Our abysmal draft record; The Roar

[Ghost Dog]

A good article that makes painful reading

Highlights / Lowlights

In 2005 Shaun Higgins (Pick 11) was picked before Grant Birchall (Pick 14) and Max Bailey (Pick 18), Dylan Addison (Pick 27) was chosen ahead of Geelong ruckman Trent West (Pick 31).

drafting of Andrejs Everitt (Pick 11) ahead of Jack Riewoldt (Pick 13), Chris Dawes (Pick 28), Kurt Tippet (Pick 32) and even Robbie Gray (Pick 55) and Justin Westhoff (Pick 71) cannot be forgiven.

Choosing the lanky Jarrod Grant at Pick 5 in 2007 ahead of the big bodies of Ben McEvoy (Pick 9) and Robbie Tarrant (Pick 15) was more of the same, another opportunity being simply thrown away.

Christian Howard (Pick 15) being drafted ahead of Jack Gunston (Pick 29), Sam Reid (Pick 38) and Nathan Vardy (Pick 42) at the 2009 national draft.


http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/08/15/western-bulldogs-still-a-jong-way-away/

[BulldogBelle]

Sorry but who'd have known that those players would've developed the same way with us?

[SlimPickens]

It's doesn't take away from us having few howlers but geez drafting is pretty easy in retrospect .

Don't see his point in us not taking Bailey or West. The others suggestion speak for themselves.

[Maddog37]

If you go down that road then most clubs draft picks can be viewed poorly. 90%of the time there is a better player picked after each draft pick.

Is/has Robbie Tarrant done much more than Grant?

[stefoid]

Clayton valued physical attributes (athleticism, speed, skill) over mental attributes (intensity, attitude, toughness, etc...) which is why he was prepared to pull surprise moves like Walsh at 4, Grant at 5 and Everitt at 11.

He even said somethign about 'being preapred to take on strange cats'. Well Scott, 'strange cats' play the game on their terms, and as it turns out, dont readilly make good footballers.

Poor risk management.

Also he was always into best available with the first round picks - list management was someone elses problem - again, poor risk management.

Jury is still out on Dalrymple. Certainly he looks more likely to pick footballer with late picks than clayton ever was. Had Lewis Jetta not been taken by Sydney with pick 14 we would probably be lauding him as a genius.

[LongWait]

The author of the article tells us that we have monumentally stuffed up by trading in fringe or average players from other clubs who have not delivered. He/she then posits as a major part of the solution trading in Gumbleton or Hansen?

Much of the article relies on providing examples, some very dubious, of better players who were taken after our draft picks in prior years. Every single club could be ridiculed in this way.

I agree with the authors' basic premise that we have drafted poorly and been too quick to trade in questionable talent from other clubs but don't think that the article sheds any light on how or why this happened, nor what we should do to ensure we don't repeat the same mistakes.

[bornadog]

Much of the article relies on providing examples, some very dubious, of better players who were taken after our draft picks in prior years. Every single club could be ridiculed in this way.



You have hit the nail on the head, we can go through every club and pick out the duds and the players they should have drafted. We haven't failed purely in drafting, we have failed in list management and balancing the list overall.

The same thing happened to us after the Wallace era, we had a bunch of very good players in the over 27 group and then we drafted a lot of young players in 1999/2000. Rhode inherited the situation just like Macca has. I am not saying either coach is good or bad, but they both have to contend with the list they have, our patience ran out with Rhode.

Eade was very lucky to have the 1999 group come of age in 2006 through to 2010, but even during his time, we should have blooded more players, so that we balanced the list from 2010 going forward. Yes we made mistakes in drafting in 2006, but list management was our issue.

We have a big chance this upcoming draft to clean out the list, of at least ten players and set ourselves up for the future. I hope the club has the guts to do it.

[LostDoggy]

You have hit the nail on the head, we can go through every club and pick out the duds and the players they should have drafted. We haven't failed purely in drafting, we have failed in list management and balancing the list overall.

The same thing happened to us after the Wallace era, we had a bunch of very good players in the over 27 group and then we drafted a lot of young players in 1999/2000. Rhode inherited the situation just like Macca has. I am not saying either coach is good or bad, but they both have to contend with the list they have, our patience ran out with Rhode.

Eade was very lucky to have the 1999 group come of age in 2006 through to 2010, but even during his time, we should have blooded more players, so that we balanced the list from 2010 going forward. Yes we made mistakes in drafting in 2006, but list management was our issue.

We have a big chance this upcoming draft to clean out the list, of at least ten players and set ourselves up for the future. I hope the club has the guts to do it.

The club may have the guts to do it. What about the fans?

[bornadog]

The club may have the guts to do it. What about the fans?

How many games has Mulligan, Hooper, Moles, etc played. They won't mind seeing these guys go, plus a few of the older players like Gilbee, Hargrave.

It needs to be managed, we need to cut our losses.

[Cyberdoggie]

Everitt and Howard we certainly paid overs for. Higgins and Grant clearly could of been anything. When we drafted higgins he was very similar to Ben Cousins, unfortunately leg speed has been so important in the game since then that he now looks slow. Add his injuries and of course you would say it's not a good pick.

Grant has shown that he can be a freak of a player but perhaps it's his body, or his attitude that has let him down. This could of been the case with Buddy Franklin as well, it's just bad luck. Just like cooney doing a career ending knee injury.

[Maddog37]

How many games has Mulligan, Hooper, Moles, etc played. They won't mind seeing these guys go, plus a few of the older players like Gilbee, Hargrave.

It needs to be managed, we need to cut our losses.

I agree with this. Especially now that we have a coach that is known for his talent in developing young men into AFL players. Play to your strengths.

I have constantly wondered though at the issue of cutting players for Bmac. His style seems to be building a very strong bond with the players based on respect and honesty. How will he go telling a player their time is up when said player has done everything asked and is of good character yet simply is not good enough.

[Bulldog Joe]

Can't see even in retrospect that I would have taken Trent West over Addison and not sure that I would have Westhoff even now.

As far as the list cleanout there are plenty of candidates

Veszpremi
Gilbee
Hargrave
Skinner
Mulligan
Fumblekurra
Hill
Hooper
Moles
Panos

and Sherman will be keen to find another home.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Clayton valued physical attributes (athleticism, speed, skill) over mental attributes (intensity, attitude, toughness, etc...) which is why he was prepared to pull surprise moves like Walsh at 4, Grant at 5 and Everitt at 11.



Walsh wasn't completely out of left field. Every phantom draft had him top 10.

Everitt was expected to go much later though.

[Sedat]

Jack Riewoldt is a cancer who will infect Richmond's surge in the next few years. He is the Fevola of the 2010's with his petulant, selfish attitude on the field. That aside, we have undeniably fluffed a number of high picks in recent years - I would go far as to say our 1st round selections of McMahon, Power and Walsh in successive years ultimately cost us a premiership in 2008-2010, we were that close.

