Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

[GVGjr]

There is no doubt that Scott Clayton has an eye for talent especially when you consider the value we have had with picks like Gilbee, Hargrave, Harris/Lake, and Cross but I must admit I'm now starting to doubt that he can do much more than we have been seeing from him since 1999. He has been in the drivers seat for a long while now and I suppose the real question is, will some more of the same from Clayton over the next two or three years be enough to push into one of the power clubs of the AFL?

As a rule there is no real definitive science to recruiting, selections on draft day often come down to a judgement call and then the recruiter hopes like hell that the footy department can develop the players into AFL quality contributors.

Given the draft picks that Clayton has had over the last few years and given the almighty power of hindsight its actually hard to get overly excited by the results.
Sure there has been some inspired selections but overall I think the list is starting to slide back to the field a bit. The main problem is that the typical Clayton early draft selection is a long term or even a work in progress. They are normally highly athletic types who are occasionally underdeveloped in football experience, even at the junior level, and on top of that they normally require plenty of physical development. Oh yeah, we rarely use early selections on ruckman or power athletes.

Watching the Crows through their NAB cup campaign and seeing the likes of of power forwards and early selections like Sellars and Tippet and then pure hard it footballers from late selections selections like Douglas and Johncock it does highlight a contrast in selection criteria by both clubs.
The Crows tend to use early selections on the power players and the latter ones of guys with a strong pure footy background. On the other hand, we normally go for the midfielders with the early selections and the work in progress type talls with the later ones.
The are obviously heaps of exceptions to this but most would agree that this is the general principle we have followed.

Clayton is a pretty good salesman of his picks whenever he is interviewed, occasionally he has even sold us all on a late selection tall stating that we regard this player would have been a top 20 pick in the following years draft, but to be honest I'm now starting to think that unless some gems really start to shine this year then perhaps we need to start looking at recruiting another recruiting manager.

I'm not sure what the right answer is because recruiting isn't an exact science but I don't think more of the same from Clayton will put us ahead of the majority of teams.
We have heard snippets of information on Clarkson and Pelchens views on recruiting and whilst that might not be the right or exact answer either, perhaps blended into the list that Clayton has already assembled could be a winner for us.

I would be interested to hear you thoughts on if Clayton has done a terrific or good job or even if the time is right to start and consider a new or fresher approach to our recruiting?

[hujsh]

It's not just if Clayton picks the right guys, it's whether we develop them properly.

[The Coon Dog]

Don't disagree with too much of what's been written to be honest.

Interesting difference between us & Adelaide as you have highlighted is philosophy. I'm curious as to who determines the philosophy. Is it the senior coach or recruiting manager?

Prior to Clayton's arrival we had a very barren period under Mark Klieman where Nathan Brown was the only player on the list who had managed a decent number of games with us. From memory the period I'm referring to is the early to mid 90's.

Most club seem to have a network of people who watch as many games as possible & then report back to their club's recruiting manager. Obviously the buck stops with the recruiting manager & unfortunately with Scott there have been some poor choices of recent times (without doing research names like Patrick Wiggins, Brent Colbert, Iszac Thompson, Tim Walsh, Sam Power etc... spring to mind), but are they any worse than any other teams> As a Doggies fan, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to all players drafted by all the clubs, but I'm sure they'd all like the benefit of hindsight, some more than others.

Be interesting to see if say between the period 1999 - 2005 how many players each club drafted for how many games as a net return. I'm sure those statistics could be done for all clubs but the time taken to do them would prohibit me from completing such an exercise.

In answer to your initial query GVGjr, I think perhaps Scott Clayton's reputation (particularly with some of his choices at Brisbane) maybe sightly better than recent results.

Hard to know if his hands were tied on occassions too, particularly with regards to trades. From memory we gave up decent draft selections for Adam Morgan & Steven Koops. Did Clayton have a say in these or was it coach driven? If coach driven & Clayton had those picks would things have been different? Who knows? Be nice tho to see Everitt, Ward, Higgins, Grant etc... all go on to play 200+ games.

[hotdog]

It would like to know how much influence James Fantasia will have on our recruiting? Correct me if I am wrong but was he not in charge of recruiting at the Crows? I think this could only be a positive for the club. Surely he would have his smarts about him in this field. Thoughts?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Clayton has been living off his 99 draft for years and he needs some of the last two years picks to come good.

He also got a lot of credit for Brisbane's list that he didn't really deserve.

The problem is you have to have someone better to replace him with, we couldn't afford another Mark Klieman.

[Scorlibo]

A player who has proven their worth as a player to stay in the first 22 throughout many seasons I would say would usually last 12 years in the system, from 18 to 30.
So therefore, a recruiters goal should be to, over a 12 year span, compile a team at the club full of players worthy of a spot in the first 22 of an AFL team.
Scott Clayton has been recruiting at the dogs for 9 years, 75% of that 12 year span. This means that he should have drafted, by now, 75% of those 22 worthy players, or 17 worthy players. So, since he started at the dogs I would consider Jason Akermanis, Matty Boyd, Adam Cooney, Daniel Cross, Andrejs Everitt, Daniel Giansiracusa, Lindsay Gilbee, Ryan Griffen, Ryan Hargrave, Brian Harris, Shaun Higgins, Ben Hudson, Dale Morris, Robert Murphy, Farren Ray and Scott Welsh to be players well worthy of first 22 duties - thats 16, meaning that he has done a pretty good job so far, but these next few years are crucial for him because so many of the players he picked up in his early days, and the three trades, will be exiting the club at the same time.
Looking at those players, it is also evident that Clayton has over drafted for some positions, like the midfield and under drafted for others such as the key forwards and rucks, which means that the development of Jarrad Grant, Tom Williams (as the CHB), Ayce Cordy (providing we get him this year), James Mulligan and others over the next few years is crucial.
In summary I would say that Clayton has done well at this stage, but in five years time, depending on how currently young players turn out and how he recruits in the next few years, it could be a far worse story.

[GVGjr]

It would like to know how much influence James Fantasia will have on our recruiting? Correct me if I am wrong but was he not in charge of recruiting at the Crows? I think this could only be a positive for the club. Surely he would have his smarts about him in this field. Thoughts?


Fantasia runs the football department and the recruiting falls under that. His main job in that area would be to make sure it has the correct funding and resources.

[GVGjr]

Clayton has been living off his 99 draft for years and he needs some of the last two years picks to come good.

He also got a lot of credit for Brisbane's list that he didn't really deserve.

The problem is you have to have someone better to replace him with, we couldn't afford another Mark Klieman.

Would you be looking at other recruiting managers though?

He hasn't done a bad job, he has done a good one in fact but I think we now need someone who can do and excellent job and build on the list that we have.
More of the same from Clayton probably won't bridge the gap and put us where we need to be.

[LostDoggy]

Clayton has been living off his 99 draft for years and he needs some of the last two years picks to come good.

He also got a lot of credit for Brisbane's list that he didn't really deserve.

