Scott Clayton

[LostDoggy]

I know he is hugely popular with the Dogs supporters but should Scott Clayton be under some sort of pressure for the way a number of our draftees just have quite measured up?
I also know the power of hindsight is a tremendous advantage but really I'm not sure that he has done as well as what his public and media reputation would indicate.
The likes of McMahon, Power, Walsh, Faulkner, Wight and Wells really just haven't measured up and while I know injuries can be an inhibitor, other clubs seem to have done a bit more with a bit less.

So is he doing the right job ? Is it about time he was placed under a bit of scrutiny ?
We keep drafting for the future which seems to be the right philosophy but surely there should be a bit more light at the end of the tunnel.

[Mofra]

The likes of McMahon, Power, Walsh, Faulkner, Wight and Wells really just haven't measured up and while I know injuries can be an inhibitor, other clubs seem to have done a bit more with a bit less.
McMahon is not in good form, but if he was at Collingwood they'd be hailing him as a messiah. "100m in under 11 seconds!"

Power hasn't come on as much as we would have liked, but he has all the attributes - ticker is always a hard one to judge.

Walsh has been injured too often to offer a serious assessment on.

I Still think Wight has a future at the Bulldogs - 2m tall and still young, with a massive motor. I will persist in supporting him.

Faulkner is disappointing, but by all accounts it is attitude again and not talent.

Wells - simply a bad call by Clayton.


Personally I think his bad calls have been more than compensated by his good, ie Gilbee, Hargrave, Cross & Harris late, Boyd & Morris as rookies on a limited rookie budget, Harbrow as a rookie making big inroads for such a young player.

[Mantis]

McMahon is not in good form, but if he was at Collingwood they'd be hailing him as a messiah. "100m in under 11 seconds!"

Power hasn't come on as much as we would have liked, but he has all the attributes - ticker is always a hard one to judge.

Walsh has been injured too often to offer a serious assessment on.

I Still think Wight has a future at the Bulldogs - 2m tall and still young, with a massive motor. I will persist in supporting him.

Faulkner is disappointing, but by all accounts it is attitude again and not talent.

Wells - simply a bad call by Clayton.


Personally I think his bad calls have been more than compensated by his good, ie Gilbee, Hargrave, Cross & Harris late, Boyd & Morris as rookies on a limited rookie budget, Harbrow as a rookie making big inroads for such a young player.

What attributes does Power have that gives you hope? For me is gone, he really has made no position his own in his 5 or so years in the system. For supposedly someone who was drafted due to his kicking ability he can't hit a target over 30m and makes poor decisions with the ball.

Wight was drafted very late, for him to be still on our list is a bonus and I still think he can be a pretty good player. He still needs to fill out a fair bit, but he has shown a good signs already.

[Go_Dogs]

It's not an easy job being the recruiter, not jealous of the job Clayton has to do at all. I think he's done pretty well, especially recently. I'd like to see us employ someone whose sole responsibility is list management though, a few clubs seem to be doing this.

[Go_Dogs]

I'd like to add too, next season I'd like us to take a more 'ready made' approach so we can see some quick improvements in the list, not too many players who won't be able to impact in their first year. Quite a few clubs have done this this year, and it seems to be paying dividends for them.

[Dry Rot]

I'm beginning to wonder whether our strategy of picking up so many skilful but light bodied aboriginal players at the last draft was wise - maybe a couple of less skilful big bodied players would be more useful to us in the long term. (Please note this post is about body size, not race)

[Go_Dogs]

I think as of next year we'll start seeing the dividends of those picks and I'm not at all worried about them - I think they'll add a lot to our team. But this years draft, more ready made players imo.

