Emma Quayle - Are The Bulldogs Mad?

[chef]

ARE THE BULLDOGS MAD? The Bulldogs have been the talk of the town in the past few days. A lot of clubs are incredulous that they a) drafted Christian Howard in the first round, and b) added Jason Tutt and Shane Thorne, players widely seen as rookie propositions. I must admit that when they called Howard’s name, I wondered if recruiters Simon Dalrymple and Adrian Caruso had stopped off for a few drinks on their way to the draft. It seemed way too early. That said, there was a chance one club (Adelaide) may have snapped him up at No. 29, just before the Bulldogs’ second choice at No. 31. Howard would probably have gotten to 31, given the way the draft ultimately panned out, but hindsight is wonderful and there was a slight risk he wouldn’t.


Taking that into account, it seems strange to criticise someone for choosing the next player on their list. What Howard is worth to the Bulldogs means a lot, lot more than where the clubs that didn’t pick him ranked him, after all. The Bulldogs clearly knew what they were after (penetrating, accurate kicks — outside-deliverers) and bear in mind that they have two insidemidfi elders (Mitch Wallis and Tom Liberatore) headed their way as fatherson selections next year. Time will tell whether they were right and others wrong, but their approach was bold.

[comrade]

I must admit that when they called Howard’s name, I wondered if recruiters Simon Dalrymple and Adrian Caruso had stopped off for a few drinks on their way to the draft.

Dear Emma,
You are an intelligent journalist, and your articles on draftees are top notch. But at the end of the day you are just a journalist, not a recruiting manager.

Yes, you have a better grasp of the machinations of the talent pathway than most in the media, but you are not paid to professionally spot talent. You rely on the pros to feed you information (whether it’s true or false is another question) and though you probably watch more junior footy than the majority of your peers, recruiting teams at AFL clubs watch much, much more.

So, when you suggest that the Bulldogs recruiters had to be under the influence to have made their picks (however glib you were trying to be) it is disrespectful to Dalrymple and Caruso. Our picks were unconventional, but respect the fact that these two guys have slogged their way to far flung reaches to watch hundreds of kids all year and are in a far better position to judge which players represent the best value for our club at this point in time.

Regards,
comrade

[ledge]

I do find it good she mentioned the father/son picks as i have heard SEN ramble on about why we didnt pick talls and how puzzled they were, didnt look at who we had picked in the last drafts eg Roughead, Cordy, Grant, etc.

It isnt hard to look at why we picked players we might be lacking in the future, i really think Eade is a very clever coach in looking further forward than just one or 2 years as well as whats needed right now with choosing older players too.

I truely believe we wont be a club that bottoms out in the next few years.

[Go_Dogs]

Dear Emma,
You are an intelligent journalist, and your articles on draftees are top notch. But at the end of the day you are just a journalist, not a recruiting manager.

Exactly.

As surprised as many of us (myself included) were when the names were called, we have to back their judgement. They have seen countless hours of football and probably been thinking of nothing else bar the draft and approaches to list management with the new sides coming in, since the 2008 ND.

I'm very excited by our approach this year, and think we've again really set a trend for how clubs will approach the draft in future years. The proof will be in the pudding, but I think we've done well.

[LostDoggy]

I think Emma was echoing the sentiments of all of us in the room who let out a collective WTF. Let me tell you there were a few bulldog people in the room who were as bemused as Emma was??????

She did, however, go on to say that the bulldogs know better than anyone the worth of the player they picked up and nobody can critise them for picking up the next best available on their list.

[Raw Toast]

I think Emma was echoing the sentiments of all of us in the room who let out a collective WTF. Let me tell you there were a few bulldog people in the room who were as bemused as Emma was??????

She did, however, go on to say that the bulldogs know better than anyone the worth of the player they picked up and nobody can critise them for picking up the next best available on their list.

Agreed. She might be 'just' a journalist, but she's the best one on the draft. spends heaps of time watching the kids, and reacted like many of us.

Most of us are now currently happy with the pick (as much as we can be not having seen Howard play), and Quayle also defends the selection as well.

[chef]

Agreed. She might be 'just' a journalist, but she's the best one on the draft. spends heaps of time watching the kids, and reacted like many of us.

Most of us are now currently happy with the pick (as much as we can be not having seen Howard play), and Quayle also defends the selection as well.

Do you think see got to see Howard play at Glenelg under 18's?

I don't like her criticism of our first pick when she probably never saw the kid play(i could be wrong).

[Cyberdoggie]

If our recruiters had gone on another witch hunt for that miracle tall forward prophecy again this year, i would of been dissapointed.

It's clear that our list needs some more running skillfull ball users, as the players we have that fill this role are ageing and there isn't much backup available.

