Are you happy with the Crows Draft?

[Mong]

As Ive said, if the Crows rated Dangerfield higher than Ebert then they no question made the correct decision. My only point was that Ebert wasnt rated highly on name and he wasnt only linked to the Crows because of his name. And it wasnt just Nikkis post...ive seen it written here about 6 or 7 times since the draft. The thought that 'if he wasnt Ebert he wouldnt have been ranked so high/wouldnt matter' still isnt correct. If Nick Murphy or Tom Mcnamara was rated the highest then I still think there would be this conjecture about overlooking the SA product for the considered 'risky' pick in Dangerfield.

I pretty much agree, although I do think the Ebert name would have had a least some added rating points among the public, even if only a little.

But to be honest I think come draft day some fans just want to hear a familiar name called out. If I recall correctly there was a similar fuss with Port fans last year when you took Boak. People were unhappy because you took the less familiar name. It results in outrage that is based on nothing more than ignorance.

 

[Stiffy_18]

But is this board reflective of the attitudes outside this board? I would suggest no. Those people have limited information about other draftees. I know next to nothing about Ebert as a player apart from what is reported on this board and the opinions of those that have seen him play regularly. Those people that I have heard call up 5aa on the weekend were ropeable about a scion of a great SA footballing family not being picked up. Not the player himself but they all kept refering to his name and sympathising with Russell on Saturday.
Yes we talked up the SA prospects and that was understandable as those are the ones that we are more likely to see, but do they make them better options than interstate players? Over the last couple of years I would suggest no.



Fair enough, but I was not including you in the group that was petty and naive



Doughty - only will replace him if van Berlo or Shirley is not playing and Gallman (who seems to be ear marked as his replacement) also doesn't play. I can't see any team using a first round draft pick selection as a run with player!

Massie I think will play more games next year as in my mind he is the steady replacement for Torney's role. Ebert would have to oust one of our third or second year players. Who would that be?



Ebert does not have two absolute guns to contend with trying to oust out of the West Coast midfield. They need replacements for that area desperately. They have Kerr, Braun, Fletcher and Stenglein as the 'senior members'. The younger group consists of Selwood (adam), Pridis, Rosa and possibly Waters - thats really only three, maybe four others that he is fighting for a spot.

I'm actually not that impressed with Pridis & Rosa as others are. It was shown up late in the year that they just don't have the knowledge to work with Cox. Normally Cox was able to tap perfectly to advantage for West Coast but in the later games in the year with the younger and the second tier in the midfield it really showed up that Cox was not as effective as he could be.

Yes he has the body but I wouldn't call making it into West Coasts midfield next year as a great step forward as some might think. Last year maybe but next year, not in my mind.

Just on the tagging part, I think you will find that most clubs introduce their kids as taggers. I know we have done that with Reilly a number of times early on. Had him play on a red hot, in form Akermanis and Reilly kept him to 12 touches for the games and later said that he learnt more from that game than any of his previous ones.

I could definetly see Ebert get introduced as a tagger. He could have been ontroduced into the midfield so that Thompson can spend a bit more time as a forward option which we will need him to do next year.

Make no mistake, Ebert would have played no matter where he went. He is the sort of kid that makes his way into sides first up. Just like van Berlo did with us. His form in the SANFL league side was outstanding and he has all the attributes to play next year.

WC might need to cover two vacancies but you are also forgetting that we are pushing in youngsters into our midfield too and slowly phasing out the likes of Goodwin and Edwards out of there. Ebert is a ready made player. He won't be a star next year but he will more than hold his own in the AFL engine room. Just wait and see

 

[Stiffy_18]

For those of us that follow our footy closely, hence why we post here I don't think it was the name issue. As you pointed out he does have a good pedigree over the last year, but his Nationals was very below par what was expected from a player of his talent - I wonder if that is why he slid as well?

The majority of callers complaining really have been harping about the name (from the bit that I listened too before turning off as they were just annoying me totally) and I would think from the way they were talking that they haven't actually seen Brad play.

I was waiting for someone to bring this one up

Ebert was heavily tagged at the Nationals as clearly our best player. Despite the really have tag he still averaged 22 possesions and was our sole representative in the U18s AA team.

Compare that to Dangerfield's championships and it becomes quite comic . Dangerfield averaged 7 possesions per game in the Nationals. Hardly something that would catapult him into the upper echelon of the draft.