[aker39]

I'm beginning to wonder whether our strategy of picking up so many skilful but light bodied aboriginal players at the last draft was wise - maybe a couple of less skilful big bodied players would be more useful to us in the long term. (Please note this post is about body size, not race)


That's easily fixed, your post next time will read like this

I'm beginning to wonder whether our strategy of picking up so many skilful but light bodied players at the last draft was wise - maybe a couple of less skilful big bodied players would be more useful to us in the long term

[GVGjr]

The thing that I question with Clayton is more around his late selections. I think he tends to sell them to the supporters as 'this player would have gone top 20 next year' but in the end they rarely develop that way. Skipper is one for an example and while O'Shea looks OK based on what I have seen I think a top 30 selection this year would have been beyond him.
Claytons done OK with the likes of Boyd, Morris and now Harbrow off the rookie list so I wonder why so many late selections don't progress.
I tend to agree with M#23 that we need some stronger body types this year to balance the project players and speedsters we drafted last year.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I tend to agree with M#23 that we need some stronger body types this year to balance the project players and speedsters we drafted last year.

I think we have enough developing run and carry on the list (Ray, Higgins, Addison, Stack, Hill, Lynch, Harbrow, Hughes etc) and we need some players with a harder edge - genuine footballers rather than athletes first.

Clearly we could use some big brutes with the width of a Firrito, Riccuito, Chapman, McLean. We need a couple more nuggety types.

[Go_Dogs]

The thing that I question with Clayton is more around his late selections. I think he tends to sell them to the supporters as 'this player would have gone top 20 next year' but in the end they rarely develop that way. Skipper is one for an example and while O'Shea looks OK based on what I have seen I think a top 30 selection this year would have been beyond him.
Claytons done OK with the likes of Boyd, Morris and now Harbrow off the rookie list so I wonder why so many late selections don't progress.


In regards to O'Shea, if he'd been playing consistent reserves football at say the SANFL this year getting in the bests as often as he has, he'd be getting looked at pretty hard imo - so his progress this year has been pleasing. Harbrow is arguably going to be the best and most talented of our rookies to make it thus far, which is pleasing too. Wight is another who we shouldn't discount as a bit of a wild card selection whose progress has been solid.

[Twodogs]

I;ve got high hopes for Wight. He's as tough as teak, usually thinks through things well and very competitive.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I;ve got high hopes for Wight. He's as tough as teak, usually thinks through things well and very competitive.

I still think he's as unco as a baby giraffe.

[bornadog]

I still think he's as unco as a baby giraffe.

I agree, but isn't that usually the case with 200cm players? I have high hopes for Wight and another couple of seasons and we will be singing his praises.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I agree, but isn't that usually the case with 200cm players? I have high hopes for Wight and another couple of seasons and we will be singing his praises.

I likewise have high hopes for him, he just has to learn to make less howling mistakes

The boy clearly has ability but I wonder what position he is really suited to? He seems to me best at centre half back/rebounding defender BUT is he ever going to command a spot their in our starting 22?

[Twodogs]

I still think he's as unco as a baby giraffe.


He's 22 and 5,000 feet tall-you expect him to be unco. What's impressive is nearly having his jaw taken off but coming back for more. On a night of half arsed shameful efforts it stood out like a beacon.

[Go_Dogs]

Agreed. For a guy so big and unco he has no hesitation throwing his body around like it doesn't matter. I see a future for Wight, I think he has the potential to play just about anywhere, which could also be his downfall.

[Mofra]

Agreed. For a guy so big and unco he has no hesitation throwing his body around like it doesn't matter. I see a future for Wight, I think he has the potential to play just about anywhere, which could also be his downfall.

Given Street was/is 27 when hitting his "peak" so far, and Wight has shown more than Minson this season and has some defensive side to his game, Wight will be figuring in the long term plans for the Doggies.

Not sure Skip will be around much longer.

[Dry Rot]

Most here would agree that our current game plan and personnel won't stand up to September action.

IMHO Clayton's record deserves scrutiny. Is there a way we can objectively judge this?

[southerncross]

Most here would agree that our current game plan and personnel won't stand up to September action.

IMHO Clayton's record deserves scrutiny. Is there a way we can objectively judge this?

Comparing selections with other team is an obvious option.
I think he does well with most of the early selections but hasn't done as well with some of the later ones. Sure Harris and Cross have worked out brilliantly but there are a number of others that he hasn't got right.

