Simon Dalrymple Performance Analysis

[Mofra]

-4 for a rookie pick who has at least debuted (Pearce)?

I don't see as much in Pearce as others do, but it seems like a harsh -4

[Greystache]

-4 for a rookie pick who has at least debuted (Pearce)?

I don't see as much in Pearce as others do, but it seems like a harsh -4

When did Pearce become a rookie?

He was drafted pick #49, the last pick in the 2nd round in 2011

[bulldogtragic]

When did Pearce become a rookie?

He was drafted pick #49, the last pick in the 2nd round in 2011

Josh Hill compo from memory?

[soupman]

While I like what that assessment system sets out to achieve I think the scoring is out.

There is too much emphasis put on round and not pick eg. Huge difference between the Stringer (5) and Hrovat (21?) picks and yet they are being graded on the same scale.

From my POV ideally for that scale to work you would redo the draft in best available order as it is now, then compare the pick we used on a player ie. Hrovat and his new ranking. This way you are comparing how well we used our picks against what was really available, not just big clumps of 18+ players of vastly different abilities.

An example would be the 2011 draft*
1. Chad Wingard
2. Brendon Ellis
3. Stephen Coniglio
4. Taylor Adams
5. Tobe Greene
6. Adam Treloar
7. Jonathan Patton
8. Tom Mitchell
9. Bradley Hill
10. Elliot Yeo
11. Clay Smith
12. Tom Dyson
13. Michael Talia
14. Devon Smith
15. Adam Tomlinson
16. Lachie Neale
17. Mitchell Colby
18. Marley Williams
19. Sam Kerridge
20. Rory Laird

You mark Clay Smith down as a loss in your system because of the whole round thing but in this system we got a player 4 picks cheaper than his true value. And you mark Talia as about right when he is actually in the best 20, not 39.

Basically if you are assessing Dalrymple on where his players should have gone then they should be compared with the other players in the draft as we know them now not just against a notion of what quality a second round pick will be. Even with this new scale I would be much more critical of early selections (ie. pick 5 players would need to be considered pick 3-8 now to be a pass, ranked 9+ would be a disappointment), while a pick 21 is a pass if it's in the 13-22 range and anything after pick 40 is a win regardless of the players quality if they have debuted.

It's all relative to the other players in the draft pool.

*Mock draft for illustrative purposes only. I stole it from BF because I can't be bothered doing it myself. I in no way think Brandon Ellis was the 2nd best player available in that draft, let alone some of the other rankings.

[bornadog]

Soupaman, I would also rank Dom Tyson higher than that list. He was already a number three and is doing well so far this year.

[soupman]

Soupaman, I would also rank Dom Tyson higher than that list. He was already a number three and is doing well so far this year.

I was wondering who Tom Dyson was

Like I said at the bottom, that list is for illustrative purposes only. I think it's completely out personally, I just stole it off the BF thread because it was the most recent draft on the front page and had more than 10 picks listed. Plus there is no way I would massacre that many player's names.

[Scorlibo]

I was wondering who Tom Dyson was

Like I said at the bottom, that list is for illustrative purposes only. I think it's completely out personally, I just stole it off the BF thread because it was the most recent draft on the front page and had more than 10 picks listed. Plus there is no way I would massacre that many player's names.

Lol I was wondering why Toby Greene and Taylor Adams were ahead of Adam Treloar.

[Dancin' Douggy]

I've been watching this thread with interest. And I have to say the Howard decision was a disaster and falls into the UNFORGIVEABLE category. The players we ignored to draft a complete and utter unproven, unknown kid from the lower leagues was idiotic.
If we really rated him we could have rookied him. Or taken him with pick number 473. No one else knew or cared about him but we blow pick 15 on him. That's just so hard to digest, even all these years later. Nothing against Howard as a person but SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know hindsight is easy and all recruiters make mistakes. And some kids are rated highly as juniors and never blossom etc etc. But Howard was just a complete waste of that pick no matter which way you slice it. And I'm still PISSED OFF!!!!!!!!!

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I've been watching this thread with interest. And I have to say the Howard decision was a disaster and falls into the UNFORGIVEABLE category. The players we ignored to draft a complete and utter unproven, unknown kid from the lower leagues was idiotic.
If we really rated him we could have rookied him. Or taken him with pick number 473. No one else knew or cared about him but we blow pick 15 on him. That's just so hard to digest, even all these years later. Nothing against Howard as a person but SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know hindsight is easy and all recruiters make mistakes. And some kids are rated highly as juniors and never blossom etc etc. But Howard was just a complete waste of that pick no matter which way you slice it. And I'm still PISSED OFF!!!!!!!!!

A terrible pick for sure, but I believe we pulled the trigger so early because we 'feared' Adelaide would've nabbed him before our next pick arrived. I just don't understand why we felt he was so indispensable that we had to reach for him with such a valuable pick

[LostDoggy]

Ah memories

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thread...howard.655806/

[HOSE B ROMERO]

Doctor, Doctor, i'll give you the news,
You've gotta... bad case of the stayin' up late blues...

I mean i know that our team that we either inherited from our parents (god love them), or went the lucky dip and just picked ourselves, has given us many sleepless nights. But where do you guys/girls get your energy from?

I plan to send a request to our membership dept for a new inclusion in our membership package..

... Replace the lanyard with a Valium prescription.

[HOSE B ROMERO]

By the way, has a complete analysis of all clubs draft picks over the last 5/10 years ever been done? Now that would provide a very good comparison.

[LostDoggy]

By the way, has a complete analysis of all clubs draft picks over the last 5/10 years ever been done? Now that would provide a very good comparison.

I did a comparison of Geelong and us for the last 10 years a couple of years ago (so more on Clayton's head). With worse picks they had twice the amount of good to elite players compared to us - yes twice.

Not strictly relevant but

1st round (top 16 picks) from 2000-2009 - excluding father sons

GEEL: BARTEL, MACKIE, VARCOE, SELWOOD, TAYLOR, BROWN
BULLDOGS: MCMAHON, POWER, WALSH, COONEY, GRIFFEN, WILLIAMS, HIGGINS, EVERITT, GRANT, HOWARD

2 out of 10 picks elite (Cooney and Griffen) - 20% hit rate
4 OUT OF 6 ELITE (Bartel, Mackie, Selwood, Taylor) - 66% hit rate!!

[F'scary]

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.

I saw his first game against Carton. Bad night but I was very impressed with his incisive disposal, particularly by hand but also by foot (the long kick). I also was impressed at his agility and capacity to handle being tackled. When he matures a bit more physically, I think he will regularly break tackles.

[Remi Moses]

Maybe we should have drafted Tom Dyson ( even john) ahead of Howard