PDA

View Full Version : Dogs can't compete due to drafting mistakes



Sockeye Salmon
27-11-2007, 11:51 AM
From AFL Insider

http://www.aflinsider.net/bulldogs-cant-compete-due-to-drafting-mistakes/


Bulldogs Can't Compete Due To Drafting Mistakes
November 26th 2007 01:12
When it is all working perfectly there is no better team to watch, but for the Bulldogs and their array of short forwards all the kicks do have to be perfect or it all breaks down. They don't have big forward targets and this is due to the philosophy of their recruiting department and their coaches.

1997
Mark Alvey, they obviously weren't watching out at Waverley when Goodes was dominating for Victoria Country, before being injured. Not that Goodes didn't show what he could do later on when he starred in the TAC Cup Grand Final on the MCG. Other players who were bigger, and better, than Alvey and could have been drafted by the Bulldogs include Dean Solomon, Ian Perrie, Andrew Kellaway and Nathan Thompson. The philosophy, that still exists, about trying to win with small forwards was very evident as they traded picks 15, 31 and 38 for small forwards Matthew Robbins and Simon Garlick. Picks 15 and 31 would become premiership players too.

1998
Luke Penny, they actually tried to find some height but it fell apart for Penny and the Bulldogs, and then his knee fell apart at the Saints. Considering they drafted Nicky Winmar, at pick 30, it shows that attitude problems were not an issue with their recruiting. A couple of players dropped in the 1998 AFL draft due to that concern, Danny Jacobs who marked everything and Brendan Fevola who kicked a lot of goals in the TAC Cup. Ken McGregor went very late in that draft too.

1999
They may have made several successful picks, but they were only for the small players. They went big with a couple of Patricks, Wiggins and Bowden, but that didn't work. They could have had Hille or Biglands. The Bulldogs were still trading away picks and players to acquire small forwards, at this time they traded for Eagleton, which helped the Power assemble a bit of their future premiership side. The Bulldogs did try to bring in some bulk, they acquired Trent Bartlett and sent out another draft mistake, Michael Martin who was pick 14 in 1994.

2000
While Carlton really went bad in this draft, with Livingston, Sporn and S Wiggins in the early picks, the Bulldogs also wasted a couple of high picks on McMahon and Birss. Bulldogs fans don't need to be reminded about how great Drew Petrie can be, and he could have been theirs. The Bulldogs did find someone tall who is actually still on their list, Skipper went at pick 70.

2001
What were they doing taking Sam Power at pick 10, Ashley Hansen would have been a much better choice. Matt Maguire, Mark Seaby, even LRT would have been A-OK. Brad Miller and Damon White went late in the draft, and that is also where the Bulldogs found their current full back, when they drafted Harris at 71.

2002
At least they tried to go a bit big in this draft, but without a lot to show for it yet. Minson at pick 20 is something they did well, but they don't play him enough, that is something that needs to change and he should be playing every game in 2008. A few picks earlier they went for their usual running player, this time it was Faulkner. Jared Rivers, Paul Johnson or even Daniel Merrett would have given the Bulldogs more height, Merrett would have also helped in the strength department that the Bulldogs are lacking in. But the Bulldogs struggle to identify the best of the tallest, Walsh at pick 4, ahead of Hamish McIntosh, is not looking good. They did draft Cameron Wight at this time, and while he does measure well when it comes to height he does have a problem with bulk and strength.

2003
They had two picks in the top 4 and added some more midfielders, nothing wrong with taking Cooney but Ray is a disappointment. While there wasn't a great amount of height available in this draft, Ryan Murphy would have been someone who could take marks and kick a lot of goals. They also could have had Hudson a lot sooner, they wasted pick 50 and Hudson went shortly after that to the Crows.

2004
Another bad year brought about more picks in the top 10. Hawthorn had the right idea, loading up on key position players, although it would have been better to pick Franklin and then Roughead. The Bulldogs missed on Franklin. They did take Tom Williams, another phenomenal athlete, and he might become an important tall defender but he may never be strong enough to battle the best forwards of the AFL. Later in the draft they missed out on forwards like Rusling and Newton, and while they did take Tiller he is another player who isn't a real key position player.

