Analysis Which clubs deserve a priority pick?

[CFC_#17]

Just so I understand you, I want to clarify. Are you saying that the club with the highest concentration of priority picks, who also failed to achieve any success off the back of said abundance of picks, would have performed much better had they been given *more* picks, despite no indication that this is the case? How many priority picks do you want - should the AFL just keep giving them to Carlton until they finally win another flag, lest the supporters bemoan that they're still hard done by?

On your point of poor list management, the reality is that it's your own fault. Like I said before, when a club makes a poor list management decision by trading for a player who doesn't perform well, becomes injured, or has extraneous issues that hinder performance, this club still rises up the ladder but not enough to make any impact. In other words, this club gets no reward from their trade since they're still not playing finals, but they get no special help either. Meanwhile, because Carlton made the choice to go "all or nothing" (which is what drafting is, after all, since every pick is almost pure speculation) they failed to go up the ladder and go rewarded with further priority picks. The fault of making poor list management decisions lies solely on the club, and doesn't deserve a get out of jail free card, especially when it seems like they expect it, given their deliberate trading practises.

Just because Carlton failed doesn’t mean handing extra picks to the bottom sides doesn’t work.

 

[tigerwill]

Why is Deledio playing at GWS. Did Richmond trade him out for a draft pick?

Try some comprehension, and read the whole paragraph you quoted

 

[Robertio]

Try some comprehension, and read the whole paragraph you quoted

Good Afternoon to you too.

 

[Strahany]

Just because Carlton failed doesn’t mean handing extra picks to the bottom sides doesn’t work.

So you're saying that that I can't link Carlton's failure to their excessive number of priority picks, but it's okay for you to link successful clubs to their priority picks, as you did in that initial post? Riiiiiight.

 

[tigerwill]

Just a thought, others might have some insights as well.
What criteria will the AFL use in determining a PP?
Player list profile including age, ranking, games played, age spread
Player development programs
Club leadership
Coaching (including game plan)
Club resources
Any others.
Open for discussion


At the start of the year a lot of people (including myself) suggested Carlton had a better list than north. Some egg on faces there.
So SOS has been there 3 years or more, has he improved the list or is it in worse shape now?
If the list is better now, is it a development issue?
If the list is ok (but just needs getting games in) and development is ok, is it the coaching or game plan?
If SOS hasn't failed and it's a development or coaching issue, how does getting a PP change anything?

Similarly it can be said of st kilda and Freo. The only club's that might have a case are GC and Brisbane with their history of player retention, even though in brisbanes case they seem to have turned things around.
I think that just giving a club or club's a PP is the easy way out. It does nothing to encourage them to get their own house in order.
Maybe instead of a PP those clubs can be granted an extra 3 list spots available to mature age players ie minimum age 22 years or whatever, on a standard one year contract outside the cap. At year's end those players can either nominate for the draft or return to their original clubs. Those afl club's don't have permanent dibs on them. This would give them some depth and experience without compromising the draft again and penalising other clubs.
Thoughts?

 

[Holy Rioli]

We seem to tip toe around the edges and just troll.

Hawthorn has recieved three priority picks Hodge and Roughead, Richmond Rance and Delidio West Coast Judd and Darling

We didnt sign up to this equalisation platform and we did not make the rules. Club underperforms it gets a priority pick its the equalisation competition your club has signed on to.

Mate we traded heavily for Hodge, we didn't get it because we sucked (we made a prelim that year and were unlucky to lose to the combined powers of Goldspink and Essendon). In 2004-2005 we sucked and got priority picks but didn't spend a decade collecting early picks, we got our s**t together and haven't had a top 10 draft pick since Mitch Thorpe back in 2006.

 

[CFC_#17]

So you're saying that that I can't link Carlton's failure to their excessive number of priority picks, but it's okay for you to link successful clubs to their priority picks, as you did in that initial post? Riiiiiight.

Can you explain to me how Carlton receiving “excessive priority picks” resulted in Carlton not winning a premiership?

