Footy Dept. Soon to be ex-GM - List & Recruiting Adrian Dodoro #putoutyourjackets

[Lore]

Cliff notes:

• Stepping back from his current senior role following the 2023 AFL Draft
• Transition plan, raised the possibility with Vozzo in April
• Replacement is Matt Rosa, whose thread is here: Welcome to Essendon Matthew Rosa
  Matthew Rosa

  Age

  37

  Ht

  191cm

  Wt

  84kg

  Pos.

  Mid

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  21.1

  5star

  K

  11.0

  4star

  HB

  10.1

  5star

  M

  5.0

  5star

  T

  2.7

  4star

  CL

  1.7

  4star

  No current season stats available

  D

  14.6

  4star

  K

  9.4

  4star

  HB

  5.2

  4star

  M

  4.4

  4star

  T

  1.4

  4star

  – AFL Talent & Operations Manager!

To coincide with this announcement, the Club’s General Manager of List and Recruiting, Adrian Dodoro, has made the decision to take a step back from his current senior role following this year’s NAB AFL National Draft. He will lead the Club through the upcoming 2023 Trade and Draft period in his current position prior to transitioning to and assisting Matt Rosa moving forward.​

​

Dodoro, an Essendon Life Member, has played a significant role at the Bombers over nearly three decades and said the time was right to take a step back.​

​

“I approached Craig back in April to discuss the concept of transition and I feel that now is the right time to make this decision,” Dodoro said.​

​

"I sat on the panel to assist in the selection of Matt, and I believe he will be an outstanding acquisition to the Club for years to come. I look forward to working with Matt moving forward.​

​

“These roles are very taxing on individuals and their families and it just feels like that. After nearly three decades and with stability in key roles at the Club, now is the right time for me to take a step back in to a role which will provide me and my family with a better work life balance.​

​

“More immediately, we have an important few months coming up and I’m looking forward to playing my part to deliver a strong Trade and Draft period for the Club to ensure that the playing list is in a strong position for the future.”​

​

Essendon CEO Craig Vozzo acknowledged the significant impact Dodoro has made at the Club since joining in a full-time role in 1998.​

​

“Adrian is a highly respected Life Member of the Essendon Football Club and has made an enormous contribution to the Club and the wider AFL industry during his time in football, including assisting to navigate the Club through unprecedented and challenging periods,” Vozzo said.​

​

“Throughout his time at the Bombers, Adrian’s commitment and passion to take the Club forward in its list management and recruiting, has been unquestionable. Some of the Champions of Essendon have been identified and selected by Adrian, and we will always be grateful for the important and enduring role he has played.​

​

“On behalf of the entire Club, we would like to acknowledge Adrian’s selfless decision and we look forward to his ongoing contribution to the Club.​

​

“Adrian will work with Matt to ensure a smooth hand-over and a successful transition of responsibilities.”​

 

[owen87]

This has long been an issue at EFC, across multiple coaching regimes. I’m not sure if it happens as much at other clubs, I’m not sure if it happens as much at other clubs, I probably don’t pay enough attention.

Young players seem to show a bit in certain positions but it then takes us literally years to settle them there, if we do at all.

Parish is a midfielder. He played there in 2016 and should’ve been playing there since.

Langford has always looked best as a forward. We don’t play him there.

Laverde actually showed a few glimpses as a big midfielder. We play him as a permanent forward (though this one I give them a break on because of his constant struggle for fitness).

We played Melksham as an average midfielder for years and years. He goes to Melbourne and clicks straight into the forward line.

From very early whenever Ryder was given a run in the ruck, he looked more natural. We played him for years as a key back then a key forward.

Hurley we finally settled back, thank god.

Even Hooker, an AA key back, we put him forward for two years right in the middle of his prime.

Carlisle looked like an emerging elite defender. We moved him forward then into the bloody ruck.

Francis could be another one.

I know people say “team balance!”, and there has to be an element of that I guess, but Jesus we seem to do a shitload of square pegging into round holes. It doesn’t work and what’s more, I suspect it totally throws out players’ developments and they can’t settle into a role.

We maybe have to be more prepared to play them where they need to play, or trade and extract value.