[mjp]

Comparing selections with other team is an obvious option.
I think he does well with most of the early selections but hasn't done as well with some of the later ones. Sure Harris and Cross have worked out brilliantly but there are a number of others that he hasn't got right.

Every team is in the same boat - even West Coast who have almost staggering depth at the moment. But when you consider they have 9 ex-Rookies playing these days, clearly their drafting guys got it wrong quite a bit as well...(If they git it right, they wouldn't have been rookies!)

[Bulldog Revolution]

Every team is in the same boat - even West Coast who have almost staggering depth at the moment. But when you consider they have 9 ex-Rookies playing these days, clearly their drafting guys got it wrong quite a bit as well...(If they git it right, they wouldn't have been rookies!)

I view it as a combination of drafting the right players and then developing them. So I see it as one part recruitment, one part coaching.

But the other thing we dont always know is who makes the decision on the picks - for instance in the 2005 draft did Clayton want Monty recycled or would he have taken Clint Bartram, Hugh Minson? Did he want to trade picks for Koops? Rawlings?

Clearly Clayton has had some moments that he would prefer to forget - the Jesse Wells drafting was horrendous given the talent still on the board, and the Walsh, BMurphy, Faulkner, Skipper picks haven't set the world on fire.

Under the Wallace and Rohde eras I think we as a club were very backwards in terms of developing our players. In the future the players under Eade will not have that excuse - and the buck will stop with Eade and Clayton if they cannot recruit and develop players.

From the looks of Higgins, Addison, Harbrow, McCormack, Williams, Everitt, Lynch etc Eade has been supplied enough talent and its his job to turn them into players

[LostDoggy]

Clearly Clayton has had some moments that he would prefer to forget - the Jesse Wells drafting was horrendous given the talent still on the board,

I saw a picture of him in the local paper this week as he is playing in the WRFL. The caption says something like "Jesse Wells whose career at the WB was... ". It is then printed over so you can't read the rest.
Anyway know how he is going as he isn't wearing Geoff Belthyn style glasses.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I view it as a combination of drafting the right players and then developing them. So I see it as one part recruitment, one part coaching.

But the other thing we dont always know is who makes the decision on the picks - for instance in the 2005 draft did Clayton want Monty recycled or would he have taken Clint Bartram, Hugh Minson? Did he want to trade picks for Koops? Rawlings?

Clearly Clayton has had some moments that he would prefer to forget - the Jesse Wells drafting was horrendous given the talent still on the board, and the Walsh, BMurphy, Faulkner, Skipper picks haven't set the world on fire.

Under the Wallace and Rohde eras I think we as a club were very backwards in terms of developing our players. In the future the players under Eade will not have that excuse - and the buck will stop with Eade and Clayton if they cannot recruit and develop players.

From the looks of Higgins, Addison, Harbrow, McCormack, Williams, Everitt, Lynch etc Eade has been supplied enough talent and its his job to turn them into players

Every recruiter has their fair share of misses - it's the nature of the game - and Clayton's record stands up as well as anyones.

I will absolutely bet that Clayton was shattered by the trading for Koops, Rawlings and Street - he's a recruiter, of course he wants the best picks to show off his talents.

The real question is who is responsible for not looking at KPPs and rucks?

Is it Clayton for picking midfielders or is it Wallace/Rohde for telling him to focus on picking midfielders?

The Birss/Richards thing in 2001 was interesting. Wynd was about to finish up, Darcy was flying and Dooley was the only back-up. I thought we desperately needed another young ruck (we ended up taking the 193cm Skipper) but Wallace openly said in the media that he thought our ruck stocks were very good (he must not have noticed that Scott Wynd was 30 with bung knees).

This was the pick that Wallace let the cameras in. Wallace asked Clayton "which is the better player?". Calyton replied that he thought Birss had the greater chance of being a long term senior player, so Wallace said "the small bloke it is" (they never referred to Birss or Richards by name at the time).

I was filthy. Clayton obviously thought there was not much between them or they wouldn't have been having that conversation, so if they were that close, why wouldn't you take the big guy?

The small bloke will almost always be the more likely to have a long term senior player because they are easier to identify and a team is made up of twice as many of them. It was a cop out.

