Simon Dalrymple - 2009 Draft

[paul scholes]

Everyone is a master in hindsight aren't they

Tell you what, a Fyfe at the club would be handy. I still think Howard will be a good player, and I have massive hopes for Tutty. Hopefully it pans out well for us.

Agree entirely, and for crying out loud the errors were made in 06 period.
We're none from 9 just out of interest!!To early to give a definitive call to be honest

 

[ossie_21]

I swear I brought something up the other day regarding the 09 draft, but here we go again.

Of that draft, between Howard at 15 and our next pick at 31 (Tutt), hers a list of players either who have done better or are about on par with Howard:

Menzel-17 (career may never be the same, may have dodged a bullet but without injury he would be a gun)
Fyfe-20 (every club overlooked him, why point out just our recruiter?)
Bastinac-21
Carlisle-24 (only got going this season)
Duncan-28
Gunston-29

There are a couple more who have also showed something at AFL level, but I'd put Howard ahead of all of them (Pittard, Tapscott, Colyer). So explain why it was so terrible for us to actually pick up one of the best players available at 15??

 

[ossie_21]

Seriously look at the 2009 draft, see how many players have been affected by injury, how many are yet to make an impact and who haven't even played a game. It was a terrible draft pool overall

 

[GrandBlue]

I'm still struggling to see the difference in the calls, but let's be honest, no one really cares whether you are proven to be right or wrong in regards to the 09 draft. The only person here who is impressed with your foresight and vision seems to be yourself.

If you can call the 09 draft a failure immediately after, before a ball had even been kicked, then I can most definitely call our 2011 draft flawless after a season. In doing so, this should dispel any fears that Dalrymple isn't the right man to lead us in 2012.

Both wrong actually. Calling the draft a failure straight away wasn't rational, but I still thought it would turn out that way (and it did, in hindsight). Calling the 11 draft a success however, is far too soon.

and I'm not really trying to impress anyone, I just remember getting absolutely crucified, and it's partially the reason I rarely ever post on this board anymore, so forgive me if I happen to act with a tad of arrogance.

 

[TimC]

Please don't tell me this thread is a result of Doug Hawkins rant in our recruiting this morning on SEN

 

[fronkalicious]

I am so sold on Howard. We drafted him for the post gilbee/shaggy/murph era. We knew he was a long way from ready when we took him. He is tracking very very nicely into opinion. Very good selection. There will always be guns taken after a pick. That's just the way the draft goes. But if we could get someone as good as Howard with 21 this year I'd be thrilled.

Tutt has been disappointing. He needs to step up hugely in 2013 or he'll get the axe this time next year. Kid has serious speed, a looooong boot and has actually bulked up a lot. Just needs to get on the park and start delivering.

2010 (wallis, libba were gifts of course) was still quality, taking Dahl and jj. And 2011 was outstanding. No 2 ways about it

 

[Unnamed1]

Oh dear, plenty of armchair draft experts here. I'll back the people who actually go to grounds and analyse players, not ones that simply read phantom drafts and make assumptions on the status of our list from afar and in hindsight.

 

[MaccasDogs]

If any draft was to hold the blame for where we are now, it would have to be the 2006 Draft (Scott Clayton). Not one of the player is left on the Bulldogs list and these are players that should have been coming into their prime around now. This is the draft that has left a big hole in the Bulldogs list.

Pick#11 – Andrejs Everitt - (Missed Jack Riewoldt Pick#13)
Pick#45 – Brennan Stack – (Missed Wil Schofield Pick#50)
Pick#61 – Josh Hill – (Missed Tyson Goldsack Pick#63)
Pick#66 – Malcolm Lynch
Pick#76 – Paul O’Shea
Rookie – Gavin Hughes
Rookie – Jarrod Harbrow
Rookie – Marty Pask
Rookie – Michal West

 

[100action]

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.

 

[TedDougChris]

I don't remember everyone dismissing Tutt after his debut game.... Did I miss the threads that week saying he was hopeless, terrible recruit etc....

He's only played about half a dozen games since, mostly through injury, so I'm not sure why all the angst... He may or may not be a good selection by the end of next year.... Or even in Round 1 should he kick the sealer....

Fickle business football...

 

[paulveed]

Look there are not that many folks who are genuinely prescient, recruiters included.
Recruiting, no matter how much effort anyone puts in, is an inexact science.
Absolutely no one knows just how, or if, a player at 17 years of age is going to develop,
at what rate, or if they will be injury prone, homesick etc.

