View Full Version : Fantasia blast priority picks system
and as well as criticising the inequity of priority picks, mentioned the father-son system and how they have never had one. Said Smith, Morton and Cloke would all have been certain 1st rd picks this year if available to everyone.
James Fantasia is the Crows recruiting manager.
and as well as criticising the inequity of priority picks, mentioned the father-son system and how they have never had one. Said Smith, Morton and Cloke would all have been certain 1st rd picks this year if available to everyone.
James Fantasia is the Crows recruiting manager.
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=173890
Used the Bulldogs as an example of how there is a very thin line between pick 5 and picks 3 & 6 after narrow loses in their first 3 rounds.
Good points IMO
the guy is being one-eyed, if the crows were in that position i would be shocked if he would make those kind of comments, the crows can't draft, he knows it, he doesn't know how to do his job, he is looking for another excuse.
he completely ignores facts, and thinks the dogs are some kind of top side, that deliberatly play like crap and miss goals, let me tell you something james, if the dogs were that good, and had the talent they wouldn't be missing those goals! the dogs have some fine youngsters coming through, but they aren't that good, you think some of the doggies players that about to be gone are playing like they are for the benefit of the club in getting top picks? you better wake up.
Teams who aren't receiving priority picks will always complain about, teams who are getting them will always defend it.
Personally I think it needs to be changed, if the extra pick is at the start of the first round, it should be harder to qualify for, maybe less than 6 wins two years in a row, otherwise the extra picks should be moved back to the end of the first round.
imbecile12
4 Oct 2004, 14:39
Teams who aren't receiving priority picks will always complain about, teams who are getting them will always defend it.
Personally I think it needs to be changed, if the extra pick is at the start of the first round, it should be harder to qualify for, maybe less than 6 wins two years in a row, otherwise the extra picks should be moved back to the end of the first round.
Totally agree with that. Being able to pick two of the best young players in the land is just too much of an advantage, especially if it is repeated over several years. Give an extra priority pick, but put it at the end of the first round and have the draft order continue as normal. Then the team still get an extra first round draft pick and gets pretty good player in return.
As for Fantasia's drafting, he's never had the high picks to work with that just about every other recruting manager has had. Pretty hard to pick up Chris Judd when you've got picks 51 and 67.
HighFlyer
4 Oct 2004, 14:43
Its not the priority picks that are flawed or where in the draft they are, its how you qualify for them.
The idea of the priority pick system was to assist chronically poor performing clubs, one season doesn't make a side chronically poor performing. It should be over a number of years.
Unfortunately if you look at the tigers, hawks and dogs they are chronically poor performers over the last couple of years , regardless of a win here or there.
Totally agree with that. Being able to pick two of the best young players in the land is just too much of an advantage, especially if it is repeated over several years. Give an extra priority pick, but put it at the end of the first round and have the draft order continue as normal. Then the team still get an extra first round draft pick and gets pretty good player in return.
tell me when was the last time the dogs made the finals? they have had a number of pp but haven't made the finals for years, add to that when was the last time a team with a PP has actually won a gf? i can't think of one.
the pp need to stay for the short term, remember it is their to benefit bottom side's, that do not have talent to match it with top sides. saint's have done well this year, but until they win a flag all thier PP mean nothing.
As for Fantasia's drafting, he's never had the high picks to work with that just about every other recruting manager has had. Pretty hard to pick up Chris Judd when you've got picks 51 and 67.
you have had a number of top 10 picks that you have on-traded. you could have had pick 4(2) for Johnson you didn't need to on-trade it for carey, but of course being relistic that wouldn't have worked with the kanga's request.
Long live the Spoon
4 Oct 2004, 14:51
There is an important point to made made about draft picks...
Early picks does not always = great player...
Brad Ottens
Trent Croad
Travis Johnstone
Luke Hodge
Goddard has questionmarks still
Given that Adelaides drafting has been so questionable in the past few years, do you think Fantasy Man is trying to divert attention to the fact he has no idea???
imbecile12
4 Oct 2004, 15:37
tell me when was the last time the dogs made the finals? they have had a number of pp but haven't made the finals for years, add to that when was the last time a team with a PP has actually won a gf? i can't think of one.
the pp need to stay for the short term, remember it is their to benefit bottom side's, that do not have talent to match it with top sides. saint's have done well this year, but until they win a flag all thier PP mean nothing.
you have had a number of top 10 picks that you have on-traded. you could have had pick 4(2) for Johnson you didn't need to on-trade it for carey, but of course being relistic that wouldn't have worked with the kanga's request.
