The draft myth?

[Messenger]

The draft should be simple. Honestly, how hard is it to line it all up and base it upon ladder position? But no, the AFL have had to try and be too clever by half and introduce fluid and discretionary priority picks. I mean look at Hawthorn. Before any Hawks supporters get their knickers in a twist they should be commended for astute trading, and drafting. But Hodge and Roughead and to a lesser extent Ellis as priority picks is too much. When they nailed their picks around the priority picks, is it any wonder they are the juggernaut they are now. Particularly when the compromised drafts for the expansion clubs meant that no one could get access to high end talent.

The draft is fine ... If the AFL dont **** around with it and make things up on the go

Hawthorn got priority picks (and whiffed on a few others at that time) as per the rules, just as St Kilda, Collingwood, the Bulldogs in that era. But they didn't go back and ask for more as a special handout or complain about how well others were performing.

 

[Dom PC]

It's nothing like that at all.

If a group of clubs have a period of success the feeling seems to be we need to exclude them from free agency or, in a particularly peculiar suggestion, remove the draft and throw the perennially shit completely to the wolves.

How about bad teams make better choices?

You know someone has to finish at the bottom of the table right? The onfield (players) and off field (financial) situation of lowly clubs is always going to be worse than those of the top performing clubs. So to simply say bottom clubs should just be making "better choices" is a lazy and poor suggestion.

For me, something like restrictions (e.g. only being able to replace lost FA) for FA on top 4 teams would assist the cyclical competition we all want.

The draft is a system of equalisation, why not have that same equalisation principle on other forms of player movement?

 

[markr]

But Hodge and Roughead and to a lesser extent Ellis as priority picks is too much.

Hawthorn traded McPharlin and Croad to Freo for the Hodge draft pick.

 

[beta_condition]

The draft should be simple. Honestly, how hard is it to line it all up and base it upon ladder position? But no, the AFL have had to try and be too clever by half and introduce fluid and discretionary priority picks. I mean look at Hawthorn. Before any Hawks supporters get their knickers in a twist they should be commended for astute trading, and drafting. But Hodge and Roughead and to a lesser extent Ellis as priority picks is too much. When they nailed their picks around the priority picks, is it any wonder they are the juggernaut they are now. Particularly when the compromised drafts for the expansion clubs meant that no one could get access to high end talent.

Maybe if you got your information right no one would, Hodge was traded for giving up two 200 game KPD, Roughead again not sure why people can't understand this was not the priority, Franklin was. Hawthorn 2014 and 2015 Premiership teams didn't have a single priority pick.

 

[SumTingWong]

When you're picking 17/18 year olds it is always going to be a lottery. At least in the US they have played 3-4 years at college and you know what you are getting. We need to have an u/21 comp and then draft 21 year olds. This way there is no excuse for clubs picking rubbish with high draft picks.

 

[beta_condition]

You know someone has to finish at the bottom of the table right? The onfield (players) and off field (financial) situation of lowly clubs is always going to be worse than those of the top performing clubs. So to simply say bottom clubs should just be making "better choices" is a lazy and poor suggestion.

For me, something like restrictions (e.g. only being able to replace lost FA) for FA on top 4 teams would assist the cyclical competition we all want.

The draft is a system of equalisation, why not have that same equalisation principle on other forms of player movement?

I'd love if Free Agency didn't exist, gladly have Ellis, Young, Brown, Murphy, Franklin, Suckling back.

 

[Messenger]

You know someone has to finish at the bottom of the table right? The onfield (players) and off field (financial) situation of lowly clubs is always going to be worse than those of the top performing clubs. So to simply say bottom clubs should just be making "better choices" is a lazy and poor suggestion.

It's a solution looking for a problem to fix. As you so astutely point out, someone has to be last. If a group of clubs gets to the top, it makes some sense that given a few other variables going their way (luck, injuries) that they will be in the hunt for a period of time. It does, inevitably, finish. It did for Brisbane, it did for Geelong and it shall for Hawthorn.

What is "lazy" is looking for some contrivance to "even up" a competition that doesn't need it. Clubs need to fix themselves.

