Shallowest draft ever?

[707]

Now that most clubs have had a delist I note that there are currently only 61 places on senior lists his year.

There maybe a handful more delistings but that would be balanced by a few more rookie upgrades.

Could it be possible that as few as 60 players will be picked in the main draft?

[Robbo]

You can't tell if a draft is shallow until a few years after, when the kids start developing into mature players.

Our first pick in the super draft of 06 turned out to be a spud while Malceski, who was a later pick in the "weak" draft of 2002 has turned out OK.

[liz]

You can't tell if a draft is shallow until a few years after, when the kids start developing into mature players.

Our first pick in the super draft of 06 turned out to be a spud while Malceski, who was a later pick in the "weak" draft of 2002 has turned out OK.

With every draft there will be misses, including some taken with early picks. So I guess you need to look at a draft as a whole rather than pick out individual players taken.

But I think it is a relevant observation that it is possible to find gems even late in every draft if you're lucky. And however well touted a draft is, even the players chosen early are far from certain things.

In hindsight, the 2006 draft looks far from super. I reckon 2005 was at least as good, if not better, based on the overall hit rate and the quality of the best players to emerge from it, even allowing for one extra year of evidence / development.

[Steve]

The talk coming from recruiters is concerning - the issue seems to be the degree of confidence they have in picks this year.

Where in previous drafts they were very confident at pick 10, fairly confident between 20-30, optimistic between 30-50 etc etc, this year they seem to be saying that beyond pick 10 you may as well just put all the names in a hat and pick them that way. More like the Rookie Draft than a ND.

Clubs will just be picking players they're not overly confident about, and just hoping for the best. Which means we shouldn't get too excited about pick 14.

You'd have to expect that there'll be plenty of guys from the state leagues, plus some delisted players drafted - leaving as many 18 y/o's to slip through to the Rookie Draft.

[10Totti10]

Not shallow. I mean the top 30 will be alright. Prob beyond there you are looking at some average players. But I trust the Swans drafting. Seriously we must have one of the best drafting systems. Just look at who we got in the past couple of years - Hannerbery (30), Veszpremi (12), Meredith (25), White (70), Bird (50...) Johnston (12-13?), Currie (49), O Dwyer (?), Smith (?). I mean they have all turned out pretty good for us. Some haven't played but there a huge raps on some. Plus add to that players like Grundy, Jack, etc. The only bad one was O'Keefe (and thats only because of injury's). I trust that we will draft well with our first three picks then thats it.

[goswannie14]

the premise of the OP is faulty IMO. The smaller (?) number of players estimated to be picked up in the draft says more about the strength of the clubs lists at present rather than the depth of the draft.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Swan Playfair given month to prove fitness - AFL.com.au

playfair given till nov 13