Analysis Expectations of top 10 draft picks v later draft picks

At the risk of boring you silly I have put together analysis of the above topic with my own interpretations. My interest was sparked by what I see as a wide disparity of what expectations there are for our new recruits. In particular I have thought about the likelihood of say a De Goey v a Maynard getting games in their 1st season purely based on their draft position.

My belief is we should have a real expectation of a top 10 guy making a contribution I his 1st season where there is a pretty low chance a guy around pick 30 will do very much in his 1st or even 2nd season. We should consider this when assessing the progress of our recruits and not get disappointed if it is not to season 3, 4 or 5 before a Maynard type makes a real contribution to our best 22. That is on the assumption they make it at all which is no given. In comparison it is an expectation to automatically expect this from a top 10 draft choice.

So I have gone back through the last 5 drafts, 2009 - 2013, and assessed how many games each season the top 10 picks have played compared to picks 26-35 which groups around the Maynard pick (30). One tweak I did was take Luke Ball out of 2009 and add pick 36 instead (Houghton) as Ball was the only player of these 100 who wasn't a new recruit.

The table below is what I came up with. Each draft is listed and the 2 numbers represented the total games of the top10 picks v the picks 26-35, so

2013 Draft. 122 games v 65 games in 1st season.

2012 Draft. 138 v 14 (1)* 1st season, 284 v 61 after 2nd season

2011 Draft. 88 v 16 (1st), 189 v 82 (2nd), 339 v 155 (3rd)

2010 Draft.
128 v 75 (1st), 286 v 192 (2nd), 447 v 295 (3rd), 634 v 396

2009 Draft. 145 v 38 (1st), 260 v 95 (2nd), 398 v 149 (3rd), 546 v 233 (4th), 672 v 311 (5th)

The most obvious and expected confirmation here is that the top 10 are just better players so year in year out they play far more games than their 26-35 counterparts. No surprise. If you look at the individual players you will also quickly surmise that the quality of their games is also far greater. The top kids by and large turn into guns. I will try and put up the individual data in a post below to illustrate that ( put it here and it gets to busy).

What I am more interested and I believe the data shows this is the discrepancy between the groups is most marked in year 1. So the De Goey group can be expected on this data to knock out 10 games + on average in their 1st year as a group with many players playing most games. In comparison the 26-35 players have a much lesser and more mixed output in their 1st year.

At the extreme of that is the 2012 group who had 138 v 14 games. I have also added a * there as if you take out Viney on the basis he was a F/Sand add pick 25 instead that group of 10 players only had 1 game between them in their 1st season and only 30 games in total for their 1st 2

In each of the 26-35 group there were a few exceptions who played a lot of footy early but most played very little in their 1st seasons. In contrast , unless injury intervened, the top kids almost routinely played most games by season 2

Why have I put this up? Two reasons. One is to emphasise the time kids like Maynard need to be accorded compared to a De Goey to give them a fair chance of making it. A few might slot into a senior team like Tom Langdon did this year and be a 18-22 player but most will need a significant VFL apprenticeship. Further if a player from this group does make the grade it is much more likely they will be a Macaffer than a Hodge.

2nd point this data illustrates is that our soldiers, Caff, Blair, Sack and Toovs remain very important players potentially in our next successful team. It's tough to become as good an AFL player as these guys are even though they appear journeymen to many. Their contributions to their team often go unrecognised by the masses and allow supporters too easily to write them off as superfluous to our ne tilt at success. "Our shiny new toys" in Maynard, Goodyear et al likely face a number of years journey if they are to displace our soldiers from their place in the 22. Don't discount that any of these 4 soldiers won't retire 2 x Collingwood premiership players.
 

Markfs

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 13, 2008
25,831
20,669
Fremantle
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sydney Sweeney's Shaving Team...
I love to see research....well done

I am a little confused. The top ten players in 2009 played 145 games in their first year and played 672 games in their 5th year?.....thats a lot of games...
 
Sep 28, 2006
11,415
7,081
QLD
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
LA Lakers,NE Patriots,Liverpool FC
I love to see research....well done

I am a little confused. The top ten players in 2009 played 145 games in their first year and played 672 games in their 5th year?.....thats a lot of games...
Good pick up although I believe the 672 is a cumulative total over the 5 years. I.e. 67.2 games played over 5 years is the average for the top 10 picks from 2009.
 

mike123

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts Pokemon is Life
Sep 13, 2013
31,411
28,203
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Juventus
Stats is one thing and it does show. But you also have to look at the player we picked with that pick. With Maynard at 30 he a big bodied, hard it sort of player and generally those types can play more games in there first years than say if we picked up Connor Menadue who was a skinny outside type. Also it not impossible for late picks to have an impact i.e. Tom Langdon. It shouldn't be an expectation that Maynard has an impact but it is a possibility.

You also have to look the sitaution the team is in. My prediction is that Maynard will play more games than De Goey because classy marking high half forwards we have a a couple in Elliott and Fasolo and other half forwards and other midfielder half forwards to compete with like Varcoe, Sidebottom, Swan. Weather we do't have too many half backs that can kick the ball.

Most of our defenders are pure stoppers that offer no rebound in Frost, Toovey, Brown, Goldsack or the one's with speed but can't hit a target in Williams, Sinclair. Our only AFL quality defenders with kicking skills are Seedsman, Keeffe and Langdon. There are some depth options in Armstrong and Oxley. To be able to compete with the top sides you need more. Look at Hawthorns or Sydney's backline and name the players that that can kick and it allot more than 3. Its not out of the question for Maynard to do a Langdon.
 

Markfs

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 13, 2008
25,831
20,669
Fremantle
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sydney Sweeney's Shaving Team...
Here's a bit more analysis for you. Here are the elevated rookies for the last 18 years. If you look at it from 2002, only about one success every year on average...in fact even less than that...

Therefore, dont expect all the new rookies to have 100 game careers.


1996 Malcolm Michael Morningside 1997 61
1996 Andrew Pugsley Eastern U18 1997 5
1998 Tarkyn Lockyer East Fremantle 1999 227
1999 Andrew Dimattina Essendon Reserves 2000 28
2000 Andrew Hill Northern Bullants 2001 1
2002 Nick Maxwell North Ballarat 2004 208
2003 David Fanning Aberfeldie 2005 14
2004 Ben Davies Western U18 2005 12
2004 Heritier O'Brien Claremont 2006 199
2005 Shannon Cox South Fremantle 2007 25
2005 Alan Toovey Claremont 2007 131
2006 Martin Clarke County Down, Ireland 2007 73
2006 Sharrod Wellingham Perth 2008 92
2006 Brent Macaffer Gippsland U18 2009 73
2008 Jarryd Blair Gippsland U18 2010 102
2008 Lachlan Keeffe Marist College, Brisbane 2011 40
2011 Marley Williams Claremont 2012 37
2011 Caolan Mooney Ireland 2012 6
2012 Jack Frost Williamstown 2013 24
2012 Sam Dwyer Port Melbourne 2013 34
2012 Ben Hudson Brisbane 2013 7
2012 Kyle Martin Frankston 2013 6
2012 Adam Oxley Redland 2013 2
2013 Corey Gault Swan Districts 2014 1
 

Bennylank

Rookie
Oct 9, 2012
30
8
AFL Club
Collingwood
He
At the risk of boring you silly I have put together analysis of the above topic with my own interpretations. My interest was sparked by what I see as a wide disparity of what expectations there are for our new recruits. In particular I have thought about the likelihood of say a De Goey v a Maynard getting games in their 1st season purely based on their draft position.

My belief is we should have a real expectation of a top 10 guy making a contribution I his 1st season where there is a pretty low chance a guy around pick 30 will do very much in his 1st or even 2nd season. We should consider this when assessing the progress of our recruits and not get disappointed if it is not to season 3, 4 or 5 before a Maynard type makes a real contribution to our best 22. That is on the assumption they make it at all which is no given. In comparison it is an expectation to automatically expect this from a top 10 draft choice.

So I have gone back through the last 5 drafts, 2009 - 2013, and assessed how many games each season the top 10 picks have played compared to picks 26-35 which groups around the Maynard pick (30). One tweak I did was take Luke Ball out of 2009 and add pick 36 instead (Houghton) as Ball was the only player of these 100 who wasn't a new recruit.

