Nathan Brown instead of Kepler Bradley: did we stuff up?

[JohnF]

As we saw on the weekend, Brown is a quality player, highlihgted by his soaring mark and 60 metre bomb goal whihc gave us the ascendancy. We expect this kind of stuff from Browny and more often than not he has delivered over the past year. He will no doubt continue to do so for the next 4 years or so.

But I don't know if any of you have been following Kepler Bradley's progress but he looks like he will be a gun. The second making of Dustin Fletcher who will hold down a key defensive post for ten years.

Given how many unco backmen we have at the moment (Gaspar, Hall and to a lesser extent A.Kellaway) I was just wondering if you mongrels thought it was a bad move to pass him by and go for Nathan Brown instead.

[mightytiges]

We gave up Holland (plus most of his $$$ salary) and pick 6 (Bradley) for Browny. I would say we didn't stuff up in that one trade for the very reason that when Browny came to the club we saw that his ability was daylight ahead of Tiger players which we originally thought were A-graders when in fact they are just good B-graders. I think that it's good for our youngsters to see what level they need to get to (in terms of skill) if they really want to be the best. I'd reckon we'll come out fairly even in the deal.

The biggest losers out of that trade were the doggies (who took Lachlan Veale off the hawks as a sneaky deal to pick up Jade Rawlings in the PSD) and the hawks (Jacobs from the Bombers). Sheeds ended up with pick 6 (Bradley) for Jacobs  . No wonder no one wanted to trade with him this year the cunning old fox.

The other similar trade is the Johnson + Sarge for Wells + Torney (further pressure indirectly on Schulz to come good). The 4th pick we traded (Timothy Walsh - who you say?) ended up becoming pick #2 (Wells) after Carlton got the book thrown at them. Thank you AFL for not holding off until they had dealt with the cheats first . At least we didn't lose out in that deal like the Crows did chasing Carey on his last legs. 

Each trade in isolation wasn't a disaster  as we still got 2 quality players unlike the times we chased Hilton and Bidders  . It was giving up high first round picks 2 years in a row that was dumb. Made worse of course by us picking up a number of "experienced" duds with our other picks. Hence the big hole on our list around the 21-25 year old mark  .

[Rodgerramjet]

I agree with MT here and John even if we still have had pick 6 in that draft I doubt we would have picked him anyway.

[LondonTiger]

2003 - Nathan Brown instead of Kepler Bradley -
Nathan Brown by a long shot

But going back.....

2002 - Kane Johnson - instead of Daniel Wells  (but as MT said - Timothy Walsh - Pick 4)
Kane miles over Tim Walsh - but if we knew about Wells? - Doubt we would have gone with trading pick 4.
Jay Shultz at 12 or Rivers at pick 26?

2001 - David Rodan at 33
Ouch -  Brad Miller at 52 or Sam Mitchell at 36
Stafford for pick 17 / Daffy  (Pick 17 - James Kelly)

2000 - Kane Petiffer at 9 instead of
Ouch - Harris pick 14, Kerr pick 18, Cornes pick 20, McPhee 39
BTW - Cogs 25, Hyde 40, Newman 55   
Krak 41, instead of ?? think we did ok...

1999 - Fiora at 3 -    Pavlich
Ezra at 22, Homewood at 39 -
Ouch - Cameron Ling pick 38, Bruce pick 64

1998 - Pick 8 for Craig Biddiscombe - (Jude Bolton)
Pick 24 for Rory Hilton - (David Wojcinski)
Ouch Fevola - pick 38, Embley - pick 57
 

Yep - explains the priority pick - Hope Richard Tambling sorts all these errors out!   

[bg25]

Yep - explains the priority pick - Hope Richard Tambling sorts all these errors out!   

Hope we're not saying in a few years - Tambling 4...ouch Franklin 5. Franklin sure did look good last Sunday.

[Bulluss]

Hard to call really, Brown will still give a  few years service and profile.

I doubt that Bradley will come within 5 miles of Brown in regards to off field promotional stuff.

[Cain]

We needed a quality player in the team. Brown will be one of the skillful players that the team will be built around.
Ying and Yang - balance is important.
Lets not start crystal ball gazing 2 games into the season re Tambling v Franklin.
Didnt we have a McGrath that booted 6 not too long ago.
One game don't maketh the player.

[JohnF]

I think Brown will be his superior in the next 3 to 4 years but Bradley looks like he will give 10 years service.

Too early to call realistically, I agree, but I like what I see in Bradley.

[mightytiges]

Tambling will be compared to Roughead or should I say Roughead will be compared to Tambling as the Hawks went for the KPP ahead of Tambo.

The Hawks hesistated after we took Tambling. If Franklin is the goods then good on him and good luck but even the Hawks didn't rate him as their number 1 choice as a KPP and didn't rush to read out his name on draft day.

In any case we won't know the answer for 3-5 years.

[letsgetiton!]

As we saw on the weekend, Brown is a quality player, highlihgted by his soaring mark and 60 metre bomb goal whihc gave us the ascendancy. We expect this kind of stuff from Browny and more often than not he has delivered over the past year. He will no doubt continue to do so for the next 4 years or so.

But I don't know if any of you have been following Kepler Bradley's progress but he looks like he will be a gun. The second making of Dustin Fletcher who will hold down a key defensive post for ten years.

Given how many unco backmen we have at the moment (Gaspar, Hall and to a lesser extent A.Kellaway) I was just wondering if you mongrels thought it was a bad move to pass him by and go for Nathan Brown instead.

the past 3 weeks have shown us why we made the right choice with brown. he with richo will be th emost feared fwds of 2005 and beyound