Jar take out pick 1-5 and the graph is less dramatic .

We were not in the 1-5 range and I suspect in a lot of years our first pick would have been 10+ .

Sure we traded for some duds but every club has done that .

We were not in the right end of the draft for it to make a huge difference to our playing list and its the same reason brisbane , Essendon* and port all struggled this year . Only thing is we should be well out of this predicament by now

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

Bullshit.

_________________
“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus.”
Turkish Proverb

no its not bullshit if you take out the first 4 in this case the green line flattens out - Players 1-5 have the biggest impact

_________________
If you allow the Government to change the Laws in an emergency
They will create an Emergency to change the Laws

It may flatten out SB but does it become flat? NO, of course not.

We have given up so many early picks for hacks from other Clubs that it could only have hurt us. Short-termism has continually been our enemy. The main difference now is that we given up late picks for hacks instead....

I maintain the main hurt from our draft penalties wasnt the number of picks but the timing of them. It was right when we needed them given the age of our 2002 list and we were going to have to rebuild regardless of our 2002 performance.

ps love the argument between GWS and verbs albeit I think you are aruging different points.

It'd be a valid arguement if the past few premierships were built on draft picks alone.

How many of these players have won premierships?

Clive Waterhouse
Michael Gardiner
Travis Johnstone
Des Headland
Josh Fraser

Only one.

It's easy to argue poor recruitment from 1996-1999, yet I have categorically illustrated how post 1995 we constructed a team which gave us a good shot at another premiership or premierships in the five years thereafter. We would've been expecting top two in 1996, and by mid 2000 the same.

Anyone can say they predicted our demise in 1995. People who do are full of it.

The problem with the 95 Premiership (other than being a mutual masturbatory exercise for some ).

Is that it should have been the 3rd of 3 Premierships (ie. 93, 94 and 95 - for the risk of being lynched on this site I think we underachieved with the list we had during that time) with the the squad being broken up after that - if you look at it was very similar to Port Adelaides 2004 flag - which was the last hurrah for that list.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

GWS wrote



Wow! That speaks volumes regarding our recruitment trend in that period...and we know the result/ cost.

Sydney Blue wrote



That's not bullshit, in fact it's the first thing I noticed when looking at the graph. Perhaps we should have valued picks 28-38 (late round 2 early 3rd round picks) more than we did we would have done better too. There's no doubt about the value of early picks when replenishing your list. Hard decisions have to be made. What would have happened if Kouta was forced to retire at the end of this year? Pick 80 or something?

Look, at the time, I thought it was worth a punt that the oldies but goldies would serve us well at a tilt for the flag from 1996-1997. In fact I won $13K in 1999 from numerous bets backing Carlton to get into the GF. Funny thing was that about $5K of that was from Carlton supporters. There were a lot of Carlton supporters who thought that we should be turning over the list end of '98, and perhaps they were right in hindsight. It's a hard one, but one good result of the process was that we were good enough to beat The Bumbers in the '99 prelim, and stop them from flag 16 (which would have been 17 in 2000 for them).

I think we have all learned a valuable lesson in the appropriate methodologies of drafting since 1996. There is no doubt most clubs close to a premiership will have a go at retreads or trading for good old players to fill a gap. There are times when you just have to have a go at it as you wouldn't want to beat yourself up second guessing what would have happened if....

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Spot on, Agro.

Port Adelaide analogy is right on the money too.

_________________

************************************************************
NOW YOU'RE JUST SOME CLUB THAT I USED TO KNOW.

Aside from the fact Sydney and Brisbane have had salary cap advantages and extra rookies, Sydney's first pick in the 2005 draft was #51. See a pattern here?

Sydney are at the front(ish) of their "window of opportunity". In 95, we were at thet back end.

In 99, we had the type of team that in this day and age, would run 5th - 12th.

In 2000, we retained that 99 team and had the most damaging player in the competition - the prototype footballer. When he went down at the end of the year, we were shot.

He knew it, the club knew it, the whole bloody world knew it. Unfortunately, so did his manager. Do blame him for everything? No I don't. But he was/is still a shit bloke.

Someone down at the club at some time in the late 1990's must've laughed at a handicapped person, or squashed a lady-bug or something because we went straight to hell and like a bunch of spoilt rich kids, we sold our soul to get back out. Now the Devil owns us... And there is no sympathy coming.

I am a believer that the AFL has something on us. I also believe that the rest of the clubs (especially the Victorian ones) know what it is. If they didn't, they would be sticking up for yet another Victoria club that is in the deepest of deep shit.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

We were probably an Athorn, Powell and Sholl too far in 93.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

just on 1999 that everyone says we went close and shows how we almost built a side.

how much did we lose that first final by?