 

[CFC_#17]

Mate we traded heavily for Hodge, we didn't get it because we sucked (we made a prelim that year and were unlucky to lose to the combined powers of Goldspink and Essendon). In 2004-2005 we sucked and got priority picks but didn't spend a decade collecting early picks, we got our s**t together and haven't had a top 10 draft pick since Mitch Thorpe back in 2006.

Would freo of traded their first pick if they weren’t given a priority pick?

 

[Strahany]

Can you explain to me how Carlton receiving “excessive priority picks” resulted in Carlton not winning a premiership?

I’m not saying it did. All I’m pointing out is that your contention, that priority picks will help improve the bottom sides, cannot be made based on the data at hand (to be clear, no conclusion can be made from the data at all). In other words, there is nothing that demonstrates that priority picks = success, any more than an arbitrary factor like 67% of your team wearing their socks up = success. But if you were going to make *any* conclusion regarding the effect priority picks then it would more likely be that they have no effect, than any positive effect, based on the data at hand.

 

[tigerwill]

Can you explain to me how Carlton receiving “excessive priority picks” resulted in Carlton not winning a premiership?

It's fairly obvious, PP aren't the panacea to winning a premiership

Would freo of traded their first pick if they weren’t given a priority pick?

Rather than rehash what happened 15 years ago and the rules that were in place then, how about coming up with some justification why your club in particular should get a PP.
Is it because under SOS your playing list has gone backwards? Or do you think it has improved?
Is it the number of young players that need games put into them?
Is it because of the number of senior players traded out for draft picks which has left gaping holes in the player/experience/age demographic?
Is it development?
Is it coaching?

I'd be interested in Carlton posters addressing any of those questions rather than naming clubs that have previously been given a PP. Which only goes to show they haven't any answers as to why they should get a PP. Just that "other clubs got them, so we should too" Hardly a convincing argument for the AFL Commissioners.

 

[Holy Rioli]

Would freo of traded their first pick if they weren’t given a priority pick?

We'll never know. I bet you they would have preferred to have traded pick 4, but the offer we put on the table was too enticing.

 

[CFC_#17]

It's fairly obvious, PP aren't the panacea to winning a premiership


Rather than rehash what happened 15 years ago and the rules that were in place then, how about coming up with some justification why your club in particular should get a PP.
Is it because under SOS your playing list has gone backwards? Or do you think it has improved?
Is it the number of young players that need games put into them?
Is it because of the number of senior players traded out for draft picks which has left gaping holes in the player/experience/age demographic?
Is it development?
Is it coaching?

I'd be interested in Carlton posters addressing any of those questions rather than naming clubs that have previously been given a PP. Which only goes to show they haven't any answers as to why they should get a PP. Just that "other clubs got them, so we should too" Hardly a convincing argument for the AFL Commissioners.

Carlton should get a priority so they are able to get mature aged players into their team via trade without having to give up pick 1, so they are more competitive next year.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Hawthorn should get a couple of coaching priority picks, in return for all the head-coaches we've supplied other clubs with....The AFL need hardly start-up a coaching academy, when we perform that duty well enough for em, off our own bat.

Also, giving away all of Hodge, Mitchell & Lewis for peanuts, means that we should get another priority pick in good faith:....Kind of like a Worpel mark 2.

If the AFL are going to grant both of Carlton & Gold Coast 2 mature age priority selections, then an end of first round priority pick should be more than ample to offset their poor seasons.

The draft is already compromised enough with the Academy & F/S picks/concessions.

 

[Peel67skin]

Hawthorn should get a couple of coaching priority picks, in return for all the head-coaches we've supplied other clubs with....The AFL need hardly start-up a coaching academy, when we perform that duty well enough for em, off our own bat.

Also, giving away all of Hodge, Mitchell & Lewis for peanuts, means that we should get another priority pick in good faith:....Kind of like a Worpel mark 2.

If the AFL are going to grant both of Carlton & Gold Coast 2 mature age priority selections, then an end of first round priority pick should be more than ample to offset their poor seasons.

The draft is already compromised enough with the Academy & F/S picks/concessions.

