Rookie List

[macca23]

Was just trying to remember who has been training with the Crows in order to be taken in the pre-season draft (if we have a pick).

Off memory it was

Aiden Parker (WA)
Adam Fisher (Vic)

with the local boys being

Tim Nicholas (Norwood)
James McEntee (North Adelaide)
Haydn Skipworth (Eagles)
Joel Patful(Norwood)
Jason Porplyzia (West Adelaide)
Adrian Wilson (Central Districts)

with Wilson having been listed at one stage as quitting and then later still being listed as training.

Like the national draft, the rookie selections can come from any player nominating for that draft, not just the ones training with you. But presuming they were to come from those training with the Crows, my guesses are:

Pre-season: Aiden Parker

Rookie List: Adam Fisher, Tim Nicholas, Haydn Skipworth and Joel Patful.

If Wilson is still training with the club, then I'll go for him in lieu of Patful.

Any body got any info or thoughts in this area?

[DaveW]

Why did you overlook McEntee who is a ruckman?

[macca23]

Originally posted by DaveW
Why did you overlook McEntee who is a ruckman?

Only because he is listed at 195 cms Dave, which IMO at AFL level is just too short.

[napsyd]

Originally posted by macca23
Was just trying to remember who has been training with the Crows in order to be taken in the pre-season draft (if we have a pick).

Off memory it was

Aiden Parker (WA)
Adam Fisher (Vic)

with the local boys being

Tim Nicholas (Norwood)
James McEntee (North Adelaide)
Haydn Skipworth (Eagles)
Joel Patful(Norwood)
Jason Porplyzia (West Adelaide)
Adrian Wilson (Central Districts)

with Wilson having been listed at one stage as quitting and then later still being listed as training.

Like the national draft, the rookie selections can come from any player nominating for that draft, not just the ones training with you. But presuming they were to come from those training with the Crows, my guesses are:

Pre-season: Aiden Parker

Rookie List: Adam Fisher, Tim Nicholas, Haydn Skipworth and Joel Patful.

If Wilson is still training with the club, then I'll go for him in lieu of Patful.

Any body got any info or thoughts in this area?

What's the eligability for the rookie list? I would have thought Skipworth would not be eligible??

[macca23]

Originally posted by napsyd
What's the eligability for the rookie list? I would have thought Skipworth would not be eligible??

It's something along the lines of under 23 and played less than a certain number of games. Whatever the precise requirements are, Skipworth definitely qualifies.

[napsyd]

Originally posted by macca23
It's something along the lines of under 23 and played less than a certain number of games. Whatever the precise requirements are, Skipworth definitely qualifies.

OK, that's good. A friend of mine knows his family quite well. Apparantly he's a good kid so I hope he gets another go if he's good enough.

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by macca23
It's something along the lines of under 23 and played less than a certain number of games. Whatever the precise requirements are, Skipworth definitely qualifies. Yeah, this is correct. Reckon Skipworth finally started showing some decent SANFL form last year & still being young would probably worth having on the rookie list for another year.

[macca23]

Channel 10 news tonight showed Alan Stewart skulking in the bushes watching the Crows train today, with his eyes firmly fixed on the would be rookies training with the Crows.

After last year's abysmal record with rookies - 0 from 4 promoted to the senior list or retained, as opposed to 3 from 4 promoted for the Crows, they obviously value our judgement better than theirs, as they were the only 1 of the 16 teams not to have any potential rookies doing a pre-season with them. :rolleyes:

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by macca23
Channel 10 news tonight showed Alan Stewart skulking in the bushes watching the Crows train today, with his eyes firmly fixed on the would be rookies training with the Crows.

After last year's abysmal record with rookies - 0 from 4 promoted to the senior list or retained, as opposed to 3 from 4 promoted for the Crows, they obviously value our judgement better than theirs, as they were the only 1 of the 16 teams not to have any potential rookies doing a pre-season with them. :rolleyes: As I mentioned before this is a good reason not to talk up any of the players until we have them on our list. ie. We shouldn't be encouraging other teams to pinch them ... unless your name is Angwin. ;)

[macca23]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
As I mentioned before this is a good reason not to talk up any of the players until we have them on our list. ie. We shouldn't be encouraging other teams to pinch them ... unless your name is Angwin. ;)

The problem we have is that by having these lads train with us it draws the attention of other clubs to them, eg Jamar last year.

On the reverse side of the coin, having them train up close gives us a real insight into their abilities as witnessed by the success of our rookie list program in the last 12 months.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by macca23
After last year's abysmal record with rookies - 0 from 4 promoted to the senior list or retained, as opposed to 3 from 4 promoted for the Crows, they obviously value our judgement better than theirs, as they were the only 1 of the 16 teams not to have any potential rookies doing a pre-season with them. :rolleyes: Its harder to get a spot on Port's list than it is on Adelaide's. Its harder to keep a spot on Adelaide's list than on Port's.

As for valuing your judgement better, what the? How exactly does watching some players train give any insight into Crows' recruiting judgement? It just shows how good those players are - players that all clubs have been watching all year. Blokes like Adam Fisher, Jason Porplyzia and Adrian Wilson aren't exactly unknowns.

And for what its worth, of last years Port rookies, 3 of them were at Collingwood preseason training. You don't need them at your club to assess them. Chris Hall wasn't at Port's preseason training either before we listed him.

[noddy]

Originally posted by Porthos
Its harder to get a spot on Port's list than it is on Adelaide's. Its harder to keep a spot on Adelaide's list than on Port's.



I'm sure you have thought long & hard before making this statement Porthos & i look forward to your clarification of it,

I don't really care to much if Stewart or anyone else is spying on the young kids trying out with the Crows for the rookie list,
if it means some youngster can gain a spot on an AFL list good luck to him even if he does end up at Pap land,

[Porthos]

Originally posted by noddy
I'm sure you have thought long & hard before making this statement Porthos & i look forward to your clarification of it,OK.

Port are the club that goes for the high draft picks most years. When they get young blokes on the list, they want them to show a fair bit of promise beforehand - however once they're on the list, they get a fair bit of time to show that promise - Thurstans, Morgan, M. Stevens, Koulouriotis and Hall are good examples of this. They haven't got a top side berth, but Port have kept them on to develop.

