It was 'turned' in the opening post. From citing an article on the difficulty of drafting, even in the 1st round, we go off and have the same argument, convincing no-one and infuriating everyone.

I love a good argument as much as the next bloke but CAC's performance is always at the door step of those that want to [censored] about the club.

As I have stated before; CAC is the last of our problems. We've got a new coach, FOM, two assistants, two development guys and we have no idea how they'll go. We are back in the red, have a plethora of training bases all over town, a shrinking supporter base, a CEO that drives employees away at the rate of 80%, and the concerned looks of the AFL.

And what are we stuck on here: CAC. The bloke who chose Molan, Lamb, and Smith.

You're right to criticise but when it is constant you overstate its importance.

Our list is the last of our problems? It seems we differ in opinion on this.

I see us as having improved our financial position considerably over the last 3 years, a wonderful opportunity to finally have a home base at Olympic Park which will have start of the art equipment and facilities, record membership, a CEO who has driven out the dead wood and the approval of the AFL as they check our books and happily reduced our CBF payments as was originally planned 3 years ago.

/shrug

Here's my two cents worth...

The AFL draft age is too young. Would Lachie Henderson be a good investment at Pick 4 given his injury riddled year, we know the margin of error on a player like Masten isn't nearly as great. Was the club right in speculating on bottom age players like Dunn, Newton and Bate? Would it have taken Molan at pick 9 if it had seen him play until he was 20?

The draft is based on the American NFL, NBA etc, but almost exclusively their players come from the college system, and it'd be interesting to see the success rates for their first and second selections compared to the AFL.

The system won't change, which is why clubs will continue to draft 17 Year olds that already have OP because as an elite footballer they play in excess of 35 games a year, and it's why at 18 most KPPs are a gamble - there are too many unknowns for the vast majority of them.

It's also why it's blatantly unfair to allow some clubs to have a greater number of rookie's than others. It increases the odds of them being able to identify talent not exposed to the rest of the competition.

Here's my two cents worth...

The AFL draft age is too young. Would Lachie Henderson be a good investment at Pick 4 given his injury riddled year, we know the margin of error on a player like Masten isn't nearly as great. Was the club right in speculating on bottom age players like Dunn, Newton and Bate? Would it have taken Molan at pick 9 if it had seen him play until he was 20?

The draft is based on the American NFL, NBA etc, but almost exclusively their players come from the college system, and it'd be interesting to see the success rates for their first and second selections compared to the AFL.

The system won't change, which is why clubs will continue to draft 17 Year olds that already have OP because as an elite footballer they play in excess of 35 games a year, and it's why at 18 most KPPs are a gamble - there are too many unknowns for the vast majority of them.

It's also why it's blatantly unfair to allow some clubs to have a greater number of rookie's than others. It increases the odds of them being able to identify talent not exposed to the rest of the competition.

very good point. thhe afl is the 'elite' competition in australia, but in actual fact we have a large number of players just learning the ropes and growing into themselves at this level. if the draft age was lifted to 20 players would have a chance to develop into strong footballers whereby the afl would truly be the best versus the best. however, who is going to pay to develop them for 3 extra years? also what about players who are ready to star, do they miss out because of the draft age? its a hard question, but i think atm there is not enough money around for us to do anything else. SA and WA often have their juniors developing against men, but in vic there are enough juniors for them to have their own comps....

interesting conundrum and perhaps one that deserves a thread of its own...

I have to make a comment on the AFL article about best all-time draft choices.

Firstly - Alistair Nicholson at 22! Go big Al, it's no accolade but it is a nice thing to know about yourself I spose.

Second - pick 6, only one player made it past 100 games after being taken at six?! That is truly scary.

And finally, once again a reminder of how good Melbourne's 99 draft was, with multiple players fromthat year being touted as best of their pick, and almost all of them getting honorable mentions.

I want another one. I really want another one. Now that we've loaded up on development staff and we're committed to actively supporting growth in the kids, and with a series of excellent drafts behind us in the last few years (03, 04, 05, 06 must all be counted as pretty successful) another draft like that could blast us into a golden era.

And then we've got four rookie slots to fill, which I think is the most 'morally' pleasing part of the draft, because it gives underdogs a shot and there's a huge thrill when someone from the rookie list makes it.

i have no doubt molan and smith were stuff ups, but apart from those two examples (and lamb) we havnt really had a plethora of high selection KPP's have we?

i know people have already entered into this argument on other threads but we were just unlucky that lamb knocked himself out when he was really starting to develop

i know people have already entered into this argument on other threads but we were just unlucky that lamb knocked himself out when he was really starting to develop

Or that the Coach just wrote him off.