[Mofra]

Walsh wasn't completely out of left field. Every phantom draft had him top 10.

Everitt was expected to go much later though.
Yes, Everitt & Howard we probably reached for - some of it was luck, nobody would have anticipated Cooney's knee would shatter, Walsh's injuries, or the fact that Higgins and Williams have had no continuity to their careers to date due to injuries.

Players like Power & Ray were highly rated at the time.

My query has been suspect trading & list management - McDougall cost us nothing and Huddo was a win, but DJ, Sherman, 3 years for Mulligan were howlers.

Thank god we nail the rookie draft compared to other clubs

[DragzLS1]

Uselss article what about Lake, Morris, Boyd.. Dickson as a rookie.. All these players come good and were picked very very late in the draft ect..

[EasternWest]

Uselss article what about Lake, Morris, Boyd.. Dickson as a rookie.. All these players come good and were picked very very late in the draft ect..

Both Morris and Boyd were rookies.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Didn’t like the Farren Ray pick? We could easily have taken Kane Tenace or Fergus Watts instead. Instead of cherry picking the best of each draft, compare them with the pick taken immediately after and you’ll notice it won’t make much difference.

Geelong in their 1999 superdraft year took David Spriggs, Ezra Bray and David Foster before pick 23! Tenace, Cameron Thurley, Brent Prismall, even Nathan Djerrkura were all 1st or 2nd rounders.

Everyone can look bad in hindsight.

[Ghost Dog]

Didn’t like the Farren Ray pick? We could easily have taken Kane Tenace or Fergus Watts instead. Instead of cherry picking the best of each draft, compare them with the pick taken immediately after and you’ll notice it won’t make much difference.

Geelong in their 1999 superdraft year took David Spriggs, Ezra Bray and David Foster before pick 23! Tenace, Cameron Thurley, Brent Prismall, even Nathan Djerrkura were all 1st or 2nd rounders.

Everyone can look bad in hindsight.

The article refers to us never seeming to take big bodied players in the draft.

[Topdog]

Thought Tippett was off limits to anyone bar Adelaide?

[westdog54]

You have hit the nail on the head, we can go through every club and pick out the duds and the players they should have drafted. We haven't failed purely in drafting, we have failed in list management and balancing the list overall.

The same thing happened to us after the Wallace era, we had a bunch of very good players in the over 27 group and then we drafted a lot of young players in 1999/2000. Rhode inherited the situation just like Macca has. I am not saying either coach is good or bad, but they both have to contend with the list they have, our patience ran out with Rhode.

Eade was very lucky to have the 1999 group come of age in 2006 through to 2010, but even during his time, we should have blooded more players, so that we balanced the list from 2010 going forward. Yes we made mistakes in drafting in 2006, but list management was our issue.

We have a big chance this upcoming draft to clean out the list, of at least ten players and set ourselves up for the future. I hope the club has the guts to do it.

We can only hope that Macca doesn't make the same mistake that Rhode did and piss away decent draft picks on also-rans and fringe players.

I'll wear another year or two of pain if it means developing a list from the ground up.

[Mofra]

The article refers to us never seeming to take big bodied players in the draft.
We have, although we tend to have no problem with the super-skinny kids either (although nothing will beat Robbie Warnock's first training photo!)

Minson, Roughy, Sam Reid, Patrick Bowden, Mitch Hahn, Wayde Skipper - they all were big bodied types for their age when drafted, and that excludes developed mature agers like Redpath & Dickson

[LostDoggy]

Didn’t like the Farren Ray pick? We could easily have taken Kane Tenace or Fergus Watts instead. Instead of cherry picking the best of each draft, compare them with the pick taken immediately after and you’ll notice it won’t make much difference.

Geelong in their 1999 superdraft year took David Spriggs, Ezra Bray and David Foster before pick 23! Tenace, Cameron Thurley, Brent Prismall, even Nathan Djerrkura were all 1st or 2nd rounders.

Everyone can look bad in hindsight.

Farren Ray was outstanding in the U18 state championships and most recruiters would have picked him in the first round.

Drafting is not a science as many people expect. There will always be a wet finger in the air element to it.

Hawthorn took a big leap of faith in selecting Buddy - which if rumours are true may still come back to bite them.

[w3design]

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone have a suggestion as to why we seem so much more competent at late draft and rooky selections,than we appear to be with early picks???
Now I do realise we get numerically more selections late, but even so the comparative strike rates seem all out of kilter to me. Just look at the Morrises, Lakes , Dals & Boyds etc. just for starters.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Hawthorn took a big leap of faith in selecting Buddy - which if rumours are true may still come back to bite them.

I agree with the other parts, but Buddy has already repaid the club to an immeasureable extent. Even if the rumours were true, and even if he found himself on the outer, I wouldn't call it coming back to bite Hawthorn.

They've already won big in selecting Franklin. A premiership and probably multiple Coleman medals (after this season, if he gets back), not to mention the marketing component he's been able to drive.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Just as a matter of interest, does anyone have a suggestion as to why we seem so much more competent at late draft and rooky selections,than we appear to be with early picks???
Now I do realise we get numerically more selections late, but even so the comparative strike rates seem all out of kilter to me. Just look at the Morrises, Lakes , Dals & Boyds etc. just for starters.

Genuine footballers who have bigger builds (and football IQ) are often selected late. Not athletes who can catch Usain Bolt and jump higher than Kobe Bryant. They do have certain flaws (ie. usually disposal) but they can still, and often do, become key components of a football side. Morris is the prime example -- not flashy, but one of our most important players of the last 5 or so years.

Too much emphasis is placed on 'potential' IMO. Although the draft camp is worthwhile, too much emphasis is put on attributes outside of playing the actual game of football.

[chef]

thought Tippett was off limits to anyone bar Adelaide?

That was Walker, NSW scholarship.

[mjp]

Too much emphasis is placed on 'potential' IMO. Although the draft camp is worthwhile, too much emphasis is put on attributes outside of playing the actual game of football.

I have been hearing this for years but if the kids are good enough at junior level the clubs are absolutely all over them...which means they go to draft camp - and most of those who go to draft camp get drafted. There aren't too many surprises on the draft camp exclusions list this year.

Farren Ray is always used as an example of someone who couldn't play but 'tested well'. That is just not true - he was an elite runner AND ball winner as an 18yo. Sam Mitchell is used as an example the other way...but given his size/shape/speed, I understand why he wasn't drafted at 18. He might have turned out like Sam Mitchell and he might have turned out like Andrew Hooper...I don't mind them being conservative based on body size and physical attributes - both positive and negative - but we shouldn't shoot the recruiters for doing this and getting it wrong whilst ignoring the fact that at times athleticism is a strong indicator of future capabilities.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I have been hearing this for years but if the kids are good enough at junior level the clubs are absolutely all over them...which means they go to draft camp - and most of those who go to draft camp get drafted. There aren't too many surprises on the draft camp exclusions list this year.

Farren Ray is always used as an example of someone who couldn't play but 'tested well'. That is just not true - he was an elite runner AND ball winner as an 18yo. Sam Mitchell is used as an example the other way...but given his size/shape/speed, I understand why he wasn't drafted at 18. He might have turned out like Sam Mitchell and he might have turned out like Andrew Hooper...I don't mind them being conservative based on body size and physical attributes - both positive and negative - but we shouldn't shoot the recruiters for doing this and getting it wrong whilst ignoring the fact that at times athleticism is a strong indicator of future capabilities.

Considering the success of the rookie draft, I'd suggest recruiters often are looking for too much in the national draft.

Dahlhaus is a recent example. Didn't he finish top five in the league best and fairest? Yes he had concerns about his disposal, but why wasn't he picked up in the main draft? He could clearly 'play' as you noted above, but it was thought he was too small and his disposal worried recruiters. Either way, it's a stuff up by all clubs recruiters and it isn't as though this is a one off example.

Everitt is a classic case going the other way. Drafted in the first round for his athletic abilities and his potential. Possibly add Stack in that category too, though he was drafted a little later.

Sure, athleticism is nice, but there's an over emphasis on it. In recent years that's somewhat beginning to change with mature recruits and so forth though.

[Guido]

Geelong in their 1999 superdraft year took David Spriggs, Ezra Bray and David Foster before pick 23! Tenace, Cameron Thurley, Brent Prismall, even Nathan Djerrkura were all 1st or 2nd rounders.

Everyone can look bad in hindsight.
Peter Street in the top 20, or taking Charlie Gardiner before Steve Johnson.. gee, that recruiter must be an idiot :rolleyes:

Not enough emphasis being put on the above post. This is the recruiter that quite rightly is regarded as one of the best in the business.

Our drafting record is bad in areas, no doubt, but you have to take into account the number of tickets in the lottery.

I'd argue that the amount of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders offloaded in the last 15 odd years by this club would be more than double the amount traded out by any other club in the comp. Triple some others, and TEN TIMES the number of draft picks traded out by clubs like West Coast or Geelong.

I know the Roar article skimmed over a few trades, but IMO he had it arse-about. Trading is the difference of why the list is where it is, not targeting a dozen picks out of 50 and saying "hey, these good players (who in most cases, not one single other AFL recruiter would have touched at that stage of the draft) were available 30 selections later! We suck!"

And let's not forget a number of available rookie picks were not used due to financial restraints. When you put it all together, you're probably looking at the club having about 20 less selections than someone like Geelong at the draft table over this time frame.

Clayton had some disasters, absolutely no arguments, but when analysing his draft record, you have to take into account that with 25+ draft picks traded away or not available due to financial constraints, the bloke was firing with a single barrel when almost everything else was firing with double barrels .

(I know nothing of shooting, don't know if analogy is apt.).

[LostDoggy]

Well said Guido

[azabob]

Thought Tippett was off limits to anyone bar Adelaide?

Huh?

[stefoid]

Guido, Im a programmer and the anaolgy is something like what we call 'fighting spot fires' or 'crisis mode': Management says we need something done yesterday so you rush the job, which addresses the problem in the short term, but not very well - a slap-dash job that only causes more problems down the track.

You do this a number of times when you face a rough patch and everything starts to be held together with bailing wire and string, and hey presto! you are permanently in crisis mode and there is no time to set anything right because everyone is too busy fighting the next spot fire.

The only way out is to step back, ignore the spot fires, do thigns the right way and get everything in order befoer moving forward again. the trouble is this means some stuff has to burn, so most managers will not take this option.

So back to the footy, and the spot fires we were facing in the 2000s were serious structural deficiencies which take years to address via the draft. Want a power key forward? Even if there is a good one available at your pick, he isnt going to be the game changer you want for at least 4-5 years. So you try to trade your way out of the hole - keep fighting those spotfires.

[LongWait]

Guido, Im a programmer and the anaolgy is something like what we call 'fighting spot fires' or 'crisis mode': Management says we need something done yesterday so you rush the job, which addresses the problem in the short term, but not very well - a slap-dash job that only causes more problems down the track.

You do this a number of times when you face a rough patch and everything starts to be held together with bailing wire and string, and hey presto! you are permanently in crisis mode and there is no time to set anything right because everyone is too busy fighting the next spot fire.

The only way out is to step back, ignore the spot fires, do thigns the right way and get everything in order befoer moving forward again. the trouble is this means some stuff has to burn, so most managers will not take this option.

So back to the footy, and the spot fires we were facing in the 2000s were serious structural deficiencies which take years to address via the draft. Want a power key forward? Even if there is a good one available at your pick, he isnt going to be the game changer you want for at least 4-5 years. So you try to trade your way out of the hole - keep fighting those spotfires.

Terriffic analogy Stefoid.

[Guido]

Guido, Im a programmer and the anaolgy is something like what we call 'fighting spot fires' or 'crisis mode': Management says we need something done yesterday so you rush the job, which addresses the problem in the short term, but not very well - a slap-dash job that only causes more problems down the track.

You do this a number of times when you face a rough patch and everything starts to be held together with bailing wire and string, and hey presto! you are permanently in crisis mode and there is no time to set anything right because everyone is too busy fighting the next spot fire.

The only way out is to step back, ignore the spot fires, do thigns the right way and get everything in order befoer moving forward again. the trouble is this means some stuff has to burn, so most managers will not take this option.

So back to the footy, and the spot fires we were facing in the 2000s were serious structural deficiencies which take years to address via the draft. Want a power key forward? Even if there is a good one available at your pick, he isnt going to be the game changer you want for at least 4-5 years. So you try to trade your way out of the hole - keep fighting those spotfires.

An excellent analogy, but there's a culture behind which decisions are made. There are different organisational culture's out there, some are dysfunctional, whereas some have management systems in place to ensure that, based on percentages, it's more likely that the correct decision for the long term will be made. Some organisations are simply smarter with smarter people at the helm, and, some are simply, well, better at what they do. And the results show it.

When it comes to trading and drafting, our culture is one endemic of a short-sighted, quick fix mentality which, in 90% of cases, results in unmitigated failure. Dead-set, I reckon I could give you a list of about 50 names of recycled players that this club has recruited in my time supporting them. This is not normal behaviour for a professional football club. To have tried something time, and time and time again, and to keep going back for more in the hope that this time it will turn out different, it is a completely dysfunctional outlook and strategy.

And let's not walk away from the fact that there is a stupidity behind many of these decisions. When Nathan Brown was out of contract, the club had made a conscious choice that it needed a key forward. This was reflected in the reported (HS) joke of a best offer to him, around $1mil over 3 years ($350k p.a.) - he publicly made it known that he'd prefer to stay at the club as long as the money was in the same ballpark, but the club wouldn't budge a second or a cent on the years, or the cash.

This was for one of the top 10 players in the comp. Everyone else could see it and were walking in with offers of $500K, but not us, we had a surplus/ one too many damaging small forwards who could regularly kick 5+ a game, apparently. No more money, the footy managers of the time said. Yet, a month later, we offered Jade Rawlings, someone not even in the top 50 in the comp, someone who clearly said he didn't want anything to do with our club, not only 4 years, but $400K per year.

This is stupidity for the sake of supposedly rectifying a weakness, and as we know, it rectified jack shit. In fact, his wage exacerbated problems, and severely limited the club's options for genuine solutions down the track (Pick 6 and $500K was more than what secured Ottens a year later), or if you combined the $700K being paid to Rawlings and Koops in 2004/2005, you could have went to Barry Hall (on $500K at the time) and maybe secured him 5 years earlier than we eventually did? Or if the club wasn't so obsessed with these "spotfires", maybe it would have secured Hall as a 17 year old in the 1995 draft, instead of going with a 28 year old Alen Jakovich at Pick 9 a handful of selections earlier?

This club has a problem when it comes to dealing with ... well, problems. Has it learnt a single thing? This analysis could have been done in 1999, 2002, 2005, 2009 just as it is being today, with the same answers on how this strategy plays out. And yet, I know, unless something about this club's inherent quick-fix culture can be overhauled, that I'll almost be in tears at the end of trade week, knowing that the seeds of our next prelim loss were sown in the stupidity of 2012.

There are obviously no controls in place based on previous results/ history to limit these screw ups, as offering a second round pick for Matthew Bate last year would attest to. I saw Brian Cook on On the Couch a few weeks back, you know what he regarded as one of key problems at Geelong when he arrived? They were $10million in debt, and yet he had list management as a problem almost on par. Where is our review of list management practices in the last 10 years, and who could we trust to instigate it? Campbell Rose when he was here? Didn't even know who Scott West was. James Fantasia? He's pulled the trigger on a number of them, how do you think he'll rate his performance. Smorgon? A number of times he's the one that's screamed out for established players to "hasten" the club's rise up the ladder. My only hope is that, with essentially a fresh slate, Chris Grant, Simon Garlick and McCartney sit down, see what's successful, and set out a long term list management strategy that will work, and as they say, "stand up in finals".

If this doesn't happen, then I fear that we'll do what this club is destined to do with any opportunity it has to genuinely replenish the list : be "aggressive" during trade week, throwing draft picks around like confetti on quick fixes who'll ultimately be lucky to contribute 50 games. The cheerleaders will cheer, justifying the trades with some bullshit secondary factor (he's 24! Our list is devoid of 24 year olds!), denounce scepticism on the strategy from "always negative types", stating that we must trust our footy department because they're professionals, and we need to give it three/four years before making a judgement on whether throwing those first/second/third round picks away on players not even in the top 100 players in the comp will be worth it. And then, it'll be the old "what duds! Ah well, everyone's an expert with hindsight. Now, who can we trade for to fix this mess?"

#givenup [/jaded]

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Great read, Guido.

Thanks for that -- would like to see you post around here more often.

[LongWait]

Great stuff Guido.

The appointment of Jason McCartney is perhaps a sign that the club now gets the points you so eloquently made.

[bornadog]

Great read, Guido.

Thanks for that -- would like to see you post around here more often.

Ditto

[Ghost Dog]

Great read Guido. Time and time again, serious flaws in our recruitment approach come back to Fantasia and I won't be at ease with our future direction until he's gone.
Guido, what was the part about Rose not knowing who Scott West was?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Great read Guido. Time and time again, serious flaws in our recruitment approach come back to Fantasia and I won't be at ease with our future direction until he's gone.
Guido, what was the part about Rose not knowing who Scott West was?

When Rose started with us he was introduced to West and Rose asked him what he did at the club.

"I win best & fairests" was Wests answer.

[Ghost Dog]

When Rose started with us he was introduced to West and Rose asked him what he did at the club.

"I win best & fairests" was Wests answer.

Epic Fail, is the appropriate filing category for this I believe....:D

[LongWait]

When Rose started with us he was introduced to West and Rose asked him what he did at the club.

"I win best & fairests" was Wests answer.

At the time though Rose was the newly-appointed CEO who came from harness racing and had no football background at all. He was not the recruiting officer and turned out to be a pretty handy CEO. Rose was CEO during our most successful period for 50 years on and probably off the field. I don't understand the relevance of this amusing anecdote to the point about our recruiting. Are we implying that recruiting stuff-ups are Rose's fault?

[Sockeye Salmon]

At the time though Rose was the newly-appointed CEO who came from harness racing and had no football background at all. He was not the recruiting officer and turned out to be a pretty handy CEO. Rose was CEO during our most successful period for 50 years on and probably off the field. I don't understand the relevance of this amusing anecdote to the point about our recruiting. Are we implying that recruiting stuff-ups are Rose's fault?

It was a direct response to a direct question.

[LongWait]

It was a direct response to a direct question.

OK - it wasn't you who raised the story in the first place. My bad. I still don't get the relevance though.

[Mantis]

When Rose started with us he was introduced to West and Rose asked him what he did at the club.

"I win best & fairests" was Wests answer.

To be fair West was in his work clothes.... He ran (runs) a landscape gardening business and had his 'greens' on.

[GVGjr]

To be fair West was in his work clothes.... He ran (runs) a landscape gardening business and had his 'greens' on.


Which is a fair point to miss.

[Mantis]

Which is a fair point to miss.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. :D

[Ghost Dog]

I remember seeing Rose V Aker on the footy show. Always struck me as a fair bloke.
Back to the thread, so the consensus is the Roar article is off the mark, in the sense that most clubs get it about as right as we do?

[Guido]

Are we implying that recruiting stuff-ups are Rose's fault? I don't understand the relevance of this amusing anecdote to the point about our recruiting.
I should have worded it much better, but the point was that, given his lack of football knowledge, he was not really in a position/the best person to be evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the club's list management, therefore there was never going to be edict (such as Geelong with Brian Cook) from the top to change our short sighted ways.

And if there is to be change, it has to be implemented from the top, because at the bottom the sea is flowing with self interest that leads to these stuff ups. If you go through and see the bullets dodged, making plays for guys like Richard Cole, Russell Robertson (a year before his retirement), you actually begin to think the club must be run by idiots, but it's not, it's rational people doing irrational things when there's no person or set of rules to pull them up on it.

Back to Rose though - he often wore his lack of football knowledge as a badge of honour. HE is the one who mentioned the Scott West story during radio interviews (and yet 10 weeks later he's one of an "expert" three man panel appointing Rohde as the club's next coach .. ugh), there was a thread (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/cam-roses-addresses-business-gathering.335791/) on the other forum a few years back, where 6 years into his time at the club, Rose emphasised the point that he still didn't know Luke Darcy's number. Maybe he was exaggerating, and I know he's gone now, but given the choice, would you want someone whose knowledge of the game is likely to be limited compared to most in the industry making key decisions on key football matters? "But that wasn't his job" you say, but given that the next in line to conduct this type of review are the same people who've pulled the trigger on these trades, this is the type of "investigation" you'll get:

"Justin Sherman for a draft pick, which, if activated correctly, in recent history would have been good enough to secure talents such as Callan Ward, Nathan Fyfe, Ryan Bastinac ... he's faster than all those blokes, needed pace, needed speed, needed ..er ..fastness. Tick, tick, tick, boom! Excellent trade. Mission accomplished.

Cannot see an issue with list management in the last 5 years. In fact, I think the football department manager, whoever it may be, should be given a raise and contract extension.

End Review.

Signed,
James Fantasia"


Brian Cook on the other hand, is one of the best football minds this code's administration has seen, and I wouldn't be surprised if he could rattle off every single selection/trade made by club's he's been CEO of for the past 20 years (and know how successful it was), such is his passion for the game.

He is a person who is capable of conducting such an analysis, and providing a framework and setting boundaries/guidelines within which the footy department has to operate. In fact, he went to Geelong with rectifying the club's list management strategy as one of his key platforms - Campbell Rose probably wouldn't have known what list management even meant when he started (not his fault, but a limitation nonetheless). When Cook conducted a review of Geelong in 2006, interviewing 100 people within the club, his knowledge of the game meant he knew how to cut through the bullshit and see a real picture, not that anyone would even try bullshit him given the respect he commanded.

And I think it makes a big difference. It also filters through into hiring of key personell - they got Balme, we got Fantasia - I mean, could anyone see Cook falling for Fantasia's spin and hiring him? Seriously?

But we have an opportunity now. With Chris Grant as a board member overlooking footy operations, with Garlick as a CEO who knows footy inside out, both McCartney's, we have a group who can start afresh, who can instigate a much-needed change in the club's list management culture and strategy.

[MrMahatma]

We have a very similar problem at work, and I'm in Marketing for a property company. Much easier for the top dogs of the joint to say "yes" to everything that's proposed, forgetting the long term impact for any possibility of a short term gain. Saying yes means you can then say "we did this, we tried that". Setting a long term, sustainable direction is harder because that means saying "no" to something that could make some difference today.

Trade offs exist in every business. Leadership and direction is what carves the road to success. The best CEOs would have a list of successes based on what they "didn't" do, as much as what they "did" do.

But, we as members play a part. We can't say "draft is the way to go" in one sentence, and "I've lost faith in our coach" in the next. If we stay the course, it'll hurt, may not work, but the size of the prize is big.

[Ghost Dog]

It's so simple. James Fantasia must be tasered, wrapped in a blanket and thrown into the Maribyrnong river. Put that suggestion to the board!

[azabob]

It's so simple. James Fantasia must be tasered, wrapped in a blanket and thrown into the Maribyrnong river. Put that suggestion to the board!

So simple, why didn't we do that earlier! If we did we would've won the preimership the last four years! :rolleyes:

[Greystache]

So simple, why didn't we do that earlier! If we did we would've won the preimership the last four years! :rolleyes:

Yep the reason we haven't played in a grand final for 50 years is purely James Fantasia. Every decision that hasn't worked out has been him and him alone, non one else has even had any input :rolleyes:

The idea that other key personnel (including the head coach) don't have a major say in all football department decisions is just laughable.

[comrade]

Yep the reason we haven't played in a grand final for 50 years is purely James Fantasia. Every decision that hasn't worked out has been him and him alone, non one else has even had any input :rolleyes:

The idea that other key personnel (including the head coach) don't have a major say in all football department decisions is just laughable.

Where has it been said that Fantasia is the ONLY one with a say?

[LostDoggy]

I thought azabob was joking anyway.
I think the point is its hard to argue James Fantasia has done a good job since he has been there.

[Greystache]

Where has it been said that Fantasia is the ONLY one with a say?

It's been (incorrectly) posted numerous times that Fantasia promoted Mulligan and Hooper without consulting anyone else, and that some of our trading moves (like DJ) were his alone.

Posts like this below show that absurd deflection of blame has actually been accepted to a degree.


It's so simple. James Fantasia must be tasered, wrapped in a blanket and thrown into the Maribyrnong river. Put that suggestion to the board!

[Ghost Dog]

It's been (incorrectly) posted numerous times that Fantasia promoted Mulligan and Hooper without consulting anyone else, and that some of our trading moves (like DJ) were his alone.

Posts like this below show that absurd deflection of blame has actually been accepted to a degree.

Um, I was being farcical. If only it were so easy to find the blame with one person!
It's pretty obvious however, as Guido says, that we were never going to get any objectivity without an independent review, top to bottom. Having people assess themselves, or being outside of the review, wasted exercise.

[LostDoggy]

It's been (incorrectly) posted numerous times that Fantasia promoted Mulligan and Hooper without consulting anyone else, and that some of our trading moves (like DJ) were his alone.

You know this for a fact then.
I think the gripe many have were that Mulligan and Hooper recruited but also the length of contracts they were given.
We spent too much on DJ and also gave him 3 years when 2 were enough.
Who was in charge of those decisions?

[Greystache]

Um, I was being farcical. If only it were so easy to find the blame with one person!
It's pretty obvious however, as Guido says, that we were never going to get any objectivity without an independent review, top to bottom. Having people assess themselves, or being outside of the review, wasted exercise.

It was indicative of the blame it all on Fantasia attitude that seems to permeate which is rather tiresome. Our terrible trading decisions mostly revolve around a period before Fantasia came to the club, and back in 2007 when Eade was coach and football manager the football department was described as dysfunctional.

Fantasia may be an average performer but we have been average in football operations a lot longer than he's been at the club.

I wonder why when the development of so many of our young players has been slow or non-existent Chris Maple doesn't receive a battering, or is it that people don't know who he is?

[Greystache]

You know this for a fact then.
I think the gripe many have were that Mulligan and Hooper recruited but also the length of contracts they were given.
We spent too much on DJ and also gave him 3 years when 2 were enough.
Who was in charge of those decisions?

Yes.

Every player promoted off the rookie list gets 2 years, it's standard. If there was so little faith in either them that you'd only give then 1 year then the coaching staff is being negligent in promoting them at all.

DJ got 2 years, he's out of contract at the end of the season. How many times does the 3 years story need to be corrected for it to stop being Fantasia bashing material?

[Ghost Dog]

Yes.

Every player promoted off the rookie list gets 2 years, it's standard. If there was so little faith in either them that you'd only give then 1 year then the coaching staff is being negligent in promoting them at all.

DJ got 2 years, he's out of contract at the end of the season. How many times does the 3 years story need to be corrected for it to stop being Fantasia bashing material?

Name some good things James has done for us then? Let's be positive!

Does Fantasia have more power than the senior coach? It seems that way.

[chef]

Name some good things James has done for us then? Let's be positive!

He allowed Eade to focus on just coaching when he arrived in 2007, we then made 3 prelims in a row.

[azabob]

Name some good things James has done for us then? Let's be positive!

The re-signing of Lake, Griffen, Higgins.

[ledge]

Resigning of DAhlhaus

[Ghost Dog]

He allowed Eade to focus on just coaching when he arrived in 2007, we then made 3 prelims in a row.

Yet, he wasn't at Rocket's last press conference. Why not? And it was no secret the two did not get along.

[chef]

Yet, he wasn't at Rocket's last press conference. Why not? And it was no secret the two did not get along.

Why did he have to be there?

[bornadog]

I hate threads like this going over old ground, blaming recruiters, coaches, football managers. I would rather discuss the things we need to do to move forward.

[Ghost Dog]

Why did he have to be there?

Because he was the person Rodney reported to.
I'm happy to be told I have it wrong. I'd definitely like to hear positive things about how we list, re-list and de-list players.
Positive things about club people who's roles are a bit faceless. Perhaps the issue is we only see James when there is some kind of crisis. Aker, Minno, Libba etc.

[LostDoggy]

Yes.

Every player promoted off the rookie list gets 2 years, it's standard. If there was so little faith in either them that you'd only give then 1 year then the coaching staff is being negligent in promoting them at all.

DJ got 2 years, he's out of contract at the end of the season. How many times does the 3 years story need to be corrected for it to stop being Fantasia bashing material?
Fair enough on the rookies. We must be keeping Panos then.
And yes DJ got 2 but what about the price paid for him?
There plenty of other Fantasia material.
Eg A 3 year contract to Williams.
The drawn out Lake contract dispute.
The Everitt/Vezpremi trade then missing swans pick promised.
Failure to act early enough to keep Harbrow or Ward.
Etc
You have explanation for those?

[LongWait]

I'll bet my bottom dollar that no-one on this board knows who played which roles, and how much relative weight the club officials bought to bear in any of the decisions discussed in this thread. The character assassination that goes on with scant evidence is a bloody joke. We can't even agree the basic facts like the duration of contracts. I guess I have to stop taking the interweb too seriously.

[w3design]

Fair enough on the rookies. We must be keeping Panos then.
And yes DJ got 2 but what about the price paid for him?
There plenty of other Fantasia material.
Eg A 3 year contract to Williams.
The drawn out Lake contract dispute.
The Everitt/Vezpremi trade then missing swans pick promised.
Failure to act early enough to keep Harbrow or Ward.
Etc
You have explanation for those?

Well said Chops agree totally.

[LostDoggy]

I'll bet my bottom dollar that no-one on this board knows who played which roles, and how much relative weight the club officials bought to bear in any of the decisions discussed in this thread. The character assassination that goes on with scant evidence is a bloody joke. We can't even agree the basic facts like the duration of contracts. I guess I have to stop taking the interweb too seriously.

Only one character was assassinated. The rest are still there.

[Twodogs]

It was indicative of the blame it all on Fantasia attitude that seems to permeate which is rather tiresome. Our terrible trading decisions mostly revolve around a period before Fantasia came to the club, and back in 2007 when Eade was coach and football manager the football department was described as dysfunctional.

Fantasia may be an average performer but we have been average in football operations a lot longer than he's been at the club.

I wonder why when the development of so many of our young players has been slow or non-existent Chris Maple doesn't receive a battering, or is it that people don't know who he is?


I'm no fan of Fantasia (he's a time sever as far as I am concerned) but your point about player development is very well made. It's all very well to say we should have recruited player x but who's to say that even if we did then he would have became the same player at our club than he would have at another club. The same question could be asked in reverse. If we hadnt drafted player x and he had gone to a different club would he have benefited from that and his career blossomed?

I look at players like Luke Hodge and Joel Selwood and wish they were bulldogs. They are leaders of men and we have no-one comporable on our list. Not only are they they the types of guys who pick teams and games up and bend them the way they want them to turn out, they will let a teammate know that an effort wasnt acceptable, disposals that miss their target arent good enough. They put themselves on the spot for their team and the club they play for are all the better for it.

[GVGjr]

Only one character was assassinated. The rest are still there.

This is the most ridiculous of comments and another gross over exaggeration from you.
Don't bother contributing to discussions if this is what you are offering.

[jeemak]

Enjoyed reading your posts Guido.

[westdog54]

Enjoyed reading your posts Guido.

As have I.

Good to see you on here, Guido. Its been a long time since RecFooty.

[LostDoggy]

This is the most ridiculous of comments and another gross over exaggeration from you.
Don't bother contributing to discussions if this is what you are offering.

?
If I had started with 'character assassination' I would agree with you but someone else did that for me.
Fact is one person was made to pay for failure and the others are still there.

[GVGjr]

?
If I had started with 'character assassination' I would agree with you but someone else did that for me.
Fact is one person was made to pay for failure and the others are still there.

I can't make this any clearer to you but you need to stop posting the exaggerated comments to make your points. Also don't blame others because you choose to copy those words and phrases.
The fact is Rocket was not assassinated by the club, he simply didn't get his contract renewed.

Let is go and get back to talking about the draft performance.

[MrMahatma]

Good call re: development. Very much a big part of the picture.

[EasternWest]

I look at players like Luke Hodge and Joel Selwood and wish they were bulldogs. They are leaders of men and we have no-one comporable on our list. Not only are they they the types of guys who pick teams and games up and bend them the way they want them to turn out, they will let a teammate know that an effort wasnt acceptable, disposals that miss their target arent good enough. They put themselves on the spot for their team and the club they play for are all the better for it.

Whilst I agree with this post, I find it interesting that a few of our leaders are lambasted by posters on this board for doing just what I highlighted above.

Higgins in particular gets singled out for finger pointing etc. Gia has copped it a bit too.

Perhaps Hodge and Selwood and the like earn the right to do these things by their "picking teams and games up", whereas our leaders get accused of not doing one thing while happily doing the other.

EDIT: I'm not casting aspersions on our leaders, I just think Hodge and Selwood types are in a different echelon to Boyd et al.

[Sockeye Salmon]

This is the most ridiculous of comments and another gross over exaggeration from you.
Don't bother contributing to discussions if this is what you are offering.

What a disgraceful post from a moderator.

Whether or not you agree with his posts he has every right to post this.


And he was right. Only one person got knifed.

[jeemak]

This is all getting a bit beyond a joke isn't it?

[Ghost Dog]

What a disgraceful post from a moderator.

Whether or not you agree with his posts he has every right to post this.


And he was right. Only one person got knifed.