The Crows' almost always draft late. As such, they tend to take in a whole bunch of draftees that haven't shown so much, but so as to make room for the next lot of late draftees in two years time, they have to create a lot more draftee turnover to maximise their chances of picking up on some more hidden potential...they get around two years to show it, and then they're usually out.

These two trends are best abbreviated in the statement I made before. Rutten, Bock and Mattner are just a part of the latest Crows intake of turnover draftees (ie. they only have a couple of years to make a mark) - not a lot is expected of them. For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled.

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Porthos
OK.

Port are the club that goes for the high draft picks most years. When they get young blokes on the list, they want them to show a fair bit of promise beforehand - however once they're on the list, they get a fair bit of time to show that promise - Thurstans, Morgan, M. Stevens, Koulouriotis and Hall are good examples of this. They haven't got a top side berth, but Port have kept them on to develop.

The Crows' almost always draft late. As such, they tend to take in a whole bunch of draftees that haven't shown so much, but so as to make room for the next lot of late draftees in two years time, they have to create a lot more draftee turnover to maximise their chances of picking up on some more hidden potential...they get around two years to show it, and then they're usually out.

These two trends are best abbreviated in the statement I made before. Rutten, Bock and Mattner are just a part of the latest Crows intake of turnover draftees (ie. they only have a couple of years to make a mark) - not a lot is expected of them. For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled.

I generally get where you are coming from, but it's a big call to say that not a lot is expected from Rutten, Bock and Mattner. I'd say a hell of a lot is expected from them, particularly Rutten and Mattner. Perhaps this was not the case when they were first rookie listed, is that what you mean?

Anyway, surely two years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds. Late developers are truly rare. Do Port clutch at turds? :)

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Porthos
Its harder to get a spot on Port's list than it is on Adelaide's. Its harder to keep a spot on Adelaide's list than on Port's.

Flow of youth keeps Adelaide's future needs on track
By DAVID BURTENSHAW
17dec02
...
Surprisingly, Port Adelaide has more players in the 26 and over category.

But the Power drags down its average age by listing 13 players who are aged 21 or under.


Hey, anyone else spot the apparent disconnect here with Porthos' claim and the comparison provided by Burtenshaw of actual numbers of older and younger players on Ports list compared with Crows?

If it was indeed harder to keep a spot on Adelaide's list - how come the fewer players in the mid-range of age (22-25) on Port's list?

IMO it happens like this-

The Crows tend to approach recruiting from both ends (in favour of the middle) - they try to obtain experienced ready-made players through trades, and also they try to select promising but very young players via the rookie list, selecting them early so that other clubs don't get to them first. The Crows have not had good experience with low draft picks, and tend to avoid them by trading them away.

Port OTOH have tried to obtain low draft picks through trades (more so than the Crows), backing their judgement (& luck) in the draft lottery.

Despite this differing approach to recruiting it is Port that have somehow ended up with the larger gap in the midlle age & experience range of its list.

This tends to go against the latter part of Porthos' theory - that it is harder to stay on Crows list.

I am undecided about the part of the theory that it is harder to get onto Ports list - although I agree it would seem that you would have to "rate" higher in draft camp type terms.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by napsyd
Anyway, surely two years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds.It obviously wasn't with Biglands. Two years on the Power list, still needed another year of SANFL before he was worth picking up. Its some cases its not a matter of determining whether they're diamonds or turds, but whether the flaws in the diamonds are too big to conceal.

Late developers are truly rare.Unfortunately, players with badly timed injuries aren't rare. Morgan, Koulouriotis, Lockwood and Hall all fit into this category.

ok.crows, I'll debunk your post later. ;)

[napsyd]

Biglands is a single case, he is not the rule. I agree that a player recruited at 18 will not show his best by 20. But 9 times out of ten, he'll be showing something of his potential.

Injury certainly can't be helped. Looking at John**** last year, you can be pretty confident he would have played in 2001 if fit.

None of this changes my original proposition though. Barring the rare odd case and injury, 2 years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds.

So either Port have a heap of young diamonds or are full of ...

[napsyd]

Hey, while we're at it, using your logic, shouldn't Biglands still be on your list Porthos?

[koulagirl22]

Originally posted by napsyd
I generally get where you are coming from, but it's a big call to say that not a lot is expected from Rutten, Bock and Mattner. I'd say a hell of a lot is expected from them, particularly Rutten and Mattner. Perhaps this was not the case when they were first rookie listed, is that what you mean?

Anyway, surely two years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds. Late developers are truly rare. Do Port clutch at turds? :)

For your sake, I hope you didn't just call Paul Koulouriotis a ****...

[napsyd]

Originally posted by koulagirl22
For your sake, I hope you didn't just call Paul Koulouriotis a ****...

I wouldn't know Paul Koulouriotis if I stepped in a pile of him whilst walking down the street. :)

Since I know nothing about him, the answer to your question is no.

[napsyd]

Originally posted by koulagirl22
For your sake, I hope you didn't just call Paul Koulouriotis a ****...

I have now examined the website in your sig and am far more educated on the subject of Paul Koulouriotis.

Since he clearly is your favourite player and because I am a nice bloke, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure he's more diamond than ****.

[DaveW]

I see something has been recently added to the swear filter. IS the following word really so offensive?

t u r d

:confused:

[napsyd]

Originally posted by DaveW
I see something has been recently added to the swear filter. IS the following word really so offensive?

t u r d

:confused:

Someone must find it ****ing offensive mate!

[macca23]

Originally posted by napsyd
I wouldn't know Paul Koulouriotis if I stepped in a pile of him whilst walking down the street.




Pure Gold napsyd!!! Pure Gold!! :D :D

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Hey, anyone else spot the apparent disconnect here with Porthos' claim and the comparison provided by Burtenshaw of actual numbers of older and younger players on Ports list compared with Crows?

If it was indeed harder to keep a spot on Adelaide's list - how come the fewer players in the mid-range of age (22-25) on Port's list?

