What about our drafting, then?

[sharp9]

Mmmmmmmm

In the last three drafts we have drafted 9 young players of which only three have had any game time (One one game and one two)for a total of 25 games. We seem to bring players on very much slower than other teams. Roos would seem to have a very conservative selection table compared to, say, Sheedy, Matthews and Malthouse for example. Below I have compared our players to a few stand outs who are in some instances, massively more advanced than the players we drafted.

On the other hand it could be argued that new Swans come to their first AFL game fully formed and ready to go (a al Tuck and Dipper and Brereton who all had at least 50 games in the reserves or under 19s). Nevertheless it is worth noting that some of the young players making a mark in the competition were drafted well after some of our "future stars" who are nowhere to be seen as yet

2002 Draft Sydney Games Total 25

(5) Jarrad McVeigh 22 games - we passed up
(6) Salopek/Port
(7) Mackie/Geelong
(10) Laycock/Essendon
(13) Schammer/Fremantle
(19) Selwood/Brisbane
(26) Rivers/Melbourne
(32) Jericho/Adelaide

(34) Sean Dempster 2 Games - we passed up
(37) Staker/Eagles
(44) Corrie/Brisbane

(50) Josh Thewlis 1 Game - we passed up
(53) Selwood/Eagles
(56) Shirley/Adelaide
(58) King/Collingwood

(64) Nick Malceski 0 Games - we passed up
(66) Ferguson/Melbourne
(70) Matthew Lokan/Collingwood
(72) Brad Fisher/Carlton

2003 Draft Sydney Games Total 0

(16) Josh Willoughby - we passed up
(20) Butler/Eagles
(25) Miller/Hawthorn

(29) Tim Schmidt - we passed up
(33) Adcock/Brisbane
(37) Roach/Richmond....(Father-Son??)
(40) Sansbury/Kangaroos
(44) Dyson/Essendon
(46) Pettigrew/Port

(47) Andrew Ericksen - we passed up
(49) Logan/Brisbane
(53) Jackson/Richmond
(55) Sam Fisher/St. Kilda
(58) Hudson/Adelaide

(59) Matthew Davis - we passed up
(60) Rowe/Collingwood
(70) Hartigan/Richmond
(72) DeLuca/Carlton
(760 Raines/Richmond
(61) Rischitelli/Brisbane


2004 Draft Sydney Games Total 0

(31) Jarred Moore - we passed up
(33) Ackland/St. Kilda
(45) Sherman/Brisbane
(50) Attard/Brisbane
(53) Taylor/Hawthorn
(60) Thomas/Essendon
(62) Egan/Geelong

All in all it's slow going for young Swans. Consider also other players drafted in the medium numbers who are playing in their first year

(12) Meyer/Richmond
(14) Monfries/Essendon
(24) Van Berlo/Adelaide

Then again if you are only going on games played then O'Bree is a young star

[Mike_B]

The only comment I'll make on the 2002 draft is to remind you that we drafted Dempster as a Father/Son, so who knows if he would have gone earlier/later whatever.

[Wil]

I have been waiting for this thread.

Don't forget we also "Drafted" Jolly at 15 this year.

Erickson was a bit of a reach - surely he would of dropped to 59.

I think Roos has been drafting for about 4 years into the future with his picks. The problem with that is we became a premiership chance as soon as he took over the reins and have needed a couple of immediate impact players (like this years draft).

But still is the problem poor drafting and talent scouting or poor development.

[sharp9]

The thing is all of us have a sneaking suspicion that M. Davis, Dempster, Moore, Willoughby, Schmidt and Malceski will be premiership players who will make other teams fans write threads like this one going "How the **** did we let them get Malceskiat sixty- ****ing - four? When we picked up Greg Couldn't get a game for East Perth Edgcombe at 48???"

Well that's the hope anyway.

I can see a Swans premiership team that contains only 3 top ten draft picks (Jude, Crouchy and McVeigh) along with

9 players who didn't even get drafted, or were delisted once they were drafted

Kirk (Rookie)
Jolly (Rookie)
Bevan (Rookie)
Kennelly (Rookie)
Ben Fixter (Pre-Season)
Buchanan (Delisted)
James (Delisted)
Spriggs (Delisted)
Maxfield (Not required by Richmond)

A Couple of Zone Selections who wouldn't have been drafted by other clubs

Mathews
Barry

And how about some high picks?

Williams (70)
Schauble (66)
Schneider (60)
O'Keefe (56)
Goodes (43)
O'Loughlin (40)

And if any of these guys make it it really will be something to crow about

Malceski (64)
M. Davis (58)
Sundqvist (54)
Ericksen (48)

Not to mention the current rookies. it's gotta give comfort to those who get overlooked at first.

[liz]

There are very few of those player you have listed who make me green with envy. And most of them have achieved nothing more of any substance than the Sydney player you are "comparing" them against.

