You are 'picking and choosing' your stats on this and I have removed all those that are not in the last decade - the simple fact is that teenagers picked outside of the second round have a progressively lower success rate. It is hard to find the stats on it without doing it myself...

From 2004 to 2008 (not including FS picks and NSW scholarships like Walker which skew data, I have also removed mature age recruits):

149 teenagers were taken between Pick 1 and 30 with 99 of them playing more than 50 games and 43 of those reaching 100 games.

128 teenagers were taken between Pick 31 and 60 with 46 of them playing more than 50 games and 18 of those reaching 100 games.

So the success rate of picking teens to play 100 games in the first 30 picks to the next 30 drops from 28.9% to 14.1%.

(Note: Picks 1-10 is 38%, Picks 11-20 is 34.7%, Picks 21-30 is 14%, Picks 31-40 is 20.5%, Picks 41-50 is 11.9%, Picks 51-60 is 9.5%)

It's just so fraught picking teenagers in the draft; it is little wonder that Roos is a 'draft sceptic' in the words of Greg Baum.

You just blew my mind!

No. There is too much science. The game needs more Gypsy fortune tellers, swami's and head bump readers.

I've just been recruited as Head Phrenologist.

........I'll show myself out.

You are 'picking and choosing' your stats on this and I have removed all those that are not in the last decade - the simple fact is that teenagers picked outside of the second round have a progressively lower success rate. It is hard to find the stats on it without doing it myself...

From 2004 to 2008 (not including FS picks and NSW scholarships like Walker which skew data, I have also removed mature age recruits):

149 teenagers were taken between Pick 1 and 30 with 99 of them playing more than 50 games and 43 of those reaching 100 games.

128 teenagers were taken between Pick 31 and 60 with 46 of them playing more than 50 games and 18 of those reaching 100 games.

So the success rate of picking teens to play 100 games in the first 30 picks to the next 30 drops from 28.9% to 14.1%.

(Note: Picks 1-10 is 38%, Picks 11-20 is 34.7%, Picks 21-30 is 14%, Picks 31-40 is 20.5%, Picks 41-50 is 11.9%, Picks 51-60 is 9.5%)

It's just so fraught picking teenagers in the draft; it is little wonder that Roos is a 'draft sceptic' in the words of Greg Baum.

Thankyou for those stats rpfc. A couple of things really surprised me

Firstly, 62% of all top 10 picks fail to play 100 games. It is interesting that so few have long careers given they are this countries absolute best at 17/18 years old.

But even more curious is that picks in the 30s are substantially more successful than picks in the 20s. Is that stat right? Any ideas why?

Thankyou for those stats rpfc. A couple of things really surprised me

Firstly, 62% of all top 10 picks fail to play 100 games. It is interesting that so few have long careers given they are this countries absolute best at 17/18 years old.

But even more curious is that picks in the 30s are substantially more successful than picks in the 20s. Is that stat right? Any ideas why?

You are talking about 14% compared to 20% - that is not much success at all... If you had 20 players from each group the difference would be 4 players from the 30-40 group played 100 games and 3 from the 20-30 group played 100 games. The difference there is 'statistical white noise.'

Remember that these 5 drafts are for players that are now 24 to 28 - so there may be some movement as players like Watts reach their milestone in the next few years.

I chose those years because I didn't want to go too far back as the earlier drafts have lost relevance to today as time passes.

You are 'picking and choosing' your stats on this and I have removed all those that are not in the last decade - the simple fact is that teenagers picked outside of the second round have a progressively lower success rate. It is hard to find the stats on it without doing it myself...

From 2004 to 2008 (not including FS picks and NSW scholarships like Walker which skew data, I have also removed mature age recruits):

149 teenagers were taken between Pick 1 and 30 with 99 of them playing more than 50 games and 43 of those reaching 100 games.

128 teenagers were taken between Pick 31 and 60 with 46 of them playing more than 50 games and 18 of those reaching 100 games.

So the success rate of picking teens to play 100 games in the first 30 picks to the next 30 drops from 28.9% to 14.1%.

(Note: Picks 1-10 is 38%, Picks 11-20 is 34.7%, Picks 21-30 is 14%, Picks 31-40 is 20.5%, Picks 41-50 is 11.9%, Picks 51-60 is 9.5%)

It's just so fraught picking teenagers in the draft; it is little wonder that Roos is a 'draft sceptic' in the words of Greg Baum.

Some interesting stats there, but it still doesn't change my opinion on what we should do with our late picks. I want to see us use our picks to give kids a shot, especially now that we have some decent leadership and coaching at the club.

If we were to take Dalziell you know what you're getting...an average midfielder-- I think we've already had enough of those come and go in the last few seasons. Let's take a punt on a kid who hasn't yet been giving a chance in the AFL and see if we're lucky enough to strike gold.

Yeah, let's keep doing things the way we have been doing it while failing.

We'd be crazy not to.

Not a bad player. I think a team will pick him up no worries.

Would have played 22 games for us this year if he was on our list.

Perhaps a rookie spot?

Yeah, let's keep doing things the way we have been doing it while failing.

We'd be crazy not to.

The way we have been doing has been with poor coaching, leadership and drafting. No matter who we pick, we won't be "doing things the way we have been doing", because the development of all our new recruits is in good hands.

No for me, sounds like a Neeld move.

No for me, sounds like a Neeld move.

Our current coach picked up a few players from other clubs that were, or set to be, cast aside.

We have already resurrected Cross' career, given a three year deal to a 28 year old, and traded for two kids who hadn't seen a lot of footy.

I would not be surprised if we continue to look at former players of other AFL clubs over teenagers.

No for me, sounds like a Neeld move.

What on earth is a "Neeld move"?

IIRC one of the first people recruited under his watch was Mitch Clark. We also recruited Chris Dawes, Jack Viney, Jimmy Toumpas, Jesse Hogan, Dean Kent, Matt Jones, Dean Terlich and Mitch Clisby under Neeld.

Can you compare these with the various "Daniher moves" and "Bailey moves" of the past?

What on earth is a "Neeld move"?

IIRC one of the first people recruited under his watch was Mitch Clark. We also recruited Chris Dawes, Jack Viney, Jimmy Toumpas, Jesse Hogan, Dean Kent, Matt Jones, Dean Terlich and Mitch Clisby under Neeld.

Can you compare these with the various "Daniher moves" and "Bailey moves" of the past?

Yeah also picked up Shannon Byrnes, David Rodan and Cam Pedersen, thats what i meant.

When he first started off, he was looking big, but i don't think so anymore.

Yeah also picked up Shannon Byrnes, David Rodan and Cam Pedersen, thats what i meant.

He knew what you meant - he was just tearing it down.

He knew what you meant - he was just tearing it down.

Oh

Yeah also picked up Shannon Byrnes, David Rodan and Cam Pedersen, thats what i meant.

FA, pick 88 (Morton), Gysberts.

FA, pick 88 (Morton), Gysberts.

Yes, i said picked them up, and your point?