The problem is you have to have someone better to replace him with, we couldn't afford another Mark Klieman.

We have had a couple of major overhauls on the coaching side but the recruiting hasn't changed from what I know. Is there some underutilised but talented recruiting guys out there looking for the opportunity?
If so we should consider making a change.
We all know the modern game football has moved very much to that of a running game but there is still a place for the guys with the football brain and we need to be looking at them as well. The reality is that Clayton hasn't delivered a strong enough list over the last couple of years so I'd be surprised if he wasn't feeling the pinch.

[Go_Dogs]

There is no doubt that Scott Clayton has an eye for talent especially when you consider the value we have had with picks like Gilbee, Hargrave, Harris/Lake, and Cross but I must admit I'm now starting to doubt that he can do much more than we have been seeing from him since 1999. He has been in the drivers seat for a long while now and I suppose the real question is, will some more of the same from Clayton over the next two or three years be enough to push into one of the power clubs of the AFL?

As a rule there is no real definitive science to recruiting, selections on draft day often come down to a judgement call and then the recruiter hopes like hell that the footy department can develop the players into AFL quality contributors.

Given the draft picks that Clayton has had over the last few years and given the almighty power of hindsight its actually hard to get overly excited by the results.
Sure there has been some inspired selections but overall I think the list is starting to slide back to the field a bit. The main problem is that the typical Clayton early draft selection is a long term or even a work in progress. They are normally highly athletic types who are occasionally underdeveloped in football experience, even at the junior level, and on top of that they normally require plenty of physical development. Oh yeah, we rarely use early selections on ruckman or power athletes.

Watching the Crows through their NAB cup campaign and seeing the likes of of power forwards and early selections like Sellars and Tippet and then pure hard it footballers from late selections selections like Douglas and Johncock it does highlight a contrast in selection criteria by both clubs.
The Crows tend to use early selections on the power players and the latter ones of guys with a strong pure footy background. On the other hand, we normally go for the midfielders with the early selections and the work in progress type talls with the later ones.
The are obviously heaps of exceptions to this but most would agree that this is the general principle we have followed.

Clayton is a pretty good salesman of his picks whenever he is interviewed, occasionally he has even sold us all on a late selection tall stating that we regard this player would have been a top 20 pick in the following years draft, but to be honest I'm now starting to think that unless some gems really start to shine this year then perhaps we need to start looking at recruiting another recruiting manager.

I'm not sure what the right answer is because recruiting isn't an exact science but I don't think more of the same from Clayton will put us ahead of the majority of teams.
We have heard snippets of information on Clarkson and Pelchens views on recruiting and whilst that might not be the right or exact answer either, perhaps blended into the list that Clayton has already assembled could be a winner for us.

I would be interested to hear you thoughts on if Clayton has done a terrific or good job or even if the time is right to start and consider a new or fresher approach to our recruiting?

Douglas was a first round selection by the Crows - Tippett a mid 30's selection IIRC. I've been following Tippett over summer as I thought he could well be the power forward we have to look out for in round 1, and his game on Saturday was fantastic. Certainly moved ahead of Sellar, and at only 20 still with his size and desire to contest, he'll be very dangerous.


I'm actually of the belief our drafting over the last 3-5 years has been much better, especially over the last few. Clayton has taken a more footballer first priority, Higgins, Everitt, Grant, Ward - these are all blokes who, some of them are terrific athletes, but they're footballers first.

Our later round selections for the past 2 years have been better too imo, though of course that's yet to be proven yet. Stack, Hill, Lynch and Harbrow have already added a lot to our mix but the expectation was that they wouldn't really till probably next season. This years group, although having a few adjustment issues, looks good to me too. Reid could be the hard midfielder we need, O'Keefe looks like a fantastic small forward/midfield option, and Wood will be a very interesting one to watch as he has a fantastic physical platform to build from.

[hujsh]

Douglas was a first round selection by the Crows - Tippett a mid 30's selection IIRC. I've been following Tippett over summer as I thought he could well be the power forward we have to look out for in round 1, and his game on Saturday was fantastic. Certainly moved ahead of Sellar, and at only 20 still with his size and desire to contest, he'll be very dangerous.


I'm actually of the belief our drafting over the last 3-5 years has been much better, especially over the last few. Clayton has taken a more footballer first priority, Higgins, Everitt, Grant, Ward - these are all blokes who, some of them are terrific athletes, but they're footballers first.

Our later round selections for the past 2 years have been better too imo, though of course that's yet to be proven yet. Stack, Hill, Lynch and Harbrow have already added a lot to our mix but the expectation was that they wouldn't really till probably next season. This years group, although having a few adjustment issues, looks good to me too. Reid could be the hard midfielder we need, O'Keefe looks like a fantastic small forward/midfield option, and Wood will be a very interesting one to watch as he has a fantastic physical platform to build from.

You can add O'Shea to the late pick pile as well

[Mofra]

Scott Clayton has been recruiting at the dogs for 9 years, 75% of that 12 year span. This means that he should have drafted, by now, 75% of those 22 worthy players, or 17 worthy players. So, since he started at the dogs I would consider Jason Akermanis, Matty Boyd, Adam Cooney, Daniel Cross, Andrejs Everitt, Daniel Giansiracusa, Lindsay Gilbee, Ryan Griffen, Ryan Hargrave, Brian Harris, Shaun Higgins, Ben Hudson, Dale Morris, Robert Murphy, Farren Ray and Scott Welsh to be players well worthy of first 22 duties - thats 16
Nice method to quantify Clayton's picks - using this standard he is break-even which, in terms of our reasonably unique situation, probably puts Clayton ahead of the pack due to our lack of rookie list for the majority of Clayton's time at the Dogs.

[LostDoggy]

[QUOTE=Scorlibo;27900]A recruiters goal should be to, over a 12 year span, compile a team at the club full of players worthy of a spot in the first 22 of an AFL team.
Scott Clayton has been recruiting at the dogs for 9 years, 75% of that 12 year span. This means that he should have drafted, by now, 75% of those 22 worthy players, or 17 worthy player[/B]s.



Not sure about this 75% stuff, seems to over analysing a little. Is it better to have 22 AFL team worthy players? Or 8 superstars?

[Dry Rot]

If he's a guru it isn't with talls.

Compare us with the Eagles, who never had our picks: Hansen, Lynch, Hunter, Staker IIRC were all mid to late draft picks. Dunno about Glass. Helped win them a flag. And young Brown (with 2 good knees) will be a gun.

Pre-Everritt, we only have Lake and maybe Williams, and no flag.

[Sockeye Salmon]

If he's a guru it isn't with talls.

Compare us with the Eagles, who never had our picks: Hansen, Lynch, Hunter, Staker IIRC were all mid to late draft picks. Dunno about Glass. Helped win them a flag. And young Brown (with 2 good knees) will be a gun.

Pre-Everritt, we only have Lake and maybe Williams, and no flag.

Glass was a late 1st rounder, 13 or 14 or so.