For me, something like restrictions (e.g. only being able to replace lost FA) for FA on top 4 teams would assist the cyclical competition we all want.

What is the logic of that? Finish fourth one season when the right player comes on the market for your team and an artificial line prohibits you from engaging in an activity 14 other clubs can engage in? It's utter tripe.

The draft is a system of equalisation, why not have that same equalisation principle on other forms of player movement?

Like Mitch Clark choosing Melbourne? Or Jake Carlisle going to St Kilda?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

The game isn't unequal as it allows everyone a chance but a bit too prone to dynasties. You always have a situation now where each grand final contains at least one team from the previous one.

Since 2000 only 3 times has this not occurred, whereas in the NFL, it has happened 12 times. So the NFL is doing something right. If you are good enough to be the Patriots, you can be, but they don't suffer through one dynastic period to the next.

Even in the decade of the 90s, including the year 2000, you had West Coast, Kangas, Essendon, Carlton, Geelong play in 3 grand finals and Adelaide go back to back, but we still got fresh grand final matches in 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97 and 2000 from the year before.

Since 2001 there were completely fresh matches only in 2005, 2007 and 2012.

 

[Messenger]

The game isn't unequal as it allows everyone a chance but a bit too prone to dynasties. You always have a situation now where each grand final contains at least one team from the previous one.

Since 2000 only 3 times has this not occurred, whereas in the NFL, it has happened 12 times. So the NFL is doing something right. If you are good enough to be the Patriots, you can be, but they don't suffer through one dynastic period to the next.

Even in the decade of the 90s, including the year 2000, you had West Coast, Kangas, Essendon, Carlton, Geelong play in 3 grand finals and Adelaide go back to back, but we still got fresh grand final matches in 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97 and 2000 from the year before.

Since 2001 there were completely fresh matches only in 2005, 2007 and 2012.

Four of the five prelims Hawthorn have played in (2011-15) have been decided by less than a goal. More luck than dynasty.

 

[cryptor]

Since 2000 the AFL have had

Essendon
Brisbane
Port Adelaide
Sydney
West Coast
Geelong
Hawthorn
Collingwood

win the flag and to be honest that really is not a lot of clubs for 16 years. Even worse if you only consider since 2007 as then you only have

Geelong
Hawthorn
Collingwood
Sydney

so 4 teams winning the flag in 9 years is pitiful.

8 different teams over a 15 year period. Without actually checking I would think that would be on par or better than most 15 year periods throughout the history of the game - even adjusting for less teams in the comp in the pre-national comp.

 

[adammania9]

Whether we like it or bot, the draft is going to be gone soon. Not sure when, but it's very predictable. Academies are the future of player recruitment, so is free agency and zones.

I don't think clubs will benefit any less than they are with the draft. It's only stall in my eyes is how the northern clubs will fare.

 

[JackOutback]

You're assuming every club makes good draft selections, have an equal capability to develop that talent and are equally well coached.

The question I'd ask is how can some clubs continue to fail with a cavalcade of high draft picks?

While that obviously plays a role, in this professional age, is it likely that so many clubs are continually incompetent?

There's a lot of skill and luck that goes into winning premierships, but the small number of clubs that have won premierships, the lack of fresh grand final match-ups etc, does seem to suggest equalisation is not working out quite as expected.

 

[Elvis]

Maybe if you got your information right no one would, Hodge was traded for giving up two 200 game KPD, Roughead again not sure why people can't understand this was not the priority, Franklin was. Hawthorn 2014 and 2015 Premiership teams didn't have a single priority pick.

It was entirely predictable that Hawthorn supporters would get defensive. I am not having a crack at Hawks, and by God do I love to ... though lately it's fair to say I don't have much legs stand upon! Hawthorn took advantage of the rules and system in play at the time. Fair play to em.

Oh, and Roughead was the priority pick. At the time he was drafted, the rules were that priority picks were used "Prior" to the first round, so this means that your priority pick was the first guy selected. So just as Roughead is the priority pick, so was deledio, and so was griffin. And then came the tambling, buddy and williams.

Later on, the rules were amended so that priority picks would be taken between the first and second round, which again goes to my point of the AFL making things up as they go.