The table below is what I came up with. Each draft is listed and the 2 numbers represented the total games of the top10 picks v the picks 26-35, so

2013 Draft. 122 games v 65 games in 1st season.

2012 Draft. 138 v 14 (1)* 1st season, 284 v 61 after 2nd season

2011 Draft. 88 v 16 (1st), 189 v 82 (2nd), 339 v 155 (3rd)

2010 Draft.
128 v 75 (1st), 286 v 192 (2nd), 447 v 295 (3rd), 634 v 396

2009 Draft. 145 v 38 (1st), 260 v 95 (2nd), 398 v 149 (3rd), 546 v 233 (4th), 672 v 311 (5th)

The most obvious and expected confirmation here is that the top 10 are just better players so year in year out they play far more games than their 26-35 counterparts. No surprise. If you look at the individual players you will also quickly surmise that the quality of their games is also far greater. The top kids by and large turn into guns. I will try and put up the individual data in a post below to illustrate that ( put it here and it gets to busy).

What I am more interested and I believe the data shows this is the discrepancy between the groups is most marked in year 1. So the De Goey group can be expected on this data to knock out 10 games + on average in their 1st year as a group with many players playing most games. In comparison the 26-35 players have a much lesser and more mixed output in their 1st year.

At the extreme of that is the 2012 group who had 138 v 14 games. I have also added a * there as if you take out Viney on the basis he was a F/Sand add pick 25 instead that group of 10 players only had 1 game between them in their 1st season and only 30 games in total for their 1st 2

In each of the 26-35 group there were a few exceptions who played a lot of footy early but most played very little in their 1st seasons. In contrast , unless injury intervened, the top kids almost routinely played most games by season 2

Why have I put this up? Two reasons. One is to emphasise the time kids like Maynard need to be accorded compared to a De Goey to give them a fair chance of making it. A few might slot into a senior team like Tom Langdon did this year and be a 18-22 player but most will need a significant VFL apprenticeship. Further if a player from this group does make the grade it is much more likely they will be a Macaffer than a Hodge.

2nd point this data illustrates is that our soldiers, Caff, Blair, Sack and Toovs remain very important players potentially in our next successful team. It's tough to become as good an AFL player as these guys are even though they appear journeymen to many. Their contributions to their team often go unrecognised by the masses and allow supporters too easily to write them off as superfluous to our ne tilt at success. "Our shiny new toys" in Maynard, Goodyear et al likely face a number of years journey if they are to displace our soldiers from their place in the 22. Don't discount that any of these 4 soldiers won't retire 2 x Collingwood premiership players.
Good work there GC.

Hey GC, I enjoy reading the analysis and I love the work put into the post. But surely it is common sense that you would expect more from a first round draft pick then a second round pick, and a second more than a third and so on, hence the basis of a ranked draft similar to the format we have! I know this may be the un-PC view and therefore against the general consensus, being what may be perceived as a negative review of a fellow poster, but I simply put forward my point of view. Every draftee is different and drafted upon the opinion of the clubs recruiter! All I hope for is a supported recruit donning the black and white and doing their best for the team!! Peace out...
 

ottoman

Norm Smith Medallist
May 13, 2014
8,066
20,113
Istanbul
AFL Club
Collingwood
Here's a bit more analysis for you. Here are the elevated rookies for the last 18 years. If you look at it from 2002, only about one success every year on average...in fact even less than that...

Therefore, dont expect all the new rookies to have 100 game careers.


1996 Malcolm Michael Morningside 1997 61
1996 Andrew Pugsley Eastern U18 1997 5
1998 Tarkyn Lockyer East Fremantle 1999 227
1999 Andrew Dimattina Essendon Reserves 2000 28
2000 Andrew Hill Northern Bullants 2001 1
2002 Nick Maxwell North Ballarat 2004 208
2003 David Fanning Aberfeldie 2005 14
2004 Ben Davies Western U18 2005 12
2004 Heritier O'Brien Claremont 2006 199
2005 Shannon Cox South Fremantle 2007 25
2005 Alan Toovey Claremont 2007 131
2006 Martin Clarke County Down, Ireland 2007 73
2006 Sharrod Wellingham Perth 2008 92
2006 Brent Macaffer Gippsland U18 2009 73
2008 Jarryd Blair Gippsland U18 2010 102
2008 Lachlan Keeffe Marist College, Brisbane 2011 40
2011 Marley Williams Claremont 2012 37
2011 Caolan Mooney Ireland 2012 6
2012 Jack Frost Williamstown 2013 24
2012 Sam Dwyer Port Melbourne 2013 34
2012 Ben Hudson Brisbane 2013 7
2012 Kyle Martin Frankston 2013 6
2012 Adam Oxley Redland 2013 2
2013 Corey Gault Swan Districts 2014 1
Good work markfs. Actually looking at that list makes me even more excited about the chances of our rookies becoming valuable contributors to the team. There are quite a few not too shabby names on that list.
 

