Past #3: Jed Anderson - delisted end '22 - 89 NMFC games - go well Jed

[Royal Flush]

2 people called up SEN today and said Jed should be delisted.

WTF??????!!!!

Give him a chance.

As ArjenTheGreat would say- to play AFL you need at least 1 of 3 skills, Hard, Farst or Skillfull. Jed is all 3.

Patience people. Patience.

Agree!!
Leave him alone flogs..


Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Twinkletoes]

2 people called up SEN today and said Jed should be delisted.

WTF??????!!!!

Give him a chance.

As ArjenTheGreat would say- to play AFL you need at least 1 of 3 skills, Hard, Farst or Skillfull. Jed is all 3.

Patience people. Patience.

One of those callers was an absolute tosser, reading out a list of his suggested additional delistings as long as a phonebook.

 

[naturally north]

Points are arbitrary.

Pick 5 gets me the 5th best available kid in the country in my judgement.

Someone giving me picks 41,42,43,44 in exchange for pick 5 doesn't achieve this no matter what algorithm Gillian Turing cranked out to the contrary in his man cave.

Not trying to rain on your parade but a few years back pick seven was a lot more valuable than pick 3, just sayin

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Not trying to rain on your parade but a few years back pick seven was a lot more valuable than pick 3, just sayin

It's not what you've got but how you use it.

I believe that saying originated in the early years of draft picks.

 

[Heaps of fun]

I honestly hope you're right, but it's just been a complete shock at how far off the pace he is at the moment. Being picked for round 1 was a pretty big deal over blokes like garner, but garner is miles ahead of him.

I can see glimpses of things here and there, but under pressure it all falls away. He can have fantastic skills at training but if he can't deal with pressure he'll never make it and we'll never see his good skills. Needs to come back to pack with a big preseason.

Garner played round 1.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

I honestly hope you're right, but it's just been a complete shock at how far off the pace he is at the moment. Being picked for round 1 was a pretty big deal over blokes like garner, but garner is miles ahead of him.

I can see glimpses of things here and there, but under pressure it all falls away. He can have fantastic skills at training but if he can't deal with pressure he'll never make it and we'll never see his good skills. Needs to come back to pack with a big preseason.

Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%

 

[shintemaster]

My mum has been getting stuck into Jed. I told her to remember that when he wins us a final... hoping that this week we tick that one off the list.

 

[groo]

Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%

Any sub vests or part games due to leaving ground injured?

 

[Benno_900]

Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%

1. Subs
2. Effective disposal stat is crap. You can count Anderson's on one hand.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

If Garner was so good why was he the sub or getting subbed?

People overrated Garner on this board big time, and I'm one of his biggest fans

 

[Benno_900]

If Garner was so good why was he the sub or getting subbed?

People overrated Garner on this board big time, and I'm one of his biggest fans

Anderson would've been the sub every 2nd game.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

Anderson would've been the sub every 2nd game.

So pretty much in the same boat as turner + garner.

All have significant upside.

 

[blackshadow]

So pretty much in the same boat as turner + garner.

All have significant upside.

Let's hope they can all find the upside together and grow together.

 

[Elite Master]

Statistically speaking Jed's season matches up with Garner's best (which was last year) and Turner's as well. Its ridiculous how much criticism he is getting. To say that Garner is miles ahead of him is factually incorrect.

Jed's 2016 averages:
Games: 9
Disposals: 10.6
Marks: 1.9
Tackles: 3.2
Goals: 0.2
Effective disposals per game: 65.1%

Garner's 2015 averages:
Games: 11
Disposals: 10.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 3.0
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 67.6%

Turner's 2016 averages:
Games: 13
Disposals: 9.2
Marks: 2.3
Tackles: 2.9
Goals: 0.6
Effective disposals per game: 76.1%

Turner and Garner are nothing special and probably never will be, so the fact that Jed is statistically not even up to par with them is worrying, even at this early stage.

 

[scooby1279]

If Garner was so good why was he the sub or getting subbed?

People overrated Garner on this board big time, and I'm one of his biggest fans

Agree, was a number of games when he played where he didn't do anything. So many people here rated him higher then Wood too.
Hopefully he gets over his injuries but he won't be a star player.

 

[shintemaster]

Agree, was a number of games when he played where he didn't do anything. So many people here rated him higher then Wood too.
Hopefully he gets over his injuries but he won't be a star player.

I think this is fair. If he can get over his injuries though he can be a valuable impact player. Big hitting, speed, pressure, goals but unlikely to ever get huge numbers consistently (which to be fair is not uncommon with that position anyway).

 

[giantroo]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-02/roo-jed-anderson-walking-tribunal-tightrope-in-finals


Roo walking Tribunal tightrope in finals

PLAYERS involved in finals can consider themselves big winners under the latest incarnation of the Match Review Panel, with only one player walking the Tribunal tightrope through September.

North Melbourne's Jed Anderson is the only finals-bound player charged by the MRP this season with two minor classifiable offences*, meaning he will be suspended if he commits another.

A further 22 players involved in finals have committed one minor classifiable offence this season – such as a low impact strike to the body – giving them one more chance before facing suspension.

Under the previous carryover points system, players who had transgressed once during the season would enter September knowing that one more minor offence could see them miss a cutthroat final.

Among finalists this season, North Melbourne has the most players (six) with a strike against their name.

Geelong and the Western Bulldogs have clean records.