 

[beta_condition]

It was entirely predictable that Hawthorn supporters would get defensive. I am not having a crack at Hawks, and by God do I love to ... though lately it's fair to say I don't have much legs stand upon! Hawthorn took advantage of the rules and system in play at the time. Fair play to em.

Oh, and Roughead was the priority pick. At the time he was drafted, the rules were that priority picks were used "Prior" to the first round, so this means that your priority pick was the first guy selected. So just as Roughead is the priority pick, so was deledio, and so was griffin. And then came the tambling, buddy and williams.

I'm not being defensive I'm correctly your misinformation, I mean Hawthorn really took advantage of smart trading to land Hodge. If the priority pick didn't exist in 2004 we would still have landed Roughead with our first pick you see how that works?? Also I should note Hawthorn had picks 2,5,7 that year if the priority pick didn't exist we would of had 2 and 4 and still landed Franklin and Roughead.

 

[cryptor]

It was entirely predictable that Hawthorn supporters would get defensive. I am not having a crack at Hawks, and by God do I love to ... though lately it's fair to say I don't have much legs stand upon! Hawthorn took advantage of the rules and system in play at the time. Fair play to em.

Oh, and Roughead was the priority pick. At the time he was drafted, the rules were that priority picks were used "Prior" to the first round, so this means that your priority pick was the first guy selected. So just as Roughead is the priority pick, so was deledio, and so was griffin. And then came the tambling, buddy and williams.

Later on, the rules were amended so that priority picks would be taken between the first and second round, which again goes to my point of the AFL making things up as they go.

Roughead was our first pick in that draft. We always had pick 2 regardless of the priority pick system. Remove the priority pick and we'd likely still have picked up Roughead first and simply missed out on Franklin. Though potentially others may have still been to wary of picking him up and we'd have got him at the pick we got Lewis at and missed out on him instead.

Edit- just beaten!

 

[master bate]

The draft isn't to blame. It's mucking it up that's to blame with priority picks and then new teams, father son concessions and so on.

Ideally the AFL would have more free agency which in an open market could even things up as well but this issue is expanded free agency is likely going to favour certain clubs.

The truly open market on NRL free agency works very well because clubs are dumb and greedy. They don't focus on building up with youth and the best run clubs can easily become the worst run clubs. See Manly of late. I don't think you'd get that at the AFL level. Players will still sacrifice too much to go to the best run clubs for success.

NRL players often have offers from around the world as well as the potential to switch codes (or even games in the case of Hayne) so there's a more robust market.

Things should start to even up more in the AFL in the coming years now that the GWS and Gold Coast concessions are started to even out and hopefully teams follow the lead of someone like Sydney who never had a full rebuild or North who have followed a quick rebuild and aren't holding back now, they are going for a flag short term, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Elvis]

I'm struggling to see where I am misinformed.

To the Hodge part ... I am aware of what you gave up to Freo. Would Freo have traded their priority pick to you if they didn't have what turned out to be the Polak pick? I mean that's really unanswerable but the AFL allocated to Freo that priority pick that Hawks traded into. and selected Hodge. Great get for you guys.

To your second point, yes you would have got Roughead. But you then wouldnt have got Buddy and Lewis. It is the priority pick that I contend is not fair, and especially when the AFL change rules about how it is allocated. It has nothing to do with Hawthorn ... but using the Hawks and the success they have does add a certain gravitas to my point. I could have easily picked Richmond, or Dogs, or Saints, or Freo. Hawks did brilliantly with the rules of the time, its just that the rules were changed as years went along.

 

[beta_condition]

I'm struggling to see where I am misinformed.

To the Hodge part ... I am aware of what you gave up to Freo. Would Freo have traded their priority pick to you if they didn't have what turned out to be the Polak pick? I mean that's really unanswerable but the AFL allocated to Freo that priority pick that Hawks traded into. and selected Hodge. Great get for you guys.

To your second point, yes you would have got Roughead. But you then wouldnt have got Buddy and Lewis. It is the priority pick that I contend is not fair, and especially when the AFL change rules about how it is allocated. It has nothing to do with Hawthorn ... but using the Hawks and the success they have does add a certain gravitas to my point. I could have easily picked Richmond, or Dogs, or Saints, or Freo. Hawks did brilliantly with the rules of the time, its just that the rules were changed as years went along.