I don’t mind so much playing Francis forward out of necessity due to our talls being smashed by injury, and against Hawkins, Hooker playing back made sense.

Once we looked a complete mess on Friday, and without any real gorilla forward, they should have switched Hooker and Francis much earlier.

But yes the rest is just typical, Laverde is actually natural in the contest, Langford is a nice leading half-forward. Parish was a midfielder from day one.

Of course not one of them has played in any of those positions at AFL level with any continuity in the last 2-3 years, whilst we bemoan the lack of development in our youth.

Hopefully we decide Daniher would make a great tall winger, push Ridley to FF and play Redman at full-back with Hooker in the ruck for next weeks’ game.

 

[windyhill]

So what happens with him ? He's been there for a long time, we've been embarrassing for much of it. Yes, in his defence, we had our hands tied with that ******* drug thing, he clearly doesn't need the money as he's smashed out some fantastic property/land deals. When do you say to yourself " I've had a good crack time for someone else"?
Where's Peter Jackson when you need him to give him the tap on the shoulder ? Jacko tapped sheedy, EVENTUALLY, and knew when his own time was up. Give someone else a go adrian. Enjoy your wealth.

 

[boncer34]

I don’t get what you find so hard about the concept. One was pick 70, the other pick 4.

In judging the merits of the recruiter, they’re hardly going to be measured on an equal footing.

You should find a bloody good, long term senior footballer at pick 4, all things being equal. Perhaps even a star.

Parish is four years in and isn’t established in the senior team.

At pick 70 you’re doing well to get somebody who ever plays seniors. Hartley has done that when required and been reasonably serviceable.

Parish is absolutely established. Hence why the error of him being left out was corrected first chance and hasn't been dropped since.

Hartley isn't even picked over Zac Clarke.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

I don't get the hate for disco. Apart form the fact that his time coincides with our worst period ever, I can't see him as the root cause.

It's not like we are short on talent and all recruiters will have selection howlers on their resume.

As others have pointed out, it seems to be the development and coaching of the players that lets us down. What also doesn't help is that our senior core includes a bunch of guys that don't know anything about success and how not to be mediocre. Imagine fresh draftees coming to club and having guys like Myers, Bellchambers and Zaharakis as role models. No wonder so many young players don't seem to take great development steps at the club. And of course there are always outliers like Merrett, Heppell and McGrath who are players from day one. But I just wonder how guys like Parish and Langford would have developed in the Geelong or Hawthorn system.

Anyway, Adrian can draft and trade all the talent he wants but if the club has shitty on field leaders, confusing selection policies and a reluctance to play kids where they can flourish then there isn't much more he can do.

 

[adsla69k]

People here talk about developing young talent and say it's the coaches or staff etc. It's our established senior players that set the standards and teach the younger players about the game. Like a qualified tradesman and a apprentice.
I remember seeing Bartel teaching Selwood one on one body positions in his rookie year and then Bartel teaching Duncan the following year etc. He was brilliant at it, he was so vocal and authoritive but supportive. All was done after the morning training sesh was completed, most players had gone home and others would be doing in house courses/training etc. But Jimmy would have his lunch go out a train with 1 or 2 of the young players and couple trainers.
We were once rumoured to be after him before 2007 and imagine what the club would have been like if we did get him.

 

[EnolaGay]

Is Dodo a key driver of culture at EFC? Not sure if he is...

Regardless, we need a ruthless review of the club from top to bottom - the current culture of mediocrity and mental fragility needs to be rooted out, that means we do need to move plenty of people on both on and off field.

 

[TheFrenchCut]

And that right there folks is the problem at EFC. Hoping not delivering

Sure it's a fun thing to write, type or say but the idea that there is one problem and that this is it is

 

[blitzer]

This has long been an issue at EFC, across multiple coaching regimes. I’m not sure if it happens as much at other clubs, I’m not sure if it happens as much at other clubs, I probably don’t pay enough attention.

Young players seem to show a bit in certain positions but it then takes us literally years to settle them there, if we do at all.

Parish is a midfielder. He played there in 2016 and should’ve been playing there since.

Langford has always looked best as a forward. We don’t play him there.

