck for multiple years.
And the whole point is that setting out not to win majorly affects development.
Iâd have to go back and check on WCE, its been a while (but they got Judd of a priority pick, so at most they had 5 wins, and they had two pretty crappy years).
But do you seriously think Hawthorn werenât tanking? When they traded out Hay, Thompson, Lonie, got priority picks for two years, etc. They may have played to win, or at a minimum instil the correct behaviours, but they certainly stacked their deck against getting any wins. But they developed the kids right.
The bulldogs made back to back preliminary finals in 2008 to 2010 despite finishing bottom 3 in 2003 and 2004 and picking up priority picks.
Maybe the problem is the definition of the word âtankingâ, and it means different things to different people. When I use it I say you go out setting out to win, having stacked the deck against you doing it. But it can also be used in the context of (say) 2006 where late in the season EFC went out to specifically lose games.
