2019 AFL draft - Jackson at 3, Pickett at 12 and Rivers at 32

[rhaz]

The only pick split i'd accept is one with GWS to get 6 and their first next year. Even then i'd just prefer 3 and 8 this year.

 

[GatesOfHell]

I get what you're saying regarding "top end talent" but how tf can anyone tell? Unless anyone here went to watch u/18 games regularly, took notes and spent time with the players, we're all basically guessing. Sure, the media will report on certain players, and we've all seen the highlights videos picked out for 3 minutes.

2 years ago, hawthorn picked up James worpel at like 50, and he wins their best and fairest this year. Meanwhile, North pick Luke davies-uniake at 4 who looks to have very little stand out features. There are countless examples of players in the 15-30+ bracket being better than the top 10. Until they're off mummys teet and living in the big smoke full time, no one knows how they'll turn out.draft picks are so overrated. Pick the kid who runs fast, jumps high and kicks well, but make sure there are decent campaigners around him coaching and supporting.

A statistical analysis of first round draft picks , particularly those that go in the top ten, shows that a much greater percentage of them go on to become quality AFL players and stars of the game than those outside it. Yes, there are exceptions every year but you can’t argue with the sheer weight of numbers.

 

[Topkent]

A statistical analysis of first round draft picks , particularly those that go in the top ten, shows that a much greater percentage of them go on to become quality AFL players and stars of the game than those outside it. Yes, there ate exceptions every year but you can’t argue with the sheer weight of numbers.

Fyfe/Danger/Gray/Rance/Sloane/Zorko/Cripps/Kelly/Mitchell/Gawn/Grundy/Riewoldt etc.

Arguably all in the top 20 players in the game and all taken outside 10 in the draft.

 

[GatesOfHell]

Fyfe/Danger/Gray/Rance/Sloane/Zorko/Cripps/Kelly/Mitchell/Gawn/Grundy/Riewoldt etc.

Arguably all in the top 20 players in the game and all taken outside 10 in the draft.

Danger, Rance, Cripps, Grundy, Reiwoldt all first rounders. Zorko a Qld zone selection. For every gun outside the first round of the draft, there are three in it.

 

[Cannon82]

Fyfe/Danger/Gray/Rance/Sloane/Zorko/Cripps/Kelly/Mitchell/Gawn/Grundy/Riewoldt etc.

Arguably all in the top 20 players in the game and all taken outside 10 in the draft.

If only every single quality player in the AFL was drafted in the top 10 picks over the course of history we could finally put this issue to bed. There's a higher probability with the earlier picks, doesn't mean you never miss and it doesn't mean there aren't good players available later in the draft. Hodge, Franklin, Judd, Duckwood, Dangerfield, Murphy, etc etc etc were taken in the top 10. Just because Wagner slipped through to the later rounds of the draft doesn't mean great players are available there all the time, or that it's a random distribution.

If there are plenty of good picks available later, why don't clubs trade top picks for 3 or 4 selections in the 20s/30s (other than academy points)?

 

[Johnny Karate]

I think those league titles belong to a club that is.....dead, much like the 'Old Firm'.

You dressing as a Zombie for Halloween?

Best steer clear of thinking then. No, I won’t be dressing up for Halloween - a) because it’s seppo bullshit; and b) because I’m not a child.

Usually Crows players tend to don other clubs colours around this time of year and flee the state. I find this tradition far more interesting than Halloween.

 

[Reality IS]

Its clear a pick inside the top ten is certainly worth more than a pick outside it.

If a player is picked inside the top 10 they are more likely to have successful AFL careers than those picked in the 10-20 range.

There is always anomalies s with any draft based sport as we pick the kids pretty young at 17/18 so some will develop and others won't.

 

[stEdy]

Except pick 6 is cursed

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Fyfe/Danger/Gray/Rance/Sloane/Zorko/Cripps/Kelly/Mitchell/Gawn/Grundy/Riewoldt etc.

Arguably all in the top 20 players in the game and all taken outside 10 in the draft.

How has no one made this observation before?

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Except pick 6 is cursed

If we trade for it it won't end up as pick 6, it'll be pick 7 by the time we use it.

 

[PerfectFooty]

fu** Garlands overrated here. Played a couple good years when we were dog s**t lol then hung around way too long.

