Dalrymple leaves the Kennel

[dogwatch]

Get a life

I have. That's how I stumbled across the Dalrymple pics!

 

[Guido]

The other problem with rating recruiters by "hit rate" is that we don't get to see their entire draft board, therefore we don't get to know whether they were lucky, or just good.

..the actual draft picks they took is only one small part of the picture, and luck plays a big part that people are ignoring.

To get a full picture you are correct, but to get a reasonable picture, what we have available across almost ten years tells us a fair bit.

We know that on a reasonably consistent basis, Dalrymple would pick either the best, or second best available option available at that stage of the draft. This is not open to debate or interpretation.

With early picks, there will always be half a dozen super highly rated juniors who will be flops. Other than one in the best part of a decade, Dal has consistently avoided those traps in the top 20. Later rounds and rookie drafts, with 70%-90% of those players drafted at that stage likely to fail, he often cherry picked one of those two or three who would nail long term careers. And his track record says he did it consistently.

If, across ten years, and over 50 picks, his percentage is consistently higher than others, it's very likely that there's something more at play than luck. Yes, other recruiters could be desperately unlucky depending on how the cards fell on the day, and Dal could have had a handful of picks across ten years where he was lucky the drafts went a certain way, but based on what we have in front of us, it would be an incredibly tough sell to say he wasn't in the top half dozen recruiters across his career thus far.

I 100% agree that we don't know the full picture, but the club would. They would also be aware of the opportunities we didn't afford him, and luck that may have played against him - as an example, Dalrymple may have had Parker in his top 25 in 2012, and if we had have just accepted Sydney's second rounder for Everitt instead of opting for Vespremi, he wouldn't have been tearing his hair out watching Parker to drop to 40.

They might know that Dal had Curnow in his top half dozen on his hit list, that we traded 12, and he went at 12.

They might know that had we not secured Boyd, Dal would have taken Wright at 4 and Cockatoo or Lever at 6 or 7, who are looking odds on to be 150-200 gamers. That they, with Naughton, would round out a likely 100% strike rate with picking (likely) 200 gamers with top 10 picks, 100% of the time.

Everybody says you "can't look at it like that", but maybe out recruiter with a penchant for finding the best available player in the 20s, would have picked the best available player in Merrett, had we not thrown the pick away on Crameri. Maybe if we hadn't have pissed away the Harbrow compo, he would gotten "lucky" again, depending on the year we activated it.

The premiership was a majority drafted side - in terms of games our premiership players played with other clubs, it was the most "purely" drafted premiership side in the history of the modern game. Other than a handful of experienced heads and targeted external recruits, he was responsible for drafting two thirds of that team that walked out that day, and he did it in an era of ridiculously compromised drafts and against of a backdrop of some poorly thought out list management decisions which robbed him of the opportunity to add even more guns.

It's open to interpretation, but my interpretation was that he was a gun, and whatever the reasons for him leaving, for whether it's our fault or his, he will be a significant loss whose shoes will be difficult to fill. If he was in the top half dozen in his field, and his replacement is a middle of the roader in this craft, it will cost us premierships.

If a contented Dalrymple was likely going to hang around for a fair while longer, but a couple of the club's decisions and processes made him feel incredibly disrespected and that he had no choice but to leave, and his direct replacement is in the bottom third of recruiters (which he's 33% chance of being!), then IMO, as a club we have kinda ****ed this up. Let's just hope Austin, and Power are just as good at their jobs as Dal was his. And just as lucky.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

To get a full picture you are correct, but to get a reasonable picture, what we have available across almost ten years tells us a fair bit.

We know that on a reasonably consistent basis, Dalrymple would pick either the best, or second best available option available at that stage of the draft. This is not open to debate or interpretation.

With early picks, there will always be half a dozen super highly rated juniors who will be flops. Other than one in the best part of a decade, Dal has consistently avoided those traps in the top 20. Later rounds and rookie drafts, with 70%-90% of those players drafted at that stage likely to fail, he often cherry picked one of those two or three who would nail long term careers. And his track record says he did it consistently.

