2004 Draft Revisited (top 20)

[Cheshire Cat]

Deledio at 8 Rustling at 12 Egan at 5 ????

Yes....?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Mine

1. Franklin
2. Travis Cloke - slower version of Franklin
3. Ryan Griffen - had on off season but is a strong, powerful midfielder
4. Danyle Pearce (rookie) - great speed, evasiveness
5. Matt Egan - rock solid CHB, takes the best KP forwards
6. Angus Monfries - super competitive, great work ethic, future leader
7. Jarryd Roughead - I actually rate him. He and Franklin will be dynamic in the years to come
8. Brett Deledio - has the ability to be anything but hasnt impressed me yet
9. Nathan van Berlo - very dependable and reliable. Great endurance
10. Matthew Bate - thumping kick, good mark. Still raw but could be very good
11. Sean Rusling - from what I've seen he's good
12. Richard Tambling - unfairly maligned, still should develop into a very good player
13. Matt Rosa - should get more opportunities now and looks a likely type
14. Jordan Lewis - tough, in and under type will be a permanant fixture for the Hawks
15. Mark Le Cras - extremely clever forward who I rate highly
16. Tom Williams - after a patchy start, showed what he may be worth
17. Michael Newton - looks like he may emerge as a FF. Has talent
18. Justin Sherman - probably should be higher but dropped off this year
19. Jesse W Smith - haven't seen enough. Probably underrated him
20. Chris Knights - has ball winning ability but ordinary disposal

Yep, pretty much spot on. Correct top 5 as well. You could squeeze Delidio on potential a bit higher but I'd have him in the 5-10 bracket as well.

 

[randy_stote]

To all the people who complain about Buddy's 'inconsistency', why is he any different to someone like Scott Lucas? Not once this year was Buddy held goal-less where Lucas had 4 games where he kicked 0, 3 of which came either immediately the week after or before he kicked 5+.

Lucas had 10 games where he kicked 0 or 1 goals, where Franklin had 7.
They both had 10 games where they kicked 3,4 or 5 goals.
Franklin had only 4 games where he kicked 6+ goals, Lucas had 2. So it is not as if Buddy is kicking 6 goals once a month followed by 3 games where he kicks 1-2.
The respective Goals per game for each player were Franklin 3.3 and Lucas 2.8.

Now there is no doubt that at times Franklin can have a quiet game, but no more or less than 90% of the other forwards out there. The only difference being that when he does kick 6+ goals he can make it look so spectacular that when he has a game where he kicks 3-4 it can look somewhat mundane.

So can someone please explain to me why it is that Buddy is considered inconsistent but Lucas isn't?

 

[_RT_]

And Jonathon Brown (some six years older and rated by many as the best player in the game) played 22 games for the year, and scored 40 of his goals in 6 games where he kicked 5+ for the game. That left 37 goals kicked in 16 games (average 2.3 goals per game).

As such, his figures were close to a match to Franklin's, yet he is the AA champion, while Franklin is the inconsistent, overrated junior.

Stop embarrassing yourselves with this anti-Hawk drivel.

Why is it anti-Hawk drivel? Is it because I don't have Buddy as the number 1 pick? I gave my reasons why I think that way and I stand by them. Would much prefer players who I could rely in week in and week out to give a pretty consistent performance than a player who can be sensational one week then go missing the next few. See 9 goals against the Bombers in round 6 which came after 6 goals in round 5, then was followed by three 1 goal games in succession the weeks after or 5 goals against the Lions in round 19 followed by 2 against Port, 13 scoring shots against the Dogs, 1 goal against the Swans, 7 goals against the Crows, 3 goals against the Roos. Is that not a clear example of an inconsistent player?

As for some of your other comments where did I say Buddy was over rated all I said was he is too inconsistent for my liking especially when Hawk fans are using his game against the Crows as their basis for him being a superstar. I also said I hope his consistency improves so that we all get to see Franklin at his best for a whole season not just a game here or there.

