Dogs recruiter looking to the future

[Throughandthrough]

Sam Landsberger From: Leader April 14, 2011 5:37PM

WESTERN Bulldogs chief recruiter Simon Dalrymple has revealed his shock first-round selection at the 2009 National Draft was done with an eye to 2013 and beyond.
Dalrymple plucked little-known South Australian Christian Howard at No. 15, who was not even on the radar at some clubs and did not feature in any phantom media drafts.

At the time it was considered one of the biggest drafting punts in history.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/dogs-recruiter-looking-to-the-future/story-fn53khop-1226039275429

[GVGjr]

This article was in a local paper a couple of days ago.

I'm not sure why we need to say that the Crows would have selected him at 28. Surely we should be saying that Howard was, by our assessment, clearly the best player still available when it was our turn in the first round.

We will need to be patent with Howard but I think he will get a few senior games this year.

[Throughandthrough]

This article was in a local paper a couple of days ago.

I'm not sure why we need to say that the Crows would have selected him at 28. Surely we should be saying that Howard was, by our assessment, clearly the best player still available when it was our turn in the first round.

We will need to be patent with Howard but I think he will get a few senior games this year.



...and Richmond was gonna pick him early as well. I guess it's the clubs way of saying we really wanted him and we couldn't afford to wait for a later pick.

[Maddog37]

This article was in a local paper a couple of days ago.

I'm not sure why we need to say that the Crows would have selected him at 28. Surely we should be saying that Howard was, by our assessment, clearly the best player still available when it was our turn in the first round.

We will need to be patent with Howard but I think he will get a few senior games this year.


Is it not obvious that if we chose him we believe he was the best available player?

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Still looks like an ordinary draft for mine.

If we needed pace (which we have for a while), surely there were better options than Tutt? Not to write him off, but what I've seen hasn't filled me with any confidence whatsoever. Howard has at least impressed in the VFL at times, although he may be suited to playing a role further up the ground as opposed to half back.

[GVGjr]

Is it not obvious that if we chose him we believe he was the best available player?

To me it says that we would have preferred to wait but we were concerned other teams were nearly as smart as us. There is no need to reference another side.

[GVGjr]

...and Richmond was gonna pick him early as well. I guess it's the clubs way of saying we really wanted him and we couldn't afford to wait for a later pick.

I don't see any value in Dalrymple's comment about what the Crows might have done.
The fact is that we supposedly rated him in the top bracket and we regarded him as the best player available at our pick. Saying the Crows were poised to take him at 28 sort of implies it forced our hand.

By the way, I don't believe Richmond would have taken Howard before their 3rd round pick. They were pretty much locked in to Martin in the 1st round and Griffiths in the 2nd.

[KT31]

...and Richmond was gonna pick him early as well. I guess it's the clubs way of saying we really wanted him and we couldn't afford to wait for a later pick.

With the Tigers recent history if they wanted him , we possibly should have past.
With our windoa open and needing pace plus needing a tall to replace lake, IMO his was arsh recruitment if the club was looking so far forward.

[KT31]

Hey i just relalised that was my 1000th post.:)

[chef]

To me it says that we would have preferred to wait but we were concerned other teams were nearly as smart as us. There is no need to reference another side.

I'm sure we would have preferred to wait.

[chef]

I don't see any value in Dalrymple's comment about what the Crows might have done.
The fact is that we supposedly rated him in the top bracket and we regarded him as the best player available at our pick. Saying the Crows were poised to take him at 28 sort of implies it forced our hand.

By the way, I don't believe Richmond would have taken Howard before their 3rd round pick. They were pretty much locked in to Martin in the 1st round and Griffiths in the 2nd.

The Tigers would have taken Howard(if we didn't take him) if Griffiths wasn't available, or so I've heard.

[Ghost Dog]

Hey i just relalised that was my 100thg post.:)

Congratulations KT!!!

[LostDoggy]

Hey i just relalised that was my 100thg post.:)

Congratulations. Here come the police horses.

[stefoid]

OK, but lets put it in perspective - how many of these names do you recognize from the guys who were taken after Howard? I can reognize 4 - Tapscott, Fyfe, Bastinac and Duncan. All the others are still developing and trying to establish themselves, just like Howard.

