Re-do the 2008 draft

[Enforcer25]

stephen hill is heads above the rest, one of the classiest players in the league.

The only big query on Hill at draft time was that he'd only get mid teens possessions at U/18 level and if he didn't dominate at that level, would he be able tomget enough of it in the AFL...

He seems to have answered that question already.

 

[larson]

Pretty simple.
Watts, Hill or Hartlett.

The draft order was just about right but NicNat went too high.

No.
Watts has looked very very ordinary.
Hartlett has looked good but seems a bit injury prone.

No club would be selecting either of them before Hurley or Naitanui now. Hill maybe.

The reason Hurley slipped to 5 was a worry about his lack of pace, which is now no concern. The reason Naitanui dropped to no.2 was that your recruiters f**ked up pretty bad.

 

[Gazza_11]

I wouldn't take Naitanui. Has barely any impact on his games and makes everyone wow at average things that he makes looks incredible, about twice a game.

Hurley is very good when he's good but apart from that he's sub-par.

Hill is a jet who's playing very well in a succesful side.

 

[tesseract]

I wouldn't take Naitanui. Has barely any impact on his games and makes everyone wow at average things that he makes looks incredible, about twice a game.

Hurley is very good when he's good but apart from that he's sub-par.

Hill is a jet who's playing very well in a succesful side.

Watts does even less than Naitanui, yet you'd still pick Watts. Great reasoning, hhhmmmmm??

 

[Eastern Rangers]

This thread has become laughable. Will be awsome fun bumping this thread.

I mean how reactionary is it?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

He was at his peak then.

There was a funny Jack Watts moment on the members wing on Monday afternoon. I couldn't help but think of the Mario theme.

 

[GuzzLG]

Hurley is very good when he's good but apart from that he's sub-par.

Wayne Carey also wasn't that good when he wasn't good.

 

[r_boy]

This thread has become laughable. Will be awsome fun bumping this thread.

I mean how reactionary is it?

It's not just this thread. BigFooty is 90% reactionary posts.

Debutante plays a bad game - he is going to be shit.
Young side has a good game - they will win the premiership in 3 years.
29 year old plays a bad game - he's going downhill and should retire.
Geelong smashes a side with injuries - they are going to dominate the next 3 years.
Franklin kicks the tonne as a 21 year old - is going to be the best player ever.
Collingwood wins first 6 games of the season - May premiers.
Geelong dominates half the season - they have already won the premiership.

Etc etc etc you could go on with this for days on end. I much more enjoy just making some predictions on what I think will happen and just seeing them through, only revising them if I have to.

 

[r_boy]

1. Michael Hurley
2. Jack Watts
3. Jack Ziebell
4. Hamish Hartlett
5. Daniel Rich


Haven't seen enough at the the end of the day. I'm pretty confident that these guys will be very, very good but after that I'm pretty unsure.

 

[Brad Roo]

Wayne Carey also wasn't that good when he wasn't good.

Perhaps you should find a more suitable comparison?

 

[Slattery_20]

Hurley is 193cm and 89kg...how exactly is that a "man's" body?

Use your eyes!
He's a lot further along (physically) than anyone bar Rich from that draft. Watts still has to grow into his frame, then learn to use it, and learn the minor points of where to run etc. Hurley was (is) clearly physically ready to go and really his game is more about fine-tuning and finding consistency than anything else.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Perhaps you should find a more suitable comparison?

haha exactly what i was thinking

 

[Enforcer25]

Watts does even less than Naitanui, yet you'd still pick Watts. Great reasoning, hhhmmmmm??

I'm not basing it on exposed form, rather on what I expect the players to become.
But I'd still contend that Watts does more than NicNat.

And ive seen enough of Watts to know he has the skills, athelticism and natural talent to be a star. It will only be a matter of time.

NicNat has freakish athleticism and is a huge unit... Beyond that I'm not sure what else.

Hurley is very good and will continue to be.
I just think Watts will overtake him in a few years.

Same with Hartlett - I think he'll end up being a very damaging player in the Hodge mould.

Of course there is a bit of crystal ball gazing required - it's the 2008 draft FFS. None of them are fully developed.