As for the comparison with Brown and their goal tallies being pretty even, Buddy took 135 scoring shots for his 73 goals, Brown needed just 115 for his 77. Says to me that Brown does not need as many shots on goal to be considered a dangerous player. Not only that but Brown was a better player in nearly every other aspect: http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...rName4=&Compare=Compare&SelectedPlayers=1080,

 

[jetta2davey]

Lucas does more work up the ground than buddy, he also played in defence for a few games as well.

 

[cs61]

Why is it anti-Hawk drivel?

Its fairly obvious

Is it because I don't have Buddy as the number 1 pick? I gave my reasons why I think that way and I stand by them. Would much prefer players who I could rely in week in and week out to give a pretty consistent performance than a player who can be sensational one week then go missing the next few.

Firstly, forwards rarely perform for 22 rounds because its hard to. I bet you'll see flat patches for Riewoldt, Pavlich, Brown, Fevola over a season, and they are the best in the business, not third year players. Franklin's stats already compare with those forwards.

See 9 goals against the Bombers in round 6 which came after 6 goals in round 5, then was followed by three 1 goal games in succession the weeks after or 5 goals against the Lions in round 19 followed by 2 against Port, 13 scoring shots against the Dogs, 1 goal against the Swans, 7 goals against the Crows, 3 goals against the Roos. Is that not a clear example of an inconsistent player?

So Buddy should be kicking 100 goals already and winning the Norm Smith in his third year? Because that is what you are suggesting. Its much harder for forwards than it is for midfielders to keep producing. He's a match-winner, and he's doing it a hell of a lot earlier than most would expect.

As for some of your other comments where did I say Buddy was over rated all I said was he is too inconsistent for my liking especially when Hawk fans are using his game against the Crows as their basis for him being a superstar. I also said I hope his consistency improves so that we all get to see Franklin at his best for a whole season not just a game here or there.

Rubbish, you are blindly hanging on the one last bigfootyisms of Franklin which has gone from marking, to attitude, to never being a key position player now to consistency. Its rubbish, because you couldn't ask for anymore than what Buddy has done so far, but you are.

As for the comparison with Brown and their goal tallies being pretty even, Buddy took 135 scoring shots for his 73 goals, Brown needed just 115 for his 77. Says to me that Brown does not need as many shots on goal to be considered a dangerous player. Not only that but Brown was a better player in nearly every other aspect: http://www.finalsiren.com/PlayerCom...rName4=&Compare=Compare&SelectedPlayers=1080,

So you compare Franklin (20/21 years old after 3 seasons) to arguably the most dangerous player in the game, and it compares well, yet you don't see why you are making yourself look foolish.

 

[Philhawk]

Is that not a clear example of an inconsistent player?

Laughable.

Probably the biggest myth on BigFooty.

From the 22 games he played in 2007,

No goal-less performances


7 x 1 goal matches
2 x 2 goal matches
4 x 3 goal matches
3 x 4 goal matches

6 x 5+ goal matches

Now how does Cloke stack up from 25 games?

6 goal-less performances


8 x 1 goal matches
4 x 2 goal matches
5 x 3 goal matches
2 x 4 goal matches

No 5+ goal matches

Yeh, Franklin is bloody inconsistent. For all the times that a Cloke went goal-less, Franklin was kicking bags of 5+.

Wish the Hawks had more 'inconsistent' players.

 

[The Zebra]

How anyone can try to downgrade a 70+ goal performance from a 20 year old is beyond me. 15 games with 2 or more goals, 6 games with more than 5 goals? That is a killer season for a veteran, let alone a kid who is 20.

Realistic Tiger either has no idea what he is talking about or he has dug himself into a whole and figures the only way out is to keep digging. The fact that Buddy had more shots on goal than Brown is not a negative, and saying a player has AA selection so therefore is better is also a joke becuase Franklin was clearly robbed.

I ****ing hate Hawthorn, but some of the lines of argument in this thread are just stupid.

 

[_RT_]

Its fairly obvious

Of course it is obvious, I haven't ranked Franklin as the best player so it is anti Hawk drivel. But lets have a look at what this thread was actually about. It was where players would be taken if the draft was re-done again 3 years later. Considering that Egan was taken at around the mid 50's and barring injury would have been an AA premiership winning CHB in his 3rd year, I think that rates him higher than Franklin who remember was a top 5 pick from that year and as such was expected to be a star.

Firstly, forwards rarely perform for 22 rounds because its hard to. I bet you'll see flat patches for Riewoldt, Pavlich, Brown, Fevola over a season, and they are the best in the business, not third year players. Franklin's stats already compare with those forwards.

I don't expect Franklin to perform 22 weeks a year but when a player has a fortnight where he kicks 15 goals then follows that up with 3 goals in 3 weeks or kicks 5 goals then 2 goals, then 2 goals from 13 scoring shots, then 1 goal, the 7 then 3 over a 6 week period I would say that is an sign of an inconsistent player, not an untalented one which it seems you think I believe Franklin is. Far from it.

So Buddy should be kicking 100 goals already and winning the Norm Smith in his third year? Because that is what you are suggesting. Its much harder for forwards than it is for midfielders to keep producing. He's a match-winner, and he's doing it a hell of a lot earlier than most would expect.

Where did I suggest that but if not for his poor conversion rate against the Dogs he may well have won the Coleman in his 3rd year. Don't know where the Norm Smith came into it think you have me confused with the other bloke.

Rubbish, you are blindly hanging on the one last bigfootyisms of Franklin which has gone from marking, to attitude, to never being a key position player now to consistency. Its rubbish, because you couldn't ask for anymore than what Buddy has done so far, but you are.

All I am asking from Buddy is more consistency. A more consistent year would see Franklin as a 100 goal a season forward. Take a look back at the figures for players like Lloyd (10 games with 5+ goals in 2000 & 11 games with 5+ goals in 01), Gehrig (12 games with 5+ goals in 04) or Fevola (9 games with 5+ goals in 06) admitedly they were not these players 3rd season but if Franklin can get to that type of consistency he would be practiaclly unstoppable.

So you compare Franklin (20/21 years old after 3 seasons) to arguably the most dangerous player in the game, and it compares well, yet you don't see why you are making yourself look foolish.

Yes Buddys numbers do compare well to Brown now just think if Buddy can become a more consistent player as indicated above then he could well be the most dangerous player in the game.

So again tell me how I am anti Hawthorn when I am talking about how Buddy could become a much better player that he already is.

 

[kirbatron]

stick it up em Zeb!

 

[kirbatron]

Of course it is obvious, I haven't ranked Franklin as the best player so it is anti Hawk drivel. But lets have a look at what this thread was actually about. It was where players would be taken if the draft was re-done again 3 years later. Considering that Egan was taken at around the mid 50's and barring injury would have been an AA premiership winning CHB in his 3rd year, I think that rates him higher than Franklin who remember was a top 5 pick from that year and as such was expected to be a star.

I don't expect Franklin to perform 22 weeks a year but when a player has a fortnight where he kicks 15 goals then follows that up with 3 goals in 3 weeks or kicks 5 goals then 2 goals, then 2 goals from 13 scoring shots, then 1 goal, the 7 then 3 over a 6 week period I would say that is an sign of an inconsistent player, not an untalented one which it seems you think I believe Franklin is. Far from it.

Where did I suggest that but if not for his poor conversion rate against the Dogs he may well have won the Coleman in his 3rd year. Don't know where the Norm Smith came into it think you have me confused with the other bloke.

All I am asking from Buddy is more consistency. A more consistent year would see Franklin as a 100 goal a season forward. Take a look back at the figures for players like Lloyd (10 games with 5+ goals in 2000 & 11 games with 5+ goals in 01), Gehrig (12 games with 5+ goals in 04) or Fevola (9 games with 5+ goals in 06) admitedly they were not these players 3rd season but if Franklin can get to that type of consistency he would be practiaclly unstoppable.


