Latest crystal ball

Weitering and Schache at 1 and 2.

3 - Mills, Swans (Demons bid)

4- Parish, Demons

5- Hopper, Giants (Bombers bid)

6- Francis, Bombers

7- Matthew Kennedy (Bombers bid)

8- Sam Weideman, Bombers

9- Milera, Suns

10- Curnow, Demons

Agreed. The draft combine is worthless.

I suspect the true value of the combine is the opportunity for the clubs to have discussions with players. The recruiters probably know everything they need to know about onfield talents by then as they've been watching them for years. But getting inside the minds of these players to understand their desires, their level of maturity, what drives them, their likelihood of being happy to move interstate and their interest in playing for the club would be valuable information.

Can't wait for the dL response ....If we take Parish and miss out on Curnow.....Parish is a bust and Curnow turns out to be a star

We pass on Parish and he stars and Curnow who we pick, turns out to be a dud.

What I am trying to say, is that the draft is a complete lottery. I don't care who we pick....I just hope that whoever we pick turns out to be half way decent.

It's the best we can hope for.

Can't wait for the dL response ....If we take Parish and miss out on Curnow.....Parish is a bust and Curnow turns out to be a star

We pass on Parish and he stars and Curnow who we pick, turns out to be a dud.

What I am trying to say, is that the draft is a complete lottery. I don't care who we pick....I just hope that whoever we pick turns out to be half way decent.

It's the best we can hope for.

No, it's not.

Somewhat a lottery.

Somewhat a lottery.

It is, because it depends on what you are looking for in a player. Some players have had consistency of high performance at under age level for 2 years (Brayshaw), and you can guarantee that injuries aside, they'll walk straight in at AFL level, and be a 150-200 game player. Other players may have a potential higher ceiling to impact at AFL level (McCartin), but are physically not capable of playing straight away.

I'd put Parish in the Brayshaw bracket, and Curnow in the McCartin bracket.

Somewhat a lottery.

I agree...not entirely so but almost

Can't wait for the dL response ....If we take Parish and miss out on Curnow.....Parish is a bust and Curnow turns out to be a star

We pass on Parish and he stars and Curnow who we pick, turns out to be a dud.

What I am trying to say, is that the draft is a complete lottery. I don't care who we pick....I just hope that whoever we pick turns out to be half way decent.

It's the best we can hope for.

No, it's not.

Well that settles it...

Somewhat a lottery.

I was thinking about this the other day and I can't think of many leagues besides the AFL and American leagues that have a draft system.

The difference between the AFL and the American leagues is that in America most players are recruited from the college system. This means that the players drafted there are not only older and more mature, but they have also ahve more exposed form in the college system.

Therefore, the AFL is unique in that we are drafting players at such a young age which certainly adds more of a "lottery" element to the whole process.

Its a bit like stepping up from primary school straight into vce. Huge difference and impact on their lives.

Have advocated for some time a lifting of age by abou 18 months.

No, it's not.

Absolutely it is - there has not been a draft that would not be completely rewritten with the benefit of hindsight.

If we work from the starting point that a top five should be very good footballers then lets start at 2012 ( although these guys still have time)

This is subjective but here goes -

2012 - 3 out of the top 5 underperformed

2011- 2 out of the top 5 underperformed

2010 - I would hardly say Day has made it yet, Bennell has been traded - but I like him football. Polec started to show form for Port Adelaide

2009 - 1 out of the top 5 is very good finally ( Martin) - Cunnington is serviceable

2008 - All are good except doubts over Watts

2009 - i out of 5 ( you could argue Masten but butchers it to the point of being completely ineffective for mine)

2008 - 1 very good - 1 whose good is very good but is inconsistent ( Gibbs), Kreuzer - hardly on the park. Hansen is a toiler

2007 - not bad lot - Daisy Thomas IMO has been cruelled by injury after showing plenty. Ellis is a bit meh for mine

If you are expecting gold ( as we at Melbourne have ) just because you have high draft picks then you are going to be sorely disappointed. The odds are better if you have a sound structure, good development path and are successful ( meaning you have good players around to not only teach but take the pressure off the youngsters) but still no guarantees.

Its a bit like stepping up from primary school straight into vce. Huge difference and impact on their lives.

Have advocated for some time a lifting of age by abou 18 months.

Agreed as this will make it much more certain of what you have selected.

Or....keep the drafting age the same and just accept that you are going to have some wins and conversely have some busts as well.

Brett Anderson on SEN yesterday thinks we might take Curnow at 3 and Kieran Collins at 7. Fixes up our bookends for the future.

Brett Anderson on SEN yesterday thinks we might take Curnow at 3 and Kieran Collins at 7. Fixes up our bookends for the future.

Yeah, because we are just in terrible shape with that...

Brett Anderson on SEN yesterday thinks we might take Curnow at 3 and Kieran Collins at 7. Fixes up our bookends for the future.

who's he on the take from ?

Good job he doesn't make our selections.

Agreed as this will make it much more certain of what you have selected.

Or....keep the drafting age the same and just accept that you are going to have some wins and conversely have some busts as well.