So, OK, Fyfe would be handy right now, but arent the others more your inside midfielder which we already had our fill of even before taking Libba and Wallis on board?

1 16 Jasper Pittard Geelong Falcons Port Adelaide
1 17 Daniel Menzel Central District Geelong
2 18 Luke Tapscott North Adelaide Melbourne
2 19 Benjamin Griffiths Eastern Ranges Richmond
2 20 Nathan Fyfe Claremont Tigers Fremantle
2 21 Ryan Bastinac Dandenong Stingrays North Melbourne
2 22 Gerrick Weedon Claremont West Coast
2 23 Koby Stevens Gippsland Power West Coast
2 24 Jake Carlisle Calder Cannons Essendon
2 25 Aaron Black Peel North Melbourne
2 26 Travis Colyer Claremont Essendon
2 27 Callum Bartlett Geelong Falcons Brisbane Lions
2 28 Mitch Duncan East Perth Geelong
2 29 Jack Gunston Sandringham Dragons Adelaide
2 31 Jason Tutt Ainslie Western Bulldogs
2 32 Nicholas Winmar Claremont St Kilda
2 33 Anthony Long Calder Cannons Essendon
3 34 Max Gawn Sandringham Dragons Melbourne
3 35 David Astbury North Ballarat Rebels Richmond
3 36 Joel Houghton Perth Fremantle
3 37 Jamie MacMillan Oakleigh Chargers North Melbourne
3 38 Sam Reid Murray Bushrangers Sydney
3 39 Sam Grimley Northern Knights Hawthorn
3 40 Allen Christensen Geelong Falcons Geelong
3 41 Ayden Kennedy Eastern Ranges North Melbourne
3 42 Nathan Vardy Gippsland Power Geelong
3 43 Marcus Davies North Hobart Carlton
3 44 Matthew Dea North Ballarat Rebels Richmond
3 45 Sam Shaw Oakleigh Chargers Adelaide
3 46 Benjamin Stratton East Perth Hawthorn
3 47 Ryan Harwood Glenorchy Brisbane Lions
3 48 Jesse Crichton North Launceston Fremantle
3 49 Dylan Roberton Dandenong Stingrays Fremantle
4 50 Jack Fitzpatrick Western Jets Melbourne
4 51 Troy Taylor South Alice Springs Richmond

[Sockeye Salmon]

Out of all of them, I'd like another Sam Reid.

[Doc26]

OK, but lets put it in perspective - how many of these names do you recognize from the guys who were taken after Howard? I can reognize 4 - Tapscott, Fyfe, Bastinac and Duncan. All the others are still developing and trying to establish themselves, just like Howard.

So, OK, Fyfe would be handy right now, but arent the others more your inside midfielder which we already had our fill of even before taking Libba and Wallis on board?

Until last week at least there would be a number of Hawk supporters who would tend to disagree with you.



Hey i just relalised that was my 100thg post.:)

Congrats KT. Nice to know there's at least someone more anti social than me :p

[LostDoggy]

I think it is pretty easy to look back on these things with some hindsight and much more difficult for the draft team at the time, but that list really does not make me feel much better, about Tutt in particular. I actually think that Howard has a lot of potential although will take some time to realise it.

Aside from the names you have already mentioned there are a few players in this list that look likely to make the grade in areas where we may need some cover in a few years time.

At 47 Dylan Roberton has played some promising games for Freo and looks to have some skill and versatility. At 191cm and with a pretty good kick he might be a possible replacement for Shaggy in a couple of years as a versatile third tall.

At 41 Allen Christensen looks like a lively skilled small forward who has broken through for a couple of games for Geelong this year. This is clearly an area where we have a lack as evidenced thorugh the 2010 draft.

This also ignores Astbury, and Carlisle as Key position prospects and Colyer as a speedy inside/outside midfielder who have all broken through for senior games with their respective clubs.

Now in some cases these players have gotten games becasue of the position of the clubs they have been drafted to and does not mean they would have forced their way into our best 22 or even onto our list. I would however like to have any of Reid, Stratton, Roberton or Christensen on the senior list instead of Tutt based on current perfromances all of whom were taken below him. This is I would suggest one of the dangers with a 'best fit' recruitment strategy not 'best player', none of those four are likely to be better small rebounding defenders/wings then Tutt, but all would arguably add depth or balance to our team.