Yes Buddys numbers do compare well to Brown now just think if Buddy can become a more consistent player as indicated above then he could well be the most dangerous player in the game.

So again tell me how I am anti Hawthorn when I am talking about how Buddy could become a much better player that he already is.

so what you're really trying to say is that yes, you'd pick him at No 1

 

[Big John]

To all the people who complain about Buddy's 'inconsistency', why is he any different to someone like Scott Lucas? Not once this year was Buddy held goal-less where Lucas had 4 games where he kicked 0, 3 of which came either immediately the week after or before he kicked 5+.

Lucas had 10 games where he kicked 0 or 1 goals, where Franklin had 7.
They both had 10 games where they kicked 3,4 or 5 goals.
Franklin had only 4 games where he kicked 6+ goals, Lucas had 2. So it is not as if Buddy is kicking 6 goals once a month followed by 3 games where he kicks 1-2.
The respective Goals per game for each player were Franklin 3.3 and Lucas 2.8.

Now there is no doubt that at times Franklin can have a quiet game, but no more or less than 90% of the other forwards out there. The only difference being that when he does kick 6+ goals he can make it look so spectacular that when he has a game where he kicks 3-4 it can look somewhat mundane.

So can someone please explain to me why it is that Buddy is considered inconsistent but Lucas isn't?

Lucas is very inconsistent. I don't know anyone who's ever said otherwise. For consistency Lloyd is the man.

 

[_RT_]

How anyone can try to downgrade a 70+ goal performance from a 20 year old is beyond me. 15 games with 2 or more goals, 6 games with more than 5 goals? That is a killer season for a veteran, let alone a kid who is 20.

Realistic Tiger either has no idea what he is talking about or he has dug himself into a whole and figures the only way out is to keep digging. The fact that Buddy had more shots on goal than Brown is not a negative, and saying a player has AA selection so therefore is better is also a joke becuase Franklin was clearly robbed.

I ****ing hate Hawthorn, but some of the lines of argument in this thread are just stupid.

Never tried to talk his season down rather looked at what the thread was asking. Franklin was taken as a top 5 pick in the 04 draft so would be expected to be a star and is pretty much on the way to being a superstar. Egan was taken as a mid 50's pick and as such most would say the Cats speculated on him. 3 years later he would be quite easily a Top 5 pick if the draft was redone based on what he has achieved.

As a comparison Lloyd was 21 in 1999 and kicked 84 goals from 22 games with 9 games of 5+ goals and 16 games with 2 or more. Richo was 21 in 96 coming off a knee reco and kicked 91 goals from 22 games with 10 5+ goal games with 19 games of 2 or more goals. This is what I would class as being a consistent performer at that age. Buddy was great but he could have been and hopefully will be better.

 

[_RT_]

so what you're really trying to say is that yes, you'd pick him at No 1

If the criteria for this thread was different then yes I would take him at 1.

 

[cs61]

Ignorance is bliss

 

[Philhawk]

As a comparison Lloyd was 21 in 1999 and kicked 84 goals from 22 games with 9 games of 5+ goals and 16 games with 2 or more. Richo was 21 in 96 coming off a knee reco and kicked 91 goals from 22 games with 10 5+ goal games with 19 games of 2 or more goals. This is what I would class as being a consistent performer at that age.

Are you deliberately trying to mislead people?

For one, let's settle the pedantics. Franklin was 20 in 2007, not 21. Secondly, Lloyd was in his 5th season in '99, whilst Richo was in his 4th in '96.

Third seasons for Franklin, Richo and Lloyd:

Franklin: 73
Lloyd: 63
Richardson: 27

Nice try. Did I mention the new rules in todays game that virtually makes it impossible for forwards to kick more than 90 per year?

Buddy was great but he could have been and hopefully will be better.

Yeh - a better third season in the AFL than the likes of Lloyd and Richardson.

Hell, even Carey only kicked 64 in his third season.

Could have been better?

In comparison to who? Coleman?

 

[Sherminator.]

Lol, owned.