The dogs never had a priority pick in recent times until last year. They had the same problem as the crows in that they were always competitive and around the mark, but never had a shocking year where they could get high picks.
I've got no problem with the way the draft works, im not calling for an NBA-style lottery or anything because I think its fundamentally fine. I just think in drafts like this year's when there are usually 5-6 outstanding players, its too much of an advantage to give the bottom side first shot at 2 of them. I dont think this discussion would even be happening if St. Kilda hadnt stockpiled such unbelievable talent over the past few years. It may be the exception rather than the rule but it still needs to be looked at.
I think the Johnson-Carey-Wells thing has been debated enough. The simple fact was we never could have drafted Wells, we only held onto that pick as the Johnson-Carey deal was being worked out. Either the Kangaroos drafted him or Richmond did.
Crows actually have a high pick this year, lets see how Fantasia goes with some real ammunition.
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=173890
Used the Bulldogs as an example of how there is a very thin line between pick 5 and picks 3 & 6 after narrow loses in their first 3 rounds.
Good points IMO
tissue?
I think the Johnson-Carey-Wells thing has been debated enough. The simple fact was we never could have drafted Wells, we only held onto that pick as the Johnson-Carey deal was being worked out. Either the Kangaroos drafted him or Richmond did.
How do you figure that? Had they not picked up Carey they would have had pick #2 instead. Richmond in essence gave up pick #2 for Johnson, the Crows wanted to on trade that pick for Carey, it was their choice to take Carey instead of pick #2.
Fantasia (what kind of name is that anyway?) should learn to keep his mouth shut. Odds are Adelaide are going to be recipients of priority picks in the very near future.
How do you figure that? Had they not picked up Carey they would have had pick #2 instead. Richmond in essence gave up pick #2 for Johnson, the Crows wanted to on trade that pick for Carey, it was their choice to take Carey instead of pick #2.
Richmond might not have made the trade if we knew we had pick 2, or the trade might have been done not involving that pick. We'll never know.
You know a guy has no idea when he asks for a 'think-tank'
"Fantasia was adamant a better formula must be introduced and said a 'think-tank' could help to find a 'more equitable solution'. " (taken from the article)
McLeod23
4 Oct 2004, 16:52
tissue?
Loser culture.
McLeod23
4 Oct 2004, 16:54
Fantasia (what kind of name is that anyway?) should learn to keep his mouth shut. Odds are Adelaide are going to be recipients of priority picks in the very near future.
You're right. His name says so much about the guy. :rolleyes:
Its easy to stick up for the current system when you've benefited from it isn't it?
No doubt the comments were sparked out of self interest. But he is nonetheless spot on, priority picks are steaming pile of horse manure.
And Adelaide won't be recieving priority picks any time soon either. I said it when we started 0-4 this year and I'll say it again: we'll always be good for half a dozen wins.
Its easy to stick up for the current system when you've benefited from it isn't it?
Just as easy to have a cry when you haven't.
The dogs never had a priority pick in recent times until last year. They had the same problem as the crows in that they were always competitive and around the mark, but never had a shocking year where they could get high picks.
now since the dogs haven't had pp since last year, doesn't that even more justify them getting pp? considering how bad they have being.
I've got no problem with the way the draft works, im not calling for an NBA-style lottery or anything because I think its fundamentally fine. I just think in drafts like this year's when there are usually 5-6 outstanding players, its too much of an advantage to give the bottom side first shot at 2 of them. I dont think this discussion would even be happening if St. Kilda hadnt stockpiled such unbelievable talent over the past few years. It may be the exception rather than the rule but it still needs to be looked at.
wrong, saints did not stock pile talent (i presume you mean on purpose here), they didn't have the talent to compete, now they do, now they don't need pp, now they can compete against the top sides. lets see you have a football player, he has a choice of giving it his all week in, week out, and being a career player or doing crap so his club ends up with top picks, which could be the pick that takes your spot in the squad, what do you think he would do? just lay over for the benefit of the club? or give it his all, even though he lacks the skills?
I think the Johnson-Carey-Wells thing has been debated enough. The simple fact was we never could have drafted Wells, we only held onto that pick as the Johnson-Carey deal was being worked out. Either the Kangaroos drafted him or Richmond did.
their is no need for a debate just stating the obvious which was you had pick 4(2) in your hand, richmond would have done the deal johnson -> 1st rd pick, unless they hated the crows!
