ColourMan wrote:
AK43 wrote:
Quote:
We did not participate in the draft last year after pick 23 (I'm not including Jack)... I think every other club except Adelaide did, with almost every club also debuting a draftee after we pulled up stumps.
Either SOS decided there wasn't any talent worth selecting or wasn't able to identify the talent and decided not to try...
I could be wrong, but there might have been only player drafted in the 20s by GWS that played in their Preliminary final side... and Brodie was around then.
That's true but 23 was our 4th pick, most clubs would have had either one or no picks by then so they had to pick at least twice more. And why do you not count Jack? Run that draft again and a bid would come a lot earlier. We still turned over 16 players from memory, in a rebuild that can't be judged for at least another couple of years.
All you did was support my argument because you totally missed the point.
I might have missed your point also but I think your point is that SOS didn't think that there was any other talent in the draft so he didn't try. Despite this, every other club besides Adelaide, made selections after SOS. You think he either didn't want to identify further talent, or wasn't capable of it. Others have said SOS doesn't value picks over 40 and that this is an issue, etc etc. Hopefully SOS see's my post and jumps on and replies, to clarify his views on picks 40+. Until then, I'll defend him because I think he has done well up to this point.
I went back over the 2015 draft and looked at 7 random teams and what they did, to see if it proved your point (due to time restrictions). I also looked at all the teams who participated in the draft after we finished. I cannot disregard #53 being used on Jack Silvagni. It was used and was our fifth selection in the 2015 draft.
So we were active in the 2015 trade period but we're only looking at the draft in isolation. I've also disregarded Essendon* due to their need to fill positions on their list to cover the drug cheats who were banned. They would not normally have been this active otherwise. I looked at Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast, Bulldogs, Hawks as my random teams. I then looked at Freo, Sydney, West Coast, Pies, Geelong, North, and Richmond as the teams who made selections after us.
We made 5 selections in the draft which had us the most active team, equal with Brisbane, and North at 5 (of my sample size). The majority of other teams used 4 but Sydney, Hawks, Richmond and West Coast only used 3 selections. SOS was active in the draft compared to the other teams.
Our final selection was pick #53. Of all the sample teams I randomly chose, our pick #53, except for the swans using pick #56, was the latest pick used. With the sample teams final selections below:
- Brisbane fifth selection @ pick #47
- Sydney third selection @ pick #56
- Melbourne fourth selection @ 46
- GWS fourth selection @ #41
- Gold Coast fourth selection @ #52
- Dogs fourth selection @ #48
- Hawks third selection @ #44
Doesn't seem like SOS, making selection #53 our final selection, dipped out too early after all.
Of the teams who made selections after us:
West Coast's last pick (of 3) was #57 (which is close enough) but they didn't enter the draft until pick #28. We had already made four selections before they had made their first one. This pattern continues due to these teams trading earlier picks, which forced them to take later picks.
Freo's first pick was #27 (due to Harley Bennel trade)
Sydney's first pick was #3 (Callum Mills *academy) but after that they didn't get another choice until pick #51.
Collingwood started at pick #28 (due to Treloar trade)
Geelong started at pick #59 (due to Dangerfield, Henderson etc)
North started at #21 (due to Jed Anderson trade)
Richmond started at pick #15
Hope you made it through the stats.
I'm trying to demonstrate that we had got into the draft first at #1. But we had completed four selections before most of these clubs had even made a single trade. They got pushed back in the draft, forcing them to make late trades for drafted players. They simply didn't have earlier picks to use because they had traded them away during the trade period. It
doesn't indicate their preference or ability to find talent later in the draft than SOS.
SOS should be commended for creating a scenario where he was able to secure 4 picks under 23 (19 before Academy selections), rather than being criticised for not making late picks. Further to this, he used five selections in the draft, bringing in some young talent that looks extremely promising for our future.
Lastly, you mentioned that Adelaide was the only team opting out of the draft earlier than us, but my list shows at least 6 out of my small sample. (Brisbane, Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast, Western Bulldogs, Hawks).
Can't wait to see what he does this year. And before anyone jumps up and down complaining about how he'll go straight back to GWS, like last year, just STOP. Due to overwhelmingly insane concessions, granted to them by the AFL, they have an insane list of players that they simply cannot afford to keep. Players will continue to ooze out of the club as they continue to reduce their list, and address their impending salary cap issues. Silvagni has intimate knowledge of the list, having constructed most of it. If that is not an edge that should be exploited, I don't understand what would be. If he was not looking elsewhere, that could be perceived as an issue, but he traded with other teams during the trade period.
I'm obviously a fan so far and appreciate the changes that we're making to our list. Hope it continues as aggressively as it started, and that we see even more excitement next year.
Go Blues
(If there is a little discrepancy with the draft order, I was flicking between the indicative order, and the AFL Draft. I might have misquoted a little around any changes that occurred due to Academy selections, but the body of work is still sound, and it doesn't change the outcome).
Login
Register
FAQ