 

[_RT_]

Are you deliberately trying to mislead people?

For one, let's settle the pedantics. Franklin was 20 in 2007, not 21. Secondly, Lloyd was in his 5th season in '99, whilst Richo was in his 4th in '96.

Third seasons for Franklin, Richo and Lloyd:

Franklin: 73
Lloyd: 63
Richardson: 27

Nice try. Did I mention the new rules in todays game that virtually makes it impossible for forwards to kick more than 90 per year?



Yeh - a better third season in the AFL than the likes of Lloyd and Richardson.

Hell, even Carey only kicked 64 in his third season.

Could have been better?

In comparison to who? Coleman?

Again you're missing the point these players were kicking 5+ goals a lot more than Franklin was and that is what I am getting at CONSISTENCY. If Franklin had of kicked 5+ goals in 3-4 more games he would have been a 85-100 goal kicker last year. Look at 3 games in particular he kicks 5 & 5 instead of 1.4 & 1.5 in rounds 7-8 and 8.5 instead of 2.11 in round 21 and it would have been a much better season. But Franklin is still learning to become a consistent footballer and when he does he will be unstoppable but it seems that because I haven't rated him as the best in this thread I am anti-Hawthorn. Again I am not talking down his achievements just saying that if he was more consistent in his performances then he would have been my number 1. As I said earlier I would much rather take a consistent performer than someone who may turn it on one week but go missing for the next few. When Buddy becomes that consistent performer then I would have him at 1 no worries.

 

[Philhawk]

Again you're missing the point these players were kicking 5+ goals a lot more than Franklin was and that is what I am getting at CONSISTENCY.

I'm missing the point? Remind me then why you deceivingly produced wrong comparable statistics about Lloyd and Richardson if not for the purpose to try and make them appear better than Franklins' current achievements (when in fact it was proven that he was better at the same stage)?

Not to mention that again you deliberately skip over the point that,

a) Kicking bigger bags of goals was easier in the past
b) Franklin did more than the abovementioned players at the same stage. You're calling him inconsistent, yet you bring up the topic of Lloyd and Richardson who were subsequently proven to be 'less consistent' at the same stage of their respective careers.

If Franklin had of kicked 5+ goals in 3-4 more games he would have been a 85-100 goal kicker last year. Look at 3 games in particular he kicks 5 & 5 instead of 1.4 & 1.5 in rounds 7-8 and 8.5 instead of 2.11 in round 21 and it would have been a much better season.

Your point? As others have said over and over again in this thread, the fact that Franklin has had that many shots at goal (despite the points) suggests how much better he could be. Who cares if he kicked 75 or 95? If Lloyd had kicked straighter in his third season, he too would have kicked 95 and had a 'better sseason'.

But Franklin is still learning to become a consistent footballer and when he does he will be unstoppable but it seems that because I haven't rated him as the best in this thread I am anti-Hawthorn. Again I am not talking down his achievements just saying that if he was more consistent in his performances then he would have been my number 1. As I said earlier I would much rather take a consistent performer than someone who may turn it on one week but go missing for the next few. When Buddy becomes that consistent performer then I would have him at 1 no worries.

You just don't want to admit you're wrong.

We've proven that Franklin is not only more consistent that other players in his own draft (see the Cloke v Franklin comparison), but a better player at the same point of his career that other superstar forwards of the competition in Lloyd and Richo (even Carey).

He's a key-position player who stereotypically take a while to develop. The fact he was able to explode onto the scene earlier than expected just re-inforces how superb his consistency actually was for a third year KPP.

 

[ben_cats_fan]

Your point? As others have said over and over again in this thread, the fact that Franklin has had that many shots at goal (despite the points) suggests how much better he could be. Who cares if he kicked 75 or 95? If Lloyd had kicked straighter in his third season, he too would have kicked 95 and had a 'better sseason'.

And I think therein lies his point. He personally believes that with more consistency & experience, Lance Franklin most probably be the best out of the 2004 class. But what it seems he's trying to say is that AT THIS POINT IN TIME, he would take someone with the consistency week in, week out, knowing exactly what player x would provide.