Hunter's no bigger than Hargrave or Morris, Staker's a dud.

[Dry Rot]

Glass was a late 1st rounder, 13 or 14 or so.

Hunter's no bigger than Hargrave or Morris, Staker's a dud.

May be, but their recruiter has at least got them a very serviceable CHF and a FF. That's two ahead of us.

What do you think of Clayton's record with talls and recruiting for what we need?

[LostDoggy]

Glass was a late 1st rounder, 13 or 14 or so.

Hunter's no bigger than Hargrave or Morris, Staker's a dud.

Staker is no dud.

[Sockeye Salmon]

What do you think of Clayton's record with talls and recruiting for what we need?

It's abyssmal. You're preaching to the choir.

The only thing in Clayton's defense is that if you go through our picks there were very few decent KPP's available for us (I don't count guys like Nathan Thompson who was taken with pick 84 or something).

McMahon over Petrie was one but even two years ago I wouldn't have made that trade.

I've spoken of our two major stuff-ups from 2001 (ironically the two guys you mentioned).

But hey, the year of the Veale deal I was pushing for Fergus Watts so what do I know!

[Dancin' Douggy]

May be, but their recruiter has at least got them a very serviceable CHF and a FF. That's two ahead of us.

What do you think of Clayton's record with talls and recruiting for what we need?

It's pretty clear he has trouble spotting 'talls'. His track record there is hardly impressive.
The only two tall players drafted by Clayton to ever make the top ten in our B&F are Lake and Hargrave (who is only a borderline tall at best).

Over the last 4 years talls have taken 6 out of a possible 40 positions in the B&F top 10, and two of those spots were taken by Darcy and Grant in '04.

What we have needed more than anything in the world since Clayton started with us is a tall forward. After 8 drafts we still didn't have one until Jarrard Grant ( here's hoping). We'll give Clayton the benefit of the doubt on Tim Walsh, but should we be stinging over passing up Buddy Franklin? I mean he was exactly what we NEEDED. I love the 'million dollar Griff' but I think we'd take Franklin if the draft was re held today.

He has made some inspired choices and 99 was a bit of a coup.
Murphy, Gia, Hahn, Gilbee and Hargrave. But the talls taken in that draft were out and out duds. Wiggins and Bowden.

Compare this to St. Kilda's draft of 2001.
Luke Ball, X Clarke, Dal Santo, Matt Maguire and Leigh Montagna.
Now that's an impressive draft.
Granted Ball and Clarke were picks 2 and 5, but we took Sam Power before all St. Kilda's other picks......."ouch":o

[Sockeye Salmon]

It's pretty clear he has trouble spotting 'talls'. His track record there is hardly impressive.
The only two tall players drafted by Clayton to ever make the top ten in our B&F are Lake and Hargrave (who is only a borderline tall at best).

Over the last 4 years talls have taken 6 out of a possible 40 positions in the B&F top 10, and two of those spots were taken by Darcy and Grant in '04.

What we have needed more than anything in the world since Clayton started with us is a tall forward. After 8 drafts we still didn't have one until Jarrard Grant ( here's hoping). We'll give Clayton the benefit of the doubt on Tim Walsh, but should we be stinging over passing up Buddy Franklin? I mean he was exactly what we NEEDED. I love the 'million dollar Griff' but I think we'd take Franklin if the draft was re held today.

He has made some inspired choices and 99 was a bit of a coup.
Murphy, Gia, Hahn, Gilbee and Hargrave. But the talls taken in that draft were out and out duds. Wiggins and Bowden.

Compare this to St. Kilda's draft of 2001.
Luke Ball, X Clarke, Dal Santo, Matt Maguire and Leigh Montagna.
Now that's an impressive draft.
Granted Ball and Clarke were picks 2 and 5, but we took Sam Power before all St. Kilda's other picks......."ouch":o

Del Santo would be nice but would hardly help us with our KP problems.

Maguire is no bigger than Morris (a bit better overhead perhaps).

If we had passed up on Power for a KP, our choices were:
15. Barry Brooks (most of the phantom drafts had us taking him)
21. Maguire
22. Mark Seaby
26. Aaron Rogers (who?)
27. Tom Davidson
38. Ashley Hansen
41. Henry Playfair
55. Brad Miller

2001 gets lots of wraps for being the superdraft but really after the top 3 (and Ball hasn't really done much yet to justify the hype), Bartel and Del Santo it falls away like every other draft.

[Throughandthrough]

Del Santo would be nice but would hardly help us with our KP problems.

Maguire is no bigger than Morris (a bit better overhead perhaps).

If we had passed up on Power for a KP, our choices were:
26. Aaron Rogers (who?)
.

Lol, a top bloke.


Played a few years with Glenelg after being overlooked in the draft, came to us with a bung knee.

DId a few good things but definitely not AFL standard. Now plays in Canberra.


Back to the post, i agree with anyone who says Clayton has drafted too many duds.

And if Ritchie Douglas doesn't make it at the Crows this year, grab him with both hands.

Fantastic footballer in the SANFL, is a class above the competition. ALso a champion person.

And it would piss off the Crtows fans even more.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Lol, a top bloke.


Played a few years with Glenelg after being overlooked in the draft, came to us with a bung knee.

DId a few good things but definitely not AFL standard. Now plays in Canberra.



Rogers was actually famous for one thing - getting sprung by the cops parked in Hardware lane with TWO young ladies appreciating his assets.

[hujsh]

Del Santo would be nice but would hardly help us with our KP problems.

Maguire is no bigger than Morris (a bit better overhead perhaps).

If we had passed up on Power for a KP, our choices were:
15. Barry Brooks (most of the phantom drafts had us taking him)
21. Maguire
22. Mark Seaby
26. Aaron Rogers (who?)
27. Tom Davidson
38. Ashley Hansen
41. Henry Playfair
55. Brad Miller

2001 gets lots of wraps for being the superdraft but really after the top 3 (and Ball hasn't really done much yet to justify the hype), Bartel and Del Santo it falls away like every other draft.

Maguire is definately more of a KPP than Morris. How incredible would it be to have Hansen (when fit)

[Sockeye Salmon]

Maguire is definately more of a KPP than Morris. How incredible would it be to have Hansen (when fit)

I've posted this before, but whatever...

We were reportedly interested in Hansen before the 2001 draft and a few early phantom drafts had us taking him with our 2nd pick. We then went and traded that 2nd pick for Daniel Bandy and Hansen would have still been available.

This is the one that really gets on my goat.

I remember where I was when I heard about the Bandy trade - driving up Elgar Rd. The earlier speculation was that we would trade Bandy for Craig Ellis, "fair enough", I thought. Then it comes through on the radio that we had traded Ellis and pick 26 for Bandy and I started punching the steering wheel.

[hujsh]

I've posted this before, but whatever...

We were reportedly interested in Hansen before the 2001 draft and a few early phantom drafts had us taking him with our 2nd pick. We then went and traded that 2nd pick for Daniel Bandy and Hansen would have still been available.

