Priority Picks fair?

[Fred]

Originally posted by Ari
One of the best posts I have read in some time.

I am an Essendon supporter and feel bitterly ripped off that because our coaching staff and administration are so good they keep us around mid-ladder....even while rebuilding.

We miss out.

I have absolutely no idea if and when we will ever receive another #1 draft pick. It's just not fair.

So the supposed AFL clock goes around..... but the thing is, not all teams go to the bottom.... not all teams go to 6 o'clock as the AFL believe they do.

Teams like Essendon, Kangas etc are not rewarded. It just aint fair.

NBA lottery style is about the best way to do it. It's not working for 16 teams in the competition.

Isn't two flags each to the bombers and roos since 1990 satisfaction enough?

 

[BonIsGood]

Originally posted by BonIsGood
EVERYONE CALM DOWN!
From reading what youve all said you are all saying the same thing.

Joffa is saying that StKilda doesnt rely on 3 players (PPs) and that is correct.
Everyone else is stating that those PPs have helped and that is correct also.
I dont think anyone believes PP's are the be end of all but people please understand when you use PPs to describe how StKilda is going it sounds as if we were given 1st place. Which is very incorrect.

PPs help theres no doubt about that, everyone agrees on that.
You expect your topline players to play well and stKilda's have been and thats all they can do (dont blame them for kicking ass)

What joffa and saint fans dont stand for is the blatant disregard of the remarkable rise of players in...

B Voss
M Maguire
L Penny
H.Black
N Dal Santo
S Milne
J Blake
S Baker
B Guerra
T.Knobel


and old heads who everyone thought were gone are still playing great footy...
A.Thompson
A Jones

these players are why StKilda are the "IN" team ATM. A footy team is only as good as its mid range players and if you look above thats a fantastic mid range.


Just give credit where credits due.

I feel everyone needs to read the above again.
One more point the PPs will be shown to not have a great effect in 10 years when teams down the bottom will stay mid range. The fact the saints and freo are doing well now is coincidence with PP's.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by Porthos
So please, explain.

I'm sorry, I still don't see the weakness in my argument. You have simply thrown out a core fact arbitrarily and then said that St Kilda are just better right now, which isn't even the issue I'm discussing.

You obviously don't understand the point being made at all. Try again, idiot.

the argument is that mediocrity is being rewarded. i would suggest no club wants this type of reward. Failure breeds failure and i dont think any club works to get priority picks.
the AFL has made no secret that an even comp is their ultimate aim. Every club aims for finals and premierships. Success equals membership and dollars ( thats the theory anyway). I and most supporters will pick playing finals footy over priority picks any day of the week. So a team that is really struggling gets a "leg up" to hopefully make them competitive. Thats all it will ever do....Make them competitive. No team given priority picks has yet to win a flag. It takes more than priority picks to make a team competitive - ask Fremantle up to last year and Stkilda up to this year.

 

[Ripper]

As far as I can make out The saints have had 2 PP Freo 2 , Collingwood 1 Melbourne 1, Bulldogs 1 & West Coast 1. Not a huge difference in the scheme of things.

 

[SurreyBlue]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Dignity? Win a game recently did we? Just be happy and shut up on this one. Your club were rooted because of crap drafting, paying players far too much, blatant cheating, . . . I don't need to go on.

We have won 3.
Salary Cap roting has nothing to do with priority picks. Stop embarrassing yourself and stay on the subject.
PS. I think I am entitled to an opinion on ANY subject.

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Didn't anyone mention to you Andrew Walker? Despite cheating you still got a P/P.

Yes, we got one for being PATHETIC. How many have you received, also please include the trades when considering and the preseason no.1 picks. This does not mean I have to like the handout.

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Oh, and please explain how we are prostitutes?

The AFL are the madams/pimps and the "pros" are the teams that bow to the all mighty. Clear now.

 

[MarkT]

Just to add to the silliness, what is to stop Collingwood telling Buckley, Burns, Fraser, Tarrant, Presti and Rocca that the season is shot and they will be given 2 weeks extra to get over injuries or will have injuries that they are trying to manage while playing rested and in their place players like the Shaws and Morrison, Hall & co get games for development when we know they are not ready yet.

In addition we could rotate Wakelin, Clement and other senior players through the side to play more not yet ready youngsters. That would be good for their development and ensure we end the season with a fit and fresh squad and some good draft picks in order to have a bog pre season and make a fresh assault next year. Currently we have a system that says we should do that. I'll bloody barricade the AGM if we did that but the fact is we are encouraged to do it by the reward we would get as against what we would get if we fought out the year and finished 9th, 10th or even struggled into the finals. It isn’t just about tanking games it is also about selection policy and how you go about injury management and protecting your better players.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by Mead
As Joffa so kindly pointed out

St Kilda (1st) 5 top 5 picks since 1998
Melbourne (2nd) 5 top 5 picks since 1998
Fremantle (5th) 7 top5 picks since 1998.