Take a look at our best players at Willy last year:
Guy O'Keefe: slow mid, avg disposal,
Sam Reid: good hard inside mid, poor/avg disposal by foot
Easton Wood: good marking hbf or mid. Not overly quick with avg disposal
Wayde Skipper: slow ruckman...
Brennan Stack: predominantly hff, not overly quick with avg disposal, low possesions
Dylan Addison: hbf, mid paced, poor disposal, doesn't find the pill
Stephen Tiller: defender/forward, avg disposal, also low stat count.


As you can see there isn't much run and carry amongst the above.
We have added 3 runners with good skills, and a defender/forward.
We may add to that with the rookies, and next year we will add a couple of inside mids,
so i think that is pretty smart recruiting. Whether they turn out to be good enough is another question.

[Swoop]

I think some are being a bit harsh on Emma, she is just reporting on what the initial reaction was, and that feeling would have been shared by many bulldogs supporters as well. She then does go on to defend the decision and explain why it isn't as irrational as the common person would have thought. What you need to understand is, she is providing a draft summary of what happened on the night and the fact that the bulldogs went for non-conventional picks is worthy of mentioning in her article.

[KT31]

I think some are being a bit harsh on Emma, she is just reporting on what the initial reaction was, and that feeling would have been shared by many bulldogs supporters as well. She then does go on to defend the decision and explain why it isn't as irrational as the common person would have thought. What you need to understand is, she is providing a draft summary of what happened on the night and the fact that the bulldogs went for non-conventional picks is worthy of mentioning in her article.

I agree.
I think she meant it as a bit of light humor to draw attention to the article and not with any disrespect.

[LongWait]

I think she was balanced in her approach and in doing so nodded to the many who think our recruiting was crazy (I'm not one of them!)

[azabob]

Do you think see got to see Howard play at Glenelg under 18's?

I don't like her criticism of our first pick when she probably never saw the kid play(i could be wrong).

I dont think she criticised Howard at all.

[GVGjr]

I didn't take offence with the comment at all in fact if anything it's a badge of honor. We didn't follow the status quo and go for the safer options and I think we will swing that perception around quickly enough.

[Rocco Jones]

I didn't take offence with the comment at all in fact if anything it's a badge of honor. We didn't follow the status quo and go for the safer options and I think we will swing that perception around quickly enough.

Exactly how I read it.

I love your work comrade but I think you're being a tad defensive here. Her initial reaction to us drafting Howard was pretty much identical to mine. She does go on to defend the selection and praise us for taking the 'risk'.

As I have already posted, I don't see the Howard selection as 'risky', if anything I find it overly conservative. Instead of going with an athlete or tall with increased upside, we went for a player with foot skills and pace, two assets that will go along way in securing a career in the modern game.

The only risk I really see is incurring the wrath of faux draft experts who read far too much into mock draft write ups.

[chef]

I dont think she criticised Howard at all.

I just thought it weird that she questions us taking him with our first pick when she has probably never seen him play. I don't think she is criticising Howard.

[boydogs]

Dear Emma,
You are an intelligent journalist, and your articles on draftees are top notch. But at the end of the day you are just a journalist, not a recruiting manager.

Yes, you have a better grasp of the machinations of the talent pathway than most in the media, but you are not paid to professionally spot talent. You rely on the pros to feed you information (whether it’s true or false is another question) and though you probably watch more junior footy than the majority of your peers, recruiting teams at AFL clubs watch much, much more.

So, when you suggest that the Bulldogs recruiters had to be under the influence to have made their picks (however glib you were trying to be) it is disrespectful to Dalrymple and Caruso. Our picks were unconventional, but respect the fact that these two guys have slogged their way to far flung reaches to watch hundreds of kids all year and are in a far better position to judge which players represent the best value for our club at this point in time.

Regards,
comrade

I think Emma has expressed herself poorly here. Elsewhere she has referred to our drafting as a 'Moneyball' approach, meaning a revolutionary improvement to the way the AFL evaluates potential draftees.

Our first two selections are zone busters, and the value we have placed in getting them suggests a brave new approach has been used by our recruiters in valuing run & carry and kicking skills above other more traditionally prized attributes.

We also appear to have selected players that have improved late. We have valued a demonstrated ability to improve above consistent high performance, as this suggests that the player has yet more improvement ahead of them.

We have also selected ready mades, but not recycled players, with our late picks. These players do not require the development investment and can perform now for us in our premiership window, they are still only 22/23 meaning a long career ahead and they are desperate for an opportunity, as opposed to other draftees who have not had to fight for their spot or recycled's who had their shot and didn't make it. You also know what you are getting which takes the gamble away to some extent that exists with the 17/18 year olds.

Revolutionary thinking on many fronts. Emma has acknowledged this, but her comments on her initial reaction say more about her than our recruiters.

[comrade]

Exactly how I read it.

I love your work comrade but I think you're being a tad defensive here. Her initial reaction to us drafting Howard was pretty much identical to mine. She does go on to defend the selection and praise us for taking the 'risk'.