Yes i remember you saying that. That's what made me think about it.

Bandy would have been serviceable at best so what the club was doing with him i don't know

[Throughandthrough]

Rogers was actually famous for one thing - getting sprung by the cops parked in Hardware lane with TWO young ladies appreciating his assets.



Is that dead set?


can't say i'm surprised..


I might have to ring him and ask him!

Ps who or what or where is Hardware lane?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Is that dead set?


can't say i'm surprised..


I might have to ring him and ask him!

Ps who or what or where is Hardware lane?

Small street in the middle of the city but fairly busy.

[Dancin' Douggy]

[QUOTE=Sockeye Salmon;28173]Del Santo would be nice but would hardly help us with our KP problems.

Maguire is no bigger than Morris (a bit better overhead perhaps).

If we had passed up on Power for a KP,

What do you mean " if we had passed up on Power" ?????

I would take any of Dal Santo, Maguire or Montagna over Power. Power was and will be at North a complete non entity (football wise)

I'm a fan of Morris but Maguire has him covered in just about every department. Maguire can play a Key position. He's more than strong overhead, a good kick and a confident playmaker. He can play up field and construct or even kick goals. Maguire would be a Dog favourite if we had have taken him in that draft.

[LostDoggy]

This old one about Power and Del Santo comes up again. Power had just won the Larke Medal. At the time of the draft, Power would have been judged by most to be the better player.

It has been said before that recruitment is not a science. All recruiters are asked to look into a crystal ball and guess the future - you win some you lose some. The important thing is to be sure that the initial judgement has some logic to it - as it did with Power who despite all the criticism will still be a 100 game player.

Yes, I ackowlege that Del Santo has turned into a far better player.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I would take any of Dal Santo, Maguire or Montagna over Power. Power was and will be at North a complete non entity (football wise)

I'm a fan of Morris but Maguire has him covered in just about every department. Maguire can play a Key position. He's more than strong overhead, a good kick and a confident playmaker. He can play up field and construct or even kick goals. Maguire would be a Dog favourite if we had have taken him in that draft.

Of course you would. Power's gone.

Del Santo and Montagna are good footballers but my point was they wouldn't help our FP situation.

Even Maguire (who would be handy for the first few rounds this year) isn't the biggest defender going around. He goes alright, but no superstar. Good ordinary player, Jack?

[Sedat]

Interesting that we got Boumann with the pick 48 we received from North for Sam Power. Mulligan was supposedly the other player we had in mind with that pick, so it would have been a speculative tall with upside either way.

[soupman]

The problem with replacing him is that recruiing is so important that if he leaves we need to get a good recruiter otherwise we will be hurting for years. He's had a fairly good record with us, here are his draft picks and who he could have gotten after.

2000
10. Jordan McMahon

12. Shaun Burgoyne
16. Scott Thompson
18. Daniel Kerr
20. Kane Cornes
23. Drew Petrie
25. Mark Coughlan

26. Shane Birss

29. Jamie Charman
34. Ryan Lonie
39. Adam McPhee
43. Mark Williams
44. Josh Hunt

56. Daniel Cross

58. Nathan Lonie
60. Corey Jones
67. Graham Johncock

70. Wayde Skipper

Not a bad effort. All our picks are still playing AFL footy, two are established players, two fringe players. Barely any talls in this draft were missed (I'm discounting rookies as nobody drafted them), the only talls taken after our first pick being Petrie (nothing great) and Charman, with Skipper being the only other tall still on a list taken after pick 7.

2001

10. Sam Power

13. Nick Dal Santo
17. James Kelly
19. Jason Gram
21. Matt Maguire
22. Mark Seaby
24. Steve Johnson
29. Lewis Roberts-Thomson
36. Sam Mitchell
37. Leigh Montagna
38. Ashley Hansen

42. Kieran McGuiness

47. Andrew Welsh
55. Ben Miller
56. Paul Medhurst

57. Brent Colbert

58. Dane Swan
60. Adam Schneider
62. Damon White

71. Brian Lake (Harris)

Of that draft he made mistakes with the smaller players but only really missed 3 talls in Hansen, Maguire and Seaby (I think LRT was a speculative pick) with Brian Harris being the steal of the draft; the best tall taken after Hansen.

2002

4. Tim Walsh

5. Jarrad McVeigh
6. Steven Salopek
7. Andrew Mackie
9. Hamish McIntosh
10. Jason Laycock
12. Jay Schulz
13. Byron Schammer
16. Stephen Gilham

17. Cameron Faulkner

19. Troy Selwood

20. Will Minson

26. Jared Rivers
30. Daniel Merrett

33. Brad Murphy
35. Scott Bassett

37. Brent Staker
45. Kade Simpson
46. Leigh Fisher

49. Cameron Wight

51. Tim Boyle
53. Adam Selwood
55. Ryan Crowley
64. Nick Malceski
72. Brad Fisher

Not the best result, should have swapped McIntosh with Walsh, Faulkner with Rivers, Murphy with Simpson, Basett was Rhodes choice and I wouldn't have minded Fisher.

2003

1. Adam Cooney

2. Andrew Walker
3. Colin Sylvia

4. Farren Ray

5. Brock McLean
12. Ryan Murphy
13. Brent Stanton
15. Troy Chaplin
19. David Mundy
20. Sam Butler
23. Matthew Moody
30. Brad Symes
33. Jed Adcock
44. Ricky Dyson
46. Michael Pettigrew

50. Izaac Thompson

53. Daniel Jackson
55. Sam Fisher
58. Ben Hudson
61. Michael Rischitelli
73. Shane Tuck
76. Andrew Raines

I'm happy with Cooney, Ray and McLean are interchangeable, Mundy is better than Koops, and I would have liked Fisher or Hudson instead of Thompson.

Thats as far as I'm going, because later drafts haven't really been in the system that long (5 years minimum for assessment). Clayton has only really stuffed up the 2001 and 2002 drafts, and even then he still managed to get Lake and Minson, who should both make it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The problem with replacing him is that recruiing is so important that if he leaves we need to get a good recruiter otherwise we will be hurting for years. He's had a fairly good record with us, here are his draft picks and who he could have gotten after.



Thanks for posting that.

What it really shows is that he hasn't actually done that bad a job. It's easy to look at it with 20-20 hindsight and say he should have picked Kerr rather than McMahon but 7 other recruiters had a shot between our pick and West Coast's who overlooked Kerr as well.

He has missed surprisingly few KP's and actually picked up the best late-in-the-draft KP in Lake.



NB: LRT was a NSW zone selection so he was not available even if we wanted him.