In their defense, there hasn't been many KPP's we've missed that have been any good, it has just worked out that way.

I wanted Watts rather than Ray in 2003 (ideally we would have got him with pick 6 instead of Rawlings) but Watts has hardly set the world on fire and propably would have walked out to go to St. Kilda anyway.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Every recruiter has their fair share of misses - it's the nature of the game - and Clayton's record stands up as well as anyones.

I will absolutely bet that Clayton was shattered by the trading for Koops, Rawlings and Street - he's a recruiter, of course he wants the best picks to show off his talents.

The real question is who is responsible for not looking at KPPs and rucks?

Is it Clayton for picking midfielders or is it Wallace/Rohde for telling him to focus on picking midfielders?

The Birss/Richards thing in 2001 was interesting. Wynd was about to finish up, Darcy was flying and Dooley was the only back-up. I thought we desperately needed another young ruck (we ended up taking the 193cm Skipper) but Wallace openly said in the media that he thought our ruck stocks were very good (he must not have noticed that Scott Wynd was 30 with bung knees).

This was the pick that Wallace let the cameras in. Wallace asked Clayton "which is the better player?". Calyton replied that he thought Birss had the greater chance of being a long term senior player, so Wallace said "the small bloke it is" (they never referred to Birss or Richards by name at the time).

I was filthy. Clayton obviously thought there was not much between them or they wouldn't have been having that conversation, so if they were that close, why wouldn't you take the big guy?

The small bloke will almost always be the more likely to have a long term senior player because they are easier to identify and a team is made up of twice as many of them. It was a cop out.

In their defense, there hasn't been many KPP's we've missed that have been any good, it has just worked out that way.

I wanted Watts rather than Ray in 2003 (ideally we would have got him with pick 6 instead of Rawlings) but Watts has hardly set the world on fire and propably would have walked out to go to St. Kilda anyway.

Great trip down memory lane Sockeye - and good observations about the strike rates of recruiters - I just have to get over my hobby horse of the Rohde summer in which he traded away all those picks in a draft that had a lot of talent but it had to be hunted for. With the picks we traded for Rawlings, Koops and Morgan we really could have cleaned up in that draft. But its probably really only just hitting me how much the uneven rookie list playing field has held our list back.

I wanted Silvia with that 4th pick - he sounded like the next Riccuito which is exactly what we need until Cooney and Griffen grow into their frames - but he was taken 3 by Melbourne and then we took Ray. McLean was taken the pick after and obviously he would have been a good pick, but Ray has steadily improved and his athleticism does show signs of being able to carve teams up, so I dont regret his selection but I would have liked to have kept that #6 pick.

I always thought that Wallace doing the camera thing was just trying to justify to the supporters not taking a tall - because its been almost a decade that us dogs supporters have been crying out for talls. I never knew it was Richards - I guess neither Birss nor Richards have set the world on fire but both are handy players.

[LostDoggy]

There has to be some question marks on Clayton at the moment. It seems to me that we have a "sameness" about our list which isn't working.

If we look at Sydney, they tend to use the latter selections more effectively and will draft players that can fill a specific need. Guys like Buchanan, Luke Ablett, Malceski, Bevan and Schmidt all seem to have been drafted because they have a strong defensive skills.
Malceski aside, none of these guys are necessarily good footballers but they can come in and be deployed to fill a specific role for the club on a specific day.
Roos can then coach around them because there is a consistency if their efforts each week. If they need to use one of them on a lock down role to shut out a player they adapt to it and perfom their task as required.

We never seem to spend a draft pick on someone who will be developed primarily as a tagger. I think we have underestimated that we need to have a better mix of players that have a strong defensive side of their game. The game has changed and is still changing towards "if you cannot run then you cannot play" type structure but the ability to call up a player with a specific defensive skill is something that we haven't placed a high enough empahsis on.

Did anyone see Hurn in the warm ups kicking torps from 55 out which were sailing through to the netting? He's not quick and probably will never be a consistent 25 possession a game type player but he is tough and reliable and has that naturally defensive side of his game that we seem to lack. I doubt Clayton would ever select a player like him in the first round a draft.

