The calumny of the AFL's priority pick policy

[TheoX 1,222]

 

On 9/11/2019 at 2:35 PM, Red and Blue realist said:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it's not pick 2, that whatever pick they get has the condition of being traded for experienced players.

They could trade it for Jarryd Lyons, exactly the kind of player they need....?

[Red and Blue realist 2,051]

17 hours ago, TheoX said:

 

They could trade it for Jarryd Lyons, exactly the kind of player they need....?

I reckon that'll be one of the big 'against' arguments the other clubs will bring up! 

[Whispering_Jack 30,244]

The decision is set to be announced in the next few days. The conspiracy theorists will maintain that the AFL is deliberately burying the story amid the general noise of the Brownlow Medal count and the hype surrounding Grand Final week.

It’s indisputable that the Gold Coast Suns need special assistance. The help they received last year wasn’t enough to provide the instant fix they wanted but there were some extenuating circumstances. They had salary cap issues and let a top line midfielder in Jarryd Lyons go to Brisbane for nothing, their #3 draft pick in Izak Rankine was injured and didn’t play a game and not enough time has passed to determine how they fared in trading out Lynch and May. They are set to lose a potential gun in Jack Martin.

Yet the word is out that the Suns are set to receive a priority draft pick at the start of the draft - notwithstanding that they have performed no worse than Melbourne did when it was crying out for draft assistance earlier this decade and was categorically denied. 

I accept that Melbourne will be the main “victim” of such a move and that it’s not a great disaster to get #3 instead of #2 but it nevertheless reeks of AFL inconsistency and decision-making on the run. The governing body seems clueless and conflicted whether it’s in making decisions on priority picks or in allowing people to sit on tribunals who clearly should not be there. 

[Salems Lot 2,535]

15 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The decision is set to be announced in the next few days. The conspiracy theorists will maintain that the AFL is deliberately burying the story amid the general noise of the Brownlow Medal count and the hype surrounding Grand Final week.

It’s indisputable that the Gold Coast Suns need special assistance. The help they received last year wasn’t enough to provide the instant fix they wanted but there were some extenuating circumstances. They had salary cap issues and let a top line midfielder in Jarryd Lyons go to Brisbane for nothing, their #3 draft pick in Izak Rankine was injured and didn’t play a game and not enough time has passed to determine how they fared in trading out Lynch and May. They are set to lose a potential gun in Jack Martin.

Yet the word is out that the Suns are set to receive a priority draft pick at the start of the draft - notwithstanding that they have performed no worse than Melbourne did when it was crying out for draft assistance earlier this decade and was categorically denied. 

I accept that Melbourne will be the main “victim” of such a move and that it’s not a great disaster to get #3 instead of #2 but it nevertheless reeks of AFL inconsistency and decision-making on the run. The governing body seems clueless and conflicted whether it’s in making decisions on priority picks or in allowing people to sit on tribunals who clearly should not be there. 

The current administration are a joke.  McLachlan has been a huge disappointment with his ineptitude being in evidence throughout his entire term.  Appointing someone from inside the circus tent was a huge mistake by the league.  

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

11 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The decision is set to be announced in the next few days. The conspiracy theorists will maintain that the AFL is deliberately burying the story amid the general noise of the Brownlow Medal count and the hype surrounding Grand Final week.

It’s indisputable that the Gold Coast Suns need special assistance. The help they received last year wasn’t enough to provide the instant fix they wanted but there were some extenuating circumstances. They had salary cap issues and let a top line midfielder in Jarryd Lyons go to Brisbane for nothing, their #3 draft pick in Izak Rankine was injured and didn’t play a game and not enough time has passed to determine how they fared in trading out Lynch and May. They are set to lose a potential gun in Jack Martin.

Yet the word is out that the Suns are set to receive a priority draft pick at the start of the draft - notwithstanding that they have performed no worse than Melbourne did when it was crying out for draft assistance earlier this decade and was categorically denied. 

I accept that Melbourne will be the main “victim” of such a move and that it’s not a great disaster to get #3 instead of #2 but it nevertheless reeks of AFL inconsistency and decision-making on the run. The governing body seems clueless and conflicted whether it’s in making decisions on priority picks or in allowing people to sit on tribunals who clearly should not be there. 

Conflicted yes but certainly not clueless Jack.  They know EXACTLY what they're doing.  Everything is extremely well massaged and managed, starting with the fixture each season and ending in a rediculous FA system that allows the likes of Lynch to end up at a team that won a premiership merely two seasons ago.

Very few outcomes / trends are accidental in the AFL system anymore including the Toby Greene suspension.