If, across ten years, and over 50 picks, his percentage is consistently higher than others, it's very likely that there's something more at play than luck. Yes, other recruiters could be desperately unlucky depending on how the cards fell on the day, and Dal could have had a handful of picks across ten years where he was lucky the drafts went a certain way, but based on what we have in front of us, it would be an incredibly tough sell to say he wasn't in the top half dozen recruiters across his career thus far.

I 100% agree that we don't know the full picture, but the club would. They would also be aware of the opportunities we didn't afford him, and luck that may have played against him - as an example, Dalrymple may have had Parker in his top 25 in 2012, and if we had have just accepted Sydney's second rounder for Everitt instead of opting for Vespremi, he wouldn't have been tearing his hair out watching Parker to drop to 40.

They might know that Dal had Curnow in his top half dozen on his hit list, that we traded 12, and he went at 12.

They might know that had we not secured Boyd, Dal would have taken Wright at 4 and Cockatoo or Lever at 6 or 7, who are looking odds on to be 150-200 gamers. That they, with Naughton, would round out a likely 100% strike rate with picking (likely) 200 gamers with top 10 picks, 100% of the time.

Everybody says you "can't look at it like that", but maybe out recruiter with a penchant for finding the best available player in the 20s, would have picked the best available player in Merrett, had we not thrown the pick away on Crameri. Maybe if we hadn't have pissed away the Harbrow compo, he would gotten "lucky" again, depending on the year we activated it.

The premiership was a majority drafted side - in terms of games our premiership players played with other clubs, it was the most "purely" drafted premiership side in the history of the modern game. Other than a handful of experienced heads and targeted external recruits, he was responsible for drafting two thirds of that team that walked out that day, and he did it in an era of ridiculously compromised drafts and against of a backdrop of some poorly thought out list management decisions which robbed him of the opportunity to add even more guns.

It's open to interpretation, but my interpretation was that he was a gun, and whatever the reasons for him leaving, for whether it's our fault or his, he will be a significant loss whose shoes will be difficult to fill. If he was in the top half dozen in his field, and his replacement is a middle of the roader in this craft, it will cost us premierships.

If a contented Dalrymple was likely going to hang around for a fair while longer, but a couple of the club's decisions and processes made him feel incredibly disrespected and that he had no choice but to leave, and his direct replacement is in the bottom third of recruiters (which he's 33% chance of being!), then IMO, as a club we have kinda ****ed this up. Let's just hope Austin, and Power are just as good at their jobs as Dal was his. And just as lucky.

thats nicely put, agree on a few points

he deserves massive credit no doubt,

but if anyone is suggesting he is a massive \reason we won the flag than your kidding.(arguments sake)
- F/S libba, wallis, hunter, cordy
key contributers picken, boyd, morris, murphy, wood, roughhead (drafted pre dal)

bont, mccrae, JJ, dalh, stringer were huge contributes (drafted dal)

 

[Sentinel]

thats nicely put, agree on a few points

he deserves massive credit no doubt,

but if anyone is suggesting he is a massive \reason we won the flag than your kidding.(arguments sake)
- F/S libba, wallis, hunter, cordy
key contributers picken, boyd, morris, murphy, wood, roughhead (drafted pre dal)

bont, mccrae, JJ, dalh, stringer were huge contributes (drafted dal)

If you're going to try to make an argument, at least make it coherent.

Of the 10 blokes you've listed as not Dal's work, 2 of them didn't even play beyond the mid-point of the 2016 season. Not to mention father-son selections are still the work of the recruiter, he could have chosen to pass on any of them in favour of another preferred player. You've also left out 9 of the 14 premiership players he drafted.

Whether you feel he was overrated or not, it's impossible to argue that he wasn't an integral part of that premiership.