[Go_Dogs]

Did anyone see Hurn in the warm ups kicking torps from 55 out which were sailing through to the netting? He's not quick and probably will never be a consistent 25 possession a game type player but he is tough and reliable and has that naturally defensive side of his game that we seem to lack. I doubt Clayton would ever select a player like him in the first round a draft.

Hurn will be a consistent 25 possession game player, easily. He has a great motor, super skills and is very hard. I've often spoken of my longing to see him in a Dogs jumper, believe me, he's going to be a very very good player. WC always pick a similar player with their first round pick, and it has worked very well for them. Tough, inside players who not only are strong and have defensive skills, but also have good decision making and ball skills.

[Mofra]

We never seem to spend a draft pick on someone who will be developed primarily as a tagger. I think we have underestimated that we need to have a better mix of players that have a strong defensive side of their game.
I disagree, Boyd & Morris (albeit rookies) werte taken on board as taggers. Cross was always earmarked as a run with player (until he developed this ability to get the ball 800 times a game) and Addision hasn't been tried anywheer near the F50.

Not sure about the rationale bhind D-Mac but he seems a born BP/defensive type as well. The problem is we have tried to turn other into defensively minded players (Faulkner & McMahon for example) with limited success.

Perhaps Eade's insistance on "versatility" needs to be scaled back a touch?

[LostDoggy]

I disagree, Boyd & Morris (albeit rookies) werte taken on board as taggers. Cross was always earmarked as a run with player (until he developed this ability to get the ball 800 times a game) and Addision hasn't been tried anywheer near the F50.

Perhaps Eade's insistance on "versatility" needs to be scaled back a touch?

But thats exactly my point, we used the easy option of putting most of them onto the rookie list and seeing what they could offer before promoting them into the team. I see that most of our late selections are always skewed towards development or bottom age recruits rather than taking a punt on a guy that might just be a run with or tagging option.

It's not like we are devoid of players like this because as you say we do have Cross, Morris, Boyd and even Harbrow and possibly Addison with these skills but a couple more wouldn't hurt.

[LostDoggy]

I was watching the game last night and had a good look at the Eagles defenders. Waters, Glass, Hurn and Hunter are all young powerful athletic types and were just too strong for some of our guys. Harris and possibly Morris aside we didn't have the same type of muscle in our back half.
We need to review the way that we draft players and in reality it's not a huge change. My view is that recruiting managers should be moved on every few years so that they keep having plenty to prove. Clayton might have done a n excellent job for us but he also might have run his race because the list just isn't competitive enough.

[mjp]

WC always pick a similar player with their first round pick, and it has worked very well for them. Tough, inside players who not only are strong and have defensive skills, but also have good decision making and ball skills.

Andrew McDougall anyone? Ashley Sampi?

C'mon. They swing and miss as well.

[Bulldog Revolution]

I was watching the game last night and had a good look at the Eagles defenders. Waters, Glass, Hurn and Hunter are all young powerful athletic types and were just too strong for some of our guys. Harris and possibly Morris aside we didn't have the same type of muscle in our back half.
We need to review the way that we draft players and in reality it's not a huge change. My view is that recruiting managers should be moved on every few years so that they keep having plenty to prove. Clayton might have done a n excellent job for us but he also might have run his race because the list just isn't competitive enough.

These are interesting ideas Billy Boy

The other one in their backline who I love is Brett Jones - was brilliant in the finals last year, tough, super courageous and good in the air and an great long kick. \

So you would cut Clayton loose after this draft? Who are you thinking as a replacement?

[Go_Dogs]

Andrew McDougall anyone? Ashley Sampi?

C'mon. They swing and miss as well.


Good point, and I'll accept that, but more so over the past two or three years they've got very good value with lower first and second rounds picks.

[mjp]

Good point, and I'll accept that, but more so over the past two or three years they've got very good value with lower first and second rounds picks.

Well, I think that is because by that stage of the draft, all of the kids with 'potential' are off the board, and the next level of players who all have weaknesses and are being considered purely because of their performances are left. This group of overachievers then continue to do well at the next level...