1. Sydney Swans
Callum Sinclair
Heath Grundy
Sam Naismith

2. Geelong
Nil

3. Hawthorn
Grant Birchall
Taylor Duryea
Daniel Howe
Luke Hodge
Cyril Rioli

4. Greater Western Sydney
Stephen Coniglio
Adam Tomlinson
Tom Scully

5. Adelaide
Kyle Hartigan
Taylor Walker

6. West Coast
Mark LeCras
Scott Lycett
Jamie Cripps
Jeremy McGovern

7. Western Bulldogs
Nil

8. North Melbourne
Shaun Atley
Ben Cunnington
Scott Thompson
Michael Firrito
Jed Anderson (two strikes)
Brent Harvey

*Common classifiable offences are striking, rough conduct and tripping. They result in a financial sanction when graded intentional with low impact to the body, careless with medium impact to the body, or careless with low impact to the head, groin or body.

 

[GoNorth]

My mum has been getting stuck into Jed. I told her to remember that when he wins us a final... hoping that this week we tick that one off the list.

It must have something to do with mothers because mine also can't stand him and bags him whenever he dares to touch the ball (whether he's done something good or not!).

 

[Viper2Jester]

This analogy is getting tiresome.

Because it's total bullshit that's why KC.

I've tried to understand every (stupid) analogy presented to me and I still find we have pick 17 - not pick 15? What am I missing that we still have pick 15 somehow? Apparently though we still have pick 15 as Anderson but didn't "cost" us that? WTF? But yep bring on the beer analogies which are irrelevant....

Until someone shows me that we do still have pick 15 I will refuse to accept Anderson didn't cost us number 15 regardless of "use or cost", or any other Politician type spin about what we received in return didn't mean the original event didn't happen.....all because of later events we've managed to use picks from Anderson trade we made ground back by giving up a (quality) player in Bastinac and swapped picks to get a different first round pick in 17.

To say Anderson didn't "cost" us pick 15 is just a plain lie, regardless of what else we received in later deals.

Lots of posters here must use Ashley Madison

 

[Mr Reliable]

It's not what you've got but how you use it.

I believe that saying originated in the early years of draft picks.

Soundtrack song from the 1986 Scorsese film "The Color of Money" - "It's in the way that you use it". I think Clapton was singing about "talent".

Was there even a draft back then?

 

[Mr Reliable]

It must have something to do with mothers because mine also can't stand him and bags him whenever he dares to touch the ball (whether he's done something good or not!).

With thanks to Paul McCartney, though she was born a long, long time ago, your mother should know, GoNorth.

Your mother too, shintemaster.

 

[Dirty_11]

More importantly as for Anderson, well he clearly works bloody hard and has the right intensity.

Lucky to be playing and extremely untidy player, but a lot to work with no doubt

I would prefer Nahas this week.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Because it's total bullshit that's why KC.

I've tried to understand every (stupid) analogy presented to me and I still find we have pick 17 - not pick 15? What am I missing that we still have pick 15 somehow? Apparently though we still have pick 15 as Anderson but didn't "cost" us that? WTF? But yep bring on the beer analogies which are irrelevant....

Until someone shows me that we do still have pick 15 I will refuse to accept Anderson didn't cost us number 15 regardless of "use or cost", or any other Politician type spin about what we received in return didn't mean the original event didn't happen.....all because of later events we've managed to use picks from Anderson trade we've made ground back by giving up a (quality) player in Bastinac and swapped picks to get a different first round pick.

To say Anderson didn't "cost" us pick 15 is just a plain lie, regardless of what else we received in later deals.

Lots of posters here must use Ashley Madison

Again with semantics to support one of your arguments because you simply can't see the merit in alternative views once you've made your mind up.

Yes, we "used" pick 15, so we didn't still have pick 15. But we didn't just get Anderson for it. So, he didn't "cost" us 15 at all. It's not a lie, despite your vehement assertion that it did.

I'd be concerned if I was your employer if this is the way you interpret not looking at basic facts.

 

[Mcarcherey]

Because it's total bullshit that's why KC.

I've tried to understand every (stupid) analogy presented to me and I still find we have pick 17 - not pick 15? What am I missing that we still have pick 15 somehow? Apparently though we still have pick 15 as Anderson but didn't "cost" us that? WTF? But yep bring on the beer analogies which are irrelevant....

Until someone shows me that we do still have pick 15 I will refuse to accept Anderson didn't cost us number 15 regardless of "use or cost", or any other Politician type spin about what we received in return didn't mean the original event didn't happen.....all because of later events we've managed to use picks from Anderson trade we've made ground back by giving up a (quality) player in Bastinac and swapped picks to get a different first round pick.

To say Anderson didn't "cost" us pick 15 is just a plain lie, regardless of what else we received in later deals.

Lots of posters here must use Ashley Madison

North still had a first round pick. Anderson cost us a few picks from 15 to 19 (or 21 i forget exactly).

What's hard to figure out?

 

[Viper2Jester]

Again with semantics to support one of your arguments because you simply can't see the merit in alternative views once you've made your mind up.

Yes, we "used" pick 15, so we didn't still have pick 15. But we didn't just get Anderson for it. So, he didn't "cost" us 15 at all. It's not a lie, despite your vehement assertion that it did.

I'd be concerned if I was your employer if this is the way you interpret not looking at basic facts.

Ha. Rubbish.

Anderson cost us 15.

Bastinac cost lions 2 second rounders (helped from Anderson picks in our favour) and himself.

That's why we got 17 back.

The end.