[Sedat]

2003

1. Adam Cooney

2. Andrew Walker
3. Colin Sylvia

4. Farren Ray

5. Brock McLean
12. Ryan Murphy
13. Brent Stanton
15. Troy Chaplin
19. David Mundy
20. Sam Butler
23. Matthew Moody
30. Brad Symes
33. Jed Adcock
44. Ricky Dyson
46. Michael Pettigrew

50. Izaac Thompson

53. Daniel Jackson
55. Sam Fisher
58. Ben Hudson
61. Michael Rischitelli
73. Shane Tuck
76. Andrew Raines

I'm happy with Cooney, Ray and McLean are interchangeable, Mundy is better than Koops, and I would have liked Fisher or Hudson instead of Thompson.
I know we're going over old ground, but instead of having picks 1, 4 and 50, we should have had 1, 4, 6, 19, 20, 35 and 50, plus pick 1 in the PSD - or worst case kept our 5 picks in the top 20 and traded away the others for speculative acquisitions like Street and Morgan. I acknowledge that this isn't Clayton's fault - he can only use the picks he has at his disposal. Having a quality talent spotter in our ranks makes it even more galling to have thrown away such a strong draft position in 2003. It wasn't the best of draft years but Clayton surely would have found diamonds in the rough.

With McLean and Sylvia having constant injury and attitudinal issues, Ray is looking a increasingly solid selection. We were criticised heavily with the Ray selection at the time. The other big surprise at the time was Stanton going as high as he did - that also proved to be a pretty good get. Adcock was terrific value at 33.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I think it's time for Clayton to go. Hes had both some draft successes and some duds with us. IMO he picks too many development players that either take too long to develop, or never get there. He just doesn't pick enough ready made footballers, and frequently overlooks the junior overachievers for smokey types.

And he is consistently selling us on his late round speculative talls (Skipper, Wight, OShea, Boumann). They have rarely come on as advertised and its part of the reason our list has the problems it does. He does not have a good record with talls having never, if you could this years rookie draft, having selected a ruckman, and never having contributed a key forward. Its only Lake and Williams that save his record from being appalling in this area.

He has had almost a decade, hes made a contribution, but I firmly believe its time to go SClayton

[Dry Rot]

Can we analyse Clayton's performance NB talls without also questioning his best available rather than team needs drafting philosophy?

[GVGjr]

Can we analyse Clayton's performance NB talls without also questioning his best available rather than team needs drafting philosophy?

They are two separate issues in my opinion.

[LostDoggy]

I have just been going through the drafts, he did miss a lot of talent & drafted a lot of duds to the club.

[bulldogtragic]

I have just been going through the drafts, he did miss a lot of talent & drafted a lot of duds to the club.
Name names, and who we should have taken in place - preferabbly starting from his first draft. Then a comment like this has absolute credibility. I tend to somewhat agree with you, but without the info, i tend to think he has been ok.

[LostDoggy]

Name names, and who we should have taken in place - preferabbly starting from his first draft. Then a comment like this has absolute credibility. I tend to somewhat agree with you, but without the info, i tend to think he has been ok.

1999: Patrick Wiggins (David Hille)
2000: Jordan McMahon (Daniel Kerr)
2001: Sam Power (Nick Dal Santo)
2001: Brent Colbert (Adam Schneider)
2002: Tim Walsh (Andrew Mackie)
2003: Izaac Thomson (Sam Fisher)
2004: Damien McCormack (Chris Knights, Matthew Egan)
2005: Michael West, Travis Baird (Matthew Stokes)

Just a few players who have gone on to make names for themselves in the AFL, while our guys haven't done much.

I know some are different heights to each other, but it just goes to show that a lot of drafts are guessing games i suppose.

[bulldogtragic]

1999: Patrick Wiggins (David Hille)
2000: Jordan McMahon (Daniel Kerr)
2001: Sam Power (Nick Dal Santo)
2001: Brent Colbert (Adam Schneider)
2002: Tim Walsh (Andrew Mackie)
2003: Izaac Thomson (Sam Fisher)
2004: Damien McCormack (Chris Knights, Matthew Egan)
2005: Michael West, Travis Baird (Matthew Stokes)

Just a few players who have gone on to make names for themselves in the AFL, while our guys haven't done much.

I know some are different heights to each other, but it just goes to show that a lot of drafts are guessing games i suppose.
We're all geniuses in hindsight, but you make a convincing case with this list.

[anfo27]

not one post has mentioned the fact that Scott Clayton no longer works for the Dogs, he is now the head guy for GC17. He made a massive howler when trading Farren Ray last year. When Farren declared he wanted to go, at the top of my head i could think of 3 clubs that could use his run (Fremantle, Sydney & St.Kilda) when he stated he wanted to stay in Melbourne it was obvious to me there was only one destination he could go. What i cant understand is why we didn't do a deal with the saints that sent Ray to the Saints for a 3rd or 4th round pick, with the understanding that the saints would not put a bid in for Ayce Cordy. With that scenario both sides win. The saints get Ray for practically nothing & keep their 2nd round pick, while we get Cordy & another first round pick. i'm watching this from the outer & i can see it, we pay these guys to make these decisions. It's a no-brainer.

[bulldogtragic]

not one post has mentioned the fact that Scott Clayton no longer works for the Dogs, he is now the head guy for GC17. He made a massive howler when trading Farren Ray last year. When Farren declared he wanted to go, at the top of my head i could think of 3 clubs that could use his run (Fremantle, Sydney & St.Kilda) when he stated he wanted to stay in Melbourne it was obvious to me there was only one destination he could go. What i cant understand is why we didn't do a deal with the saints that sent Ray to the Saints for a 3rd or 4th round pick, with the understanding that the saints would not put a bid in for Ayce Cordy. With that scenario both sides win. The saints get Ray for practically nothing & keep their 2nd round pick, while we get Cordy & another first round pick. i'm watching this from the outer & i can see it, we pay these guys to make these decisions. It's a no-brainer.
Other clubs would have nominated Ayce if that helps.

[comrade]

Because then another team bids for Cordy and we don't get Liam Jones.

Pretty simple.

[GVGjr]

not one post has mentioned the fact that Scott Clayton no longer works for the Dogs, he is now the head guy for GC17. He made a massive howler when trading Farren Ray last year. When Farren declared he wanted to go, at the top of my head i could think of 3 clubs that could use his run (Fremantle, Sydney & St.Kilda) when he stated he wanted to stay in Melbourne it was obvious to me there was only one destination he could go. What i cant understand is why we didn't do a deal with the saints that sent Ray to the Saints for a 3rd or 4th round pick, with the understanding that the saints would not put a bid in for Ayce Cordy. With that scenario both sides win. The saints get Ray for practically nothing & keep their 2nd round pick, while we get Cordy & another first round pick. i'm watching this from the outer & i can see it, we pay these guys to make these decisions. It's a no-brainer.

It's an old thread that JH40 bumped but lets get one thing straight, Clayton didn't trade Ray.

We got what we could from the Saints

[anfo27]

also i wanted to have a crack at the person who stated that Matt McGuire is better than Morris. Dale Morris is an all Australian and would be a walk up start at the saints. Matt McGuire is too slow & injury prone. Morris is a star who with Lake holds our defense together.

