Here's How The Draft Should Work !!

[LordLucifer]

Scrap the priority pick, it gives the really badly performing clubs far too much 'prizemoney' when they definitely don't deserve it. It artificially props up the competition as well.

The best way to make it fair to everyone is to base it on the number of games won over a 3 year period. The team that has won the least number of games get the first pick and then the second worst performed team has second pick and so on. That way the access to the best talent isn't given to a team that has one bad year and those that get the first 2-3 picks are then more in need of an injection of quality youth.

For example :

2002
Port Adelaide 18
Brisbane Lions 17
Adelaide 15
Collingwood 13
Essendon 12
Melbourne 12
Kangaroos 12
West Coast 11
Geelong 11
Hawthorn 11
Sydney 9
Western Bulldogs 9
Fremantle 9
Richmond 7
St Kilda 5
Carlton 3

2003
Port Adelaide 18
Collingwood 15
Brisbane Lions 14
Sydney 14
Fremantle 14
Adelaide 13
West Coast 12
Essendon 13
Hawthorn 12
Kangaroos 11
St Kilda 11
Geelong 7
Richmond 7
Melbourne 5
Carlton 4
Western Bulldogs 3

2004
Port Adelaide 17
Brisbane Lions 16
St Kilda 16
Geelong 15
Melbourne 14
Sydney Swans 13
West Coast Eagles 13
Essendon 12
Fremantle 11
Kangaroos 10
Carlton 10
Adelaide 8
Collingwood 8
Western Bulldogs 5
Hawthorn 4
Richmond 4

Now, based on those wins over the three year period, the draft order for 2004 should have been :

1. Western Bulldogs (17)
2. Carlton (17)
3. Richmond (18)
4. Hawthorn (27)
5. Melbourne (31)
6. St. Kilda (32)
7. Kangaroos (33)
8. Geelong (33)
9. Fremantle (34)
10. Collingwood (36)
11. Adelaide (36)
12. West Coast (36)
13. Sydney (36)
14. Essendon (37)
15. Brisbane (47)
16. Port Adelaide (53)

Where teams have got the same number of wins, you revert back to their ladder positions from the immediate season.

The whole thing works for me, anyone else ???

(Hopefully I have added those up right !! )

 

[Portia]

So a prelim finalist gets the #6 pick? Pfft.

 

[Yze_Magic]

So a prelim finalist gets the #6 pick? Pfft.

yes but if the system had already been like that, then they would not have made a prelim Final cos they wouldnt have all those priority picks

 

[LordLucifer]

So a prelim finalist gets the #6 pick? Pfft.

Look past just last year, this is based on what has transpired over a three year period. Even if a preliminary finalist got the 6th pick, then you would have to think that their position on the draft ladder would drop dramatically next year.

 

[mickrocks1]

exactly.

 

[ant555]

No the draft should be run with us having a first priority pick every season so we can continue to annoy all the other supporters with our continued success

 

[LordLucifer]

No the draft should be run with us having a first priority pick every season so we can continue to annoy all the other supporters with our continued success

Just proves that there is no intelligence minimum required to barrack for Essendon.

 

[ant555]

Just proves that there is no intelligence minimum required to barrack for Essendon.

Really and you would know how intelligent i am based on one throw away comment on a footy forum where most people behave like they are in grade 6?
I dont make too many comments on the intelligence of people i dont know , maybe you should think about doing that as well

 

[superfraser]

there is definent flaws looking at that draft list..

HAD it been implemented years ago, it may have worked?
BUT imagine the position one of, if not all of collingwood/adelaide/essendon would be in in about 3 years. they'd all lose there buckley/riccutio/hird type players and they'd be taking some of the more average kids.
while as has already been mentioned geelong/saints would continue stock piling young stars..

i like the lottery type idea they use in the NBA..

for example.

last place gets 16 chances,
first place gets 1 chance,
draw it out of a hat.

 

[ant555]

Scrap the priority pick, it gives the really badly performing clubs far too much 'prizemoney' when they definitely don't deserve it. It artificially props up the competition as well.