But that's the thing Hawthorn 2014 and 2015 team had no priority picks, you can't base Hawthorn current success off them.

 

[Debris]

The draft isn't to blame. It's mucking it up that's to blame with priority picks and then new teams, father son concessions and so on.

Ideally the AFL would have more free agency which in an open market could even things up as well but this issue is expanded free agency is likely going to favour certain clubs.

The truly open market on NRL free agency works very well because clubs are dumb and greedy. They don't focus on building up with youth and the best run clubs can easily become the worst run clubs. See Manly of late. I don't think you'd get that at the AFL level. Players will still sacrifice too much to go to the best run clubs for success.

NRL players often have offers from around the world as well as the potential to switch codes (or even games in the case of Hayne) so there's a more robust market.

Things should start to even up more in the AFL in the coming years now that the GWS and Gold Coast concessions are started to even out and hopefully teams follow the lead of someone like Sydney who never had a full rebuild or North who have followed a quick rebuild and aren't holding back now, they are going for a flag short term, rightly or wrongly.

Essendon? Carlton?

 

[Mitchell54]

Along with a lower salary floor

Lower Salary floor!! We need it. Take it down to 85%

 

[Elvis]

But that's the thing Hawthorn 2014 and 2015 team had no priority picks, you can't base Hawthorn current success off them.

Hodge was a priority pick. Roughead was a priority pick. I don't think you are grasping that. And I don't know I can explain this to you more simply. Yes you had to trade into Freo to get that priority pick from them but it is still a priority pick.

I am not basing Hawthorns success on priority picks at all. Hawks have done everything you would want from a team as the system in play at the time allowed.

To give another example of priority picks, my team were entitled to one in the 2006 draft. But the rules were changed by the AFL for that draft to move priority picks to after the end of the first round. So we picked Gumbleton with our first pick at 2. And then with our priority pick we selected Leroy Jetta. I should be salty because of the players involved, but the AFL were mucking around with the rules as to how priority picks were allocated. If the rules werent changed, then I might be watching Boak, or Selwood or Jack Riewoldt running around in the red and black.

 

[JackOutback]

Hodge was a priority pick. Roughead was a priority pick. I don't think you are grasping that. And I don't know I can explain this to you more simply. Yes you had to trade into Freo to get that priority pick from them but it is still a priority pick.

I am not basing Hawthorns success on priority picks at all. Hawks have done everything you would want from a team as the system in play at the time allowed.

To give another example of priority picks, my team were entitled to one in the 2006 draft. But the rules were changed by the AFL for that draft to move priority picks to after the end of the first round. So we picked Gumbleton with our first pick at 2. And then with our priority pick we selected Leroy Jetta. I should be salty because of the players involved, but the AFL were mucking around with the rules as to how priority picks were allocated. If the rules werent changed, then I might be watching Boak, or Selwood or Jack Riewoldt running around in the red and black.

Maybe, but not this year

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Hodge was a priority pick.

Incorrect. Hodge was the National No.1 pick. Fremantle traded No.1 pick for Trent Croad and Luke McPharlin.

 

[Messenger]

While that obviously plays a role, in this professional age, is it likely that so many clubs are continually incompetent?

There's a lot of skill and luck that goes into winning premierships, but the small number of clubs that have won premierships, the lack of fresh grand final match-ups etc, does seem to suggest equalisation is not working out quite as expected.

That's fair. I'd suggest it isn't "broken" and that if we want clubs to get better then continually manipulating the system to achieve an expected outcome is likely to fail.

 

[JackOutback]

That's fair. I'd suggest it isn't "broken" and that if we want clubs to get better then continually manipulating the system to achieve an expected outcome is likely to fail.

Yes, I don't think the system is inherently broken, I just know that something's not quite working as they hoped. That said, in professional sport, with every team looking to gain a marginal edge, I doubt it could ever work as they hope. It's still better than, say, the Premier League of the late '90s, early 2000s where only two (or maybe three) teams could ever win.