West Coast priority pick 2026

[Yoda_]

You're doing it wrong man, knee jerk reactions are all the rage these days.

Jack Riewoldt, Jay Clark, Jon Ralph, Kane Cornes, Damian Barrett, Matthew Lloyd all agree

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

What a terrible take. The best players go to the worst clubs, that's how the draft is meant to work.

Why? Is there no responsibility on clubs to provide adequate development programs for talented young players? Do clubs have no duty of care for the careers of the players that didn't choose them?

I have no problem with the top picks going to the bottom teams. They should. However, the priority picks simply reward poor list management and player development.

 

[Purple Suit]

Why? Is there no responsibility on clubs to provide adequate development programs for talented young players? Do clubs have no duty of care for the careers of the players that didn't choose them?

I have no problem with the top picks going to the bottom teams. They should. However, the priority picks simply reward poor list management and player development.

Strip back everything and I would agree. No academies, no f/s, no priority picks, no free agency compo. Enforced salary caps, soft caps and side deals. I recon we end up with a better system and fairer than we have now.

 

[txbyhull]

Why? Is there no responsibility on clubs to provide adequate development programs for talented young players? Do clubs have no duty of care for the careers of the players that didn't choose them?

I have no problem with the top picks going to the bottom teams. They should. However, the priority picks simply reward poor list management and player development.

should let us spend the money we have instead of making us prop up the expansion clubs and the rest of the league then?

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

should let us spend the money we have instead of making us prop up the expansion clubs and the rest of the league then?

Should be a salary cap, but no soft cap I agree.

 

[Obeanie1]

Why? Is there no responsibility on clubs to provide adequate development programs for talented young players? Do clubs have no duty of care for the careers of the players that didn't choose them?

I have no problem with the top picks going to the bottom teams. They should. However, the priority picks simply reward poor list management and player development.

That is an incredibly simplistic and flawed arguement.

How much development did Collingwood put into Daicos after he was drafted?

The priority pick system is needed because the AFL are allowing top sides playing finals regularly and some winning flags to jump the que at the expense of clubs rebuilding with no luck with father sons and no full state academy to help.

You cannot keep assisting successful sides who dont need the help and not balance the ledger some way.

You do get that dont you?

Thats why many Eagles fans are happy to get no assistance.......as long as other teams who dont need help stop getting assistance. Which the AFL wont do.

So here we are.

 

[Obeanie1]

While it’s very obvious Geelong are the kings of this with a diplomatic immunity card, Simmo owning 2 Hungry Jacks stores still seems very sus to me. In the end WC got ripped off with that one and they probably used the “extra” soft cap to pay for staff like Trevor Nisbetts son.

You do realise you have to purchase a HJ franchise.

Its just you need to jump the que somehow to get one.

Simo paid for the franchise. The club links to HJs got him access to buying one....or two.

You believe HJs gives away franchises for free?

 

[Obeanie1]

I have no doubt he didn't pay money and it wouldn't have been on the same scale as a Geelong farmland opportunity but I also recon he got looked after by the major sponsor.

Supply v demand.

I can afford to borrow the money and buy one.

He jumped the que because of HJs being a sponsor. The club introduced a preferred investor. Simo invested in HJs because of the clubs relationship with their major sponsor.

 

[Cleric]

The AFL introduced the system, not the clubs. If WC or (Bris, GC, North...) don't ask, they don't get.

The reality is that the system we had prior to 2006 is the best incarnation to date.

Hawthorn 2004/5 -> flag 2008 + 2013-15
Collingwood 2005 -> flag 2010 + 2023
WC 2001 -> flag 2006 + 2018 if you want to extrapolate Judd -> Kennedy
WB 2003/04 -> prelim finalist in a strong era 2008-10
St Kilda 2000/01 -> grand finalist in a strong era 2009/10

Carlton were competitive and Melbourne & Richmond ****ed it up the first time around then built success from Cotchin, Martin, Brayshaw, Petracca etc.