I would say that is pretty danged conclusive evidence of the advantage priority picks offer.
Is it entirely a coincidence that the three biggest recipient of AFL draft pick charity over the last 5 years are sitting 1st, 2nd and 5th on the ladder? In the old days, drafts picks might not have guaranteed you success, but with the current quality scouting programs that most clubs have, I'd say now they are pretty damn handy.

Since 1998
Stkilda - final series nil premierships nil
Melbourne - final series 3 premierships nil
Fremantle - final series 1 premierships nil

great argument.....

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by MarkT
Just to add to the silliness, what is to stop Collingwood telling Buckley, Burns, Fraser, Tarrant, Presti and Rocca that the season is shot and they will be given 2 weeks extra to get over injuries or will have injuries that they are trying to manage while playing rested and in their place players like the Shaws and Morrison, Hall & co get games for development when we know they are not ready yet.

In addition we could rotate Wakelin, Clement and other senior players through the side to play more not yet ready youngsters. That would be good for their development and ensure we end the season with a fit and fresh squad and some good draft picks in order to have a bog pre season and make a fresh assault next year. Currently we have a system that says we should do that. I'll bloody barricade the AGM if we did that but the fact is we are encouraged to do it by the reward we would get as against what we would get if we fought out the year and finished 9th, 10th or even struggled into the finals. It isn’t just about tanking games it is also about selection policy and how you go about injury management and protecting your better players.

Nothing at all stopping that scenario. Might even win you a few games.

 

[kahuna71]

anyone spouting this claptrap and believing that one or two PP's makes all the difference is living in a dream world. They are a component of a team, for sure, but only that. For St.Kilda, our drive is coming as much from our kids (of which a lot could have been picked up by other teams before we drafted them) as it is from the middle aged bracket. Guerra, Powell, Black, Penny, Gehrig, Hamill, Voss and Knobel were all recruited and put these into your team and see how good you look. That's to say nothing of the older Saints players who have lifted Harvey, Thomson, Jones, Hughton, Blake, Baker (even Schwarze is winning us matches now!).

Your argument is simplistic and petulent. Can we expect the same opinion from you when your team bottoms out?

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by MarkT
Just to add to the silliness, what is to stop Collingwood telling Buckley, Burns, Fraser, Tarrant, Presti and Rocca that the season is shot and they will be given 2 weeks extra to get over injuries or will have injuries that they are trying to manage while playing rested and in their place players like the Shaws and Morrison, Hall & co get games for development when we know they are not ready yet.

In addition we could rotate Wakelin, Clement and other senior players through the side to play more not yet ready youngsters. That would be good for their development and ensure we end the season with a fit and fresh squad and some good draft picks in order to have a bog pre season and make a fresh assault next year. Currently we have a system that says we should do that. I'll bloody barricade the AGM if we did that but the fact is we are encouraged to do it by the reward we would get as against what we would get if we fought out the year and finished 9th, 10th or even struggled into the finals. It isn’t just about tanking games it is also about selection policy and how you go about injury management and protecting your better players.

This obsession with good draft picks is ridiculous.... Bulldogs have had good draft picks forever and a day and where is their success ?
It CAN make a difference but it is not guaranteed. The REWARD for mediocrity is a big maybe and nothing more and the amount of low picks that stkilda, bulldogs, freo have had compared to their success they have acheived is testimony to this.

 

[Joffaboy]

Originally posted by MarkT
Joffa

No matter how you like to cut it the Saints have had good quality given to them for being crap. They are by no means the only ones and they have made the most of the opportunities being crap has afforded them but it is an indisputable fact that they have been rewarded for being crap. That is what I hate about the system. When you line up Freo, St. Kilda and Collingwood who have had draft choices for their poor performance and compare them to Kanga's, Essendon, etc who have battled to be as good as they can and damn well been good at it, it is just unfair.

It is true from the perspective that the Saints have received cream from being crap, however to use just that for our current for is quite simplistic. I am sure you are not suggestign that however every second post critisising the Saints uses this simplistic argument.