My concern with lifting the draft age is whether young men will wait to be drafted into the AFL or be lost in the meantime to other sports or careers. What would you have done at 18? Waited around for one or two years after you'd finished school hoping to get drafted or moved on with your life? I know it doesn't have to be an "eithor/or" situation for everyone, but I suspect the talent pool would diminish overall.

My concern with lifting the draft age is whether young men will wait to be drafted into the AFL or be lost in the meantime to other sports or careers. What would you have done at 18? Waited around for one or two years after you'd finished school hoping to get drafted or moved on with your life? I know it doesn't have to be an "eithor/or" situation for everyone, but I suspect the talent pool would diminish overall.

Interestingly, the idea behind the higher draft age in the NFL is better education of the athletes and of course the elite feeder competition under the NFL is the college competition. We don't have that here.

I agree that the older the player the more certain of the outcome but i vacillate about lifting the draft age and lean to actually leaving it at 18 but there needs to be more realisation that with that age comes the very large disclaimer that there is much uncertainty about what you are drafting.

Yeah, because we are just in terrible shape with that...

Um what? you think our key position players will take us up to the top?

Absolutely it is - there has not been a draft that would not be completely rewritten with the benefit of hindsight.

If we work from the starting point that a top five should be very good footballers then lets start at 2012 ( although these guys still have time)

This is subjective but here goes -

2012 - 3 out of the top 5 underperformed

2011- 2 out of the top 5 underperformed

2010 - I would hardly say Day has made it yet, Bennell has been traded - but I like him football. Polec started to show form for Port Adelaide

2009 - 1 out of the top 5 is very good finally ( Martin) - Cunnington is serviceable

2008 - All are good except doubts over Watts

2009 - i out of 5 ( you could argue Masten but butchers it to the point of being completely ineffective for mine)

2008 - 1 very good - 1 whose good is very good but is inconsistent ( Gibbs), Kreuzer - hardly on the park. Hansen is a toiler

2007 - not bad lot - Daisy Thomas IMO has been cruelled by injury after showing plenty. Ellis is a bit meh for mine

If you are expecting gold ( as we at Melbourne have ) just because you have high draft picks then you are going to be sorely disappointed. The odds are better if you have a sound structure, good development path and are successful ( meaning you have good players around to not only teach but take the pressure off the youngsters) but still no guarantees.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous assertion to say "it's a complete lottery". I didn't really want to expand, because, unlike some, I don't need to monotonously hear the sound of my own voice, and genuinely didn't think I needed to explain what was an inane proposition, however...

In 31 drafts the draft pick with the most average number of games is pick 1 (143). The second highest average is pick 2 (128). The third is pick 3 (124). And lo and behold pick 5 happens to be no. 4 (103) ! If it was a "complete lottery" the top 3 draft picks wouldn't have the top 3 success rates over these 31 drafts. Clearly the science has improved over more recent years, so these types of results will continue.

Nine of the top 10 draft picks (worst of those 9 being 84), average more games than any pick chosen from pick 20 onwards (assuming that pick has been involved in at least 20 drafts, which takes us to pick 75).

Naturally there will be nuances where a later pick like 56 - 82 games might have 3 or 4 x 200 game players, which boosts averages, but the overall numbers (shown above) are compelling and certainly not representative of a "complete lottery".

Obviously, as a Melbourne supporter I know there is no guarantee, that's obvious, but there's a reason clubs try to improve their draft position, like we did this year, and clubs like the Saints, who orchestrated 6 x top 22 draft picks over the last 2 years for this current rebuild.

No-one has ever stated that drafts wouldn't be completely re-done with the benefit of hindsight, but early picks give clubs the best chance at cherry picking top end talent. To state that drafts are a complete lottery and that every pick from 1-75 has an equal value simply disregards empirical evidence.

Having seen some of your postings over the journey I have no doubt that none of the above will sway you. And I couldn't care less.

Cheers...

The clever clubs bring in players who they KNOW are capable of x y or z They dont go to the trough very often

The top 4 teams have very few picks under 40 as compared the strugglers. . Yes I know its easier to hijack players when youre a destination club but the essence still remains they trade for known quantities.

Why would you do this. Because the alternative is far from known.. This is where the idea of a lottery takes root.

Can be argued Sydney are going to the trough....but tare they ? Its their own trough. They KNOW what/who these kids are. The general access draft is as full ( if not more ) of misses as well as some hits. Genuine hits are few and far between

who's he on the take from ?

Good job he doesn't make our selections.

I think the people making our selections are seriously considering that permutation of players.

Collins came up as a name associated with pick 7 before Anderson started calling it as a possibility.

It may not happen ultimately, but it is being discussed.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous assertion to say "it's a complete lottery". I didn't really want to expand, because, unlike some, I don't need to monotonously hear the sound of my own voice, and genuinely didn't think I needed to explain what was an inane proposition, however...

In 31 drafts the draft pick with the most average number of games is pick 1 (143). The second highest average is pick 2 (128). The third is pick 3 (124). And lo and behold pick 5 happens to be no. 4 (103) ! If it was a "complete lottery" the top 3 draft picks wouldn't have the top 3 success rates over these 31 drafts. Clearly the science has improved over more recent years, so these types of results will continue.