Crows actually have a high pick this year, lets see how Fantasia goes with some real ammunition.
their is no guarrantee you will keep those picks, remember to get quality you have to give up quality, and imo fantasia is making it sound like your 1st rd pick is useless, which means he might as well trade it for anything.
Richmond might not have made the trade if we knew we had pick 2, or the trade might have been done not involving that pick. We'll never know.
why wouldn't richmond do that deal?
Its easy to stick up for the current system when you've benefited from it isn't it?
i for one have being sticking up for it for years, the afl wants to hand out pp, otherwise they would have made the wins a lot less.
why wouldn't richmond do that deal?
I rate Kane Johnson, but was he worth pick 2? I just think the trade would have been quite different had we known we had pick two instead of 4.
I rate Kane Johnson, but was he worth pick 2? I just think the trade would have been quite different had we known we had pick two instead of 4.
oh my, richmond have looked at trying to get something more after the facts, but before the facts richmond were happy to trade for johnson with pick 4(2), which means you could have had pick 4(2), forget what happened after, you guys could have had that pick, but you needed it to get carey. the truth about carlton cheating only came out after trading period, which means once again you would have had pick 4 during trading period and pick 2 once everything was settled.
i'll say this again so you understand, richmond gave up pick 4 for johnson, the crows could have done this trade alone, after the trade was over, the crows would have had pick 4, the carlton hearing came after the trade period, which bumped that pick upto 2, richmond did not have pick 2 in their hand during the trading period only pick 4, which means johnson for pick 2 is irrelevant.
Teams who aren't receiving priority picks will always complain about, teams who are getting them will always defend it.
It's just that teams now getting them see the benefit that others derived in the past and don't want to miss their turn at this large advantage.
I'm a Bulldogs fan and I don't like them. I wish they were abolished. But I would struggle with the concept of them being abolished before the 2004 draft ;) .
If the AFL decides they should stay, then I'd prefer a different criteria to the 15 wins in 3 years being advocated now. I'd be happy for a team to receive the priority after one season of 5 or less wins providing:
1. they have rec'd no other priority picks in the preceeding 2 years
2. they haven't made the finals in the preceeding 2 years
3. they haven't made a GF in the preceeding 4 years
4. they haven't won a GF in the preceeding 6 years.
Under criteria 1, my Bulldogs wouldn't be eligible this year (or next) as we rec'd them last year. The impact that priority picks have on a team take a little while to eventuate, so we should not continue to get them while we wait for that impact to come through.
Criteria 2 is there to stop Melbourne. I don't think it's relevent to anyone else.
Criteria 3 would prevent Collingwood getting priority picks for a few years. It's hard to mount a case for their list needing that input given 2 GF appearances.
Criteria 4 would mean Adelaide say would not have been eligible until next year. If you have been fortunate enough to win recent premierships, I doubt there's a strong argument that your list needs fast resurrection.
McLeod23
4 Oct 2004, 17:19
Just as easy to have a cry when you haven't.
I don't see where myself or Fantasia has had a cry. He was just stating the truth.
I'm proud that my club has never dropped to such a low that we have qualified for a priority pick.
IMO, priority picks don't reward poor performing teams, they reward clubs with deep-rooted problems. If a club honestly wants to win >5 games in a year, they can.
Edit - Thought I should say that I don't think the PP system should be changed. The AFL decided to introduce it, and removing it would be so inequitable it would be laughable.
IMO, priority picks don't reward poor performing teams, they reward clubs with deep-rooted problems. If a club honestly wants to win >5 games in a year, they can.
do you want me to dig up my post that state the facts where in the last 24 years their has ever only being 1 year were every team has won 6+ games? and we are talking about years were their was no PP, or first pick in the draft.
McLeod23
4 Oct 2004, 17:31
do you want me to dig up my post that state the facts where in the last 24 years their has ever only being 1 year were every team has won 6+ games? and we are talking about years were their was no PP, or first pick in the draft.
If you would find that enjoyable, then go for your life.
I'm not saying clubs have always lost deliberately, that wouldn't make sense because, as you said, the PP system hasn't been around that long.
Some clubs, at given points, have a loser culture so engrained that it becomes impossible to be successful unless change is made. My point is that clubs in these positions sometimes choose to not make change.
