Don’t know much about Hanna but it’d be nice to have a developing key forward as well as our rookie pick today
A pick in the 20s in a strong draft. When we’d already set ourselves to pick Lobb, who was available, fit our needs, and was also a gun. We’re on record as saying we didn’t think ZMerrett would be available at our pick, but there’s never been a suggestion we rated him top 10, or anything well before our pick. Rather he was regarded as a high risk/reward player given his previous focus on cricket. Don’t let his success post draft cloud where he was rated at the time of his draft. Not to mention a lot more riding on the success of that pick given the draft sanctions. Very different circumstances, but glad you put some deep thought in to it.
We’re talking about a pick at the death of a ■■■■ draft. If we really rated him top 30, like people suggest, what’s to think about?
Maybe nothing, but perhaps because it meant overlooking someone we had rated (eg Miller), we were trying to work out who we’d get in a role we wanted filled of our choice that we were planning on taking at 48 wasn’t going to make it.
If we were weighing up Houlihan and the Zerk, vs Miller and Hayden for instance it’s not just someone we rate at say 30 vs someone we rate at 40.
Im not sure he was rated that high a risk - for pick 26, at least.
Most people seemed to think he’d be a nifty half forward type - a better version of his brother. We were the only club who did the groundwork about his training (or lack of), which made us confident he could step up to midfield.
Risk maybe not the right word. But he was a potential upside pick. With the risk being he doesn’t achieve that upside.
Either way, doesn’t change my point about Houlihan.
My understanding is that clubs can continue to add players at any time to their NGA list - So expect the list of players to grow every year.
We had a chance to go for someone with massive upside, but have taken the same old conservative approach. Steady as she goes. l wonder what some of these guys have to do to earn a shot at being drafted at all, let alone by EFC. Port has taken a risk with some of them, and l expect they get a big payout in the future from these picks. EFC is not alone in this, but this is one year when we definitely could have afforded to take a chance, and roll the dice. It is disappointing that the club decided to maintain our drafting status quo instead.
l would like to say there is always next year, but if we didn’t draft an indigenous player this year, then l am not hopeful we will next year.
Poor Lavender - Meets your criteria but you are still unhappy.
No he doesn’t, he wasn’t drafted.
So what evidence do you have that the guys we drafted don’t have massive upside?
Drafted or listed is irrelevant - This argument holds no substance
Hey? How does a person who was not drafted, be relevant in a discussion where the numbers are based on drafted?
I did say that elevated rookies, cat b rookies, and nsw scholarship holders didn’t count in my numbers.
I’m wrapt we have Lavender and he is the first ever person with indigenous heritage to be signed as alternative talent. So that’s cool.
Every player that ends up on a list and therefore in the AFL industry should be included - It’s like when some review past drafts and exclude rookie drafts - Makes no sense - Anyway it’s not my survey.
No, the purpose of the research was to look how successful junior pathways were and how they were leading to opportunities in professional sport.
Hence why all those guys were not counted as they didn’t come out of the junior pathway the previous year.
There is a hope that the research will lead to more government funding into the junior grass roots programs. I know people want to feel better about Essendon’s numbers by a percentile or two, but I’m more interested in getting more money funneling through to junior programs.
Or maybe some people don’t exactly agree with what you are saying.
Astonishing, I know.
If it was about Carlton they’d agree
I’m still curious about which one of Long, Long, Walla, Atkinson and Eades doesn’t count in the stats and why.
They were all drafted in the ND or as Rookie A’s in the period you’re covering
Atkinson, 2007 draft.
2017 drafts were used, first draft had it in but first revision used those drafts
Ok. Cool. Thanks.
That was a ■■■■■■ quick response too
It’s funny you say that, because it’s the exact same example I had in my head when I wrote it.
If you truly want a discussion, you need to accept that not everyone is convinced by the arguments you have made till now. If you simple brush those that disagree with you as blinded by club-loyalty, then this becomes a pulpit to preach from, not a discussion.