As I have already posted, I don't see the Howard selection as 'risky', if anything I find it overly conservative. Instead of going with an athlete or tall with increased upside, we went for a player with foot skills and pace, two assets that will go along way in securing a career in the modern game.

The only risk I really see is incurring the wrath of faux draft experts who read far too much into mock draft write ups.

In retrospect, I was probably a little harsh on Quayle. :o

My outburst should've been directed at the mock draft wielding faux experts but copped the wrath.

[Remi Moses]

Exactly how I read it.

I love your work comrade but I think you're being a tad defensive here. Her initial reaction to us drafting Howard was pretty much identical to mine. She does go on to defend the selection and praise us for taking the 'risk'.

As I have already posted, I don't see the Howard selection as 'risky', if anything I find it overly conservative. Instead of going with an athlete or tall with increased upside, we went for a player with foot skills and pace, two assets that will go along way in securing a career in the modern game.

The only risk I really see is incurring the wrath of faux draft experts who read far too much into mock draft write ups.

We have a winner . Gotta admit I've read to much of those mock drafts in past years. No athletes or beep test winners just footballers who can kick thankfully.

[FrediKanoute]

Its still a gamble though (though all drafting is). Our approach this year has certainly been unorthodox and bucks the trend which has been youth, athlete's and tall players where possible. To draft a guy who didn't even make it to draft camp with our first pick is a different approach and presents somewhat more of a risk. What would be interesting to know is what upside they see in Howard that places him ahead of guys which draft watchers and experts touted as top 20 picks.

As for Emma's article its balanced. Lets hope though we don't look back on the 2009 draft as one where we let a gem slide and picked up a dud. the jury wont be back on that question until 2011 me thinks.

[The Doctor]

Now that the dust has settled I thought I might offer my 5 cents worth.

I have to say I remain sceptical about whether our strategy at the draft table was the right one and doubtful that the players we chose were the right ones at the time of their selections.

With due respect to the youngsters we chose I think we got it wrong. That doesn't mean they are not good players or that they won't prove their worth. I hope they do. My issue is with the recruiting team and their actions. In my view their inexperience on draft day was exposed and their thinking was flawed.

Firstly, how is it possible that our first choice can be ranked the 13th best player in the draft by our recruiting team. Consider this, the player,

* was not selected in the SA under 18 representative team during the year
* was not selected among the best 30 players for an AIS academy placing
* Was not invited to the draft camp or incredibly the state screening
* was not on Kevin Sheehan's top 30 list or those of other notable draft experts
* to my knowledge did not play and prove himself at senior footy level.

Quite a few players did some of the above. If you add to that the number of outstanding players who represented WA, Vic Metro, Vic Country, there is a fair stockpile of players who are better performed at the elite junior level and thus more qualified for a first round pick. So how can our recruiters say categorically he was the next best available?

Secondly, I think the inexperienced Dalrymple might have been spooked into the pick. This was his first draft and I'm sure he was keen to make an impression. I know recruiters become infatuated, even obsessed with certain players. There may be a part to their game they find irresistable, it seems in this case elite kicking. Any other short comings can often be dismissed. I feel this may have been the case.

The newspaper article on the eve of the draft and a bit of speculation may have propelled Dalrymple into making the call early where as a wiser head may have prevailed. There is lots of innuendo at draft time and lots of speculation. Thats the industry. Almost every player is juggled by the opposition recruiting teams and all kinds of rhetoric and mind games swirl around and this can lead to a ground swell of opinion (a few weeks ago people were saying Majak Daw should be taken early). Holding your nerve must be difficult.

In the end I believe Dalrymple went for what he believed to be the next best kick and not the next best player. He may very well come out and say he was the next best player but I cannot see how this is possible. I have similar sentiments for our 2nd round pick as well.

Has our strategy at this draft brought us closer to a premiership? I'm not convinced. In recent years under Clayton we have failed to deliver with our first round picks for one reason or another. I think too often we have placed too much emphasis on potential and what might be. We have often selected players who might one day be good players rather than players who actually are good players. I don't believe early picks should be used this way. We should be going for the next best sure thing, in other words a player more proven. Some may argue there is a higher reward with the higher risk. I would argue back that the safer option is the better way to go when you factor in the next few drafts will be severly compromised let alone acknowledging the fact if one or two of our recent first round failures had of worked we may be a premiership team right now.

I, like all of you, wish our new boys the very best of luck and hope they have long and prosperous careers with us. I can't help but think we could have still recruited one, if not both, of these boys along with another gun or two taken ahead of them. Now that would have created an interesting discussion.

[GVGjr]

I remember a few years back when a rebounding defender with good skills and the ability to play on taller and smaller players missed the national draft because not enough teams wanted him there. A couple of weeks later he had a great state screening and had a few teams thinking they could snare a legitimate smokey.

Despite our serious interest in him we took Tim Walsh at pick 4 that year overlooking Andrew Mackie because we were confident we could get him a several picks later.

