Simon Dalrymple Performance Analysis

[Remi Moses]

I mentioned later that considering who was picked next my judgement was harsh.

Didn't Kavanagh's old man warn Norf he wouldn't go there.
Worked out well for the lad

[Mantis]

What I like about Bontempelli and what sets him apart from Jack Macrae is that he has a penetrating style of play. Jack can dodge, run sideways to find space and hit up targets 25 metres up field - valuable when he does it consistently - but Marcus, when he gets up and going, should be an 80 metre player. Someone who can bust a tackle, run 30 metres and use his booming kick to hit long targets. This is something our side desperately needs.

Does he have the pace to do this? ie. break-away pace like Griffen has.

[Scorlibo]

Does he have the pace to do this? ie. break-away pace like Griffen has.

I think he has the same kind of deceptive pace that Easton Wood has, although admittedly that hasn't shown through at AFL level yet.

[Mofra]

I think he has the same kind of deceptive pace that Easton Wood has, although admittedly that hasn't shown through at AFL level yet.

He was in the bottom 10% at draft camp for acceleration. I don't think he's anything like Griffen.

His top line speed is ok, but how often does an inside mid get to receive the ball when running at top pace?

I like the kid, but I'm nowhere near as excited as I was in Macrae's first year

[Cyberdoggie]

Don't forget Bonts is a key forward sized player in the guise of a midfielder.

We seem to be prepared to wait for Cordy to develop 5+ years later but year one on Bonts we are comparing him to midfielders.

I agree he's not a burst player due to his size and lack of acceleration. I'm still not sure what sort of player he will be but I think it was a worth the risk compared to a player like Aish.

KK could well end up being a superstar but let's give Bonts a few years and time to fill out his physique.


Sometimes you can get it completely wrong, I think all of us would agree Bonts looks like he'll be a decent footballer. He has shown he can dominate a game at VFL level, He has elite handballing skills even at AFL level and doesn't seem like he has mental self confidence issues like Howard.

[Mofra]

Sometimes you can get it completely wrong, I think all of us would agree Bonts looks like he'll be a decent footballer. He has shown he can dominate a game at VFL level, He has elite handballing skills even at AFL level and doesn't seem like he has mental self confidence issues like Howard.

Nobody is writing him off, he will play many games of good football for us but we all see different things in different players and for mine Macrae will be a superstar. Absolute superstar.
It's not unreasonable to suggest it will be hard for other kids to get to that level, because it's extremely difficult.

[westdog54]

Doctor! Doctor! It is not too late to get into your TARDIS and go back to change history.

Instead of Howard, from the same draft we could have picked...Koby Stevens.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Nobody is writing him off, he will play many games of good football for us but we all see different things in different players and for mine Macrae will be a superstar. Absolute superstar.
It's not unreasonable to suggest it will be hard for other kids to get to that level, because it's extremely difficult.

I love how composed Bonts is, even so early on hin his career. Looks like he belongs at the top level already which is well above what I expected from him.

There is always pressure on the top draftees to make an immediate impact, but lets not forget that Pat Dangerfield was drafted with the knowledge that he wouldn't play at all the next year while he finished his education. Adleaide were rubbished for it in their local press but they've had the last laugh on that. Patience, patience, patience.

[The Doctor]

How can you possibly make any judgements on drafts that have been murdered by the two franchise teams?

You make the judgements on the players Dalrymple chose at the club's expense of those he didn't. Hindsight arguments don't come into it when you chose speculative types (Howard, Skinner) from state leagues in their respective drafts ahead of proven elite junior players (Fyfe, Dahlhaus) that are presented to all clubs at the National draft camp/combine.

I agree with you about too many one paced types. Dalrymple has had opportunities to address this but has either picked the wrong player (Tutt) or passed on the opportunity (e.g. Goodes instead of Sam Dwyer). Dwyer incidently tore Howard a new one in the VFL GF a few years ago. Funny how Colllingwood in a less privileged draft position get a better result than us. But in Dalrymple's defence this may have been a coach/club directive.