Laverde actually showed a few glimpses as a big midfielder. We play him as a permanent forward (though this one I give them a break on because of his constant struggle for fitness).

We played Melksham as an average midfielder for years and years. He goes to Melbourne and clicks straight into the forward line.

From very early whenever Ryder was given a run in the ruck, he looked more natural. We played him for years as a key back then a key forward.

Hurley we finally settled back, thank god.

Even Hooker, an AA key back, we put him forward for two years right in the middle of his prime.

Carlisle looked like an emerging elite defender. We moved him forward then into the bloody ruck.

Francis could be another one.

I know people say “team balance!”, and there has to be an element of that I guess, but Jesus we seem to do a shitload of square pegging into round holes. It doesn’t work and what’s more, I suspect it totally throws out players’ developments and they can’t settle into a role.

We maybe have to be more prepared to play them where they need to play, or trade and extract value.

There's a bit of a inconsistency and ignoring context going on in this post.

For example: Melksham was drafted as a midfielder and we played him as one. But that was wrong because he later worked out as a forward at Melbourne. But we are also wrong for playing Parish up forward some of the time because he was drafted as a midfielder. Anyway the main reason Parish doesn't get played as a midfielder is because he hasn't played well enough. If he was good enough to force himself in there he'd be playing midfield.

We had all of Hooker, Hurley and Carlisle in a side with a very young and inexperienced Daniher and like no other key forwards. One of them HAD to play up forward. For the record Hooker proved that he was more than handy up there going at around 2 goals a game over a sustained period of time. Carlisle and Hurley also had their moments up there. Francis is playing a handful of games up forward now whilst all of Brown, McKernan and Stewart are injured whilst all our key defenders in Hurley, Hooker and Ambrose are fit. I don't think that's too crazy.

Ryder played his career with us as a ruck, except during his second year where he played as a key back. Ryder came what top 2 in the rising star that year. What a disaster that was. Yes he played the odd game as a key position but no he never played any other position regularly after that besides ruck. Unless you're counting when he shared the ruck with Hille or Bellchambers and rotated up forward.

 

[BrunoV]

I agree with almost everything Bunk Moreland has been saying. One of the points he has been making is that the job of the recruiter is to get the talent in the door. He can only be judged on the talent. Dodoro can't be responsible for ongoing mental frailty, botched development and/or bizarre team selection.

That's part of the problem I have with the discussion. Dodoro has been around a long time and never been associated with a list that has done anything, and maybe that is reason enough to part ways, but it always seems to me that he's being blamed for part of the outcome that is not his responsibility.

The reason you can look at Parish, for example, as a "miss" is because with all of the opportunity he has received he's largely the same player he was in year 1 and displays nothing that would be expected of a midfielder recruited that high in a draft (surely the minimum expectation looks something like Taranto or Oliver). It was a clear error and one of the few worth mentioining that Dodoro has made at the draft table in a long time. As much as people like to dismiss my opinion on Parish, no one actually argues that he is the player they want when they pick a mid in the top 5 (or that he is or will be better than Stanton or Zaharakis who were and/or remain whipping boys). That's not the same thing as saying that he won't have a career but that's not the discussion it's about the talent Dodoro brought to the club.

On the other hand, I've never understood why people insist on citing perennially injured players as recruiting failures. It's Laverde at the moment and it used to be Gumbleton. It's nonsensical that a recruiter could be blamed for that. There was plenty of excitement about Laverde at the end of 2015. It's also no achievement for Laverde to be an "unknown", by the way. It's essentially the best thing that can be said about his career to date. A lot of it seems to me to be petty slagging because posters can't accept Parish for what he is. Laverde could never play another senior game and it's not going to mean a thing for the quality of Parish's performances.

Francis is probably a more dicey selection than is initially obvious. He clearly had the raw ability to be selected as early as he was in the first round. However, I would also say that Dodoro's non-selection of Charlie Curnow, for example, is symbolic of an attitude he has had which does not place enough of an emphasis on the running capability of players (and physical prowess generally). You'd assume that Francis' immaturity would have been identified and I think you do have to query whether he was a smart selection where he also lacked endurance/running capability.

