Is a top 20 pick really worth it?

[Snoop Dog]

Interesting to read a lot of posts over the last few weeks concerning players that may or may not be up for trade.

Then even more interesting to see that people think a top 20 pick is a ticket to a 300 game player who will be the answer to your premiership drought and probably pick up 3 brownlows on the way.

It may well be true but I thought it worthwhile to give people some context around a couple of drafts where the players involved have had 4 years or so to prove themsleves.

2001

Inside the top ten you had Ball, Hodge, Judd, Bartel and possibly Hale have all made it. But equally you have X.Clarke, S.Power, Sampi, L.Molan, G.Polak who have not and to be fair will be good honest players at best.

2002

Those in the top ten that have made it include Goddard, Wells and possibly H.McIntosh adn Salopek. Those that have not are many - L.Brennan, J.Brennan, T.Walsh, J.McVeigh, Laycock, Mackie etc.

If you then go outside the top 10 for those years names such as Reilly, Dal Santo, Gram, T.Selwood, Schammer and maybe schulz and j.Kelly would be ticks to get to 200 games but........

K.Shore, Gilham, N.Smith, W.Minson, D.Elstone, S.Haarvey, R.Ladson, B.Brooks, A.Watson, R.Cole, C.Faulkner, Winderlich, D.Bell will be lucky to get to 100 games let alone 20-50.

All this is to say...........we all tend to think top 20 picks are a path to a brownlow medallist......maybe its not such a bad idea to trade them!

[SA Blue]

Yes. A lot of people like to say you can build great team without elite talent, but it is getting harder and harder. Whe you have WCE fans saying they you don't need a top 20 pick ( I know you are not), you take Judd, Kerr, Wirrapanda, Cousins (ok FS but would have been top 20), you get a far different team.

A top 20 pick certaintly doesn't guarantee you a great player, but it lowers your odds considerably. I haven't done the numbers, but I would think as a band the top 20, would have far more better players than any other band of 20.

[laurens_vdS]

A Top 20 pick is worth it!

[sinepari]

thanks for that insight Laurens-vdS - another great post!

[mad-saint-guy]

Depends on your recruiting department. If they want to take Lenny Hayes with pick 11 then keep it. If you've got someone that will take Richard Cole at 11 before Nick Dal Santo, then it might be an idea to trade away.

[DanA]

Interesting to read a lot of posts over the last few weeks concerning players that may or may not be up for trade.

Then even more interesting to see that people think a top 20 pick is a ticket to a 300 game player who will be the answer to your premiership drought and probably pick up 3 brownlows on the way.

It may well be true but I thought it worthwhile to give people some context around a couple of drafts where the players involved have had 4 years or so to prove themsleves.

2001

Inside the top ten you had Ball, Hodge, Judd, Bartel and possibly Hale have all made it. But equally you have X.Clarke, S.Power, Sampi, L.Molan, G.Polak who have not and to be fair will be good honest players at best.

2002

Those in the top ten that have made it include Goddard, Wells and possibly H.McIntosh adn Salopek. Those that have not are many - L.Brennan, J.Brennan, T.Walsh, J.McVeigh, Laycock, Mackie etc.

If you then go outside the top 10 for those years names such as Reilly, Dal Santo, Gram, T.Selwood, Schammer and maybe schulz and j.Kelly would be ticks to get to 200 games but........

K.Shore, Gilham, N.Smith, W.Minson, D.Elstone, S.Haarvey, R.Ladson, B.Brooks, A.Watson, R.Cole, C.Faulkner, Winderlich, D.Bell.

All this is to say...........we all tend to think top 20 picks are a path to a brownlow medallist......maybe its not such a bad idea to trade them!

2002? You aren't giving them much time. Laycock is a still developing ruck /forward, J.Brennan had injury problems which he is getting over but has shown class and Mackie was a stick insect who has just come good.

[Snoop Dog]

2002? You aren't giving them much time. Laycock is a still developing ruck /forward, J.Brennan had injury problems which he is getting over but has shown class and Mackie was a stick insect who has just come good.

IMO Your being very kind; most Essendon supporters on this board reckon Laycock has one more chance at best, Mackie has been in and out more times than I care to remember and J.brennan well.......if he plays 200 games, let alone 100 I will be very surprised.

But you are right - 02 may still be to early!

[SeymourLions]

Its alot different with this draft though, its depth means that the 10-20 region is the 1-10 region of nearly every other year, and its a snow ball effect to the 20-30 region too, meaning that the odd's of players making it this year a signifcantly higher.

