Roast Bryce Gibbs

Remove this Banner Ad

F_therest said:
I guess based on the fact he lasted till 19 tells you at least quite a number of clubs had other players ahead of him.
I do recall he was injured for a decent part of last year including the last half i think, which may have had some effect.

Also i think clubs are choosing based on player type to assess their value to their team more and more these days, even early in the draft. They just don't want to admit it as it might lead to them missing out on the player.

Looking at some of the others who went before Stocker, we wouldn't need someone like Ben King who went at #6 because we have Charlie Curnow/McKay/McGovern up front and Weitering/Jones/Marchbank/Plowman down back. Using a high draft pick on ANOTHER KPP would have been dumb.

However a lot of clubs would need a KPP like him and maybe therefore have him higher on their draft board.

IIRC Rozee wasn't predicted to go quite as high as #5 for most of the year, but Port needed a player type like him and he was from SA, boosting his rating to Port in particular. Obviously been a good pick up. They also took Butters & Duursma, outside types with run and some x-factor to compliment their inside players like Rockliff/Wines/Powell-Pepper/Boak. So for them they wouldn't need someone like Stocker and neither would Adelaide with your abundance of big bodied, inside mids etc.
Click to expand...

Just because he went at 19 doesn’t mean he wasn’t at 12 on numerous lists. Future trading has inherent risk plus you need a few other factors to line up to do it. Even though SOS had him at 6, you don’t see the live trade start gearing up until he’s slipped about 10 spots. Then the metrics need to be reasonable and risk assessed. The likelihood of 2 clubs being comfortable with the factors when the player has slipped 5-6 players is unlikely. When it gets to 10+ the other party shares in the perceived benefit. We didn’t pull the trigger at 16 and nor did Port a couple later. Looking from the other side, if Port did the deal, we win the flag and you win the spoon, McHenry will want to be one hell of a player for us to not look like idiots.
 
1970crow said:
I’ve no doubt they were on their own having him directly after the franchise 5. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he averaged somewhere around the mid teens across the rest of the clubs. Would be very interested to find out, did the Hun give any further indication as to his average rating, him not being as high with anyone else was a given. I’ve seen a small amount of him and he looks like he might be pretty decent.
Click to expand...

If he had an average value of mid teens across the clubs he wouldn't have been there at 19.

To average out there multiple clubs would have had to have him top 10 and given over half the clubs had a pick between say 8 and 19 he would have been gone
 
F_therest said:
Oh for sure.

But as a supporter i appreciate and respect having a team willing to back themselves and get creative in order to make things happen...and not just do the standard thing/pick the safe option year in, year out.

As long as they get most of those risks right and not **** up constantly that is ;)

What if Adelaide didn't have a horrific injury run last year and Gibbs helped you win a Grand Final? Not going to win a premiership without taking some risks.
Was good for you at the start of the year when your other inside mids were injured...at the time Brad Crouch couldn't get on the park as well.
Click to expand...

Can we all please take the stoker trade to the appropriate thread? Otherwise we are inviting Carlton supporters like this one to use our off topic discussion to get around our moderator no opposition lock down.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Given the widely circulated rumour about Gibbs and gambling, wouldn’t it be reasonable for the media to back off a bit about his non-selection?

I didn’t see it but Kane was going to discuss it on his 11.30pm shunted SA footy show, Rucci’s written another article.

Am I expecting too much?
 
Elite Crow said:
Given the widely circulated rumour about Gibbs and gambling, wouldn’t it be reasonable for the media to back off a bit about his non-selection?

I didn’t see it but Kane was going to discuss it on his 11.30pm shunted SA footy show, Rucci’s written another article.

Am I expecting too much?
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
If true, the media hounding would only be making the problem worse.
I assume he & the club are talking about it, and that silence is the agreed upon action. We could hardly make a statement about it without Bryce's approval, and if he wanted it out there he could do something, so he obviously wants it not to be discussed.
Again, if it is all true - but the silence would suggest there is something to it as you would deny it otherwise.
 
Vhaluus said:
If he had an average value of mid teens across the clubs he wouldn't have been there at 19.

To average out there multiple clubs would have had to have him top 10 and given over half the clubs had a pick between say 8 and 19 he would have been gone
Click to expand...

Not true. Not every club had a pick between 12 and 19 or the opportunity to trade into one. You’re looking at it far too simply, more than 1 factor is involved.
 
Elite Crow said:
Given the widely circulated rumour about Gibbs and gambling, wouldn’t it be reasonable for the media to back off a bit about his non-selection?

I didn’t see it but Kane was going to discuss it on his 11.30pm shunted SA footy show, Rucci’s written another article.

Am I expecting too much?
Click to expand...
Nope he is fair game as the club can not officially come out and say it is a gambling issue.

Wouldn't want to upset AFL corporate partners by suggesting misuse of their product (gambling) has caused a player to miss games.

Of course it could always be tucked away under a "Mental Health" explanation.

Which in itself is hard as he is playing SANFL, and playing well.

FWIW I expect him to play against the Cats at Geelong.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Thegibbsgamble said:
94 95 and 96 were bad. Some players never recovered, some talent lost. Especially cornsey. Last year was as bad as things have been. Gibbs came with some controversy into that.

He did appear in our best players, frequently when we got to 6 wins 3 losses. Before everything went pear shaped. We now know how hard things were leading up to it. To be fair, it must of been hard on Gibbs, with so much expected off him from the word go.

But still, the trade was a gamble.
Click to expand...

Your username holds even more irony now.
 
Elite Crow said:
Given the widely circulated rumour about Gibbs and gambling, wouldn’t it be reasonable for the media to back off a bit about his non-selection?