When interviewed a beaming Mark Thompson stated that a lot of teams knew about him and were interested in him but we just wanted him more than they did. I get the impression that most of the teams knew about Howard but much like the Cats with Mackie we just wanted him more.

Perhaps we could have been more pro-active in selling the surprise selection of Christian Howard as a stroke of genius much like Thompson did with Mackie which would have had the journos lapping it up instead of questioning it.

Either way, I'm comfortable enough with people thinking we are a bit mad.

[Rocco Jones]

Great post Doc, you have opened up some great avenues for discussion there.

I definitely agree with your theory of going with for the best sure thing with early picks. A massive point for me with Howard is whether he would be still available at 31 which is very hard to know. The other sides are unlikely to admit to it because it virtually means they are saying they rate him higher than the kid they got. Obviously if he would have been available at 31 it would no longer be about Howard vs JMP but Tutt vs JMP.

[GVGjr]

Doc, great post.

I wonder if the whole Dalrymple kicking theory was the primary reason for the selection of Howard and Tutt? I have heard it mentioned a few times by Dalrymple and the club and it smacks of focusing on drafting to the theory more than looking for the the best player.

[The Coon Dog]

Agree with Rocco & GVG, great post Doc.

Whilst I'm not sure you're right, I'm not sure you're wrong either. I guess, like the draft picks, we'll find out over time.

I know some time ago Rocket felt the depth in this draft was awful & it appears beyond the 12 we had identified, there wasn't anyone who stood out to the recruiters. I guess they identified who they wanted & ensured they got him.

Who do you think they could have snared in lieu?

I know they didn't rate Black & when comparing JMP with Howard, they felt Howard had him covered.

[GVGjr]

Who do you think they could have snared in lieu?

I know they didn't rate Black & when comparing JMP with Howard, they felt Howard had him covered.

FWIW, I would have been very interested in Menzel and after that Black.
Menzel and Howard are similar types and the reason for the interest in Black is that I'm not yet convinced that Grant or Cordy can be genuine KP forwards for us.
Carlisle had some appeal as well.

[boydogs]

Firstly, how is it possible that our first choice can be ranked the 13th best player in the draft by our recruiting team. Consider this, the player,

* was not selected in the SA under 18 representative team during the year
* was not selected among the best 30 players for an AIS academy placing
* Was not invited to the draft camp or incredibly the state screening
* was not on Kevin Sheehan's top 30 list or those of other notable draft experts
* to my knowledge did not play and prove himself at senior footy level.

Quite a few players did some of the above. If you add to that the number of outstanding players who represented WA, Vic Metro, Vic Country, there is a fair stockpile of players who are better performed at the elite junior level and thus more qualified for a first round pick. So how can our recruiters say categorically he was the next best available?.

His second half of the year was when he started to put it all together. The championships were all over by the start of July. Regarding the state screening, may there have been an element of us trying to keep him under the radar?

Can you point to anything about Howard himself that suggests to you he was not a good value selection?


Secondly, I think the inexperienced Dalrymple might have been spooked into the pick. This was his first draft and I'm sure he was keen to make an impression. I know recruiters become infatuated, even obsessed with certain players. There may be a part to their game they find irresistable, it seems in this case elite kicking. Any other short comings can often be dismissed. I feel this may have been the case.

Howard was number 13 on the list, that to me is far from an infatuation. If Sydney had taken Black or JMP at 14 we would have taken Jetta not Howard


The newspaper article on the eve of the draft and a bit of speculation may have propelled Dalrymple into making the call early where as a wiser head may have prevailed. There is lots of innuendo at draft time and lots of speculation. Thats the industry. Almost every player is juggled by the opposition recruiting teams and all kinds of rhetoric and mind games swirl around and this can lead to a ground swell of opinion (a few weeks ago people were saying Majak Daw should be taken early). Holding your nerve must be difficult.

Yeah there was the article, but the hype around Howard would have been less than any other first rounder taken, not sure this applies


In the end I believe Dalrymple went for what he believed to be the next best kick and not the next best player. He may very well come out and say he was the next best player but I cannot see how this is possible.

What's wrong with Howard? You seem to be caught up in the championships, screenings, expert ratings etc. He is 6'-6'1", quick and an elite kick. Sounds better than even Gilbee already, who can be half-paced and can struggle a little for height and strength as well as a pure defender

I'm excited that despite all the media attention the draftees attracted this year we have still been able to find an under the radar player that could become the league's best rebounding defender at our late first round pick. The fact that he might have lasted to 31, though TCD will tell you otherwise, is a credit to our covert approach, rather than a slight on us for being too speculative with our first rounder

[macca]

Give these guys young yuys 3 years, and see how where they are placed. There must be some left field, out of the box calls, and I believe Dalryumple and Caruso have shown some ticker and backed their judgement, hey thats what they are paid to do. Footballers first it seems they choose. Markovic and Thorne are hungry, and will do all they can to have a crack at the big time They have done the hard ticker, and have not been served this opportunity at 18. When you put in context of our young recruits, over the last 2 years, who really has been outstanding ? Harbrow and picken has been a revelation, Ward good, and Hill in and out of moments, and Everitt struggling to fulfill his talents. Thats not many afl games from a list of 8 recruits and 5+ rookies .