I don't think there is any doubt that we have not invested heavily enough in players that Worsfold recognizes as midfielders, but it raises an interesting question. Who should we have taken and what with? There is no point going back before the supplements saga, the rebuild to that point was solid enough and then got broken apart by the loss of 5 senior players who either were or have since proven to be quality players. Draft sanctions offset any raid we could have made on the draft during this period - and we were largely limited to taking the normal quota of picks over 4 years between 2013 and 2016 (despite the loss of players). There was also the problem that list management got frozen in time for a few years as we held on to chaff as we refused to play kids for 3 years.

So if we're looking at just the midfield, and starting with 2014 (as 2013 speaks for itself and being 2 selections that you could not revisit in good faith regardless of who followed).

Who were the better prospects as midfielders than Langford and Laverde? Is there a player that anyone looks at even now and thinks that he'd be making a huge difference in the middle? Jack Steele, Touk Miller, Neale-Bullen or Toby McLean? I call bullshit on anyone who is recruiting any of those players. Steele was an academy selection anyway. In my opinion Conor Blakely is the only player with an equivalent level of raw talent. So far, it's one kid from outback WA (which tends to be a bit of a black hole for AFL recruiting other than for the WA sides who clearly hide players - and unlike SA for example where we have had a lot of success) who was not in any discussion as a top 20 pick.

For the two first round picks in 2015, it's really only Josh Dunkley who was not tied to an academy that was available to us and who can be part of the conversation if it's not pure revisionism (I'm not going to jump shark by suggesting that we select Mathieson or Fiorini at 5 instead of Parish or say that either is a better player). I suppose you could argue that Curnow could have been developed on-ball but I don't think he has played a game there to date. Gresham is starting to look like a mid but he was a small forward and has been a small forward to this point. In Redman we probably took the best available midfield sized talent so we've won anyway. Tom Phillips was taken at 58. Now, I'm definitely willing to concede that Dodoro has routinely failed to recruit players with the running power of Phillips but we don't get to do a revisionist draft in which a player taken at 58 all of the sudden becomes part of the discussion at 5. I do struggle to understand how, given the characteristic lack of running power of an Essendon midfield, he was not selected in the 20s but chances are we don't have Redman (as you can't just replace Morgan because he didn't work out). It's much the same story with Menegola.

Edit: I've left Sier out of this discussion. He has played 12 games all last year (and we regarded as having a real problem initially adapting to being an AFL player). He is probably someone we should have been looking at but, again, be careful what you wish for because he was taken at 32 which means that Redman has to be factored into this discussion.

It gets interesting in 2016. There is virtually no support for the idea that McGrath was the wrong type of player to select (though I think he is if we don't get a quality midfielder or two out of Ridley, Begley and/or Mutch). Willem Drew and Jack Graham are the only mids from 22 (Ridley) onwards you'd bother arguing about. Anyone want to substitute Ridley or Begley for either of those two on draft day in 2016? That's two of the most talented players we have and two big aggressive kids who should be developing in the middle for us. I really like Parfitt and Fisher as players but they're hardly the solution to the issues we have with our midfield.

So for 2017, who is giving up Stringer and Smith for some kids? In 2018 who is giving up Shiel?

If I had my way we'd have Saad and Shiel. It would be a hard argument to make that we would be in a better position right now if that is what occurred. I have always been prepared to accept the rationale of selecting McGrath where need was balanced out by the rest of the draft.

In 2014 to 2016, even with its questionable selections, Dodoro provided the list with a lot of raw ability in bigger/powerful players that could be used in the midfield (Laverde, Langford, Redman, Ridley and Begley). So far we've picked the least competitive player, the least suited to the role, and found a number of creative ways not to pick the others either at all or in the middle.

So I can say that I don't agree with the lack of focus Dodoro has placed on physical capability. The spine in particular is not mobile enough. The mids are not gifted runners. We haven't recruited enough highly talented inside midfielders. I might be able to squeeze Blakely and Tom Phillips onto the list but at the expense of Laverde/Langford and possibly Redman. I can't get from there to sacking Dodoro.

There is a versions of this that sees Dodoro take the fall as being responsible but no one ever really gets there as far as the analysis is concerned.

