Draft Picks from 25 to 42

[bergholt]

We now have four picks between 25 and 42. Here's a sample of what they could have got us in years gone by:

2010 P26: Jack Darling (WCE)
2010 P27: Kieran Harper (NM)
2010 P30: Jake Batchelor (Rich)

2009 P26: Travis Colyer (Ess)
2009 P28: Mitch Duncan (Geel)
2009 P29: Jack Gunston (Adel)
2009 P38: Sam Reid (Syd)
2009 P40: Allen Christensen (Geel)
2009 P42: Nathan Vardy (Geel)

2008 P25: Jack Redden (Bris)
2008 P29: Dayne Beams (Coll)
2008 P30: Dan Hannebery (Syd)
2008 P34: Liam Shiels (Haw)
2008 P35: Jamie Bennell (Melb)
2008 P37: Zac Clarke (Frem)
2008 P40: Mitch Robinson (Carl)
2008 P41: Todd Banfield (Bris)

2007 P27: Andy Otten (Adel)
2007 P29: Brendan Whitecross (Haw)
2007 P32: Levi Greenwood (NM)
2007 P37: Scott Thompson (NM)
2007 P40: Chris Mayne (Frem)
2007 P41: James Polkinghorne (Bris)
2007 P42: Jack Steven (St K)

2006 P26: Shane Edwards (Rich)
2006 P28: Chris Dawes (Coll)
2006 P29: Eric Mackenzie (WC)
2006 P30: Ricky Petterd (Melb)
2006 P32: Kurt Tippett (Adel)
2006 P36: Alwyn Davey (Ess)
2006 P37: Todd Goldstein (NM)
2006 P39: Nathan Krakouer (PA)
2006 P42: Bachar Houli (Ess)

2005 P26: Garrick Ibbotson (Frem)
2005 P27: Dylan Addison (WB)
2005 P32: Bernie Vince (Adel)
2005 P33: Sam Gilbert (St K)
2005 P37: John Anthony (Coll)
2005 P41: Rhan Hooper (Bris)
2005 P42: Robert Warnock (Frem)

2004 P29: Matt Rosa (WC)
2004 P31: Jarred Moore (Syd)
2004 P32: Brent Prismall (Ess)
2004 P36: Luke McGuane (Rich)
2004 P37: Mark LeCras (WC)
2004 P40: Ivan Maric (Adel)

2003 P30: Brad Symes (PA)
2003 P33: Jed Adcock (Bris)
2003 P41: Zac Dawson (Haw)

2002 P26: Jared Rivers (Melb)
2002 P30: Daniel Merrett (Bris)
2002 P37: Brent Staker (WC)

2001 P29: Lewis Roberts-Thomson (Syd)
2001 P32: Campbell Brown (Haw)
2001 P33: David Rodan (Rich)
2001 P36: Sam Mitchell (Haw)
2001 P37: Leigh Montagna (St K)

In recent years drafts seem to have been deeper, with more solid players going in this region? Whereas back in 02-03 there wasn't much great. (Lots of father-sons those years, which I haven't included.)

So let's hope this draft, while kinda weak, is also deep like 2006, 07, 08.

[St Ick]

This is a silly hindsight post, no offense intended. But thats just looking at guns in the past and saying, hey, this guy is a gun and he was available at pick 40.

I appreciate your efforts, but I'm sure every single one of those players could have actually been on a St Kilda list already had our recruiters gotten lucky.

From all reports, the draft is shallow for KPP, but after about 15 there are a ton of potentially good mids. So we'll pick a few gems. With this in mind, I'm amazed that Geelong traded pick 26 for 31 and 34 or something like that - talk about a massive win for them I would have jumped on that with our pick 25...

[savatage]

There's always hidden talent, whether a deep or shallow draft...we know it's a lottery & we may get surprised nicely. We may also pick up a bunch of duds, that's the potential excitement of a draft though - to see the best you can make of your situation.

[SaintPav]

This is a silly hindsight post, no offense intended. But thats just looking at guns in the past and saying, hey, this guy is a gun and he was available at pick 40.

