The Draft is Overrated

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Yet if you go through the recent premiership sides, you'll see that they built their sides by nailing several picks within a relatively small space of time. They built their core through the draft and then added bits and pieces as required.

You can go through any draft and point out players picked early who didn't make it. But loading up on first-round and second-round picks and getting them right remains the most reliable way to build a successful team.

For example, how did Geelong build their premiership sides of 2007, 2009 and 2011? Sure, they traded to get someone like Brad Ottens, but the vast majority of the players in those sides arrived at Geelong via the draft. Would they have had that success had they traded away those picks?

Agreed.

Geelong's success was basically built on the '99 and '01 drafts.

1995 Darren Milburn pick 47 (2007, 2009)

1996 Tom Harley zone/concession pick for Port's start up (2007, 2009)
Cameron Mooney pick 56 by North Melbourne (2007, 2009)

1997 Brad Ottens pick 2 by Richmond (2007, 2009, 2011)
Matthew Scarlett pick 45 f/s (2007, 2009, 2011)

1998 David Wojcinski pick 24 (2007, 2009, 2011)

1999 Joel Corey pick 8 (2007, 2009, 2011)
Paul Chapman pick 31 (2007, 2009, 2011)
Cameron Ling pick 38 (2007, 2009, 2011)
Corey Enright pick 47 (2007, 2009, 2011)

2000 Josh Hunt pick 44 (2007, 2011)
Max Rooke pick 41 in the rookie draft (2007, 2009)

2001 Jimmy Bartel pick 8 (2007, 2009, 2011)
James Kelly pick 17 (2007, 2009, 2011)
Steve Johnson pick 24 (2007, 2009, 2011)
Gary Ablett pick 40 f/s (2007, 2009)

2002 Andrew Mackie pick 7 (2007, 2009, 2011)
Tom Lonergan pick 23 (2011)
Brent Moloney pick 4 pre-season draft (traded to Melbourne for pick 12 which went straight to Richmond as part of the Ottens trade)
Shannon Byrnes pick 40 rookie draft (2007, 2009)

2003 Mark Blake pick 38 f/s (2009)

2004 Nathan Ablett pick 48 f/s (2007)

2005 Travis Varcoe pick 15 (2009, 2011)
Trent West pick 31 (2011)
Matthew Stokes pick 61 (2007, 2011)

2006 Joel Selwood pick 7 (2007, 2009, 2011)
Tom Hawkins pick 41 f/s (2009, 2011)

2007 Harry Taylor pick 17 (2009, 2011)

2009 Mitch Duncan pick 28 (2011)
Allen Christensen pick 40 (2011)
James Podsiadly pick 50 rookie (2011)

Three Premierships
Ottens
Scarlett
Wojcinski
Corey
Chapman
Ling
Enright
Bartel
Kelly
Johnson
Mackie
Selwood

Two Premierships
Milburn
Harley
Mooney
Hunt
Rooke
G. Ablett
Byrnes
Varcoe
Stokes
Hawkins
Taylor

One Premiership
Lonergan
Blake
N. Ablett
West
Duncan
Christensen
Podsiadly






















Hawthorn's was built on '01 and '04.

 

[HolyRioli]

I get what the OP is saying - we as a football community tend to overate draft picks. The general assumption on Bigfooty, the way people talk about them, is that a first round pick is close to a guaranteed star, and a second round pick will get you a good player. The reality of history is these picks do not have a 100% strike rate, and in the first round alone it’s closer to half of that.

However, I also don’t think that building a list entirely by trading in players is sustainable either. As the OP mentioned, you’re looking to trade in established talent because you know what you’re getting. By the same token, the selling club knows what they are losing.

So let’s look at an example, you have pick 7 and pick 40 (randomly chosen).

Rory Sloane was originally drafted at pick 40 (maybe - I’m not looking it up).

However, if you want to trade for him, you’re more likely to have to use pick 7. You have a finite amount of pick 7s.

You could use pick 40 to trade for Aaron Mullett ... but do you really want to? So this pick, which is an early 3rd rounder, probably doesn’t help you build a contending.