This leads me to the wonderfully rigid selection criteria which confines players to single roles despite that fact that the talent of the list is heavily skewed to the flanks and dual position players (which was clearly part of Dodoro's recruiting strategy).

Edit: everyone always criticises us for trying to turn flankers into to midfielders. We have tried it with 1 player so far. How about we try it with some of the others?

Of course, we've also got to ensure that when injury hits we start reinventing defenders as forwards, not playing forwards as forwards and using wingmen in defence instead of players who play their football in defence.

Even looking at some of last year's contracts says a lot:

- Baguley was basically the last player signed on what is 1 last 1 year deal, of course he play the first 7 games and all JLT.
- Laverde gets a 2 year deal and 2 quarters of JLT football, including a ride up to GWS as the traveling emergency (his non-selection had nothing to do with injury).
- Brown gets a 1 year deal so of course he's straight in.
- Stewart gets a 2 year deal and naturally he does not feature in our planning (as is evidenced by the fact that he was an emergency in JLT).

It has long been apparent that there is a significant disconnect between list management and coaching. List management has produced as much talent as we could reasonably expect and the coaches seem to do their best strategizing coming up with ways not to use the talent (focusing on bargain basement depth instead).

I am failing to see the connection between the recruiting and the performance of the team except for in the middle of the ground but I see no convincing way in which the middle of the ground could be improved by recruiting what was available without sacrificing an equal or greater amount.

 

[quotemokc]

I think we just have to accept that there wasn't much there for us in 2015 beyond Parish and Francis since Melbourne cucked us out of Oliver.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I don’t agree that we aren’t short on talent. We don’t have a single starting midfielder without significant weaknesses in their game. One elite ball user and no elite ball winners. We haven’t had a player inside the top 20 in the competition for more than a single since Watson 11-13.

 

[Mr_McBoogerBalls]

Our biggest issues are our game plan, match day coaching and on field leadership. Once teams cut off our ability to play through the corridor, we start bombing into forward 50 cause we struggle to get the ball upfield - it shouldn't take consecutive losses to start trying different things. We need a plan B and a leadership group who can galvanise the team to execute it quickly.

As for Dodo - our lack of inside mids via the draft is frustrating. I do however like some of our recent trades; particularly the SSS from the 2017 trade period.

 

[ant555]

To be fair. All our first rounders should be elite but instead are around the mark as B graders or below. Obviously the few select years in between but it feels more missed than hits in this department (no genuine guns from the top 20 picks he has had)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really agreeing all our first rounder should be elite. No other club has all elite from their first round picks. Hurley and Heppell are A grade players with both being in the top 5 of their draft.
He is not responsible for injury after they are drafted so Myers and Gumbleton do not count although you could question the level Myers could have been compared to Dangerfield or Rioli.
Melksham would be in the best 10 out of his draft.
Kavanagh was a bust . However there was not a lot of A grade after him. A few gems later in the draft.
Daniher was looking A grade before he got injured.
Merrett at 26 was our first pick in 2103.
Lanford at 17 is looking more B grade .
Jury out on Parish and Francis but right now I would say Parish is in the top 10 performed out of that draft so far.
McGrath is in the best 3 out of his draft.

Like I said middle of the road. There are a lot of genuine guns that come after pick 20. There are a few here I would have gone the other way. I liked Seb Ross over Kavanagh. Danial Talia over Melksham. Hanson over Gumbleton. Palmer over Myers but even these are not massively game changing.
He has not been in the best few but he has not been in the worst 6 or 7 either.

 

[Vindicater]

I'd be interested if those here ran the same analysis over each of the recruiters in the league and see where we end up.

We probably would have won a final in 15 years with most other recruiters because they would have built a team rather than just trey for the best player every time irregardless of position.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Parish is absolutely established. Hence why the error of him being left out was corrected first chance and hasn't been dropped since.

Hartley isn't even picked over Zac Clarke.

No... he’s not picked over Hurley, Hooker, Ambrose or Francis.

You want to play a key back as a ruckman/resting forward? Ok...

 

[Vindicater]

No... he’s not picked over Hurley, Hooker, Ambrose or Francis.

You want to play a key back as a ruckman/resting forward? Ok...