[stefoid]

I dont agree with the best available approach in all situations. I have a standard rant about it -- here it is.

'Best available' theorists argue it is about reducing risk -- you take the best available player and you are reducing the risk of picking a dud. This is a great attitude for the draft recruiter to have, because he isn't judged primarily on team performance, but on how well his draft picks turn out.

But the aim of the game is best team performance, not individual performance, and that means having all the elements of the team in place -- the balanced side with depth in all areas.

So if your team is unbalanced, you have to trade. Guess what, trading is also risky! You risk paying over the odds, you risk taking on a Not Quite Right player or head case that doesn't perform at the new club, etc...

So 'best available' isn't reducing the risk, its simply moving it as much as possible from drafting to trading.

You could argue that by taking the best available, you will probably have a surfeit of midfielders (they are usually the ones that come on quickest and are the safest bets), so you then trade your excess midfielders for team balance, but we all know it inst that easy in practice. There are many emotional and practical reasons why you cant just trade away good players for other good players that meet your team requirements. High risk to rely on that.

So that's my rant -- the draft recruiter has to take on some of the risk involved in fielding a balanced side, and that means walking a line between how good are the players available at any given pick compared to how badly we need to fill a hole in the list -- not just saying 'best available, best available' for every pick.

So I am all in favor of taking the best available speedsters and/or elite kicks with our 1st two picks in 09. whether or not they turn out to be the best available speedsters/elite kicks at those picks is what the recruiter should be judged by.

[Go_Dogs]

OK, but lets put it in perspective - how many of these names do you recognize from the guys who were taken after Howard? I can reognize 4 - Tapscott, Fyfe, Bastinac and Duncan. All the others are still developing and trying to establish themselves, just like Howard.

So, OK, Fyfe would be handy right now, but arent the others more your inside midfielder which we already had our fill of even before taking Libba and Wallis on board?

Tapscott is a strong bodied player, but has good foot skills and can play outside.

Pittard can play outside and this is really his bag.

Bastinac can play outside.

Duncan can play outside.

Menzel has been doing a reasonable role for Geelong, has good foot skills and can play outside as well as inside.

Fyfe is one you've mentioned and could play a variety of roles.

Howard may yet be better than all of them, but all of the above have had bigger impacts thus far and certainly some have arguably as much or more scope for improvement.

[stefoid]

Tapscott is a strong bodied player, but has good foot skills and can play outside.

Pittard can play outside and this is really his bag.

Bastinac can play outside.

Duncan can play outside.

Menzel has been doing a reasonable role for Geelong, has good foot skills and can play outside as well as inside.

Fyfe is one you've mentioned and could play a variety of roles.

Howard may yet be better than all of them, but all of the above have had bigger impacts thus far and certainly some have arguably as much or more scope for improvement.

I guess that's the crux of it -- if in hindsight we find that there were half a dozen players taken after Howard who turn out to be better at what we wanted Howard for than Howard himself, then you can say the recruiters stuffed up.

[Mofra]

OK, but lets put it in perspective - how many of these names do you recognize from the guys who were taken after Howard? I can reognize 4 - Tapscott, Fyfe, Bastinac and Duncan. All the others are still developing and trying to establish themselves, just like Howard.

So, OK, Fyfe would be handy right now, but arent the others more your inside midfielder which we already had our fill of even before taking Libba and Wallis on board?

Good point - we obviously knew about Libba & Wallis years out (Clayton went all tall in 08 with his last draft).
Yes Fyfe taken just after him is looking good and Pittard is establishing himself at Port (I doubt he'd be getting games for us though), but most of the others only compete with what we have on the list, not compliment.

We were clearly after rebounding defenders and team selection this year shows that is exactly what we need. If I had to pick anyone from the list above Howard, I'd probably lean towards Astbury given we would love another quick young tall defender on the list.

[Mofra]

Out of all of them, I'd like another Sam Reid.
He looks good, but he would be behind Roughy & Jones for a spot.

On tall forwards, I haven't ruled a line through Tom Hill either - moved pretty well, and a bloke who is talented yet struggled with injury is exactly the type of punt we should take with later picks IMO.