Ingy

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 5, 2014
8,288
15,989
AFL Club
Collingwood
It makes sense because being 'ready-made' increases your draft value. The further you are from AFL readiness, the more speculative you are and consequently you are going to be picked up later.

Besides this, I would suggest that a top pick is more likely to get games even if their track effort and VFL form doesn't necessarily warrant it because the club needs to nurture and feed their investment. The promise of what a top 10 pick will eventually bring will motivate a coach to weaken the side if necessary to pump experience into them. Lower picks have to prove themselves and earn their way into the senior side to a greater extent.

Having said all of that, it is still going to depend on the individual player, their physical maturity, level of fitness and their flexibility. A pure mid who needs to add 8kg to his frame is going to be doing that while playing seconds. A future gun mid with some small forward capacity will get games in the pocket while they add muscle mass and build a tank.

Tom Langdon proves that you wouldn't want to be making assumptions along these lines - if a guy can get it done and back it up week after week then his draft position becomes irrelevant fairly quickly.
 

Trickster

Cancelled
Jul 27, 2014
2,076
2,229
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints
Great work GC. It would be interesting if you looked at this in years where expansion teams didn't come in. For example GC and GWS would have had quite a number of their first round selections play simply because they didn't have an existing list. In their first or second years they had up to 7 picks in the top 10 from memory with the majority of these guys having to play.

For what it's worth I'm pretty bullish about our recent drafting. I also think nailing second and third round picks is what will get you premierships (plus free agents now). As your analysis shows most teams should get a decent player via the first round, but if you can snare (and develop) a Luke Parker at pick 40, this is where you trump your opponents.

Great thread!
 

Markfs

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 13, 2008
25,831
20,669
Fremantle
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sydney Sweeney's Shaving Team...
If you look at the players that we have drafted after pick 40, more have failed than have made it. Guys like Jackson Paine, Daniel Farmer, Kirk Ugle, Trent Stubbs, Luke Rounds, Jarryd Blight, Toby Thoolen, Jaxson Barham.....the list goes on and on.

You can talk about Tom Langdon but dont forget the picks that missed the target
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #14
Great work GC. It would be interesting if you looked at this in years where expansion teams didn't come in. For example GC and GWS would have had quite a number of their first round selections play simply because they didn't have an existing list. In their first or second years they had up to 7 picks in the top 10 from memory with the majority of these guys having to play.

For what it's worth I'm pretty bullish about our recent drafting. I also think nailing second and third round picks is what will get you premierships (plus free agents now). As your analysis shows most teams should get a decent player via the first round, but if you can snare (and develop) a Luke Parker at pick 40, this is where you trump your opponents.

Great thread!
Actually I have gone through the figures for all the individual players and did wonder whether GWS and GC may have bloated the number of games the top 10 guys played in their 1st season . Amazingly it is the complete opposite. 2011 was the year you refer to when GWS in the lead up to their 1st season had 7 of the top 10 picks. This was the group of top 10 players who played way less footy than all the other seasons. 88 games in total compared to 145, 128, 138 and 122. Interestingly Wingard that year of the top 10 guys played the most, 19 games, and the best of the 7 GWS players was Coniglio 12 games. Can't explain why as it seems it should be the opposite. Will try and put up the figures later.
 

morelli89

Team Captain
Jul 14, 2012
517
469
AFL Club
Collingwood
Actually I have gone through the figures for all the individual players and did wonder whether GWS and GC may have bloated the number of games the top 10 guys played in their 1st season . Amazingly it is the complete opposite. 2011 was the year you refer to when GWS in the lead up to their 1st season had 7 of the top 10 picks. This was the group of top 10 players who played way less footy than all the other seasons. 88 games in total compared to 145, 128, 138 and 122. Interestingly Wingard that year of the top 10 guys played the most, 19 games, and the best of the 7 GWS players was Coniglio 12 games. Can't explain why as it seems it should be the opposite. Will try and put up the figures later.

I think that GWS had a strong rotation and rest policy with their young kids that they drafted, I only remember because it was a struggle trying to pick the right supercoach rookies.
 