I didn’t see it but Kane was going to discuss it on his 11.30pm shunted SA footy show, Rucci’s written another article.

Am I expecting too much?
Click to expand...
Humanity from scumbag journos? Maybe expecting a bit too much
 
ABAB said:
I thought the Carlton supporters were clueless when I started the debate with them over there on their thread...clearly we also have some here. I understand Rucci continues to bang on it was 2 1st rounders but from our own supporters who you would think would have looked at the trade more closely, it's has been very difficult to tell them otherwise, I bet you they will continue to argue with me even after I provided those draft points.
Click to expand...
Neither side of this argument is wrong, really.

You can't deny that we did stump up 2 r1 picks for Gibbs.

But then we did get back what turned out to be as close to a r1 pick as you could get in return along with Gibbs.

We probably didn't know it was going to be pick #19 we got back at the time of the trade but it would have been a good bet.

I think the proper response whenever someone throws the "you paid 2 r1 picks for Gibbs" line is "we got back just about a r1 pick with Gibbs".
 
GrommoT said:
Neither side of this argument is wrong, really.

You can't deny that we did stump up 2 r1 picks for Gibbs.

But then we did get back what turned out to be as close to a r1 pick as you could get in return along with Gibbs.

We probably didn't know it was going to be pick #19 we got back at the time of the trade but it would have been a good bet.

I think the proper response whenever someone throws the "you paid 2 r1 picks for Gibbs" line is "we got back just about a r1 pick with Gibbs".
Click to expand...


It's so dumb.

If I pay for something with two $100 dollar bills, no one assumes the price is $200. And yet this discussion never goes past the fact we used two first rounders in the trade. He didn't COST that.
 
1970crow said:
Not true. Not every club had a pick between 12 and 19 or the opportunity to trade into one. You’re looking at it far too simply, more than 1 factor is involved.
Click to expand...

No not every club had a pick between 12 and 19 but as I clearly said, for him to be rated 'mid teens' on average around half the clubs had to rate him in the top 10 because it's very clear that many clubs rated him outside the top 20.

Do the basic maths rather than just throwing around lose numbers and you'll see what you're proposing is impossible.
 
Kristof said:
It's so dumb.

If I pay for something with two $100 dollar bills, no one assumes the price is $200. And yet this discussion never goes past the fact we used two first rounders in the trade. He didn't COST that.
Click to expand...

Exept it was more than two #100 bills.

I've done the maths very clearly previously but everyone who disagrees conveniently glosses over it because they can't refute it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Vhaluus said:
Exept it was more than two #100 bills.

I've done the maths very clearly previously but everyone who disagrees conveniently glosses over it because they can't refute it.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's just what you're saying is dumb, and it seems like every time someone explains that to you, you refuse to acknowledge the common sense.

We paid pick 10 for Gibbs, except clearly both clubs agreed he was worth more than that.

So we upgraded a future second round pick to a first round pick, and a third round pick to a second. Simple and obvious.

The gamble we took, and why it ended up being a smart deal from Reid's end, was over the future asset of the second round pick.

Reid banked on it being early - and it was. It was only a three pick downgrade - and it was a trade into a vastly superior draft. Every piece of football intel pointed towards the value of the draft picks in 2018 being very high. The risk was whether Carlton would improve, and of course that proved to be a smart risk for AFC to take.
 
Elite Crow said:
It’s irrelevant the perceived strength of the draft, have a look at the actual players who went 16 and beyond, Richards, Higgins, Kelly, Ryan, Allen.

There’s some real quality there
Click to expand...
Hence why I said even if we used the convoluted draft points, it was pick 10 and an early 3rd rounder, that's what the trade end up being.
 
GrommoT said:
Neither side of this argument is wrong, really.

You can't deny that we did stump up 2 r1 picks for Gibbs.

But then we did get back what turned out to be as close to a r1 pick as you could get in return along with Gibbs.

We probably didn't know it was going to be pick #19 we got back at the time of the trade but it would have been a good bet.

I think the proper response whenever someone throws the "you paid 2 r1 picks for Gibbs" line is "we got back just about a r1 pick with Gibbs".
Click to expand...
Even Kane Cornes eventually said that we got a pick back (which was this pick), previously he was saying it was 2 1st rounders but bloody Rucci continues to say this in this recent article a few days ago, I expect this from him but what gripes me is even our supporters didn't even look at this trade closely and keep saying it was 2 1st rounder for Gibbs.
 
Kristof said:
It's so dumb.

If I pay for something with two $100 dollar bills, no one assumes the price is $200. And yet this discussion never goes past the fact we used two first rounders in the trade. He didn't COST that.
Click to expand...

It’s also pointless. You don’t need to deliberately misrepresent the price we paid to mount an argument that it’s looking like being a bad result.
 
Vhaluus said:
No not every club had a pick between 12 and 19 but as I clearly said, for him to be rated 'mid teens' on average around half the clubs had to rate him in the top 10 because it's very clear that many clubs rated him outside the top 20.

Do the basic maths rather than just throwing around lose numbers and you'll see what you're proposing is impossible.
Click to expand...

It’s not clear at all that any clubs rated him outside the top 20.
 
1970crow said:
I’ve no doubt they were on their own having him directly after the franchise 5. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he averaged somewhere around the mid teens across the rest of the clubs. Would be very interested to find out, did the Hun give any further indication as to his average rating, him not being as high with anyone else was a given. I’ve seen a small amount of him and he looks like he might be pretty decent.
Click to expand...

I think the feeling was that he went about where he should have

Which doesn’t make everyone right and Carlton wrong. He could turn out to be a top 3 player in time

But at the time he was a guy valued at late first round
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top