Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

[GVGjr]

There is no doubt that Scott Clayton has an eye for talent especially when you consider the value we have had with picks like Gilbee, Hargrave, Harris/Lake, and Cross but I must admit I'm now starting to doubt that he can do much more than we have been seeing from him since 1999. He has been in the drivers seat for a long while now and I suppose the real question is, will some more of the same from Clayton over the next two or three years be enough to push into one of the power clubs of the AFL?

As a rule there is no real definitive science to recruiting, selections on draft day often come down to a judgement call and then the recruiter hopes like hell that the footy department can develop the players into AFL quality contributors.

Given the draft picks that Clayton has had over the last few years and given the almighty power of hindsight its actually hard to get overly excited by the results.
Sure there has been some inspired selections but overall I think the list is starting to slide back to the field a bit. The main problem is that the typical Clayton early draft selection is a long term or even a work in progress. They are normally highly athletic types who are occasionally underdeveloped in football experience, even at the junior level, and on top of that they normally require plenty of physical development. Oh yeah, we rarely use early selections on ruckman or power athletes.

Watching the Crows through their NAB cup campaign and seeing the likes of of power forwards and early selections like Sellars and Tippet and then pure hard it footballers from late selections selections like Douglas and Johncock it does highlight a contrast in selection criteria by both clubs.
The Crows tend to use early selections on the power players and the latter ones of guys with a strong pure footy background. On the other hand, we normally go for the midfielders with the early selections and the work in progress type talls with the later ones.
The are obviously heaps of exceptions to this but most would agree that this is the general principle we have followed.

Clayton is a pretty good salesman of his picks whenever he is interviewed, occasionally he has even sold us all on a late selection tall stating that we regard this player would have been a top 20 pick in the following years draft, but to be honest I'm now starting to think that unless some gems really start to shine this year then perhaps we need to start looking at recruiting another recruiting manager.

I'm not sure what the right answer is because recruiting isn't an exact science but I don't think more of the same from Clayton will put us ahead of the majority of teams.
We have heard snippets of information on Clarkson and Pelchens views on recruiting and whilst that might not be the right or exact answer either, perhaps blended into the list that Clayton has already assembled could be a winner for us.

I would be interested to hear you thoughts on if Clayton has done a terrific or good job or even if the time is right to start and consider a new or fresher approach to our recruiting?

[hujsh]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

It's not just if Clayton picks the right guys, it's whether we develop them properly.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

Don't disagree with too much of what's been written to be honest.

Interesting difference between us & Adelaide as you have highlighted is philosophy. I'm curious as to who determines the philosophy. Is it the senior coach or recruiting manager?

Prior to Clayton's arrival we had a very barren period under Mark Klieman where Nathan Brown was the only player on the list who had managed a decent number of games with us. From memory the period I'm referring to is the early to mid 90's.

Most club seem to have a network of people who watch as many games as possible & then report back to their club's recruiting manager. Obviously the buck stops with the recruiting manager & unfortunately with Scott there have been some poor choices of recent times (without doing research names like Patrick Wiggins, Brent Colbert, Iszac Thompson, Tim Walsh, Sam Power etc... spring to mind), but are they any worse than any other teams> As a Doggies fan, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to all players drafted by all the clubs, but I'm sure they'd all like the benefit of hindsight, some more than others.

Be interesting to see if say between the period 1999 - 2005 how many players each club drafted for how many games as a net return. I'm sure those statistics could be done for all clubs but the time taken to do them would prohibit me from completing such an exercise.

In answer to your initial query GVGjr, I think perhaps Scott Clayton's reputation (particularly with some of his choices at Brisbane) maybe sightly better than recent results.

Hard to know if his hands were tied on occassions too, particularly with regards to trades. From memory we gave up decent draft selections for Adam Morgan & Steven Koops. Did Clayton have a say in these or was it coach driven? If coach driven & Clayton had those picks would things have been different? Who knows? Be nice tho to see Everitt, Ward, Higgins, Grant etc... all go on to play 200+ games.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

It would like to know how much influence James Fantasia will have on our recruiting? Correct me if I am wrong but was he not in charge of recruiting at the Crows? I think this could only be a positive for the club. Surely he would have his smarts about him in this field. Thoughts?

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

Clayton has been living off his 99 draft for years and he needs some of the last two years picks to come good.

He also got a lot of credit for Brisbane's list that he didn't really deserve.

The problem is you have to have someone better to replace him with, we couldn't afford another Mark Klieman.