Tasered actually, which is non-lethal I might add. :D
Ok, I put my hand up. the Fantasia 'let's lynch Fantasia ' thing was a joke. I meant to say, ' yeah, let's get rid of one guy to fix our probs! ( yeah right!! as if ). Actually in my involvement with the club, I've often asked staff ' who do you barrack for anyway? and they always say other teams, not the Bulldogs. The club is full of career people who are just doing their jobs really. They don't take things highly personally or spend idle moments dreaming of an elusive Bulldog premiership. They just turn up for work and go home. They prob do their jobs well 70% of the time like most people in life.
I suspect Fantasia, and lots of staff at footy clubs are just normal people who don't get nearly as passionate as us. Of course!!
I never meant to head the thread down this track. Anyway, back on thread!

[Guido]

I wonder why when the development of so many of our young players has been slow or non-existent Chris Maple doesn't receive a battering, or is it that people don't know who he is?


I'm no fan of Fantasia (he's a time sever as far as I am concerned) but your point about player development is very well made. It's all very well to say we should have recruited player x but who's to say that even if we did then he would have became the same player at our club than he would have at another club. The same question could be asked in reverse. If we hadnt drafted player x and he had gone to a different club would he have benefited from that and his career blossomed?

Is their much evidence that shows/proves that, in comparison to other clubs, we struggle to develop talent?

You'd point to this year's results, but that's a culmination of a number of factors.

If it was a genuine problem, it would be list wide, and quite evident across a number of years (generations) wouldn't it?

Name a time frame - I'll list you 10, 20, 30 players from Hodge's and Selwood's clubs whose careers amounted to absolutely nothing. Same development structures as those two underwent, same leadership above them in their formative years, same disciplines put into practice. It comes down to what it always comes down to - at least 60% of kids who walk into a club will not make the grade.

IMO there's plenty of evidence to show that the club is doing many things right in the player development stakes, and has been for the best part of a decade.

There's about a dozen A grade careers for a start, many of them All Australians. A Brownlow medallist at 21. Callan Ward, almost BOG in a prelim at the age of 20.

Brian Lake, one of the top 2 fullbacks in the league. Dale Morris - walks in at 21, by 24 is one of the premier defenders in the code. Wouldn't that indicate that something is being down right? Or did he somehow just develop himself of his own accord to an elite AFL standard?

The two warriors who year in year out have consistently picked up 500 touches. Yes, the work ethic was there, but people have to be managed well and put on the right pathways for that work ethic to be effective.

Hell, even Minson, it's taken 10 years, but he has developed into one of the top 5 rucks in the comp.

Of the younger players, Dalhaus, Libba, Wallis, Wood - good to exceptional talents, but cultivated by our development structures and staff, don't know what more we expected of them at this stage. Some good signs that the next crop are also developing very well and on target to be quality once they hit 22-23 and with 80-100 games under their belts.

Even many of the supposed "failures", McMahon and Ray stepped up and were probably equal BOG against Collingwood in the club's first final in 6-7 years.

And all players whose careers were born and bred at the Whitten Oval. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

[Guido]

I'll bet my bottom dollar that no-one on this board knows who played which roles, and how much relative weight the club officials bought to bear in any of the decisions discussed in this thread. The character assassination that goes on with scant evidence is a bloody joke. We can't even agree the basic facts like the duration of contracts. I guess I have to stop taking the interweb too seriously.
He is the coach's boss. Bar the CEO, no-one has more authority and say in how the footy department is run.

EVERY decision on list management must pass through him.

A coach cannot make a trade unless Fantasia approves.

A player contract cannot be signed, unless Fantasia approves.

The buck stops with him.

He was the administrator that OK'd the trading of a compensation pick between 19-25 for Sherman.

He was the administrator that OK'd the trading of our first live pick in the 2010 draft for Djerkkura (a pick which could have been used on Nick Duigan or Paul Puopolo)

Under his watch, we picked up a 30 year old -who had a history of doing FA in big matches- in the PSD on an inflated contract. Scott - 2 (two) touches in the prelim - Welsh. People will say "but that was all Eade's call" .. THIS is exactly why a footy manager is there, why he's above the coach - to be the rational voice of reason and not allow the club to be dictated by short-sighted self interest.

(Adelaide has a policy of not offering anyone turning 30 or above any more than 2 years. These are the types of hard-coded rules that need to begin to be implemented at the Bulldogs - with exceptions only allowable if, say, coach, footy department manager, CEO and Chris Grant OK it.)

"If he was in this draft, Josh Hill would be selected in the top 20" - and that's why we turned down a second AND a fourth round pick for him. This is less than two years ago. He's now had the best season of his career, do you think a single club out there would use a pick earlier than 40 on him in the national draft?

The Callan Ward negotiations. "This is going to hurt the club more than Ablett leaving Geelong" ... 5 years warning, $8.8mil in cap space, and the bloke failed to keep the ONE clearly elite 23 year old and under player on the list.

I think there's enough evidence to suggest that the bloke makes poor choices, and given his position, yes, he is accountable for them.


Fantasia may be an average performer but we have been average in football operations a lot longer than he's been at the club.

Does this mean we do nothing about it?

If you want a premiership, you need a top 4 coach, top 4 footy manager and a top 4 list.

First cab off the rank is the footy manager, has to come first if you're going to assemble a premiership team.

The decisions today will dictate whether our next run at a flag will be a successful one, so pardon a few of us for thinking that it is in the club's best interests to replace an average performer with someone who'll be outstanding in the role.

[Ghost Dog]

Gilbee to retire on Monday, Brian Taylor announced strong rumour TV last night.

I would have loved to have gotten Puopolo over Sherman. Would have rather kept Everitt over Vezpremi. Have never, ever, seen even a glimmer from Hooper. And it's not just Hindsight. Was suss on all these decisions from the get go.

[ledge]

Ok so some seem to be blaming fantasia if it is his failure who is the one failing to sack him doesnt the blame lie in that person for not getting a better choice and not replacing him ?

[GVGjr]

Gilbee to retire on Monday, Brian Taylor announced strong rumour TV last night.



I was never confident that Gilbee could put together such a great career when we first picked him. He's been a great player for us.

[G-Mo77]

Saw the Gilbee rumor on Big Footy last night. Such a shame he's not in the 22 in our last home game, deserves a send off in front of the home crowd. :(

[Desipura]

What a disgraceful post from a moderator.

Whether or not you agree with his posts he has every right to post this.


And he was right. Only one person got knifed.

GvGjr is a respected poster on here who more often than not gives a balanced view on all topics related to the dogs. It's the posters with extremists views, mostly negative, without any foundation that seemed to annoy him and possibly got him to a point to reply how he did.
I do not think we should condemn him for his one off over the top reply to a poster.
We all know there are Eade admirers on here and will do everything to side with him.

[bornadog]

He is the coach's boss. Bar the CEO, no-one has more authority and say in how the footy department is run.

EVERY decision on list management must pass through him.

A coach cannot make a trade unless Fantasia approves.

A player contract cannot be signed, unless Fantasia approves.