The whole process is little more than a lottery within a lottery in the end.

Personally I see more promise than gloom in our last couple of efforts, and believe
Dalrymple is doing as good a job as anyone going around. You need to remember that
the strike rate for picking a star drops off dramatically after the first round, even in
uncompromised drafts. To make the process more difficult for Dalrymple and his crew,
it has been quite a few years since we had even one top end pick, let alone multiples.

This draft could be the one where we find out what sort of 'stuff' they have in our recruiting
department. That being said however, in all fairness, it probably takes 4-5 years before it is
fair to asses or assign a pass/fail judgment on a particular draft, especially if tall kids [ KPP's]
are taken.

 

[Leezorr]

If any draft was to hold the blame for where we are now, it would have to be the 2006 Draft (Scott Clayton). Not one of the player is left on the Bulldogs list and these are players that should have been coming into their prime around now. This is the draft that has left a big hole in the Bulldogs list.

Pick#11 – Andrejs Everitt - (Missed Jack Riewoldt Pick#13)
Pick#45 – Brennan Stack – (Missed Wil Schofield Pick#50)
Pick#61 – Josh Hill – (Missed Tyson Goldsack Pick#63)
Pick#66 – Malcolm Lynch
Pick#76 – Paul O’Shea
Rookie – Gavin Hughes
Rookie – Jarrod Harbrow
Rookie – Marty Pask
Rookie – Michal West

Agree, Clayton was a hack, had one decent draft in his entire career at the dogs 1999. With first round picks like Power, McMahon, Walsh, Ray, Everitt, Higgins, Willams, in the last 10-12 years, this is the reason our teams sucks, if two or three of these players had become guns we would be a much better team and probably won a flag.

As it stands we have Cooney on one knee, Willams never fit, Higgins sometimes fit, and Griffen our only gun, still remaining from those picks. thats a shocking stikre rate. 2 guns from all those picks and they were picks 1 & 3, i could have picked those players.

Dont blame Dalrymple, blame Clayton he is the one that deserves it.

 

[total football]

Both wrong actually. Calling the draft a failure straight away wasn't rational, but I still thought it would turn out that way (and it did, in hindsight). Calling the 11 draft a success however, is far too soon.

and I'm not really trying to impress anyone, I just remember getting absolutely crucified, and it's partially the reason I rarely ever post on this board anymore, so forgive me if I happen to act with a tad of arrogance.

Yeah, you're right; your call is irrational. Whereas mine is rational and has been based on revealed talent and form. I guess that's cleared up.

 

[StringyDog]

Your actually a goat if you believe that! He was never touted as a 2nd round pick! And when questioned about why he took him so early Dalrymple said he thought Adelaide might get him! No one from Adelaide ever said that, Just our recruiter justifying his error

Why on draft day was he the only player in the top 50 that didn't have a player profile on the AFL website? Because they didn't expect him to get drafted! Well known he was a huge smokie!

Here is phantom draft from afl site 2009, You Fail Mr Goat, now back to your grass eating!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87451/default.aspx

 

[josh the gent]

It's fair to stay the state of the list is far from ideal at present, without stating the obvious!
But I decided to have a look through recent drafts since Dalrymple has been our head recruited. Whilst hindsight is a wonderful thing I really feel worried heading into this draft that he may yet again make crucial errors.
2009
Picked up Christian Howard with pick 15 (He was touted as more likely to go in the rookie draft than the national yet we used a first round pick) Only a few picks later a number of stars were drafted, in particular Nat Fyfe!
Pick 31 we drafted Jason Tutt (another player not expected too go until later in the draft) Yet we used a 2nd round! Sam Reid goes a few picks later!
Markovic, Thorne were also drafted
Rookies; Moles, Hooper, Panos, Prato and Rose
I really feel that this was a complete waste of a year and is key reason there is a major hole in our list! Especially when you look at the number of talented players that were drafted and available to us!

I was hoping for Daniel Talia on the day, and excitedly thought we'd get him when he got past Melbourne's pick, but Adelaide took him at 13. Howard was unsighted on most phantom drafts and I agree that he was a bit of an odd selection.

Oddly enough, when Talia was selected, I was hoping we'd take Panos at 15 (who was widely considered as a late first/early second round pick). Incredibly we got him with our rookie pick, but I think you'd argue that he has shown less than Howard has to date...