Even though Ebert didn't have great Nationals, he still performed much better than Dangerfield. Nationals form is not be all and end all here. It helps but many players who have struggled at Nationals have gone on to becomes genuine superstars of the competition.

 

[bus24]

I was waiting for someone to bring this one up

Ebert was heavily tagged at the Nationals as clearly our best player. Despite the really have tag he still averaged 22 possesions and was our sole representative in the U18s AA team.

Compare that to Dangerfield's championships and it becomes quite comic . Dangerfield averaged 7 possesions per game in the Nationals. Hardly something that would catapult him into the upper echelon of the draft.

Even though Ebert didn't have great Nationals, he still performed much better than Dangerfield. Nationals form is not be all and end all here. It helps but many players who have struggled at Nationals have gone on to becomes genuine superstars of the competition.

Dangerfield played mostly as a tagger during the U/18's didn't he? Makes his championships pretty hard to assess.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Well we've got a new person in charge this year in Rendell so I'd suggest our talent identification quality/process has changed from previous years. It's a matter of whether it's for better or worse, and we won't know until these kids develop. Also FWIW, and I can't remember who posted this on here, but apparently Melbourne had Dangerfield in their top five.

Errr.... Wrong. The only part of our recruiting team that has changed is the role of recruiting manager and now that Matthew Rendell.

The entire recruiting network has stayed the same. Rendell is not the only one that watches these kids. In fact his main job is to collect the information that is being sent in to him from his scouts and then if something is of interest to him, he goes out and watches the kid.

The people that do most of the scouting are those that are in our recruting network across the country. Those people report to Rendell. They watch there kids week in week out and send in their reports and sometimes video footage. If there is something there that attracts Rendell's interest he goes out to see it for himself.

Of our player scouting, only about 10% gets done by the Recruiting Officer. Its physically impossible for him to be in so many places at one time. He realies HEAVILY on his recruting network just like any other recruting manager. Just on that basis alone, our recruting department has had minimal of changes. People that worked for James Fantasia are still the same people that are now working for Matthew Rendell.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Dangerfield played mostly as a tagger during the U/18's didn't he? Makes his championships pretty hard to assess.

Yes he did play as a tagger which begs another questions, why would a player rated by one club as the 3rd best in the draft pool be played as a tagger?!

By our club's ranking system he would have been Vic Country's best player. Do you play your best player as a tagger on the biggest stage for the U18s football?!

 

[crowman_23]

Yes he did play as a tagger which begs another questions, why would a player rated by one club as the 3rd best in the draft pool be played as a tagger?!

By our club's ranking system he would have been Vic Country's best player. Do you play your best player as a tagger on the biggest stage for the U18s football?!

I'm not so sure why your dead set on the whole being prepared for AFL footy Stiffy. While Ebert may or may not have played for Adelaide next year he would not have been that much of an influence on the side, and would not have taken us to any great heights. The club has made it pretty clear over the past few weeks that we are taking a new direction, one where we are rebuilding to have a tilt at a flag in a few years time.

If we rated Dangerfield that highly we had to take him. From everything I have read on him and looked into him since the draft he actually sound slike he could be an absolute star. I'm sure the reason many rated Ebert higher than Dangerfield would also have something to do witht he age a bit. Dangerfield being as young as he was was given the tagging role in the Champs, and played mainly out of a back pocket all year in his u/18 side. While not always the case often this happens because coaches and selectors want togive the older players the best possible chance to impress and show what they have as it is their last chance to impress and be drafted. It wouldn't have mattered if nothing happened with Dangerfield, as he would have been guarenteed to be drafted next year anyway.

I think the fact that Dangerfield was still ranked in the first round despite the fact that he made it very clear he would not be playing should be something that excites us. He clearly has a truck load of talent, and the dedication to things like school, to show he's made of the right stuff. He seems geniunely excited about coming to Adelaide, so the go home factor should not be in our thoughts for now. If Dangerfield takes an extra year or two to develop, and turns in to a much better player than Ebert we will be much better off. You just seem so hell bent on having the first rounders play in their first season, and we should know that when it comes to Adelaide this is unlikely anyway.

I still believe it's way too early to judge anything. I as much as anyone here wanted Ebert, only because we all talked him up so much because he was an SA boy. Fact of the matter is Dangerfield sounds like a gem and we may have got an absolute steal because he was so underaged. The more I read on the issue tha happier I was with our selection.