The best way to make it fair to everyone is to base it on the number of games won over a 3 year period. The team that has won the least number of games get the first pick and then the second worst performed team has second pick and so on. That way the access to the best talent isn't given to a team that has one bad year and those that get the first 2-3 picks are then more in need of an injection of quality youth.

For example :

2002
Port Adelaide 18
Brisbane Lions 17
Adelaide 15
Collingwood 13
Essendon 12
Melbourne 12
Kangaroos 12
West Coast 11
Geelong 11
Hawthorn 11
Sydney 9
Western Bulldogs 9
Fremantle 9
Richmond 7
St Kilda 5
Carlton 3

2003
Port Adelaide 18
Collingwood 15
Brisbane Lions 14
Sydney 14
Fremantle 14
Adelaide 13
West Coast 12
Essendon 13
Hawthorn 12
Kangaroos 11
St Kilda 11
Geelong 7
Richmond 7
Melbourne 5
Carlton 4
Western Bulldogs 3

2004
Port Adelaide 17
Brisbane Lions 16
St Kilda 16
Geelong 15
Melbourne 14
Sydney Swans 13
West Coast Eagles 13
Essendon 12
Fremantle 11
Kangaroos 10
Carlton 10
Adelaide 8
Collingwood 8
Western Bulldogs 5
Hawthorn 4
Richmond 4

Now, based on those wins over the three year period, the draft order for 2004 should have been :

1. Western Bulldogs (17)
2. Carlton (17)
3. Richmond (18)
4. Hawthorn (27)
5. Melbourne (31)
6. St. Kilda (32)
7. Kangaroos (33)
8. Geelong (33)
9. Fremantle (34)
10. Collingwood (36)
11. Adelaide (36)
12. West Coast (36)
13. Sydney (36)
14. Essendon (37)
15. Brisbane (47)
16. Port Adelaide (53)

Where teams have got the same number of wins, you revert back to their ladder positions from the immediate season.

The whole thing works for me, anyone else ???

(Hopefully I have added those up right !! )

Is their a real problem with the draft??
I know Saints suppoters will agree that their succes now is not a result of the draft only. Sure they have picked up some great kids but thay have also recruited well in the trading area and used player area. The high draft pick players will not get them over the line by themselves.

 

[LordLucifer]

there is definent flaws looking at that draft list..

HAD it been implemented years ago, it may have worked?
BUT imagine the position one of, if not all of collingwood/adelaide/essendon would be in in about 3 years. they'd all lose there buckley/riccutio/hird type players and they'd be taking some of the more average kids.
while as has already been mentioned geelong/saints would continue stock piling young stars..

i like the lottery type idea they use in the NBA..

for example.

last place gets 16 chances,
first place gets 1 chance,
draw it out of a hat.

So what if a team loses some of their senior players, that happens every year ???

With your lottery idea, there would be a near civil uprising if the reigning premiers fluked it and got pick no. 1 and the wooden spooner pick no. 16 !!

If the system I have proposed was implemented, then it would be even for everyone and it would equitabley distribute the pecking order.

 

[Portia]

Look past just last year, this is based on what has transpired over a three year period. Even if a preliminary finalist got the 6th pick, then you would have to think that their position on the draft ladder would drop dramatically next year.

And?

What if Brisbane drop dramatically next year? Here they are, they've won 30 games in the two years prior, eke out six-seven in 2005 and they're probably lucky if they're picking 13th despite being in a position where they genuinely need an overhaul. You're effectively tacking an extra year onto their needed rebuild, the same as was added to Carlton when you missed Goddard & Wells. Is that really `fair to everyone' ?

But I'm just looking at last year...you know what? Every year there will be a great St Kilda (or Collingwood) example, unless the competition genuinely stagnates. Both 2004 prelim final losers are picking in the top 10!

Seriously, what actual benefit is derived from this system as opposed to just deciding the draft order yearly as is done now? Removing the priority pick is doing all the work there.

 

[OldSchool]

Scrap the priority pick, it gives the really badly performing clubs far too much 'prizemoney' when they definitely don't deserve it. It artificially props up the competition as well.

The best way to make it fair to everyone is to base it on the number of games won over a 3 year period. The team that has won the least number of games get the first pick and then the second worst performed team has second pick and so on. That way the access to the best talent isn't given to a team that has one bad year and those that get the first 2-3 picks are then more in need of an injection of quality youth.