Fairness is certainly not a word i would equate in any way with the AFL and it's been that way since the VFL backflipped on its original agreement to rotate the recruiting zones back in the late 60s.

[AaronDaveyChipsAndGravey 390]

Is there still any possibility of the Suns receiving that priority pick after the bottom 10 teams have all had their first rounders? Would at least seem fair for most clubs, especially those towards the bottom of the ladder. Everybody seems to be harping on about how deep this draft is, so wouldnt a later pick work just as well?

But I mean honestly, how can the AFL keep rewarding a club with these picks?? Used pick 2 or 3 (I cant remember) on Lachie Weller who is a genuine B grader, played Jack Martin in the 2s for half this year and will walk this year, let Jarryd Lyons walk for almost nothing to the Lions - just to name a few. 

[Ethan Tremblay 30,878]

I read something a few weeks ago that suggested Gold Coast might receive pick 10. I don’t know if draft assistance is what they need,  they need to keep the players they already have, perhaps some sort of incentives for them to stay.

The incentives don’t have to be forever but it might help them keep a core group of players who would otherwise leave. I don’t see the point in Gold Coast perpetually receiving low draft picks only for them to leave after a couple of seasons. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Ethan Tremblay

[Wells 11 5,409]

If we deserved one so do they as they’re in worse shape than we were. all their stars leave... and will continue to.

the problem being that I I think the afl need to accept that this project is a failure and they won’t. What they really need is to start again, get gifted about 8 afl B+ players from top 8 clubs as well as extra draft picks. But no one would tolerate that. They’re rooted anyway so I hope they get pick 10. 

[Mach5 4,768]

30 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I read something a few weeks ago that suggested Gold Coast might receive pick 10. I don’t know if draft assistance is what they need,  they need to keep the players they already have, perhaps some sort of incentives for them to stay.

The incentives don’t have to be forever but it might help them keep a core group of players who would otherwise leave. I don’t see the point in Gold Coast perpetually receiving low draft picks only for them to leave after a couple of seasons. 

 

Draft picks aren’t ALL they need, but they do need them after squandering so much talent in the past. The same as us in the past, however their situation is more dire.

[Deecisive 1,709]

19 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

Draft picks aren’t ALL they need, but they do need them after squandering so much talent in the past. The same as us in the past, however their situation is more dire.

Agreed. One extra early draft pick is going to give them what?  will they play finals football next year, or within 5 years time for that matter. I think most football followers would agree that is very very unlikely.

The goldcoast is an expensive attempt to drum up AFL support in Qld. It has failed, and will unfortunately continue to fail. NSW AFL experiment version 1.1 (GWS) only survived due to the largess bestowed on them in the form of a massive number of early draft picks, and their continued ability to trade unused top talent for more early draft picks.

I dont really care if they get an early draft pick, just wish consistency in the way all clubs are treated, whether that is at the tribunal or in providing draft concessions to struggling clubs. just have a set of simple rules and dont deviate, dont reinterpret, be consistent with their decision making.

 

[Macca 17,013]

We should nearly always swap our 1st & 2nd round picks for proven talent anyway.  And by proven talent I mean B+ or A grade (never Dawes,  Clark or Lumumba) More like Buddy,  Dangerfield,  Judd,  Lynch,  Treloar,  Mitchell etc etc

Drafting is high risk where as trading draft picks for proven talent has very little risk attached. And draft picks are overvalued anyway so it's hard to lose out from an overall perspective (trading draft picks for proven talent)  Trading for Lever & May were the right moves.  So was trading a top end pick for Jeff White back in 1997. 

Injuries can happen to draftees as well (Hogan,  Petracca,  Brayshaw,  Trengove etc etc)

And I have been saying the same thing for decades.  Just think how better off we'd be if we'd traded for talent from 2007 onwards.

The long list of busts wouldn't have happened and we'd have been relevant and a finals contender throughout. 

Morton,  Watts,  Scully,  Trengove,  Gysberts,  Strauss,  Maric,  Blease,  Cook,  Tapscott, Weideman,  Tyson (a former pick 3) and a few others would never have happened

We'd have lost the chance to draft Oliver,  Brayshaw,  Petracca,  Salem (and a departing Hogan) but those 5 players are all we can point at over a 12 year period.  A massive,  catastrophic fail.  The system stinks and we need to stop blaming the A-end of the problem.

What we could always have done is to trade for picks with those who have a bit of currency and then bundled up the picks for proven talent.  Given how high risk drafting is I'm astonished that a club hasn't tried it (consistently) You'll never win backing long shots.

But belief systems are belief systems.  Faith,  hope & trust wins out.  We want to believe what we're being told by the draft believers but the truth says otherwise.

