Remove this Banner Ad

Brad Ebert

  • Thread starter Thread starter worsfold
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mdc said:
Why is his 70+ games an inherent advantage? I'd think it's concerning, if anything, that after 70 games he still hasn't really developed.

As for Swan, his kicking was awful for a couple of months this year, but usually is right around average. And Swan kicked 30+ goals this season while gathering 30+ touches a game, including lots of hard ball. Ebert averaged 13 touches a game and kicked half a dozen goals.

I'm not saying it's impossible to play good footy despite having a poor kick, but you need other outstanding attributes. Ebert is a great size for a mid and is a very good runner, but it doesn't translate to anything in particular in terms of on-field impact.
Click to expand...
point is that not many 21 year olds had already player 75 games. and his kicking has improved this year. its actually improved alot.

im not comparing him to swan. ebert is still a developing player, the whole hasnt developed bit is pure perception. also he has kicked 14 goals. so using that, he is at least twice as good as you think :)
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

longdonkey said:
Don't encourage them. Some of these guys want us to pay so "overs" for Ebert they'll think you're being serious.
Click to expand...
I am yet to find an eagles supporter who thinks Ebert is worth pick 6, let alone pick 6 and one of your best players.

In an ordinary draft. he's worth your second round pick, which would be pick 17 (excluding PP's and without GWS).

So because of GWS, do you actually think he is only worth pick 33?
 
I'm calling it now, Brad Ebert is a future Port Adelaide captain.
 
Can't believe the attitude from port supporters that this deal is a fiat-accompli and west coast will take whatever they are given.

Its simply not the case.

Apparently there are a few decent port players more than willing to leave port even if through the PSD to get away from the rabble, I think they should be focussing their attention on that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I'm biased, but i think he'd be rated in the range of 15-25 in this draft...

meaning port may need to be a little bit creative to get the deal sealed.
 
longdonkey said:
Other examples of trades that are similar to Ebert

Sherman to WB - End of Round Compo choice - same as what we are saying
Tambling to Adelaide - End of Round Compo choice plus Pick 50
Jacobs to Adelaide - 33 & 67
Gibson to Hawthorn - 25 & upgrade from 69 to 41
Mumford to Sydney - 28
McGlynn and Kennedy to Sydney - 39, 46 & 70

None of these deals are better than Ebert to Port for 28.
Click to expand...

wow this does put things into perspective
 
The Magenius said:
Can't believe the attitude from port supporters that this deal is a fiat-accompli and west coast will take whatever they are given.

Its simply not the case.

Apparently there are a few decent port players more than willing to leave port even if through the PSD to get away from the rabble, I think they should be focussing their attention on that.
Click to expand...

Funny that.

Every player we want has signed on this year.

Ebert for pick 51. Take it or leave it
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Jimmy_the_Gent said:
McGinnity, Gaff, Darling Adam Selwood and Waters.
Click to expand...

Those are the only two potentially serious responses of the lot, and both of them are better equipped to play their particular roles than Ebert.

I maintain that if he wasn't a first round pick and if his name wasn't Ebert West Coast fans wouldn't be demanding half as much, and Port wouldn't be nearly as keen.
 
mdc said:
Those are the only two potentially serious responses of the lot, and both of them are better equipped to play their particular roles than Ebert.

I maintain that if he wasn't a first round pick and if his name wasn't Ebert West Coast fans wouldn't be demanding half as much, and Port wouldn't be nearly as keen.
Click to expand...

You ask for my opinion, you get my opinion, then you rubbish it because it's not your opinion. So why even bother asking?

I know you don't care about argument but here's why the above were selected:

Waters - Terrible disposal coming out of defence means he's left to play lose because the opposition want the ball in his hands. Gets many touches but doesn't hurt the opposition at all. Liability.

Gaff - Can only receive the ball on a plater at this stage. When it gets hot, he's useless. Works one way.

Selwood - Doesn't get to enough contests and doesn't use it. Good lock down skills though but he's about shot.

McGinnity - Limited offensive game, which is very well documented.

Darling - The closest to being better than Ebert. At his best, he takes marks but leading smartly. At his worst, he's not sighted for entire games as we go long to Kennedy.

So, that's why Ebert is best 22. That and the fact that he played 22 out of 25 games when we had the smallest injury list in the AFL.

What interests me is how a 21 year old, best 22 player, in a top 4 side, isn't worth a top 22 pick in a shallow draft.
 
Jimmy_the_Gent said:
What interests me is how a 21 year old, best 22 player, in a top 4 side, isn't worth a top 22 pick in a shallow draft.
Click to expand...

Because when you're trading for a 21yo, the key thing you're looking at is how they'll be performing in 2-3 years time, not how they're performing now. Ebert's already elite in the one area that's usually subject to improvement (i.e. endurance) plus he already has 70 games of experience. His upside from here is very limited. And as I've said, his best 22 status is in dispute (amongst Eagles supporters as much as anyone).

Following your line of argument, I imagine you'd be in favour of the Eagles ponying up theor first rounder or more for Jarryd Blair, who's much more entrenched in the Collingwood 22 than Ebert is in WC's?
 
I wonder if you're that cynical in general or only when it suits some motivation you may have.

You're saying that Ebert's endurance and experience are negatives because it means he has less upside? Presumably you'd be happier if he'd shown an inability to stay on the park and couldn't run out a game.

How about this: a more optimistic view of Ebert - you'll get durability, versatility, leadership, strength, overhead marking, kamikaze desperation, up to a decade of service and so on.

If you want upside, it's in his kicking, although it's way better than bigfooty would have you think.

The point is, you can slant everything downhill but it doesn't make it true.

And if you're thinking I wont meet you half way, try me - I'll gladly tell you where Ebert is lacking as a player.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The Nostradamus
Recommitted Brad Close [signs 3 year deal]
Replies
19
Views
1K
STPer18
STPer18

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom