First Draftee to Debut?

[bornadog]

First rounders always get more leniency and are given more games to prove they can't play, rather than proving they can.

A couple of misses are ok, but apart from Cooney, Griffen & probably Higgins (and these 3 were all flawed), he busted on every single pick and has continued to make a mess at the Gold Coast.

I don't want to go over same old ground as I don't know what your yard stick is whether a player is boom or bust. eg Farren Ray played over 200 games of AFL football - he is no dud. Jordan McMahon (148 games). Just because we don't like these players, doesn't mean they are no good.

[comrade]

I don't want to go over same old ground as I don't know what your yard stick is whether a player is boom or bust. eg Farren Ray played over 200 games of AFL football - he is no dud. Jordan McMahon (148 games). Just because we don't like these players, doesn't mean they are no good.

I am happy to go on the record and say that Farren Ray is one of the worst 200 gamers of all time. That being said 2003 was probably the worst draft of all time.

The best thing McMahon ever did for us was net us the pick we used on Ward.

[bornadog]

I am happy to go on the record and say that Farren Ray is one of the worst 200 gamers of all time. That being said 2003 was probably the worst draft of all time.

The best thing McMahon ever did for us was net us the pick we used on Ward.

The is fine, and that is your opinion. But what is your criteria whether a player made it or not?

Personally, I think if a recruiter can pick a player who can get over 50 games, they have done well. On a first rounder, at least 100 games, unless there are other issues, like cruel injuries destroying their career.

[bulldogtragic]

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

[comrade]

The is fine, and that is your opinion. But what is your criteria whether a player made it or not?

Personally, I think if a recruiter can pick a player who can get over 50 games, they have done well. On a first rounder, at least 100 games, unless there are other issues, like cruel injuries destroying their career.

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.

[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.

Well based on your criteria (except the definition of Quality), and taking out Williams and Walsh.

x	1	Cooney	Brownlow
x	4	Ray	200 plus games
x	3	Gryphone	200 plus games, Captain, best finals player for his time
o	6	Williams	85 games - Injuries killed his career
x	10	McMahon	148 games, BOG 2006 Elimination final
x	11	Higgins	170 Games
	10	Power	123 games
o	4	Walsh	Fail
	5	Grant	94 Games - didn't live up to expectations
x	11	Everitt	131 Games
	14	Ayce	27 games, Not up to expectations.
6 of 9

My point is you can't just blame the recruiter, other factors come into it.

[comrade]

Well based on your criteria (except the definition of Quality), and taking out Williams and Walsh.

x	1	Cooney	Brownlow
x	4	Ray	200 plus games
x	3	Gryphone	200 plus games, Captain, best finals player for his time
o	6	Williams	85 games - Injuries killed his career
x	10	McMahon	148 games, BOG 2006 Elimination final
x	11	Higgins	170 Games
	10	Power	123 games
o	4	Walsh	Fail
	5	Grant	94 Games - didn't live up to expectations
x	11	Everitt	131 Games
	14	Ayce	27 games, Not up to expectations.
6 of 9

My point is you can't just blame the recruiter, other factors come into it.

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.

[comrade]

Everitt played less than 100 with us, Ray played less than 100 with us, Power played less than 100 with us.

All netted crappy picks in return also.

[bulldogtragic]

Over 9 years, development can't be the predominant answer, or only answer. These are the next 2 or 3 picked which Clayton overlooked:

2000: Sporn, Shaun Burgoyne, Ash McGrath
2001: Cole, Reilly, Del Santo
2002: Jarrad McVeigh, Salopek, Mackie
2003: Clayton nailed Cooney & Ray as the right choices
2004: Buddy, Jordan Lewis
2005: Nathan Jones (Melb), Shannon Hurn
2006: James Frawley, Jack Riewoldt
2007: Mitch Brown (Geel), Schoenmakers
2008: Myers, Palmer, Henderson, McEvoy, Dangerfield, Vez, Rioli

Clayton overlooked some outstanding players within just a 2-3 spots. I know no one has ever made a mistake in hindsight, but history says he stuffed up our first rounders except for 2003. There's plenty of 200 & 300 game players available at our pick. Perhaps he just wasn't as good as he and others told us he was.

[bornadog]

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.

No we are talking about a recruiter picking out a player amongst thousands around the country. If they leave the club, it is not the recruiters fault.

How do you work out quality games over a career? - personal opinions?

Everitt played less than 100 with us, Ray played less than 100 with us, Power played less than 100 with us.

All netted crappy picks in return also.

Crappy picks returned - list management issue. We didn't have a proper list manager in those years, besides has nothing to do with recruiting.

[bornadog]

Over 9 years, development can't be the predominant answer, or only answer. These are the next 2 or 3 picked which Clayton overlooked:

2000: Sporn, Shaun Burgoyne, Ash McGrath
2001: Cole, Reilly, Del Santo
2002: Jarrad McVeigh, Salopek, Mackie
2003: Clayton nailed Cooney & Ray as the right choices
2004: Buddy, Jordan Lewis
2005: Nathan Jones (Melb), Shannon Hurn
2006: James Frawley, Jack Riewoldt
2007: Mitch Brown (Geel), Schoenmakers
2008: Myers, Palmer, Henderson, McEvoy, Dangerfield, Vez, Rioli

Clayton overlooked some outstanding players within just a 2-3 spots. I know no one has ever made a mistake in hindsight, but history says he stuffed up our first rounders except for 2003. There's plenty of 200 & 300 game players available at our pick. Perhaps he just wasn't as good as he and others told us he was.

BT, all good in hindsight, I would say every recruiter in the country misses. You just don't know when you are picking 18 year old kids. I can't buy into your list.

[comrade]

No we are talking about a recruiter picking out a player amongst thousands around the country. If they leave the club, it is not the recruiters fault.

How do you work out quality games over a career? - personal opinions?



Crappy picks returned - list management issue. We didn't have a proper list manager in those years.

The world's best negotiator couldn't have scored decent picks for those players.

[comrade]

Martin Flanagan presented Timmy's jumper:

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/vi...sey-to-english

[bornadog]

The world's best negotiator couldn't have scored decent picks for those players.

Nothing to do with recruitment

[bornadog]

Martin Flanagan presented Timmy's jumper:

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/vi...sey-to-english

Love the way Martin presents the jumper.