BRODIE MARTIN

[feenix67]

The only issue I have with Martin is his post knee reco pace. If he can gain a yard or two then he has more guts than most in our team and enough skills to be a more than handy player. If, however, he can't get that extra yard, he's probably in our "next best 5".

 

[Mattrox]

2 year deal though? 1 wouldve been plenty. then reacess the following

2 yr sanctions. Besides LT had a decent fill in role. Not sure if this was in their minds.... And wasn't it Martin who ran into Bruest with eyes only for the ball in 2012? After a finals assault and season highlights fresh in their minds ......... and on top the uncertainty of the next 2 years it's not an unreasonable decision.

Stuff is easy to say in hindsight 2 years hence. But after 17 home and away wins.......

LT was cut at 1st opportunity amongst a whole swathe of list changes. Martin has one last chance. With our dead wood it would always take 2 years after sanctions to turn the list over.

You might have made different decisions, but what the list managers have done is not unreasonable given Tippettgate.

 

[Crowbots are dead]

From being well below average, to being average.

maybe but you seem to be certain he has no scope for further growth. I'm not so sure. Lets see what Walsh can do.

 

[AFC979810]

Maybe you aren't right?

What's certain is that the sacked coaches agree with you.

Are you really trying to suggest that Craig and Sanderson not playing Martin was an error which has been proven because they both ended up being sacked?

 

[AFC979810]

Martin himself... I like that he doesn't fumble under pressure. I like that when in scoring positions he has a crack rather than hesitating, double guessing and selling responsibility to others. I like that he has enough class to be able to sell candy and dummy around an opponent - very few of our players do. I like that he can take a courageous mark running back with the flight - again, very few of our players have the skill or courage to do this. These are all things that separate good players from ordinary players in my eyes.

C'mon selling candy and going back with the flight - this is what separates Martin from the herd? All you have done here is describe weaknesses you have commented on about other players like Reilly (bad under pressure), Selling Candy (Mackay), etc and say he doesn't have that weakness.

The attributes you listed above are good to have - but they are add ons and a player should never be selected because he can 'sell some candy'. I agree with you that I would prefer Grigg to be given a go ahead of Brodie Martin. However to suggest that Van Berlo and Mackay should make way for Martin is once again laughable.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Are you really trying to suggest that Craig and Sanderson not playing Martin was an error which has been proven because they both ended up being sacked?

I'm saying that using the logic that he must be average because he didn't get picked much is not valid given the plethora of poor selection decisions

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

C'mon selling candy and going back with the flight - this is what separates Martin from the herd?

...and the other stuff I said.

Paragraph 1? No?

You surely - surely - as an Adelaide fan don't disagree here.

All you have done here is describe weaknesses you have commented on about other players like Reilly (bad under pressure), Selling Candy (Mackay), etc and say he doesn't have that weakness.

That's right...

I'm not following here.

Surely weaknesses = bad?

The attributes you listed above are good to have - but they are add ons and a player should never be selected because he can 'sell some candy'.

Ball handling under pressure is an add on?

Not choking and going into your shell when the game gets tight is an add on?

What on earth are you talking about?

agree with you that I would prefer Grigg to be given a go ahead of Brodie Martin. However to suggest that Van Berlo and Mackay should make way for Martin is once again laughable.

How is it laughable?

You can't have watched us play and consider those guys head and shoulders above Martin.

And this is the thing. Their performances are barely separated yet one is treated as a fringe player selected as a last resort only, the other two as undroppable senior players we should build our entire culture around.

 

[AFC979810]

What on earth are you talking about?

My point is that you have combined the weaknesses of 3 individuals and made a point that that Martin doesn't have these weaknesses therefore is a better option than the 3 individual players. My point is that both VB and Mackay have strengths that far outweigh their weaknesses. Martin doesn't have weakness, nor does he have anything elite to bring to the table.

Martin is no better under pressure than Van Berlo and Mackay.

Sure Martin can sell Candy (which he did about 4 times last year) and can take a backwards courageous mark (which happened about twice last year) and Mackay can't do that. Mackay uses the ball much better and is elite by foot. He has pace and has the proven ability to take the game on (see the highlight reel i prepared for you). I know which one I prefer.

You can't have watched us play and consider those guys head and shoulders above Martin.

Absolutely.

 

[Team DJ]

We've been draft dodging for 5 long years. 2014 was the first time the club has had proper access to the draft in a very long time.
2009 - AFL changed the minimum age criteria, eliminating 1/3 of the draft class.
2010 - GC Draft concessions
2011 - GWS Draft concessions
2012 - Tiprat penalties
2013 - Tiprat penalties

Our ability to obtain replacement players was severely limited during this time, hence the lower than average number of players delisted. As a result, we had a number of players (Martin included) who survived on our list for much longer than would otherwise have been the case.

I am well aware of that.
Still doesnt mean that Martin needed a 2 year extension. In 2013 the first of his two years he struggled to get anywhere near the AFL team, same as Luke Thompson. So draft restrictions or not. 2 years was a dumb move.

 

[Vader]

I am well aware of that.
Still doesnt mean that Martin needed a 2 year extension. In 2013 the first of his two years he struggled to get anywhere near the AFL team, same as Luke Thompson. So draft restrictions or not. 2 years was a dumb move.

It's not all that dumb. He was signed to a 2-year contract at the end of 2012, around about the time that the Tiprat penalties were coming into effect.

If the List Management team were doing their job properly, they would have been planning things well in advance. They knew that their options for obtaining replacements at the end of 2013 were going to be severely limited. They had a LOT of dead wood to get rid of, and a few players going into retirement. They would have done the numbers, estimating how many players they would be able to bring in - and hence the number of players who had to exit. They would have ranked the players, with those at the bottom of the list being first out the door. My guess is that Martin's name was 1 or 2 positions above the cut-off. Thus they gave him a 2-year contract...

