Emma Quayle - Are The Bulldogs Mad?

**Sedat** · 01-12-2009, 10:32 AM

Re: Emma Quayle - Are The Bulldogs Mad?

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** · 01-12-2009, 10:44 AM

Re: Emma Quayle - Are The Bulldogs Mad?

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** · 01-12-2009, 01:09 PM

Re: Emma Quayle - Are The Bulldogs Mad?

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!