2005
Higgins and Addison may have skills, a lot of them when it comes to running and kicking an exciting goal or two, but they are not the types of player that the Bulldogs need. The Bulldogs are way over their quota for midfielder/small forwards. Max Bailey, Robert Warnock and Trent West would have brought them size, even very late in the draft Joel Patfull was still available.

2006
They went for athletes again, and they didn't need players like Stack, Hill and Lynch. They may all be able to play at AFL level but the Bulldogs needed size. In the first round, taking A Everitt was not a bad move but he is not the marking key position player they need. Mitchell Brown or Jack Riewoldt up forward would have given the Bulldogs someone to kick to. There was also size in the back half available with Mackenzie and Renouf.

2007
Coach Eade said he got the best available talent, that doesn't make sense when the team needed players with bulk and height.

Jarrad Grant is not someone that a forward line can be built around, he is more of a complimentary piece. McEvoy would have been a huge body to place at centre half forward and then to add parts around him. The Saints did well, as did the Lions who took big Henderson. If Jarrad Grant was drafted by the Lions, and teamed with Jonathan Brown, he would be a lot more effective than being the number one forward option that some at the Bulldogs think he could be.

The Bulldogs went for another midfielder, but a strong and smart tall defender was available. Adding Pears to the back line would have improved the Bulldogs a lot. Collier and Otten were also there to pick. The biggest of all, Dawson Simpson, was there too. In some of the post-draft reporting, there have been suggestions that the Bulldogs were hoping for Tarrant at pick 19, if this is correct then that means that some at the Bulldogs realized they needed to stock up on key position players.

The Bulldogs could have also added Thompson from Geelong's VFL side with their next pick, instead of yet another midfielder. They just traded away Jordan McMahon, but then drafted someone who plays just like him.

The Bulldogs must have spent plenty of time looking at Dandenong's TAC Cup players, but they didn't identify the one who plays like a real key forward, Scott Simpson. If there was one player in this draft that had more than a few similarities with Chris Grant it was probably Scott Simpson.

While they did take height late, there were other players available who might have been better than Boumann.

Another midfielder/forward went with their next choice, Melbourne were one of the teams who won the draft and after the Bulldogs took G O'Keefe they found a tall defender in McNamara.

Ben McEvoy - Jarrad Grant

Tayte Pears - Callan Ward

Scott Thompson - Sam Reid

Scott Simpson - Easton Wood

Dean Putt - Jarrad Boumann

Tom McNamara - Guy O'Keefe


They do have a preseason pick, which they are expected to use on Scott Welsh, as well as some rookie selections but it will be another season at the Bulldogs when they go into battle undersized, and it looks like it will take someone new at the Bulldogs to change how they recruit and play. The Bulldogs have not made it to a Grand Final during the era of AFL drafts, so that points out how ineffective they have been when selecting players.

Sockeye Salmon
27-11-2007, 12:02 PM
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I've been firmly of the opinion that we haven't drafted enough talls for years, but one of the things that stands out is that we really haven't missed too many.

The journo who wrote this has tried hard to find KPP's that we missed and has really struggled. All he's done is look for the best performed big bloke taken after our pick, in some cases 2-3 rounds later.

He could also do with checking some facts.

Two premiership players in 97? Simon Black was drafted with the pick we gave away for Garlick, but at pick 31 that's got more to do with the recruiter (ironically Scott Clayton) than the trade. Pick 15 in the Robbins trade was Joel McKay. He was a premiership player for who? North Shore?


The two that have always bugged me were in 2001.

Early phanton drafts that year suggested we were interested in Ashley Hansen but we traded away our second pick for Daniel Bandy. Hansen was still there at the pick we traded to Melbourne (they took Aaron Rogers).