IMO it happens like this-

The Crows tend to approach recruiting from both ends (in favour of the middle) - they try to obtain experienced ready-made players through trades, and also they try to select promising but very young players via the rookie list, selecting them early so that other clubs don't get to them first. The Crows have not had good experience with low draft picks, and tend to avoid them by trading them away.

Port OTOH have tried to obtain low draft picks through trades (more so than the Crows), backing their judgement (& luck) in the draft lottery.

Despite this differing approach to recruiting it is Port that have somehow ended up with the larger gap in the midlle age & experience range of its list.

This tends to go against the latter part of Porthos' theory - that it is harder to stay on Crows list.

I am undecided about the part of the theory that it is harder to get onto Ports list - although I agree it would seem that you would have to "rate" higher in draft camp type terms.


You see - thats the problem with reading an article and blindly treating it as fact without context.


Lets first look at the category of players 17 -21
===================================
Its generally a fair assessment to say the majority of these players have been picked up as first time pickups in the pre-season draft ..... it can also be seen that port has an additional 4 ... i.e and extra 1 per year for the past 4 years.

This does not contradict Porthos's claim that Port generally draft an extra youngster or two and hang on to them a bit longer.

I'll leave it to you guys to look at how long each of these draftees has been on respective lists, but of this category of players I would suggest Ports would on average have been on their lists a bit longer.

Now for the 22 - 25 Category
====================-
I had a bit of a squizz through the Crows list and of the players I found that fitted this category .... I only found 16 of them, I found it quite interesting that 7 .... or just under half were mature age recruits ..... I.e. they were players who had been drafted for or picked up from other clubs in trades at ages of around 20 or older.

This seems to suggest that Adelaide like trying to pick up ready made players or players just needing a change of environment to supplement their list ..... in fact of the players in this category for Adelaide, I could see 4 players Doughty, McGregor, Stenglein, and
Crowell, who seem to be regular contributors to the team that are also players drafted by the Crows as kids. With Shirley as an exception to the rule having been redrafted.

MY basic point here is that a lot of Adelaides 22 - 25 year old talent is in fact recycled players from elsewhere.

eg: Begley, Biglands, Bode, Ladhams, Massie, Torney, Welsh, Shcell.

Whereas if you look at Ports list, 7 were drafted initially by Port and are now regular contributors, .... and in fact are also constant performers in Peter Burgoyne, Josh Carr, Chad Cornes, Stuart Dew, Nick Stevens, Warren Tredrea.

A further 2 in Pickett and Cochran are mature age recruit, 1 of which will be a guaranteed starter next season, while the other 2 in Thurstans and Brogan were initially drafted by Port.

Hence this again supports porthos argument that Port hangs on to more of its youngsters.

I'm also pretty comfortable as a Port suppoorter with our group of 22 - 25 year olds when stacked up against the Crows equivalents.



Finally looking at the 26 - 29 category
===========================
This is where Port seems to have quire a few players drafted from elsewhere ...... I didnt look at the crows and will leave that as a task for others ... but it seems to suggest that ports initial squad generally consisted of a lot of younger (U20) year old talents wioth not a lot of early 20's aged players, Port has recruited to fill this age gap, with 5 players that I could find brought to the club from elsewhere ..... once again this seems to be quite a reasonable thing to do to fill out a rookie squad.




All of this supports porthos arguments made above to some degree, and does not in any way contradict anything porthos has claimed.


MY assessment would be that Port goes after high end draft picks of kids in the draft and gives them time to develop, while the crows aren't quite as desperate to do this, instead being content to pick up middle of the draft players, and trading for 20 - 23 year olds from other cluns looking for opportunities.

Port generally saeems to trade for more experienced players looking to fill specific roles.


And after all that ... I am more than content with the make up and age breakdown of our squad.

[macca23]

Originally posted by napsyd
Biglands is a single case, he is not the rule. I agree that a player recruited at 18 will not show his best by 20. But 9 times out of ten, he'll be showing something of his potential.

Injury certainly can't be helped. Looking at John**** last year, you can be pretty confident he would have played in 2001 if fit.

None of this changes my original proposition though. Barring the rare odd case and injury, 2 years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds.

So either Port have a heap of young diamonds or are full of ...

While there are late developers, and usually that is more the case in big blokes, I agree that 9 times out of 10 a player will be showing that he has potential by the time he is 20, barring injury.

While Adelaide and Port Adelaide seem to have totally differing philosophies on how to get there, they are both pretty good at what they do and how they do it, or they wouldn't have finished where they did at the end of the minor round this year, and with the lists they are taking into next year.

As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port. Poor excuse!!

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by macca23
While there are late developers, and usually that is more the case in big blokes, I agree that 9 times out of 10 a player will be showing that he has potential by the time he is 20, barring injury.

Probably more like 75 - 80 % of the time, but close enough.



While Adelaide and Port Adelaide seem to have totally differing philosophies on how to get there, they are both pretty good at what they do and how they do it, or they wouldn't have finished where they did at the end of the minor round this year, and with the lists they are taking into next year.

Agree.



As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port. Poor excuse!!

Disagree entirely ....... this depends on exactly how each club intends to use their rookie list.

Port seems to use it each year to pick up a player who can come in and play a role if injury requires it (I.e. Ben Hollands, 2 years ago, Jaxon Crabb last year) and also a couple of players (higher risk) that are a longshot at being something reasonable, whereas the crows seem a little more conservative with these selections, being more likely to go for home grown.

That being said, remember that Port was pretty ****ed at the way some of their rookies were handled this year, and I beleive stated that it was pointless keeping them cause they wern't being allowed to show their wares.

That being said I would not be dissapointed if Port grabbed a few local rookie listed players this season.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by macca23

As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port. Poor excuse!!

I didnt think our rookie choices were that bad.

Barham kicked 65-70 goals in Centrals reserves yet never got given a go. Was a bit stiff not to get a go. Was Centrals reserves best finals player - kicking something like 18 finals goals for them. He could of been given another year on the rookie list but because he was never given a try at Senior level we dunno how he would of performed.

Mckenzie was fantastic this year for the Eagles. Would of been promoted to the senior list but he busted his arm badly in one of the Eagles finals, so was unlucky in that part. According to Williams, his busted arm is the only reason he wasnt promoted or kept on the rookie list - as he would of been behind the 8 ball next year.