Talented draftees should be therefore targeted after they have been in the AFL system for 2-4 years.  So you don't actually ever miss out (if you're smart) 

You still have to do the mandatory 3 picks but that can be picks 62,  63 & 64.  All expendable. 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Macca

[Willmoy1947 4,103]

Apart from, why would any players want to live on the GC, the "fruit and cake" capital of the world, why not send AFL Administrators from Leading Clubs to salvage the investment, and they go into a draft as well......

[Lucifers Hero 39,991]

^^^ @Maccapost.

Sydney, Hawks, Geelong and too a lesser extent Collingwood have been trading top picks for A grade talent for the last decade.  Consistently in flag contention as a result.

They occasionally take a dip to the bottom of the ladder, get their A+ players but bounce back up again.

We on the other hand have been-in-love-with-the-draft for over a decade and only changed when Roos et al boldly split pick #2 which sadly didn't achieve the results we all hoped.  Nonetheless, as you have shown it was the right strategy.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Lucifer's Hero

[Macca 17,013]

5 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Apart from, why would any players want to live on the GC, the "fruit and cake" capital of the world, why not send AFL Administrators from Leading Clubs to salvage the investment, and they go into a draft as well......

Why wouldn't certain players want to live a life of luxury from a young age?  They are not all Joel Selwood types.

Idyllic lifestyle with great surfing weather with lots of money and you don't answer to anyone.  Sounds like a plan.

 

[Macca 17,013]

3 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

^^^ @Maccapost.

Sydney, Hawks, Geelong and too a lesser extent Collingwood have been trading top picks for A grade talent for the last decade.  Consistently in flag contention as a result.

They occasionally take a dip to the bottom of the ladder, get their A+ players but bounce back up again.

We on the other hand have been in-love-with-the-draft for over a decade and only changed when Roos et al bodly split pick #2 which sadly didn't achieve the results we all hoped.  Nonetheless, as you have shown it was the right strategy.

My argument has been a consistent one since the mid 90's.  Ever since the flaws with drafting were shown up.  But my argument goes back to the mid 80's just before the draft came in.

And here as well ... but the shift in thinking was always going to happen over time anyway.  Not by all but if talent identification is looked at logically,  why take a chance on unproven talent vs proven talent? 

And you can still trade for the gems.  We as a club should be in the ears of the player managers way before a top prospect draftee gets into the system.  Keep up the relationships and then swoop at a later date.

To me it's an absolute no-brainer. 

[Macca 17,013]

18 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

@Macca

We on the other hand have been-in-love-with-the-draft for over a decade and only changed when Roos et al boldly split pick #2 which sadly didn't achieve the results we all hoped. 

It was different (as in splitting the pick)  but still high risk.  Tyson wasn't a proven talent,  just a former no.3 pick.  Pick 9 (Salem) was unproven.

So in a way,  we still trusted the draft and were looking to simply double-dip

I would have swapped pick 2 (with a couple of extras) for a proven A grade midfielder (or suchlike) 

That way,  you get what you pay for. 

[Deesprate 1,324]

43 minutes ago, Macca said:

We should nearly always swap our 1st & 2nd round picks for proven talent anyway.  And by proven talent I mean B+ or A grade (never Dawes,  Clark or Lumumba) More like Buddy,  Dangerfield,  Judd,  Lynch,  Treloar,  Mitchell etc etc

Drafting is high risk where as trading draft picks for proven talent has very little risk attached. And draft picks are overvalued anyway so it's hard to lose out from an overall perspective (trading draft picks for proven talent)  Trading for Lever & May were the right moves.  So was trading a top end pick for Jeff White back in 1997. 

Injuries can happen to draftees as well (Hogan,  Petracca,  Brayshaw,  Trengove etc etc)

And I have been saying the same thing for decades.  Just think how better off we'd be if we'd traded for talent from 2007 onwards.

The long list of busts wouldn't have happened and we'd have been relevant and a finals contender throughout. 

Morton,  Watts,  Scully,  Trengove,  Gysberts,  Strauss,  Maric,  Blease,  Cook,  Tapscott, Weideman,  Tyson (a former pick 3) and a few others would never have happened

We'd have lost the chance to draft Oliver,  Brayshaw,  Petracca,  Salem (and a departing Hogan) but those 5 players are all we can point at over a 12 year period.  A massive,  catastrophic fail.  The system stinks and we need to stop blaming the A-end of the problem.

What we could always have done is to trade for picks with those who have a bit of currency and then bundled up the picks for proven talent.  Given how high risk drafting is I'm astonished that a club hasn't tried it (consistently) You'll never win backing long shots.