I think that's a decent proposal. Not a fan of the priority pick in it's current form because it goes against the grain when team supporters are praying for their own team to actually lose the last few games.

 

[LordLucifer]

And?

Seriously, what actual benefit is derived from this system as opposed to just deciding the draft order yearly as is done now? Removing the priority pick is doing all the work there.

Okay, you have two teams in particular that are prime examples of why my proposed system is better than what we have now.

Melbourne seem to have the yo-yo formguide, one year worldbeaters and the next year near shyte. At least this stops them from having that down year and topping up quickly or at least trading the low picks for established gun players needed to bridge the gap.

Collingwood played in two grand finals straight and the next year plummet to 13th place on the ladder which nets them pick 4, am I the only one here who thinks that sort of formguide does not deserve that sort of handout ??

 

[LoneStar]

I agree that the AFL should ditch or change the Priority Pick idea...Priority picks should become supplemental picks at end of round 1 (and 2 for that matter).
Basing your draft order on three seasons cannot work. Teams would continue to get high draft choices in some cases after they had turned the corner and gotten better.
In the NBA lottery system, only the first three selections are influenced by the lottery. Team with the worst record cannot pick later than 4th, second-worst cannot pick later than 5th, etc. had to be instituted in the 80s because teams were throwing games to get #1 or #2 draft choice.
FWIW-in a game played by 5-a-side, one top player can make a huge difference aka Jordan, Olajawon, Shaq, etc. Two top players can mean worst-to-first aka Shaq-Kobe, Jordan-Pippen, or Robinson-Duncan. AFL is 18-a-side and cannot think of any examples where 2 high draft choices or any 2 top players have been difference between a GF and a failure to make the Finals in a year or two's time.

 

[Pie 4 Life]

1) 16th
2) 15th
3) 14th
4) 13th
5) 12th
6) 11th
7) 10th
8) 9th
9) 8th
10) 7th
11) 6th
12) 5th
13) 4th
14) 3rd
15) 2nd
16) 1st
17) 1st
18) 2nd
19) 3rd
20) 4th
21) 5th
22) 6th
23) 7th
24) 8th
25) 9th
26) 10th
27) 11th
28) 12th
29) 13th
30) 14th
31) 15th
32) 16th

And so on and so fourth....

 

[Portia]

Collingwood played in two grand finals straight and the next year plummet to 13th place on the ladder which nets them pick 4, am I the only one here who thinks that sort of formguide does not deserve that sort of handout ??

Like I said, how is that worse than St Kilda making a prelim and getting pick 6?

Not to mention the psychological impact to fans of a falling side. How bad was it for Carlton to finish last and not even have draft picks to look forward to? (separating the salary cap nonsense, of course). Your system delays it so that by the time you're getting decent again, you're getting draft picks that you no longer need.

 

[skywalk750]

Just get rid of priority picks, its one of the most stupid parts of our game.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Like I said, how is that worse than St Kilda making a prelim and getting pick 6?

You are thinking about how things are, not how they would have been if this system was in place all along. Would they have done as well without Riewoldt, Koschitzke and Ball?

This system would stop one year falls from grace, like Brisbane's 98 spoon and Melbourne's bi-annual dramas, being rewarded.

For this to work properly, it would have to start from a nominated date. It would have to be at least 3 years away for a start so that current form isn't a factor and you can add a couple years on top of that so theoretically each team could be challenging for the top or be struggling down the bottom.

Good idea IMO but would have to have an official starting date of at least 5 years away.

 

[Bestbird]

Priority picks should be after the 1st round

Cant believe the AFL hasnt done it already in light of all the bad press

It was amazing to see my Tiger supporting mate actually barracking for the other teams midway through the season

Is this how the AFL wants its fans to react !!!!!!!!

 

[Portia]

You are thinking about how things are, not how they would have been if this system was in place all along. Would they have done as well without Riewoldt, Koschitzke and Ball?

How St Kilda is made isn't really relevant. What St Kilda is is relevant.