Crabb played AFL this season for Port. I dont see how thats a dud choice.

Jackman was unlucky as he was considered a long term prospect. He played well for Souths in the second half of this year. Bit stiff to not be given another year when he was always considered a longer term prospect.

Most supporters expected at least two of these to be put on the senior list or at least kept on the rookie list - and were surprised when none were kept.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by napsyd
Biglands is a single case, he is not the rule. I agree that a player recruited at 18 will not show his best by 20. But 9 times out of ten, he'll be showing something of his potential.A couple of other late developers that spring to mind are Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus and Josh Francou. There are plenty out there.

I agree that most players will show something of their potential by 20 - most in fact have. The question is over whether or not they will realise that potential....Michael Stevens a great example. Tore it up in the SANFL, but did nothing at AFL level. We hung onto him for four seasons on the basis of his unfulfilled talent and still managed to find a trade for him at the end of it. Hell, even our former rookies get looked at by other clubs. They're quality, but with flaws, or not meeting our requirements, so out they go. There aren't too many recent Crows delistings that you could say have gone on to prove the club wrong on their talent - maybe Picioane.

None of this changes my original proposition though. Barring the rare odd case and injury, 2 years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds.Nothing of this changes my clarification either. Port have diamonds, and they try to work out the flaws. The Crows sort through the crud to find gems, flawed or not, and dedicate more room on their list to doing this.

Port draft less, and delist less than Adelaide pretty much every year. When they draft, they very rarely draft late on. Less opportunity, higher picks - its clearly harder to be drafted to Port than Adelaide.

ok.crows, I was going to respond to your post, but Malibu#27 seems to have pretty much made the points I was going to make.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by napsyd
Hey, while we're at it, using your logic, shouldn't Biglands still be on your list Porthos? With the list reducing from 46 to 42 to 40 in two seasons, it was always going to be hard to not make mistakes. By the end of 1998, both Primus and Lade had shown to be top notch ruckmen - obviously Biglands as an excess ruck was put under pressure by this, and as such got the arse.

If he'd been on the list this year at that same age, I expect he'd be getting the same amount of time to develop as Brogan and Ackland have enjoyed.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by macca23
As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port.Agreed. What I'm saying is that they weren't good enough because Port's list, and manner of list maintenance, was too good for them!

If Adelaide hadn't promoted those three rookies this year, they would've had extra picks at 80, 90, 92 or some other extremely low number. Are Bock, Rutten and Mattner worth those picks? Sure, why not?

If Port had promoted those three, we would not have Champion, Ebert or Gilham (or would've somehow had to make room for them). Are they worth those picks? No.

The Crows make room for speculation and have high turnover - Port go for safer bets (higher picks) and have less turnover. It is harder to get onto Port's list than Adelaide's.

The recent past has shown that a draftee that isn't getting regular games will be given more time on Port's list than Adelaide's. It is harder to stay on Adelaide's list than Port's.

I really don't see why this is a bone of contention.

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Porthos
ok.crows, I was going to respond to your post, but Malibu#27 seems to have pretty much made the points I was going to make. [/B]

I repeat, I haven't decided, and any "contradiction" with respect to the middle-age on Port's list can only be thought of as an "apparent" contradiction. I don't know if any of it is wrong or not, but I do agree there is a difference in the approach to recruiting by Port & the Crows - yet both approaches seem to be working OK.

wrt Malibu#27 post in the 22-25 barcket, I'm wondering what happened to Burton as one "who seem to be regular contributors to the team that are also players drafted by the Crows as kids". What category also does Gallagher come into?

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I repeat, I haven't decided, and any "contradiction" with respect to the middle-age on Port's list can only be thought of as an "apparent" contradiction. I don't know if any of it is wrong or not, but I do agree there is a difference in the approach to recruiting by Port & the Crows - yet both approaches seem to be working OK.

wrt Malibu#27 post in the 22-25 barcket, I'm wondering what happened to Burton as one "who seem to be regular contributors to the team that are also players drafted by the Crows as kids". What category also does Gallagher come into?


Burton should have been in the Crows list of regular contributors, the reason I lost him in the system was that from memory he was drafted pretty late in life (ie 20 or 21) and I forgot to go back and include him .... good pick up. (Blame it on the crappy AFL web site set up :) )

As for Galllagher according to the Crows web site - 10 games for the season - 62 posessions ..... 23 years old, not sure how many the season before ... basically I just didnt rate him as a player who is regularly contributing to your team .... do you ?

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Porthos
A couple of other late developers that spring to mind are Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus and Josh Francou. There are plenty out there.

I agree that most players will show something of their potential by 20 - most in fact have. The question is over whether or not they will realise that potential....Michael Stevens a great example. Tore it up in the SANFL, but did nothing at AFL level. We hung onto him for four seasons on the basis of his unfulfilled talent and still managed to find a trade for him at the end of it. Hell, even our former rookies get looked at by other clubs. They're quality, but with flaws, or not meeting our requirements, so out they go. There aren't too many recent Crows delistings that you could say have gone on to prove the club wrong on their talent - maybe Picioane.

[B]Nothing of this changes my clarification either. Port have diamonds, and they try to work out the flaws. The Crows sort through the crud to find gems, flawed or not, and dedicate more room on their list to doing this.

Port draft less, and delist less than Adelaide pretty much every year. When they draft, they very rarely draft late on. Less opportunity, higher picks - its clearly harder to be drafted to Port than Adelaide.

ok.crows, I was going to respond to your post, but Malibu#27 seems to have pretty much made the points I was going to make.

I'm not really arguing the point of what Port do and what Adelaide do, I suppose I'm more challenging the wisdom of keeping players for a longer periods of time.

I'm no Port Adelaide expert, but the guys you mentioned, Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus, I'm sure showed some of their potential at a reasonably young age. I can't accept that they were all "exceptions to the rule".

You've agreed that most players show their potential by age 20. Yet you argue Port gives players more time. Why? Just in case they are a one in 10 like Biglands who shows his potential much later? Where is the logic and reward in that? We've more or less agreed that most turds at 20 are turds at 25.

And you didn't answer my other question. If Biglands is a late developing diamond, how did he slip through Port's grasp, when they have a policy of keeping turds to see if they turn into diamonds? OK, OK, when they "have a policy of giving players longer to develop". :)

My personal opinion is that Port are an insular club, who have little regard for players, coaches, philosophies etc that are not part of the "Port Adelaide tradition". Whilst Port are a wholely successful club, this unwillingness to accept concepts, tactics and people from elsewhere is a weakness in my opinion. Undoubtedly you can present me with isolated examples of non-Port people being utilised by Port (although I'd bet the lions share of those have some connection to Essendon), but I think this is an exception rather than a rule. I think this may be another reason why Port hold onto their youngsters longer than say Adelaide. They are Port people and therefore by default they are assumed to be better than whatever anyone else has to offer. Port people generally see this philosophy as a strength. Sometimes it is, but I reckon more often than not it is a weakness. I know I've opened up a can of worms by saying this, I have considered deleting it several times now, but I believe it to be the case so I'll stand by my convictions and await the flaming.

[napsyd]

Porthos, I see you have responded to my Biglands point while I was writing. Thanks.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by napsyd
I'm not really arguing the point of what Port do and what Adelaide do, I suppose I'm more challenging the wisdom of keeping players for a longer periods of time.Fair enough. Hell, I do sometimes - Michael Stevens again a prime example.

I'm no Port Adelaide expert, but the guys you mentioned, Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus, I'm sure showed some of their potential at a reasonably young age. I dunno about Bishop, but Brett showed a bit - not enough at reserves level though, and then got shunted off to the VFL. Primus didn't look like he was going to be good enough, so again, he got shunted off (to the SANFL). These are the blokes only given one or two years to show what they can do.

You've agreed that most players show their potential by age 20. Yet you argue Port gives players more time. Why? Just in case they are a one in 10 like Biglands who shows his potential much later? Where is the logic and reward in that? We've more or less agreed that most turds at 20 are turds at 25.Because of a Biglands, or a Francou or indeed a Poulton. Who would've thought he'd come along so well and actually develop a smarter football brain?

The club have seen something in these players, and they don't like giving up on something they think can be a winner.

My personal opinion is that Port are an insular club, who have little regard for players, coaches, philosophies etc that are not part of the "Port Adelaide tradition". Whilst Port are a wholely successful club, this unwillingness to accept concepts, tactics and people from elsewhere is a weakness in my opinion. Undoubtedly you can present me with isolated examples of non-Port people being utilised by Port (although I'd bet the lions share of those have some connection to Essendon), but I think this is an exception rather than a rule.

Some off-field staff I can name off the top of my head...

Alan Stewart, Central Districts
Chris Pelchen, Victorian ops manager, ex-Hawthorn
Dean Bailey, Essendon
Andrew Russell, Essendon
Phil Walsh, recruited from Geelong
Rob Snowdon, recruited from Sydney (now retired from footy)

There are only three Port Adelaide senior staffers - Mark Williams, Bucky Cunningham and David Hutton. Thats it.

I think this may be another reason why Port hold onto their youngsters longer than say Adelaide. They are Port people and therefore by default they are assumed to be better than whatever anyone else has to offer. Port people generally see this philosophy as a strength. Sometimes it is, but I reckon more often than not it is a weakness. If you like. I say that because, unlike the Crows, Port actively look for high draft picks, then they treat the players selected with them as the important investment that they are.

The Crows pick up the guys that most others don't want with late draft picks that cost them nothing to get and put the onus for development on the players drafted with them. They either make it or they don't. If they don't, the Crows dump them after a shorter time, because its not like they gave up much to get them.

Both methods have strengths and weaknesses.

I know I've opened up a can of worms by saying this, I have considered deleting it several times now, but I believe it to be the case so I'll stand by my convictions and await the flaming. I think all you've opened up is a window to your outdated perception of Port Adelaide. Port Adelaide will try to steal any idea, staff member or player from anywhere if it'll be better for the club.

Heck, we'll even pick up players on our rookie list that've been training with other clubs if they're any good - I believe this is where I came in ;)

[Macca19]

Originally posted by napsyd
I'm no Port Adelaide expert, but the guys you mentioned, Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus, I'm sure showed some of their potential at a reasonably young age. I can't accept that they were all "exceptions to the rule".

Matthew Bishop played his first AFL game at age 23. He wasnt a regular AFL player until age 25.

Brett Montgomery played his first game at age 24.

Darren Mead wasnt an SANFL regular until he was around 23.

Matthew Primus played his first AFL game at age 21.


My personal opinion is that Port are an insular club, who have little regard for players, coaches, philosophies etc that are not part of the "Port Adelaide tradition". Whilst Port are a wholely successful club, this unwillingness to accept concepts, tactics and people from elsewhere is a weakness in my opinion.

That would be totally wrong. Half our list is from interstate. The majority of our staff is from a club other than Port Adelaide.

[noddy]

Originally posted by Porthos


If Port had promoted those three, we would not have Champion, Ebert or Gilham (or would've somehow had to make room for them). Are they worth those picks? No.




I know you are a one eyed pap supporter but to rate the above 3 above Rutten, Mattner & Bock is so far fetched it's almost comical,

Why is it that you & most but not all pap supporters are so obsessed with trying to prove that everything & everyone connected with the Paps is so much better than the Crows??

We have had our fingers burnt once to many when it comes to unproven high or mid range draft picks from interstate & if we can use our rookie list like we did last year in selecting young talent why not keep it going, but that is not to say we would sacrifice a top ten pick just for the sake of it,
But just like the reason we chased D Jarman so hard in the mid 90s was for an oppotunity to win a flag so it was the same reason for recruiting W Carey & others this year & if it comes off who cares which club is the hardest list to get on or the easiest club to get put off you guys will be quite welcome to it.

btw, Lance Piccoani [is that how you spell it] was not delisted he was traded to Hawthorn for a draft pick & you also forgot to mention D Pittman in your list of non Port people staff [unless he has been given the flick],

[Porthos]

Originally posted by noddy
I know you are a one eyed pap supporter but to rate the above 3 above Rutten, Mattner & Bock is so far fetched it's almost comical,If you want it in numerical terms (rather than Port Adelaide terms that you find hard to swallow), I seriously doubt you could've traded those three for picks #16, #42 and #57.

btw, Lance Piccoani [is that how you spell it] was not delisted he was traded to Hawthorn for a draft pick & you also forgot to mention D Pittman in your list of non Port people staff [unless he has been given the flick], Picioane. I'm pretty sure he was delisted, and Hawthorn picked him up. And yes, Pittman should be on my list. D'oh.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Porthos

Picioane. I'm pretty sure he was delisted, and Hawthorn picked him up.