[mjp]

Sounds better than even Gilbee already, who can be half-paced and can struggle a little for height and strength as well as a pure defender.


C'mon gogriff - hold it right there. Better than Gilbee? He hasn't played a game yet.

All of my posts are coming off as critical of Howard - they aren't meant too. Like Doc I am fascinated how he didn't make the SA u18's side - which was a very average group by there own admission. I have been asked to compare his 'rise to prominence' with Cal Wards a couple of years back...think back though guys, Ward was in the starting 18 for Vic Metro in their first game at the championships and assigned kick-in duties. He took 16 marks playing on a half-back flank against the Geelong Falcons at Skilled Stadium. This is not the same thing.

I was told by a wise man that when assessing talent, if they have a track record, project forward - if not, look back. Which means look ahead and gauge where they are going if they have 'proved it' - look back to see their history if not. What I see with Howard is a player who has come from the clouds in the 2nd half of the u18 season (and rose to prominence when the best 25 were on state duties)...I look back and see a 12 possession per game average.

Now, we didn't rate Black and that is fair enough and everyone knows I am biased towards him...but he has had a similar rise and when I look back I see him kicking 10 goals in the country championships grand final in 2008. I said many times we needed to focus on mids/half-backs with our first selection this year so this point is only for the sake of comparison.

All that said, I am happy if we identified him as our target and made sure we got him - no issues with the recruiters backing themselves in. But if we are going to be silly defending the pick by saying he is better than Gilbee then surely we need to reassess...

[LostDoggy]

I remember a few years back when a rebounding defender with good skills and the ability to play on taller and smaller players missed the national draft because not enough teams wanted him there. A couple of weeks later he had a great state screening and had a few teams thinking they could snare a legitimate smokey.

Despite our serious interest in him we took Tim Walsh at pick 4 that year overlooking Andrew Mackie because we were confident we could get him a several picks later.

When interviewed a beaming Mark Thompson stated that a lot of teams knew about him and were interested in him but we just wanted him more than they did. I get the impression that most of the teams knew about Howard but much like the Cats with Mackie we just wanted him more.

Perhaps we could have been more pro-active in selling the surprise selection of Christian Howard as a stroke of genius much like Thompson did with Mackie which would have had the journos lapping it up instead of questioning it.

Either way, I'm comfortable enough with people thinking we are a bit mad.

I think we will turn it around now that he has arrived at the club and done a training session. Hard to know if we could have sold it better to the media but given so many of them pride themselves on their insider knowledge we might have caught them off guard given so little was known about him.

[LostDoggy]

Surely its too early to tell if we were 'mad' or not. I agree its ok to questions but nothing i've heard from the club suggest they made a mistake yet.
As for mention of the 'best available' theory, I think its wasn't used in this draft. To me its obvious we went for a best suit and not best available. For years we have been critical we haven't recruited on a needs basis and now we do, we cop it the other way.

[Sedat]

Fantastic thread with some great discussion.

Just coming from a slightly different perspective, isn't there some level of risk in every single playing list decision? We are all very aware of the risks associated with players that are traded to the club because they have an AFL history we can all revert to. Relevant to drafted players, it ultimately doesn't matter what number any player is drafted at - they are all a risk that involves (once you add coaches time and resource allocation to that player over and above their actual contract) an up-front investment of at least 400k in the first two seasons alone before there is any major return on the initial investment (honorable exceptions to the likes of Joel Selwood who made an immediate impact when drafted). It ultimately doesn't matter if the player was drafted at pick 70 or pick 7, if they do not become medium-to-long-term senior players of value, they ultimately represent a poor investment.

Using that logic, if the recruiting staff identified specific players that possess the necessary skills-set that they believe will become senior players of longevity, with medium-to-long-term value for the club, I personally don't care what number they are drafted at. The theory behind the talent identification process, as alluded to by Doc and mjp, is a different topic altogether and one worthy of a separate thread. But the actual draft number a player is picked at is really of no consequence once they get to the club. Opportunity costs are a little over-rated and over-analysed when you consider how many quality AFL footballers are running around today that were rookie listed or taken late in the draft - the likes of Harbrow, Boyd and Morris were overlooked by every single club (including ours) multiple times over before making their way onto the list. Are they lesser individuals that the likes of Cooney and Griffen, purely because of their draft position?

[Twodogs]

To be fair to Emma the headline would have been written by a sub-editor wouldnt it? Fair enough we can ascribe the ''drinking" quote to her text but she then goes on to discuss the (fairly good) reasons for her scepticism.