The "handout" system worked because the teams at the bottom got early picks and before too long were no longer on the bottom. Which is the point, isn't it? Hawthorn picked up Franklin and Roughead in 2004 (and Lewis but that was from a trade), then Ellis and Dowler in 2005, then in 2006 they had pick 6 after winning 9 games (these days that would be 10-15) and took Mitch Thorp. After that they had pick 9 in 2009 then then their next top 10 pick wasn't until 2017. Some pretty handy players were drafted in the years they were making grand finals.

The idea that WC could be like Gold Coast in 2019 and be given pick 2 to go with pick 1 now is just silly. We've already been through the pain of being dogshit for a couple of years and have a young and inexperienced team with some top 5 picks in it. If we had another top 10 player from 2022 or 2023 then you might see a difference. Another 18 year old is really just a free kick down the track if it turns out we drafted well over the last few years.

The AFL were so focused on the optics of teams "trying to lose" that they created a comp where teams are anchored to the bottom for years at a time and top 5 picks go to teams making grand finals instead. Well done, sirs.

But then another problem was created. Those teams that bottomed out got the creme of the kids and rebounded to the top. You also had a group of clubs in the middle of the table who didn't get the creme, and sat treading water between 6-14 on ladder, leading to a decade of mediocrity.

So clubs that did their best, didnt bottom out paid the price.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

That is an incredibly simplistic and flawed arguement.

How much development did Collingwood put into Daicos after he was drafted?

The priority pick system is needed because the AFL are allowing top sides playing finals regularly and some winning flags to jump the que at the expense of clubs rebuilding with no luck with father sons and no full state academy to help.

You cannot keep assisting successful sides who dont need the help and not balance the ledger some way.

You do get that dont you?

Thats why many Eagles fans are happy to get no assistance.......as long as other teams who dont need help stop getting assistance. Which the AFL wont do.

So here we are.

It's a lot less flawed than "you have Daicos", when he's the only high pick we've had in several years.

It was only a few years ago we had to trade out Treloar, Stephenson and Grundy for chips, having to pay their salaries for years to play for other clubs. No high picks, "headed for the cliff", they said. Instead, we made bold list management decisions and developed our lesser known player list into a premiership team. We struck gold with Daicos, sure, but we don't get concessions like Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast do.

Since beating Collingwood by less than a kick in the 2018 Grand Final, West Coast have taken the following Top 30 picks.

1, 1, 4, 9, 14, 14, 16, 19, 23, 28, 29, 29, 30, 30.

That's more than we've had in the last 20 years. Yet, we've remained successful, winning a flag and making three further prelims, and despite the doom and gloom around the club right now (again), we'll find a way to remain competitive even though we'll continue to play the best sides twice every year rather than once, regardless of ladder position. We'll dip here and there, sure, but we won't languish.

Thinking that a mountain of high draft picks is the key to the promised land, just because Brisbane have managed it, is "an incredibly simplistic and flawed argument", as you put it. Brisbane is a very well run club.

 

[garlic munchers]

It's a lot less flawed than "you have Daicos", when he's the only high pick we've had in several years.

It was only a few years ago we had to trade out Treloar, Stephenson and Grundy for chips, having to pay their salaries for years to play for other clubs. No high picks, "headed for the cliff", they said. Instead, we made bold list management decisions and developed our lesser known player list into a premiership team. We struck gold with Daicos, sure, but we don't get concessions like Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast do.

Since beating Collingwood by less than a kick in the 2018 Grand Final, West Coast have taken the following Top 30 picks.

1, 1, 4, 9, 14, 14, 16, 19, 23, 28, 29, 29, 30, 30.

That's more than we've had in the last 20 years. Yet, we've remained successful, winning a flag and making two prelims, and despite the doom and gloom around the club right now (again), we'll find a way to remain competitive even though we'll continue to play the best sides twice every year rather than once, regardless of ladder position. We'll dip here and there, sure, but we won't languish.

Thinking that a mountain of high draft picks is the key to the promised land, just because Brisbane have managed it, is "an incredibly simplistic and flawed argument", as you put it. Brisbane is a very well run club.

Also a little flawed when you reference the last 20 years of picks to say you don't languish in comparison.