[Scorlibo]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

A player who has proven their worth as a player to stay in the first 22 throughout many seasons I would say would usually last 12 years in the system, from 18 to 30.
So therefore, a recruiters goal should be to, over a 12 year span, compile a team at the club full of players worthy of a spot in the first 22 of an AFL team.
Scott Clayton has been recruiting at the dogs for 9 years, 75% of that 12 year span. This means that he should have drafted, by now, 75% of those 22 worthy players, or 17 worthy players. So, since he started at the dogs I would consider Jason Akermanis, Matty Boyd, Adam Cooney, Daniel Cross, Andrejs Everitt, Daniel Giansiracusa, Lindsay Gilbee, Ryan Griffen, Ryan Hargrave, Brian Harris, Shaun Higgins, Ben Hudson, Dale Morris, Robert Murphy, Farren Ray and Scott Welsh to be players well worthy of first 22 duties - thats 16, meaning that he has done a pretty good job so far, but these next few years are crucial for him because so many of the players he picked up in his early days, and the three trades, will be exiting the club at the same time.
Looking at those players, it is also evident that Clayton has over drafted for some positions, like the midfield and under drafted for others such as the key forwards and rucks, which means that the development of Jarrad Grant, Tom Williams (as the CHB), Ayce Cordy (providing we get him this year), James Mulligan and others over the next few years is crucial.
In summary I would say that Clayton has done well at this stage, but in five years time, depending on how currently young players turn out and how he recruits in the next few years, it could be a far worse story.

[GVGjr]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

It would like to know how much influence James Fantasia will have on our recruiting? Correct me if I am wrong but was he not in charge of recruiting at the Crows? I think this could only be a positive for the club. Surely he would have his smarts about him in this field. Thoughts?

Fantasia runs the football department and the recruiting falls under that. His main job in that area would be to make sure it has the correct funding and resources.

[GVGjr]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

Clayton has been living off his 99 draft for years and he needs some of the last two years picks to come good.

He also got a lot of credit for Brisbane's list that he didn't really deserve.

The problem is you have to have someone better to replace him with, we couldn't afford another Mark Klieman.

Would you be looking at other recruiting managers though?

He hasn't done a bad job, he has done a good one in fact but I think we now need someone who can do and excellent job and build on the list that we have.
More of the same from Clayton probably won't bridge the gap and put us where we need to be.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

Clayton has been living off his 99 draft for years and he needs some of the last two years picks to come good.

He also got a lot of credit for Brisbane's list that he didn't really deserve.

The problem is you have to have someone better to replace him with, we couldn't afford another Mark Klieman.

We have had a couple of major overhauls on the coaching side but the recruiting hasn't changed from what I know. Is there some underutilised but talented recruiting guys out there looking for the opportunity?
If so we should consider making a change.
We all know the modern game football has moved very much to that of a running game but there is still a place for the guys with the football brain and we need to be looking at them as well. The reality is that Clayton hasn't delivered a strong enough list over the last couple of years so I'd be surprised if he wasn't feeling the pinch.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

There is no doubt that Scott Clayton has an eye for talent especially when you consider the value we have had with picks like Gilbee, Hargrave, Harris/Lake, and Cross but I must admit I'm now starting to doubt that he can do much more than we have been seeing from him since 1999. He has been in the drivers seat for a long while now and I suppose the real question is, will some more of the same from Clayton over the next two or three years be enough to push into one of the power clubs of the AFL?

As a rule there is no real definitive science to recruiting, selections on draft day often come down to a judgement call and then the recruiter hopes like hell that the footy department can develop the players into AFL quality contributors.

Given the draft picks that Clayton has had over the last few years and given the almighty power of hindsight its actually hard to get overly excited by the results.
Sure there has been some inspired selections but overall I think the list is starting to slide back to the field a bit. The main problem is that the typical Clayton early draft selection is a long term or even a work in progress. They are normally highly athletic types who are occasionally underdeveloped in football experience, even at the junior level, and on top of that they normally require plenty of physical development. Oh yeah, we rarely use early selections on ruckman or power athletes.

Watching the Crows through their NAB cup campaign and seeing the likes of of power forwards and early selections like Sellars and Tippet and then pure hard it footballers from late selections selections like Douglas and Johncock it does highlight a contrast in selection criteria by both clubs.
The Crows tend to use early selections on the power players and the latter ones of guys with a strong pure footy background. On the other hand, we normally go for the midfielders with the early selections and the work in progress type talls with the later ones.
The are obviously heaps of exceptions to this but most would agree that this is the general principle we have followed.

Clayton is a pretty good salesman of his picks whenever he is interviewed, occasionally he has even sold us all on a late selection tall stating that we regard this player would have been a top 20 pick in the following years draft, but to be honest I'm now starting to think that unless some gems really start to shine this year then perhaps we need to start looking at recruiting another recruiting manager.