Worse than being unfair in an AFL that completely ignores equity at every level is the fact that teams and supporters see that being the worst they can be is good for their future. This is what can destroy the fabric of a 100 year old competition in a relatively short period. Not destroy it in the sense it will die or disappear, but destroy it in the sense that it removes or dramatically lessens one of the things that made it great. That is, the weekly fight to the death for supremacy over your rivals which builds the sort of passion we see.

I cant agree. Look at the success and excitement of teams like Freo and the Saints and their supporters. Saints membership up nears 30k, Freo over 30k, sellouts at their games, 40k at Subi last week, biggest crowd for Freo other than a derby, Freo and Saints fans talking about new rivalrys going into the future.

I tend to look at the new direction of AFL . I have heard the doomsayers and pessimists since the old 12 team VFL started to evolve into the AFL.
I dont believe your analogy or opinion holds up.
There is not one team or player who "plays dead". In 2001 Barry Hall kicked a goal after the siren in the last game against Hawthorn, I think we would have received an extra pick f that hadn't occurred, Certainly in 2002, if Danny Wulf hadn't hit the post for a draw against Sydney we would certainy have received another priority pick which would have meant Goddard and Wells at the Saints.
How can a coach tell a team to run dead? If your team is having a shocker, wouldn't you as a player want to win to preserve your career?

The whole premis is flawed and does not happen. If you think it does, your cynicism has reached extraordinary bounds.

The fact is that for Collingwood this year it may well be better to lie down and get the first and second draft picks and it may well be better to let Hawthorn beat us when we play them. That is a massive flaw in the AFL operative system and a massive threat to passion that has built great clubs and a great competition. I don’t want Collingwood supporters to have a reason to be happy about losing and I don't want our board to have any reason to show silver linings in losing clouds. All clubs should play to win every game every year and no club should accept honorable losses with a draft pick consolation prize. Unfortunately is does happen.

I can't believe you think like this. Did you enjoy it the last time Collingwood lost game after game after game? If you were on five wins come Round 22 you would encourage the team to lose so as to get a priority pick? If they had lost ten straight and you had all your kids playing getting experience into them, you would want your coach to instruct them to lose? This is an incredible argument. You talk about the fabric of the club. That type of attitude could mentally impact on a young player all their careers.

If you think two picks in a draft will restore the club, you are sadly mistaken.

Here a some names the Pies could have traded for
Everitt
Gehrig
Black
Stevens
Brown
Colbert
Hall

have a look at your trading and recycling into the club.

Obviously Judkins has had his go, time to possibly look elsewhere. Is that fair or not?

I hear Carlton supporters say the best thing to do is lay low and gather draft picks to get quality players. In the past they would have said they wanted to work their arses off to get back into the finals this year and then go up from there.

Well that just means that they need to learn the way of the AFL.
I hear "established" lubs supporters complaining about the system. Well the system was brought in to enable as many clubs in the league to survive. It has done that and the AFL is thriving.

The draft gives prennial strugglers a chance to work hard both on and off the field to become successful. St.kildas admin has taken that chance in both hands, on field good recruiting (and high draft picks - no argument)has led to an exciting skillful and, so far successful team, off field the admin arrested the financial problems and now reap the benefits of on field success, nearly 30k membership $1mill in merchandise (fully owned by the Saints with Piping Hot as a sponsor) highest or second highest average attendance in the league, and looking at $500k to a mill in profit this year.
Under the system in "the good old days" this would never have been possible. And everyone knows it.

 

[Ari]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
No doubt, but to categorise StKilda's improvement on a couple of draft picks is moronically simplistic.

That is the most one-eyed opinion I have ever read on Bigfooty.

You have received some of the 4 best footballers in the last couple years from around the country. You have been gifted, in fact rewarded, for being an absolutely below average team.

Now that you are winning, you wish to maintain is has extremely little to do with the draft preference you've had.

Pathetic.

 

[Ari]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Hey, I'm not defending the P/P's, just pointing out the arguement is a little hollow when you look at the overall picture with StKilda.

No... it's absolutely crystal clear. You have benefited from being losers. It's okay if you're okay with it.... but don't come back once your tide turns and advise calmly that the 4 players you received has nothing to do with your current success.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by Ari
That is the most one-eyed opinion I have ever read on Bigfooty.

You have received some of the 4 best footballers in the last couple years from around the country. You have been gifted, in fact rewarded, for being an absolutely below average team.

Now that you are winning, you wish to maintain is has extremely little to do with the draft preference you've had.

Pathetic.

We're not claiming that - learn to read before you start throwing accusations.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
Since 1998
Stkilda - final series nil premierships nil
Melbourne - final series 3 premierships nil
Fremantle - final series 1 premierships nil

great argument.....