Where I’m heading with this is generally speaking, established talent that you want will only be obtainable with earlier picks, but to fill a list you need to add more than 1-3 players per season. So trading in everyone is unsustainable

However, I do think there is an argument for trading away first round picks for high quality talent as you’re mitigating your risk, and plumping up the list through the draft in the middle rounds.

TLR - I don’t think the draft is overrated, but I think individual draft picks are

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I get what the OP is saying - we as a football community tend to overate draft picks.

Speak for yourself.

The general assumption on Bigfooty, the way people talk about them, is that a first round pick is close to a guaranteed star, and a second round pick will get you a good player.

Again, speak for yourself.

If this was actually a view widely held, then it goes without saying that it is incorrect.

But the OP is going further than simply refuting magical thinking around draft picks. He is saying the draft is a lottery and clubs should therefore trade out early picks for established players in a heartbeat.

This completely overlooks the central role of draft picks in building successful teams.

 

[RedVest4]

Hey RedVest4 – if the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated and clubs should just go after established players, then how come you were so unhappy about Geelong's trade to get Zach Tuohy?

If the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated, then how come you said "the only player worth a first round pick on Hawthorn's list is Gunston and maaaaaybe Cyril"?

Remember, draft picks are overrated. Established players are more valuable. Right?

I wonder if the Hawthorn fans in this thread would have thought Breust or Smith or McEvoy were worth first-rounders as well? Luv_our_club Collins-Langford-Ayres Rusty Brookes

Sounds like you have some pretty flexible ideas about the value of draft picks.

Which of your various statements here would you like to reverse? Because they can't all be accurate.

I’ve lost track mate, you’ve replied to me and tagged me a combined 5 or 6 times and I think your melt has crashed the BigFooty servers

I get what the OP is saying - we as a football community tend to overate draft picks. The general assumption on Bigfooty, the way people talk about them, is that a first round pick is close to a guaranteed star, and a second round pick will get you a good player. The reality of history is these picks do not have a 100% strike rate, and in the first round alone it’s closer to half of that.

However, I also don’t think that building a list entirely by trading in players is sustainable either. As the OP mentioned, you’re looking to trade in established talent because you know what you’re getting. By the same token, the selling club knows what they are losing.

So let’s look at an example, you have pick 7 and pick 40 (randomly chosen).

Rory Sloane was originally drafted at pick 40 (maybe - I’m not looking it up).

However, if you want to trade for him, you’re more likely to have to use pick 7. You have a finite amount of pick 7s.

You could use pick 40 to trade for Aaron Mullett ... but do you really want to? So this pick, which is an early 3rd rounder, probably doesn’t help you build a contending.

Where I’m heading with this is generally speaking, established talent that you want will only be obtainable with earlier picks, but to fill a list you need to add more than 1-3 players per season. So trading in everyone is unsustainable

However, I do think there is an argument for trading away first round picks for high quality talent as you’re mitigating your risk, and plumping up the list through the draft in the middle rounds.

TLR - I don’t think the draft is overrated, but I think individual draft picks are

Yep this is basically all I’m saying but people are taking it out of context - draft picks are overrated

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I’ve lost track mate, you’ve replied to me and tagged me a combined 5 or 6 times and I think your melt has crashed the BigFooty servers

Nonsense.

If the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated and clubs should just go after established players, then how come you were so unhappy about Geelong's trade to get Zach Tuohy?

If the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated, then how come you said "the only player worth a first round pick on Hawthorn's list is Gunston and maaaaaybe Cyril"?

Explain the contradictions.

Yep this is basically all I’m saying but people are taking it out of context

More nonsense.

No one has taken anything out of context. People are disagreeing with stuff you said. What other context is there that people should consider?

 

[Burtman]

Not at all. I'm using the team you support as Exhibit A in refuting your central claims. That's very much on track.

Yeah, handy additions, no doubt. But the core was assembled through the draft, with pretty early picks. How can you dispute that?

I reckon Martin, Rance, Riewoldt and Cotchin were a pretty big part of the puzzle.

Their four best players were all taken with relatively early picks within a few years of each other.

Again, you need to rethink your argument.