Some clubs, at given points, have a loser culture so engrained that it becomes impossible to be successful unless change is made. My point is that clubs in these positions sometimes choose to not make change.
and how exactly are these club suppose to turn that around? giving them an extra pick which the afl seems to love doing, gets them up the ladder, you think given the choice any club relisticly wants to be at the bottom? maybe you should think back a bit, but pre-draft days teams when their season where over still played the youngsters, nothing has changed, its just an extra pick in a hope to rebuild that extra bit quicker, think of it this way, the sooner those bottom side's rebuild the sooner your side gets a pp ;)
imbecile12
4 Oct 2004, 19:03
How do you figure that? Had they not picked up Carey they would have had pick #2 instead. Richmond in essence gave up pick #2 for Johnson, the Crows wanted to on trade that pick for Carey, it was their choice to take Carey instead of pick #2.
The only reason the crows had pick 2 at all was because the deal was already in place for Carey. It all went hand in hand. If the crows hadnt delivered Johnson, Richmond would have kept pick 2. At no point could the crows really have said "forget Carey, we'll keep pick 2" because it was all contingent on that part being completed.
Another thing to mention is that the deal may have been very different if Carey wasnt involved. Johnson may not have ended up at Richmond. Then again its too difficult to speculate as other pieces like Torney or draft picks may not have lined up. Im just happy we've finally got a top 10 draft pick.
Priority draft picks are a bad idea. The competition would be better if they didn't exist.
Another thing to mention is that the deal may have been very different if Carey wasnt involved. Johnson may not have ended up at Richmond. Then again its too difficult to speculate as other pieces like Torney or draft picks may not have lined up. Im just happy we've finally got a top 10 draft pick.
you have had at least 2 top 10 draft picks that you have traded away:
1) pick 8? you got for rehn that you gave to port for bode (not 3 way deal, 2 seperate trades)
2) pick 6 for m. clarke.
The problem with priority picks is that that it just assumes that a team is performing poorly because of a poor playing list. But it ignores the fact that most teams finish that low for a whole different bunch of different reasons; poor coaching, a bad run with injuries, a bad culture at the club or just simple bad luck (somebody has to finish last).
Out of the last 10 years, the only side I can think of whose actual playing stocks had fallen so low was Carlton, and they managed to turn it around without the help normally afforded to such a low finish because of the salary cap penalties.
Priority picks simply do not do the job they're meant to.
imbecile12
4 Oct 2004, 19:24
now since the dogs haven't had pp since last year, doesn't that even more justify them getting pp? considering how bad they have being.
wrong, saints did not stock pile talent (i presume you mean on purpose here), they didn't have the talent to compete, now they do, now they don't need pp, now they can compete against the top sides. lets see you have a football player, he has a choice of giving it his all week in, week out, and being a career player or doing crap so his club ends up with top picks, which could be the pick that takes your spot in the squad, what do you think he would do? just lay over for the benefit of the club? or give it his all, even though he lacks the skills?
their is no guarrantee you will keep those picks, remember to get quality you have to give up quality, and imo fantasia is making it sound like your 1st rd pick is useless, which means he might as well trade it for anything.
I'll say this about priority picks: When a team has been consistent and competitive for a long time, they either bottom out and rebuild (Bulldogs) or they manage to replenish the side without falling too far (Essendon). I dont necessarily think either way is more effective cos as far as im concerned, the Bulldogs will be premiership contenders about the same time as Essendon are again. I agree that priority picks should have a place. Having 3 draft picks in the first 18 (which would happen if they moved the priority pick to the end of the first round) is still pretty good.
Bit of a misunderstanding about the saints there. I wasnt intimating the players were laying down or throwing games, I just meant they happened to gain a lot of talent through where they finished.
Everything the crows have been saying indicates we'll keep the number 8 pick, which is good considering the high likelihood of a very good South Australian player being available then. Always a very interesting time.
imbecile12
4 Oct 2004, 19:33
you have had at least 2 top 10 draft picks that you have traded away:
1) pick 8? you got for rehn that you gave to port for bode (not 3 way deal, 2 seperate trades)
2) pick 6 for m. clarke.
Even considering those two, its a small number compared to most other teams. I will say that part of that has been down to the club not pulling the trigger on more trades to enter the top 10, which is how a few clubs get into the top 10 anyway.
As far as the other significant draft pick that we kept, which turned out to be Lawrence Angwin, you cant really criticise that because at the time he was the logical choice. It turned out horribly, and you can criticise the result, but not the trade. It's very much the same with Carey. Right decision to trade, wrong outcome. You take the risk and live with the consequences. All part of the magic of trading.