Emma Quayle - Are The Bulldogs Mad?

[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.

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.