Dangerfield Over Ebert: One of The Best Recruiting Decisions In Recent Times

[weagles_fan]

Grimes is pretty good I'd take him over Ebert

 

[yaco55]

Im sure you can, however what you fail to do is actually watch more then 1-2 games of both kids over the two years.

Ebert was fantastic against Adelaide and StKilda last year, go check his stats. And if your not happy with stats go download the games he was BOG in both.

I watch all 176 games played during the AFL season.

I think that I can make a fair assessment.

And WC shouldn't worry about Ebert because Adelaide had the selection before WC and chose Dangerfield.

 

[el jefe]

Good thread.

Ebert does not come close to influencing games like Dangerfield does. Well not in the positive sense at least.

 

[WALL-e]

Jesus, you'd think Ebert was Kayne Pettifer.

Danger by a mile for me, but Eagles wouldn't be upset with Ebert at 16...****.

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

Jesus, you'd think Ebert was Kayne Pettifer.

Danger by a mile for me, but Eagles wouldn't be upset with Ebert at 16...****.

Pick 13 actually and they could have grimes but hey how you meant to no how good they are when they havent played a games at the time.

 

[WALL-e]

They weren't the only team to pass on better players. This happens every draft, every team has done it.

 

[Go_Dogs]

They weren't the only team to pass on better players. This happens every draft, every team has done it.

Exactly.

Dangerfield looks like he may end up the better player - at this stage - but, there is still a long, long way for both players to go.

I think Ebert looks alright so far. He obviously needs to continue to work on his disposal, but he wins a lot of ball in close, so his efficiency is never going to be as good as those who win more possessions in space (especially when you consider he's only young, and playing in a side that isn't dominant).

Danger has a few more strings to his bow in that he can play that lead up role in the F50, and have a run through the middle. He looks a beauty.

There are going to be a lot of pretty successful midfield pick ups from this draft, so will continue to be an interesting exercise to analyse their performances over the coming years.

 

[dajesmac]

Regardless, this thread is a sulkathon. Pssh everyone knows Dangerfield is better than Ebert, that is why he was taken first. If we'd taken Ebert first, sure it'd be worth discussion. Ebert is subpar for a first rounder but there's really no point engaging in a thread that was started by some guy who was pissed off we lost to Port.

 

[Alberton_Magpie]

well swap our ebert for your ebert??

 

[dajesmac]

Okay I wouldn't take it that far

Brad still has a lot to offer, but we could have done better with pick 13, hence the argument.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I don't think this thread is intended as a crack at the Eagles for picking Ebert. Rather, it's a compliment to Adelaide for ignoring the pressure of picking Dangerfield. In their respective first seasons, it was looking like Adelaide might have stuffed up. Ebert was doing well for the Eagles, while Dangerfield (IIRC), was still at school.

But Ebert's development has plateaued, while Dangerfield has really taken off.

Full credit to Adelaide for their decision.

 

[morell]

Jesus, he has a bad game and everyone is calling for the knifes. He has the ability to be a very good player.

Trade him to Port Adelaide, we will get him going.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Picks after Ebert:

Jack Grimes
Robbie Tarrant
Matthew Lobbe
Harry Taylor
Alex Rance
Callan Ward
Tony Notte
Adam Maric
Scott Selwood

Im pretty happy that we took Ebert over those guys so far. I also think its very, very early to be knocking both players.

The OP is obviously short sighted with an inability to judge talent and a very short memory. Go watch Eberts games v Adelaide and StKilda last year mate.

You're happier with Ebert than Harry Taylor?

Must be some nice koolaid you're drinking there

 

[treager]

Wont look like such a great decision if the go home factor gets the better of Dangerfield. That was the reason for all the pressure on the Crows to draft Ebert in the first place. We wont know that for quite a few years yet.

 

[smiths]

Why would this go on the Eagles board? Its not like we chose Dangerfield over Ebert, Adelaide got snagged him before it was even our pick.

After Ebert and before our next pick the only players we missed out on are Grimes and Harry Taylor, Ebert still has the potential to develop so I don't think we made a bad decision drafting him.

 

[bulldogsman]

Dangerfield is an elite kick?

 

[Mismatched]

Picks after Ebert:

Jack Grimes
Robbie Tarrant
Matthew Lobbe
Harry Taylor
Alex Rance
Callan Ward
Tony Notte
Adam Maric
Scott Selwood

Im pretty happy that we took Ebert over those guys so far. I also think its very, very early to be knocking both players.

The OP is obviously short sighted with an inability to judge talent and a very short memory. Go watch Eberts games v Adelaide and StKilda last year mate.

Geez, you'd seriously consider Grimes and Taylor over Ebert, oh and Andy Otten who went at 27. But really, I don't think the Eagles have done too badly, Ebert will be a good player and that was always the thing with him. There was never any risk of him not becoming a good player, the reason he slipped so far when most thought him a deadset top 10 pick, was that there was, and still is, a school of thought that he'd never be any more than just a good player.

 

[100action]

Grant over danger sigh, oh well at least he is playing well in the VFL now....

 

[WCE_phil]

Is it just me or does ebert remind anyone else a fair bit of jobe watson?

 

[ArdentEagle]

I think you may have to keep hoping

Danger has the tools to be top 5 in the AFL someday. Ebert does not.

Ebert will be a good player (once he sorts his efficiency out) and will go on to play 150-200 games of solid footy. He'll avg 20 touches a game and play 1 or 2 blinders a season, but i think you would be aiming for more from a 1st round pick.

Unfortunatley, not all 1st round picks turn out to be guns. Some don't even make it as far as Ebert has now.

Finally. Someone with some common sense!

 

[folester41]

dangerfield could easily have been top 3 in his draft, hed be better than the majority of clubs selections.

ebert on the other hand, isnt much more than average.

 

[sr36]

Ebert looks like he will be a good solid player. I'd be very surprised if WCE weren't very happy with him for pick 13. People seem to think that there are 20 genuine AFL stars available that are drafted every year. Considering that stars tend to play until they're at least 30, 20 a year would make 240 current or future stars running around in the competition. Ridiculous. About four or five genuine guns are drafted each year. So with pick 13 you can't be disappointed if all you got was a good solid 200 gamer - which Ebert looks likely to develop into. In fact you shouldn't be disappointed, you should be delighted.

 

[lewigie]

huge 8 disposals today.

 

[sTeeL]

Ebert is comfortably better than Dangerfield so far this season and has been part of the reason we havent lost our games by more. Tremendous work ethic. After watching Dangerfield in today's game, he tried to take the game on when he got the ball but was missing for most of the game. Barely sighted.

Not saying that Dangerfield isnt a good player but BEST RECRUITING decision, I hardly think so. Wouldn't say that the Eagles or Adelaide would be too disappointed with either player currently

 

[Mayes]

Ebert is comfortably better than Dangerfield so far this season and has been part of the reason we havent lost our games by more. Tremendous work ethic. After watching Dangerfield in today's game, he tried to take the game on when he got the ball but was missing for most of the game. Barely sighted.

Not saying that Dangerfield isnt a good player but BEST RECRUITING decision, I hardly think so. Wouldn't say that the Eagles or Adelaide would be too disappointed with either player currently

your taking the piss surely