To be fair rance, cotchin, Martin and riewoldt were there in 2016 and Richmond stank. Wasn’t until they bought the likes of nankervis, caddy and prestia that they became a good team. But in the end I definitely think it’s a mixture of both.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

To be fair rance, cotchin, Martin and riewoldt were there in 2016 and Richmond stank. Wasn’t until they bought the likes of nankervis, caddy and prestia that they became a good team. But in the end I definitely think it’s a mixture of both.

Who are their four best players and how were they brought to the club?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Surely any early potential delisting was more to do with attitude and behaviour, rather than talent or value to the club, though?

Scarlett became a regular player during his 3rd season (2000), was an International Rules representative in his 5th (2002), and All-Australian in his 6th and 7th seasons (2003-2004). It's not like he took an especially long time to become a serviceable AFL player, and vaulted up to very good/elite status perhaps a year or two earlier than you'd expect on a standard development timeline.

I was told this by Mick Turner when I happened to do a few little jobs at Falcons HQ. Was lucky to get drafted and nearly delisted after year two.
So to argue after the fact that he was among players we were lucky to get as F/S is revisionism. Turner also believes Ablett wouldn't have gone higher than the 20s as he too didn't take it too serious at the time.

 

[RedVest4]

Nonsense.

If the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated and clubs should just go after established players, then how come you were so unhappy about Geelong's trade to get Zach Tuohy?

If the draft is a lottery and picks are so overrated, then how come you said "the only player worth a first round pick on Hawthorn's list is Gunston and maaaaaybe Cyril"?

Explain the contradictions.

More nonsense.

No one has taken anything out of context. People are disagreeing with stuff you said. What other context is there that people should consider?

Have a breather mate, you’re melting...

All I’m saying is, 1 out of every 2 first round picks don’t live up to expectations, therefore I think everyone overrates draft picks...

 

[Burtman]

Who are their four best players and how were they brought to the club?

Through the draft, as I said it’s a mixture of both. Without those 4 they definitely don’t win. But without the guys they traded in they probably don’t win either. Those players had been around a long time and never got close to winning a premiership. apart from riewoldt (who was still great) they all had career best years, which I think partly can be contributed to the guys they traded in

 

[nahnah]

Don’t agree at all

 

[SilentHunter_]

Overrated my arse. The latest Dynasty in Hawthorn was built off a gun core received from the Draft itself. Just because clubs suck at nailing them doesn't mean it is 'overrated'. In regards to the Swans they build off the rookie list because they've had to in recent times and we don't want to drop off.

 

[RedVest4]

2004 Draft:

1 Brett Deledio
2 Jarryd Roughead
3 Ryan Griffin
4 Richard Tambling
5 Lance Franklin
6 Tom Williams
7 Jordan Lewis
8 John Meesen
9 Jordan Russell
10 Chris Egan
11 Adam Thomson
12 Danny Meyer
13 Matthew Bate
14 Angus Monfries
15 Lynden Dunn
16 Adam Pattison
17 Andrew McQualter
18 Cameron Wood
19 Ryan Willits

This time we have 9 out of 19 players who lived up to expectations.

Again looking at 1 in every 2...

 

[NorthernLights]

There is too much value put into draft picks and each year, teams get criticised for trading them away. The more I look at it though, the more I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players where you know what you’re going to get...

I’ve determined that 1 out of 2 first round picks lives up to expectations (I know this is a vague statement as expectation levels can differ depending on opinion).

I’ll show this with the first round of the 2001 “Super Draft”.

A tick will show a player who met expectations and a cross will show a player who did not meet expectations for that pick.

1 Luke Hodge
2 Luke Ball
3 Chris Judd
4 Graham Polak
5 Xavier Clarke
6 Ashley Sampi
7 David Hale
8 Jimmy Bartel
9 Luke Molan
10 Sam Power
11 Richard Cole
12 Brent Reilly
13 Nick Dal Santo
14 Ashley Watson
15 Barry Brooks
16 Rick Ladson
17 James Kelly
18 Shane Harvey
19 Jason Gram

9 out of 19 players met expectations showing it is close to 1 out of 2.