[The Doctor]

Also what has to be taken into account is what money has been spent in the recruiting dept.
I know they've beefed it up ( absolute necessity) got Neville Stibbard ( Norf recruiter) on board
2009 was a stinker ( Howard) but to be honest we haven't had a level playing field with the two franchises and finances in recruiting

In the instance of Dalrymple's first 2 drafts money has nothing to do with it but common sense does. In the national drafts of 09/10 he chose duds from state leagues at the expense of the best juniors in the country. There is no excuse for this. The best juniors are easily on show throughout the year via the state u/18 champs, the TAC, the respective state and national draft camps etc that even a 15 year old Bigfooty draft expert could have picked a better outcome.

We wasted money on sending all our experts to the national draft camps in those 2 years because we wasted our picks on state league duds.

Again the excuse of the new franchises doesn't stack up in this instance. If it is used it is a cop out.

[The Doctor]

2011 doesn't appear to be much better at this stage and I still heavily question the Clay Smith pick.

I think he nailed the 2012 draft to be fair.

TD, I think Smith was a good pick. I was doubtful at the time but if it wasn't for injury he could well be a Doggie favourite.

[The Doctor]

Dalrymple needs to be judged more on the last 3 years than the previous 3. Time will tell how successful he has been.

G, he needs to be judged on the lot and enough time has passed for us to tell whether or not he is the man for job.

[The Doctor]

Great thread Doctor.
The recruiting is one side of the equation, and it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. Player development is the other factor and there is an article in the Hun today that indicates that due to financial issues we did not invest in this between 2007-09, and that really only now are we addressing this.

Good call here YHF

Player development can make all the difference. Hypothetically, just imagine we chose Grundy instead of Stringer. Would he, under our current regime, have developed as well as he has at Collingwood. At the Pies he was deemed good enough to knock out a premiership ruckman (Jolly) after only 1 season, yet ruckmen are supposed to take forever. Would he have progressed so quickly at the Dogs?

[The Doctor]

YHe's had a few howlers, ( Howard) but he should be praised for Dahlhaus.

I disagree with this and it has nothing to do with Dahlhaus as a player.

In his draft year I thought Dahl was worthy of a 2/3 round National Draft pick. He slipped through to pick 22 in the rookie draft so good luck to the Dogs.

The issue I have with Dalrymple, as I alluded to in my opening post, is why did he chose Schofield, Skinner and Hill ahead of him. None of the 3 played rep footy that year or played it well like Dahl did and were more likely to be higher risk selections. Dalrymple got lucky in this instance and that luck has helped paper over the cracks of his judgement failures (just like having Wallis and Libba on his credit scorecard have).

Having said all that I will offer some acknowledgement that Johannisen, picked later in the rookie draft, was a good get as he was relatively unheralded and has probably exceeded expectation for someone drafted in his position.

[boydogs]

The issue I have with Dalrymple, as I alluded to in my opening post, is why did he chose Schofield, Skinner and Hill ahead of him.

You're not doing your argument any favours with the Dahlhaus example. Dahlhaus was overlooked by all other recruiters as well, and in fact we were the ones that rated him highest. Dalrymple may have known this and therefore didn't use an earlier pick on him. Dahlhaus also isn't the same player type as the other 3 - name another KPF we could have chosen over Tom Hill for instance that had a better pedigree

[Remi Moses]

I disagree with this and it has nothing to do with Dahlhaus as a player.

In his draft year I thought Dahl was worthy of a 2/3 round National Draft pick. He slipped through to pick 22 in the rookie draft so good luck to the Dogs.

The issue I have with Dalrymple, as I alluded to in my opening post, is why did he chose Schofield, Skinner and Hill ahead of him. None of the 3 played rep footy that year or played it well like Dahl did and were more likely to be higher risk selections. Dalrymple got lucky in this instance and that luck has helped paper over the cracks of his judgement failures (just like having Wallis and Libba on his credit scorecard have).

Having said all that I will offer some acknowledgement that Johannisen, picked later in the rookie draft, was a good get as he was relatively unheralded and has probably exceeded expectation for someone drafted in his position.

So you can him for his dud selections, but Dahlhaus (after every club REJECTED him in the national draft)doesn't deserve a tick for picking him. Can't have it both ways