[Twodogs]

not one post has mentioned the fact that Scott Clayton no longer works for the Dogs, he is now the head guy for GC17. He made a massive howler when trading Farren Ray last year. When Farren declared he wanted to go, at the top of my head i could think of 3 clubs that could use his run (Fremantle, Sydney & St.Kilda) when he stated he wanted to stay in Melbourne it was obvious to me there was only one destination he could go. What i cant understand is why we didn't do a deal with the saints that sent Ray to the Saints for a 3rd or 4th round pick, with the understanding that the saints would not put a bid in for Ayce Cordy. With that scenario both sides win. The saints get Ray for practically nothing & keep their 2nd round pick, while we get Cordy & another first round pick. i'm watching this from the outer & i can see it, we pay these guys to make these decisions. It's a no-brainer.



North would have nominated Ayce as well.

[anfo27]

The process doesn't work like that. The saints were the only club willing to bid a 1st round pick. A club doesn't bid a 1st round pick because another club hasn't, that doesn't make sense. If we made that deal then lots of clubs would have bid their 2nd round pick. Its not as if the clubs sit at a table and ask each other who is going to put a bid in.

[bulldogtragic]

It's an old thread that JH40 bumped but lets get one thing straight, Clayton didn't trade Ray.

We got what we could from the Saints
What we got from the Aints led to Liam Jones. And as per my signature, i'm stoked to him him at the club.

[comrade]

The process doesn't work like that. The saints were the only club willing to bid a 1st round pick. A club doesn't bid a 1st round pick because another club hasn't, that doesn't make sense. If we made that deal then lots of clubs would have bid their 2nd round pick. Its not as if the clubs sit at a table and ask each other who is going to put a bid in.

How do you know that this doesn't happen? The footy industry is pretty insular - they all talk.

[bulldogtragic]

The process doesn't work like that. The saints were the only club willing to bid a 1st round pick. A club doesn't bid a 1st round pick because another club hasn't, that doesn't make sense. If we made that deal then lots of clubs would have bid their 2nd round pick. Its not as if the clubs sit at a table and ask each other who is going to put a bid in.
Showing some ignorance. If North and Adelaide indicate they are going to pick him and so do the Saints, then the Saints simply nominate him. Every single club before St Kilda need not nominate him. There are many plugged in people on this site and you might do well to respect the information you have been given. You are wrong on many issues you raised. We got Liam Jones and Clayton didn't trade Ray (Ray threatened to go to the PSD and we would have got nothing!!!) other teams would have nominated Ayce if the Saints didn't.

[anfo27]

The whole point of making trades is to leave your club with the best possible outcome and in this case Clayton did us no favours, he should of thought out of the box. I could write a whole essay on Clayton's stuff ups but it would take too long.

[anfo27]

if Clayton didn't trade Ray then who did? because that is Scotty Clayton's job.

[bulldogtragic]

The whole point of making trades is to leave your club with the best possible outcome and in this case Clayton did us no favours, he should of thought out of the box. I could write a whole essay on Clayton's stuff ups but it would take too long.
Mate, Ricky O left us high and dry by using the media to tell the world Farren was leaving even if it meant for nothing in the PSD. Other clubs exploited this situation and offered fringe players who were of no value to us. Knowing we were only using 3 picks in the draft, not Clayton but Eade, Fantasia and the brains trust enginered the St Kilda trade to up our 3rd pick to a highish second rounder, in which we got a very, very talented kid. It was the best available outcome. And it had nothing to do with Clayton. Google Fantasia's comments from trade week, you will see he and Eade were working through the details.

[bulldogtragic]

if Clayton didn't trade Ray then who did? because that is Scotty Clayton's job.
Clayton's job is recruiting. Eade and Fantasia were the one's at trade week doing the wheeling and dealing.

[anfo27]

all the saints have to do is say they will bid for Cordy and then when it comes down to it they dont. we are right after the saints in the draft pecking order and therefore Cordy would slip down to the 2nd round. it wouldn't be the first time 2 teams have done a secret deal under the table.

[bulldogtragic]

This is my last reply to you, you are living in a land of make believe. You are very wrong.

[anfo27]

i hear what everyone is saying but i find it hard to believe that Scotty didn't have a hand in it. He was always there when trades were done in previous years.

[GVGjr]

i hear what everyone is saying but i find it hard to believe that Scotty didn't have a hand in it. He was always there when trades were done in previous years.
The thread title is very specific, but to make it a bit clearer for you it's about recruiting (drafting) players not trades. Please stay on the topic.

[LostDoggy]

Can't believe my single bump, has gone way off topic & into something i feel is an attack on the man himself.

[Twodogs]

all the saints have to do is say they will bid for Cordy and then when it comes down to it they dont. we are right after the saints in the draft pecking order and therefore Cordy would slip down to the 2nd round. it wouldn't be the first time 2 teams have done a secret deal under the table.


Once a club nominates that they are going to select a player who is eligible for F/S then that's it he is their player for that draft pick. They cant nominate and then back out.



The process doesn't work like that. The saints were the only club willing to bid a 1st round pick. A club doesn't bid a 1st round pick because another club hasn't, that doesn't make sense. If we made that deal then lots of clubs would have bid their 2nd round pick. Its not as if the clubs sit at a table and ask each other who is going to put a bid in.


I'm not entirely following what you are saying but it's common knowledge that if St Kilda hadn't nominated Ayce then North were prepared to and from memory so were Adelaide.


I think that you are bagging the nomination system in this sentence;


A club doesn't bid a 1st round pick because another club hasn't, that doesn't make sense. If we made that deal then lots of clubs would have bid their 2nd round pick.

anfo, my objections to the F/S bidding system are well documented on this site. If you can be bothered to look them up I think you'll find we are in furious agreement!

[anfo27]

The thread title is very specific, but to make it a bit clearer for you it's about recruiting (drafting) players not trades. Please stay on the topic.

I do apologise for getting off the topic people but it is my first day on this site and lacking a little eticate. I do think Scotty has made some exceptional draft picks in his time at the dogs. To get Lake @ 70 odd, the well documented 99 class, Boyd & Morris off the rookie list, Higgins @ 11 was GREAT. But to miss out on Franklin is a glaring mistake that we'll have to endure forever. I'm not bagging Ryan Griffin because he is going to be a gun in his own right but Franklin is going to go down as one of the greats.

[Mofra]

I'm not bagging Ryan Griffin because he is going to be a gun in his own right but Franklin is going to go down as one of the greats.
Hawks didn't select him first pick and the tigers passed up on him twice so I don't think it is that bad a miss as some suggest. With Pods dominating at Werribee we basically couldn't develop tall forwards anyway for a few years there.

Tim Walsh, Sam Power, and Jordan McMahon as first rounders are a far worse outcome than getting Griffen over Franklin.

His record from round 2 onwards would be above average.

[anfo27]

Hawks didn't select him first pick and the tigers passed up on him twice so I don't think it is that bad a miss as some suggest. With Pods dominating at Werribee we basically couldn't develop tall forwards anyway for a few years there.