But belief systems are belief systems.  Faith,  hope & trust wins out.  We want to believe what we're being told by the draft believers but the truth says otherwise.

Talented draftees should be therefore targeted after they have been in the AFL system for 2-4 years.  So you don't actually ever miss out (if you're smart) 

You still have to do the mandatory 3 picks but that can be picks 62,  63 & 64.  All expendable. 

I totally agree with your sentiment. What a litany of disasters those recruits have been. No wonder we are so putrid. The Dees have traded to get players but the jury is out on Lever and May. Our progression is heavily linked to these two. Let hope they fire because if they don’t the club has been set back years. Brisbane traded to get Cameron and Neale and look at their impact. Richmond have plundered the Suns and got Lynch and Prestia these two were instrumental in getting to the grand final. Just how Richmond got Lynch is still a mystery. Just show the impact of top end talent and why Lyon reckon Dees should stop recruiting mid level players and go after A grade talent like Whitfield. Let develop a strategy to trade our top draft pick for a gun as I have no confidence in untried talent.

[Macca 17,013]

6 minutes ago, Deesprate said:

I totally agree with your sentiment. What a litany of disasters those recruits have been. No wonder we are so putrid. The Dees have traded to get players but the jury is out on Lever and May. Our progression is heavily linked to these two. Let hope they fire because if they don’t the club has been set back years. Brisbane traded to get Cameron and Neale and look at their impact. Richmond have plundered the Suns and got Lynch and Prestia these two were instrumental in getting to the grand final. Just how Richmond got Lynch is still a mystery. Just show the impact of top end talent and why Lyon reckon Dees should stop recruiting mid level players and go after A grade talent like Whitfield. Let develop a strategy to trade our top draft pick for a gun as I have no confidence in untried talent.

Lever got injured and so did May ... if both get fit and remain fit,  the good results will almost certainly happen. 

At least we know that their best footy is very good.  They have both shown it.  But us supporters are impatient. 

You're occasionally going to miss when trading for proven talent. And that is often injury related (which is just simply bad luck)

But as a template,  trading for pure talent is a much smarter way of recruiting.  And I am not late to the party either.  I've been pointing at the realities of how flawed the draft is for decades. 

Expectations

Picks 1 - 5 (A grade)

Picks 6 - 10 (B+ grade)

Other first round picks (A good,  solid player)

Reality - Something completely different.

So May was traded for pick 5 but pick 5 is not definitely an A grade player.  Half the time a top 5 pick is a bust

And Lever was traded for 2 first round picks outside of the top 10 ... again,  no guarantees and the expectation isn't for greatness anyway.

Probably those 2 picks for Lever falls into the May category.  Again,  no guarantees

So if both players can get fit and remain fit,  we've got our 2 guaranteed talented players.

[Macca 17,013]

If you bring at least 2 talented players onto your list each season,  before you know it you've got a top 4 team.

Because top players often play for 10+ years. Acquiring them at the age of 21-22 is preferable.

We have had at least 6 years since the acquisition of Jones where we haven't added 1 top player.  And in other years it's been just the 1 top player added.  An abysmal record.

We've lost the battle at the recruiting table. 

The coaching often gets blamed but without talent,  a coaching panel doesn't stand a chance.

[Redleg 40,979]

Chris Judd said on Footy Classified a few weeks ago that he thought GC would get about pick 10 as a PP. Everyone seems to think pick 2 is a given.

I think Judd has heard this from someone he trusts.

We will see,

[Adam The God 30,289]

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

^^^ @Maccapost.

Sydney, Hawks, Geelong and too a lesser extent Collingwood have been trading top picks for A grade talent for the last decade.  Consistently in flag contention as a result.

They occasionally take a dip to the bottom of the ladder, get their A+ players but bounce back up again.

We on the other hand have been-in-love-with-the-draft for over a decade and only changed when Roos et al boldly split pick #2 which sadly didn't achieve the results we all hoped.  Nonetheless, as you have shown it was the right strategy.

The thing about those aforementioned teams (and the problem I have with @Macca's post) is that they've built from the draft first and then they've kept topping up with A graders from other clubs. Something we are trying to do now. We've started by drafting our core, we've targeted Lever and May, and now we're targetting some FAs.

I think as with everything, there's a balance. You need to nail your top end first rounders for a 2-3 year period, then you can rely on FA and the trading of top end picks to top up your list.

I think it's an oversimplification and disingenuous to say/imply you can build a whole team with the trading of first round picks.