Stood out in a team of Spuds, not Saying he had a bad 2013, but when the people trailing you in 3rd and 4th are Terlich and Matt Jones it's a low pass to play good in a team that was as bad as that team was

 

[All Aboard the Dee Train]

If only every single quality player in the AFL was drafted in the top 10 picks over the course of history we could finally put this issue to bed. There's a higher probability with the earlier picks, doesn't mean you never miss and it doesn't mean there aren't good players available later in the draft. Hodge, Franklin, Judd, Duckwood, Dangerfield, Murphy, etc etc etc were taken in the top 10. Just because Wagner slipped through to the later rounds of the draft doesn't mean great players are available there all the time, or that it's a random distribution.

If there are plenty of good picks available later, why don't clubs trade top picks for 3 or 4 selections in the 20s/30s (other than academy points)?

Thank you! It's all just probability/likelihood. The further out you go to have a pick, the less likely that player will become a gun. It doesn't mean you trade out of the first round because 'sometimes there are superstars outside the first round'. Also, I'll bet if you asked the Cats where they rated Kelly, they'd say top 10. If you asked the Crows where they ranked Danger, they'd say top 5. Carlton would've said Cripps was top 10. It's just that their first pick wasn't until later.
It's like saying 'Well he may be a good kick as a junior, but it doesn't mean he'll be a good AFL kick'. Ok it might turn out that way, but he's got a head start on everyone else doesn't he? There's more evidence that he will be a good AFL kick compared to others.

 

[Grimesy87]

If only every single quality player in the AFL was drafted in the top 10 picks over the course of history we could finally put this issue to bed. There's a higher probability with the earlier picks, doesn't mean you never miss and it doesn't mean there aren't good players available later in the draft. Hodge, Franklin, Judd, Duckwood, Dangerfield, Murphy, etc etc etc were taken in the top 10. Just because Wagner slipped through to the later rounds of the draft doesn't mean great players are available there all the time, or that it's a random distribution.

If there are plenty of good picks available later, why don't clubs trade top picks for 3 or 4 selections in the 20s/30s (other than academy points)?

Because as has been said, the weight of numbers points to higher likelihood of a proven player. But it's still chance.

There is a chance you'll grab a superstar in the latter rounds like grant, hird or Wagner. But it's an inexact science. And if you had 3 picks between 15-30 vs pick 4 (as an example) you've got 3 times the chance of getting a gun player.

My point initially was that it's not really applicable to judge a draft even before any of them have played a game, let alone been in the system and learnt the training demands etc

 

[Cannon82]

Because as has been said, the weight of numbers points to higher likelihood of a proven player. But it's still chance.

There is a chance you'll grab a superstar in the latter rounds like grant, hird or Wagner. But it's an inexact science. And if you had 3 picks between 15-30 vs pick 4 (as an example) you've got 3 times the chance of getting a gun player.

My point initially was that it's not really applicable to judge a draft even before any of them have played a game, let alone been in the system and learnt the training demands etc

The bottom of my last post was a rhetorical question.

If you're a recruiter, you have to judge the draft now. No do overs here, or at least not yet. Gold Coast might get draft mulligans in the future.

 

[Grimesy87]

A statistical analysis of first round draft picks , particularly those that go in the top ten, shows that a much greater percentage of them go on to become quality AFL players and stars of the game than those outside it. Yes, there are exceptions every year but you can’t argue with the sheer weight of numbers.

Yeah statistics are fantastic, until you throw in Cale Morton, toumpas, watts, gysberts, trengove, cook etc over the last decade. There's also the popular opinion not one number 1 draft pick has turned out to be the best player of his draft (although Whitfield is probably in discussion, and Walsh will be in a few years if he learns to kick a drop punt). So if statistics mean a player picked earlier in the draft has a better chance to be a gun than later, shouldn't that mean from number 1 to number 2, and number 2 to number 3 and so on? Of course not, even though the team that finishes bottom gets to pick the highest rated junior in Australia. So why is that? Is it development when they get in the system? Is it maturity of an individual? Culture? Perhaps the real best players tank a bit so they slip through to get to a non basket case. Who knows, the reality is they're all factors that make drafting any player an educated guess, that definitely wont be measurable before any of them have even played a game.