Trade/FA: Biggs, Hamling, Boyd
Drafted pre-Dal: Boyd, Morris, Wood, Roughead, Picken

Dal's premiership picks:
Top 10: Bont, Macrae, Stringer
11-20: Smith
21-30: McLean, Dunkley
31-40:
41-50: Daniel
51-60: Dickson
Rookie & preseason draft: JJ, Dahl, Roberts
F/S: Libba, Cordy, Hunter

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

If you're going to try to make an argument, at least make it coherent.

Of the 10 blokes you've listed as not Dal's work, 2 of them didn't even play beyond the mid-point of the 2016 season. Not to mention father-son selections are still the work of the recruiter, he could have chosen to pass on any of them in favour of another preferred player. You've also left out 9 of the 14 premiership players he drafted.

Whether you feel he was overrated or not, it's impossible to argue that he wasn't an integral part of that premiership.

Trade/FA: Biggs, Hamling, Boyd
Drafted pre-Dal: Boyd, Morris, Wood, Roughead, Picken

Dal's premiership picks:
Top 10: Bont, Macrae, Stringer
11-20: Smith
21-30: McLean, Dunkley
31-40:
41-50: Daniel
51-60: Dickson
Rookie & preseason draft: JJ, Dahl, Roberts
F/S: Libba, Cordy, Hunter

im not saying he is over rated, his later picks have proved to be good.
without those late picks, could be an argument we dont win the flag.
dickson was huge for us in 15/16

but on face value some might argue we have never made the top 4, "fluked the flag". we dont have much A graders , maybe only bont. and we have too many vanilla type players

but perhaps the coach isnt getting the best out of some of the players, some have stalled in development

 

[Mattdougie]

Left us with a bottom four list

Lol huge loss

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

Left us with a bottom four list

Lol huge loss

he gave us honeychurch

 

[BRWB]

well compared to the dangerfields, martin, sloane, kennedy. bont isnt in their league yet. he simply doesn't rack up enough possessions to be classified as one of the best. he is an a grader but

Hang on, an hr ago you said 'maybe' Bont was A grade, now 'he is an a grader but'.

So were you talking shit an hour ago or just now???

 

[BRWB]

This is not me!!!!

M8 i know - this guy has been posting illogical self contradictory shit dribbling negative posts for weeks.

At least you are consistent with your shit dribbling

 

[ThirdLegUp]

 

[dergert]

Well with dalrymples departure, I think Beveridge knew the gaping holes in our list and that it was time for a new perspective in the recruitment division??

 

[TiAn_]

Blaming dalrymple for where the team is at atm is laughable. The only contributors we have right now are players that he drafted.

The list is utterly devoid of (healthy) impact players over the age of 25. Dalrymple literally cannot be blamed for that.

There are only 3 players on the list from before his tenure (Morris, Picken & Wood), two of which haven't played this season. Three players have been traded in (Suckling, Biggs & Trengove) to fill that gap and one hasn't played and none have had an impact this season.

Dalrymple recruited the bulk of a ridiculously young squad that won a flag, only having 4 first round picks in 7 years during a period in which 3 of the drafts were heavily compromised. The only other team that bottomed out at the same time as us that has even won a final is Port, and that was back in 2014 on the back of players picked up years earlier.

Failing to retain Cal Ward, having Higgins, Harbrow, Griffen and Cooney walk out (and/or get cooked by injury) and burning first round picks on players like Jarrad Grant and Ayce Cordy in the years immediately before Dal took over left a big gap in our list that we papered over with Bob, Boyd and Morris kicking on until their mid-30s.

Dal wasn't perfect, he had his failures (Fuller, Hamilton, Hrovat, probably Webb) but they're a fewer and further between than most other recruiters over a 7-8 year tenure and his effort to draft the bulk of a premiership side within 5-6 years and with so few top end picks was a minor miracle.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

Blaming dalrymple for where the team is at atm is laughable. The only contributors we have right now are players that he drafted.

The list is utterly devoid of (healthy) impact players over the age of 25. Dalrymple literally cannot be blamed for that.

