What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 2

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Our recruitment system will be Beveridge centric from now. He will give the prototype of who he wants, Power and Austin will go find them.

I hope this is not true.

 

[LittleG]

I hope this is not true.

Unfortunately we may have jumped on the goat and forgot about separation of powers.

List manager should be reporting to the football manager not the coach. Perhaps this is one of the many reasons Dal is in Sydney.

 

[BEaston]

I don't think he was suggested he would report to Bev? Just that the coach would have more influence. This broke down previously and would go some way to explaining some of the list imbalances we have.

Interestingly, a thread was started a while back on this and most posters (from memory) agreed that the coach should guide direction of the list or at least have a large input into how it should be built to align with the gamestyle being played.

 

[immortalmike]

I hope this is not true.

Seconded.

 

[footyfan000001]

Bev telling the staff what sort of player he wants - then they go and get them - isn’t that fairly standard procedure? Or does the list manager also decide on what type of player the list needs?

 

[Mr. Walker]

Bev telling the staff what sort of player he wants - then they go and get them - isn’t that fairly standard procedure? Or does the list manager also decide on what type of player the list needs?

Guess it depends on whether they talk about "best available" vs"need" like we do here.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

You would want to be sure that the coach would be around for the long haul and has a long-term vision with a specific aim. If he bailed out in a couple of years it could be chaotic for a new coach with different ideas/goals.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Bev telling the staff what sort of player he wants - then they go and get them - isn’t that fairly standard procedure? Or does the list manager also decide on what type of player the list needs?

Yes that absolutly how it would work.

Does anyone believe that Clarko just sits back and lets the recruiting and list managers make all the decisions?

The coach has to be involved in setting the overall list strategy and then it the recruiters job to make the right call ie if we need an inside midfielder and there are 10 available then the recruiter makes that call. What the recruiter shouldn't be doing is recruiting a ruckman when our requirement is an inside midfielder.

 

[Yojimbo]

I hope this is not true.

Of course it's not Dannnnnnnnnn, everyone knows Peter Gordon does everything.

 

[dergert]

I hope this is not true.

Have a listen to last week's freedom in a cage with Sam power, I'd be keen for other's interpretation.

He did explicitly say that Beveridge will give him a brief on what player he wanted, and Power will go out and find them. At least with this method there will be consistency among head coach and recruiting staff.

 

[Tommycash]

Have a listen to last week's freedom in a cage with Sam power, I'd be keen for other's interpretation.

He did explicitly say that Beveridge will give him a brief on what player he wanted, and Power will go out and find them. At least with this method there will be consistency among head coach and recruiting staff.

Would this be very different to what occurs elsewhere? I mean, surely the type of player the team needs is something for the coach and the decision on which player fits that bill is one for the recruiter?

 

[Dogsbestfriend]

I was actually chatting to someone very high up in the club before last years draft and just happened to ask the question of how much say the coach has in selecting players be it draft or trade.

I wasn't surprised to hear him reply that the coach of the day has about a 70% final say in each selection.

As it should be.

 

[BRWB]

Would this be very different to what occurs elsewhere? I mean, surely the type of player the team needs is something for the coach and the decision on which player fits that bill is one for the recruiter?

It would vary depending on personnel and structure. But every club has a list man committee I think.

Unproven coaches like P Rhode and Voss desperate to keep their job should never be given free reign on a list.

Bev's job is safe and he is proven. While Grant and Austin Power are unproven.

For us, right now, I'd leave it to Bev.

 

[bobby2]

Yes that absolutly how it would work.

Does anyone believe that Clarko just sits back and lets the recruiting and list managers make all the decisions?

The coach has to be involved in setting the overall list strategy and then it the recruiters job to make the right call ie if we need an inside midfielder and there are 10 available then the recruiter makes that call. What the recruiter shouldn't be doing is recruiting a ruckman when our requirement is an inside midfielder.

Surely this should happen within reason though. If the best inside midfielder is nowhere near as good as other players available, maybe it could be more sensible to take a better player and pick up an inside mid at a different pick. In a different situation, when there's a handful of blokes available who are roughly as good as each other, you could take the one who best fits what the coach wants.

A recruiting brief of "we want the best kicks in the draft" is how we ended up with Howard and Tutt. Compare that to naughton, who wasn't really a need, but is a bloody good footballer. I know who I'd rather have.

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Surely this should happen within reason though. If the best inside midfielder is nowhere near as good as other players available, maybe it could be more sensible to take a better player and pick up an inside mid at a different pick. In a different situation, when there's a handful of blokes available who are roughly as good as each other, you could take the one who best fits what the coach wants.

A recruiting brief of "we want the best kicks in the draft" is how we ended up with Howard and Tutt. Compare that to naughton, who wasn't really a need, but is a bloody good footballer. I know who I'd rather have.