 

[GatesOfHell]

Because as has been said, the weight of numbers points to higher likelihood of a proven player. But it's still chance.

There is a chance you'll grab a superstar in the latter rounds like grant, hird or Wagner. But it's an inexact science. And if you had 3 picks between 15-30 vs pick 4 (as an example) you've got 3 times the chance of getting a gun player.

My point initially was that it's not really applicable to judge a draft even before any of them have played a game, let alone been in the system and learnt the training demands etc

Wagner??

 

[Grimesy87]

The bottom of my last post was a rhetorical question.

If you're a recruiter, you have to judge the draft now. No do overs here, or at least not yet. Gold Coast might get draft mulligans in the future.

Yeah, I agree with that.

So if you're a recruiter, what would you rather? 1 shot at number 1, or 3 in the top 25?

 

[GatesOfHell]

Yeah statistics are fantastic, until you throw in Cale Morton, toumpas, watts, gysberts, trengove, cook etc over the last decade. There's also the popular opinion not one number 1 draft pick has turned out to be the best player of his draft (although Whitfield is probably in discussion, and Walsh will be in a few years if he learns to kick a drop punt). So if statistics mean a player picked earlier in the draft has a better chance to be a gun than later, shouldn't that mean from number 1 to number 2, and number 2 to number 3 and so on? Of course not, even though the team that finishes bottom gets to pick the highest rated junior in Australia. So why is that? Is it development when they get in the system? Is it maturity of an individual? Culture? Perhaps the real best players tank a bit so they slip through to get to a non basket case. Who knows, the reality is they're all factors that make drafting any player an educated guess, that definitely wont be measurable before any of them have even played a game.

The statistics are clear regardless of exceptions, anomalies between individual successive picks, and the personal disappointments of being a Melbourne supporter with all the blue chip picks we’ve squandered over the years. Not sure why you’re so determined to argue against logic but I’ll leave you to it.

 

[Cannon82]

Yeah, I agree with that.

So if you're a recruiter, what would you rather? 1 shot at number 1, or 3 in the top 25?

Depends where in the top 25 those picks are, depends on the current state of the list, depends on the talent pool in the draft, etc.

If you're talking about Melbourne, right now, this draft (that I don't know much about), then I'd still like to know where those top 25 picks are, but for argument's sake, let's split the difference and say 10, 18 and 25. Would swap pick 3 for those three. Pick 3 for 23, 24, 25... no..

 

[Cannon82]

Wagner??

God's gift to Melbourne.

 

[ponsdale]

God's gift to Melbourne.

The gift we're not worthy of.

 

[Grimesy87]

The statistics are clear regardless of exceptions, anomalies between individual successive picks, and the personal disappointments of being a Melbourne supporter with all the blue chip picks we’ve squandered over the years. Not sure why you’re so determined to argue against logic but I’ll leave you to it.

Yah, keep harping on about statistics. If you have followed Melbourne in the early part of the draft over recent years, statistics mean nothing when the player drafted is no good. Want to play a fun game? Go back and find how many Melbourne drafted players in the top 15 have played over 100 games since 2000.

Actually, ill do it for you since you can't see "logic"

Luke Molan 0 2001 pick 8
Daniel Bell 66 2002 pick 14
Colin Sylvia 157 2003 pick 3
Brock mclean 94 2003 pick 5
Matthew bate 102 2004 pick 13
Lynden Dunn 165 2004 pick 15
Nathan Jones 286 2005 pick 12
James frawley 139 2006 pick 13
Cale Morton 73 2007 pick 4
Jack watts 152 2008 pick 1 (Sam blease just misses at 16 with 33 games)
Tom scully 31 2009 pick 1
Jack trengove 87 2009 pick 2
Jordan gysberts 19 2009 pick 11
Lucas cook 0 2010 pick 12
Jimmy toumpas 27 2012 pick 4
Christian Salem 90 2013 pick 9

6 players played over 100 games for us out of the 16. Salem hopefully will make it 7. Scully went on to play over 100 obviously. I've left 2014 onwards off the list as that group are only just reaching the 100 game figure, obviously petracca, brayshaw etc will tick over 100.