I'm just not sure why most people are disappointed because he won't play next year. None of the draftees would have had a MASSIVE influence on our season, and seen as we are rebuilding we have done it perfectly.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Eh, I always had the feeling Ebert wasn't our prime target; as I said no standout weapons, just a solid footballer. Imo these types are up against it to become genuine stars and recruiters will always look for those with all that plus a standout feature that lifts them above the rest. Hence Dangerfield. The amount of tunnel vision on here was staggering.

 

[macca23]

Yes he did play as a tagger which begs another questions, why would a player rated by one club as the 3rd best in the draft pool be played as a tagger?!

By our club's ranking system he would have been Vic Country's best player. Do you play your best player as a tagger on the biggest stage for the U18s football?!

The way you've gone on and on about Ebert, Stiffy, suggests you don't think the AFC know what they're doing. Not unlike all the Port supporters carrying on like pork chops when Port took Boak. All the armchair experts said the same thing. Port must be wrong because nobody else rated him that highly, and look how good he has turned out to be.

As for the comparison between Dangerfield and Ebert's form in the championships I quote myself from elsewhere:

He said that his year this year had been injury riddled, having broken each thumb, but on different occasions. However he was happy with the latter part of his season once he was injury free.

You don't think 2 broken thumbs would have some affect on your performances?? Apparently Dangerfield sizzled in the latter part of the season when he was over those injuries.

I think that you and all those who keep harping on about Ebert are doing so on the basis of our past tragedies with our first round pick - and there's been plenty of them.

However let's have a little faith in the new recruiting team. This is their first crack at it and at this stage they have no record of failure in drafting. Quite frankly I have been super impressed by Dangerfield as a person - outstanding communication skills for a 17 year old, and really put together well.

The fact that he wants to not only do his year 12 but to excel in it tells us another bit about his character. He wants to do well in both life and football. In fact he wants to be a marine biologist after his footy playing days.

If we had drafted Ebert, it wouldn't have mattered a rat's arse whether he played AFL or not next year. He would have been learning rather than significantly contributing.

The fact is that we don't have Ebert, but we do have an outstanding young man with some outstanding talents and attributes - ones that we lack and are desperate for.

I'm delighted that we've taken him. From the vision I've seen of him, he looks Judd like to me and IMO has the attributes to be a game breaker, not just another good footballer.

I'm really looking forward to this kid playing for us in 2009.

And to all the current doubting thomases then saying that they always knew that he would be better than Ebert.

 

[maccas_no1]

I was waiting for someone to bring this one up

Ebert was heavily tagged at the Nationals as clearly our best player. Despite the really have tag he still averaged 22 possesions and was our sole representative in the U18s AA team.

Compare that to Dangerfield's championships and it becomes quite comic . Dangerfield averaged 7 possesions per game in the Nationals. Hardly something that would catapult him into the upper echelon of the draft.

Even though Ebert didn't have great Nationals, he still performed much better than Dangerfield. Nationals form is not be all and end all here. It helps but many players who have struggled at Nationals have gone on to becomes genuine superstars of the competition.

Mmmmmm looks like someone got pwned

 

[Stiffy_18]

I'm not so sure why your dead set on the whole being prepared for AFL footy Stiffy. While Ebert may or may not have played for Adelaide next year he would not have been that much of an influence on the side, and would not have taken us to any great heights. The club has made it pretty clear over the past few weeks that we are taking a new direction, one where we are rebuilding to have a tilt at a flag in a few years time.

If we rated Dangerfield that highly we had to take him. From everything I have read on him and looked into him since the draft he actually sound slike he could be an absolute star. I'm sure the reason many rated Ebert higher than Dangerfield would also have something to do witht he age a bit. Dangerfield being as young as he was was given the tagging role in the Champs, and played mainly out of a back pocket all year in his u/18 side. While not always the case often this happens because coaches and selectors want togive the older players the best possible chance to impress and show what they have as it is their last chance to impress and be drafted. It wouldn't have mattered if nothing happened with Dangerfield, as he would have been guarenteed to be drafted next year anyway.

I think the fact that Dangerfield was still ranked in the first round despite the fact that he made it very clear he would not be playing should be something that excites us. He clearly has a truck load of talent, and the dedication to things like school, to show he's made of the right stuff. He seems geniunely excited about coming to Adelaide, so the go home factor should not be in our thoughts for now. If Dangerfield takes an extra year or two to develop, and turns in to a much better player than Ebert we will be much better off. You just seem so hell bent on having the first rounders play in their first season, and we should know that when it comes to Adelaide this is unlikely anyway.

