If the AFL didnt change the draft rules

[Bruce Almighty 0]

If the AFL didnt change the draft age would Swallow, Darling, Toy and Matera be available this year and would they go top 5?

Also, who was the joint larke medallist this year with swallow, i think he was from NSW? Where do you think he will go in the draft?

[Adzman 2,085]

They could all very well go top 5. That said, I do not think the dees would adjust picks 1 & 2 as JT and Scully are said to be in the mold as Toy and Swallow in terms of future in the big comp.

It would surely adjust picks 3-10, which would mean our pick 11 and 18 would carry much more value than what they currently have.

If "IFS" and "BUTS" were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas.

We will do just fine with the players we select.

[Guest hangon007]

If the AFL didnt change the draft age would Swallow, Darling, Toy and Matera be available this year and would they go top 5?

Also, who was the joint larke medallist this year with swallow, i think he was from NSW? Where do you think he will go in the draft?

What are there DOB's ? Surely they were not all eligible isnt Swallow like 16?

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

Carlton would have a midfield of: Judd, Murphy, Kreuzer, Leunberger, Cotchin and Gibbs.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

If the AFL didnt change the draft age would Swallow, Darling, Toy and Matera be available this year and would they go top 5?

Also, who was the joint larke medallist this year with swallow, i think he was from NSW? Where do you think he will go in the draft?

Toy and Swallow would be top 5 selections.

They'll team up well together at GC.

... although I think Toy would return home eventually.

[Guest hangon007]

Swallow would be top 5 selections.

What age is he? Very important!

My understanding was he was ineligible irrespective of the rule change .... so can you please explain to me

How - Swallow would be a top 5 selections?

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

What age is he? Very important!

My understanding was he was ineligible irrespective of the rule change .... so can you please explain to me

How - Swallow would be a top 5 selections?

He would have qualified had the rules not have been changed (he's 17).

Swallow would be a top 5 pick this year if he was allowed to be in it.

One of the reasons for the drafting age changes was to keep guys like Swallow, Toy and Darling for the new GC franchise. Next year's crop appears to be as good as this year's is ordinary.

Gold Coast have a number of options up their sleeves as to how they get kids up there, and it's pretty obvious that the AFL is falling over itself to make it work for them. (ie. allowing them to name Swallow a year early so that he is allowed to train with them).

Looking at this year's U18 carnival, Swallow really looked the goods.

He's a much a better all round player, younger .. and more highly rated than Kane Lucas - yet Lucas looks to be a likely Top 10 selection.

[Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde 0]

The hypocrisy of the AFL makes me laugh ..

Its bordering on disgraceful. Typical AFL bending the rules to make this GC experiment work.

I'd be interested to know whether the GC will pay David Swallow for 2010. I assume they will place him on a first year draftee salary?

Melbourne can't have Scully or Trengove train with them this year pre-draft, in fact Vlad wont even let the Demons declare their choice to the media before the draft because it will "ruin the event" that is the draft and take away from the spectacle on Foxtel. Yet he will allow GC to ruin the 2010 draft by naming their players early? What a joke.

Perhaps the concessions to GC should be changed and GC can name picks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the 2010 draft from now onwards and take them whenever they want? That's basically what's happening.

[Guest hangon007]

He would have qualified had the rules not have been changed (he's 17).

Well according to the AFL website - your assumptions could be wrong!

Name: David Swallow

DOB: 19/11/92

Height: 185cm

Weight: 80kg

Club: East Fremantle

As the descriptions say ... he was not eligible for this years draft - rule change or no rule change. Now they could be wrong!

There is no doubt on ability he was eligible ... However, on age he was not.

So what age is he? I would suggest he is in fact 16!!!

Website link here - Link

[sylvinator 96]

IMPORTANT POST FOR EVERYBODY FOR READ!!!

Swallow and Darling would NOT have been eligible for this year's draft even if it had been a regular draft w/o concessions.

They are both too young. Under the regular system, you must be at least 17yrs and 8mths to be eligible.

Including them in thoghts of what might have been in rediculous. Of coarse the touted number 1 and 2 draft picks for 2011 would stregthen the current draft. But it's a rediculous argument bc they are not eligible under any circumstances.

The only player who would have affected this year's top 5 picks is Josh Toy. I still believe Trengove and Scully would be 1 and 2.

The real way the 17 yr olds not being included affects MFC, is that about 5 of them would have been 1st round picks. This would mean that there would be extra depth in the first round. Thus, guyz who might be drafted at 10, could otherwise have possible survived until our pick 18. But it's really not such a big deal.

Emma Quayle in an interview explains further:

"I think it's definitely a shallow draft but having said that, there are good players in any draft. I think the lack of depth simply has to do with the 17-year-olds being removed from the pool with the draft age changing by four months. I spoke to a recruiter last week who said that if the 17-year-olds were in the pool, we'd be talking about how great the first round is, therefore pushing other players down the order. Josh Toy, Maverick Weller, Luke Russell and possibly Trent McKenzie and Brandon Matera would be likely first round picks, the first three in the top 10 region and Toy a possible top three pick"

For Emma's full interview http://bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=783

[Guest hangon007]

IMPORTANT POST FOR EVERYBODY FOR READ!!!

Swallow and Darling would NOT have been eligible for this year's draft even if it had been a regular draft w/o concessions.

They are both too young. Under the regular system, you must be at least 17yrs and 8mths to be eligible.

Including them in thoghts of what might have been in rediculous. Of coarse the touted number 1 and 2 draft picks for 2011 would stregthen the current draft. But it's a rediculous argument bc they are not eligible under any circumstances.

