Brad Hill

Remove this Banner Ad

Carnthedockers said:
Theres no way the club will give that up for a low priority player.
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact that he is a high priority player. You really don't even remotely get how this whole trade thing works. There is two sides to the story and as inconvenient as it is Hawthorn would have to agree with a trade for B.Hill. Attracting players with speed and class is essential for us moving forward.
 
Last edited:
sherrif said:
Apart from the fact that he is a high priority player. You really don't even remotely get how this whole trade thing works. There is two sides to the story and as inconvenient as it is Hawthorn would have to agree with a trade for B.Hill. Attracting players with speed and class are essential for us moving forward.
Click to expand...

But I think the idea in any negotiation is to start low and work your way up. Not start high and wait for the other party to push up the offer even further.;)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

meima said:
Then i want him , weller and him as wing and HF will be handy , add in the hardness of grey as fullback . Kind of balance it out.
But the left side is the main problem . Stephen hill is good ,so is crozier but thier work will be undo by d.pearce.
Click to expand...

Serious question... If Brad Hill joins us, we are basically rortating him, Bennell weller and Danyle pearce in the wings and hff. That means stephen hill plays on a half back flank right?
 
salim malik said:
But I think the idea in any negotiation is to start low and work your way up. Not start high and wait for the other party to push up the offer even further.;)
Click to expand...
Umm the real salim finally make a cameo. Salim: What to you mean meima?
 
sherrif said:
Apart from the fact that he is a high priority player. You really don't even remotely get how this whole trade thing works. There is two sides to the story and as inconvenient as it is Hawthorn would have to agree with a trade for B.Hill. Attracting players with speed and class are essential for us moving forward.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Every single media piece I have read, says Brad Hill is a low priority, considering he is out of contract next year, and Hawthorn will be desperate to move him, when we have absolutely no tall talent to speak of, yet you appear to know better. Brad hill would be a good get, but he is not worth a player and a pick, maybe an exchange of picks. I get the whole trading process, in fact, I would say a hell of a lot more than you do! Draft picks are like gold, you dont just throw them away, remember Lachie neale, or even the pick we gave Hawthorn for Mitchell? Your mentality is to throw the kitchen sink at every player that wants to wear purple! The exact reason we were the laughing stock of the competition for the first 10 years of our existence. You know what pick we used on Balic? Pick 38, and the talk is he could be an absolute gun, so you want to give away a Langdon and a Balic for a Brad Hill.. I back our recruiters.
 
Carnthedockers said:
Interesting. Every single media piece I have read, says Brad Hill is a low priority, considering he is out of contract next year, and Hawthorn will be desperate to move him, when we have absolutely no tall talent to speak of, yet you appear to know better. Brad hill would be a good get, but he is not worth a player and a pick, maybe an exchange of picks. I get the whole trading process, in fact, I would say a hell of a lot more than you do! Draft picks are like gold, you dont just throw them away, remember Lachie neale, or even the pick we gave Hawthorn for Mitchell? Your mentality is to throw the kitchen sink at every player that wants to wear purple! The exact reason we were the laughing stock of the competition for the first 10 years of our existence. You know what pick we used on Balic? Pick 38, and the talk is he could be an absolute gun, so you want to give away a Langdon and a Balic for a Brad Hill.. I back our recruiters.
Click to expand...
Agree i would rather wait for another year , and use that pick on nicholls ,witts or some proven ruck men, even goddard will do. This will set him up for one pre season if he dont play afl.
 
sherrif said:
Apart from the fact that he is a high priority player. You really don't even remotely get how this whole trade thing works. There is two sides to the story and as inconvenient as it is Hawthorn would have to agree with a trade for B.Hill. Attracting players with speed and class is essential for us moving forward.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think you overrate some players. I think Brad Hill would be an improvement on D Pearce because of his relentless preparedness to run and his flatter, more accurate kicking.
But he has weaknesses - Langdon is faster than him, and Pearce is generally better at getting to the receiving end of the ball. There is also the little matter of his legal indiscretions. It is Hawthorn that stated publicly that he is looking to come to Fremantle, which suggests that they are not expecting to get overs for him.
Hill has one year left on his contract. It would be good to get him next year, but if we don't, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Wait another year, and/or develop Langdon or Tucker
 
Carnthedockers said:
Interesting. Every single media piece I have read, says Brad Hill is a low priority, considering he is out of contract next year, and Hawthorn will be desperate to move him, when we have absolutely no tall talent to speak of, yet you appear to know better. Brad hill would be a good get, but he is not worth a player and a pick, maybe an exchange of picks. I get the whole trading process, in fact, I would say a hell of a lot more than you do! Draft picks are like gold, you dont just throw them away, remember Lachie neale, or even the pick we gave Hawthorn for Mitchell? Your mentality is to throw the kitchen sink at every player that wants to wear purple! The exact reason we were the laughing stock of the competition for the first 10 years of our existence. You know what pick we used on Balic? Pick 38, and the talk is he could be an absolute gun, so you want to give away a Langdon and a Balic for a Brad Hill.. I back our recruiters.
Click to expand...
Im not sure what the hell you are on about. Im saying Langdon and an early third round compensation pick could get us Brad if we use Hawthorn's need for a ruckman after Ceglar went down to our advantage. Hardly selling the farm. For the record the vast majority of players in the pick range thirty to fourty don't amount to much. Selectively referencing three examples doesn't add much to your frail argument as there would be litteraly four or five examples of players who don't make it to every one that does.
 