Edited September 22, 2019 by A F

[deespicable me 1,487]

6 hours ago, Macca said:

We should nearly always swap our 1st & 2nd round picks for proven talent anyway.  And by proven talent I mean B+ or A grade (never Dawes,  Clark or Lumumba) More like Buddy,  Dangerfield,  Judd,  Lynch,  Treloar,  Mitchell etc etc

Drafting is high risk where as trading draft picks for proven talent has very little risk attached. And draft picks are overvalued anyway so it's hard to lose out from an overall perspective (trading draft picks for proven talent)  Trading for Lever & May were the right moves.  So was trading a top end pick for Jeff White back in 1997. 

Injuries can happen to draftees as well (Hogan,  Petracca,  Brayshaw,  Trengove etc etc)

And I have been saying the same thing for decades.  Just think how better off we'd be if we'd traded for talent from 2007 onwards.

The long list of busts wouldn't have happened and we'd have been relevant and a finals contender throughout. 

Morton,  Watts,  Scully,  Trengove,  Gysberts,  Strauss,  Maric,  Blease,  Cook,  Tapscott, Weideman,  Tyson (a former pick 3) and a few others would never have happened

We'd have lost the chance to draft Oliver,  Brayshaw,  Petracca,  Salem (and a departing Hogan) but those 5 players are all we can point at over a 12 year period.  A massive,  catastrophic fail.  The system stinks and we need to stop blaming the A-end of the problem.

What we could always have done is to trade for picks with those who have a bit of currency and then bundled up the picks for proven talent.  Given how high risk drafting is I'm astonished that a club hasn't tried it (consistently) You'll never win backing long shots.

But belief systems are belief systems.  Faith,  hope & trust wins out.  We want to believe what we're being told by the draft believers but the truth says otherwise.

Talented draftees should be therefore targeted after they have been in the AFL system for 2-4 years.  So you don't actually ever miss out (if you're smart) 

You still have to do the mandatory 3 picks but that can be picks 62,  63 & 64.  All expendable. 

Nice argument. Well argued. I am from the "take your pick to the draft" belief and absolutely love new untried talent, but you are correct, especially with Melbourne (consider Jack Watts), we heap unrealistic pressure on them and they rarely deliver.

You've got me almost agreeing with you but I love Oliver and I still am more than happy to go to the draft. As you say its my "belief system"

[Adam The God 30,289]

5 hours ago, Macca said:

If you bring at least 2 talented players onto your list each season,  before you know it you've got a top 4 team.

Because top players often play for 10+ years. Acquiring them at the age of 21-22 is preferable.

We have had at least 6 years since the acquisition of Jones where we haven't added 1 top player.  And in other years it's been just the 1 top player added.  An abysmal record.

We've lost the battle at the recruiting table. 

The coaching often gets blamed but without talent,  a coaching panel doesn't stand a chance.

See, this is all great in some dream world, but how many teams would give up an A grade talent at 21-22 or even in their prime at 24-26? Not many. Only GWS and GCS probably.

I get the strategy and I think it can/does work, but it's the exact strategy we've clearly changed to in the last 2-3 years in order to land Lever and May. They've both had A grade seasons previously - Lever is young and May is nearing the end. 

We've built our midfield at the draft, we're trying to build our backline via FA and trading, and our forwardline should be a mixture of drafting/trading and FA. 

But to be fair to the MFC, you can't just throw first round picks around if the rest of your list is puss. You won't attract anyone this way. You need to build a reasonable core first and then you can attract with money and potential.

Edited September 22, 2019 by A F

[Gorgoroth 12,972]

Saw this the other day and thought pick 2 is def theirs.

He obviously knows something to say the top two will help them.

 

[Adam The God 30,289]

5 hours ago, Macca said:

If you bring at least 2 talented players onto your list each season,  before you know it you've got a top 4 team.

Because top players often play for 10+ years. Acquiring them at the age of 21-22 is preferable.

We have had at least 6 years since the acquisition of Jones where we haven't added 1 top player.  And in other years it's been just the 1 top player added.  An abysmal record.

We've lost the battle at the recruiting table. 

The coaching often gets blamed but without talent,  a coaching panel doesn't stand a chance.

Sorry mate, but I've been thinking about this comment as well.

If anything, I'd argue that it's almost entirely up to system and whether a coach is capable of devising a successful system and then their ability to implement that system with the players at their disposal.

Richmond are a really good example. They've got 4 or 5 absolute guns and then the rest are role players within a finely tuned system, where every player knows his role.

We're right to blame coaching 9 times out of 10, because most teams have a few really good players, and a team of decent players can look A grade in a top system.

But I'm a believer in system over almost everything, like you're a believer in trading picks.