From the Lance Picioane profile at www.hawthornfc.com.au:

"AFL record
1998-99: Adelaide - 4 games, 2 goals
2000-02: Hawthorn - 36 games, 10 goals

Draft history
Selected by Adelaide with the 17th pick in 1997national draft
Traded by Adelaide to Hawthorn for 79th selection in 1999 national draft"

Getting back to this years potential rookies...I hope we can get at least one ruckman/KPP or as many KPP as possible to hopefully replace Perrie, Schell and maybe Crowell next year.

Jerome

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Malibu#27
As for Galllagher according to the Crows web site - 10 games for the season - 62 posessions ..... 23 years old, not sure how many the season before ... basically I just didnt rate him as a player who is regularly contributing to your team .... do you ? Gags looked like he was going to be in for a good season in 2002 after showing a bit in 2001. Unfortunately he was injured early & Dogga took his spot. Gags is training the house down in pre-season & the guy ooses class & confidence. I reckon he will be in for a big 2003 (& one of those to fill the gap left by Sugar).

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Porthos
If you want it in numerical terms (rather than Port Adelaide terms that you find hard to swallow), I seriously doubt you could've traded those three for picks #16, #42 and #57.It was claimed that Rutten & Mattner if available would have gone inside the top-30 picks, probably even top-20 with the talent a bit thin this year. Not convinced Bock would have gone by pick #57 though. However, definitely better than our next 3 picks, which means we did well out of the rookie draft.

[macca23]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by noddy
I know you are a one eyed pap supporter but to rate the above 3 above Rutten, Mattner & Bock is so far fetched it's almost comical,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Porthos
If you want it in numerical terms (rather than Port Adelaide terms that you find hard to swallow), I seriously doubt you could've traded those three for picks #16, #42 and #57.


Porthos, you normally have some credibility, but you really have lost the plot on this one.

Mattner played AFL football at a creditable level off the rookie list last year and really looks like a player of the future. You're right that you couldn't trade #16 pick for him - he would have already gone.

Ben Rutten at #42 - Porthos, remove your hand. This is too much. He is 19 years of age and has already played 41 SANFL games. Held down CHB for West Adelaide all year and can also play up forward. 3rd in Westies B&F for the year.

Nathan Bock at #57. At 19 years of age he has played 17 SANFL games, 15 this year for the Eagles. Sorry Porthos, wrong again. Bargains like that just aren't around.

Overall, one of your most illogical posts.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
It was claimed that Rutten & Mattner if available would have gone inside the top-30 picks, probably even top-20 with the talent a bit thin this year. Not convinced Bock would have gone by pick #57 though. However, definitely better than our next 3 picks, which means we did well out of the rookie draft. Yes, indeed, which was the key point. You have done well getting them, as otherwise you'd just have extra picks at 70+ - whether Port would've done well to have them instead of who we got would be another question entirely.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by macca23
Porthos, you normally have some credibility, but you really have lost the plot on this one.An arrow through my heart! Continue.

Mattner played AFL football at a creditable level off the rookie list last year and really looks like a player of the future. You're right that you couldn't trade #16 pick for him - he would have already gone.Doubtful. The extra year he's had (not to mention full AFL training) over any player drafted in the top 20 would be taken into account by recruiters. He could be handy, but to get a first round pick, you need to give up something pretty good (ala Chick, Everitt, Brown, Pickett, Carey).

Ben Rutten at #42 - Porthos, remove your hand. This is too much. He is 19 years of age and has already played 41 SANFL games. Held down CHB for West Adelaide all year and can also play up forward. 3rd in Westies B&F for the year.I hate to say it, but playing SANFL games is no longer the best marker of how good a player is going to be at senior level. Any AFL listed player should be tearing it up in the SANFL, even down to pick #92 or whatever. #42 would be around the mark for Rutten, maybe.

Nathan Bock at #57. At 19 years of age he has played 17 SANFL games, 15 this year for the Eagles. Sorry Porthos, wrong again. Bargains like that just aren't around.Mark McKenzie was. You want him? He's still available.

Overall, one of your most illogical posts. I think you're overestimating your players, and don't see the real market value for them. Go and ask supporters of more neutral clubs what they'd give for players of those credentials, and you'll see you're out of line.

[macca23]

Originally posted by Porthos

I hate to say it, but playing SANFL games is no longer the best marker of how good a player is going to be at senior level.

If you genuinely believe this, then tell this to your fellow Powder supporters. The weight of the crap that was being posted by them before bigfooty went down in respect of Morgans and Thurstans, rating these 4 year SANFL players (on their SANFL form) as better players than Ken McGregor who has played 52 AFL games was probably the reason that bigfooty went down. :rolleyes:

As for your ratings of Mattner and Rutten in particular, we will just have to disagree, as I think that you are so so wrong. The true comparisons in this case are with your selections of Gilham and Ebert, and I wouldn't swap Mattner and Rutten in a mad fit for those 2.

Sorry Porthos, I still think this is one of your poorer efforts. :(

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
It was claimed that Rutten & Mattner if available would have gone inside the top-30 picks, probably even top-20 with the talent a bit thin this year. Not convinced Bock would have gone by pick #57 though. However, definitely better than our next 3 picks, which means we did well out of the rookie draft.

Claimed by the Crows, no one else. The fact remains that they weren't drafted at all in 2001 because they weren't considered good enough.