So what are you saying? All this talk of tanking and all this reward for crapness is all for nothing anyway? So we have a detrimental system that doesn't even work? I honestly think the PP regime is abhorrent and the draft is just a less overt and dramatic part if the same flawed mentality. If you must have a draft reverse ladder order is merely ensuring the poorest performers don't have to work as hard as the better performers. When you throw in a pre season draft where team 16 has a real trading advantage it is a complete joke. Could you imaging what would have been said if Collingwood chasing Stevens had finished last in 2003 and offered Port a 4th round draft pick or nothing?

If Collingwood finished last this year they could go to a gun player out of contract and tell him to walk out on his club, offer a sub standard trade and either get the deal over the line of take him for nothing. If they get the original deal over the line they should go to another club and keep doing the same thing until someone says no and they take that player for free in the PSD. The whole structure is a joke.

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by Joffaboy
The draft gives prennial strugglers a chance to work hard both on and off the field to become successful. St.kildas admin has taken that chance in both hands, on field good recruiting (and high draft picks - no argument)has led to an exciting skillful and, so far successful team, off field the admin arrested the financial problems and now reap the benefits of on field success, nearly 30k membership $1mill in merchandise (fully owned by the Saints with Piping Hot as a sponsor) highest or second highest average attendance in the league, and looking at $500k to a mill in profit this year.
Under the system in "the good old days" this would never have been possible. And everyone knows it.

This says it all.

Don't you feel that any success you get from now might have a certain fabricated or cheapened feel to it? I don't feel that Carlton's wooden spoon in 2002 was as bad as you lot all made out. In an open system we would NEVER have fallen that hard. If we win a flag over the next 5 years it will have been aided by the acquisition of Walker and that saddens me. I want Carlton to win on their own 2 feet, not aided from AFL handouts. I don't respect Brisbane's flags anywhere near as much as i do Hawthorn's flags in the 80's. I've said it before, any success or failure in this system is worth about 1/100th of what it was worth in an open system.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by Ari
That is the most one-eyed opinion I have ever read on Bigfooty.

You have received some of the 4 best footballers in the last couple years from around the country. You have been gifted, in fact rewarded, for being an absolutely below average team.

Now that you are winning, you wish to maintain is has extremely little to do with the draft preference you've had.

Pathetic.

This argument falls apart and is non sensical. StKilda's draft picks have performed no doubt.

Someone, anyone answer me this question - what team has become a power and won premierships because of priority picks.
Name them...i'm waiting.....

We are hailing Stkilda as the real deal....champions....premiership material... because of their priority picks. Freo is in the 8 but are not mentioned in the same league as Stkilda yet they have had more priority picks than Stkilda.
The reason and logic is simple....priority picks doesnt guarantee success....

 

[Ari]

Originally posted by kahuna71
anyone spouting this claptrap and believing that one or two PP's makes all the difference is living in a dream world. They are a component of a team, for sure, but only that. For St.Kilda, our drive is coming as much from our kids (of which a lot could have been picked up by other teams before we drafted them) as it is from the middle aged bracket. Guerra, Powell, Black, Penny, Gehrig, Hamill, Voss and Knobel were all recruited and put these into your team and see how good you look. That's to say nothing of the older Saints players who have lifted Harvey, Thomson, Jones, Hughton, Blake, Baker (even Schwarze is winning us matches now!).

Your argument is simplistic and petulent. Can we expect the same opinion from you when your team bottoms out?

Pathetic one eyed post by a Saints supporter. 1 or 2 PP's MAY not make a huge difference. How about 4?

Saints are where theyare right now because they have had the pick of the litter in the last few years..... if you can't recognise that, then you're not watching the game truthfully.

YES, your mid-range players are doing fantastic and doing the team proud.... but without with PP's in the mix as well... they may barely be mid-ladder.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Deej
This says it all.

Don't you feel that any success you get from now might have a certain fabricated or cheapened feel to it? I don't feel that Carlton's wooden spoon in 2002 was as bad as you lot all made out. In an open system we would NEVER have fallen that hard. If we win a flag over the next 5 years it will have been aided by the acquisition of Walker and that saddens me. I want Carlton to win on their own 2 feet, not aided from AFL handouts. I don't respect Brisbane's flags anywhere near as much as i do Hawthorn's flags in the 80's. I've said it before, any success or failure in this system is worth about 1/100th of what it was worth in an open system.

In an open system the clubs with the money win. Aren't their flags cheapened too?

All supporters need to think their club at least has a chance of some success sometime in the reasonable future.

 

[Ari]

Originally posted by Fred
Isn't two flags each to the bombers and roos since 1990 satisfaction enough?