There are only 3 players on the list from before his tenure (Morris, Picken & Wood), two of which haven't played this season. Three players have been traded in (Suckling, Biggs & Trengove) to fill that gap and one hasn't played and none have had an impact this season.

Dalrymple recruited the bulk of a ridiculously young squad that won a flag, only having 4 first round picks in 7 years during a period in which 3 of the drafts were heavily compromised. The only other team that bottomed out at the same time as us that has even won a final is Port, and that was back in 2014 on the back of players picked up years earlier.

Failing to retain Cal Ward, having Higgins, Harbrow, Griffen and Cooney walk out (and/or get cooked by injury) and burning first round picks on players like Jarrad Grant and Ayce Cordy in the years immediately before Dal took over left a big gap in our list that we papered over with Bob, Boyd and Morris kicking on until their mid-30s.

Dal wasn't perfect, he had his failures (Fuller, Hamilton, Hrovat, probably Webb) but they're a fewer and further between than most other recruiters over a 7-8 year tenure and his effort to draft the bulk of a premiership side within 5-6 years and with so few top end picks was a minor miracle.

thats what i said a few times, and unfortunately thats your senior age group right there.

we also dont have a stable spine. every week it changes, how can you expect to build your team around a spine when its always different?

question has to be asked is did bevo know a rebuild was on the cards last year?

 

[DognBones]

It's interesting to read many of the critical posts above regarding Dalrymple's legacy in light of what we now see with the emergence of English, Naughton, Richards and soon, possibly Lipinski. There is no doubt in my mind that Dalrymple was a very astute talent identifier and will be greatly missed. Even his selection of The Bont at pick 4 in the 2013 draft was seen as slightly off-key by many observers. I think his policy of selecting best available and not being influenced by outside noise demanding this or that type of player, has proved correct. If some of us see some imbalances in our list, I would put that down to not trading in quality players to fill those gaps which was McCartney's role. In any final analysis of Dalrymple's legacy, one thing stands out: he did his very best for the club right to the end of his tenure.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Can't believe we are even having this conversation.

The best comparison are the other top 4 clubs from 2008-2010.

Saints- have had multiple high picks and stuffed most of them up. Dunstan, Billings, McCartin. Going no where.

Geelong- still desperately clinging on by drafting mature age players. Headed for the bottom once Danger and Selwood start falling off.

Collingwood- Similar to Geelong. At least the players they bought in were a bit younger than Geelong. May do ok year or two but no flag in sight.

Hawks- Have recruited really well since 2010, but still rely heavily on their older players. Will be mid table for a bit longer.

Us- Youngest team in the comp by a long way as the few senior players we have are injured. Have a core of stars aged 23-25 but have also lot of very promising 18-21 yo players. A lot of unknowns but should be very good in 2-3 years.

 

[TiAn_]

I’m stunned the we aren’t dominating the AFLX with Dalrymples brilliant draft picks of the last two years

I guess they are just having a bad day because they must be stars coz Dal picked them

Hopefully English, Naughton & Richards use these H&A games they’re already getting as a warm up for a serious tilt at he AFLX crown next year.

 

[100action]

and his direct replacement is in the bottom third of recruiters (which he's 33% chance of being!), then IMO, as a club we have kinda ****ed this up. Let's just hope Austin, and Power are just as good at their jobs as Dal was his. And just as lucky.

Where did the part in bold come from? interested to see the analysis as to how it was determined.

From what I understand Austin was a 'pro scout' at richmond, i.e. scouted established 'professional' players, and had no hand in recruiting.

 

[Guido]

Where did the part in bold come from? interested to see the analysis as to how it was determined.

From what I understand Austin was a 'pro scout' at richmond, i.e. scouted established 'professional' players, and had no hand in recruiting.

There was no analysis and nor was it meant as a gut instinct on the quality of Austin.

Dal was a known quantity and (in my mind) was one of the comps best on every metric. Whereas Austin, as of right now, he could be great, middle of the road or poor. Percentage wise, he's as "likely" to fall in one group as the other.