 

[Butane]

Howard could still turn out a reasonable player. I saw a few games at VFL level this year where he looked a class above. For a young guy with his injuries over the past couple of years I think we should wait at least another season before writing him off. (although his turning circle and competitiveness is a bit of a worry sometimes)

My suspicions are that he'll make it. And if that's the case than it's a win. Not every first rounder makes it. If we delisted him tomorrow there would be a few clubs lining up to give him a second chance(or is it a first real chance?)

 

[JJHunter]

Yeh I think too premature to assess the 2009 and drafts onwards from that.

Take a stick to Eade, Clayton and even Fantasia for decisions made between 2002-2007 sort of period.
Just have to look at our first round picks and know why our list has the inbalance it does at the moment.

 

[Butane]

Take a stick to Eade, Clayton and even Fantasia for decisions made between 2002-2007 sort of period.
Just have to look at our first round picks and know why our list has the inbalance it does at the moment.

You know what's funny. People blamed Terry Wallace and Co for the state of the list when we won the spoon in the early 2000's but we played in Pre-lims under them and then we go and play in more pre-lims under Eade and Co and everyone blames them for the impending bottom of the ladder finishes.

I think we've played in 5 pre-lims in 15 years which is an outstanding achievement for a club that in the same period spent close to the least amount of money yet we somehow also...according to Bigfooty...have had the worst recruiters for the last 15 years.

Classic sport fans.

 

[Igloo]

Howard had his first pre-season this year, then got injured in round 1. Had some good games at the end of the year.
Tutt would have played more this year had he not been injured for more than half of it.

Still too early to say whether the draft was good or bad, since we actually need to see them be fit and able to actually play games. No amount of exclamation points will change that.

 

[lachy]

Drafting is not an exact science.

However, recruiters now with the digital age and all of the data available to them should have a better success rate than in the past.

Top 5 should be close to 100% nailed
6 to 10 80%
11 to 15 70%
16 to 20 60%
21 to 30 40%
31 to 40 25%
41 to 50 15%
51 plus up to 10%

This is better than past performance.

It takes 5 years to judge success or failure on draft picks so it is too early to judge the 2009 draft, however 2010 and 2011 both look promising, certainly more promising than all of Claytons drafts except for 1999 which statistically compared to allot of others were not that bad

 

[Lucky Star]

As for the thread, I called our 09 draft a failure the very moment I found out who we drafted, and got crucified here for it. Hindsight hurt?

That's right, if I recall you were bleeding that we should've taken Panos with a first-round pick.

 

[Butane]

That's right, if I recall you were bleeding that we should've taken Panos with a first-round pick.

He couldn't believe we passed on Aaron Black or Jasper Pittard with our first rounder after we took Howard. Both players I had to google to see if they were still playing AFL.

 

[blowesy]

Here is phantom draft from afl site 2009, You Fail Mr Goat, now back to your grass eating!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87451/default.aspx

So a guy in this 1 phantom draft said he might go from 31-60 and used pick 42 yet we used pick 15. this same guy has tutt going around 60 and we use an early pick in the 30's! So we clearly over-paid!
I'm sure I can go back and find "phantom drafts" to back points up but all they are is just one blokes opinion. As my opinion is we clearly overpaid and should of waited and tried to use later picks.

 

[100action]

That's right, if I recall you were bleeding that we should've taken Panos with a first-round pick.

He was also "super pleased" with the rookie draft because we recruited AA and larke medallist Hooper as well as Panos, sure turned out well....

 

[Anja_Nees]

If anyone knew how good Fyfe would be he would have gone top 5. As it stands, Howard looks like he will be a solid player at the least and was in the side round one before sustaining an injury that essentially cost him half a season. If he has a full pre-season and injury free year next year I'd say he'll be in the 22. I'm not concerned about this pick or Tutt, who looks the goods when fit (which has sadly been rarely).

Dalrymple has generally done well and, unlike Clayton, doesn't have an irrational love for players with wonderful skills or pace but no clear position. Dahlhaus, JJ and Jong all look like good rookie selections and the guy still hasn't had a top ten pick to play with after three drafts. We won't be able to properly assess Dalrymple until his picks have had a few more years to mature (and even if one or two of his drafts turn out to be crap even the best recruiters have a poor draft here and there) but I'm comfortable with his efforts.

What is, however, troubling is that Collingwood, for example, have 6 full time recruiters (as of a year ago, it may be more now) while we have two. And who knows how many more part time recruiters the Pies have. Worth noting that a prominent former Bigfooty poster (long since retired) is now one of Collingwood's recruiters.