I appreciate your efforts, but I'm sure every single one of those players could have actually been on a St Kilda list already had our recruiters gotten lucky.

From all reports, the draft is shallow for KPP, but after about 15 there are a ton of potentially good mids. So we'll pick a few gems. With this in mind, I'm amazed that Geelong traded pick 26 for 31 and 34 or something like that - talk about a massive win for them I would have jumped on that with our pick 25...

No it's not. He's saying that these are some of the players that have been picked up.

[St Ick]

This is a silly hindsight post, no offense intended. But thats just looking at guns in the past and saying, hey, this guy is a gun and he was available at pick 40.

I appreciate your efforts, but I'm sure every single one of those players could have actually been on a St Kilda list already had our recruiters gotten lucky.

From all reports, the draft is shallow for KPP, but after about 15 there are a ton of potentially good mids. So we'll pick a few gems. With this in mind, I'm amazed that Geelong traded pick 26 for 31 and 34 or something like that - talk about a massive win for them I would have jumped on that with our pick 25...

No it's not. He's saying that these are some of the players that have been picked up.

And there will be a longer list of players that didn't play a single AFL game in their careers. I'm just saying, despite a great effort, the arguement is neither here nor there and this is often the case when people use stats when justifying their case to do with a draft.

[Zed]

There are gems in weak drafts and duds in strong drafts. You need some luck, but more importantly you need a good recruiting network. Its no coincidence that the so called "weaker" clubs who typically have less resource dont get as much from their later picks as those clubs with stronger networks.

By the way, who is in charge of our development ? ..its an area we need to do a lot more work on.

[savatage]

There are gems in weak drafts and duds in strong drafts. You need some luck, but more importantly you need a good recruiting network. Its no coincidence that the so called "weaker" clubs who typically have less resource dont get as much from their later picks as those clubs with stronger networks.

By the way, who is in charge of our development ? ..its an area we need to do a lot more work on.

That's a major focus with the new coach...you're spot on, it needs a lot of improvement.

[SaintPav]

This is a silly hindsight post, no offense intended. But thats just looking at guns in the past and saying, hey, this guy is a gun and he was available at pick 40.

I appreciate your efforts, but I'm sure every single one of those players could have actually been on a St Kilda list already had our recruiters gotten lucky.

From all reports, the draft is shallow for KPP, but after about 15 there are a ton of potentially good mids. So we'll pick a few gems. With this in mind, I'm amazed that Geelong traded pick 26 for 31 and 34 or something like that - talk about a massive win for them I would have jumped on that with our pick 25...

No it's not. He's saying that these are some of the players that have been picked up.

And there will be a longer list of players that didn't play a single AFL game in their careers. I'm just saying, despite a great effort, the arguement is neither here nor there and this is often the case when people use stats when justifying their case to do with a draft.

All of the comments on this site are "neither here nor there". It's all just opinion even though some people might not think it.

[desertsaint]

so out of those 18 picks, odds are that about a third could be decent.
all up then we can be happy with one decent player this year, over the moon with two. more likely , given we have only had three decent players from our previous picks, we should be very pleased to get anyone at all.
yay!

[BigMart]

I wish you wouldnt bring up Darling...

[jays]

we should be right

[plugger66]

I wish you wouldnt bring up Darling...

I know. In hindsight 17 clubs stuffed up.

[maverick]

I wish you wouldnt bring up Darling...

I know. In hindsight 17 clubs stuffed up.

Only if there is 17 clubs in WA...

[plugger66]

I wish you wouldnt bring up Darling...

I know. In hindsight 17 clubs stuffed up.

Only if there is 17 clubs in WA...

Why is that? Everyone knows he would have been happy in himself anywhere around Australia. It is obvious.

[BigMart]

I know....and we were one of them, yes???

but its OK to stuff up...if others do...

Hang on...WC didnt, and reaped the benefits...

BTW....I reckon 16 clubs would be kicking themselves....questions will be asked....and hindsight was not an issue, the boy was highly rated....18 months prior to the 2010 draft

[plugger66]

I know....and we were one of them, yes???

but its OK to stuff up...if others do...