A team that had the same depth of quality youngsters (they don't all need to be the #1 pick you know), would be in the exact same situation as the saints. Take the Dogs under the revised system, for example. They've got their three years of `crap cred' now, yet they're probably guaranteed another two years of top ten draft picks now regardless of performances, even if Eade wins a premiership in that time.

This system would stop one year falls from grace, like Brisbane's 98 spoon and Melbourne's bi-annual dramas, being rewarded.

Right. And? They create major penalties for the first year & potentially second year of a genuine slump too. How is that an improvement?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

They create major penalties for the first year & potentially second year of a genuine slump too. How is that an improvement?

You're right, let's take Port for example, 35 wins in the past two seasons. If they had a season from hell and finished last with 4 wins in 2005, they would have 39 wins over 3 years. Would they deserve a number 1 pick on the back of an aberration of a season considering the talent they still have at their disposal? IMO, no. Based on these figures, they still only get #15. Back that up with another 4 game season however and suddenly they have 25 games won in 3 years and earned pick #4 (assuming other cellar dwellers haven't taken a sharp rise of course and given them a better pick). Then the beauty of the system kicks in, they win 16 in 2007 and another minor premiership and still only have 25 wins in 3 seasons and the minor premiers have pick #4.

That is some counterbalance.

If this doesn't work, priority picks at least have to be removed but only at a mutually agreed time and not when some teams are disadvantaged by having their time at the bottom and not receiving the rewards.

 

[LordLucifer]

If this system was to be implemented, it would have to be done over a two year period so as to make the transition as smooth as possible and not dramatically advantage or disadvantage some teams in the process.

At the moment the system is based on just 1 year's results. Therefore, the first year of transition would involve two years of results. The third year it would be fully implemented using the full three years worth.


EXAMPLE

2004 - Use 2004 ladder result
2005 - Use 2004 & 2005 game totals
2006 - Use 2004, 2005 & 2006 game totals and continue from there.

 

[Portia]

You're right, let's take Port for example, 35 wins in the past two seasons. If they had a season from hell and finished last with 4 wins in 2005, they would have 39 wins over 3 years. Would they deserve a number 1 pick on the back of an aberration of a season considering the talent they still have at their disposal? IMO, no. Based on these figures, they still only get #15. Back that up with another 4 game season however and suddenly they have 25 games won in 3 years and earned pick #4 (assuming other cellar dwellers haven't taken a sharp rise of course and given them a better pick). Then the beauty of the system kicks in, they win 16 in 2007 and another minor premiership and still only have 25 wins in 3 seasons and the minor premiers have pick #4.

That is some counterbalance.

What is actually happening
To prevent those that may not desperately need a draft pick from getting it because of one down year, you are:

a) penalising all those clubs that, despite previous success, do actually need a draft pick and thus extending the fall of a club that has spent time at the top. (eg. Brisbane this year, West Coast would have that in Judd year)
b) prolonging the time for which a rising club can stay near the top, by continuing to compensate them for time at the bottom when they are no longer there and have clearly rebuilt already. (eg. St Kilda now, any rising club)
c) removing the positivity of the off season for fans of clubs that have just taken a savage hit on the ladder, by removing the one shining light they can talk up during the offseason. (eg. Carlton in 2002, Adelaide would have that this year)

Again, why is this proposed system actually better? It fixes one problem, but creates two different ones (a & c), while creating what also looks to be an `undeserved' reward (b)

If this doesn't work, priority picks at least have to be removed but only at a mutually agreed time and not when some teams are disadvantaged by having their time at the bottom and not receiving the rewards.

Certainly this particular change should only be made at least one year in advance of implementation.

 

[Hanis]

Leave the draft as it is - except with regard to the Priority pick.

Using The Sheik's system of number of games won over 3 years, limit priority picks to those teams who have won a certain amount of games or less.
Using the current AFL PP eligibility rule of winning 5 games or less in a year that would mean you would have to win 15 games or less over the last 3 years to be eligible for a PP.

Using this system and looking at Al Maktoums figures in the first thread indicate that not one team would have been eligible this year to gather a PP.

I would go so far as to drop the number of games on to 12 (4 per year).

This system could work as you would find that PP's would be (over 10 years) quite minimal and the rare case deserving or as some still see it undeserving.