To be fair Hartley could probably do that role better than Clark. He would every hit out but would be better in general play by about 1000%

 

[ant555]

To be fair Hartley could probably do that role better than Clark. He would every hit out but would be better in general play by about 1000%

After watching yesterday. No. Hartley is a defender.

 

[Howard Moon]

Is Dodo a key driver of culture at EFC? Not sure if he is...

Regardless, we need a ruthless review of the club from top to bottom - the current culture of mediocrity and mental fragility needs to be rooted out, that means we do need to move plenty of people on both on and off field.

We had a ruthless review of the club from too to bottom, it was a real saga...

What good did it do? WE ARE ESSINGTON!

THEY SHOOK THE POST! 5 FREES WERE TOTALLY WRONG!!

it's always someone else's fault.

 

[boncer34]

No... he’s not picked over Hurley, Hooker, Ambrose or Francis.

You want to play a key back as a ruckman/resting forward? Ok...

Or.

Hartley back, Hooker forward.

Then we could've run Francis/Hooker as the forward line as opposed to Clarke/Francis Clarke/Hooker.

You just suddenly forgot Hooker can swing? Ok....

 

[DHRD]

Saw the great man himself at the game on Friday. Sat there for a quarter then left.

 

[EnolaGay]

We had a ruthless review of the club from too to bottom, it was a real saga...

What good did it do? WE ARE ESSINGTON!

THEY SHOOK THE POST! 5 FREES WERE TOTALLY WRONG!!

it's always someone else's fault.

The review made sure we were going to be good boys and girls in the future (compliance) and that financially we got back on track (placate the members, spin the stories, sell the sizzle).

From the outside there has been zero shift to a performance and accountability culture - the team selection policy in itself seems diametrically opposed to performance and accountability.

As a club we are the epitome of a bag of marsh-mellows.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Or.

Hartley back, Hooker forward.

Then we could've run Francis/Hooker as the forward line as opposed to Clarke/Francis Clarke/Hooker.

You just suddenly forgot Hooker can swing? Ok....

Hooker plays a defensive intercept role. Hartley isn’t coming in for him. He’d come in for Ambrose or at a push, Hurley.

He’s no superstar but for a bloke drafted at 70, he’s played 40 senior games for us in a key defensive post and could come in next week if injury demanded it.

If you want to think that’s a fail from a recruiting point of view, we’ll agree to disagree.

 

[boncer34]

Hooker plays a defensive intercept role. Hartley isn’t coming in for him. He’d come in for Ambrose or at a push, Hurley.

He’s no superstar but for a bloke drafted at 70, he’s played 40 senior games for us in a key defensive post and could come in next week if injury demanded it.

If you want to think that’s a fail from a recruiting point of view, we’ll agree to disagree.

Mate.

We could easily move the pieces (Hurley to Hooker role etc) around to bring him in, we didn't. We bought in Clarke.

Happy to agree to disagree about the recruiting ticks and crosses you've given but we could easily be playing Hartley at the moment. We're choosing not to.

 

[calyam]

There is more to Dodoro's role that simply talent acquisition. It is list management. He is in the business of designing a list that is capable of winning finals; designing a list that fits well together and becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

If Dodoro's role was simply talent acquisition then he has done fine. The team includes two defenders who have been All-Australian, along with three midfielders and two forwards. But list management is far more complex than just talent acquisition.

How well does Essendon's talent complement each other? Is the list balanced and capable of withstanding injuries to key personnel? Are there any imbalances in the list design whether that be height or age or some other factor?

The fact that there have been five separate coaching reigns since Sheedy left and we haven't so much as sniffed a finals victory does speak volumes about our list management. Are all these coaches making the same mistakes or different mistakes or is there some underlying cause behind our persistent incompetence? Perhaps the list is simply too flawed to really become a great team.

One hypothetical that warrants consideration: if Dodoro was sacked would another club pick him up? I'm not convinced that he'd be in high demand which does raise the question of whether we simply overrate him.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

There seems to be this myth about hypothetical talent vs actual talent and output when playing AFL. If we measure by fairy dust and what may happen in the future then he succeeds at every level. If we are brutally honest and compare the output of all our guys than we are exactly where we should be... middle of the road.