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
Western Bulldogs: 2016 Premiers
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.
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.
Western Bulldogs: 2016 Premiers
You just can't help yourself, can you?
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.
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.
Listening to Brahm's 3rd Racket
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.
Listening to Brahm's 3rd Racket
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?
Listening to Brahm's 3rd Racket
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.
Listening to Brahm's 3rd Racket
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
If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriff