2004 Draft Revisited

[Strapping Young Lad]

You're a joke.

Birchall is not in Griffen's league, and you're kidding only yourself to think otherwise.

They stack up fairly evenly really. And Griffen has played more than double the amount of games as Birchall.
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/compare_players?tid1=108&pid1=2006092&tid2=115&pid2=2005122

Roughead has struggled thus far and he'll never be worthy of the pick he was taken at.

2nd year KPP?
Anyway consider it bookmarked.

 

[Richo83]

Exactly. Sure, it'd be nice having Griffen in our side, but when you consider we picked up Birchall, who will be better than Griffen and has already shown that, at number 14 a year later, I think we have done well. It'd be nice to have Griffen in the side, but I don't think he's the superstar everyone is making him out to be.

Take your head out of your ass.

Just because Birchall has played some 30+ possesion games doesn't mean he's better than Griffen. Birchall racks up the stats because he plays in a high possesion style team, doesn't mean he's better than Griffen, as stats aren't everything. Griffen is a fast skilled player who has already shown that he can cut it with the best, Birchall has been good in some games. Big difference.

As for the draft, hindsight is wonderful. Tambling looked the goods but has not delivered. Every team makes draft errors. I picked 3 because both players are young and definitely could be top players, it's a bit early to write off the two.

BTW, stop calling Tambling a HFF, he's not, he's a SF who can play center. As for McLean, he's a midfield that runs forward. Franklin is a third tall.

 

[wahawk]

Take your head out of your ass.

Just because Birchall has played some 30+ possesion games doesn't mean he's better than Griffen. Birchall racks up the stats because he plays in a high possesion style team, doesn't mean he's better than Griffen, as stats aren't everything. Griffen is a fast skilled player who has already shown that he can cut it with the best, Birchall has been good in some games. Big difference.

As for the draft, hindsight is wonderful. Tambling looked the goods but has not delivered. Every team makes draft errors. I picked 3 because both players are young and definitely could be top players, it's a bit early to write off the two.

BTW, stop calling Tambling a HFF, he's not, he's a SF who can play center. As for McLean, he's a midfield that runs forward. Franklin is a third tall.

SF......... soft ********er

 

[dipper86]

Take your head out of your ass.

Just because Birchall has played some 30+ possesion games doesn't mean he's better than Griffen. Birchall racks up the stats because he plays in a high possesion style team, doesn't mean he's better than Griffen, as stats aren't everything. Griffen is a fast skilled player who has already shown that he can cut it with the best, Birchall has been good in some games. Big difference.

Actually when Birchall was having his 30 possession games we were playing a more direct brand of football, so try again,

Birchall has had a better first year than Griffin had playing the same possie.

BTW, stop calling Tambling a HFF, he's not, he's a SF who can play center. As for McLean, he's a midfield that runs forward. Franklin is a third tall.

Tambling is a FP who can not play midfield, where as Franklin is a kp who can play just about anywhere on the field.

 

[Pav for AA]

Deledio at One, bigger blunder than Hodge and Ball

 

[H2F]

Deledio at One, bigger blunder than Hodge and Ball

Franklin and Roughead are both better than Deledio much less Tambling. The Hawks scored big time in 2004 because we also got Jordan Lewis who will be the better midfielder out of Tambling and Deledio and also got two of the best kpp players in Franklin and Roughead.

Griffin is a star but other than that the Hawks had a great draft, whilst Richmond with the picks they had made a Wallet blunder.

 

[rick James]

Tambling is a FP who can not play midfield, where as Franklin is a kp who can play just about anywhere on the field.

I'd like to see some evidence of Franklin playing as a KP - just because he's tall doesn't make him a key forward.

 

[Silvagnis]

Franklin and Roughead are both better than Deledio much less Tambling. The Hawks scored big time in 2004 because we also got Jordan Lewis who will be the better midfielder out of Tambling and Deledio and also got two of the best kpp players in Franklin and Roughead.

Griffin is a star but other than that the Hawks had a great draft, whilst Richmond with the picks they had made a Wallet blunder.

