Revisiting the 2005 Draft

All trade and draft talk here thanks..... this means you DTM!!!!

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
thebaldfacts
Posts: 3602
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:27 am

Revisiting the 2005 Draft

Post by thebaldfacts »

Great article telling us what we already know. Pendles was the best of that crop easily.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/collin ... 6760911873
User avatar
roar
Posts: 4086
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:55 pm
Been liked: 3 times

Post by roar »

Very interesting that Hawthorn is seen as being fantastic in the recruiting stakes but they had a shocker that year.
kill for collingwood!
thebaldfacts
Posts: 3602
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:27 am

Post by thebaldfacts »

roar wrote:Very interesting that Hawthorn is seen as being fantastic in the recruiting stakes but they had a shocker that year.
Yes. They had 2 years of priority picks before the first round. Roughead and Franklin were great gets, but Ellis and Dowler were failures. Also picking Thorpe ahead of Selwoodwas another failure. Think like Sydney they have been excellent in recruiting ready made players to fill a need.
User avatar
Jezza
Posts: 29519
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: Ponsford End
Has liked: 256 times
Been liked: 338 times

Post by Jezza »

This was a fantastic draft for us. Getting Pendles was absolute gold considering many didn't think he was justified to be picked at number 5. Obviously Hine and Co knew what they were doing all along.

Hawthorn were the big losers in that draft as they drafted Ellis and Dowler. Some thought Dowler would go number 1 that year until he was involved in a major car accident and he never came back the same player mentally and physically for some reason. Apparently he was an absolute gun before this accident occurred.
πŸ† | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | πŸ†
E

Post by E »

Jezza wrote:This was a fantastic draft for us. Getting Pendles was absolute gold considering many didn't think he was justified to be picked at number 5. Obviously Hine and Co knew what they were doing all along.

Hawthorn were the big losers in that draft as they drafted Ellis and Dowler. Some thought Dowler would go number 1 that year until he was involved in a major car accident and he never came back the same player mentally and physically for some reason. Apparently he was an absolute gun before this accident occurred.
The author admits that had daisy not spent 2 years with a bad leg, he would certainly have been number 2 o the list. Its pretty clear that with picks 2 and 5 Hine got picks 1 and 2 in that draft. Sadly though, carlton now have 2 of the top 4 picks from that draft even rating it today (actual 1 and 2 picks).

If you look at that list though, it shows how few great players actually come out of a draft.

It also shows that you are more likely to draft a gun with a top 10 (5 on the list), rather than 11-20 (3 on the list) and even more likely than 21 and higher (only 2). It also shows though that great players can come from anywhere.
Duff Soviet Union
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:45 pm
Been liked: 2 times

Post by Duff Soviet Union »

It's funny because Pendles was considered a massive reach at the time. No one else would have likely taken him in the first round let alone top 5.

Apparently the guy running Richmond's draft actually laughed out loud when Collingwood called out his name.

The lesson here? When Richmond are laughing at you, it's probably a good sign.
"We ain't gotta dream no more"
User avatar
Jezza
Posts: 29519
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: Ponsford End
Has liked: 256 times
Been liked: 338 times

Post by Jezza »

Duff Soviet Union wrote:It's funny because Pendles was considered a massive reach at the time. No one else would have likely taken him in the first round let alone top 5.

Apparently the guy running Richmond's draft actually laughed out loud when Collingwood called out his name.

The lesson here? When Richmond are laughing at you, it's probably a good sign.
WOW that's priceless :lol: :lol: :lol:
πŸ† | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | πŸ†
Post Reply