I still believe it's way too early to judge anything. I as much as anyone here wanted Ebert, only because we all talked him up so much because he was an SA boy. Fact of the matter is Dangerfield sounds like a gem and we may have got an absolute steal because he was so underaged. The more I read on the issue tha happier I was with our selection.

I'm just not sure why most people are disappointed because he won't play next year. None of the draftees would have had a MASSIVE influence on our season, and seen as we are rebuilding we have done it perfectly.

Are you actually aware that Ebert is also a bottom age player and he was a captain of the SA side as a 17 year old which is pretty rare!

I am not dogging on Dangerfield here but I am standing up to those who seem to want to put down Ebert to make Dangerfield pick look better when in fact they are both bottom aged, one was captain as a 17 year old and performed better at the Champs.

Look I hope like hell that Dangerfield turns out to be the best player from the draft and the best player in the competition. Why wouldn't I?! I love this club with all my heart and I want it to be a huge success in every aspect.

What I won't back off from is this sudden promotion of Dangerfield because he is on our list, and this demotion of Ebert because he is not. People point to Ebert's champs and say that might be the reason he wasn't rated highly but ignore Rondey's less than impressive champs. Then they say how Dangerfield is bottom age, well so is Ebert!

Why the need to put one player down to pump up the players of another one?! Just because Rondey is on our list it doesn't make him god's gift to football. Exciting prospect sure but it is a bit of a worrying sign when we are the only club to rate him that highly and our record with these things isn't exactly something you would hang your hat one.

Look, I wish the kid all the best and I hope he becomes a 300 game player for us and the best player the club has ever produced but I am not going to pump up his tyres and bag on another kid who deserves the recognition for his talent, character and the hard work he has put in.

And no, I don't expect the first round picks to play the following year. In fact I have been one over the years for bringing them along slowly. In our current situation it would have been handy to push someone through next year. Ebert would have been that someone. And no our fortunes wouldn't have depended on him next year but it would have beena great grounding for the young player we want to develop into a genuine AFL player to play as many games as possible in the first year.

 

[macca23]

Forget Ebert.

He plays for West Coast.

 

[Stiffy_18]

The way you've gone on and on about Ebert, Stiffy, suggests you don't think the AFC know what they're doing. Not unlike all the Port supporters carrying on like pork chops when Port took Boak. All the armchair experts said the same thing. Port must be wrong because nobody else rated him that highly, and look how good he has turned out to be.

As for the comparison between Dangerfield and Ebert's form in the championships I quote myself from elsewhere:



You don't think 2 broken thumbs would have some affect on your performances?? Apparently Dangerfield sizzled in the latter part of the season when he was over those injuries.

I think that you and all those who keep harping on about Ebert are doing so on the basis of our past tragedies with our first round pick - and there's been plenty of them.

However let's have a little faith in the new recruiting team. This is their first crack at it and at this stage they have no record of failure in drafting. Quite frankly I have been super impressed by Dangerfield as a person - outstanding communication skills for a 17 year old, and really put together well.

The fact that he wants to not only do his year 12 but to excel in it tells us another bit about his character. He wants to do well in both life and football. In fact he wants to be a marine biologist after his footy playing days.

If we had drafted Ebert, it wouldn't have mattered a rat's arse whether he played AFL or not next year. He would have been learning rather than significantly contributing.

The fact is that we don't have Ebert, but we do have an outstanding young man with some outstanding talents and attributes - ones that we lack and are desperate for.

I'm delighted that we've taken him. From the vision I've seen of him, he looks Judd like to me and IMO has the attributes to be a game breaker, not just another good footballer.

I'm really looking forward to this kid playing for us in 2009.

And to all the current doubting thomases then saying that they always knew that he would be better than Ebert.

You are right. My "grief" is based on our poor record with 1st round picks. But you are incorrect when you say we have a new recruting team. We have a new recruting manager but his recruting network is the same that James Fantasia had and the recruting network is the one that does majority of work here so I think we all have a reason to be a little bit nervous here.

 

[NikkiNoo]

I was waiting for someone to bring this one up

Ebert was heavily tagged at the Nationals as clearly our best player. Despite the really have tag he still averaged 22 possesions and was our sole representative in the U18s AA team.

Compare that to Dangerfield's championships and it becomes quite comic . Dangerfield averaged 7 possesions per game in the Nationals. Hardly something that would catapult him into the upper echelon of the draft.

