Weak Drafts

[Ants]

Reading this forum, I'm not sure if people really remember what a weak draft looks like, and how rare good players are to come out of it. Personally, I think no matter what GC is going to do, if you can trade a pick for a quality player, you'd be mad not to.

So, the way things are going, the team finishing 8th will have pick #11. So in the last three "weak" drafts, what was on the table?
Note: some may argue me putting injured players into "maybe". But it happens, and if they can't play it still affects what came out of the draft.

2004
After pick #10 another 60 players went. 55 ignoring the five F/S selections. So who of quality was there to be snapped up with pick #11?
Bate, Monfries, Van Berlo, Rosa?, LeCras, Prismall, Chris Knights.
There are also some unproven guys such as Wood, Pattison, Rusling, Maric, H. Slattery, Simon Taylor, M. Egan.
So 7 decent players out of 55, and another 7 who may make it. 4 of them (including 2 maybes) in picks 11 => 20.

2003
After pick #10 another 60 players went, same as 2004. 54 ignoring the six(!) F/S selections. So who of quality was there to be snapped up with pick #11?
Stanton, Chaplin, Symes, Adcock, Dawson, Buchannan, S. Fisher, D. Jackson,
There are also some unproven guys such as Waters, Mundy, Butler, Dyson, Rischitelli.
So 8 decent players out of 54, and another 5 who may make it. 5 of them (including 3 maybes) in picks 11 => 20.

2002
After pick #10 another 59 players went. 55 ignoring the four F/S selections. So who of quality was there to be snapped up with pick #11?
Schammer, A. Selwood, W. Minson, Merrett, K. Simpson,
There are also some unproven guys such as Winderlich, T. Selwood, S. Gilham, Rivers, Malceski, B. Fisher, C. Cloke (thought he was F/S?).
So 5 decent players out of 55, and another 7 who may make it. 5 of them (including 2 maybes) in picks 11 => 20.

Looking at those lists, it indicates hitting a player is about a 1 in 4 chance with each pick, with a lot of those players hardly being too much more than decent players. If you just take the guys we're certain about, it drops to 1 in 7 or 8. The odds are better for the remaining top 20 picks, but still about 50% or less.

I mean, which injury free "top" players came out of that set of 150 odd? Sam Fisher, Stanton, Chaplin, D. Jackson, Prismall, Knights and LeCras. Not great out of 150 picks.

 

[Daics35Marvel]

Were these drafts considered weak only in hindsight or was it generally accepted going in that the depth of talent was pretty shallow?

Going back a further year, to the 2001 super draft, it's amazing how many gems were picked up late:
13: Nick Dal Santo
16: Rick Ladson
17; James Kelly
24: Steve Johnson
32: Campbell Brown
36: Sam Mitchell
37: Leigh Montagna
56: Paul Medhurst
58: Dane Swan
60: Adam Schneider

 

[Vader]

Another trait of weak draft years is that clubs are more willing to part with players & selections, making trade week considerably busier.

Here are the number of players traded over the last decade:
2008 : 6 (super draft)
2007: 20 (weakish draft)
2006: 9 (super draft)
2005: 12
2004: 17 (weak draft)
2003: 24 (weak draft)
2002: 25 (weak draft)
2001: 29 (super draft)
2000: 33
1999: 27

You can add 2007 to your list of weak drafts. The first round has been pretty good, but things drop away considerably after that. It's a bit difficult after just 1 1/2 years to predict who will & won't make it, but the perception at the time was that it wasn't a strong draft - which is why most teams (other than Adelaide) limited their exposure to it as much as possible.

Two patterns here... Firstly, the number of trades in general are diminishing as clubs opt to develop their own players rather than trading for players already rejected by one (or more) club(s).

Secondly, with the exception of 2001 (when the trading culture was still raging), strong drafts have corresponded with weak trade periods and vice versa.

My bet is that we can expect around 20-25 players to be traded during trade week this year, a massive increase on the 6 players traded last year (in the last superdraft before the expansion induced drought).

 

[Ants]

Were these drafts considered weak only in hindsight or was it generally accepted going in that the depth of talent was pretty shallow?

I'm pretty sure with 2004, and I think so with the others (it was before I started keeping track). 2000 was also I think considered weak, so I can look at that one later as well.

2005 & 2007 were considered reasonable, with good early picks but then falling away considerably.

 

[yaco55]

I am unsure about the weakest draft, but the three strongest drafts are 1994, 1999 and 2001.

 

[Ants]

I am unsure about the weakest draft, but the three strongest drafts are 1994, 1999 and 2001.

2008 is looking scarily good, and was pretty rated pre-draft.

Ironically 2006 which was heavily rated pre-draft hasn't done so well. But 11 of the top 16 picks were talls, so you'd expect it to take a bit longer.

 

[yaco55]

2008 is looking scarily good, and was pretty rated pre-draft.

Ironically 2006 which was heavily rated pre-draft hasn't done so well. But 11 of the top 16 picks were talls, so you'd expect it to take a bit longer.

Agree about 2008.

It seems that the top 10 from the 2008 ND are considerable better that the top 10 from the 2007 ND.