I followed the Port rookies in the SANFL a bit aswell as the Crows rookies and I would have rated our 2002 rookies better than the Crows. Crabb was top notch in the SANFL, but I doubt he would have made it in the big league, McKensie was excellent for the Eagles and unfortunately broke his arm, Jackman was also very good on a wing for South towards the end of the year, Barham was also very good, simply didn't get a go in the Centrals first team, I expect him to come back and haunt us.

If the rookie lists were reversed I doubt any of the crows rookies would have been elevated to the power list, none of them have shown enough. Personally Rutten is the one who shows the most promise, but I wouldn't rate him any higher than Barham, although he is physically more mature. Bock has a good long kick but wasn't anything special in the SANFL, not as good as McKensie, same can be said for Mattner. Although Mattner is a good tackle and has an intense game I doubt whether his football ability is up to it.

Personally Barham, McKensie and Crabb showed more promise than Rutten, Bock and Mattner did, but to suggest that those Adelaide rookies are better than Gilham, Ebert and Champion is just laughable. Adelaide had no early draft picks so were forced to elevate from the rookie list, Port on the other hand had traded for early picks which allowed them to pick up good top notch youngsters.

[Porthos]

Originally posted by macca23
If you genuinely believe this, then tell this to your fellow Powder supporters.I reckon they already know it. Michael Stevens and Derek Murray have been shining examples of how worthless SANFL form can be. Good SANFL form is in my mind now a minimum requirement of a draftee if they're going to be any good.

As for your atings of Mattner and Rutten in particular, we will just have to disagree, as I think that you are so so wrong. The true comparisons in this case are with your selections of Gilham and Ebert, and I wouldn't swap Mattner and Rutten in a mad fit for those 2. Which is why I changed it to numerical terms, so you wouldn't take an automatic negative perception of Port's drafting ability into the value of those picks vs your rookies.

I expect we'll see about Rutten, Bock and Mattner at years end.

[Mong]

I'm not totally convinced about Rutten.

He could turn out to be adequate and be able to compete at AFL level but I don't see him being anything special. I hope I'm wrong.

Mattner on the other hand I am very impressed with. I really liked what I saw with him this year. And even though he wasn't a big possesion winner I think he has the attributes to improve this part of his game as he gains experience a la Simon Goodwin and Tyson Stenglein.

In fact I see a lot of similarities between Mattner and Stenglein and not just in their looks. Mattner has exceptional defensive skills and courage and is good at winning contested posessions.

He is probably not as versatile as Stenglein but Mattner seems to me to have a big future at AFL level.


Mong

[macca23]

Originally posted by Porthos
I reckon they already know it. Michael Stevens and Derek Murray have been shining examples of how worthless SANFL form can be. Good SANFL form is in my mind now a minimum requirement of a draftee if they're going to be any good.

[B]Which is why I changed it to numerical terms, so you wouldn't take an automatic negative perception of Port's drafting ability into the value of those picks vs your rookies.

I expect we'll see about Rutten, Bock and Mattner at years end.

Fair enough. ;)

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Zombie


If the rookie lists were reversed I doubt any of the crows rookies would have been elevated to the power list, none of them have shown enough.

Based on what?

Mattner and Rutten both played AFL footy this year. Granted Rutten only played wizard Cup, but his form was consitant during the year finished third in West's B & F.

Matter showed some great promise during the AFL season and played in Sturt's premiership side.

[/B][/QUOTE] Adelaide had no early draft picks so were forced to elevate from the rookie list.[/B][/QUOTE]

We were'nt forced to pick them they earned their spots.

Jerome

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Jerome

We were'nt forced to pick them they earned their spots.

Indeed. We may not have valued having lower draft picks but we could've just as easily hung on to the likes of Fitzgerald, Shir and Handby instead.

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Zombie
Claimed by the Crows, no one else. The fact remains that they weren't drafted at all in 2001 because they weren't considered good enough. No wrong again, as this was in fact mentioned by non-Crow recruiters too.

I followed the Port rookies in the SANFL a bit aswell as the Crows rookies and I would have rated our 2002 rookies better than the Crows. Crabb was top notch in the SANFL, but I doubt he would have made it in the big league, McKensie was excellent for the Eagles and unfortunately broke his arm, Jackman was also very good on a wing for South towards the end of the year, Barham was also very good, simply didn't get a go in the Centrals first team, I expect him to come back and haunt us.You are in true Zombie form if you reckon your rookies are better - ie. a complete load of bollocks as usual. Mattner played good football at AFL level. Crabb was the only one of the Port rookies to play AFL & really didn't look up to it. 1-nil! Rutten looked very promising in the pre-season & had a good enough SANFL year to make the team of the year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of you rookies making the team of the year. 2-nil! Game over! ;) :p

If the rookie lists were reversed I doubt any of the crows rookies would have been elevated to the power list, none of them have shown enough. Personally Rutten is the one who shows the most promise, but I wouldn't rate him any higher than Barham, although he is physically more mature. Bock has a good long kick but wasn't anything special in the SANFL, not as good as McKensie, same can be said for Mattner. Although Mattner is a good tackle and has an intense game I doubt whether his football ability is up to it.

Personally Barham, McKensie and Crabb showed more promise than Rutten, Bock and Mattner did, but to suggest that those Adelaide rookies are better than Gilham, Ebert and Champion is just laughable. Adelaide had no early draft picks so were forced to elevate from the rookie list, Port on the other hand had traded for early picks which allowed them to pick up good top notch youngsters. Rutten & Mattner you will discover in the next year or so will become very handy players who would be capable of being on any AFL list, including Port's. I agree with Bock as I'm not convinced about him yet. The bottom line is none of your rookies were good enough, although it could be argued that a couple were unlucky not to get upgraded.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
No wrong again, as this was in fact mentioned by non-Crow recruiters too.

You are in true Zombie form if you reckon your rookies are better - ie. a complete load of bollocks as usual. Mattner played good football at AFL level. Crabb was the only one of the Port rookies to play AFL & really didn't look up to it.

Thats up to personal opinion and bias.

I thought Mattner looked ok. Nothing special. Good negater. Crabb looked good in his first match, got a lot of the ball. He got next to no gametime in his other 3 games.

I reckon both would be seen as even on last years form. Both tore it up at SANFL level, played some ok footy at AFL level.