No. Not when we are battling against teams who are receiving gifts from the AFL and are rewarded for a lack of discipline both in administration and on-field.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by Deej
This says it all.

Don't you feel that any success you get from now might have a certain fabricated or cheapened feel to it? I don't feel that Carlton's wooden spoon in 2002 was as bad as you lot all made out. In an open system we would NEVER have fallen that hard. If we win a flag over the next 5 years it will have been aided by the acquisition of Walker and that saddens me. I want Carlton to win on their own 2 feet, not aided from AFL handouts. I don't respect Brisbane's flags anywhere near as much as i do Hawthorn's flags in the 80's. I've said it before, any success or failure in this system is worth about 1/100th of what it was worth in an open system.

And if walker turns out to be just an also ran will you still say the same thing ?
I point to luke hodge of hawthorn as the biggest case in point. 1st draft pick before Luke Ball of Stkilda.....Hawthorn got it wrong (so far) but whose to know.....
We got Travis Johnstone as number one draft pick and although he has been good he has not been a world beater yet ( i live in hope) - the early draft picks guarantees nothing. The perennial cellar dwellers despite being given early draft picks have continued to be just that until this season. and we are still only 7 games in.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by Deej
This says it all.

Don't you feel that any success you get from now might have a certain fabricated or cheapened feel to it? I don't feel that Carlton's wooden spoon in 2002 was as bad as you lot all made out. In an open system we would NEVER have fallen that hard. If we win a flag over the next 5 years it will have been aided by the acquisition of Walker and that saddens me. I want Carlton to win on their own 2 feet, not aided from AFL handouts. I don't respect Brisbane's flags anywhere near as much as i do Hawthorn's flags in the 80's. I've said it before, any success or failure in this system is worth about 1/100th of what it was worth in an open system.

I understand what you're saying here, but it simply cannot be that way anymore. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer and die. Is that a better system? And is it fair that when big money came into the game Essendon, Hawthorn and Carlton were powerful so benefitted the most, while the teams at the bottom got further and further into trouble.

Don't ever forget that for one team to win a premiership 15 others have to fail. Does that also mean they should punished further by excluding them from the wealth that they helped to generate?

In those terms, I have no problems with priority picks as a tool to assist clubs that obviously need it. Not every club can rely on 30,000 plus members a year.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Ari
No. Not when we are battling against teams who are receiving gifts from the AFL and are rewarded for a lack of discipline both in administration and on-field.

So you'd swap that success for PP's. You can't have both.

 

[Weaver]

1. Can't agree that a club will tank games for a priority picks. It makes sense on one level, but failing that badly will normally spell the end of 10 player's careers and normally the coach as well. Tigers tanking the season might be the best thing for them, but Frawley, Bowden, Gaspar and co have careers to fight for.

2. Big problem is that the gap between 1st and 5th is larger than the gap between 5th and last. A priority pick is 'fair' in the sense that it can help a club get closer to Brisbane, it is unfair in that it sees a bottom club shoot past the likes of Geelong and Richmond.

If there are priority picks they should be after the first round, but before the 2nd, i.e. picks 17, 18 etc. Still get assistance but the penalty to the middle of the road teams is less.

3. They need to return to the system of weighting performances over a couple of years. A team should have won only 18 games in 3 years AND 5 games in the current year. They could introduce a sliding scale of 'rewards' to make things fairer.

If a team maybe wins 20 games in 4 years AND 5 in the current year then the priority pick could be before round 1.

If they have won less than 18 games in 3 years AND 5 in the current year, the pick could be between round 1 and round 2.

If a club has won more than 18 games in the last 3 years, but fewer than 5 games in the current year, then they could get a priority pick between the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

If a team wins fewer than 6 games in a year they could be entitled to an extra rookie list player.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by SurreyBlue
We have won 3.

Gee, I'm excited.

Salary Cap roting has nothing to do with priority picks. Stop embarrassing yourself and stay on the subject.
PS. I think I am entitled to an opinion on ANY subject.

It has everything to do with it (in Carltons case). If you didn't cheat you'd have had a couple more early picks than you've already had. In fact, I still can't work out how the penalties would exclude you one year and not the next. Walker was a hand out because the AFL took pity on how pathetic your list had become.

Yes, we got one for being PATHETIC. How many have you received, also please include the trades when considering and the preseason no.1 picks. This does not mean I have to like the handout.

I se you agree, but we'll take Walker if you're not happy with him.

The AFL are the madams/pimps and the "pros" are the teams that bow to the all mighty. Clear now.

Clear that you're a fool.