[LongWait]

Pick 15 in a shallow draft placed our recruiters in a difficult spot in my opinion. Had they had a pick in the first ten or so, Howard would not have been considered by us in the first round.

According to Eade, the club had a clear view on who made up the top dozen and, after those twelve, the prominent/well known candidates all have significant flaws or are not good fits for us.

We had a couple of kids in mind whose skills sets perfectly fit the clubs future needs (seriously good kicks, abundant pace with good endurance, great decision-makers) who also importantly have the personal qualities and character the club values (and they pass the ‘no d*ckheads’ rule). Most others do not rate these kids as highly as us, however there were at least two clubs who would take a similar view to us and rate them fairly highly (Adelaide and West Coast in the case of Howard.)

The conservative course of action is to use pick 15 to take one of the prospects rated by most clubs, the media and the armchair expert Phantom Draft devotees as a reasonable prospect. We could have played safe, even though the club has significant doubts about the suitability, character, physical or playing deficiencies or whatever of these well known prospects. In taking this ‘conservative’ approach we would have jeopardised the prospect of getting either of the lesser known kids we really wanted: another club may have swooped on either or both before our next selection (West Coast at 22 and Adelaide at 29.)

Imagine us wanting Howard and Tutt and getting neither because we didn’t have the balls to buck the conventional wisdom of whom we should have picked at 15 and 31. We could easily have ended up with Panos by following the herd mentality, as he certainly was rated by many “experts” as a possible first or second round selection. If we had chosen Panos at 31, or even at 15, would the experts have bagged us? Hardly. Would the other clubs have admitted they wouldn’t have selected Panos at all, with any of their picks? No. We would have over-payed dramatically for a high profile prospective draftee and no-ne would be any the wiser.

It is easy but I believe wrong to say our staff were conned, that their inexperience showed, that our new recruiters wanted to make a mark and a name for themselves etc. We did not follow the usual script. We said damn the torpedoes and acted with the courage of our convictions. Perhaps we’ve started the AFL version of Moneyball. Bloody good stuff I say!

[comrade]

Nice, Long Wait.

[LostDoggy]

Nice, Long Wait.

Ditto

[The Underdog]

It is easy but I believe wrong to say our staff were conned, that their inexperience showed, that our new recruiters wanted to make a mark and a name for themselves etc. We did not follow the usual script. We said damn the torpedoes and acted with the courage of our convictions. Perhaps we’ve started the AFL version of Moneyball. Bloody good stuff I say!

While I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, can I point out that Moneyball teams haven't won jack and most of them have floundered in recent times. the A's have been terrible and the majority of their personnel moves have backfired recently. J.P Ricciardi a disciple of Billy Beane was recently fired as GM of the Blue Jays. Theo Epstein of the Red Sox came from a Moneyball background but has been the head of a team with one of the highest payroll's in the majors. In the end resources in scouting and development and finance plus talent are more likely to win out.
It's fine to think and act differently and to have the courage of your convictions but the proof will be in the pudding. Smartest guy in the room picks are fine if they work but he won't be employed for long if they don't.

[LongWait]

While I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, can I point out that Moneyball teams haven't won jack and most of them have floundered in recent times. the A's have been terrible and the majority of their personnel moves have backfired recently. J.P Ricciardi a disciple of Billy Beane was recently fired as GM of the Blue Jays. Theo Epstein of the Red Sox came from a Moneyball background but has been the head of a team with one of the highest payroll's in the majors. In the end resources in scouting and development and finance plus talent are more likely to win out.
It's fine to think and act differently and to have the courage of your convictions but the proof will be in the pudding. Smartest guy in the room picks are fine if they work but he won't be employed for long if they don't.

Moneyball teams probably would be much worse performers than they are had they adopted conventional approaches - they generally don't have the resources to compete with the baseball equivalents of Collingwood and West Coast.

My post was not really about Moneyball anyway - a more important point was avoiding group-think and conservatism for fear of being criticised.

[boydogs]

C'mon gogriff - hold it right there. Better than Gilbee? He hasn't played a game yet.

Yet you are already judging our selection as a mistake. Of course he is not better than Gilbee today, but from the description of the type of player he is it sounds like he could be. For our recruiters to rate him above Black and others, you would have to think they are hoping for a similar quality of player as Gilbee


Like Doc I am fascinated how he didn't make the SA u18's side


Firstly, how is it possible that our first choice can be ranked the 13th best player in the draft by our recruiting team. Consider this, the player,

* was not selected in the SA under 18 representative team during the year
* was not selected among the best 30 players for an AIS academy placing
* Was not invited to the draft camp or incredibly the state screening
* was not on Kevin Sheehan's top 30 list or those of other notable draft experts
* to my knowledge did not play and prove himself at senior footy level.


What I see with Howard is a player who has come from the clouds in the 2nd half of the u18 season (and rose to prominence when the best 25 were on state duties)...