[Go_Dogs]

Well, I think that is because by that stage of the draft, all of the kids with 'potential' are off the board, and the next level of players who all have weaknesses and are being considered purely because of their performances are left. This group of overachievers then continue to do well at the next level...

Is this down to development, or do you feel that they have just got lucky with a few who have been able to transfer their games over, or even that these guys are already 'peaking' and the more 'potential' based picks will eventually overtake them?

[Bulldog Revolution]

Well, I think that is because by that stage of the draft, all of the kids with 'potential' are off the board, and the next level of players who all have weaknesses and are being considered purely because of their performances are left. This group of overachievers then continue to do well at the next level...

It seems that Clayton is reluctant to make picks like this in any round AND tends to take more potential/project type players e.g Gilbee, Hargraves, Harris, Wight, Skipper, Tiller, Issac Thompson, Jesse Wells, Stack, Lynch, Hill, Addison etc with all of his selections

[bornadog]

It seems that Clayton is reluctant to make picks like this in any round AND tends to take more potential/project type players e.g Gilbee, Hargraves, Harris, Wight, Skipper, Tiller, Issac Thompson, Jesse Wells, Stack, Lynch, Hill, Addison etc with all of his selections

The philosophy is you pick the best player available when its your pick. Its always hard to tell how these kids will develop. Grant was picked at some where around 100 plus, he was a skinny 17 year old when he played his first game. Sometimes I think you just have to play them early in the season to see how they go, which I believe we didn't do enough in the past two years. Williams and Harbrow came into the team when they really didn't deserve to based on pure form. Collingwood have blooded nine players this year which will set them up for the future. Last year we had Higgins, Addison and Wight come in.

The only thing we haven't tried is to blood a KPP forward, although Walsh played one game and got injured back in 2005.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Best available is a crock.

After the first few, there is so little between most of these kids and no-one knows how much they will come on.

For every pick there would be about a dozen possibilities we would be considering, unless you are really keen on someone (as we were with Stack last year for instance) pick the one that best suits what you need - not what you need now, what you think you will need in 5 years time.

Grant was a bit different. He was drafted when he was 15. Everyone knew he was going to be good but everyone else thought they'd wait another year to see how tall he would grow to. we took the punt that he would grow tall enough (he was only 185cm when he was drafted).

Skipper was another one. He was highly rated as a ruckman but he wasn't considered tall enough. We took the punt that he would grow another couple of inches but he didn't.

[LostDoggy]

I have been having a look at the Crows vs Power replay this morning and our midfield is really underdeveloped physically in comparision to thos two teams.

Above all else I want to see us select some stronger bodies. I know playing a lot on the TD means that you need runners but at the moment I would sacrifice a bit of speed for a bit more size.

We need a decent ruck option, a key forward and a strong midfielder from the draft. Not sure if you can get the first two with a bit of size about them but I don't think we can take a lot more development players again this year.

[Bulldog Revolution]

We need a decent ruck option, a key forward and a strong midfielder from the draft. Not sure if you can get the first two with a bit of size about them but I don't think we can take a lot more development players again this year.

The problem is that any key position or ruck prospect we select will be a development player - there are so few of these that are able to hit an AFL senior team running - and they generally are not later round selections if they are cant miss key position sized talent.

I cant help but feel we need to have most of these options covered on the list currently

It would be nice to select two powerfully built midfielders, but given our love of speed and agility we will have to settle for 1

[Go_Dogs]

No reason you can't combine a hard bodied, powerful midfielder with speed and agility.

I hope we go for a few 'ready made' players, who can step up and play a bit of senior football in their first year. Not that last years crop hasn't done this, Everitt, Harbrow, Lynch and Hill have all played, with Hughes being a possibility in the next few weeks too. The truth is though, that besides Everitt and Harbrow none were really ready, and even those 2 lads need a bit more time in the gym and on the track. If we could draft perhaps 2 or 3 players who are physically ready for AFL it would help fill our depth a bit quicker. Guys like Stack, Lynch and Hill are going to take another year before they start having more meaningful impacts.