The buck stops with him.

He was the administrator that OK'd the trading of a compensation pick between 19-25 for Sherman.

He was the administrator that OK'd the trading of our first live pick in the 2010 draft for Djerkkura (a pick which could have been used on Nick Duigan or Paul Puopolo)

Under his watch, we picked up a 30 year old -who had a history of doing FA in big matches- in the PSD on an inflated contract. Scott - 2 (two) touches in the prelim - Welsh. People will say "but that was all Eade's call" .. THIS is exactly why a footy manager is there, why he's above the coach - to be the rational voice of reason and not allow the club to be dictated by short-sighted self interest.

(Adelaide has a policy of not offering anyone turning 30 or above any more than 2 years. These are the types of hard-coded rules that need to begin to be implemented at the Bulldogs - with exceptions only allowable if, say, coach, footy department manager, CEO and Chris Grant OK it.)

"If he was in this draft, Josh Hill would be selected in the top 20" - and that's why we turned down a second AND a fourth round pick for him. This is less than two years ago. He's now had the best season of his career, do you think a single club out there would use a pick earlier than 40 on him in the national draft?

The Callan Ward negotiations. "This is going to hurt the club more than Ablett leaving Geelong" ... 5 years warning, $8.8mil in cap space, and the bloke failed to keep the ONE clearly elite 23 year old and under player on the list.

I think there's enough evidence to suggest that the bloke makes poor choices, and given his position, yes, he is accountable for them.

Does this mean we do nothing about it?

If you want a premiership, you need a top 4 coach, top 4 footy manager and a top 4 list.

First cab off the rank is the footy manager, has to come first if you're going to assemble a premiership team.

The decisions today will dictate whether our next run at a flag will be a successful one, so pardon a few of us for thinking that it is in the club's best interests to replace an average performer with someone who'll be outstanding in the role.

Once more a top post Guido. There is enough evidence to say we should we be looking for a new football manager. We have to get the next draft right and the list management right in order to have another tilt in a couple of years time.

[azabob]

Gilbee to retire on Monday, Brian Taylor announced strong rumour TV last night.

I would have loved to have gotten Puopolo over Sherman. Would have rather kept Everitt over Vezpremi. Have never, ever, seen even a glimmer from Hooper. And it's not just Hindsight. Was suss on all these decisions from the get go.

Agree Sherman was a bad choice but not sure selecting Puopolo wouldve been the right one either. I'm happy with the Vez and Everitt swap - no difference - a nil all draw. Could you see Everitt fitting into McCartney game style? I certainly cannot. On Hooper the only positive thing I can say is he showed a little more that Mulligan - and that is not much.

[Mofra]

Is their much evidence that shows/proves that, in comparison to other clubs, we struggle to develop talent?
There is evidence to suggest we are at least par - we have had no fringe player for the Bulldogs ever go on to boom at another club.
Josh Hill may be close, but he still looks to be a frontrunner of the highest order.

The sheer number of rookies we seem to turn into AFL regulars sugests we are doing something right - and given the imporvement in Wallis' kicking in under two years, I think we have the capacity to work with talented kids too.

The real test will be how we develop Smith's kicking and get one of Jones/Cordy/Hill to perform as a key target against thebest opposition backman every week.
I think we'll do ok in this regard.

[Mofra]

Agree Sherman was a bad choice but not sure selecting Puopolo wouldve been the right one either.
Perhaps it's my memory, but didn't we miss Puopolo because we wanted Schofield first?

Schofield would have been a decent pick if he didn't have his off field issues/tantrums.
His going home did snare us Fletcher Roberts so that cloud may have a silver lining to it.

Let us not talk about Sherman.... :o

[azabob]

Perhaps it's my memory, but didn't we miss Puopolo because we wanted Schofield first?

Schofield would have been a decent pick if he didn't have his off field issues/tantrums.
His going home did snare us Fletcher Roberts so that cloud may have a silver lining to it.

Let us not talk about Sherman.... :o

You are correct, we preferred Schofield and as you say he was looking ok but Roberts could be better still.

[F'scary]

Great thread around an interesting article. I think we have done well the last two years, especially given the compromised drafts. However, the point made in the article about National Draft years 2003-2007 is very powerful. I feel it has to be said "and keep going", that is 2008 (Cordy, Roughead, Jones) is a very, very slow train coming and 2009 is looking increasingly ordinary with Markovic (pick 60+ and best described as an honest toiler) outpointing Howard and Tutt to date.

[LostDoggy]

A good article that makes painful reading

Highlights / Lowlights

In 2005 Shaun Higgins (Pick 11) was picked before Grant Birchall (Pick 14) and Max Bailey (Pick 18), Dylan Addison (Pick 27) was chosen ahead of Geelong ruckman Trent West (Pick 31).

drafting of Andrejs Everitt (Pick 11) ahead of Jack Riewoldt (Pick 13), Chris Dawes (Pick 28), Kurt Tippet (Pick 32) and even Robbie Gray (Pick 55) and Justin Westhoff (Pick 71) cannot be forgiven.

Choosing the lanky Jarrod Grant at Pick 5 in 2007 ahead of the big bodies of Ben McEvoy (Pick 9) and Robbie Tarrant (Pick 15) was more of the same, another opportunity being simply thrown away.

Christian Howard (Pick 15) being drafted ahead of Jack Gunston (Pick 29), Sam Reid (Pick 38) and Nathan Vardy (Pick 42) at the 2009 national draft.


http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/08/15/western-bulldogs-still-a-jong-way-away/

Birchall is a downhill skier of the highest order. I would take Higgins ahead of him again and again. Bailey and West are meh. Everitt is the obvious mistake although he's about as good for sydney this year as dawes, robbie gray and westhoff, who have had crap years.
Grant is pretty much on the same level as McEvoy and Robbie Tarrant, except that Tarrant and Mcevoy are currently playing well while Grant is not.
Christian Howard may have been a mistake as well.

[Mofra]

Grant is pretty much on the same level as McEvoy and Robbie Tarrant, except that Tarrant and Mcevoy are currently playing well while Grant is not.
McEvoy is miles ahead of Grant, miles.

Still not entirely convinced by Tarrant - IIRC we considered him at the draft.

[Mantis]

Still not entirely convinced by Tarrant - IIRC we considered him at the draft.

Yep, for our 2nd pick we were keen on Tarrant, Rance & Ward... who went 17, 18 & 19.

[westdog54]

Yep, for our 2nd pick we were keen on Tarrant, Rance & Ward... who went 17, 18 & 19.

Tarrant is starting to come good, I think he'll turn out to be a reasonable pick for North.

[stefoid]

Well Guido, Mac had 10 years or something being steeped in the way Geelong does things, and now we have officially admitted to 'rebuild' and making noises about 'growing our own', so you may get your way.

I want us to really go nuts in this particular draft by upgrading our 2nd and 3rd round picks as much as possible.