2007

21 - Maric

2008

17 - Blease

19 - Strauss

2009

11 - Gysberts

18 - Tapscott

There's a fab 5 for you. I've got a feeling that getting success out of these 5 will either make or break Bailey.

IMO, clubs look to a Number I pick as a player they hope will develop to the best example of the type of player they re looking for. If clubs had hind sight I doubt Banfield, White and Deledio would be No 1 picks if they knew how their careers would pan out. Perhaps good top 10 picks at best.

Banfield made the WCE team of century so I am not sure after 265 games what he should have done. White made AA in 2004 was an outstanding player in the early part of this decade. The change in rules nullified one of his assets.

Deledio was pushing for AA selection and has played for six years in a team that been crud. He's quality. I am not sure who they would have taken as No 1 in his year as he was head and shoulders above his year of 2004.

2007

21 - Maric

2008

17 - Blease

19 - Strauss

2009

11 - Gysberts

18 - Tapscott

There's a fab 5 for you. I've got a feeling that getting success out of these 5 will either make or break Bailey.

Very true.

It's all well and good to get the very high picks right, but if we are to win a premiership, if may very well be because of these guys.

I still have high hopes for Gysberts, Tapscott and Blease, though all 3 are untried so far.

I'm still disappointed we passed on Tayte Pears for Maric in 2007, that could be a miss. Strauss also doesn't look great so far but he'll have a couple of yrs to prove himself, we passed on a lot of awesome talent to get him (Zaharakis, Hannebury, Beams, Ballanyne, Suban, Redden)

I'm not certain of the exact circumstances, but to have 5 of the first 26 picks would indicate they have traded players for early picks in a weak draft.

They could have recognized that the draft was weak and instead tried to hold onto the players in question and/or trade for established players rather than picks.

Of course, Hawthorn did the same thing, having 3 of the first 10 picks, yet got a much better return for their selections.

Probably best to do some research then hey?

Not really.

It's of little consequence.

Ok, so it was the Ottens trade that netted them picks 12 & 16.

One of them was a priority pick.

They also traded Fiora to get Simmonds from Freo.

Surely they could have demanded a few young players from Geelong.

We ended up with Beamer.

You're wrong, 15 other clubs didn't load up on picks in that draft.

Firstly Richmond came last and got pick 1 (priority) and then 4 and 20,36. They traded a player who wanted a fresh move in Ottens and got picks 12 and 16.

It was not a case of hey this a good draft lets load up. They finished last and traded a disgtuntled player for market.

No club knows for sure how a draft of 17-18 yos will turn out. MFC had no idea 2003 would pan out like it did and definitely thought they struck gold with picks 3 and 5.

BTW, the Hawks loaded up with pick 7. 2004 was a great draft down to about pick 10 but has been shown to have fallen away past then. But I guess most clubs picked that.

And clubs do try to judge whether certain drafts are strong or weak.

But they dont know if they will be and cant plan when they go to the well

Eg. Last year was considered to be a weak draft for talls.

But it was not a comment on the strength of the draft overall. It just meant that there weren't many talls selected early. I would have thought the performance of many of the top 15 to 20 this year would prove your example poor.

They might not often be correct, or state it publicly, but using their expert judgement to try to predict the quality available is a large part of both TH & BP's roles.

Tealeaves or tarot cards?

There role is to identify talent within drafts. The fact is they dont know how a draft will pan out and the fact is you dont know what their job really is.

Probably best to do some research then hey?

You noticed it also.

Not really.

It's of little consequence.

True.

2007

21 - Maric

2008

17 - Blease

19 - Strauss

2009

11 - Gysberts

18 - Tapscott

There's a fab 5 for you. I've got a feeling that getting success out of these 5 will either make or break Bailey.

The progression of talent will make or break Bailey's tenure.

It really doesn't matter if Blease is ripping it up or not if other talents come to the fore. The progression of Scully, Trengove, Morton, and McKenzie would have more bearing on his coaching fortunes. Aswell as the form of this incredible backline they have managed to construct and Watts, Jurrah, and Petterd up forward.

Your best players can make successes of lesser players. Those 5 are not the top echelon of our talent.

I think it might be time to update who we think will be our top 6 players next year. The greater the talent at the top end, the less other players are asked to do, and the better they can fulfil their roles.

Pretty shocking. I think we will also look back on the Saints efforts last year as pretty damning in the future. 1 bad draft can stuff you up for years.

16 - Andrew Lovett (sacked)

32 - Nicholas Winmar (No sighting as of yet)

48 - Brett Peake (Fringe player)

64 - Adam Pattison (delisted)

Collingwood's drafting is a story of two 'half decades'.

In the first half decade (2000-2004), their first two picks in any ND draft were quite mediocre. The only exception was Alan Didak. None of the rest are still at the club.

2000: Didak (3), Jason Cloke (19)

2001: Richard Cole (11), Tom Davidson (27)

2002: Bo Nixon (21), Luke Shackleton (29)

2003: Billy Morrison (17), Brayden Shaw (32, FS)

2004: Chris Egan (10), Sean Rusling (23)

Where they did score was five premiership players from late picks: Travis Cloke (39, FS); Heath Shaw (48, FS); Dane Swan (58), Nick Maxwell (rookie) and Harry O'Brien (rookie).

Sixteen of their 2010 premiership players came from picks and trades in the five years from 2005-2009, including:

2006: Reid (#8), N. Brown (#10), Dawes (#37), Dick (#44), Goldsack (#63), Wellingham (rookie), Macaffer (rookie) ... six premiership players on one draft (not Dick).