How's about we revisit this in 2028, rather than highlight picks 1 (2023 draft and 40 games), 1 (2025 =1 game) and 4 (2025 = 1 game) now.

Add in another WC pick 1 or 2 and sure, if we are still languishing then, happy to take the licks.

And hey, if you can turn around an average Rd 1 age of 25.6 years without 'languishing' all power to you.

But you may want to sign up a certain out of contract superstar and get a fwd line........just saying.

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

It's a lot less flawed than "you have Daicos", when he's the only high pick we've had in several years.

It was only a few years ago we had to trade out Treloar, Stephenson and Grundy for chips, having to pay their salaries for years to play for other clubs. No high picks, "headed for the cliff", they said. Instead, we made bold list management decisions and developed our lesser known player list into a premiership team. We struck gold with Daicos, sure, but we don't get concessions like Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast do.

Since beating Collingwood by less than a kick in the 2018 Grand Final, West Coast have taken the following Top 30 picks.

1, 1, 4, 9, 14, 14, 16, 19, 23, 28, 29, 29, 30, 30.

That's more than we've had in the last 20 years. Yet, we've remained successful, winning a flag and making three further prelims, and despite the doom and gloom around the club right now (again), we'll find a way to remain competitive even though we'll continue to play the best sides twice every year rather than once, regardless of ladder position. We'll dip here and there, sure, but we won't languish.

Thinking that a mountain of high draft picks is the key to the promised land, just because Brisbane have managed it, is "an incredibly simplistic and flawed argument", as you put it. Brisbane is a very well run club.

Jeez, cry more. That's only 14 picks in the top 30 - if you've had less than that in 20 years it's entirely the club's decision as it requires trading out picks.

14 top 30 picks in 8 drafts is the expected number given our results. The real issue is when shit like winning the spoon and having your second rounder blow out to 30 happens.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Jeez, cry more. That's only 14 picks in the top 30 - if you've had less than that in 20 years it's entirely the club's decision as it requires trading out picks.

14 top 30 picks in 8 drafts is the expected number given our results. The real issue is when shit like winning the spoon and having your second rounder blow out to 30 happens.

I'm not crying, my club is going fine. Collingwood's list management decisions have clearly worked and West Coast have traded away high picks too. Every club does. West Coast have clearly had a much better draft hand than Collingwood, however.

It was also only 4 or 5 posts ago that I said that West Coast will also be fine because of the kind of club that it is. I like West Coast, my second team. Always have been.

What I'm saying is that a large number of priority picks doesn't usually improve clubs. The clubs that need them almost always have deep structural issues and are poor at developing players. You don't want your club to become one of those clubs.

I agree that there are structural issues that work against you. Gold Coast, Greater Western Sydney, Sydney and Brisbane have a clear competitive advantage, but they have that advantage over 14 clubs - not just West Coast.

However, West Coast haven't finished above 16th in the last 4 completed seasons. They will almost certainly finish bottom two this season.

The Eagles' position right now has very little to do with the unfairness of the draft system. The results have not been anywhere near good enough for a large and successful club. If the people in charge of your club start to think otherwise, then you are in for a long period of pain.

All that aside, this whole conversation started because I said that the system is trashing the early careers of young aspiring footballers being forced to play in poor programs and missing out on the development that the well run clubs offer. West Coast might not do this to players, but the priority pick system does this to players. Because it loads them up at clubs that perennially fail...and perennially fail them. The system needs to do better as incentivising good development of young talents.

 

[Obeanie1]

It's a lot less flawed than "you have Daicos", when he's the only high pick we've had in several years.

It was only a few years ago we had to trade out Treloar, Stephenson and Grundy for chips, having to pay their salaries for years to play for other clubs. No high picks, "headed for the cliff", they said. Instead, we made bold list management decisions and developed our lesser known player list into a premiership team. We struck gold with Daicos, sure, but we don't get concessions like Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast do.

Since beating Collingwood by less than a kick in the 2018 Grand Final, West Coast have taken the following Top 30 picks.