Not sure The Doctor actually questioned the SA selectors, but your point re. the timing of Howard's improvement seems to provide an explanation. This is from the horse's mouth:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26402362-5016212,00.html


"Christian's virtually come from nowhere," said SA under-18 coach Brenton Phillips, who did not pick him in his State squad.

"He was getting 10-to-12 touches a game at under-18 level early in the year but by the end of the season he was winning the ball 20-to-22 times and using it well. He has turned into a dashing left-footer who is such an elite kick that he virtually nails them every time."

It also wasn't just the period the championships were running when he showed his wares:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26402362-5016212,00.html


Howard, who joined Glenelg's junior program at 11 from Sacred Heart College, said he has no doubt his brilliant under-18 finals series has helped his draft standing. "If you play well in big games it certainly helps" he said.


All that said, I am happy if we identified him as our target and made sure we got him - no issues with the recruiters backing themselves in. But if we are going to be silly defending the pick by saying he is better than Gilbee then surely we need to reassess...

It honestly wasn't a Howard now v Gilbee now comparison I was trying to make. When you hear things like the below though, that is what I am hoping for when he has a chance to further develop and reach his potential

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26402362-5016212,00.html


Described as being a mix of Hawthorn's Luke Hodge (kicking skills), Geelong's Andrew Mackie (the way he patrols half-back) and Adelaide's Brad Symes (physique and running ability), Howard's star has risen so quickly he is being considered as high as a second-round pick.

Brought through Glenelg's junior grades as a midfielder but used this season as an attacking half-back flanker, the 187cm Howard was the Tigers' designated under-18 kicker. His kicking was so strong it drew comparisons to Norm Smith Medallist Hodge.

"He's got that depth and accuracy with his kicking, which is so important in footy these days," Glenelg football manager Ken Applegarth said. "And he's got that uncanny ability to read the play and find the footy. It's amazing how quickly he's developed this year and he works so hard on his game that it's no surprise to see AFL clubs chasing him. He really does tick all the boxes."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87451/default.aspx


Howard has shot up in recent times and now looks certain to be drafted. His foot skills are regarded among the best in the draft. He was Glenelg's designated kicker during its 2009 under-18 premiership season. A dashing half-back with good endurance, Howard simply got better as the year went on.

http://city-messenger.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/draft-preview-glenelg/


The surprise packet from the Bay looks like being midfielder Christian Howard, who plays a swooping role off half back similar to Hawthorn’s Luke Hodge.

According to Phillips, Howard has ``come from nowhere’’ to be one of the draft’s leading prospects.

``I reckon he’ll maybe go in the first round,’’ Phillips said.

``He’s come from nowhere, a left-footer who kicks the ball beautifully.

``He was getting his 10 touches a game at under-18 level early in the year but by the end of the season his stats were up to 20 possessions a game and he was using it.’’

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dogs-find-a-home-for-the-bolter-20091126-jux6.html


''He's been on our radar for a while,'' recruiter Simon Dalrymple said. ''We really targeted him. We rate him as a very good kick, a penetrating left-footer who can kick goals from 55, kicks with a firm foot and gets the ball from A to B very quickly. We're rapt to have him.''


OK guys, this is from someone who seriously would know.
Christian Howard getting drafted is simply fantastic because in our opinion he has always been a talented footballer, but this year really transformed himself into a really accomplished player. He is a great athlete and has a terrific motor and can run around 10.00mins flat for a 3 km time trial which shows his running ability. He was easily the best kick in the Under 18 competition and I have publicly stated that he is the best kick at the Glenelg Football Club in all grades as he hits targets from 50m and beyond.

Whilst always having a great weapon with his kicking prowess, Howie really worked hard on both his defensive and offensive actions this year and he became such a strong rebounding player in the last half of the year, that Port Adelaide tried to tag him in the Under 18 Grand Final. His finals series was outstanding, but his whole year was worthy of him being a Top 15 Pick.

Having watched the Under 18 Carnival, he was well above the standards that I saw, and whilst many people are saying that he is a smokey, in our opinion he always had the ability, he just needed to work harder and develop some confidence in his own ability.

He is unbelievably well suited to the Bulldogs – he is a left footed Lindsay Gilbee and has many attributes like Nathan Eagleton. It’s a great pick up by the Bulldogs and we are all just over the moon for him.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/christian-howards-landing-stirs-dogs/story-e6frf9jf-1225805517909


"He fits the profile of what we wanted -- a guy that can run and kick and set the play up. He ticked a lot of boxes, so we're certainly very pleased to take him at that level."

[The Underdog]

Moneyball teams probably would be much worse performers than they are had they adopted conventional approaches - they generally don't have the resources to compete with the baseball equivalents of Collingwood and West Coast.

My post was not really about Moneyball anyway - a more important point was avoiding group-think and conservatism for fear of being criticised.