Tim Walsh, Sam Power, and Jordan McMahon as first rounders are a far worse outcome than getting Griffen over Franklin.

His record from round 2 onwards would be above average.

I disagree Mofra, buddy kicked 100+ goals last year and with the amount of shots he had he could of kicked 150 & he is only 21 or 22. Only very very special players can do that. So i think it was a mistake & i would never use the tigers to back up any argument. All i can say about the tigers is there recruiting people must have a sense of humour, to pick Oakleigh Nicholls in front of Shaun Higgins.

[Go_Dogs]

.....

[The Coon Dog]

.....

ESP was never one of my strong points! ;)

[Go_Dogs]

ESP was never one of my strong points! ;)

I thought I was on the last page and commented on something that had already been commented on. :)

[The Pie Man]

I disagree Mofra, buddy kicked 100+ goals last year and with the amount of shots he had he could of kicked 150 & he is only 21 or 22. Only very very special players can do that. So i think it was a mistake & i would never use the tigers to back up any argument. All i can say about the tigers is there recruiting people must have a sense of humour, to pick Oakleigh Nicholls in front of Shaun Higgins.

That was a quality draft - Higgins at 11 is a bit of a steal really, but the 05 draft was deep. Very few failures in that lot.

AFL National Draft held at the end of Season 2005 2005 AFL National Draft Summary

Round Pick Drafted By Player Current Team Games Since Drafted
1 Priority Carlton Marc Murphy Carlton 76
2 Priority Collingwood Dale Thomas Collingwood 79
3 Priority Hawthorn Xavier Ellis Hawthorn 47
1 4 Carlton Joshua Kennedy West Coast 42
1 5 Collingwood Scott Pendlebury Collingwood 73
1 6 Hawthorn Beau Dowler Hawthorn 14
1 7 Essendon Patrick Ryder Essendon 71
1 8 Richmond Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls Richmond 13
1 9 Brisbane Mitchell Clark Brisbane 41
1 10 Fremantle Marcus Drum Fremantle 19
1 11 Western Bulldogs Shaun Higgins Western Bulldogs 47
1 12 Melbourne Nathan Jones Melbourne 68
1 13 West Coast Shannon Hurn West Coast 55
1 14 Hawthorn Grant Birchall Hawthorn 81
1 15 Geelong Travis Varcoe Geelong 52
1 16 Adelaide Richard Douglas Adelaide 53
1 17 Adelaide Darren Pfeiffer Carlton 7
1 18 Hawthorn Max Bailey Hawthorn 4
1 19 Essendon Courtenay Dempsey Essendon 28
2 20 Carlton Paul Bower Carlton 41
2 21 Collingwood Danny Stanley Collingwood 5

Compare it to 03

Round Pick Drafted By Player Current Team Games Since Drafted
1 Priority Western Bulldogs Adam Cooney Western Bulldogs 129
2 Priority Carlton Andrew Walker Carlton 83
3 Priority Melbourne Colin Sylvia Melbourne 84
1 4 Western Bulldogs Farren Ray St Kilda 94
1 5 Melbourne Brock McLean Melbourne 91
1 6 Essendon Kepler Bradley Fremantle 70
1 7 Geelong Kane Tenace Geelong 59
1 8 St Kilda Raphael Clarke St Kilda 51
1 9 North Melbourne David Trotter 7
1 10 Fremantle Ryley Dunn 8
1 11 West Coast Beau Waters West Coast 61
1 12 Fremantle Ryan Murphy Fremantle 47
1 13 Essendon Brent Stanton Essendon 117
1 14 Adelaide Fergus Watts 6
1 15 Port Adelaide Troy Chaplin Port Adelaide 78
1 16 Sydney Josh Willoughby 0
1 17 Collingwood Billy Morrison 0
1 18 Brisbane Llane Spaanderman 3
2 19 Fremantle David Mundy Fremantle 105
2 20 West Coast Sam Butler West Coast 58

[anfo27]

That was a quality draft - Higgins at 11 is a bit of a steal really, but the 05 draft was deep. Very few failures in that lot.

Your right it was a quality draft. I remember the Herald-Sun the day of the draft & reading that the hot tip was Higgins was going at number 2 for Collingwood. I then went on the net and saw that Shaun had slipped down to us and I was very very happy. I might be biased but I think he is the pick out of that lot.

[ledge]

I have no doubt Higgins is way better than The "doubting"Thomas who Collingwood took instead, even if he has played more games.

[Desipura]

What I find disappointing is that we pick up an ex rugby player in Williams who is still learning how to read the play (not having a go at him)
Then I see an ex baskelballer in Tippet who not only has a strong pair of hands, reads the play as if he has been playing the game for a long time.
Barry Hall retires and they say Sydney will need to pick up another forward in the future. From what I can see they have one in Jesse White who also can take a strong grab. These guys have had made an impact early in their careers, why do we not have such luck, or is it due to the type we recruit?

Should we looking at ex basketballers as opposed to ex rugby players whose peripheral vision initially is not as strong? Baskeballers not only have good peripheral vision, they also have sticky fingers. Of course there are hits and misses........
Just annoys me how one club can discover a key forward out of nowhere then there is us.
I would us much rather rookie a tall strong kpp as opposed to a small tagging type of player. This applies to NSW scholarships as well. (I know we have Shaw although he is a ruckman)

[Dancin' Douggy]

Remember the advertisements for the non alcoholic 'beverage' Clayton's?
Jack Thompson, I believe featured in them.

"'Claytons' the drink for when you're not having a drink"

Well I think we have a case of "Clayton's Talls."

" The talls for when you're not having a tall"

Aside from Brian Lake, Clayton's eye for tall players is woeful.

I won't name names because the list is so long and you've heard them all before,

But my big fear now is that Everitt, Grant & Williams will just add to the list of "Clayton's Talls"

Someone please tell me I'm wrong. PLEASE!

[Mofra]

But my big fear now is that Everitt, Grant & Williams will just add to the list of "Clayton's Talls"

Someone please tell me I'm wrong. PLEASE!
Williams is a 23 yo playing CHB, has the athleticism & size (although not the football smarts). I'd persist with him.
Everitt is the one that worries me, he's "ok" in positions but doesn't own any of them. Just doesn't seem angry enough when he's beaten.
Grant is physically a work in progress, everything else is there IMO. He seems pretty hard on himself at Willy which I think is a good sign for the upcoming pre-season.

[Mantis]

Barry Hall retires and they say Sydney will need to pick up another forward in the future. From what I can see they have one in Jesse White who also can take a strong grab. These guys have had made an impact early in their careers, why do we not have such luck, or is it due to the type we recruit?



The 1st time I saw Jesse White was in a pre-season game against us in Manuka some 3 years ago (the same game when M.Lynch kicked 3 goals). Sydney have been crying out for someone to give Hall a chop out since this time. Bar a game a few weeks back where he kicked 4 goals he has made no impact at AFL level so I don't see how you can include him as your example.