The same year Quinten Lynch was tipped as a second rounder and dropped to the rookie draft. We took Aaron James with our last pick. Ouch.

Mantis
27-11-2007, 12:06 PM
Not even worth reading.

The people behind this site are tosser's and I made it known to them after giving us an F for our latest drafting effort. How the **** can you give a team an F when none of these players have even played a senior game. If all of these players have bombed out in 3 years, give us an F, but to give it now is a joke. The Hearld Sun gave us the equal highest score and the general consensus is that we have done fairly well out of the draft.

Sure there have been some mistakes made in the past, but to pick us out for this type of critique is patheic.

Drew Petrie - great - **** me, he is living off 2 decent games in his career.

Tom Williams - not strong enough to play as a tall defender - the bloke is man mountain.

Jack Riewoldt - no thanks

Callan Ward = Jordan McMahon - not what I have heard (mjp - so it aint so)

McNamara - How many tall defenders do we need???

Go_Dogs
27-11-2007, 12:09 PM
Interesting article. The guys at Inside Footy/AFL Insider seem to have taken exception to our recruiting, quite a few articles floating around that seem unnecessarily negative. I guess in 5 years time, we'll know if we got it right or not.

Mantis
27-11-2007, 12:30 PM
I took it further and I have just added a comment after this article on the AFL Insider site. Have a read.

I thought it was a crap read and have let them no in no uncertain terms.

mjp
27-11-2007, 01:03 PM
You guys dont think that they are being intentionally controversial? Honestly, don't worry about it - we are an easy target (smallish club, poor end to 07 after high pre-season expectations) and they are trying to fill column space.

I am quite pleased that our 2008 chances are being completely dismissed. I am further quite happy that our playing group and playing list are being told how hopelessly inadequate that they are. These things will lead to games being won in 2008.

I do worry about the potential impact on membership and sponsorship though...but what can I say - I have re-upped, and increased my Bulldogs Backyard investment. My commitment to the club will not be impacted by things written on sites like AFL Insider.

Mantis
27-11-2007, 02:11 PM
I agree right us off all your own peril. I am confident that the last 7 weeks was not a true indication of where we are at, if it was were stuffed.We had a lot of things go wrong at the same time, poor form, injuries, etc.. but I believe we will be a completely different team next year.

This article is the old fashioned case of kicking a team when it is down. I think we all agree that our drafting over the last 8 or so years has been pretty shoddy, but I believe since Eade and Clayton have combined we have certainly improved. Our list management is much better and it looks as though there is a real plan in place, which probably wasn't there at the end of the Wallace rein and through the Rhode year's.

One area the article failed to point out was the restrictions placed upon the club due to lack of funds. The fact we have played a minimal role in the rookie draft has hurt us big time and I don't think he can be under-estimated.

As you point out the loss of members is a worry, if an article like this was in the Age or Herald Sun the negative impact on the club would be ten fold. The wishy-washy/ feelgood stories while pretty plain, are very important as it paints a good picture of the club and where it is headed.

Lets hope we have a good start to the 08 season and our supporters get behind the club.

Go_Dogs
27-11-2007, 02:17 PM
Some great discussion here, mjp made some solid points, and certainly agree with you Mantis re: our succession plan is looking much better now with the Clayton/Eade partnership.

Sedat
27-11-2007, 02:52 PM
Shithouse revisionist history article. Every argument has been tweaked to make all our selections look misguided. Amateur hour stuff. You could write the same scathing article about any of the other 15 clubs to suit the argument they are trying to make. Even West Coast, a club who is praised for their recruiting, have skeletons like David Antonowicz, Callum Chambers, Jaxon Crabb and Brandon Hill in their first round ND cupboard.

westdog54
27-11-2007, 06:01 PM
Lets see if the author can come up with a reply to Mantis' comment. It was solid and to the point.

I compare pieces such as this trash to the thread on BF just after season's end where someone was criticising the fact that we took Sam Power instead of Matt Maguire, despite the fact that the next tall taken after Power was Barry Brooks (I think it went something along those lines, having trouble remembering exactly).

