Farewell #28 Nathan Murphy

[Fatui Attata]

I interpret the 6th ranking of Murphy as us having 5 ranked above him. Stephenson being the 3rd. So at pick 6 Stephenson is available, so we pick him (1 & 2 ranked players are gone). Players we ranked 4 & 5 (and possibly 7, 8, 9, etc) were picked up by 39, leaving our 6th highest ranked player, Murphy, the most logical and surprising pick. If that sort of thing happens with the other 17 clubs, it's a lottery based on chance. That's why we have low draft picks often surprise us.
My point is that other clubs may have had Murphy ranked anywhere from 6 - 20, but a higher ranked player was available at pick whatever, letting Murphy slip through. Pre draft, most reports suggested a definitive top ten and a more than handy bunch ranked 10 - 30. 9 picks later, Murphy is still there. Other clubs got to certain picks and either had a higher ranked player still available, or may have had a longer queue ahead of Murphy ... eg, North Mel ranked him 12....meaning 11 players were ahead of him, with the likelihood one of them was still there at their next selection, and one or two selections after.

We have a surprise packet with this fellow

[E]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but don't just blatantly ignore things and distort what other posters say. Read what I wrote. You know full well that it wasn't just telling something to a reporter. There was no good reason for any club to get someone invited to the draft just to fool their own supporters, at a time when they should have been thinking only of who they wanted to draft. And Eddie told N. Murphy in their phone conversation that the club ranked him 6. Do you really think it makes sense for the president to tell the new recruit a huge lie in one of his first sentences, just to fool supporters?

In fact, some people who assume that it's all true are critical of the club for letting this info out. I at a minimum agree with them that making public the claim that we ranked our first two picks at 3 and 6 puts more pressure on Hine, not less.

Hi new recruit. welcome to collingwood. we love you and we rate you very highly.

Oh boy, that sounds like a terribly risky thing to do and not in line at all with what every single club told every single draftee........

[K]

That's what arguably the Club should have said to him, whatever they rated him, but not what they did tell him, as well as the Member Forum.

By all means, interpret what they said however you wish, but don't now pretend they stopped at saying they rated him "very highly", just so you can claim they did what every club did. They explicitly said they ranked him 6. You've insisted all along that this 6 ranking was a cunning lie. Fine. Others think it was foolish truth-telling --- or justifiable truth-telling. Whichever camp one is in, it's certainly not true that every club told every single draftee that he was rated a specific top-10 number, as you suggest above.

[ronrat]

My

Hi new recruit. welcome to collingwood. we love you and we rate you very highly.

Oh boy, that sounds like a terribly risky thing to do and not in line at all with what every single club told every single draftee........

That's what arguably the Club should have said to him, whatever they rated him, but not what they did tell him, as well as the Member Forum.

By all means, interpret what they said however you wish, but don't now pretend they stopped at saying they rated him "very highly", just so you can claim they did what every club did. They explicitly said they ranked him 6. You've insisted all along that this 6 ranking was a cunning lie. Fine. Others think it was foolish truth-telling --- or justifiable truth-telling. Whichever camp one is in, it's certainly not true that every club told every single draftee that he was rated a specific top-10 number, as you suggest above.

Not sure you read K correctly. Revisit.

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

A point missed was that this was a very even draft after the first 5 or so picks, to around pick 40, with a couple of surprises thrown in, one being GCS with their first pick (coming from a club who had no senior coach around the time when clubs were planning their strategies prior to the draft). So any pick being 5 and 40 could turn out to be another Dane Swan or James Hird. So it doesn't matter where you pick em, it only matters how it turns out in future years. Whether Murphy turns out as good as Swan or Hird, depends on his inherent talent and how hard he works.

Also another point, made by Buckley at the forum, is that if we purely drafted for needs and drafted talls, if those talls can't get to where the ball is, you've wasted those draft picks.

[E]

A point missed was that this was a very even draft after the first 5 or so picks, to around pick 40, with a couple of surprises thrown in, one being GCS with their first pick (coming from a club who had no senior coach around the time when clubs were planning their strategies prior to the draft). So any pick being 5 and 40 could turn out to be another Dane Swan or James Hird. So it doesn't matter where you pick em, it only matters how it turns out in future years. Whether Murphy turns out as good as Swan or Hird, depends on his inherent talent and how hard he works.

Also another point, made by Buckley at the forum, is that if we purely drafted for needs and drafted talls, if those talls can't get to where the ball is, you've wasted those draft picks.

We shall watch Naughton and Brander's career carefully then. It was Judkins who shortly after the draft told people that Danny Roach was their second rated player in the 99 draft. Pavlich got to the ball ok for around 16 years if i'm not mistaken.

My suspicion is that Collingwood loved Murphy at pick 39 and were delighted he was there at 39. I think he'll turn out to be a really good pick 39 (and i bet Jack Watts wishes he had the expectations of a pick 39).

I'm 100% certain we wouldn't have taken him at pick 6 if Stephenson was gone ahead of whichever of the top 5 was still there. And if i'm wrong about that, people should be fired for taking a Danny Roach risk with such an important pick!!!!!!

Still, since we didn't pick him at pick 6, i think they were smart to bang on about the fact that they might have done that as it provides great cover if Stephenson is a bust (health wise). A Nicks fan base which has been very critical of Collingwood all season is now defending their drafting genius.

[K]

A point missed was that this was a very even draft after the first 5 or so picks, to around pick 40, with a couple of surprises thrown in, one being GCS with their first pick (coming from a club who had no senior coach around the time when clubs were planning their strategies prior to the draft). So any pick being 5 and 40 could turn out to be another Dane Swan or James Hird. ...

...

Yes, an important point: this evenness would make it difficult not only to rank the players but also to guess the other clubs' ranking of players.

[K]

...

Also another point, made by Buckley at the forum, is that if we purely drafted for needs and drafted talls, if those talls can't get to where the ball is, you've wasted those draft picks.

We shall watch Naughton and Brander's career carefully then. It was Judkins who shortly after the draft told people that Danny Roach was their second rated player in the 99 draft. Pavlich got to the ball ok for around 16 years if i'm not mistaken.

My suspicion is that Collingwood loved Murphy at pick 39 and were delighted he was there at 39.
<snip>

Still, since we didn't pick him at pick 6, i think they were smart to bang on about the fact that they might have done that as it provides great cover if Stephenson is a bust (health wise). A Nicks fan base which has been very critical of Collingwood all season is now defending their drafting genius.

It's not particularly clear whether the "very critical Nicks fan base" thinks the Club achieved "drafting genius".

There are many separate questions here, and they should not all be conflated: e.g. what the Club's rankings were, whether they should have disclosed info on them, whether those rankings will turn out to be good judgements, what their drafting strategy should have been, ... If a Nickster expresses an opinion on the first question, one cannot from that alone infer that Nickster's opinion on the third question.

[Achilles]

[stui magpie]

Medium forward at best.

At least he's in good nick at training and aiming to get in the team.

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/20 ... inking-big

In the In black and white magazine end of season player review he was described as a promising half back or wingman of the future.

[5 from the wing on debut]

[K]

^ Yep, they think he'll reach 195cm.

[BazBoy]

[5 from the wing on debut]

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

He's at least 5cm taller than Tom Langdon, which makes him a KPP to me (or at least a third tall forward, or a medium tall defender).