Trickster

Cancelled
Jul 27, 2014
2,076
2,229
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints
Actually I have gone through the figures for all the individual players and did wonder whether GWS and GC may have bloated the number of games the top 10 guys played in their 1st season . Amazingly it is the complete opposite. 2011 was the year you refer to when GWS in the lead up to their 1st season had 7 of the top 10 picks. This was the group of top 10 players who played way less footy than all the other seasons. 88 games in total compared to 145, 128, 138 and 122. Interestingly Wingard that year of the top 10 guys played the most, 19 games, and the best of the 7 GWS players was Coniglio 12 games. Can't explain why as it seems it should be the opposite. Will try and put up the figures later.
Thanks GC. Even more intriguing given that. Appreciate the analysis.
 

Lefthanded

Premiership Player
Sep 9, 2013
3,621
2,437
AFL Club
Collingwood
At the risk of boring you silly I have put together analysis of the above topic with my own interpretations. My interest was sparked by what I see as a wide disparity of what expectations there are for our new recruits. In particular I have thought about the likelihood of say a De Goey v a Maynard getting games in their 1st season purely based on their draft position.

My belief is we should have a real expectation of a top 10 guy making a contribution I his 1st season where there is a pretty low chance a guy around pick 30 will do very much in his 1st or even 2nd season. We should consider this when assessing the progress of our recruits and not get disappointed if it is not to season 3, 4 or 5 before a Maynard type makes a real contribution to our best 22. That is on the assumption they make it at all which is no given. In comparison it is an expectation to automatically expect this from a top 10 draft choice.

So I have gone back through the last 5 drafts, 2009 - 2013, and assessed how many games each season the top 10 picks have played compared to picks 26-35 which groups around the Maynard pick (30). One tweak I did was take Luke Ball out of 2009 and add pick 36 instead (Houghton) as Ball was the only player of these 100 who wasn't a new recruit.

The table below is what I came up with. Each draft is listed and the 2 numbers represented the total games of the top10 picks v the picks 26-35, so

2013 Draft. 122 games v 65 games in 1st season.

2012 Draft. 138 v 14 (1)* 1st season, 284 v 61 after 2nd season

2011 Draft. 88 v 16 (1st), 189 v 82 (2nd), 339 v 155 (3rd)

2010 Draft.
128 v 75 (1st), 286 v 192 (2nd), 447 v 295 (3rd), 634 v 396

2009 Draft. 145 v 38 (1st), 260 v 95 (2nd), 398 v 149 (3rd), 546 v 233 (4th), 672 v 311 (5th)

The most obvious and expected confirmation here is that the top 10 are just better players so year in year out they play far more games than their 26-35 counterparts. No surprise. If you look at the individual players you will also quickly surmise that the quality of their games is also far greater. The top kids by and large turn into guns. I will try and put up the individual data in a post below to illustrate that ( put it here and it gets to busy).

What I am more interested and I believe the data shows this is the discrepancy between the groups is most marked in year 1. So the De Goey group can be expected on this data to knock out 10 games + on average in their 1st year as a group with many players playing most games. In comparison the 26-35 players have a much lesser and more mixed output in their 1st year.

At the extreme of that is the 2012 group who had 138 v 14 games. I have also added a * there as if you take out Viney on the basis he was a F/Sand add pick 25 instead that group of 10 players only had 1 game between them in their 1st season and only 30 games in total for their 1st 2

In each of the 26-35 group there were a few exceptions who played a lot of footy early but most played very little in their 1st seasons. In contrast , unless injury intervened, the top kids almost routinely played most games by season 2

Why have I put this up? Two reasons. One is to emphasise the time kids like Maynard need to be accorded compared to a De Goey to give them a fair chance of making it. A few might slot into a senior team like Tom Langdon did this year and be a 18-22 player but most will need a significant VFL apprenticeship. Further if a player from this group does make the grade it is much more likely they will be a Macaffer than a Hodge.

2nd point this data illustrates is that our soldiers, Caff, Blair, Sack and Toovs remain very important players potentially in our next successful team. It's tough to become as good an AFL player as these guys are even though they appear journeymen to many. Their contributions to their team often go unrecognised by the masses and allow supporters too easily to write them off as superfluous to our ne tilt at success. "Our shiny new toys" in Maynard, Goodyear et al likely face a number of years journey if they are to displace our soldiers from their place in the 22. Don't discount that any of these 4 soldiers won't retire 2 x Collingwood premiership players.

