- Joined
- Jun 5, 2015
- Posts
- 13,172
- Reaction score
- 8,797
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Fog definitely out of Freo sight now .Big call by Cal with Fogarty at 4.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Fog definitely out of Freo sight now .Big call by Cal with Fogarty at 4.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Sorry peppy la pew I got some pretty good mail tonight (not related to the phantom draft) that Rayner's going #1. We'll just have to trade him in next year![]()
I guess the 2nd best player in the draft is an ok consolation prize.Well that's a load of bollocks isn't it, I can live with UDL though especially as he wants to model his game on Fyfe
Maybe a chance of D-Fog for that x factor
Time to look for a new aviator
sameBut I want Rayner![]()
I'd actually prefer LDU to Rayner now after weighing up all the factors. I think he'll be more damaging for us. If Rayner had to sit mostly forward for us, he'd still be getting mediocre delivery BUT if we inject some class into our mid/hf line then even Tabs will look a million bucks. In theory.
Time to look for a new aviator
Glen Luff said Hamish (although as a mature Agee) averaged 131 SuperCoach points this year and would be great value as a late pick (also thinks whoever drafts Andrew also drafts Hamish).I understand the caveats. But I'm still yet to hear a tangible upside to Andrew's game versus Hamish's, apart from the year of age difference and the fact that Andrew's combine results were outstanding (as compared to Hamish being in the same gene pool, but unable to test last year due to injury). It seems the established view is 'Andrew is better' - however, I can't help but feel that during Andrew's meteoric rise, their relative values have fallen out of sync. In September, Andrew "bolted", by all accounts, into top 10 contention. After his combine testing he bolted, yet again, to #1 calculations. At least with, say, the Swallows and Kolodjashnijs there was tangible, relatively objective strengths and differences - I'm just hunting for what people think those differences are here.
[edit: also Hamish missed 12 TAC games, which kind of renders the championships moot.]
The knock on Hamish is that he is slow. If I was liken Hamish to a present day player it would be like a Barlow type, not quick but can find the ball is pretty good in the air and your old fashion footballer. This type really isn't in vogue at the moment but I think he's worth a shot late in the draft or in the rookie and would love it to be at Freo.I understand the caveats. But I'm still yet to hear a tangible upside to Andrew's game versus Hamish's, apart from the year of age difference and the fact that Andrew's combine results were outstanding (as compared to Hamish being in the same gene pool, but unable to test last year due to injury). It seems the established view is 'Andrew is better' - however, I can't help but feel that during Andrew's meteoric rise, their relative values have fallen out of sync. In September, Andrew "bolted", by all accounts, into top 10 contention. After his combine testing he bolted, yet again, to #1 calculations. At least with, say, the Swallows and Kolodjashnijs there was tangible, relatively objective strengths and differences - I'm just hunting for what people think those differences are here.
[edit: also Hamish missed 12 TAC games, which kind of renders the championships moot.]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