 

[Tex200]

I think a lot of what's being written here represents a bit if a rear guard action by those trying to defend original positions that Martin is no good.

Sometimes you just have to be big enough to say - I thought he was crap but I can't deny that his second patch of games last year were pretty decent quality.

If he keeps that up he keeps getting games.

It's not that hard to say

 

[Team DJ]

It's not all that dumb. He was signed to a 2-year contract at the end of 2012, around about the time that the Tiprat penalties were coming into effect.

If the List Management team were doing their job properly, they would have been planning things well in advance. They knew that their options for obtaining replacements at the end of 2013 were going to be severely limited. They had a LOT of dead wood to get rid of, and a few players going into retirement. They would have done the numbers, estimating how many players they would be able to bring in - and hence the number of players who had to exit. They would have ranked the players, with those at the bottom of the list being first out the door. My guess is that Martin's name was 1 or 2 positions above the cut-off. Thus they gave him a 2-year contract...

I get that. what i am saying is that a one year deal was all that was needed. Its not like teams wouldve banged down the door at the end of that year to sign him. Brodie wouldve signed basically anything that was put in front of him to stay in the AFL.
A one year deal gave us more list management options than the two year deal did.

 

[Vader]

I get that. what i am saying is that a one year deal was all that was needed. Its not like teams wouldve banged down the door at the end of that year to sign him. Brodie wouldve signed basically anything that was put in front of him to stay in the AFL.
A one year deal gave us more list management options than the two year deal did.

I don't see how it makes any difference. They knew that they wouldn't be able to delist him after the first year, so what's the difference between giving him a single 2-year contract and 2x 1-year contracts? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that negotiating a 2nd contract unnecessarily increases the workload of the list managers.

They've only given him a 1-year contract this time around, because he's (presumably) fallen into that bottom group at last - along with CEY, Shaw & Siggins.

 

[AFC979810]

I think a lot of what's being written here represents a bit if a rear guard action by those trying to defend original positions that Martin is no good.

Sometimes you just have to be big enough to say - I thought he was crap but I can't deny that his second patch of games last year were pretty decent quality.

If he keeps that up he keeps getting games.

It's not that hard to say

Disagree....

I am happy to put my hand up and admit I was wrong about Jaensch.

This is different. I am not saying he was completely terrible in 2014, he was average. In my opinion he just showed no elite qualities in any aspect of his game that says he should get a game ahead of the top 28 players at our club in season 2015.

 

[relapse]

I think a lot of what's being written here represents a bit if a rear guard action by those trying to defend original positions that Martin is no good.

Sometimes you just have to be big enough to say - I thought he was crap but I can't deny that his second patch of games last year were pretty decent quality.

If he keeps that up he keeps getting games.

It's not that hard to say

I'll disagree, everything I have heard from Phil Walsh seems to suggest that the days of the club treading water by playing medicore players are over.

To be brutally honest if we're spending the year around 10th and keeping the future of the club on the sidelines while trying to chase 8th by playing guys like Martin every week then Phil Walsh would have already failed.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I think a lot of what's being written here represents a bit if a rear guard action by those trying to defend original positions that Martin is no good.

Sometimes you just have to be big enough to say - I thought he was crap but I can't deny that his second patch of games last year were pretty decent quality.

If he keeps that up he keeps getting games.

It's not that hard to say

I like your posts Pete , they are full of good reasoning and not just emotion...I reckon Martin put a building block in place last year and if he takes his chances better that is next step and he becomes a more than serviceable AFL player for our next run into the finals. If not then he goes at end of the season. Writing him off completely after last year is a mistake. Continuity is the key and same for guys like Hendo

 

[skoobydoo]

In general all round football skills I don't see Martin as inferior to Van Berlo - leadership qualities aside.

 

[Barneythecrab]

Disagree....

I am happy to put my hand up and admit I was wrong about Jaensch.

This is different. I am not saying he was completely terrible in 2014, he was average. In my opinion he just showed no elite qualities in any aspect of his game that says he should get a game ahead of the top 28 players at our club in season 2015.

If Walsh selects him next year for round 1 what would you think?

 

[AFC979810]

If Walsh selects him next year for round 1 what would you think?

That we have a massive injury list. Or Walsh doesn't rate our youngsters and our list is in even worse shape than I thought.

 

[moogerfooger]

he's a restricted free agent this year and yet he's not really in our best 22.

surely that's all that needs to be said?

 

[AFC979810]

he's a restricted free agent this year and yet he's not really in our best 22.

surely that's all that needs to be said?

Is that why we haven't signed Danger and Sloane? Want to ensure there is enough to keep Martin?

 

[Sanders]

I'm probably in this thread some where saying the same thing, but my view remains that I'm a bit of a fan of martin. But he's irrelevant, and nothing that happens will have a big impact on our fortunes.

Sure I like him a lot more than some, and he wouldn't be my first delist candidate but when we're fishing in the depths of our list it's neither here nor there.

 

[Bacon8]

he's a restricted free agent this year and yet he's not really in our best 22.

surely that's all that needs to be said?

He'd be unrestricted.

 

[moogerfooger]

He'd be unrestricted.

whichever it is the point remains - he's been on the list long enough to earn free agency yet he's still a fringe player.

 

[Bacon8]

whichever it is the point remains - he's been on the list long enough to earn free agency yet he's still a fringe player.

2 years as a rookie. 2 years injured.

He's no Tom Williams. Or Tom Logan.
I can give many other examples.