I know your post wasn't really about Moneyball but it was a comparison you made so I thought it was worthwhile expanding slightly. I think the salary cap and lack of free agency in AFL makes it a somewhat moot point anyway as its not totally apples and apples. I agree with avoiding group think but it's a short trip from backing your instincts to reaching for the wrong guy. Anyway, history will tell. To be honest if we win the premiership this year then Howard could turn out to be a chicken in a man disguise and I wouldn't care.

[mjp]

Yet you are already judging our selection as a mistake. Of course he is not better than Gilbee today, but from the description of the type of player he is it sounds like he could be. For our recruiters to rate him above Black and others, you would have to think they are hoping for a similar quality of player as Gilbee


No - I'm not saying that the selection is a mistake. Never have.

What I have consistently said is that if he is the one we really wanted - great. We defied conventional wisdom and got him, so bully for us. I am just surprised we thought that way and presented a few reasons why I thought so. Like I said previously, it is great that Phillips said nice things about him...so why didn't he pick him in the u18's again?

Now - I appreciate all of the newspaper links but you know I make my judgements on what I see, not on what I read.

[aker39]

Now - I appreciate all of the newspaper links but you know I make my judgements on what I see, not on what I read.



What games did you see him play in?

[Sockeye Salmon]

No - I'm not saying that the selection is a mistake. Never have.

What I have consistently said is that if he is the one we really wanted - great. We defied conventional wisdom and got him, so bully for us. I am just surprised we thought that way and presented a few reasons why I thought so. Like I said previously, it is great that Phillips said nice things about him...so why didn't he pick him in the u18's again?

Now - I appreciate all of the newspaper links but you know I make my judgements on what I see, not on what I read.

Was Phillips the state coach as well as the Glenelg U18's coach?

I assume he would have been fairly aware of Howards abilities at the selection table.

[mjp]

What games did you see him play in?

Did a review of all the SANFL u18's finals games post-season. So I saw him play twice.

[Sedat]

Did a review of all the SANFL u18's finals games post-season. So I saw him play twice.
From watching Howard in action in those two SANFL U-18 finals matches, what are your personal perspectives on his strengths and weaknesses? Was it too hard to assess based on the standard he played against? Your opinions are highly valued on this board so it would be great to know. While we're at it, if you've seen our other 3 new tecruits in action, it would be great to hear your thoughts on their collective strengths and weaknesses as well.

[Throughandthrough]

Did a review of all the SANFL u18's finals games post-season. So I saw him play twice.

Filmed from one camera. High in the stands with no commentary. Dalyrmple was flying to the games to watch him.

Also, to answer another poster, Phillips was not Howie's Coach @ the Bays.

I believe that he (Howie) may not have shown as much commitment early in the season as he did later in the season. When he did, it all clicked.

Hence the non-selection in the State Team (that and Phillips has no idea, but I digress) and the stellar end of year form.

[boydogs]

Now - I appreciate all of the newspaper links but you know I make my judgements on what I see, not on what I read.


From watching Howard in action in those two SANFL U-18 finals matches, what are your personal perspectives on his strengths and weaknesses? Was it too hard to assess based on the standard he played against? Your opinions are highly valued on this board so it would be great to know. While we're at it, if you've seen our other 3 new tecruits in action, it would be great to hear your thoughts on their collective strengths and weaknesses as well.

Agree with Sedat - would love for you to expand on that mjp, and anyone else who has seen Howard and the other draftees

[mjp]

Filmed from one camera. High in the stands with no commentary. Dalyrmple was flying to the games to watch him.

Yep - Just like the WAFL footage and the TAC footage. I see 90% of the footy I watch in the same format. Are you telling me that this doesn't count because that is the way all the games are covered...



Also, to answer another poster, Phillips was not Howie's Coach @ the Bays.

I believe that he (Howie) may not have shown as much commitment early in the season as he did later in the season. When he did, it all clicked.

Hence the non-selection in the State Team (that and Phillips has no idea, but I digress) and the stellar end of year form.

I think Phillips is pretty cluey by the way.

[mjp]

Agree with Sedat - would love for you to expand on that mjp, and anyone else who has seen Howard and the other draftees

Howard seemed fine. He kicked it well and ran OK. Zoned off his opponent and 'guessed' a bit - on the counter to that he was used as a designated kicker by his team-mates and I would assume was being encouraged to guess by his coaches.

Didn't really win his own ball much - was gifted a number of possessions - but went when it was his turn. Made good decisions with the ball.

He was fine. Not sure what else to say though.

Look, I admit I haven't seen him in the best circumstances but the games I watched weren't great standard and whilst I noticed him (kicking mostly) that was about it.

[Twodogs]

- but went when it was his turn. Made good decisions with the ball.




Two very good things for a footballer to have.

[boydogs]

Thanks mjp I appreciate it

[Throughandthrough]

I think Phillips is pretty cluey by the way.


Agree to disagree on that one. But do agree that most people over here do rate him very highly.