Its always going to be a mixture of needs and best player but the point is that I would expect the Coach to have a big say in the overall structure of the list and the type of players required. The recruiters then make the assessment of the draft to meet those requirements not withstanding their will always be circumstances on draft night that can change things hence why we see them ask for more time. My understanding was that Naughton was the unanimous choice by our club given our pick and who was likely to be picked before him.

 

[immortalmike]

It's disturbing the amount of seeming "yes men" we've surrounded Bev with.

 

[Dogs Rule]

It's disturbing the amount of seeming "yes men" we've surrounded Bev with.

What's just as disturbing is how many people on this board jump to conclusions.

Power said he'll find the types of players the coach wants, ah well, he must be a yes man.

Power, Austin and Grant all have brains, they all have mouths and I would expect robust discussions and each one to have a say, along with the coach, in our recruiting.

Should Bevo get the final say? Yes, because at the end of the day he'll be the one getting the chop it if it all goes belly up.

 

[CaptainMurphy]

I hope this is not true.

Smacks of Dalrymple looking for a HBF in the 2009 draft and drafting Christian Howard. We shouldn't go looking for certain types except maybe late in the draft or rookie.

 

[immortalmike]

What's just as disturbing is how many people on this board jump to conclusions.

Power said he'll find the types of players the coach wants, ah well, he must be a yes man.

Power, Austin and Grant all have brains, they all have mouths and I would expect robust discussions and each one to have a say, along with the coach, in our recruiting.

Should Bevo get the final say? Yes, because at the end of the day he'll be the one getting the chop it if it all goes belly up.

It's funny that everyone in the footy department that has seniority over bevo or experience on par with his has been moved on bar Chris Grant. Odd that.
Now we find out he had an argument with our gun recruiter and all of a sudden we have a new one with the express job description of finding the player Beveridge wants.
Sounds like a bunch of "yes men" to me.

Beveridge shouldn't have the final say precisely because he gets the chop if it goes belly up. Did you not see the havoc wreaked by Voss? Hell even one of my favourite coaches Rocket Eade ****ed us with a bunch of short term thinking that left us with a shocking list at the end of his tenure. That's why we instituted a list manager in the first place. To stand up to a coach and oversee the long term health of our list.
The only way this works as stated is if Bev gets a 10 year contract.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

It's funny that everyone in the footy department that has seniority over bevo or experience on par with his has been moved on bar Chris Grant. Odd that.
Now we find out he had an argument with our gun recruiter and all of a sudden we have a new one with the express job description of finding the player Beveridge wants.
Sounds like a bunch of "yes men" to me.

Beveridge shouldn't have the final say precisely because he gets the chop if it goes belly up. Did you not see the havoc wreaked by Voss? Hell even one of my favourite coaches Rocket Eade ****** us with a bunch of short term thinking that left us with a shocking list at the end of his tenure. That's why we instituted a list manager in the first place. To stand up to a coach and oversee the long term health of our list.
The only way this works as stated is if Bev gets a 10 year contract.

So we should plan our list management strategy with the expectation that the coach wont be successful and will be moved on? That's absurd. We are planning to win premierships. Not to have a distributed system of responsibility that can adapt easily to sacked coaches.

 

[immortalmike]

So we should plan our list management strategy with the expectation that the coach wont be successful and will be moved on? That's absurd. We are planning to win premierships. Not to have a distributed system of responsibility that can adapt easily to sacked coaches.

That's what you got from what I wrote?

 

[gangsta deluxe]

“Beveridge shouldn’t have the final say precisely because he gets the chop if it goes belly up”

The reason you are providing for him not having the final say is that he might be sacked if his strategy doesn’t work.

I think I precisely captured your point, and it wasn’t a good one.

Ideally the person responsible for the on field strategy should make the decision about personnel. It should be decision making that is as well informed as possible and he/she should back the judgement of their staff, but the decision stops with them.

 

[immortalmike]

“Beveridge shouldn’t have the final say precisely because he gets the chop if it goes belly up”

The reason you are providing for him not having the final say is that he might be sacked if his strategy doesn’t work.

I think I precisely captured your point, and it wasn’t a good one.

Ideally the person responsible for the on field strategy should make the decision about personnel. It should be decision making that is as well informed as possible and he/she should back the judgement of their staff, but the decision stops with them.

Keep reading. It's certainly not my point. Especially as you've interpreted it.
I'll give you a clue my point is closer to your last paragraph than you think.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Fair call - fired off early on that one.

 

[bullish23]

Would this be very different to what occurs elsewhere? I mean, surely the type of player the team needs is something for the coach and the decision on which player fits that bill is one for the recruiter?

Sure and what happened at the dogs. There was two criteria; i) must be able to crack-in and 2) not be a dikhead