Deledio is a good a player as Franklin who doesn't take contested marks(no more than Waite) and a midfielder such as Lewis (who was dropped and overlooked in the previous draft) isn't worth Deledio's, Tambling's and Griffen's small toe at the draft. You have a stack of players like Lewis because they're not that hard to find, yet you have very few speedsters like Tambling, Griffen, Judd and Deledio who have the pace and skill to break open a game.

Roughead will never be worth pick two and I'd be questioning why you took him ahead of Griffen and Franklin if you think he's so good. The selection of Hodge ahead of Judd will always be the biggest stuff up and then you made the same mistake taking Roughead ahead of Griffen.

I like Josh Kennedy but I wouldn't be happy if we had drafted him ahead of Griffen or Franklin.

At least you have all of those talls but no running players.

 

[lids2004roar]

I noiced something funny about the whole marking side of things. Tambling averages 4 marks per game. Lancey pansy average 3.8

Therefore... Bling has a better chance of playing a KP forward role than Lance does

 

[_RT_]

Actually when Birchall was having his 30 possession games we were playing a more direct brand of football, so try again,

Birchall has had 1 30+ possession game(R22 against the Cats) and in that game the Hawks had 405 disposals, 139 marks. Maybe you should try again. HIs next best is 27 disposals against the Roos in Round 21, that game the Hawks had 377 disposals and 150 marks. Sure looks like direct brand of footy.

Tambling is a FP who can not play midfield, where as Franklin is a kp who can play just about anywhere on the field.

Can the Hawks fans get their opinion of Franklin straight he is either a HFF who averages the same as Tambling in nearly every catergory. Or he is a KP player who has had 2 games with 6 goals, in 1 of those he only took 2 marks for the game, who is yet to truly dominate as you all claim he has.

 

[parrot]

....Can the Hawks fans get their opinion of Franklin straight he is either a HFF who averages the same as Tambling in nearly every catergory. Or he is a KP player who has had 2 games with 6 goals, in 1 of those he only took 2 marks for the game, who is yet to truly dominate as you all claim he has.

Let me help you out. Franklin is a tall KP forward, who is also excellent at ground level, so he's miles better than Tambling in the air, and when the ball hits the ground. I guess the point is it's hard to under-estimate the extreme magnitude of Terry's Tambling draft clanger. Every way you look at it, Terry's decision was a complete disaster, and this thread's attempt to divert from that fact really doesn't change much. This draft gaff is going to haunt Tiges fans for many many years. Franklins 6 goals V Tiges in 2006 was only the start of it.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

At least you have all of those talls but no running players.

Bateman
Crawford
Ellis
Tuck
Muston
Young

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Can the Hawks fans get their opinion of Franklin straight he is either a HFF who averages the same as Tambling in nearly every catergory. Or he is a KP player who has had 2 games with 6 goals, in 1 of those he only took 2 marks for the game, who is yet to truly dominate as you all claim he has.

The Fact is that there is maybe only one other player in the league who has the size and athleticism of Buddy, and he has two brownlows hanging around his neck.
Is Buddy a wingman? Is he a CHF? Is he a Flanker or a Pocket?
Who cares?
Right now he is one of the most exciting young talents in the league for his pace, groundskills and goalsense.
Does he have to take contested marks to be considered a KPP?
Surely if he sits at CHF kicks 6 goals and only has 2 marks to his credit he's still done his job? I would've thought so.
This argument of him not taking enough mareks to be considered a KPP is pointless. He is still averaging more than 2 goals per game and has only just finished his second year of AFL.
Look out when he decides to start flying for marks.

 

[dipper86]

I noiced something funny about the whole marking side of things. Tambling averages 4 marks per game. Lancey pansy average 3.8

Therefore... Bling has a better chance of playing a KP forward role than Lance does

That onlly happens when your running up the ground to get cheap possies, which Tambling excells at.


Very soft player that Tambling.

 

[_RT_]

Let me help you out. Franklin is a tall KP forward, who is also excellent at ground level, so he's miles better than Tambling in the air, and when the ball hits the ground. I guess the point is it's hard to under-estimate the extreme magnitude of Terry's Tambling draft clanger. Every way you look at it, Terry's decision was a complete disaster, and this thread's attempt to divert from that fact really doesn't change much. This draft gaff is going to haunt Tiges fans for many many years. Franklins 6 goals V Tiges in 2006 was only the start of it.

