Player Watch #34 Harry Armstrong

Did We Get The Pick Right?

  • Total voters
    107
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

captain cotch 9 said:
How is he size wise?
Once he fills out who could you compare his body shape to?
Lynch or Jack/Cameron?
Click to expand...
I'm 193 cm. He's taller than me but not by much I don't think. More Jack with a little more muscle mass.

Haere Ra
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I know this comment might make people rip their hair out but I think he has all the tools to make a great center half backman …. If simms and faull develop quickly as forwards then who knows what could happen
 
lizard man said:
I know this comment might make people rip their hair out but I think he has all the tools to make a great center half backman …. If simms and faull develop quickly as forwards then who knows what could happen
Click to expand...

bedford said:
Centre
Click to expand...

JAKLAUGHING said:
Center
Click to expand...

Excuse Me Reaction GIF by One Chicago
 
lizard man said:
I know this comment might make people rip their hair out but I think he has all the tools to make a great center half backman …. If simms and faull develop quickly as forwards then who knows what could happen
Click to expand...
The recent dynasty with only two key forwards is unlikely to occur ever again.
The need for a multi pronged attack within the forward line plus a higher up forward for the quick release kick out of defence , will only increase as teams navigate more stringent structures to hold the footy into their forwardline .

You don’t drive Ferrari’s down dirt tracks , if he develops well enough to be a forward leave him there .
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SumTingWong said:
Why are people surprised? We are living in a time where people are chosen for jobs based on the color of their skin and the genitals in their underwear rather than merit. We are now not choosing A grade sportsmen because they are shy? FFS
Click to expand...
I'll bite

Diversity is profitable. In business decision-making, the science shows that more diverse perspectives result in better decisions. There are some terrible Diversity & Inclusion policies, where people do it just to look good, and there are some excellent ones.

Let's take Richmond for example. For a long while, clubs were very hesitant to draft Indigenous players. Richmond invested in resources to specifically assist Indigenous kids with adapting to an AFL environment. It's hard to argue that we haven't had a competitive advantage from that investment. Diversity is profitable for companies in the same way - it's difficult to get good talent from demographics you don't already recruit from if your company is just white blokes. There are obviously practical constraints here, but all the woke BS aside shouldn't distract from the fact that it's just good business to be inclusive.

As a side note, merit is not objective and is tricky to assess. We all know people who's CVs on paper look amazing but they're terrible, particularly compared to old mate who scrapped his way to get where he is and just happens to be the best performer.
 
T4P said:
I'll bite

Diversity is profitable. In business decision-making, the science shows that more diverse perspectives result in better decisions. There are some terrible Diversity & Inclusion policies, where people do it just to look good, and there are some excellent ones.

Let's take Richmond for example. For a long while, clubs were very hesitant to draft Indigenous players. Richmond invested in resources to specifically assist Indigenous kids with adapting to an AFL environment. It's hard to argue that we haven't had a competitive advantage from that investment. Diversity is profitable for companies in the same way - it's difficult to get good talent from demographics you don't already recruit from if your company is just white blokes. There are obviously practical constraints here, but all the woke BS aside shouldn't distract from the fact that it's just good business to be inclusive.

As a side note, merit is not objective and is tricky to assess. We all know people who's CVs on paper look amazing but they're terrible, particularly compared to old mate who scrapped his way to get where he is and just happens to be the best performer.
Click to expand...
I work in universities. So much virtue signalling on diversity. But under the skin it's the same type of person who tends to get selected. And just nonsense positive 'woke' stuff, whislt being massive wage theives, and absolutely uncaring scum bags.

But having a diversity fo types of people does lead to better work and decisions.

It's just that people would rather pretend diversity, than actually do it properly.
 
T4P said:
I'll bite

Diversity is profitable. In business decision-making, the science shows that more diverse perspectives result in better decisions. There are some terrible Diversity & Inclusion policies, where people do it just to look good, and there are some excellent ones.

Let's take Richmond for example. For a long while, clubs were very hesitant to draft Indigenous players. Richmond invested in resources to specifically assist Indigenous kids with adapting to an AFL environment. It's hard to argue that we haven't had a competitive advantage from that investment. Diversity is profitable for companies in the same way - it's difficult to get good talent from demographics you don't already recruit from if your company is just white blokes. There are obviously practical constraints here, but all the woke BS aside shouldn't distract from the fact that it's just good business to be inclusive.

As a side note, merit is not objective and is tricky to assess. We all know people who's CVs on paper look amazing but they're terrible, particularly compared to old mate who scrapped his way to get where he is and just happens to be the best performer.
Click to expand...
Laura Kane....
 
Dr Tigris said:
I work in universities. So much virtue signalling on diversity. But under the skin it's the same type of person who tends to get selected. And just nonsense positive 'woke' stuff, whislt being massive wage theives, and absolutely uncaring scum bags.

But having a diversity fo types of people does lead to better work and decisions.

It's just that people would rather pretend diversity, than actually do it properly.
Click to expand...
100% agree
 
tiger_tough said:
Laura Kane....
Click to expand...
Is she a genuine diversity hire. Or someone who will do what she is told and love it ... and is a woman.

Peggy was the first woman to chair and AFL club. I would argue she's proven to be way more than token or a dodgy character.


Laura Kane is just another of the boys (and girls can be boys too) club. No more corrupt and dodgy than others, and way less than SHocking. Comparatively she's a shining light.
 
Dr Tigris said:
Is she a genuine diversity hire. Or someone who will do what she is told and love it ... and is a woman.

Peggy was the first woman to chair and AFL club. I would argue she's proven to be way more than token or a dodgy character.


Laura Kane is just another of the boys (and girls can be boys too) club. No more corrupt and dodgy than others, and way less than SHocking. Comparatively she's a shining light.
Click to expand...
I meant more so an appointment for the aesthetics rather than on merit. She's completely out of her depth.
 
T4P said:
I'll bite

Diversity is profitable. In business decision-making, the science shows that more diverse perspectives result in better decisions. There are some terrible Diversity & Inclusion policies, where people do it just to look good, and there are some excellent ones.

Let's take Richmond for example. For a long while, clubs were very hesitant to draft Indigenous players. Richmond invested in resources to specifically assist Indigenous kids with adapting to an AFL environment. It's hard to argue that we haven't had a competitive advantage from that investment. Diversity is profitable for companies in the same way - it's difficult to get good talent from demographics you don't already recruit from if your company is just white blokes. There are obviously practical constraints here, but all the woke BS aside shouldn't distract from the fact that it's just good business to be inclusive.

As a side note, merit is not objective and is tricky to assess. We all know people who's CVs on paper look amazing but they're terrible, particularly compared to old mate who scrapped his way to get where he is and just happens to be the best performer.
Click to expand...
Diversity is also dangerous. If you are a privileged white male who got to the top because of who you knew rather than what you know, then ambition and talent in others is very dangerous. So, a young guy who has overcome race or poverty or a young woman who has refused to let gender define her, are seen as dangerous to your position. There is a saying. "Never hire someone who is smarter than you". If you add "more ambitious" then I suspect that is the real policy behind organisations who are anti diverse hiring. At Richmond we were very lucky, we got Benny gale and Peggie O'Neil. Those two seem very smart and comfortable in their abilities and I think it shows in the organisation they were able to build and the success we were able to have. Unfortunately, I don't see the same diversity or openness in the AFL. I wonder why?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #34 Harry Armstrong

Back
Top