1 all Australian in frawley (scully made the squad once from memory). Yet you're saying a draft pick is important for it's number. I'd have thought any self proclaimed Melbourne supporter would see past numbers and draft pick "statistics" being fairly irrelevant when compared to output.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Yah, keep harping on about statistics. If you have followed Melbourne in the early part of the draft over recent years, statistics mean nothing when the player drafted is no good. Want to play a fun game? Go back and find how many Melbourne drafted players in the top 15 have played over 100 games since 2000.

Actually, ill do it for you since you can't see "logic"

Luke Molan 0 2001 pick 8
Daniel Bell 66 2002 pick 14
Colin Sylvia 157 2003 pick 3
Brock mclean 94 2003 pick 5
Matthew bate 102 2004 pick 13
Lynden Dunn 165 2004 pick 15
Nathan Jones 286 2005 pick 12
James frawley 139 2006 pick 13
Cale Morton 73 2007 pick 4
Jack watts 152 2008 pick 1 (Sam blease just misses at 16 with 33 games)
Tom scully 31 2009 pick 1
Jack trengove 87 2009 pick 2
Jordan gysberts 19 2009 pick 11
Lucas cook 0 2010 pick 12
Jimmy toumpas 27 2012 pick 4
Christian Salem 90 2013 pick 9

6 players played over 100 games for us out of the 16. Salem hopefully will make it 7. Scully went on to play over 100 obviously. I've left 2014 onwards off the list as that group are only just reaching the 100 game figure, obviously petracca, brayshaw etc will tick over 100.

1 all Australian in frawley (scully made the squad once from memory). Yet you're saying a draft pick is important for it's number. I'd have thought any self proclaimed Melbourne supporter would see past numbers and draft pick "statistics" being fairly irrelevant when compared to output.

Drafting has become a more exact science in the last ten years. Not much use to using data from the last decade when recruitment practice is constantly improving. Top 10 of the last two drafts have been extremely strong, for example.

 

[Cannon82]

Yah, keep harping on about statistics. If you have followed Melbourne in the early part of the draft over recent years, statistics mean nothing when the player drafted is no good. Want to play a fun game? Go back and find how many Melbourne drafted players in the top 15 have played over 100 games since 2000.

Actually, ill do it for you since you can't see "logic"

Luke Molan 0 2001 pick 8
Daniel Bell 66 2002 pick 14
Colin Sylvia 157 2003 pick 3
Brock mclean 94 2003 pick 5
Matthew bate 102 2004 pick 13
Lynden Dunn 165 2004 pick 15
Nathan Jones 286 2005 pick 12
James frawley 139 2006 pick 13
Cale Morton 73 2007 pick 4
Jack watts 152 2008 pick 1 (Sam blease just misses at 16 with 33 games)
Tom scully 31 2009 pick 1
Jack trengove 87 2009 pick 2
Jordan gysberts 19 2009 pick 11
Lucas cook 0 2010 pick 12
Jimmy toumpas 27 2012 pick 4
Christian Salem 90 2013 pick 9

6 players played over 100 games for us out of the 16. Salem hopefully will make it 7. Scully went on to play over 100 obviously. I've left 2014 onwards off the list as that group are only just reaching the 100 game figure, obviously petracca, brayshaw etc will tick over 100.

1 all Australian in frawley (scully made the squad once from memory). Yet you're saying a draft pick is important for it's number. I'd have thought any self proclaimed Melbourne supporter would see past numbers and draft pick "statistics" being fairly irrelevant when compared to output.

8 of those 17 have played over 100 games, Salem will as well, Trengove would have if not for the foot injury, perhaps Bell too if not for injuries although I was never a fan. The only genuine busts there are the Toump, Gysberts, Cook, Morton and Molan. Out of Trac, Brayshaw, Oliver and Weideman, three of those four should hit 100+ barring catastrophe. 13 or so out of 21 seems reasonable to me. What hit rate are you expecting at the draft? Everyone in the top 10 to be a 200 gamer for their original club?

Plus, there's how Melbourne drafts and then how the rest of the competition drafts. As everyone has been saying lately, may as well just fold.

 

[Cobwebs]

There is a write up over in Demonland on the Hayden Young thread about him "Bulletproof Selection", that is quoting the talent manager at Dandenong Stingrays. Backline outside and forward, stats just increased. Ready to go 2020, he said yes and someone will pick up a 200 game player. So I guess we will draft someone else. .