First Draftee to Debut?

[comrade]

Nothing to do with recruitment

If they were good players a) we wouldn't have felt the need to off load them & b) we would have gotten something decent for them.

Clayton sucked, no debating it.

[Cyberdoggie]

The key word is quality.

And how many of the games from Everitt, Ray, Power, Higgins and McMahon were with us? You can't claim games with other clubs after we've off loaded them.

There is also the question of what players he missed to select them.
ie Grypon over Buddy Franklin

[bulldogtragic]

There is also the question of what players he missed to select them.
ie Grypon over Buddy Franklin

I put up that list last page. It's a whose who of gun players.

[bornadog]

Clayton sucked, no debating it.

That contradicts your own criteria???

I know you put in a get out clause called quality, but as I said, how do you measure quality of a player over 10 years. They can't all be champions, some are soldiers (eg Ray), but yet they are able to play hundreds of games at the elite level.

All recruiters have hits and misses. Dal has certainty had some rippers as well, but I am not going to can him.

Anyway, this thread has gone off the rails.

[comrade]

That contradicts your own criteria???

I know you put in a get out clause called quality, but as I said, how do you measure quality of a player over 10 years. They can't all be champions, some are soldiers (eg Ray), but yet they are able to play hundreds of games at the elite level.

All recruiters have hits and misses. Dal has certainty had some rippers as well, but I am not going to can him.

Anyway, this thread has gone off the rails.

We're talking about first rounders only here, which IMO is the absolute bread and butter for recruiters. If you can't nail the majority of your first round picks, you're no good at the caper. Clayton's record is woeful, Dal's is superb. He's missed 1 only in Howard, and picked up incredible talents that were seen as marginal or reaches at the time.

[bornadog]

IMO, a successful non bust criteria is as follows:

Top 5 pick needs to return 200+ quality games
Top 6-10 pick needs to return 150+ quality games
Top 11-20 pick needs to return 100+ quality games
Top 21-30 pick needs to return 50+ quality games

Obviously injuries need to be taken into account which means you could give Clayton some leeway on Walsh and Williams but I doubt either would have fit the above criteria even if they weren't as fragile as tissue paper.

We're talking about first rounders only here, which IMO is the absolute bread and butter for recruiters. If you can't nail the majority of your first round picks, you're no good at the caper. Clayton's record is woeful, Dal's is superb. He's missed 1 only in Howard, and picked up incredible talents that were seen as marginal or reaches at the time.

Yep I only assessed first rounders against your criteria and according to you he nailed 6/9. If we include 1999, then 7/10.

Dal's can't be Superb yet because none of the players fit your criteria yet.

[westdog54]

I stand to be corrected but I'm fairly sure there's numerous threads on Scott Clayton and recruiting in general that this discussion would be better placed, so the rest of us can concentrate on Tim English.

[comrade]

Yep I only assessed first rounders against your criteria and according to you he nailed 6/9. If we include 1999, then 7/10.

Dal's can't be Superb yet because none of the players fit your criteria yet.

Everitt, Power, Ray, Grant, Walsh, Williams, Cordy & McMahon don't fit the criteria (as I'm not counting games they played at other clubs). So there is 8 busts.

But let me put it this way.

Bont, Stringer & Macrae have played more quality games between them then every single one of Clayton's first rounders combined.

[Sedat]

Bont, Stringer & Macrae have played more quality games between them then every single one of Clayton's first rounders combined.

Bob?

[comrade]

Bob?

Let's stick to this millennium

[hujsh]

Bont, Stringer & Macrae have played more quality games between them then every single one of Clayton's first rounders combined.

Cooney Grff and Higgins probably have. Hell just Cooney and Griffin would likely have them covered

He *!*!*!*!ed plenty up but I don't see why it's his fault Cooney was traded after injuries hampered him as a brownlow medalist, or that Griff went a bit mental and/or found the club to be a bad place to be or that Higgins wanted out (and pick 26 was not exactly rubbish compensation, it's what we paid for Essendon's leading goalkicker)

It's kind of funny but I'm actually on the same side of this issue as you yet I don't agree with the points you're making.

[Bulldog4life]

Alright, who are the three people who selected English for the thread poll only after he was named and this thread bumped?

I was one of those. I thought as he had senior footy last year there was a reasonable chance he would play first

[Bulldog4life]

I was one of those. I thought as he had senior footy last year there was a reasonable chance he would play first

Sorry I picked him before thread was bumped

[bornadog]

Cooney Grff and Higgins probably have. Hell just Cooney and Griffin would likely have them covered

He *!*!*!*!ed plenty up but I don't see why it's his fault Cooney was traded after injuries hampered him as a brownlow medalist, or that Griff went a bit mental and/or found the club to be a bad place to be or that Higgins wanted out (and pick 26 was not exactly rubbish compensation, it's what we paid for Essendon's leading goalkicker)

It's kind of funny but I'm actually on the same side of this issue as you yet I don't agree with the points you're making.

My point in all of this is, how do you measure the success of a recruiter over his career?

What I am getting is emotional arguments rather than facts. From 1990 through to 2008, Clayton was there, we never won a premiership but played in Finals in 2000, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010. (2009, 2010 players were mostly Clayton picks).

Was it his fault we didn't win the premiership - of course not as there are many other factors. Are finals a measure of success? Do we look at individual players and assess the overall list to measure success in recruiting?

I am not saying Clayton was a great recruiter, but he wasn't any worse than Dal.

[comrade]

Cooney Grff and Higgins probably have. Hell just Cooney and Griffin would likely have them covered

He *!*!*!*!ed plenty up but I don't see why it's his fault Cooney was traded after injuries hampered him as a brownlow medalist, or that Griff went a bit mental and/or found the club to be a bad place to be or that Higgins wanted out (and pick 26 was not exactly rubbish compensation, it's what we paid for Essendon's leading goalkicker)

It's kind of funny but I'm actually on the same side of this issue as you yet I don't agree with the points you're making.

So I'm assuming that because you're focussing on them, you agree that Cooney, Griffen and maybe Higgins were his only real hits in the first round from 2000-2008. If so, then that just proves he was ****ing terrible.

And even that comes with a few caveats:

Cooney was the standout pick 1 in the worst draft ever, so not even Clayton could stuff it up. Griffen was great for us for a long time, a strong performer in finals etc, but the way he finished up taints the legacy...and the fact he was picked 1 spot before one of the greatest players of the last 20-30 years. Higgins was ok I guess, but he was pick 11 so ok is kind of the bare minimum and yet, we only got pick 26 back in return for him at the peak of his career.

Clayton sucked and isn't fit to clean Dal's shoes.