He could very well be in the top half dozen recruiters in the comp in the next 5-10 years, but without any quantifiable runs (or years of history as a head recruiter) on the board, he is just as much a chance (33%) of being in the bottom third of recruiters in the comp - just like the ladder, someone has to be.

 

[BRWB]

Anyone noticed the surnames of our recruiter and head recruiter?

How can we go wrong?

 

[100action]

There was no analysis and nor was it meant as a gut instinct on the quality of Austin.

Dal was a known quantity and (in my mind) was one of the comps best on every metric. Whereas Austin, as of right now, he could be great, middle of the road or poor. Percentage wise, he's as "likely" to fall in one group as the other.

He could very well be in the top half dozen recruiters in the comp in the next 5-10 years, but without any quantifiable runs (or years of history as a head recruiter) on the board, he is just as much a chance (33%) of being in the bottom third of recruiters in the comp - just like the ladder, someone has to be.

i see what you mean. I thought a hit rate study was undertaken and it was shown he was in the bottom 1/3 of recruiters.

My gripe with him is similar to yours, he has no experience in the scouting of u18 players and is taking over Dalrymple's duties (whelp).

 

[Snake Livermore]

Dalrymple was a superstar. But in the end, Naughton was 8th on our draft board and we got him at pick 9. There isn't much difference between recruiters with the top picks.

With some father sons and academy picks giving us value at the bottom of the draft this year, Austin gets a bit of time to settle in and find his feet, like Dal had early on with the dogs.

 

[The Inbetweener]

With dalrymple for the first time ever as a Dogs fan I always felt comfortable come draft time that he was in charge.

In saying that, think we all need to reserve judgment on Austin, and Power, until they have at least had a go.

Agree with the sentiment that both seem inexperienced but prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt til they prove otherwise

 

[stefoid]

I feel like we put a lot of time into Dal and over the past 3-4 seasons or so he has really hit his straps as a recruiter. If he contiues on trend, swans will be laughing.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

I didn’t know much about Dal when he took over from Claytom and his first draft was dreadful. Happy to back the Club in developing on and off the field.

 

[DognBones]

Dalrymple's contribution to the club came up again in another thread and now that we are struggling some contributors are starting to direct blame in his direction for creating the list as it stands. Returning to a few facts about his selections in the past 8 years provides some insight:
- had only 4 top ten picks at his disposal in 8 years (Stringer, Macrae, Bont, Naughton)
- had only 3 top 11 - 20 picks in 8 years (Smith, English, Richards)
- was more or less obliged to take 2 father sons in 2010 (picks 22 and 41)
- earliest pick he had in the GC and GWS concession years: 2010-2011 was pick 17 (Smith)
- the only 'duds' he chose under pick 50 in any year were: Talia 2011 pick 39, Pearce pick 49 2011, Hrovat (not really a dud but didn't make it with us) pick 21 2012, Fuller pick 42 2013, Webb (although the fat lady hasn't sung yet) pick 27 2014, Hamilton pick 39 2014, Collins (jury still out) pick 26 2015. That's only 7 'fails' in 8 years.

Now the later pick achievements: Dickson pick 57 2011, Dahlhaus pick 70 2011, Dale (OK, questionable but pretty good for pick 45) 2014, Daniel pick 46 2014, Williams pick 48 2015, Young (potentially) pick 49 2016.

If people care to study the lists of the players that were available (midfielders and forwards, which is what are gaps are showing up now) that fell after our picks in those years, they will find 'slim pickings' indeed.

The possible 'ones that might have got away' were: Instead of Smith - Ross pick 25 2011, B Hill pick 33 2011, Neale pick 58 2011; Instead of Fuller we could have had B Brown in 2013. Instead of Hamilton we could have had Blakely pick 34 2014, Neal-Bullen pick 40 2014.

Conclusion: Dalrymple did not leave us with a poor list, in fact, his success strike rate considering the picks he had at his disposal, was well above average. For a more valid reason for our list shortcomings, we would be better off looking at our trading, both in and outwards.