Even though Ebert didn't have great Nationals, he still performed much better than Dangerfield. Nationals form is not be all and end all here. It helps but many players who have struggled at Nationals have gone on to becomes genuine superstars of the competition.

As macca23 stated - Dangerfield was playing with a broken thumb at this stage. So to compare the two is a little difficult. Emma Quayle's article that WW linked to on here last week had Dangerfield rated higher.

Most on here haven't seen Ebert or Dangerfield that much, or even at all, so we are only going by stats and other people's opinions etc.

I'm willing to wait and see and not throw the baby out with the bath water that some seem to want to do.

On the u18's AA team, there are players that make that team that don't get drafted. I think there was about 7 from this year.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

Are you actually aware that Ebert is also a bottom age player and he was a captain of the SA side as a 17 year old which is pretty rare!

I am not dogging on Dangerfield here but I am standing up to those who seem to want to put down Ebert to make Dangerfield pick look better when in fact they are both bottom aged, one was captain as a 17 year old and performed better at the Champs.

Look I hope like hell that Dangerfield turns out to be the best player from the draft and the best player in the competition. Why wouldn't I?! I love this club with all my heart and I want it to be a huge success in every aspect.

What I won't back off from is this sudden promotion of Dangerfield because he is on our list, and this demotion of Ebert because he is not. People point to Ebert's champs and say that might be the reason he wasn't rated highly but ignore Rondey's less than impressive champs. Then they say how Dangerfield is bottom age, well so is Ebert!

Why the need to put one player down to pump up the players of another one?! Just because Rondey is on our list it doesn't make him god's gift to football. Exciting prospect sure but it is a bit of a worrying sign when we are the only club to rate him that highly and our record with these things isn't exactly something you would hang your hat one.

Look, I wish the kid all the best and I hope he becomes a 300 game player for us and the best player the club has ever produced but I am not going to pump up his tyres and bag on another kid who deserves the recognition for his talent, character and the hard work he has put in.

And no, I don't expect the first round picks to play the following year. In fact I have been one over the years for bringing them along slowly. In our current situation it would have been handy to push someone through next year. Ebert would have been that someone. And no our fortunes wouldn't have depended on him next year but it would have beena great grounding for the young player we want to develop into a genuine AFL player to play as many games as possible in the first year.

Yes, I was shocked we overlook Brad Ebert, but thats because he's on the only name the media, in SA especially, have put right in our face.

The media's view on who is the better player influences probably yours and mine.

Stop whinging and have faith.

If we put people like you and me in charge of recruiting, with probably 2 or 3 games knowledge total, I'd say we'd be more ****ed than you suggest we are right now.

Quit your whinging, start supporting!

*Cue Asgardian to do a spell check on my post.

 

[Southerntakeover]

What I won't back off from is this sudden promotion of Dangerfield because he is on our list, and this demotion of Ebert because he is not.

Isnt it only natural that people ammend their opinion with more evidence?

Very few people on this board would have seen anything from Dangerfield throughout the year. Having now watched some footage of him, alot of us are impressed with what we've seen.

In addition, we now know that the Crows rated Dangerfield as the third best player in the draft. We also have a pretty clear indication that few if any clubs rated Ebert that high. We know for certain that the club that drafted him didnt, as they overlooked him at 3. His sliding in the draft is an indication that the people who matter, the recruiting officers, didnt rate him as highly as the people who got caught up in his name.

 

[Crow-mo]

You need to get real kid.

gold

 

[Crow-mo]

Isnt it only natural that people ammend their opinion with more evidence?

Very few people on this board would have seen anything from Dangerfield throughout the year. Having now watched some footage of him, alot of us are impressed with what we've seen.

In addition, we now know that the Crows rated Dangerfield as the third best player in the draft. We also have a pretty clear indication that few if any clubs rated Ebert that high. We know for certain that the club that drafted him didnt, as they overlooked him at 3. His sliding in the draft is an indication that the people who matter, the recruiting officers, didnt rate him as highly as the people who got caught up in his name.

nice work again.

very clear, logical and concise. hard to argue.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

11. Patrick Dangerfield (Geelong Falcons, 17, 187cm, 83kg)
5/04/1990 - 17 & Bottom Age
28. Andy Otten (Oakleigh Chargers, 18, 191cm, 89kg)
15/05/1989 - 18 & Top Age
31. Jarrhan Jacky (Subiaco, 18, 178cm, 75kg)
5/04/1989 - 18 & Top Age
38. Myke Cook (Sandringham Dragons, 18, 184cm, 77kg)
9/10/1989 - 18 & Top Age
59. Tony Armstrong (NSW ACT Rams, 18, 183cm, 72kg)
29/09/1989 - 18 & Top Age
72. Aaron Kite (Calder Canons, 17, 192cm, 77kg)
13/01/1990 - 17 & Bottom Age
75. Taylor Walker (Broken Hill North, 17, 192cm, 86kg)
25/04/1990 - 17 & Bottom Age

Probably with the exception of Kite, who I think will struggle in the SANFL reserves (it's going to be a long long journey for this kid), Iam rapt with the ix of kids we picked up.