1, 1, 4, 9, 14, 14, 16, 19, 23, 28, 29, 29, 30, 30.

That's more than we've had in the last 20 years. Yet, we've remained successful, winning a flag and making three further prelims, and despite the doom and gloom around the club right now (again), we'll find a way to remain competitive even though we'll continue to play the best sides twice every year rather than once, regardless of ladder position. We'll dip here and there, sure, but we won't languish.

Thinking that a mountain of high draft picks is the key to the promised land, just because Brisbane have managed it, is "an incredibly simplistic and flawed argument", as you put it. Brisbane is a very well run club.

The Diacos point was he was a 98% finished product when drafted.

8nstantely one of the Pies top 10 players. No development required.

Collingwood has stated the draft is broken and look at trades for read made players. Again, no development required when they trade in ready made players.

Eagles dont have that luxury of having multiple quality players wanting to move West. Hundreds of players 8n Melbourne happy to move to a big club and not relocate.

So one club really doesnt focus its picks on drafting kids, they trade in players developed by other clubs.

And the Eagles have always needed to take the opposite approach, build and develop kids and through the draft. Which takes time and patience.

So no, Collingwood are not better at player development, they just dont need to develop as mny kids as their strategy is buy ready made players at a significantly higher rate than the Eagles traditionally do.

Thats the reality.

Lets see in 5 years who's better. The Eagles kids hitting their mid 20s and 100 plus games or the next batch of Collingwood players traded in..

 

[Obeanie1]

I'm not crying, my club is going fine. Collingwood's list management decisions have clearly worked and West Coast have traded away high picks too. Every club does. West Coast have clearly had a much better draft hand than Collingwood, however.

It was also only 4 or 5 posts ago that I said that West Coast will also be fine because of the kind of club that it is. I like West Coast, my second team. Always have been.

What I'm saying is that a large number of priority picks doesn't usually improve clubs. The clubs that need them almost always have deep structural issues and are poor at developing players. You don't want your club to become one of those clubs.

I agree that there are structural issues that work against you. Gold Coast, Greater Western Sydney, Sydney and Brisbane have a clear competitive advantage, but they have that advantage over 14 clubs - not just West Coast.

However, West Coast haven't finished above 16th in the last 4 completed seasons. They will almost certainly finish bottom two this season.

The Eagles' position right now has very little to do with the unfairness of the draft system. The results have not been anywhere near good enough for a large and successful club. If the people in charge of your club start to think otherwise, then you are in for a long period of pain.

All that aside, this whole conversation started because I said that the system is trashing the early careers of young aspiring footballers being forced to play in poor programs and missing out on the development that the well run clubs offer. West Coast might not do this to players, but the priority pick system does this to players. Because it loads them up at clubs that perennially fail...and perennially fail them. The system needs to do better as incentivising good development of young talents.

Pies strategy focuses on trading in experience so it doesnt need to focus as much developing kids. Its your clubs streategy and it works because they are based in Melbourne, the most active trade market and destination.

Eagles do not have that natural advantage being in Perth. The Eagles have always " built through the draft"".

Both clubs have enjoyed recent success.

But to question how the Eagles are rebuiidng and its unfair on kids being drafted there to deveop holds no substance or relevance. Its a moot point.

Pies chase instant gratification and sustained success, because they can, because of where they operate.

The Eagles need to be more patient and build slowly developing kids via the draft. History has shown that and borh clubs have explained their strategies..

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yeah, I know carlton were bad for a few years, but wasn't that flow on effects from the salary cap breach? And even then it was only three years, compared to the five north have had and that west coast will likely rack up this year.

You also didn't have top draft picks going to top teams under academies and rarely under father/sons.

 

[Obeanie1]

You also didn't have top draft picks going to top teams under academies and rarely under father/sons.

Carlton also stopped with the brown paper bags.

And modernised and upgraded to cardboard boxes full of cash.

And then the AFL closed that loophole. After buying Juddy. Which didnt deliver a flag anyway.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Pies strategy focuses on trading in experience so it doesnt need to focus as much developing kids. Its your clubs streategy and it works because they are based in Melbourne, the most active trade market and destination.