HE is better than Tambling in the air you say yet he has taken less marks. Buddy has a career high 17 disposals and 9 marks in a game. Tambling has 23 and 11. But hey Buddy kicked 6 goals twice in his career. Marty McGrath kicked 5 on debut for the Tigers and he ended up as nothing. Let Franklin actually dominatre before you rate him a great.

 

[parrot]

HE is better than Tambling in the air you say yet he has taken less marks. Buddy has a career high 17 disposals and 9 marks in a game. Tambling has 23 and 11. But hey Buddy kicked 6 goals twice in his career. Marty McGrath kicked 5 on debut for the Tigers and he ended up as nothing. Let Franklin actually dominatre before you rate him a great.

Do you actually watch much footy? Doesn't sound like it. For those that do, we are well aware of the meaningless stat e.g. Crows V Tiges farce. I've never said Tamling will be anything other than a good player. He clearly has ability. But the point is, he is a mile behind the quality of other top-5 picks, and Franklin in particular, in terms of talent, hence why many mark this down as one of the biggest draft gaffs this century. Why does Terry make such poor decisions when it comes to recruiting KP forwards? He demostrated the same flaw at the Bulldogs. The Sellar over-sight looks like being yet another chapter in Terry's draft clanger collection. With the terrible state of their list, the Tiges can't afford mistakes like these.

 

[dipper86]

Birchall has had 1 30+ possession game(R22 against the Cats) and in that game the Hawks had 405 disposals, 139 marks. Maybe you should try again. HIs next best is 27 disposals against the Roos in Round 21, that game the Hawks had 377 disposals and 150 marks. Sure looks like direct brand of footy.

Why try again, its actually preety reasonable stats for a over 10 goal total demolition of a side when compared to other sides.

 

[_RT_]

Why try again, its actually preety reasonable stats for a over 10 goal total demolition of a side.

405 disposals & 139 marks in a 10 goal win is hardly attacking footy when you compare it to 354 disposals & 119 marks the Tiger had in an 82 point win over the Lions. Both sides kicked 21 goals the Tigers actually had more scoring shots. Even the following week the Tiger beat the Blues by 45 points and still had only 10 disposals more than the previous week. Both weeks they kicked 21 goals. Meanwhile Hawthorn in Round 20 had 392 disposals & 148 marks in a 3 goal win over the Bombers. Again hardly direct attacking footy.

 

[_RT_]

Do you actually watch much footy? Doesn't sound like it. For those that do, we are well aware of the meaningless stat e.g. Crows V Tiges farce. I've never said Tamling will be anything other than a good player. He clearly has ability. But the point is, he is a mile behind the quality of other top-5 picks, and Franklin in particular, in terms of talent, hence why many mark this down as one of the biggest draft gaffs this century. Why does Terry make such poor decisions when it comes to recruiting KP forwards? He demostrated the same flaw at the Bulldogs. The Sellar over-sight looks like being yet another chapter in Terry's draft clanger collection. With the terrible state of their list, the Tiges can't afford mistakes like these.

As you keep failing to take note let me explain it again. Even before Tambling had played a game he was not expected to develop fully until he turned 21 at the latest. Some players are late bloomers Michael Tuck developed later than other stars at the Hawks and he went on to be the games record holder. Tambling has finally settled into Melbourne after arriving from the NT, having a new family to look after, injuries and an under developed body. Yet he has shown that hint of being something special. The issue is Tambling now needs to turn 'Potential' talent into 'Actual' talent. As you said he does have ability but at the time the Tigers did not need a KP like Franklin to sit in the Coburg side when we were screaming out for more midfield talent. Frankling is also a talent no question but to have him rated as better than Tambling when they are 2 different types is not right. Tambling should be compared to a player of similar build and position, say Angus Monfries. Similar types who play the same sort of position HFF/Midfield. Not someone who is 15cm taller and 13 kg heavier.

 

[dipper86]

405 disposals & 139 marks in a 10 goal win is hardly attacking footy when you compare it to 354 disposals & 119 marks the Tiger had in an 82 point win over the Lions. Both sides kicked 21 goals the Tigers actually had more scoring shots. Even the following week the Tiger beat the Blues by 45 points and still had only 10 disposals more than the previous week. Both weeks they kicked 21 goals. Meanwhile Hawthorn in Round 20 had 392 disposals & 148 marks in a 3 goal win over the Bombers. Again hardly direct attacking footy.