 

[Enforcer25]

This thread has become laughable. Will be awsome fun bumping this thread.

I mean how reactionary is it?

Unsurprisingly.
If I had've made the argument 4 weeks ago that NicNat is useless around the ground outside of a ruck contest, I'd have been shouted down by the masses as a fool.
Sometimes you have to wait for the media and general football public to cotton onto something before it becomes an acceptable argument.

 

[HighettBomber]

Perhaps you should find a more suitable comparison?

Why? Do you think Carey was good when he wasn't good?

 

[Pykie]

Why? Do you think Carey was good when he wasn't good?

Carey had a 0 goal, sub 10 possession game in the elimination final in 1993.


He didn't have another one until Round 12 2001.


Between 1992-2001, he had 13, 0 goal games, That includes a shitload of finals.

On 5 of those no goal games, he had over 25 possessions and 10 marks.


So basically, you can almost count the amount of stinkers he had on one hand, accross 272 games.

Again, probably not the best person to compare with.

 

[HighettBomber]

Carey had a 0 goal, sub 10 possession game in the elimination final in 1993.


He didn't have another one until Round 12 2001.


Between 1992-2001, he had 13, 0 goal games, That includes a shitload of finals.

On 5 of those no goal games, he had over 25 possessions and 10 marks.


So basically, you can almost count the amount of stinkers he had on one hand, accross 272 games.

Again, probably not the best person to compare with.

If you brush up on your english lanuage skills and read the thread again you will realise that nobody was comparing Hurley to Carey. Thanks for the statistics, but I already thought he was the best player ever so you're hardly going to increase my opinion of him.

 

[GuzzLG]

Carey had a 0 goal, sub 10 possession game in the elimination final in 1993.


He didn't have another one until Round 12 2001.


Between 1992-2001, he had 13, 0 goal games, That includes a shitload of finals.

On 5 of those no goal games, he had over 25 possessions and 10 marks.


So basically, you can almost count the amount of stinkers he had on one hand, accross 272 games.

Again, probably not the best person to compare with.

What is this gibberish?

Carey wasn't good when he wasn't good. By definition.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

The Essendon types weren't having a dip at Duck boys

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Unsurprisingly.
If I had've made the argument 4 weeks ago that NicNat is useless around the ground outside of a ruck contest, I'd have been shouted down by the masses as a fool.
Sometimes you have to wait for the media and general football public to cotton onto something before it becomes an acceptable argument.

That doesn't make you right. It makes you a fool.

 

[Spudregus_87]

I'd do this:

1. Michael Hurley
2. Steele Sidebottom
3. Daniel Rich
4. Stephen Hill
5. Nic Naitanui
6. Mitch Robinson
7. Jack Watts
8. Jack Ziebell
9. Hayden Ballantyne
10. David Zaharakis
11. Dayne Beams
12. Liam Anthony
13. Chris Yarran
14. Daniel Hannebery
15. Hamish Hartlett

 

[Smyth94]

Use your eyes!
He's a lot further along (physically) than anyone bar Rich from that draft. Watts still has to grow into his frame, then learn to use it, and learn the minor points of where to run etc. Hurley was (is) clearly physically ready to go and really his game is more about fine-tuning and finding consistency than anything else.

What? Re-read my reply, I'm not contesting that.

All I was saying that whilst Hurley was physically more developed than his counter-parts, he's still got a fair bit of physical development himself to go.

 

[Ants]

:spade:

Why? Do you think Carey was good when he wasn't good?

Yes. Carey's "bad" games were way better than most.

 

[cannons]

I'd do this:

1. Michael Hurley
2. Steele Sidebottom
3. Daniel Rich
4. Stephen Hill
5. Nic Naitanui
6. Mitch Robinson
7. Jack Watts
8. Jack Ziebell
9. Hayden Ballantyne
10. David Zaharakis
11. Dayne Beams
12. Liam Anthony
13. Chris Yarran
14. Daniel Hannebery
15. Hamish Hartlett

Not sure if serious.....

 

[Greg Brady]

In all fairness if you are asking for time with Watts, anyone can ask the same for their choices.

gb