Disgraceful
List Mgmt. List Management 2024-25
- Thread starter Long live PAFC
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Disgraceful
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 82,750
- 204,389
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #6,352
FEvans goneski according to 7 news.
- Nov 25, 2019
- 5,316
- 10,750
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Boak is still a significantly better player than about the bottom 10 players on our list.
He is much, much more useful than Jackson who can barely get on the park let alone put up the performances that 40 year old Boak was offering last year.
Although I'd probably delist Charleson over Jackson, but if it's Jackson I don't care that much. There are a million Hugh Jacksons playing in the CTL or SANFL u18s, most of which can probably get in the park occasionally.
He is much, much more useful than Jackson who can barely get on the park let alone put up the performances that 40 year old Boak was offering last year.
Although I'd probably delist Charleson over Jackson, but if it's Jackson I don't care that much. There are a million Hugh Jacksons playing in the CTL or SANFL u18s, most of which can probably get in the park occasionally.
Schulzenfest
TheBrownDog
Jackson strikes me as a poor man's Mead, and Mead sucks. No loss if we delist him.
Regardless, what are we getting for taking boak from 370 to 390 games ? What’s the payoff? Warm fuzzy feelings?
We’ve got a limited ability to bring in young talent over the next 2 years after 3 or so years of bringing in a very limited amount of young talent.
Having Ratkins on the list and pumping an extra 20 games into boak and cutting 2 juniors / taking few picks into a supposedly deep draft we were so suddenly desperate to get into …
does that sound like a logical decision?
- Nov 25, 2019
- 5,316
- 10,750
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
One year of Ratkins = pick 29. Its actually very simple to understand why that is helpful. Also, Ratkins is taking Narkle spot, not a young player.
The payoff is also pretty simple with Boak. We have like three wings on our list, and one of them is 19. He will play games next year.
Ford Fairlane
Moderator
- Feb 21, 2002
- 82,750
- 204,389
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
- Moderator
- #6,357
Our young players would look a lot better if they were allowed in the gym.
Disagree strongly, kid has x factor, unfortunately injury ridden. Would of loved to see him get a chance.
I'd love to hear his reasoning for going on. I still think he's in our best 25 but you'd think he might have the self-awareness to move into coaching. Because from the outside it looks like he's putting himself ahead of the team.
I don't think its great for culture but he's probably encouraged to play on by Stinkers.
Last edited:
Launchpad McQuack
Internet fact checker.
- Jul 6, 2011
- 5,453
- 17,588
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Also people are watching boak with rose coloured glasses. Peak boak was great.
Boak of last year really has no to minimal difference to guys like narkle.
He basically cleared the “you must be this good to get a game for a team with questionable depth helped by the fact Hinkley won’t drop him to debut youth” bar by a whisker last year.
If Boak had been taken on as a dfa last year, there isn’t a single , single person in their right mind who would advocate to keep him on the list.
Eh, so he’s going around again. There’s worse things happening I guess. But gee, I’m not sure how anyone thinks it’s really a sound decision.
As I’ve said already, what is to be gained by taking boak from 370 to 390 games next year?
Forget even about the list spot we can’t use in a draft we’re supposedly keen on and don’t have enough list spots to take anything remotely close to our draft picks and f/s and ngas available…
Who in their right mind with all evidence at hand trusts Hinkley to be impartial and select boak on merit? How did that work with Dixon and lycett?
There’s a fair risk Lorenz gets overlooked for games next year, and the development we could be getting into him cause we’re giving boak a year long farewell tour.
Boak of last year really has no to minimal difference to guys like narkle.
He basically cleared the “you must be this good to get a game for a team with questionable depth helped by the fact Hinkley won’t drop him to debut youth” bar by a whisker last year.
If Boak had been taken on as a dfa last year, there isn’t a single , single person in their right mind who would advocate to keep him on the list.
Eh, so he’s going around again. There’s worse things happening I guess. But gee, I’m not sure how anyone thinks it’s really a sound decision.
As I’ve said already, what is to be gained by taking boak from 370 to 390 games next year?
Forget even about the list spot we can’t use in a draft we’re supposedly keen on and don’t have enough list spots to take anything remotely close to our draft picks and f/s and ngas available…
Who in their right mind with all evidence at hand trusts Hinkley to be impartial and select boak on merit? How did that work with Dixon and lycett?
There’s a fair risk Lorenz gets overlooked for games next year, and the development we could be getting into him cause we’re giving boak a year long farewell tour.
Are we saying the same for Pendlebury, or Sidebottom etc. He has earned the right to call his time.
What?
You have no evidence that we got pick 29 to take ratkins on, and even if true, that just makes an insanely pissweak trade even worse.
Ratkins isn’t taking narkles spot. Narkkes was getting delisted anyway. He was never offered a contract and he never would have been.
It’s one less draft pick we can take or the delisting of a junior we might of held onto.
im also unsure why our fan base is so scared of having to play developing players and where this idea comes from that teams around the league manage to birth 22-30 afl ready players into existence and not, you know, just give games to developing players…
Besides, if we gave less games to boak last year (or any other soon to be finished player ahem mcintee) and more to developing players we would have achieved the exact amount of success as we did anyway. Which is zero.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 11,656
- 7,015
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Man City, NY Jets
- Nov 25, 2019
- 5,316
- 10,750
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Just about everyone who has any information on this trade has said taking on Ratkins salary netted us 29.
Do you really think we got him for his footballing ability? Christ
I agree with that too - I wouldn't be keen on delisting him though.
Buttkiss means nothing, you Millennial Gen Zer.
Waspy79
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 14, 2008
- 11,754
- 12,533
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Trailblazers
He gave his own testimony and it was embarrassing. I agree though that the obvious lack of coaching from club lawyer as to what Houston should have said is yet another stain on the place.
Last edited:
- Mar 26, 2007
- 21,492
- 46,391
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- SA Spurs, Anaheim Ducks, White Sox
Jackson can't kick. He won't make it. I would delist and move to rookie spot. If he was uncontracted I would delist.
- Jan 20, 2015
- 3,272
- 6,268
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I thought that the story was the salary dump got our two later picks upgraded. 58 to 50 and 39 to 36.
Scodges
Club Legend
- Sep 22, 2023
- 1,389
- 1,643
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I must be watching wrong sanfl games, his left foot is pretty good.
Scodges
Club Legend
- Sep 22, 2023
- 1,389
- 1,643
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
]
" data-quote="RangaInTeal" data-source="post: 0"
class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
I’d persist with Jackson, see what an injury free season looks like. Recon he’ll surprise a few.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Jackson showed alot of promise the year he got a solid run with no injuries.. 
was that last year... Or year before.
Think the kid has talent... But always bloody injured.
was that last year... Or year before.Think the kid has talent... But always bloody injured.