I think you will find 90% of the top 10 will make it this year if not all of them. and around 70% (same number as most top 10 years) of the 10-20 region will make it, and around 50% of the 20-40 region will make, from what ive seen of the guys in these regions, Guys like Gary Moss, who is predicted to go in the 30's or maybe 40's i would take with a 11-20 pick in nearly every other year, the talent this year is jus mouth watering

[mcphee_is_a_gun]

IMO Your being very kind; most Essendon supporters on this board reckon Laycock has one more chance at best, Mackie has been in and out more times than I care to remember and J.brennan well.......if he plays 200 games, let alone 100 I will be very surprised.

But you are right - 02 may still be to early!
No they dont at all. Most essendon fans rekon he has alot of talent.

[Davo-27]

if you pick a smoky in the top 20 you're an idiot and some recruiters are idiots trying to forge a reputation for themselves.............truth is about 8/10 or 16/20 of the top 20 become decent afl players..............some even stars of the game, is it worth the punt to get rid of a dud or average player for a chance at a better player..........even a star???.........

[whirl]

IMO Your being very kind; most Essendon supporters on this board reckon Laycock has one more chance at best,
Rubbish, very few Essendon supporters would think that. The only issue with Laycock is how often he is injured and perhaps a slight concern that he doesn't quite take care of himself as well as he should. He can certainly play. He may end up being traded because we're in a bit of a contractual standoff with him, but it won't be for peanuts.

[KING-JAMES]

That makes 3 Essendon supporters who think Laycock is a gem, has all the talent in the world just needs to stay fit. If we trade him i wouldnt settle for a pick outside the top 20 cos when his fit he would come back to haunt us. Remember Anzac Day 2005?

[Thunderstruck]

Interesting to read a lot of posts over the last few weeks concerning players that may or may not be up for trade.

Then even more interesting to see that people think a top 20 pick is a ticket to a 300 game player who will be the answer to your premiership drought and probably pick up 3 brownlows on the way.

It may well be true but I thought it worthwhile to give people some context around a couple of drafts where the players involved have had 4 years or so to prove themsleves.

2001

Inside the top ten you had Ball, Hodge, Judd, Bartel and possibly Hale have all made it. But equally you have X.Clarke, S.Power, Sampi, L.Molan, G.Polak who have not and to be fair will be good honest players at best.

2002

Those in the top ten that have made it include Goddard, Wells and possibly H.McIntosh adn Salopek. Those that have not are many - L.Brennan, J.Brennan, T.Walsh, J.McVeigh, Laycock, Mackie etc.

If you then go outside the top 10 for those years names such as Reilly, Dal Santo, Gram, T.Selwood, Schammer and maybe schulz and j.Kelly would be ticks to get to 200 games but........

K.Shore, Gilham, N.Smith, W.Minson, D.Elstone, S.Haarvey, R.Ladson, B.Brooks, A.Watson, R.Cole, C.Faulkner, Winderlich, D.Bell will be lucky to get to 100 games let alone 20-50.

All this is to say...........we all tend to think top 20 picks are a path to a brownlow medallist......maybe its not such a bad idea to trade them!

Harsh on those two IMO. Minson is going to be a very good player for the dogs and Ladson is getting games week in week out for the hawks and will only improve. Throw in Daniel Bell too who I forgot to highlight, should make 100 games at least, good kid.

At the end of the day, those draft picks are VITAL imo to sustained success for a club. Can't keep recruiting old washed up semi experienced blokes in their 20's and hope for a flag. Just ask Carlton....

West Coast are a very good example of making most of their draft picks. Their list was hopeless around 99/00/01 but sure as hell has improved to the best in the comp since then, mostly thru good draft picks.

[Snoop Dog]

That makes 3 Essendon supporters who think Laycock is a gem, has all the talent in the world just needs to stay fit. If we trade him i wouldnt settle for a pick outside the top 20 cos when his fit he would come back to haunt us. Remember Anzac Day 2005?

3 is hardly an overwhelming number.

the only people that are going to ark up at what i wrote are those that disagree.

not saying he is bad player - just saying he certainly has not developed as quickly as Ess would like after 4 yrs or so.

Re Minson - probably right.

16/20 very rarely go onto to play 100-200 games - would go back and check the stats since the start of drafting my friend.

[goal sneak]

Harsh on those two IMO. Minson is going to be a very good player for the dogs and Ladson is getting games week in week out for the hawks and will only improve. Throw in Daniel Bell too who I forgot to highlight, should make 100 games at least, good kid.

At the end of the day, those draft picks are VITAL imo to sustained success for a club. Can't keep recruiting old washed up semi experienced blokes in their 20's and hope for a flag. Just ask Carlton....