Nine of the top 10 draft picks (worst of those 9 being 84), average more games than any pick chosen from pick 20 onwards (assuming that pick has been involved in at least 20 drafts, which takes us to pick 75).

Naturally there will be nuances where a later pick like 56 - 82 games might have 3 or 4 x 200 game players, which boosts averages, but the overall numbers (shown above) are compelling and certainly not representative of a "complete lottery".

Obviously, as a Melbourne supporter I know there is no guarantee, that's obvious, but there's a reason clubs try to improve their draft position, like we did this year, and clubs like the Saints, who orchestrated 6 x top 22 draft picks over the last 2 years for this current rebuild.

No-one has ever stated that drafts wouldn't be completely re-done with the benefit of hindsight, but early picks give clubs the best chance at cherry picking top end talent. To state that drafts are a complete lottery and that every pick from 1-75 has an equal value simply disregards empirical evidence.

Having seen some of your postings over the journey I have no doubt that none of the above will sway you. And I couldn't care less.

Cheers...

There is a strong argument to say that games played is not the best way of comparing because more time is given to high draft picks to come good. Watts is maybe a good example. Its hypothetical of course but if Watts was pick 52 I doubt he would have lasted at Melbourne.or any club.

I think the people making our selections are seriously considering that permutation of players.

Collins came up as a name associated with pick 7 before Anderson started calling it as a possibility.

It may not happen ultimately, but it is being discussed.

I could see Collins taken at &...but not if Curnow was at 3 ( which Id find somewhat incredulous considering OUR needs )

Um what? you think our key position players will take us up to the top?

Um, no, but our midfield stocks will keep us at the bottom...

If your Forwardline coach cannot make a functioning, efficient, scoring forwardline with Hogan at its core - you need a new forwardline coach. Tom McDonald is an excellent CHB with elite endurance and the ability to lock down any tall in the game.

If you think that I am saying "that's all we need to win finals" then you are making things up to state the bloody obvious.

I am aware of the needs of the forwardline and the backline - but there is also a gaping wound where a, yes, finals bound midfield should be - we don't have enough talent in the most important area of the ground.

No, it's not. It's a ridiculous assertion to say "it's a complete lottery". I didn't really want to expand, because, unlike some, I don't need to monotonously hear the sound of my own voice, and genuinely didn't think I needed to explain what was an inane proposition, however...

In 31 drafts the draft pick with the most average number of games is pick 1 (143). The second highest average is pick 2 (128). The third is pick 3 (124). And lo and behold pick 5 happens to be no. 4 (103) ! If it was a "complete lottery" the top 3 draft picks wouldn't have the top 3 success rates over these 31 drafts. Clearly the science has improved over more recent years, so these types of results will continue.

Nine of the top 10 draft picks (worst of those 9 being 84), average more games than any pick chosen from pick 20 onwards (assuming that pick has been involved in at least 20 drafts, which takes us to pick 75).

Naturally there will be nuances where a later pick like 56 - 82 games might have 3 or 4 x 200 game players, which boosts averages, but the overall numbers (shown above) are compelling and certainly not representative of a "complete lottery".

Obviously, as a Melbourne supporter I know there is no guarantee, that's obvious, but there's a reason clubs try to improve their draft position, like we did this year, and clubs like the Saints, who orchestrated 6 x top 22 draft picks over the last 2 years for this current rebuild.

No-one has ever stated that drafts wouldn't be completely re-done with the benefit of hindsight, but early picks give clubs the best chance at cherry picking top end talent. To state that drafts are a complete lottery and that every pick from 1-75 has an equal value simply disregards empirical evidence.

Having seen some of your postings over the journey I have no doubt that none of the above will sway you. And I couldn't care less.

Cheers...

I can absolutely be swayed - I am going to clarify what i mean by a complete lottery. It is patently obvious that the averages will show that the best footballers come from the top ten draft picks. No argument

However history will show you that there has been vast differences in the outputs from footballers picked 1-10.

Oversimplifying - many posters believe that whoever you take at 1 should be better in ability than who is taken at 2 and who is taken at 2 should be better than taken at 3. The constant postings we took Toumpas at 4 and could have had Wines, we took Watts at 1 and could have had NicNat.

Recruiters are working from very limited information - how will the players bodies mature, how will a player go in open company, will a player develop more defensive traits (absent in the TAC), will the player mature into producing good playing and training habits, will a player who is gun in same age comp continue to develop.

Watts, Toumpas and Sylvia were not mistakes at being drafted where they were - it has just been unfortunate that they have not produced as others of their draft class have.

It is not a complete lottery that you will get a good player in the top 10 - the odds are certainly better. It is a complete lottery and nonsense that the expectation is that we will get the 3rd and 7th best players just because we have picks 3 and 7 in the draft.

( and for a person who had no doubt that I cant be swayed, couldn't care less and doesn't need to expand on inane proposition - you certainly gave expansion a damn fine shot - cheers back !)