2008: Sidebottom (#11), Beams (#29), L. Brown (#73), Blair (rookie)

Along with last year's selection of Ball and Jolly, that's some pretty clever drafting in the last five years and a great recovery from earlier in the decade.

Edited October 17, 201014 yr by maurie

Collingwood's drafting is a story of two 'half decades'.

In the first half decade (2000-2004), their first two picks in any ND draft were quite mediocre. The only exception was Alan Didak. None of the rest are still at the club.

2000: Didak (3), Jason Cloke (19)

2001: Richard Cole (11), Tom Davidson (27)

2002: Bo Nixon (21), Luke Shackleton (29)

2003: Billy Morrison (17), Brayden Shaw (32, FS)

2004: Chris Egan (10), Sean Rusling (23)

Where they did score was five premiership players from late picks: Travis Cloke (39, FS); Heath Shaw (48, FS); Dane Swan (58), Nick Maxwell (rookie) and Harry O'Brien (rookie).

Sixteen of their 2010 premiership players came from picks and trades in the five years from 2005-2009, including:

2006: Reid (#8), N. Brown (#10), Dawes (#37), Dick (#44), Goldsack (#63), Wellingham (rookie), Macaffer (rookie) ... six premiership players on one draft (not Dick).

2008: Sidebottom (#11), Beams (#29), L. Brown (#73), Blair (rookie)

Along with last year's selection of Ball and Jolly, that's some pretty clever drafting in the last five years and a great recovery from earlier in the decade.

Good post. They must have learn't from the Chinese with their 5 year plans. Lets hope ours is on schedule too.

Collingwood's drafting is a story of two 'half decades'.

In the first half decade (2000-2004), their first two picks in any ND draft were quite mediocre. The only exception was Alan Didak. None of the rest are still at the club.

2000: Didak (3), Jason Cloke (19)

2001: Richard Cole (11), Tom Davidson (27)

2002: Bo Nixon (21), Luke Shackleton (29)

2003: Billy Morrison (17), Brayden Shaw (32, FS)

2004: Chris Egan (10), Sean Rusling (23)

Where they did score was five premiership players from late picks: Travis Cloke (39, FS); Heath Shaw (48, FS); Dane Swan (58), Nick Maxwell (rookie) and Harry O'Brien (rookie).

Sixteen of their 2010 premiership players came from picks and trades in the five years from 2005-2009, including:

2006: Reid (#8), N. Brown (#10), Dawes (#37), Dick (#44), Goldsack (#63), Wellingham (rookie), Macaffer (rookie) ... six premiership players on one draft (not Dick).

2008: Sidebottom (#11), Beams (#29), L. Brown (#73), Blair (rookie)

Along with last year's selection of Ball and Jolly, that's some pretty clever drafting in the last five years and a great recovery from earlier in the decade.

If there was ever an argument of the importance of great coaching and a great game plan that can win a premiership, it is collingwood.

I mean honestly, does anyone think NBrown, Dawes, Dick, Goldsack, Macaffer, Beams, L.Brown, Blair, Toovey and L.Ball are such amazing players? Are they any better that our boys? They're not even any older than our boys. Sure, they had 3-4 really great players- Swan, Pendlebury, Didak and Shaw... and some other really good players in Jolly, Cloke, Maxwell and O'Brien.

But the actual truth is that they are well-drilled, they know their roles in the team, they play with high intensity and a drive to win. They are young, yet tackle with a kind of agressive obsession.

I see no reason why we can't be the next Collingwood, with Sylvia, Frawley, Jamar, Scully, Trengove, Grimes, Garland, Jurrah, Watts and Pettard. We now have the facilities, we need to get the best coaches possible and ensure the group has the drive to win a premiership.

Collingwood has proven age is no factor. Our best 22 will be the equivalent age and games experience to Collingwood by 2012, and therefore, by 2012 we should be pushing top 4 and premierships.

If there was ever an argument of the importance of great coaching and a great game plan that can win a premiership, it is collingwood.

Good point. Malthouse has done well to extract the best from the list he had. Their recruiting 2001 to 2004 had been poor indeed.

I mean honestly, does anyone think NBrown, Dawes, Dick, Goldsack, Macaffer, Beams, L.Brown, Blair, Toovey and L.Ball are such amazing players? Are they any better that our boys? They're not even any older than our boys.

The first set of players compliment their key core of talented players that you have listed below.

Sure, they had 3-4 really great players- Swan, Pendlebury, Didak and Shaw... and some other really good players in Jolly, Cloke, Maxwell and O'Brien.

All the key players you mentioned there have at least six years or 100 games under their belt. The Pies best is in their prime.

MFC's best is young with 1 to 5 years experience and less than 50 games. Our time will come

But the actual truth is that they are well-drilled, they know their roles in the team, they play with high intensity and a drive to win.

Good point.

All the key players you mentioned there have at least six years or 100 games under their belt. The Pies best is in their prime.

MFC's best is young with 1 to 5 years experience and less than 50 games. Our time will come

That's the key.

Collngwood's Elite, A and B+ Grade players have 100-200 games under their belt e.g. Didak 182, Swan 151, Pendlebury 102, Thomas 111, Jolly 192, Cloke 124, Shaw 115, Johnson 208, Ball 166, Maxwell 140.

Our potential equivalents are for the most part sub-100.

That's the key.

Collngwood's Elite, A and B+ Grade players have 100-200 games under their belt e.g. Didak 182, Swan 151, Pendlebury 102, Thomas 111, Jolly 192, Cloke 124, Shaw 115, Johnson 208, Ball 166, Maxwell 140.

Our potential equivalents are for the most part sub-100.

Yep. But, it's not the only 'key'. Sylvinator and RR touched on it.