Points to note:

• Even if a player was plagued with injury, that’s still no excuse as they did not live up to expectations
• I’ve put slightly more expectation on higher first round picks (eg 1-5) as opposed to lower first round picks (eg 14-19)
• It’s easier to do this with later drafts where we already know how players careers went/are going

I’ll do this for other drafts as well.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Have a breather mate, you’re melting...

All I’m saying is, 1 out of every 2 first round picks don’t live up to expectations, therefore I think everyone overrates draft picks...

No, you've said more than that. You said the draft is a lottery and clubs should therefore be far more willing to trade early picks for established players.

But if that's true, then why were you were so unhappy about Geelong's trade to get Zach Tuohy?

Why did you say "the only player worth a first round pick on Hawthorn's list is Gunston and maaaaaybe Cyril"?

Explain the contradictions.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Through the draft, as I said it’s a mixture of both.

Their best four players all came from the draft. That is how you build a successful core.

 

[PhatBoy]

Let me paraphrse what I believe the original argument was supposed to sound at least a bit like:

The draft does matter because you have to get some youth into your squad. The number next to the pick you get, doesn’t.

 

[RedVest4]

Let me paraphrse what I believe the original argument was supposed to sound at least a bit like:

The draft does matter because you have to get some youth into your squad. The number next to the pick you get, doesn’t.

Yep this

Sweet Jesus what he said

 

[NorthernLights]

I’m reminded of a poignant Family Guy skit:

“Hold on Lois, a boat’s a boat but the mystery box could be anything. It could even by a boat, you know how much we’ve wanted one of those!”

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Let me paraphrse what I believe the original argument was supposed to sound at least a bit like

Why do you need to paraphrase when we can all read what the OP wrote?

The draft does matter because you have to get some youth into your squad. The number next to the pick you get, doesn’t.

OK cool. So can WC trade two third-rounders for Geelong's first-rounder this year?

Because the number next to the pick you get doesn't matter. That means two third-rounders are way better than a single first-rounder. Right?

Sweet Jesus what he said

It also made little sense.

Would you trade Geelong's first-rounder this season for Scott Lycett?

 

[PhatBoy]

Why do you need to paraphrase when we can all read what the OP wrote?

OK cool. So can WC trade two third-rounders for Geelong's first-rounder this year?

Because the number next to the pick you get doesn't matter. That means two third-rounders are way better than a single first-rounder. Right?

It also made little sense.

Would you trade Geelong's first-rounder this season for Scott Lycett?

Mathematically speaking, I believe you would have just as much chance of success with a well selected pair of low picks as you would for a single first rounder, absolutely. Third round? Perhaps not. But just consider some of the players who have stood out for Geelong of late. Kelly, Menegola, Stewart, Enright, Parfitt - there’s 5 off the top of my head who’ve been taken low, or in Kelly’s case 24 but as a well established player.

 

[master bate]

A lot of the draft is a lottery and one you don't see the full results for until many years are past. And the development, culture etc all play a massive role.

But it's also a weighted lottery towards the top picks. The numbers have been crunched and top picks play more games than later picks.

If a top pick is a ticket then it's one of those big lottery tickets with lots of number combinations, where a later pick is a cheap quick pick.

The more picks you have - particularly top ones - the better your winning chances.

Because winning the draft = nailing a bunch of high quality, home grown, well developed, strong club culture leaders and that's what every flag team has.

 

[LordLucifer]

There is too much value put into draft picks and each year, teams get criticised for trading them away. The more I look at it though, the more I think it is a smart move to trade away draft picks for established players where you know what you’re going to get...

Okay then, get the Cats to trade away all of their draft picks every year from now on if you feel so strongly about this.

Somehow I doubt they will listen to you.

 

[Benny78]

I'd rather clubs take turns picking names out of a hat than the current system. Ladder position would decide the order they go in.

It would do away with recruiters as well.

 

[go you pups]

Mathematically speaking, I believe you would have just as much chance of success with a well selected pair of low picks as you would for a single first rounder, absolutely. Third round? Perhaps not. But just consider some of the players who have stood out for Geelong of late. Kelly, Menegola, Stewart, Enright, Parfitt - there’s 5 off the top of my head who’ve been taken low, or in Kelly’s case 24 but as a well established player.

Parfitt and Kelly were both second rounders

Not much of a punt imo