Good idea with your analysis. I'm curious about not just top 10 (eg JDG & Moore) vs 26-35 (eg Maynard) but the other ranges as well, especially with your comment that I bolded as likes of Blair especially face pressure from likes of Broomhead & BK (both taken in 11-25 range)
 
Jun 23, 2014
512
646
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
There are other teams?
That is some in-depth analysis there GC. Very well done.

Last years draft was also the most even from 4 - 30 in the last 10 - 15 years according to most recruiters. It was why Adelaide traded for a higher draft pick in the first round and a lower in the second.

My view on JDG is that he will be a super talent and may very well become a fixture of the senior team this season. It will not be from round 1 and he won't push out established senior players like Blair or Goldsack as much as most on here want him to. He will instead make guys like Thomas, Kennedy, Freeman, Seedsman, Broomhead, Crisp, Dwyer and Young superfluous to team needs and relegate them to the VFL.

The onus is on those other guys that are pushing for a place in the 22 to be better than JDG as he has shown he is pretty much ready. In saying that very few first year lads play the entire season or maintain their intensity throughout the year so I don't expect him to play more than 10 games.
 
Stats is one thing and it does show. But you also have to look at the player we picked with that pick. With Maynard at 30 he a big bodied, hard it sort of player and generally those types can play more games in there first years than say if we picked up Connor Menadue who was a skinny outside type. Also it not impossible for late picks to have an impact i.e. Tom Langdon. It shouldn't be an expectation that Maynard has an impact but it is a possibility.

You also have to look the sitaution the team is in. My prediction is that Maynard will play more games than De Goey because classy marking high half forwards we have a a couple in Elliott and Fasolo and other half forwards and other midfielder half forwards to compete with like Varcoe, Sidebottom, Swan. Weather we do't have too many half backs that can kick the ball.

I agree it’s the Type of player you Draft. If you Draft a Midfielder you expect an Earlier Return on Drafting a Tall player.

I think De Goey might play more Games then Maynard at the Moment. De Goey looked like he Belonged in the NAB Challenge Game and Maynard could not even get Picked for the Game.

Also IF you draft a Mature Age Player you expect them to play lot quicker
 
Nice one GC, shows a pretty good snapshot of what we should expect from our recruits depending on their draft position.

The only thing I will say in relation to why some may have him playing games this year, is the unusual evenness of this years draft crop from pick 6 (rating De Goey above the rest because Collingwood :p) to pick 30, as Hine mentioned before the draft. Maynard was tipped by some to go as low as 14, and from what I've seen and heard, Adelaide were very close to pulling the trigger with their first pick.

It wouldn't surprise me if Maynard was able to play a good chunk of games this year, but on the other hand, his endurance is supposedly not so crash hot, so that may count against him. Exciting times ahead, whatever the outcome :straining:
 
Nice one GC, shows a pretty good snapshot of what we should expect from our recruits depending on their draft position.

The only thing I will say in relation to why some may have him playing games this year, is the unusual evenness of this years draft crop from pick 6 (rating De Goey above the rest because Collingwood :p) to pick 30, as Hine mentioned before the draft. Maynard was tipped by some to go as low as 14, and from what I've seen and heard, Adelaide were very close to pulling the trigger with their first pick.

It wouldn't surprise me if Maynard was able to play a good chunk of games this year, but on the other hand, his endurance is supposedly not so crash hot, so that may count against him. Exciting times ahead, whatever the outcome :straining:

Where did you hear that from? What I heard that he was in the thinking but not was in Thinking close to the Draft and was hoping he get to 35
 
Where did you hear that from? What I heard that he was in the thinking but not was in Thinking close to the Draft and was hoping he get to 35
They were considering him at 14, but thought there was a good chance he could slip to 35. Their gamble nearly paid off.
 

Seedsfan

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 10, 2013
15,953
10,544
AFL Club
Collingwood
When they are at the club I expect that they will work hard and get the best out of themselves. At the end of the day your draft ranking reflects who was the best junior and that does not always impact who becomes the best senior players.
 
They were considering him at 14, but thought there was a good chance he could slip to 35. Their gamble nearly paid off.

It nearly did but even I would of said he would of been a Reach at Pick 14.

This is who I happily would of Picked ahead of Maynard at 14:

  • Leaver
  • Weller
  • Durdin
  • Goddard
  • Langford
  • Laverde
 
Back