Then having lost we got to play the weagles at the MCG - their second MCG trip in a row.


The rules changed after that one.

Nowadays we'd be out on our arse where we belonged and then we would have made some tough calls.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Are you wearing your "pixelatted glasses" again Danny???

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Wasn't an aboriginal curse placed on us?
Is that still in place?

We need to have any bad voodoo exorcised.



Such info if true surely would have leaked by now. Nothing related to the AFL stays secret for an extended period. I don't think there is anything the AFL holds over us except for the fact that we have money problems and are now somewhat beholdent to the AFL.

Dennis.

If they did hold anything I would think it was a cap breach after those that we were caught on. Remember the salary cuts? Remember Synbad reporting that we were a beesdick under the cap in 2004? (Was it 2004?) Remember all those trades done in a rush on the last day of trade week for lesser known players of other clubs, cheaper players, whilst the expensive Beaumont, Allan, Murphy etc. were all gone. Financial incentives may have been behind it.

I dont think there is anything though.

I just think we're a bit feeble in the leadership stakes. Our leadership appears to want to be closer to the AFL for PP money, Optus Oval $500k per annum money, the ability to call on the CBF if we need it... they may strongly believe that we cant bite the hands that feed us expecially whilst they are a major creditor.

Even though the Lions thrashed us at the Gabba in the 1999 final, the very next year we thrashed them at the Gabba very very easily.

In 1999, we then turned around to beat the WCE in Melbourne very very easily. Even if it had been at Subi I believe we would've still won, probably by half as much.

Anyone who didn't expect us to be a real threat in 1996 (and then on the back of the 1997 pre-season result) must've been living on Pluto.

By the time we got to the end of 1997 it was clear we needed to promote and develop a new batch of players. Time to step up to the plate Camporeale, Koutoufides, Ratten, Hamill, Allan, Beaumont, Murphy, Hickmott, Whitehead, Lappin. Goodbye Hanna, Williams, Spalding, Madden, Mitchell and Kernahan.

The result...a good side by 1999, a very good side by 2000.

This is exactly what I was saying.

Oh, of course, because YOU said it, suddenly, the words have gravitas.

Nice of you to mention how wonderful 99 and 2000 were, but you conveniently omit 98, which until 2002 was our worst season ever.

"It was clear we needed to promote and develop a new batch of players". That was the whole point about taking a bloody good look at potential weaknesses which may develop after 95 in the list.

And, looking back realistically and pragmatically, it wasn't done, or if it was done, it was only done in a half-arsed way.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

Read above, "By the time we got to the end of 1997 it was clear we needed to promote and develop a new batch of players".

Also, "We had our down years (1997 & 1998)"

Also. "Brisbane expect to be up there again in a couple of years, as we did in 1998."

Stop crapping on about "potential" weaknesses. There were none at the end of 1995. Just like Sydney aren't looking at what can go wrong in 2011. Sydney have structured their list to have a crack at the 2006 premiership, just like we did in 1996. They will expect to have another crack in 2007, just like we did in 1997. If they miss the finals in 2007 they will look to be back there again by about 2009 or 2010, just like we did in 1999 and 2000.

You're full of shit, verbs.

If the team is structured for the here and now, then the sorts of falls-from-grace we had in 97-98, and 2001-02 will happen. Over and over and over again.

If you think Sydney isn't looking at 2008-09 now, then you're kidding yourself. And what players will be in that team? Not Brett Kirk, Leo Barry, etc. The Swans football Dept will be planning who will take over from them, and who will be a backup for that person in case of injury.

Those sorts of structures were missing AFTER 95. I'm not saying that the 95 list had it's deficiencies or weaknesses, but no planning was done properly to ensure that there was no slump, a la 97-98 etc.

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.

I'm full of shit? You just made up pretty much everything you wrote in that last post, unless you work for the Swans. Just because you post it doesn't make it fact. You, myself, and everyone else has no idea what Sydney are planning, but the fact you consider them so highly is quite sus. Maybe you should just go follow your Swans since you think they are so great, yet Carlton are shit and had no plan come the end of 1995.

I challenge you to find ANY Sydney supporter who in November last year was worried about the future of the club (given they picked Brabazon, Laidlaw and Thornton from pick 51 onwards, not to mention some discards from other clubs) and was fretting about 2011.

They are all thinking 2006, and rightly so. As we were thinking 1996 in November 1995.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is an absolute fraud.