Wildman wrote:
camelboy wrote:
McLachlan clarifies decision to reject priority pick requestshttps://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/09/25/ ... -requests/Quote:
The AFL Commission yesterday rejected the struggling clubs' proposal of securing an extra, early pick to fast-track their respective rebuilds.
“With these things you’re trying to look at the objective and a bit of the subjective assessment of the clubs and where they’re at,” McLachlan told SEN’s Whateley.
“If you help then you’re doing that at the expense of the competition generally.
“There was an assessment that the clubs had a lot of young talent, I think Carlton have got 18 first round picks and they’ll get the number one pick again this year.
“Gold Coast have got 15 first round picks on their list and they’re going to get picks two and 15 this year if Tom Lynch goes to another club, which is I think accepted, so they’ll get pick 3 as well.
“So there was a view that they needed some mature bodies.”
The Blues and the Suns will instead receive priority access to two state level players each, as reported by SEN Time On host Sam McClure last month.
Did the AFL Commission really look at the number of first round picks Carlton has as a basis for deciding on the health of our list? This is part of the strange phenomena that has developed since the draft was introduced. Where a player is picked in the draft is merely a starting point for a players career, once all the new players lands at a club which pick they were in the draft becomes irrelevant as their performance or lack of is their measure as a player. It is regularly raised when discussing the trading of a player, when all it really represents is the value a club placed on an 18 year old junior footballer. So if the club had kept Kane Lucas, Josh Bootsma and Blaine Boakhurst on the list Gil would have been able to say we have 21 first rounders on our list. Not to forget that our most consistent player in the last 15 years Kade Simpson is merely a fourth round pick. The first round picks we have traded into the club are nearly all on their second chance having struggled at their original club due to injury, attitude and a failure to live up to their potential. And that's all it is potential, Gil is assessing the potential of the list based on when a number of the players were selected in the draft, while the performance has been disappointing. It's probably just as well, I would have preferred the club use pick 11 or 19 on a good young mid-fielder rather than hand it to Adelaide for another tall forward. I'm not sure that tall forwards is what we lack, use the concessions and draft to get the mid-fielders and small forwards to improve the teams attack.
I get what you're saying, but as a rough rule, the amount of 1st round picks means statistically, you should have built a good list - and that'd be right.
History clearly shows that 1st rounders have a much greater chance of playing 100+ games than the remaining 60-70 picks. That doesn't mean there aren't gems late in the draft, or duds in the top 20.
Our 'problem' is that many of our 1st rounders were rejects from GWS/GC etc while we used our own 1st rounders on the Bootmas, the Lucases, the Watsons etc.