The only player who would have affected this year's top 5 picks is Josh Toy. I still believe Trengove and Scully would be 1 and 2.

The real way the 17 yr olds not being included affects MFC, is that about 5 of them would have been 1st round picks. This would mean that there would be extra depth in the first round. Thus, guyz who might be drafted at 10, could otherwise have possible survived until our pick 18. But it's really not such a big deal.

Emma Quayle in an interview explains further:

"I think it's definitely a shallow draft but having said that, there are good players in any draft. I think the lack of depth simply has to do with the 17-year-olds being removed from the pool with the draft age changing by four months. I spoke to a recruiter last week who said that if the 17-year-olds were in the pool, we'd be talking about how great the first round is, therefore pushing other players down the order. Josh Toy, Maverick Weller, Luke Russell and possibly Trent McKenzie and Brandon Matera would be likely first round picks, the first three in the top 10 region and Toy a possible top three pick"

For Emma's full interview http://bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=783

Ooops you have just blown Mr J & H assumptions out of the water! Please deal with the facts boys.

PS Your other assumptions are also wrong - but if you dont take the the time to educate yourself - why should others bother.

Edited October 22, 2009 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

If the AFL didnt change the draft age would Swallow, Darling, Toy and Matera be available this year and would they go top 5?

Also, who was the joint larke medallist this year with swallow, i think he was from NSW? Where do you think he will go in the draft?

Now back to the original question.

For those people that don't know or understand the mechanics of AFL drafting I can see how they are upset by this rule change.

However ... IMHO ... I actually prefer to take the approach that the Melbourne football club could see this as a positive change for this draft.

If you subscribe/understand/accept - the theory AFL drafting is becoming a science business based somewhat on statistical probabilities then this rule change may benefit us from a comparative view point. This is somewhat based on the assumption that your draft team is "professional" and I would suggest to you that this is the case in the modern era.

If you take the facts from previous drafts you could safely assume that the rule change has made approximately 20-25 kids ineligible for this draft - who may/would have been drafted! (plenty if buts and maybes - as a previous poster has stated) Or another way to look at it "weakens" the draft pool by approximately 1 1/2 rounds.

Due to the logical flow on effect if you broke the 20-25 kids down you would expect them to disperse at approximately 4-5 kids per round ... baring in mind most clubs pass their 6th round picks on average.

Ok - So how does that help us! Fair point. Let me try to explain.

You must consider the actually pick order in this upcoming draft plus combine the flow on effect. Its critical! (Again we must thank Jordan McMahon - you little beauty)

History tells us that as you proceed thru each round the statistical probability of a player playing 50+ games is vastly reduced. So in a nutshell its where your pick is thats important not how many picks you have!

Now taking us as the example - our pick order is 1,2,11,18,34,50,66,82 etc

Bingo - look where our picks are situated. I'm suggesting this rule change does not effect all clubs equally because of actual adjusted pick order after trades and Priority pick!

Its "highly" likely Picks 1 & 2 = no effect . debatable but "highly" likely.

Picks 11 & 18 = marginal minor effect ...

Picks 34 = larger effect because in reality a 3rd pick in this years draft - talent pool is closer to a mid or late at worst ( with toooooo many "if" "buts" and"maybes") 3rd round pick in previous years

Pick 50 = larger effect again because a 4th round pick in this draft - talent pool is closer to a 5th "ish" round pick in previous years. Important to note 5th round draft pick have a very low statistically probability of success.

Now I must also point out that its all - comparative - all teams are in the same boat. So if our pick 11 is marginally weaker, so is pick 12, then pick 13, then pick 14 so on & so on. So in real terms we are no worse off than any other side.

Plus also looking at us in particular - high chance we will exit this draft at pick 34 - with minimal effect to us on a comparative bias.

This is also why I suggested in a previous thread this draft is critical to select on a "best available" basis and not a needs basis. Elevating a player in this draft on a needs basis could be a very risky strategy ... let the other clubs take the risk with a very low probability of success.

Edited October 23, 2009 by hangon007

[sylvinator 96]

We should all actually consider outselves quite lucky.

Were it last year, then our number 1 desires choice would not be available (Watts who was 17 at the time).

In this year's draft, our number 1 and number 2 desires both happen to be 18 yrs old!

The only thing i'm lamenting is that if this were a regular draft, a guy like Rohan might've slipped through to 11. Looks unlikely now. Then again, you never know who might slip to 11.

If lucas is still around at 11, we should take him.... We'd have the most talent packed midfield in the AFL!!!

Pick 18 just take best available KPF

[Bagdana 58]

We should all actually consider outselves quite lucky.

Were it last year, then our number 1 desires choice would not be available (Watts who was 17 at the time).

In this year's draft, our number 1 and number 2 desires both happen to be 18 yrs old!

The only thing i'm lamenting is that if this were a regular draft, a guy like Rohan might've slipped through to 11. Looks unlikely now. Then again, you never know who might slip to 11.

If lucas is still around at 11, we should take him.... We'd have the most talent packed midfield in the AFL!!!

Pick 18 just take best available KPF

But would we have pick 11 if this was a "regular" draft?

[col=sk 0]

If the AFL didnt change the draft age would Swallow, Darling, Toy and Matera be available this year and would they go top 5?

Also, who was the joint larke medallist this year with swallow, i think he was from NSW? Where do you think he will go in the draft?

Andrew Hooper, i really like him,

people have him a very late pick/ rookie due to his size, which ticks me off because im of similar height.

He is a small defender.

[volders 22]

But would we have pick 11 if this was a "regular" draft?

yeah seems unlikely mclean would of got 11 if there are 5 kids taken out that possibly could have gone in the first round

Edited October 23, 2009 by volders