Egan does that. Nobody is questioning that at all, which is a sign that it is a commonly held belief. I KNOW Franklin WILL be a better player than Egan. I wish he was at the cats. But at this stage, is it such a bad thing that in a democratic society, we all have our own beliefs and who we would prefer putting on the jumper of our favourite clubs, based on what one deems to be the definition of consistency?

I can think of 15 other clubs that would prefer Lance Franklin on their team, rather than against them. And I can guarantee you the same can be said for Matt Egan. But at the end of the day, what is so wrong with disagreeing with the general consensus that warrants people being called "fuken idiots" for believing what they believe?

 

[Philhawk]

And I think therein lies his point. He personally believes that with more consistency & experience, Lance Franklin most probably be the best out of the 2004 class. But what it seems he's trying to say is that AT THIS POINT IN TIME, he would take someone with the consistency week in, week out, knowing exactly what player x would provide.

Egan does that. Nobody is questioning that at all, which is a sign that it is a commonly held belief. I KNOW Franklin WILL be a better player than Egan. I wish he was at the cats. But at this stage, is it such a bad thing that in a democratic society, we all have our own beliefs and who we would prefer putting on the jumper of our favourite clubs, based on what one deems to be the definition of consistency?

I can think of 15 other clubs that would prefer Lance Franklin on their team, rather than against them. And I can guarantee you the same can be said for Matt Egan. But at the end of the day, what is so wrong with disagreeing with the general consensus that warrants people being called "fuken idiots" for believing what they believe?

Nothing wrong with that at all.

Funnily enough, the Hawks are one of those teams who would desperately love an Egan in our team to shore up our backline stocks.

 

[kirbatron]

Franklin was taken as a top 5 pick in the 04 draft so would be expected to be a star and is pretty much on the way to being a superstar. Egan was taken as a mid 50's pick and as such most would say the Cats speculated on him. 3 years later he would be quite easily a Top 5 pick if the draft was redone based on what he has achieved.

I find it irrevelant where Egan was originally picked.

You havent based your top 20 on who has be the best player based on a formula as to where they were picked up in the draft. Sure Egan has been the most valuable in terms of what number he was selected, but this Top 20 is based upon ability, potential, and what they've done so far.

Edit: ben cats fan.

I have would have made my Top 20 based upon a further service to the club.

The original question If the 2004 draft were to be redrafted today this would be my draft list in order of the players that I would draft based on their potential and their risk of succeeding.


Out of all the draftees in 04, who would you want in your team for the next 10 years?

For me its

Buddy
Egan
Cloke
Deledio
Griffen

 

[CyberKev]

I can think of 15 other clubs that would prefer Lance Franklin on their team, rather than against them. And I can guarantee you the same can be said for Matt Egan. But at the end of the day, what is so wrong with disagreeing with the general consensus that warrants people being called "fuken idiots" for believing what they believe?

This is a whole other issue.

The key point being addressed here with regard to Franklin is the silly 'inconsistent' label, which has been shown to be a nonsense both in terms of under 23 year old KPP forwards historically, and in line with high level Key forward output in the current day (hence Franklin's 2007 output being almost identical to Brown & Pavlich - both of whom are 26 year old club captains, in their prime, and widely viewed as the best players at their respective clubs and top five players in the overall competition).

 

[ben_cats_fan]

Nothing wrong with that at all.

Funnily enough, the Hawks are one of those teams who would desperately love an Egan in our team to shore up our backline stocks.

And we'll take Lance Franklin! But I can guarantee you that you would prefer to keep Franklin & I know I would prefer to keep Matt Egan. But hey! That's life!

To GFC's needs - Egan = or > Franklin
To HFC's needs - Franklin = or > Egan

 

[anti.]

people who dont rate franklin should just give up and concede the guy is going to be a bloody legend of the game. shit hes 21 and kicked 70 odd goals! the only thing that can stop franklin is the 3 strikes rule.