[Desipura]

The 1st time I saw Jesse White was in a pre-season game against us in Manuka some 3 years ago (the same game when M.Lynch kicked 3 goals). Sydney have been crying out for someone to give Hall a chop out since this time. Bar a game a few weeks back where he kicked 4 goals he has made no impact at AFL level so I don't see how you can include him as your example.
Do you think Hall may have stunted Whites growth? I suggest you watch the game against St Kilda 2 weeks back, kicked 3 missed a few, kicked the last goal of the game. Looked ok again on Sunday allbeit against Richmond.

[Mofra]

Do you think Hall may have stunted Whites growth? I suggest you watch the game against St Kilda 2 weeks back, kicked 3 missed a few, kicked the last goal of the game. Looked ok again on Sunday allbeit against Richmond.
I didn't think much of him against Richmond. Dropped a Monty, presents on very long leads (unless that's his role in the team he wont hurt too many teams doing that) and doesn't appear overly agile.
To be honest he looks like a ruckman that's pushed forward.

[ledge]

I didn't think much of him against Richmond. Dropped a Monty, presents on very long leads (unless that's his role in the team he wont hurt too many teams doing that) and doesn't appear overly agile.
To be honest he looks like a ruckman that's pushed forward.

Well he certainly does a lot better than our ruckmen when they push forward , maybe they should watch his game?

[Mofra]

Well he certainly does a lot better than our ruckmen when they push forward , maybe they should watch his game?
Hudson rarely pushes forward and Minson doesn't spend that much time down there either.

Tempted to throw Skipper in the ruck and leave Minson forward but that is something that would have happened this season already if Eade liked the idea.

[Desipura]

I didn't think much of him against Richmond. Dropped a Monty, presents on very long leads (unless that's his role in the team he wont hurt too many teams doing that) and doesn't appear overly agile.

He looked agile to me. If you can continously run off your opponent and turn him inside out as he did against Carlton, I think you have something to work with.

[Rocket Science]

Remember the advertisements for the non alcoholic 'beverage' Clayton's?
Jack Thompson, I believe featured in them.

"'Claytons' the drink for when you're not having a drink"

Well I think we have a case of "Clayton's Talls."

" The talls for when you're not having a tall"

Aside from Brian Lake, Clayton's eye for tall players is woeful.

I won't name names because the list is so long and you've heard them all before,

But my big fear now is that Everitt, Grant & Williams will just add to the list of "Clayton's Talls"

Someone please tell me I'm wrong. PLEASE!


Oddly enough, had precisely the same thought when watching a replay of the game which featured regular frames of our completely empty forward-50 at various stages.

This gag must have been made before, but I thought; my god, it's a 'Clayton's' forward line...the forward line you have when you don't have a forward line! (and happen to have a trio of regulars sidelined through injury I suppose).

That said, we've managed to accrue a higher total score than anyone else this season. Go figure.

[bulldogtragic]

Oddly enough, had precisely the same thought when watching a replay of the game which featured regular frames of our completely empty forward-50 at various stages.

This gag must have been made before, but I thought; my god, it's a 'Clayton's' forward line...the forward line you have when you don't have a forward line! (and happen to have a trio of regulars sidelined through injury I suppose).

That said, we've managed to accrue a higher total score than anyone else this season. Go figure.
Our mids don't run hard enough the other way. Thus, they don't support our defence. Like Aker said on he ouch last week, we don't have to wory about offence, we kick winning scores, that isn't a concern. It's our ability to run back the other and pressure the opposition and help out the back 6. Our back 6 isn't too bad, Lake, Morris, Hargy, Gilbs, Tommy (?), Harbrow. So why can't Cooney, Griff and co run back the other way and do the job - that is the $1,00,000 question of which the answer leads to more success...

[Rocket Science]

Certainly in big picture terms the phantom forward line doesn't seem to impede our scoring, but I find it sometimes hurts down the other end by virtue of the unnecessary pressure it creates through the guts when players in possession are forced to tap dance while waiting for the cavalry, which often leads to some inventive (read: unconvincing) avenues forward, and worse, to turnovers which invariably cost goals.

Simply a product of our structure I suppose.

Agreed, I don't mind the makeup of our back six...they're very capable when not deluged and robbed of assistance.

[Remi Moses]

Remember the advertisements for the non alcoholic 'beverage' Clayton's?
Jack Thompson, I believe featured in them.

"'Claytons' the drink for when you're not having a drink"

Well I think we have a case of "Clayton's Talls."

" The talls for when you're not having a tall"

Aside from Brian Lake, Clayton's eye for tall players is woeful.

I won't name names because the list is so long and you've heard them all before,

But my big fear now is that Everitt, Grant & Williams will just add to the list of "Clayton's Talls"

Someone please tell me I'm wrong. PLEASE!

Agree that Clayton's talls have been ordinary,although I'd hold fire on the above mentioned players. personally 2010 is going to tell us alot

[LostDoggy]

I have no doubt Higgins is way better than The "doubting"Thomas who Collingwood took instead, even if he has played more games.

Pendlebury is a quality footballer though.

[GVGjr]

I didn't think much of him against Richmond. Dropped a Monty, presents on very long leads (unless that's his role in the team he wont hurt too many teams doing that) and doesn't appear overly agile.

He looked agile to me. If you can continously run off your opponent and turn him inside out as he did against Carlton, I think you have something to work with.

Why note quote the post rather than copy and pasting it?

[BulldogBelle]

Next Best Available Policy.

What's all this talk about picking or not picking talls. All you guys know that our draft selection policy was to go for the next best available player. We never picked players for positions, never went for talls if we needed them for the team. It was always that wouldn't we be crying if we missed out on a gun fielder if we took a chance on a tall.

It was always that we would be able to trade one of our gun mid-fielders for a tall if necesary.

The fact that we don't have enough decent talls in the side is a result of our flawed plan to go for the next best rather than to shop for what we needed.

Should have traded Cross last year and got a decent tall.

[AndrewP6]

Should we looking at ex basketballers as opposed to ex rugby players whose peripheral vision initially is not as strong? Baskeballers not only have good peripheral vision, they also have sticky fingers. Of course there are hits and misses........


Is that a vote of confidence for the great game of basketball? WHOO HOO!!! :D:D:D

[LostDoggy]

Next Best Available Policy.

What's all this talk about picking or not picking talls. All you guys know that our draft selection policy was to go for the next best available player. We never picked players for positions, never went for talls if we needed them for the team. It was always that wouldn't we be crying if we missed out on a gun fielder if we took a chance on a tall.

It was always that we would be able to trade one of our gun mid-fielders for a tall if necesary.

The fact that we don't have enough decent talls in the side is a result of our flawed plan to go for the next best rather than to shop for what we needed.

Should have traded Cross last year and got a decent tall.

Hawthorn done the opposite to us, and won a flag.

[BulldogBelle]

Hawthorn done the opposite to us, and won a flag.


Agree. Its easier to make a small compared to a tall.