Drafts Redone - 2003

[one-eyed]

Here's the 2003 redone draft to discuss (and tear to shreds). They've got Tuck at 3, Foley at 14, Rainesy at 19 and Jacko at 38.

1. Adam Cooney - Western, National 1
2. Brent Stanton - Essendon, National 13
3. Shane Tuck - Richmond, National 73
4. Sam Fisher - St Kilda, National 55
5. Josh Drummond - Brisbane, Rookie 47
6. Andrew Carrazzo - Carlton, Rookie 2
7. Aaron Davey - Melbourne, Rookie 3
8. Brock McLean - Melbourne, National 5
9. David Mundy - Fremantle, National 19
10. Heath Shaw - Collingwood, National 48
11. Michael Johnson - Fremantle, Preseason 8
12. Andrew Walker - Carlton, National 2
13. Brett Jones - West Coast, Rookie 9
14. Nathan Foley - Richmond, Rookie 4
15. Jed Adcock - Brisbane, National 33
16. Beau Waters - West Coast, National 11
17. Michael Rischitelli - Brisbane, National 61
18. Daniel Pratt - Brisbane, Rookie 16
19. Andrew Raines - Richmond, National 76
20. Mark Blake - Geelong, National 38
21. Sam Butler - West Coast, National 20
22. Troy Chaplin - Port Adelaide, National 15
23. Brad Symes - Port Adelaide, National 30
24. Jacob Surjan - Port Adelaide, Preseason 10
25. Amon Buchanan - Sydney, National 45

38. Daniel Jackson - Richmond, National 53

Roach, Hartigan, Fletcher, Morrison, Gilmour, Dragga#, Archibald, Weller and Marsh were the others.

http://www.allfooty.info/2008/11/drafts-redone-2003.html

[Chuck17]

Well we hit gold with the ones that made the list considering the pick at which we picked them up at.

IMO Jackson is getting better and is primed to have a good year in 2009 (or for his sake he better).

However we did bomb out with a fair few though.

And what about Tuck even a fair few of our own supporters were writing him off mid way through this year.  Cheap pick for a better than average player = team depth.

Who were our top selection picks that year?

[Infamy]

Foley should be higher, definitely, perhaps even swap Foley & Tuck at this stage although Tuck finished the year much stronger

[wayne]

lol Carrazzo ahead of Foley.

[mightytiges]

Stanton at 2 lol. He perhaps squeezes in the top 10 on that list but no way is he the 2nd best player there. Fisher is AA (he should be at No.2) and Foley played for Victoria. Adcock is also too low along with Foley.

Who were our top selection picks that year?

We traded our first pick (#6) for Browny. Essendon used it on Kepler Bradley  .
Next was Miller going speculative with pick 21 on Alex Gilmour.
Tom Roach was third at 37 as F/S. More a political choice at the time to buy the club some feelgood news.

[Chuck17]

We traded our first pick (#6) for Browny. Essendon used it on Kepler Bradley  .

That is hilarous and we get bagged for our recruiting

[yellowandback]

Stanton at 2 lol. He perhaps squeezes in the top 10 on that list but no way is he the 2nd best player there. Fisher is AA (he should be at No.2) and Foley played for Victoria. Adcock is also too low along with Foley.

Who were our top selection picks that year?

We traded our first pick (#6) for Browny. Essendon used it on Kepler Bradley  .
Next was Miller going speculative with pick 21 on Alex Gilmour.
Tom Roach was third at 37 as F/S. More a political choice at the time to buy the club some feelgood news.

Don't be too tough MT, with this rating it makes Stanton the highest rated girl to be drafted on an AFL list (replacing Fiora of course).

Shane Tuck belongs at 2, he has been a very good player for the Tigers since being drafted which is quite rare. In a lot of ways, if you value consistency, he has been a better player than even Cooney over his 5 years.

Looking back, it wasn't much of a draft. I reckon the Tigers have been lucky to scoop up in 04, 06 and 07. Lets hope we can collect again in 2009 before being in the 8 for a loooooong stretch.

[richmondrules]

lol Carrazzo ahead of Foley.

I keep looking at this list and I can't believe half the guys who are ahead of Nathan. What sort of idiot compiles this list?

[Chuck17]

What sort of idiot compiles this list?

Probably Walls or Sheahan

[Chuck17]

I vote for not having the 2004 one on the OER site

It will probably just attract some idiot Dawk troll

[mightytiges]

LOL @ Walls and Sheahan

I vote for not having the 2004 one on the OER site

It will probably just attract some idiot Dawk troll

There is a 2004 one and you can guess who are named as 1 & 2.

[Chuck17]

There is a 2004 one and you can guess who are named as 1 & 2.

[/quote]

Thats BS