Eagles do not have that natural advantage being in Perth. The Eagles have always " built through the draft"".

Both clubs have enjoyed recent success.

But to question how the Eagles are rebuiidng and its unfair on kids being drafted there to deveop holds no substance or relevance. Its a moot point.

Pies chase instant gratification and sustained success, because they can, because of where they operate.

The Eagles need to be more patient and build slowly developing kids via the draft. History has shown that and borh clubs have explained their strategies..

In the 2018 Grand Final, West Coast selected 7 players originally recruited by other AFL clubs, Collingwood 9.

In Round 1, 2026, West Coast selected 7 players originally recruited by other AFL clubs, Collingwood 10.

So although Collingwood is slightly above, it's pretty marginal and it certainly doesn't evidence a significant difference in recruiting strategy. In both cases, 8 years ago and now, the majority of players selected by both teams were 'home grown', with both clubs on both occasions selecting a good number of players recruited from elsewhere.

It would appear you're talking rubbish...

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

In the 2018 Grand Final, West Coast selected 7 players originally recruited by other AFL clubs, Collingwood 9.

In Round 1, 2026, West Coast selected 7 players originally recruited by other AFL clubs, Collingwood 10.

So although Collingwood is slightly above, it's pretty marginal and it certainly doesn't evidence a significant difference in recruiting strategy. In both cases, 8 years ago and now, the majority of players selected by both teams were 'home grown', with both clubs on both occasions selecting a good number of players recruited from elsewhere.

It would appear you're talking rubbish...

I wouldn't really call 28-42% higher "slightly above", but you do you.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

I wouldn't really call 28-42% higher "slightly above", but you do you.

When a difference of 14% is being used as evidence that one club builds through the draft and the other does not (which is the claim that was refuted), the difference is absolutely a slight one. Context matters, but you do you.

Your maths is also wrong. It's 30.4% - 43.4%, so a 13% difference. Either way, not evidence of a significant difference in strategy.

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

When a difference of 14% is being used as evidence that one club builds through the draft and the other does not (which is the claim that was refuted), the difference is absolutely a slight one. Context matters, but you do you.

No, as in you are 28-42% above us in terms of the number of traded players. I'd say both are a significant difference.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

No, as in you are 28-42% above us in terms of the number of traded players. I'd say both are a significant difference.

Your maths is wrong, and are you saying that a 13% difference in 'unoriginal' players is evidence of a significant difference in recruiting strategy? That's what was claimed, and is what I was calling rubbish.

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

Your maths is wrong, and are you saying that a 13% difference is evidence of a significant difference in recruiting strategy? That's what was claimed, and is what I was calling rubbish.

No, you've misunderstood what I'm saying.

2018 gf, we had 7 to your 9. 9/7=1.2857, ie 28.57% more traded players.

Round 1 2026, we had 7 to your 10. 10/7=1.4285, ie 42.85% more traded players.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

7/23 is 30.4%
10/23 is 43.4%

What are you numbers for?

I might be misunderstanding you, but are we talking about different things? Apologies if I've misunderstood you.

I would characterise it by saying that both Collingwood and West Coast, in Round 1, selected a good number of players recruited from other clubs, Collingwood slightly more. Both teams picked a majority of players who have only played for 1 club. Would you say that the numbers (the 13% difference) demonstrate that West Coast's primary list strategy is to build through the draft, whereas Collingwood's is to recruit from other clubs?

I genuinely don't understand what you are trying to say, or what you are disagreeing with?

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

No, you've misunderstood what I'm saying.

2018 gf, we had 7 to your 9. 9/7=1.2857, ie 28.57% more traded players.

Round 1 2026, we had 7 to your 10. 10/7=1.4285, ie 42.85% more traded players.

Ok, I get it and I did misunderstand, but this is misleading. It needs to be calculated as a percentage of the selected side.

Otherwise, 1 v 2 in a team of 3 is no different than 1 v 2 in a team 50.

You need to be comparing the proportion of each team that was recruited from a different club. On that measure, the difference is 13%