I have loved Otten for 12 months.

Jacky has a real touch of class about him .......and doesn't he present well.

Love the pace focus, the toughness, and the fact that most draftees have some pre-existing connects with players and city .....making the transition easy.

Great job by recruiting team and that makes two outstanding years in a row

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

11. Patrick Dangerfield (Geelong Falcons, 17, 187cm, 83kg)
5/04/1990 - 17 & Bottom Age
28. Andy Otten (Oakleigh Chargers, 18, 191cm, 89kg)
15/05/1989 - 18 & Top Age
31. Jarrhan Jacky (Subiaco, 18, 178cm, 75kg)
5/04/1989 - 18 & Top Age
38. Myke Cook (Sandringham Dragons, 18, 184cm, 77kg)
9/10/1989 - 18 & Top Age
59. Tony Armstrong (NSW ACT Rams, 18, 183cm, 72kg)
29/09/1989 - 18 & Top Age
72. Aaron Kite (Calder Canons, 17, 192cm, 77kg)
13/01/1990 - 17 & Bottom Age
75. Taylor Walker (Broken Hill North, 17, 192cm, 86kg)
25/04/1990 - 17 & Bottom Age

Probably with the exception of Kite, who I think will struggle in the SANFL reserves (it's going to be a long long journey for this kid), Iam rapt with the ix of kids we picked up.

I have loved Otten for 12 months.

Jacky has a real touch of class about him .......and doesn't he present well.

Love the pace focus, the toughness, and the fact that most draftees have some pre-existing connects with players and city .....making the transition easy.

Great job by recruiting team and that makes two outstanding years in a row

You obviously haven't seen Sellar play then?

 

[Southerntakeover]

You obviously haven't seen Sellar play then?

Are you writing him off already?

 

[crowman_23]

Isnt it only natural that people ammend their opinion with more evidence?

Very few people on this board would have seen anything from Dangerfield throughout the year. Having now watched some footage of him, alot of us are impressed with what we've seen.

In addition, we now know that the Crows rated Dangerfield as the third best player in the draft. We also have a pretty clear indication that few if any clubs rated Ebert that high. We know for certain that the club that drafted him didnt, as they overlooked him at 3. His sliding in the draft is an indication that the people who matter, the recruiting officers, didnt rate him as highly as the people who got caught up in his name.

That's certainly been the way for me. Since we picked Dangerfield I have looked at anything I can find on the bloke and I now am geniunely excited and thrilled we picked him. When his name was first called out, I like most was shocked and disappointed but the more I read the more impressed I am.

In response to Stiffy this is why my opinion has changed, I have read so much more. I had not shown any attention to Dangerfield prior to the draft, but since have looked into it. And yes, while Ebert may have had better stats in the carnival, that can not be the only thing we base our judgments on surely? Also Ebert should surely have stood out in a side that only had what, 3 draftees?

I just don't think it's the be all and end all to have our draftee play next year, and we should show some trust in the recruiting staff. Your exactly right, they have stuffed up too many times with our first rounders, but lets hope that has only led them to work that much harder and have actually unearthed a class player. Only time will tell, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[earlsta]

Ebert's 3 days older than Dangerfield btw.

 

[ash_78]

Too early to tell of course. But on the positive side for you guys, Dangerfield could turn out to be the success story that reverses your previous 1st round draft pick fortunes.

Think they had to stick by their philosophy of picking the best available player anyway, regardless of the interstate risk. I don't think you get anywhere with recruiting if you play it too safe.

Also happy that Ebert may become available for a trade back to Port in a few years time. Any early money on an Ebert for Krakouer swap in 2 years?

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Are you writing him off already?

Seen him a couple of times. Let's just hope reports were true and he was still carrying an injury. His lack of aggression and presence for a big guy stuck out like dogs....