So how many years is appropriate? 6 or 8?

Drafted in 2004, with his first game in 2005. He's in the 5th year at the club mate...

_________________
No matter how long it takes Carlton to rebuild, they will still win a premiership before Essendon* and Collingwood.

Far out Melvey, you're back in form today mate...

"Craig Bradley....wouldn't have the faintest idea about modern day football".... I defy you to describe modern day football and mention nothing about gut running and clean disposal. Don't judge his football knowledge by his haircut.

"At the end of the day the decision to recruit recycled players under Pagan is hurting us".... Are you saying we should've made better use of our early draft picks?

:Melvey:

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

I did say, "players like" those mentioned, not those players.
My point is we tend to go more steady as she goes players like Murph, Gibbs and Kreuzer.
They will be good players, already are but none of them can run the Essendon* mids off their feet.
Sometimes a player who can light up a game in a few minutes on a regular basis would be handy.
Leon Davis
Didak
Lovett
Davey (pick one)
the Burgoynes
MickyO
The Cousins that was
Farmer

Judd can do it but he hasn't got the bit of crazy about him that the others have.
Maybe Robbo will turn into one.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

This got me thinking, so I did my favourite thing - reviewing past drafts (I'm a masochist).

OK we all know we had zero players in 03 and lost picks 5 and 21 to draft penalties so Pagan decided to take about 10 has beens or never-weres late in the draft. Most of us figured, we have to field some sort of team in 04, so nothing to lose. But what sort of young talent was available late in the 03 draft that in hindsight, could have made a difference?

National Draft
44 R Dyson
45 Buchanan
46 Pettigrew
49 T Logan
53 D Jackson
55 S Fisher
58 B Hudson
61 Rischitelli
73 S Tuck
76 Raines

PSD

8 Michael Johnson
10 J Surjan

Rookie Draft

3 Aaron Davey
4 N Foley
9 B Jones
10 P Duffield
16 D Pratt
27 N Lovett-Murray
42 A Lovett
47 J Drummond

When I saw this list I was shocked. I had thought it was a poor draft. That's 20 players all active, who would make the basis of a competitive AFL team. To think we got the following in trades:
Clarke, Morrell, Harford, McGrath, Teague (along with Scotland )

and for late picks:
57 Mott
63 Bowyer
69 Bannister
72 De Luca

I wonder how our list would look today if we had the courage to just take late picks for Beaumont, Murphy, Mckernan etc, not traded for Harfs, and picked up 10 kids instead of rejects.

Tom Logan?

Yet Yarran has a 50% chance of being a star and is no Jurrah.

Aramari, you should lead question time for the Liberal Party with your arguments, because you're just pulling names out of a hat.

Your argument applies to every club who overlooked those players in the 2003 draft.

Most of those players aren't world beaters and are no better than our young players who have played less than one hundred games.

Why apply hindsight to Carlton and no one else?

It's because Carlton can't draft.

We should laugh at the other clubs overlooking Garlett, Simpson, Betts, Grigg, Jamison, Bower and Joseph...

Thanks Kouta - I'm not doing the usual "oh we should have gotten Kerr instead of Wiggins" thing (although, for example, Hudson and De Luca were both taken from VFL do there are parallels at the margins).

Pagan took the radical (and seemingly logical) step of bringing in a dozen mature age players in the summer of 03/04 to enable us to be halfway competitive in 2004. As you know it sort of worked for one year. In the long run it did little for us.

I'm not saying Carlton can't or couldn't draft. I'm not saying wow we should have taken all the good players on that list.

I'm saying the coach and club were running scared of another disastrous season, and potentially damaging the development of what young players we did have. I'm also speculating on how much better off we might be if the recruiting philosophy had been bold rather than fearful. We might have picked 3 or 4 long term AFL footballers aged 24 today out of the 10 late picks.

Just a whimsical digression

I didn't mention that Walker, Stevens, Scotland, Setanta, Bentick and Carrazzo also joined us in 03, which makes it a reasonable year "in hindsight". Could have been much better with 3-4 more quality kids plus picks 1 and 3 in 2004 for finishing last with the kids. I think it's interesting to look at how different approaches work, and whether we have taken the wrong approach. You're happier not thinking about it - I understand

Theres also a good chance that had we taken some of these players, the Pago-Pago era development would have seen them not develop into the solid players they are now, rather a steaming turd.
On the other hand, a bunch of young kids would have seen the uber-tank in effect and maybe we'd have Buddy or Deledio to whinge and moan about

_________________

Absolutely the Recruiting Dept.

_________________
I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!

..haven't read the whole thread yet, but something did catch my eye.. ..not speaking ill of the dead, and this isn't actually so much in regards to Pratt either, but more the comment that Pratt brought professionalism to the club.. ..actually, i don't think he did.. ..or if he did, not nearly enough.. ..he brought money, and the promise of what it brings.. ..but it wasn't long into his tenure as Pres that he had to step down, and after that was a bit of a moneybags patron.. ..he did manage to get us Swann, and his presence most likely tipped the scales in our favour regarding getting Juddles.. ..but as for turning the club into a proper professional outfit?, well.. ..many of us are questioning how professional we truely are which must in turn question how much professionalism he brought.. ..again, not neccessarily his fault but in this modern era Carlton is still too much Carlton.. ..we seem to be still too insular and xenophobic..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

Correct - Pratt was seen as the panacea. Investing faith in a "saviour" doesn't effect permanent, foundation-level cultural change. We are much better off for Pratt's assistance, but has the man "been taught to fish", or is he just finishing up his free seafood platter?

That's true, we'll never know. What the entire football world knew was that the used players we got were a stop-gap. After 2004's "competitiveness" (don't forget our % was an incredible 81% after winning almost half our games - ave losing margin of 52) we endured another 3 seasons as cellar dwellers.

I love a good counter-factual, and the 2003 draft is one of those