Obviously, though I think the point was simply that being rookie listed itself is irrelevant to ability and potential. That’s the thought process that sees Newcombe being massively underrated in the media etc because of where he was drafted, while players taken early are overrated on “potential” simply because of what recruiters thought about them when they were 17.Please…..the difference between the two is remarkable.
I am unconvinced on Long but I think he’s a better prospect than Stephens who was once an early pick and is just ordinary.