Part of the reason our younger players have been taking a bit more time is that we have a solid core of senior age players who may lack brilliance as a group but are consistent and dependable. Compare that to the teams who have been struggling, either a few years ago or more recently. They've given young players opportunities earlier because they have had no decent mature players to stand in their way.

But I strongly believe that playing kids for the sake of playing kids is misguided if you actually have a decent senior core. Otherwise you're just in a perpetual state of rebuilding without ever actually making progress.

Yes, it would be great to get a Judd or Ball into the team, someone who right from the start becomes an important member of the team but it is very much the exception, not the rule. Ablett is a good example of why it is important to let younger players develop at their speed and show a bit of patience, especially when you don't need to give them too much too soon.

I would also suggest that the Swans drafting has deliberately taken a longer term view in recent years, probably in the knowledge that they didn't need to rush youngsters into the team just to be able to field a competitive unit. McVeigh and Schmidt were both players who had missed most of their final U18 year through injury and it was known that they would need at least a year in the system to start to challenge. Erikson, Willoughby, Davis, Sundqvist, Hunt (and McVeigh as well) were all lightly built when drafted (some still are) so were going to take time. Moore was drafted knowing that he probably didn't have the endurance to slip in straight away. Schneider is another in that box, and he was also very young when drafted. LRT and Dempster (not to mention Goodes and Kennelly) were drafted in the knowledge that they had limited AFL background and so would take a bit of time.

[Snowy]

To date the recent drafts have been of very dubious quality though you have to wait a few years to fully assess any draft. Very few of those overlooked would be much better than those drafted. Rivers is someone who would have been useful given the dearth of tall, quality backmen. What would have been the point in selecting Ackland when a first round pick was surrendered for Jolly? The main criticism would be that Roos has publicly stated his lack of faith in the drafting system in comparison to other coaches and a penchant for 'dwarfish' type midfielders. Certainly there are a few players following McVeigh who have the potential to be better than him but with the local boy factor considered it was probably on balance a good decision. The 2002 draft was notoriously thin. Currently there are several clubs unfavourably mulling over recent choices. Obviously losing puts drafting further under the microscope. Most clubs who haven't benefited from lots of early choices will find that their drafting doesn't stack up alongside the likes of the Saints. The Cats have done well without having too many early picks but had some lucky father/son gets.

[Thunder Shaker]

We may have passed up a few better players, but at least we're not Essendon or Collingwood. The AFL website have just done a similar same treatment for Essendon and Collingwood, and compared to them our recruiting hasn't been too bad.

Why Essendon and Collingwood are battling

[Legs Akimbo]

This is a great analysis which I have also been waiting for someone to do.

My gut feeling prior to seeing this was that we had completely screwed up our draft selections over the last 5 years. However, looking down the list there are only a few players that we passed on that I seriously would regret in hindsight.

I think the insight is that mediocrity begets medicority - finishing bottom-eight over an extended period weakens the playing group and leads to a team of plodders.

Melbourne have been the masters of up and down years which is the best way to breed a confident and talented player group.

Maybe we need to do something drastic and swap a few of our 'better' players for draft picks acknowledging this will wreck the following season and result in a low ladder position. That would mean we get good picks in year 1 (from trading), probably even better picks in year 2 (from finishing last). Year 3 is consolidation and years 4 and 5 are proper tilts at the flag.

I would offload...

Bolton
O'Keefe
Goodes
MOL
Tagh Kennelly
Schnieder
Crouch

Then again, maybe no one would want them.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo

Melbourne have been the masters of up and down years which is the best way to breed a confident and talented player group.

Right, and how many flags have Melbourne won in the past 10-15 years?

Maybe we need to do something drastic and swap a few of our 'better' players for draft picks acknowledging this will wreck the following season and result in a low ladder position. That would mean we get good picks in year 1 (from trading), probably even better picks in year 2 (from finishing last). Year 3 is consolidation and years 4 and 5 are proper tilts at the flag.

AKA tanking. No thanks, I would stop supporting the club if such a policy was actively pursued.

I would offload...

Bolton
O'Keefe
Goodes
MOL
Tagh Kennelly
Schnieder
Crouch

Then again, maybe no one would want them.

High draft picks don't guarantee you a great player. We would be foolish to trade all those players for draft picks.

[Snowy]

Melbourne on the surface looked to have done well. especially with KPP's, but look at how many picks they expended in some cases to get the result. Luke Molan a top tenner anyone?

[Nico]

Sharp,

Very innovative and thought out. One problem. There are plenty on your lists of "passed ups" who are genuinely no good.

[hammo]

The simple explanation is that we have a fairly strong list and haven't had to make drastic changes.

Few, if any, clubs aggressively trade these days.

The clubs who are playing their most recent draft picks now are the weaker teams.