Like SS said, hindsight is a wonderful thing but recruiters don't have the benefit of hindsight. This bloke writes Grant off before he's even played a game, and the Callan Ward/Jordan McMahon comparison made me sick to my stomach. Give me a break.

Scorlibo
27-11-2007, 06:51 PM
This article is absolute rubbish. Any respect I had remaining for AFL Insider has officially left. You could make any club's draft history look like a shemozzle with the approach they have taken:mad:. Jarrad Grant will be a key forward target in our forward line, because even though he is 192cm he is still taller than every regular in there (our forward line). I think it's great that we got him over a Mcevoy or a Henderson who don't have the athletic capabilities of Grant, it means it will not hamper our running style, in fact I think the bigger, less mobile forwards would struggle to produce consistently with the style of game we play. Also, height is only assessed because it means an advantage in contested marking, if Grant is ahead of both McEvoy and Henderson here anyway, whats all the fuss about? THIS ARTICLE = AMATEUR AND UNJUSTIFIED

Mantis
28-11-2007, 09:33 AM
Mine and Westdog's comment's have been replied to.

I shouldn't have bothered.

The Underdog
28-11-2007, 09:59 AM
If only we'd drafted David Hille, Danny Jacobs, Ian Perrie and LRT.
Everything would be ok.

Nothing like shifting the facts around to suit your argument.
I'll admit we haven't drafted as well with talls as we should have but he makes it sound like we skipped over obvious champs to draft rubbish. Let's draft only talls cos then at least one will hit.

I also like the concept that Melbourne "won" the draft. It's nice to know 5 days later that a winner has been declared.

LostDoggy
28-11-2007, 11:08 AM
Talk about taking a negative biased view of things. I don't know much about drafting strategies but I certainly don't consider taking Ryan Griffen with our first pick in 2004 a mistake.

The Underdog
28-11-2007, 12:21 PM
Talk about taking a negative biased view of things. I don't know much about drafting strategies but I certainly don't consider taking Ryan Griffen with our first pick in 2004 a mistake.

Considering the knock was that Franklin may not prove to be a KPP but more of a 3rd tall/HFF, at the time. Exactly what they are criticising us for with Grant this year.

Bulldog Revolution
28-11-2007, 01:40 PM
Shithouse revisionist history article. Every argument has been tweaked to make all our selections look misguided. Amateur hour stuff. You could write the same scathing article about any of the other 15 clubs to suit the argument they are trying to make. Even West Coast, a club who is praised for their recruiting, have skeletons like David Antonowicz, Callum Chambers, Jaxon Crabb and Brandon Hill in their first round ND cupboard.

Nice Sedat

I think they have a right to question what we are doing and the approach we have taken, but the argument used to do it is poor

Mofra
28-11-2007, 08:47 PM
I am quite pleased that our 2008 chances are being completely dismissed. I am further quite happy that our playing group and playing list are being told how hopelessly inadequate that they are. These things will lead to games being won in 2008.
Interesting MJP. Doesn't this sound a bit like end of 1996?

It certainly sounds like the end of 2006 for Geelong. "Complete rebuild" they screamed. Mooney (a ruckman who was a dud forward apparently) and Ablett (regarded as brilliant but slightly lazy) really lifted.

Not comparing the two to Minson & Cooney, but anything could happen...

Mantis
28-11-2007, 08:58 PM
Interesting MJP. Doesn't this sound a bit like end of 1996?

It certainly sounds like the end of 2006 for Geelong. "Complete rebuild" they screamed. Mooney (a ruckman who was a dud forward apparently) and Ablett (regarded as brilliant but slightly lazy) really lifted.

Not comparing the two to Minson & Cooney, but anything could happen...

Not sure on this comparison, but we would all feel a bit more positive about our prospects if we had someone we had confidence in to fill the role as a tall forward for next season.

But as you and mjp have posted I think we should be quietly confident about our chances of rising up the ladder.