[LostDoggy]

Good Post Stefoid which I think makes some great points. The other critera that we have to judge drafting perfromance on is how right they get the things we draft for, ie will speed and kicking talent end up being the right mix elements to add to the list and in the right proportion.

In the end I think the team doing the draft are on a hiding to nothing given the number of variables not only in the development of the players drafted, but the form, fitness and fortunes of the existing players and how the game develops in the meantime. Inevitably at some point we look at players drafted by other clubs that we could have drafted and think 'if only' but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

I really liked the look of Tapscott pre-draft, and his first few AFL games this year have only increased that view. He would be a great addition to a side like ours.

Duncan was another I liked, although I can understand why we didn't pick him, given we had Wallis/Libba coming the year after.

We desperately need Howard to make it.

[LostDoggy]

What I don't understand about the 'filling needs' hypothesis in this case is that he's only meant to come on in 2013. Surely filling a need on the list is a short-term play, or even maybe a one, two year thing? Five years just seems like such a ridiculous lag -- our entire half-back line may be retired before he even starts to get a game. Look, this may well come off and the recruiters look like geniuses, it's just weird when you pick a medium/small and expect a 5 year development period before you can tell if he's any good -- you would generally expect a quicker return on a small/medium type than half a bloody decade. Heck, that's longer than most AFL players' careers -- it just sounds too much like an excuse.

[chef]

OK, but lets put it in perspective - how many of these names do you recognize from the guys who were taken after Howard? I can reognize 4 - Tapscott, Fyfe, Bastinac and Duncan. All the others are still developing and trying to establish themselves, just like Howard.

So, OK, Fyfe would be handy right now, but arent the others more your inside midfielder which we already had our fill of even before taking Libba and Wallis on board?

1 16 Jasper Pittard Geelong Falcons Port Adelaide
1 17 Daniel Menzel Central District Geelong
2 18 Luke Tapscott North Adelaide Melbourne
2 19 Benjamin Griffiths Eastern Ranges Richmond
2 20 Nathan Fyfe Claremont Tigers Fremantle
2 21 Ryan Bastinac Dandenong Stingrays North Melbourne
2 22 Gerrick Weedon Claremont West Coast
2 23 Koby Stevens Gippsland Power West Coast
2 24 Jake Carlisle Calder Cannons Essendon
2 25 Aaron Black Peel North Melbourne
2 26 Travis Colyer Claremont Essendon
2 27 Callum Bartlett Geelong Falcons Brisbane Lions
2 28 Mitch Duncan East Perth Geelong
2 29 Jack Gunston Sandringham Dragons Adelaide
2 31 Jason Tutt Ainslie Western Bulldogs
2 32 Nicholas Winmar Claremont St Kilda
2 33 Anthony Long Calder Cannons Essendon
3 34 Max Gawn Sandringham Dragons Melbourne
3 35 David Astbury North Ballarat Rebels Richmond
3 36 Joel Houghton Perth Fremantle
3 37 Jamie MacMillan Oakleigh Chargers North Melbourne
3 38 Sam Reid Murray Bushrangers Sydney
3 39 Sam Grimley Northern Knights Hawthorn
3 40 Allen Christensen Geelong Falcons Geelong
3 41 Ayden Kennedy Eastern Ranges North Melbourne
3 42 Nathan Vardy Gippsland Power Geelong
3 43 Marcus Davies North Hobart Carlton
3 44 Matthew Dea North Ballarat Rebels Richmond
3 45 Sam Shaw Oakleigh Chargers Adelaide
3 46 Benjamin Stratton East Perth Hawthorn
3 47 Ryan Harwood Glenorchy Brisbane Lions
3 48 Jesse Crichton North Launceston Fremantle
3 49 Dylan Roberton Dandenong Stingrays Fremantle
4 50 Jack Fitzpatrick Western Jets Melbourne
4 51 Troy Taylor South Alice Springs Richmond

These guys all look like being good players to me with Stratton being the pick of the bunch IMO.

[Maddog37]

This type of argument is senseless IMO. Where were Hird, Lake and C Grant picked in the draft? It is far from an exact science and many early picks simply do not make it whilst later picks do.