I'm not sure what the right answer is because recruiting isn't an exact science but I don't think more of the same from Clayton will put us ahead of the majority of teams.
We have heard snippets of information on Clarkson and Pelchens views on recruiting and whilst that might not be the right or exact answer either, perhaps blended into the list that Clayton has already assembled could be a winner for us.

I would be interested to hear you thoughts on if Clayton has done a terrific or good job or even if the time is right to start and consider a new or fresher approach to our recruiting?

Douglas was a first round selection by the Crows - Tippett a mid 30's selection IIRC. I've been following Tippett over summer as I thought he could well be the power forward we have to look out for in round 1, and his game on Saturday was fantastic. Certainly moved ahead of Sellar, and at only 20 still with his size and desire to contest, he'll be very dangerous.


I'm actually of the belief our drafting over the last 3-5 years has been much better, especially over the last few. Clayton has taken a more footballer first priority, Higgins, Everitt, Grant, Ward - these are all blokes who, some of them are terrific athletes, but they're footballers first.

Our later round selections for the past 2 years have been better too imo, though of course that's yet to be proven yet. Stack, Hill, Lynch and Harbrow have already added a lot to our mix but the expectation was that they wouldn't really till probably next season. This years group, although having a few adjustment issues, looks good to me too. Reid could be the hard midfielder we need, O'Keefe looks like a fantastic small forward/midfield option, and Wood will be a very interesting one to watch as he has a fantastic physical platform to build from.

[hujsh]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

Douglas was a first round selection by the Crows - Tippett a mid 30's selection IIRC. I've been following Tippett over summer as I thought he could well be the power forward we have to look out for in round 1, and his game on Saturday was fantastic. Certainly moved ahead of Sellar, and at only 20 still with his size and desire to contest, he'll be very dangerous.


I'm actually of the belief our drafting over the last 3-5 years has been much better, especially over the last few. Clayton has taken a more footballer first priority, Higgins, Everitt, Grant, Ward - these are all blokes who, some of them are terrific athletes, but they're footballers first.

Our later round selections for the past 2 years have been better too imo, though of course that's yet to be proven yet. Stack, Hill, Lynch and Harbrow have already added a lot to our mix but the expectation was that they wouldn't really till probably next season. This years group, although having a few adjustment issues, looks good to me too. Reid could be the hard midfielder we need, O'Keefe looks like a fantastic small forward/midfield option, and Wood will be a very interesting one to watch as he has a fantastic physical platform to build from.

You can add O'Shea to the late pick pile as well

[Mofra]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

Scott Clayton has been recruiting at the dogs for 9 years, 75% of that 12 year span. This means that he should have drafted, by now, 75% of those 22 worthy players, or 17 worthy players. So, since he started at the dogs I would consider Jason Akermanis, Matty Boyd, Adam Cooney, Daniel Cross, Andrejs Everitt, Daniel Giansiracusa, Lindsay Gilbee, Ryan Griffen, Ryan Hargrave, Brian Harris, Shaun Higgins, Ben Hudson, Dale Morris, Robert Murphy, Farren Ray and Scott Welsh to be players well worthy of first 22 duties - thats 16

Nice method to quantify Clayton's picks - using this standard he is break-even which, in terms of our reasonably unique situation, probably puts Clayton ahead of the pack due to our lack of rookie list for the majority of Clayton's time at the Dogs.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

[QUOTE=Scorlibo;27900]A recruiters goal should be to, over a 12 year span, compile a team at the club full of players worthy of a spot in the first 22 of an AFL team.
Scott Clayton has been recruiting at the dogs for 9 years, 75% of that 12 year span. This means that he should have drafted, by now, 75% of those 22 worthy players, or 17 worthy player[/B]s.



Not sure about this 75% stuff, seems to over analysing a little. Is it better to have 22 AFL team worthy players? Or 8 superstars?

[Dry Rot]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

If he's a guru it isn't with talls.

Compare us with the Eagles, who never had our picks: Hansen, Lynch, Hunter, Staker IIRC were all mid to late draft picks. Dunno about Glass. Helped win them a flag. And young Brown (with 2 good knees) will be a gun.

Pre-Everritt, we only have Lake and maybe Williams, and no flag.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Scott Clayton - Recruiting guru or an inflated reputation?

If he's a guru it isn't with talls.

Compare us with the Eagles, who never had our picks: Hansen, Lynch, Hunter, Staker IIRC were all mid to late draft picks. Dunno about Glass. Helped win them a flag. And young Brown (with 2 good knees) will be a gun.

Pre-Everritt, we only have Lake and maybe Williams, and no flag.

Glass was a late 1st rounder, 13 or 14 or so.

Hunter's no bigger than Hargrave or Morris, Staker's a dud.