Hang on...WC didnt, and reaped the benefits...

BTW....I reckon 16 clubs would be kicking themselves....questions will be asked....and hindsight was not an issue, the boy was highly rated....18 months prior to the 2010 draft

Strange that you never mentioned him prior to the draft and WCE did stuff up but luckily so did every other club before their next pick. The king of Hindsight. got any gems for the draft this year or will you wait until about May next year to continue bagging the club. The one thing I do know though is i hope the players we draft this year have a picture on the website. Last year was embarrassing.

[hayes66]

I know....and we were one of them, yes???

but its OK to stuff up...if others do...

Hang on...WC didnt, and reaped the benefits...

BTW....I reckon 16 clubs would be kicking themselves....questions will be asked....and hindsight was not an issue, the boy was highly rated....18 months prior to the 2010 draft

I dont know why people keep bringing this up, we all know it wasnt because of talent that he was passed up it was his attitude and fear that he was a basket case. We have also seen how you can be punished by a persons character (fevola, lovett) so this played a big part in why he dropped so far back. 16 clubs were worried enough about his character and after losing lovett did we really want to risk our first pick on a kid who may have stuffed up. So far the points go to him and west coast because his behaved and he may never stuff up so well done to them, but it was a fair enough argument at the time not to risk a first pick on this kid.

[bergholt]

This is a silly hindsight post, no offense intended. But thats just looking at guns in the past and saying, hey, this guy is a gun and he was available at pick 40.

I appreciate your efforts, but I'm sure every single one of those players could have actually been on a St Kilda list already had our recruiters gotten lucky.

what? i don't understand your contention.

my point is that there are many players available between 25 and 42 who turn out very well. i'm not saying we should draft sam mitchell this year. i'm not saying we should have drafted him in 2001. i'm not saying anything about the players listed except that they give a sense of the quality of player available at the picks we've ended up with this year.

And there will be a longer list of players that didn't play a single AFL game in their careers.

actually, no. here's stats from the same picks again:

2010: 7 on zero games
2009: 5 on zero games
2008: 0 on zero games
2007: 0 on zero games (2 delisted but did play)
2006: 0 on zero games (2 delisted but did play)
2005: 2 on zero games (7 delisted including those 2)
2004: 2 on zero games (11 delisted including those 2)
2003: 4 on zero games (14 delisted including those 4)
2002: 0 on zero games (12 delisted)
2001: 3 on zero games (12 delisted including those 3)

so it turns out there were fewer who played no games than there were who turned out to be good players. (especially ignoring the 12 from the last two years who can be expected to have a better run in years ahead.)

i appreciate what you're trying to do but you're not right in this case.

[St Ick]

This is a silly hindsight post, no offense intended. But thats just looking at guns in the past and saying, hey, this guy is a gun and he was available at pick 40.

I appreciate your efforts, but I'm sure every single one of those players could have actually been on a St Kilda list already had our recruiters gotten lucky.

what? i don't understand your contention.

my point is that there are many players available between 25 and 42 who turn out very well. i'm not saying we should draft sam mitchell this year. i'm not saying we should have drafted him in 2001. i'm not saying anything about the players listed except that they give a sense of the quality of player available at the picks we've ended up with this year.

And there will be a longer list of players that didn't play a single AFL game in their careers.

actually, no. here's stats from the same picks again:

2010: 7 on zero games
2009: 5 on zero games
2008: 0 on zero games
2007: 0 on zero games (2 delisted but did play)
2006: 0 on zero games (2 delisted but did play)
2005: 2 on zero games (7 delisted including those 2)
2004: 2 on zero games (11 delisted including those 2)
2003: 4 on zero games (14 delisted including those 4)
2002: 0 on zero games (12 delisted)
2001: 3 on zero games (12 delisted including those 3)

so it turns out there were fewer who played no games than there were who turned out to be good players. (especially ignoring the 12 from the last two years who can be expected to have a better run in years ahead.)

i appreciate what you're trying to do but you're not right in this case.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree on this one. Fair to say that between those picks in those drafts, some worked out, some didn't or wont. I'll stick by what I say and I know you'll stick with your comment. All good, can't be bothered arguing such a clear cut arguement.