West Coast are a very good example of making most of their draft picks. Their list was hopeless around 99/00/01 but sure as hell has improved to the best in the comp since then, mostly thru good draft picks.

What he siad.

[KUNG FU]

I think the difference is that the players that win premierships are guns. Average players are not guns and 99% of the time will never be guns. about 50% of top 20 draft picks (and especially this year) will be great players. It make sense to 'gamble' on a draft pick, possibly get a great 150+ game player rather than get another player just making up the numbers.

[Porthos]

While a lot of top 20 picked players don't work out, the flipside is that if you want to get the elite players that DO work out, you have to take a punt on top 20 draftees.

Yes, drafting 18 year olds is hit-and-miss, and it always will be. However this is the cheapest (in terms of player capital) that the actual elite players that do work out will ever be again, if they're even available.

So yeah, keep trading them away for pretty good players, and hope to get elite players from late picks which have a ridiculously low success rate...it won't get you real far.

[whirl]

the only people that are going to ark up at what i wrote are those that disagree.


That's wonderful, and I suppose if one Essendon fan actually does perk up and support you you'll take that as proof of the overwhelming support of Essendon fans for your point of view even.

Leave it to us to tell you how Essendon fans feel about Laycock, we're far more researched on the topic.

[Snoop Dog]

That's wonderful, and I suppose if one Essendon fan actually does perk up and support you you'll take that as proof of the overwhelming support of Essendon fans for your point of view even.

Leave it to us to tell you how Essendon fans feel about Laycock, we're far more researched on the topic.

Dont get your knickers in a whirl darlin!
As I said, fans tend to rate there blokes higher than others. In addition all this was about was to say Laycock has yet to prove himself as a bloke who will play 100 league games. If I was a punter I would want good odds to back him in to do it.

[whirl]

Dont get your knickers in a whirl darlin!
As I said, fans tend to rate there blokes higher than others. In addition all this was about was to say Laycock has yet to prove himself as a bloke who will play 100 league games. If I was a punter I would want good odds to back him in to do it.
That's fine, you can not rate Laycock, more power to you. It was your claims of support from Essendon fans for your viewpoint which was the eyebrow raiser.

[Snoop Dog]

That's fine, you can not rate Laycock, more power to you. It was your claims of support from Essendon fans for your viewpoint which was the eyebrow raiser.

If you go back and have a look at one of the threads at the end of the HA season around delistings number of your brethren suggested time was running out for him.

Had no reason to make it up - the thread isnt even about him.

Can I suggest we leave Laycock and move on.............

[SimonH]

While a lot of top 20 picked players don't work out, the flipside is that if you want to get the elite players that DO work out, you have to take a punt on top 20 draftees.

Yes, drafting 18 year olds is hit-and-miss, and it always will be. However this is the cheapest (in terms of player capital) that the actual elite players that do work out will ever be again, if they're even available.

So yeah, keep trading them away for pretty good players, and hope to get elite players from late picks which have a ridiculously low success rate...it won't get you real far.It's a little simplistic to say 'you're wrong-- look at Sydney' (they had three top 10 picks in the premiership side, and probably not the names you'd expect). But it's certainly oversimplistic to say 'trade away top 20 draftees for pretty good players, and you won't get far'.

Firstly, it's about list management and meeting your needs. If your list is starting to look on the older side, you need to get some 18/19 yos in there and you might as well get the best ones. If you don't have such a problem, no worries in trading a pick for a 23yo, provided it's a good trade. You almost invariably cannot get a 23yo who ticks the boxes of what you need, to the club by drafting him. You have to trade.
Secondly, in reality (these days) you don't actually see that many top 20 draft picks traded; and those that are tend to be towards #20, where your chances of getting a 100-game player plummet compared with the top 5. Maybe a club won't get far if it always trades every sub-20 pick for a player; but no club actually does so.
Thirdly, an 18 yo draft pick who doesn't make it will generally occupy at least 3 years on your list, and often more, in the process. With a 21/22/23 yo, you know within 12 months (2 years at the outside) if they've got what it takes to stay with you long term.

I'd pretty safely say that Sydney wouldn't have won the 2005 flag if it hadn't traded pick #15 for Darren Jolly at the end of '04.

Whether or not you agree with Mal Blight's 'bottom 6' theory, the fact proved over and over again is that champion players do not win you flags. Champion teams do. You wouldn't say no to 5 years of #1 draft picks if offered to you for nothin'; but if you accumulate 5 years of #1 draft picks and don't fix the club problems that led to you finishing last for 5 years, you still won't win one even with those potential geniuses on board.