So then how do you explain the West Coast Eagles who also in Round 22 wen't over 400 possies per game, they don't play an attacking brand of footbal ? or the Western bulldogs who most say are the most attacking side in the AFL having a high amount of possies avg the same as Hawthorn during the year and also the same amount of contested posies.

Hawthorn wen't more direct in the forward line in the latter part of the season, which was the main difference.

 

[parrot]

As you keep failing to take note let me explain it again. Even before Tambling had played a game he was not expected to develop fully until he turned 21 at the latest.....

I haven't heard the "we are waiting for him to turn 21" spin before. Terry would be proud of that one. BTW everyone knows that KP forwards take longer to develop, but don't let that discourage you.

 

[Richo83]

Deledio is a good a player as Franklin who doesn't take contested marks(no more than Waite) and a midfielder such as Lewis (who was dropped and overlooked in the previous draft) isn't worth Deledio's, Tambling's and Griffen's small toe at the draft. You have a stack of players like Lewis because they're not that hard to find, yet you have very few speedsters like Tambling, Griffen, Judd and Deledio who have the pace and skill to break open a game.

Roughead will never be worth pick two and I'd be questioning why you took him ahead of Griffen and Franklin if you think he's so good. The selection of Hodge ahead of Judd will always be the biggest stuff up and then you made the same mistake taking Roughead ahead of Griffen.

I like Josh Kennedy but I wouldn't be happy if we had drafted him ahead of Griffen or Franklin.

At least you have all of those talls but no running players.

Agreed. Lewis is good, but is a slightly older Foley, good ability to find the football inside, good footskills but is slow. To say that Franklin is better than Deledio is ridiculous, this is the player who gets 19 possesions each game while being tagged. (Stats aren't everything, but that's impressive nevertheless)

Roughead was also a mistake. Griffen would have suited Hawthorn well, giving them some drive and pace and skill in the midfield and HBF. Instead, they chose a KPP whose only claim to fame so far is four goals against Essendon. Griffen is and always will be a better player than Roughead. Griffen is a matchwinner and has starred in the midfield this year.

Birchall is a good wingman, but racking up 30 touches in the hawks team doesn't mean that much when they play such a possesion orientated game. It's like when Patrick Bowden racks up 30 touches in the backline, does it mean anything?

 

[_RT_]

So then how do you explain the West Coast Eagles who also in Round 22 wen't over 400 possies per game, they don't play an attacking brand of footbal ? or the Western bulldogs who most say are the most attacking side in the AFL having a high amount of possies avg the same as Hawthorn during the year and also the same amount of contested posies.

Hawthorn wen't more direct in the forward line in the latter part of the season, which was the main difference.

Yet the Tigers average less possies than all those teams. Only the Swans and Lions averaged less possies per game than the Tigers. Hawthorn were the 4th highest average per game.

There is a difference the Dogs and Eagles won 13 & 17 games, with high possession gameplans during the season, the Hawks won 9 while also using a high possession gameplan.

 

[dipper86]

Yet the Tigers average less possies than all those teams. Only the Swans and Lions averaged less possies per game than the Tigers. Hawthorn were the 4th highest average per game.

And yet they say the Swans are the most negative and most boring team in the AFL, go figure.
While Brisbane finished in the bottom 4 had less possies but played a more attacking footy because you say they had less disposals

There is a difference the Dogs and Eagles won 13 & 17 games, with high possession gameplans during the season, the Hawks won 9 while also using a high possession gameplan.

So they don't play attacking brand of football because they have high possesion game plans, even thought they win matches???

In the last 6 games Hawthorn played a more attacking brand which was being more direct into the forward line which resulted in more wins it was well documented at the time.

 

[rick James]

Eagles and Dogs handball a lot whilst running the lines, Melbourne do it also.

Hawthorn played the majority of the seasonw ith no direction, constantly chipping sideways and backwards.

Toward the end of the year they started to try and run the lines more, it helped them knock off a few teams they might have lost to normally.