Last edited:
Clems Knee said:
Sometimes I think you overrate some players. I think Brad Hill would be an improvement on D Pearce because of his relentless preparedness to run and his flatter, more accurate kicking.
But he has weaknesses - Langdon is faster than him, and Pearce is generally better at getting to the receiving end of the ball. There is also the little matter of his legal indiscretions. It is Hawthorn that stated publicly that he is looking to come to Fremantle, which suggests that they are not expecting to get overs for him.
Hill has one year left on his contract. It would be good to get him next year, but if we don't, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Wait another year, and/or develop Langdon or Tucker
Click to expand...
I agree with you on most things, but not on this. I think Brad uses the ball a ton better than both Danyle and Ed which is why I think he fills a massive need, which is to improve our disposal into the forward fifty.
 
sherrif said:
I agree with you on most things, but not on this. I think Brad uses the ball a ton better than both Danyle and Ed which is why I think he fills a massive need, which is to improve our disposal into the forward fifty.
Click to expand...

Okay then. So make a low opening bid and go from there! Ever play cards?
 
sherrif said:
I agree with you on most things, but not on this. I think Brad uses the ball a ton better than both Danyle and Ed which is why I think he fills a massive need, which is to improve our disposal into the forward fifty.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you in this one, kind of like desperate buyer where you can wait for another year and use this one year to develop balic, tucker or new draftee.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Clems Knee said:
Sometimes I think you overrate some players. I think Brad Hill would be an improvement on D Pearce because of his relentless preparedness to run and his flatter, more accurate kicking.
But he has weaknesses - Langdon is faster than him, and Pearce is generally better at getting to the receiving end of the ball. There is also the little matter of his legal indiscretions. It is Hawthorn that stated publicly that he is looking to come to Fremantle, which suggests that they are not expecting to get overs for him.
Hill has one year left on his contract. It would be good to get him next year, but if we don't, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Wait another year, and/or develop Langdon or Tucker
Click to expand...

Brad Hill ran the 20m sprint in 2.88 seconds at draft camp while Langdon ran it in 2.92 seconds. I would argue that Hill is quicker.
 
sherrif said:
Im not sure what the hell you are on about. Im saying Langdon and an early third round compensation pick could get us Brad if we use Hawthorn's need for a ruckman after Ceglar went down to our advantage. Hardly selling the farm. For the record the vast majority of players in the pick range thirty to fourty don't amount to much. Selectively referencing three examples doesn't add much to your frail argument as there would be litteraly four or five examples of players who don't make it to every one that does.
Click to expand...
Umm, yeh, exactly what I was arguing.. You want to give up langdon and a pick for Hill.. There are a ton more examples of elite 3rd rounders, just cant be bothered listing them, but Rory Sloane is another. There are also a heap of top 10 picks who fail, so we may as well give away our pick 3 as well hey?
 
Just ask 0.04 is that a lot of different?
 
Carnthedockers said:
Umm, yeh, exactly what I was arguing.. You want to give up langdon and a pick for Hill.. There are a ton more examples of elite 3rd rounders, just cant be bothered listing them, but Rory Sloane is another. There are also a heap of top 10 picks who fail, so we may as well give away our pick 3 as well hey?
Click to expand...
How about we agree to disagree? I would have thought it was blindingly obvious that what Im saying is that a pick in the range I am saying (around pick 40) would statistically have a ton less chance of making it and playing regularly than your average top ten pick, but I think Ill just move on.
 
sherrif said:
I agree with you on most things, but not on this. I think Brad uses the ball a ton better than both Danyle and Ed which is why I think he fills a massive need, which is to improve our disposal into the forward fifty.
Click to expand...

Ed Langdon is better than Brad Hill. Would not like to see that swap.
 
sherrif said:
Ed's disposal by foot is very average to say the least.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Ed's kicking is poor but it needs to improve.
Where Brad's kicking appears better, they are usually taken under less pressure which comes from playing in a better team.
I don't think Brad has the same appetite for hard get footy as Ed Langdon does.
It's all perception now as Ed is only starting out. I will be bloody disappointed if we lose Ed but ambivalent about Hill.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dump Truck
Opinion What is your most nonsensical Freo hill you'll die on?
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
346
Views
24K
pK75
pK75

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top