As for the other rookies being better. Id rate Mark Mckenzie ahead of all but Mattner out of both of our rookie lists. Williams said he would be on our list right now if he didnt break his arm quite badly in the Eagles last final in the SANFL. He was fantastic last year. Certainly matched Bock and Rutten for form.

If Barham was anywhere but Centrals he probably would of been a senior regular. Jackman id rate higher than Bock as well. Bock doesnt do much for me at this point in time.

Id probably rate the rookies in order of: Mattner, Mckenzie, Rutten, Jackman, Bock, Barham, Thomas.

[macca23]

Originally posted by Macca19

Id probably rate the rookies in order of: Mattner, Mckenzie, Rutten, Jackman, Bock, Barham, Thomas.

Possibly a bit harsh on Rutten, but overall a pretty reasonable rating. What is the story with Mckenzie and his arm - is it a long-term or short-term injury - because I saw a fair bit of him and really rated him?

Also agree that Barham got a raw deal at Centrals. Would probably have played league at another club.

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
No wrong again, as this was in fact mentioned by non-Crow recruiters too.

Names? Proof?


You are in true Zombie form if you reckon your rookies are better - ie. a complete load of bollocks as usual. Mattner played good football at AFL level. Crabb was the only one of the Port rookies to play AFL & really didn't look up to it. 1-nil! Rutten looked very promising in the pre-season & had a good enough SANFL year to make the team of the year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of you rookies making the team of the year. 2-nil! Game over! ;) :p


Crabb, for the game time he had, was a better player than Mattner last year. In his first game he racked up 14 possessions in a little under a half of football, his other games were less impressive but he probably only spent a total of 1/2 an hour on the ground for all of them so it can't really be compared. Crabb was sensational in the SANFL, regularly racking up 25+ possessions. Mattner was handy for Centrals but not sensational like Crabb was.

Rutten scraped the final spot on the bench of The Advertiser's "team of the year" and well done to him, however a young guy by the name of Corey AhChee made the full back spot, however he isn't considered good enough to play in the SANFL.

Rutten & Mattner you will discover in the next year or so will become very handy players who would be capable of being on any AFL list, including Port's. I agree with Bock as I'm not convinced about him yet. The bottom line is none of your rookies were good enough, although it could be argued that a couple were unlucky not to get upgraded.

None of our rookies were good enough to get upgraded to the Port list, there is a difference. My point was it would be very unlikely that any of the Crows rookies would have been good enough to get on to the Port list either, although Rutten would have closely been looked at for his key position potential if he was one of our rookies.

If we are basing our rankings on SANFL and AFL performances from this year I would rate the rookies in the following order:

Crabb, Rutten, Mattner, McKensie, Jackman, Barham, Bock, Thomas.

If you would take any of these players above the likes of Gilham or Ebert then you would be crazy.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Zombie
Mattner was handy for Centrals but not sensational like Crabb was.
I would say Mattner wasn't much value at all for Central, particularly as he was opposed to them on grand final day!

[macca23]

"If we are basing our rankings on SANFL and AFL performances from this year I would rate the rookies in the following order:

Crabb, Rutten, Mattner, McKensie, Jackman, Barham, Bock, Thomas.

If you would take any of these players above the likes of Gilham or Ebert then you would be crazy."

Sorry Zombie but you are way off beam with your comparisons of the 24 year old Crabb and Mattner. Crabb was delisted by West Coast after 15 games in 3 years and as Mark Williams put it was rookie listed as an insurance policy against injuries to mid-fielders, not because he was seen as a long term AFL player. Mattner is 20 years of age and is a genuine AFL player of the future. As Porthos said, don't get deluded by SANFL performances. IMO Macca19 has it much more accurately than you have.

I agree that Mattner didn't do much with Centrals - probably cos he plays for Sturt in the SANFL!! ;)

You bet I would take Mattner and Rutten ahead of the pencil thin Gilham and Brett Ebert. Gilham will be one of those pet players at Port - "the project player" - until he bulks up, although I don't doubt that he has ability. As for Ebert, I doubt that he would have been drafted by any other club than Port. As always , only time will provide the answers

[Zombie]

Originally posted by DaveW
I would say Mattner wasn't much value at all for Central, particularly as he was opposed to them on grand final day!

You know what I mean, whenever I think of Mattner i always picture him in a Centrals guernsey. I don't know if he reminds me of one of the Centrals players or the similarity in the tri-colour guernsey of the Crows and the Dogs or what.

[Zombie]

Originally posted by macca23


Sorry Zombie but you are way off beam with your comparisons of the 24 year old Crabb and Mattner. Crabb was delisted by West Coast after 15 games in 3 years and as Mark Williams put it was rookie listed as an insurance policy against injuries to mid-fielders, not because he was seen as a long term AFL player. Mattner is 20 years of age and is a genuine AFL player of the future. As Porthos said, don't get deluded by SANFL performances. IMO Macca19 has it much more accurately than you have.

You bet I would take Mattner and Rutten ahead of the pencil thin Gilham and Brett Ebert. Gilham will be one of those pet players at Port - "the project player" - until he bulks up, although I don't doubt that he has ability. As for Ebert, I doubt that he would have been drafted by any other club than Port. As always , only time will provide the answers

Hence the 'based on SANFL and AFL performances this year' part of my statement. I have no dleusions about Crabb's AFL potential, he has none, I'm not debating that, it can't be denied that his SANFL form was top notch. He did everything he could have been possibly asked to do and still couldn't get on the Port list, which is testament to the depth and quality of Ports list.

Well that is your opinion, although almost every other opposition supporter would laugh you out of town for it. Gilham was tipped in some mock drafts to go as high as pick #4, although not being ready for AFL for a couple of years he slid to pick #16. Neither Rutten nor Mattner were picked in the 90 players picked in the previous year.

Of course Ebert would have been drafted, if he wouldn't have then Port wouldn't have used the f/s pick to get him, they would simply use their last pick or a rookie listing to get him. He was tipped to go about or a little earlier than Ports 3rd round pick if he was available.

[PrideOf]

Pick 13 used on Hayden Skipworth.

We missed out on Adam Fisher, who went at pick 11. The PAPs picked up Patfull with Pick 14.