Why not Give Carlton end of first round priority pick but No access to mature age . GC prefer 2 mature age rather than end of 1st round PP anyway .

 

[Procrastinator35]

Why not Give Carlton end of first round priority pick but No access to mature age . GC prefer 2 mature age draftee rather than end of 1st round PP anyway .

I guess it wouldn't hurt to give them both a choice.....I mean, you could use that end of first rounder on one anyways.

I reckon they could both do with a couple of mature age bodies....Gold Coast look like losing more senior experience to F/A yet again this year.....They are a veritable sinking ship, lost in the AFL desert.....And God knows Carlton could use em, after all the senior blokes that Mick helped to chase away.

 

[Peel67skin]

I guess it wouldn't hurt to give them both a choice.....I mean, you could use that end of first rounder on one anyways.

I reckon they could both do with a couple of mature age bodies....Gold Coast look like losing more senior experience to F/A yet again this year.....They are a veritable sinking ship, lost in the AFL desert.....And God knows Carlton could use em, after all the senior blokes that Mick helped to chase away.

I think people should be more open to improve the competition rather than just close shop when thing don't work out for the bottom team . I can assure you if you take out Carlton and GC , the next bottom 2 team will face the same situation. Different team but the same clothing . Just an example ( St Kilda ).

 

[Procrastinator35]

I think people should be more open to improve the competition rather than just close shop when thing don't work out for the bottom team . I can assure you if you take out Carlton and GC , the next bottom 2 team will face the same situation. Different team but the same clothing . Just an example ( St Kilda )

Carlton have never really recovered ever since their punishment for salary-cap breaches, stretching back to the Elliott days....Even at that stage, in the early 2000's, they had trouble adapting to the new draft system, much like my own club.....In fact, I reckon we both struggled the most on that very point due to our collective success leading up to it's implementation.....It was only with the arrival of Clarko that we managed to turn that ship around, & to a lesser extent Schwab before him.

But the fact remains that Carlton continued to look for the easy answer & the easy out, via the trading in of Judd & the recruitment of Mick Malthouse, whom they both foresaw as answers to all their problems.....Those 2 decisions had dire consequences for them in maintaining their horrific run on up until now.

The Gold Coast was a terrible idea right from the start.....It should always have been an established club which needed to relocate there from the beginning.....You need that for both stability & an already pre-existing club culture.....That city is hardly conducive for keeping new young recruits minds on the job of what they're there for....Way too many distractions.

Anyways, one could write a book on them both.

 

[Peel67skin]

Carlton have never really recovered ever since their punishment for salary-cap breaches, stretching back to the Elliott days....Even at that stage, in the early 2000's, they had trouble adapting to the new draft system, much like my own club.....In fact, I reckon we both struggled the most on that very point due to our collective success leading up to it's implementation.....It was only with the arrival of Clarko that we managed to turn that ship around, & to a lesser extent Schwab before him.

But the fact remains that Carlton continued to look for the easy answer & the easy out, via the trading in of Judd & the recruitment of Mick Malthouse, whom they both foresaw as answers to all their problems.....Those 2 decisions had dire consequences for them in maintaining their horrific run on up until now.

The Gold Coast was a terrible idea right from the start.....It should always have been an established club which needed to relocate there from the beginning.....You need that for both stability & an already pre-existing club culture.....That city is hardly conducive for keeping new young recruits minds on the job of what they're there for....Way too many distractions.

Anyways, one could write a book on them both.

I don't know , I found sport like soccer are more professional friendly than AFL , you don't heard Barcelona complain about getting team like Leicester , Porto ,CSKA Moscow in champion league group or some crap team in Spanish league .

 

[Procrastinator35]

I don't know , I found sport like soccer are more professional friendly than AFL , you don't heard Barcelona complain about getting team like Leicester , Porto ,CSKA Moscow in champion league group or some crap team in Spanish league .

Most of those clubs have a very long history of their own & are founded on local grass-roots support.....They are grounded in heritage & tradition.

It's not really a relevant comparison at all.