Too early to tell yet.

[mjp]

OK, but lets put it in perspective - how many of these names do you recognize from the guys who were taken after Howard? I can reognize 4 - Tapscott, Fyfe, Bastinac and Duncan. All the others are still developing and trying to establish themselves, just like Howard.


You are right of course (though I recognise a few other names on the list)...

I just want him to start demanding selection through performance - with Hargrave and Wood out, his time COULD be now.

[Remi Moses]

This type of argument is senseless IMO. Where were Hird, Lake and C Grant picked in the draft? It is far from an exact science and many early picks simply do not make it whilst later picks do.

Too early to tell yet.

I agree it's a pointless argument! Let's re-enter this debate in 12 months.

[lemmon]

Would love a Fyfe, Bastinac or Tapscott who would all fulfill a few needs, though I do think that Duncan will be an absolute star for the Cats, super talent there. Still have high hopes for Howard but it was a fair punt by Dalrymple when you consider the amount of talent still on that list.

[Ghost Dog]

I agree it's a pointless argument! Let's re-enter this debate in 12 months.

It's not like a young bloke is set in stone either. It really depends a great deal on their ability to work at it mentally, on the quality of their training and the people around them. Take Dale or Boyd for example.

[stefoid]

What I don't understand about the 'filling needs' hypothesis in this case is that he's only meant to come on in 2013. Surely filling a need on the list is a short-term play, or even maybe a one, two year thing? Five years just seems like such a ridiculous lag -- our entire half-back line may be retired before he even starts to get a game. Look, this may well come off and the recruiters look like geniuses, it's just weird when you pick a medium/small and expect a 5 year development period before you can tell if he's any good -- you would generally expect a quicker return on a small/medium type than half a bloody decade. Heck, that's longer than most AFL players' careers -- it just sounds too much like an excuse.

Team balance is about filling current holes, but also about future holes.

They would have been looking 2-4 years ahead and thinking of boyd, cross, gilbee being on the way out and libba, wallis and howard on the way in. Whats wrong with that? Most young players take 2-4 years to establish themselves, if they are going to at all. Any sooner than that and the player wither unusually talented/physically developed or the team is unusually crap.

Howard has had 2 seasons so far hasnt he?

[Maddog37]

Remember back in the day when blokes like Dipper and Tuck played 100 games in the reserves before their debut. We would be freaking out if they did that now!

[mjp]

Remember back in the day when blokes like Dipper and Tuck played 100 games in the reserves before their debut. We would be freaking out if they did that now!

If they were first round picks we would. Rookie listers? Not so much (though I agree, it would be closer to 50 games than 100 that they would get to show improvement/make an impact).

Even 'back in the day' talented young players debuted and made an impact before their 20th birthdays...

[ledge]

If they were first round picks we would. Rookie listers? Not so much (though I agree, it would be closer to 50 games than 100 that they would get to show improvement/make an impact).

Even 'back in the day' talented young players debuted and made an impact before their 20th birthdays...

Some were only 15 or 16 (Grant,Watson) so now I suppose due to the TAC being a more proffessional competition than a metro league, I would expect them to be ready to play at about 20, at the latest.
I wonder if we looked back ,say 20-30 years, is the first game players age still rating around the same age nowadays?

[stefoid]

err, whoops:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111973/default.aspx

Thats not a thumbs up for the recruitment of Howard. (at this early stage)

[GVGjr]

err, whoops:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111973/default.aspx

Thats not a thumbs up for the recruitment of Howard. (at this early stage)

Are they really linked? He was always going to be a longer term project.

[chef]

err, whoops:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111973/default.aspx

Thats not a thumbs up for the recruitment of Howard. (at this early stage)

Going a bit early eh stefoid;).

[MrMahatma]

These draft debates are always interesting. It's easy to take a pot at the recruiters if a kid hasn't debuted after a couple of seasons. It's also easy to say "give the kid time". I guess the reality is that you never know until you know.

It's definitely not great having a first round pick not come on immediately, but we had quite a few not come on at all during the Clayton era, so while it was Dalrymple's first draft he's not necessarily done any worse than might have happened anyway.

This last draft seems to have gone very well (F&S helped but the other kids seem to be doing well) so our depth of young players looks OK.