Simon Dalrymple - 2009 Draft

[Butane]

Egg-flip LOL.

Try saying Egg-flip 4 times in a row really fast.

 

[Lucky Star]

Try saying Egg-flip 4 times in a row really fast.

"One smart fellow, he felt smart".

 

[stefoid]

Simon Dalrymple is still unproven in my books

Obviously 2009 was poor
2010 was good snaring Dahlhaus, Johanissen, would of had another in Schofield if he wasnt a mummy's boy.
2011 looking good but perhaps Talia, Pearce, Greenwood and Jong are his only unique suggestions, Smith, Dickson, Campbell, Redpath were Macca/Grant picks. He will also be judged on how Crozier goes.

One thing for sure is that our recruitment staff needs to be beefed up.

Yep. Gets some credit for Dal, Joho and Fletch, but we cant be relying on rookies and late draft picks.

Dalrymple should be judged on how his first and second round picks turn out: Howard, Tutt, 1/2 Smith, Talia. (and Crozier)

Still, first year on the job, 2009. Everybody gets a chance to improve, right?

 

[stefoid]

Only 3 clubs had an interest in Howard, Adelaide, us and Richmond. Richmond were never that high on him apparently. I think that's a pretty good indication that Howard should not have gone 1st round. Strangely Tutt had more interest than Howard.

It seems to me Howard was a favourite of Dalrymple's, something you should never do as a recruiter. He may still yet turn out to be a good player, he just never should have went that high.

Its obvious he was targeting kicking skills.

What he should have been targeting (in hindsight) is kicking skills and decision making under pressure. If you cant do it under pressure in the AFL, then you cant do it because you simply wont get a chance to get on your own much. Its why I find it hard to get a handle on tutt. Looks a million bucks in space, but I dont know how he handles himself under pressure.

 

[HK_Bulldog]

Yep. Gets some credit for Dal, Joho and Fletch, but we cant be relying on rookies and late draft picks.

Dalrymple should be judged on how his first and second round picks turn out: Howard, Tutt, 1/2 Smith, Talia. (and Crozier)

Still, first year on the job, 2009. Everybody gets a chance to improve, right?

By Crozier, I assume you mean how well he goes? ie, If Crozier is a superstar, this will reflect well on Dalrymple?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

By Crozier, I assume you mean how well he goes? ie, If Crozier is a superstar, this will reflect well on Dalrymple?

The comparison of Crozier and Smith is what we need to look at. Crozier is who we were touted as wanting to take if there, everybody expected it, and then suddenly Clay Smith's name gets called out. Big surprise to a lot of people. If Crozier ends up better than Smith it would be classified as a failed decision, but I disagree with that.

 

[HK_Bulldog]

The comparison of Crozier and Smith is what we need to look at. Crozier is who we were touted as wanting to take if there, everybody expected it, and then suddenly Clay Smith's name gets called out. Big surprise to a lot of people. If Crozier ends up better than Smith it would be classified as a failed decision, but I disagree with that.

Thats what I'm getting at. If Crozier is fantastic, we can rest easy that Dalrymple got the call right but was just overruled by the coach which is perfectly fine with me. Smith turning out great is also a positive because Dalrymple chose him after being told to select a certain type.
If Crozier and/or Smith is a dud, that is a negative for Dalrymple, because both were his choices.
Phew... does that make sense in a wordy kinda way.

 

[Butane]

Thats what I'm getting at. If Crozier is fantastic, we can rest easy that Dalrymple got the call right but was just overruled by the coach which is perfectly fine with me. Smith turning out great is also a positive because Dalrymple chose him after being told to select a certain type.
If Crozier and/or Smith is a dud, that is a negative for Dalrymple, because both were his choices.
Phew... does that make sense in a wordy kinda way.

I doubt the validity of McCartney over-ruling Dalrymple completely. Surely the recruiter has the final say otherwise whats the point?

If Dalrymple wanted Croizer and McCartney wanted Smith then it doesn't matter which player turns out better, that was a bad call.

 

[stefoid]

I doubt the validity of McCartney over-ruling Dalrymple completely. Surely the recruiter has the final say otherwise whats the point?

If Dalrymple wanted Croizer and McCartney wanted Smith then it doesn't matter which player turns out better, that was a bad call.

the coach always has the final say - he has to.

 

[Butane]

the coach always has the final say - he has to.

The coach doesn't run the club, he coaches the team. His input should be taken on board but he shouldn't have the right to a veto vote. He's not the most informed on the subject so it seems silly that he has the greatest say.

(I'm more referring to recruiting kids not necessarily trades)

 

[paulveed]

The coach doesn't run the club, he coaches the team. His input should be taken on board but he shouldn't have the right to a veto vote. He's not the most informed on the subject so it seems silly that he has the greatest say.

(I'm more referring to recruiting kids not necessarily trades)

Surely the recruiters have to select to the needs of the coach's plans and the balance of the squad. If a coach intends to run a stodgy lock down, in close, Ross Lyon type of game style, that is all tackling and stoppages, there is no point the recruiters going out and picking a bunch of gazelles and hares.
It is not just a matter of picking the most talented player, while ignoring the team/coach requirements. As we already have 4 ruckmen on our list, if the best players available at our first 3 picks all happened to be ruckmen [hypothetically speaking], we are hardly going to pick them, and finish up with 7 big blokes.

The need must come from the coach, the who should be the domain of the recruiters surely.

 

[Nath09]

A few people who attended the presentation last Thursday have mentioned a 100 point plan for drafting that the club is introducing for the first time. Is this McCartney's plan, or has it been introduced by his suggestion? Also who is involved in calculating how many points are attributed to each player?

At the very least this seems to suggest that drafting is a far more collaborative process than some on here seem to think.

 

[paulveed]

A few people who attended the presentation last Thursday have mentioned a 100 point plan for drafting that the club is introducing for the first time. Is this McCartney's plan, or has it been introduced by his suggestion? Also who is involved in calculating how many points are attributed to each player?

At the very least this seems to suggest that drafting is a far more collaborative process than some on here seem to think.

Nath these systems are known as 'selection indexes'. They are used widely from business to livestock breeding.
Simply it is a way of minimising subjectivity from any process of selecting between multiple components, to the benefit of the group as a whole. This by making the decision process on what you retain versus what you discard more objective rather than subjective.
The hard part is making sure your allocation of initial points-per-criterion are not of themselves subjective.
It is great to see the club at least starting to try such systems, even if for starters it appears to be in a fairly rudimentary form. Big tick for the footy dept. here.