... his only KPP success in the first round, 1 one from 5 in years - Lamb, Molan, Smith, Dunn and Frawley. ...

i think this is a key point in the argument. we have really only had these 5 picks in th category we are discussing. in the same time frame we have had a plethora of picks in the late draft, we have pick up a dozen midfielders and we have had 15 different rookies.

btw i think you have to count dunn as a success if you are going to count frawley. he may not turn out to be a genuine kpp but that is not CAC's fault. he was drafted and he is either a success or not. if you dont want to count him as a KPP then call it 1 in 4 not 1 in 5. or count both bate and dunn and we can call it 3 in 6, because even though they don't play traditional KP roles they are both in excess of 190cm which categorises them as 'talls'. its not CAC's fault that they have developed differently.

i will continue with the 5 selections (not 4 or 6) because thats what you started, but i will count dunn as a success not a failure.

toss a coin 5 times. you know you should get 2 or 3 heads and 2 or 3 tails. but when you do it 5 times, there is a good chance you will get 4 or 5 of the same. small population size means it is easy for the probabilities to be incorrect.

also if you are assuming that first round KPP have a success rate of 70% (i thought i read that somewhere in this thread, correct me if im wrong) then the probability of getting 2 (or less successes) out of the 5 picks is about 16%. the chances of having 3 successes jumps to around 31%.

again, jarka it is how you look at it (regarding the inclusion of dunn and bate or not). give him 5 more selctions. if he nails four of those 5 his average will be 6/10 which suddenly looks pretty good. small population sizes skews the data.

i think this is a key point in the argument. we have really only had these 5 picks in th category we are discussing. in the same time frame we have had a plethora of picks in the late draft, we have pick up a dozen midfielders and we have had 15 different rookies.

btw i think you have to count dunn as a success if you are going to count frawley. he may not turn out to be a genuine kpp but that is not CAC's fault. he was drafted and he is either a success or not. if you dont want to count him as a KPP then call it 1 in 4 not 1 in 5. or count both bate and dunn and we can call it 3 in 6, because even though they don't play traditional KP roles they are both in excess of 190cm which categorises them as 'talls'. its not CAC's fault that they have developed differently.

i will continue with the 5 selections (not 4 or 6) because thats what you started, but i will count dunn as a success not a failure.

toss a coin 5 times. you know you should get 2 or 3 heads and 2 or 3 tails. but when you do it 5 times, there is a good chance you will get 4 or 5 of the same. small population size means it is easy for the probabilities to be incorrect.

also if you are assuming that first round KPP have a success rate of 70% (i thought i read that somewhere in this thread, correct me if im wrong) then the probability of getting 2 (or less successes) out of the 5 picks is about 16%. the chances of having 3 successes jumps to around 31%.

again, jarka it is how you look at it (regarding the inclusion of dunn and bate or not). give him 5 more selctions. if he nails four of those 5 his average will be 6/10 which suddenly looks pretty good. small population sizes skews the data.

The 70% figure was a CAC quote taken from a recent article. Make no mistake, CAC is a fine recruiter (now one of the best), however, it's taken him a long time to get there. This is best illustrated by Bailey's comments with his 'build the team list on the u23's' attitude. I'd also be interested to see the comparison of his first 5 years to his last 5, my guess is that the latter would be far superior.

The other issue which I wasn't happy about was the drafting of players with leadership qualities, which is another area that he's improved in over the last half of his career. If you look at our current list we're devoid of any stand out leaders who are over 23 (whereas Rivers, McLean and Jones all look to be capable of turning into excellent leaders)

With Dunn I disagree with you, he was drafted as a KPP and it's a fair assumption to make that he'll never be one, I'm also not convinced that he will become a good player. This season he had 3 decent games, however two of them were against an opposition who were simply not interested in winning and hence there was very little pressure applied on us. His other issue is where to play him? He's not a KPP, I seriously doubt whether he has the class to play as a 'small forward' and he doesn't have the engine to play in the midfield - this was shown by Riley trying him as a tagger. Ideally he could develop into an Andrew Embly style of midfielder however he has a long way to go to get even close to that level.

If we're counting Dunn as a success then we're in alot more trouble than I thought.

very good point. thhe afl is the 'elite' competition in australia, but in actual fact we have a large number of players just learning the ropes and growing into themselves at this level. if the draft age was lifted to 20 players would have a chance to develop into strong footballers whereby the afl would truly be the best versus the best. however, who is going to pay to develop them for 3 extra years? also what about players who are ready to star, do they miss out because of the draft age? its a hard question, but i think atm there is not enough money around for us to do anything else. SA and WA often have their juniors developing against men, but in vic there are enough juniors for them to have their own comps....

interesting conundrum and perhaps one that deserves a thread of its own...

Discussion of the success of CAC aside, this is an interesting discussion. I was musing that whenever a more mature aged player from say 23 yrs or more gets on a list for the first time its big news and an article on the players grit, application and stickability etc..

If drafters are getting it wrong with so many of those selected - how many are being missed because they were not selected? Doesn't seem to be many that make it on lists as more mature players. But by then the awkward have grown into their bodies or the misguided and distracted grow up and get focus.

Or are they then subjected to "well they didn't get picked when they were 18... so they musn't be very good" Are our drafters being blindsided by the spotlight on the youth development programs? Though to answer my own question here I presume the scouts are watching all the competitions?