 

[Peel67skin]

Most of those clubs have a very long history of their own & are founded on local grass-roots support.....They are grounded in heritage & tradition.

It's not really a relevant comparison at all.

How you create heritage and tradition ? If you gave up. Example if people still keep to heritage and tradition they will still be East and West Germany instead of Germany .

 

[Tushay]

Carlton's only issue is the time that it will take its young talent to mature.

For the AFL, a more competitive Carlton and GC is important.

Which means both clubs should get some pick assistance but should be mandated to trade those picks for mature (over 23 players).

 

[Procrastinator35]

How you create heritage and tradition ? If you gave up. Example if people still keep to heritage and tradition they will still be East and West Germany instead of Germany .

The point is you need a bedrock of support upon which to establish a stable foundation to begin with.....That includes a supporter base invested in the product & the industry already.....Both the W/A & S/A franchises already had those facets in place from which to draw; While both Sydney & Brisbane had their Victorian heritage from which to build from.....Only once the Bears became aligned with Fitzroy did they become a success.

Then we have these 2 rather quizzical franchises, prefaced upon future demographics & founded upon nothing other than population densities & hopeful projections.....Sure, the Gold Coast has always had a strong local product, made up of ex-pat Victorians & other Southern Staters, but it has always been a good 2 leagues below the standard & level required in order to provide for the adequate foundations from which to build....It is also the secondary code in that state, so most kids with athletic talent will tend towards the other sport.

GWS I can see going in precisely the same way come another 5 years, even though they have the Canberra area from which to draw, it is still no where near sufficient enough to make it a long-term viable entity as yet.

anyways we're way off the beaten track here....I've said my piece.

 

[tipstar]

It's fairly obvious, PP aren't the panacea to winning a premiership


Rather than rehash what happened 15 years ago and the rules that were in place then, how about coming up with some justification why your club in particular should get a PP.
Is it because under SOS your playing list has gone backwards? Or do you think it has improved?
Is it the number of young players that need games put into them?
Is it because of the number of senior players traded out for draft picks which has left gaping holes in the player/experience/age demographic?
Is it development?
Is it coaching?

I'd be interested in Carlton posters addressing any of those questions rather than naming clubs that have previously been given a PP. Which only goes to show they haven't any answers as to why they should get a PP. Just that "other clubs got them, so we should too" Hardly a convincing argument for the AFL Commissioners.

Is it because under SOS your playing list has gone backwards? Or do you think it has improved?
List is definitely the best of the last places we’ve had.

Is it the number of young players that need games put into them?
Yes, Carlton have chosen a path and are sticking to it, kids need time/games

Is it because of the number of senior players traded out for draft picks which has left gaping holes in the player/experience/age demographic?
Well that’s obvious, to get quality kids in we needed to trade whatever quality we had, which wasn’t much as the list SOS inherited was pretty bad.

Is it development?
No

Is it coaching?
Definitely No.

PP is on the basis of, this is a path we have decided to take as a club, we are sticking to it, it’s going to be ugly for a while as the kids grow and get games into them, if the AFL don’t like it as it can produce bad games, then they can provide a PP which they can ontrade to bring in some quality.

Any PP we get should be on the proviso that’s it’s ontraded, bit like pics GWS had but had to trade them out (Melb with Hogan)

 

[Schraderbrau]

Deliberately making your list uncompetitive and then trying to extort a priority pick from the AFL on the grounds of being uncompetitive is tanking. Giving Carlton a PP for acting this way sets a bad precedent that will see PPs awarded to other clubs lacking in character and honesty.

 

[KPWorld]

Deliberately making your list uncompetitive and then trying to extort a priority pick from the AFL on the grounds of being uncompetitive is tanking. Giving Carlton a PP for acting this way sets a bad precedent that will see PPs awarded to other clubs lacking in character and honesty.

"I’m not sure that if you by design fall down the ladder you should be rewarded too much.”

I'm pretty sure all afl coaches feel the same as this chris scott quote. What the afl has to decide is doing that tanking. The carlton players wouldn't have been tanking. but has their footy department set them up to fail. Which could be considered tanking

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app