[thirty-seven!?]

I actually think we have put ourselves in a reasonable position come draft day. This trade week was a busy one, with 2nd round picks the currency of choice. But also, the addition of the mini draft saw some clubs sacrificing early picks to GWS, giving them 11 of the first 14 picks. Quite simply, ridiculous.

Now this draft isn't the best, as we all know. Whilst it isn't deep, it is pretty even. Picks 20-50 could be anyone's guess. Fortunately, we get first dibs on a lot of this talent though, with four picks in the first two rounds - the second most of anyone.

GWS have such a monopoly on the first round, it will be intriguing to see how other clubs play it. Will they simply draft best available, for needs, or maybe have a smokey they will pounce on with their first selections? GWS will likely go best available, but one would assume they have their eyes on a couple of left-field selections that may find themselves picked a bit higher than expected. Their next pick after #14 isn't until #56.

Whilst a player may be expected to go at pick 50-odd, a club keen on that player may be prepared to draft him with a much higher pick than he may deserve, knowing that they don’t have another pick for 20 or so choices. Say they may pick him at #30 instead of #50 as he is a player they don’t want to lose, even if #30 is above his worth. If this makes sense? A lot of the interstate teams are known to do this for local talent... And we even did it with Winmar a couple of years ago, picking him up earlier than expected.

If we look club by club at the number of selections they have within the first two rounds:

Adelaide: 27, 41, 46
Brisbane: 8, 12, 30, 47
Carlton: 22, 44
Collingwood: none
Essendon: 19, 31
GWS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14
Geelong: 32, 34, 48
Gold Coast: 24
Hawthorn: 33, 38
Melbourne: 36
North Melbourne: 18, 40
Port Adelaide: 6, 45
Richmond: 15, 26,
St.Kilda; 25, 35, 37, 42
Sydney: 21 (FS), 43
West Coast: 23, 28
W. Bulldogs: 17, 39

So it’s interesting to see how many 1st and 2nd round picks have been traded off, leaving Brisbane and St.Kilda with the 2nd most amount of picks behind GWS. So I believe because of the evenness, and the low number of picks some clubs have, there will be a number of sliders in this draft and it will be the ones who have a number of picks (and therefore aren’t just targeting one or two specific players with their first two selections), who may benefit from this.

Hopefully we can go best-available come draft day, and I reckon it could work out pretty well for us!

There is still plenty to get excited by!

[mr six o'clock]

We've got pick 35 , isn't that the unlucky number in the draft ?
I read somewhere that there is a number around that area , that has never produced a successful player .

[SaintWodonga]

We have a lot of picks mid draft, no doubt we can improve our list.

Looking forward to see some more skill injected, no doubt we will be excited next come draft day!

[bergholt]

We've got pick 35 , isn't that the unlucky number in the draft ?
I read somewhere that there is a number around that area , that has never produced a successful player .

dunno, i reckon you're pretty close though:

1986: Peter Reid
1987: Craig Patrick
1988: John Georgiades
1989: Chris Bond **
1990: Stuart Anderson
1991: Darryl Donald
1992: Scott Robinson
1993: Aaron James
1994: Marty Warry
1995: Brad Smith
1996: Mark Chaffey **
1997: Marcus Baldwin
1998: Brad Oborne
1999: Patrick Wiggins
2000: Alan Murray
2001: Jarrad Wright
2002: Scott Bassett
2003: Brent Hall
2004: Fabian Deluca
2005: Stephen Owen
2006: Mark Austin
2007: Sam Reid
2008: Jamie Bennell
2009: David Astbury
2010: Ben Newton

when the two best players taken in 25 picks are chris bond and mark chaffey, you've got a bit of a problem...

[fugazi]

GWS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14


That is ridiculous!

[mad saint guy]

So to summarise; there's a chance that we might pick up some good players.