how about rioli? i would have liked it if we picked him up
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Crows Mock/Hope Drafts
- Thread starter XztatiK
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
i'd rather a great player for 10+ years than a great player for 2 years. Crows made the right decision in not wasting their time with Rioli.
fans are already paranoid as it is with go-home factors...
artwinger
Draftee
*************
The reason why I was an Ebert fan is because he could have become a South-Australian CROWS icon, in the mould of Mark Ricciuto.
Mark was obviously not fast, but we can remember his leadership, toughness, tackling, damaging in and under skills! Ebert has an ego?? I think that could have added an edge to the Crows - that is lacking. Wayne Carey's arrogance didnt go astray!
I have no problems with Dangerfield - rate his speed, versatility etc, but at as an overall value to the team, I think Ebert may have have higher leadership value - even if Danger ends up being a better player!
I have been living in the UK for over 3.5 years so only get to see these players on a minor scale!
As for Sellar, there was a reason why a potential number one wasnt picked up until the Crows pick, if you had got him as a second rounder (where he should've gone 20-30) you would be quite content with him taking time to develop. However, as a first round pick Crows supporters want results NOW!
Regards,
ps, Adelaide is by far the best city in Australia - from someone who has visited over 30 countries!
Dangerfield I think you'll find has outstanding leadership potential, he is extremely well spoken. He would also be just as tough as Ebert, whilst also having Eberts strength and in and under skills, couple this with his elite pace, athleticism and versatility and his potential is even greater, especially if he can improve his kicking. We didn't give the boy the #32 jumper for nothing either.
We won't know whether or not it was the right choice for a while, but I can tell you, most if not all of us here are very excited about Dangerfield.
As for Sellar, I agree that we've got to be patient and I've been one of those standing up for him here, but he hasn't given us a lot to get excited about yet.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
If anything, Dangerfield's leadership skills and maturity at a young age are strengths. I know what you're saying, Ebert is a larger-than-life sort of character. But so is Dangerfield. I get the feeling he could become an icon of the Crows.
We'd all love to have Rioli in our side, dylan. The problem was, Rioli wouldn't have loved being in our side
If Rioli had wanted to be with the Crows as much as other clubs, not only would I have wanted him, I have no doubt we'd have chosen him.
We'd all love to have Rioli in our side, dylan. The problem was, Rioli wouldn't have loved being in our side
If Rioli had wanted to be with the Crows as much as other clubs, not only would I have wanted him, I have no doubt we'd have chosen him.
- Banned
- #81
You'll see, you will all see. You know what they say beware the flying start.
Ebert is a one paced player, nothing special, stood out in a woeful West Coast outfit. Besides that, he was reputedly AFL ready upon being drafted, generally goes hand in hand with little upside, sure he'll get better but he won't be a star.
I agree with what others have said in regards to Eberts possible career, he'll likely be a solid 200 gamer. No real weapons, just an honest footballer. As has been said time and time again, Adelaide have plenty of those.
Ebert is a one paced player, nothing special, stood out in a woeful West Coast outfit. Besides that, he was reputedly AFL ready upon being drafted, generally goes hand in hand with little upside, sure he'll get better but he won't be a star.
I agree with what others have said in regards to Eberts possible career, he'll likely be a solid 200 gamer. No real weapons, just an honest footballer. As has been said time and time again, Adelaide have plenty of those.
To be fair, Ricciuto always had a couple of weapons in his game that let you know he was going to be very good.
I think Ebert will be a very good player, I would have loved to have him. However, I still think there is so much more upside in Dangerfield and even if he never reaches his potential he will still be a good player. Moreover, he seems to have enough maturity and self-belief that he will do whatever it takes to reach his potential.
Hard to know for sure this early in his career but that's how it seems. Hopefully I turn out to be right.
- Banned
- #84
Right, stretching it a bit here aren't we...
Macca19
Moderator
- Moderator
- #85
Not really. The whole basis for you thinking Ebert wont improve is because hes got a semi-mature body.
Whilst I agree there is potentially more upside to Dangerfields game, I always chuckle when people feel the need to put down Ebert on this board, as some sort of affirmation that the AFC made the right choice.
Having watched Eberts junior career pretty closely (is good mates and played in same teams as my cous), hes got plenty more weapons than people give him credit for. Whilst this doesnt mean much once hes in the AFL, ive seen him dominate games in 4 different roles, from backman, to marking forward to inside and outside mid. Considering hes been touted as Captaincy material both inside and outside his AFL club says that hes got a lot more going for him than being a 'one paced, nothing special' plodder.
The club choice Dangerfield. They rated him higher so they made the right decision. Why people then see the need to downgrade a different player as in some sort of pleading that he doesnt make it so that it looks like the AFC didnt stuff up..i just dont see why its needed. Especially given that if their positions were reversed and Ebert was in Crows colours, he'd be rated as the second coming of Christ and Dangerfields name wouldn't have ever been mentioned on this board.
Whilst I agree there is potentially more upside to Dangerfields game, I always chuckle when people feel the need to put down Ebert on this board, as some sort of affirmation that the AFC made the right choice.
Having watched Eberts junior career pretty closely (is good mates and played in same teams as my cous), hes got plenty more weapons than people give him credit for. Whilst this doesnt mean much once hes in the AFL, ive seen him dominate games in 4 different roles, from backman, to marking forward to inside and outside mid. Considering hes been touted as Captaincy material both inside and outside his AFL club says that hes got a lot more going for him than being a 'one paced, nothing special' plodder.
The club choice Dangerfield. They rated him higher so they made the right decision. Why people then see the need to downgrade a different player as in some sort of pleading that he doesnt make it so that it looks like the AFC didnt stuff up..i just dont see why its needed. Especially given that if their positions were reversed and Ebert was in Crows colours, he'd be rated as the second coming of Christ and Dangerfields name wouldn't have ever been mentioned on this board.
well said.
i agree. Dangerfield was more the type of player that the Crows needed. i think Ebert will be a star in the game in the future, and everyone's comments would be the complete opposite if Danger was gone by our pick and the Crows had picked him instead. just let Ebert be...i hope he has a great long career with West Coast. they definitely got him for a bargain at their pick.how can u tell danger is going to be a great 10+ year player and think rioli ad 2 year player? im not saying his better then danger because i have not seen him play a full season to judge him yet but i think rioli is very talented and would be pretty good in our team
maybe i should rephrase to Dangerfield a 2+ year player, whereas Rioli would've been more of a <2 year player. if Rioli was so against coming to Adelaide, being recruited by Adelaide would've made life that much harder for himself and most likely would've left after his contract was over (or the Crows would've traded him for a very high pick after his first season).
What he was trying to say was that Rioli made it abundantly clear that he did not want to be a part of Adelaide, and if we had picked him up you can bet your bottom dollar he would have taken off first chance he got.
oh he did
well that sucks
Well lets hope danger owns then so we dont have to say we "could" of had him
Yeh. Of course, had he interviewed better he probably would have gone to someone else before us anyway.
I can't wait until some youngster pulls some shit like that and gets slammed for draft tampering. It annoys me that we have to put up with kids telling us they don't want to move to Adelaide. Of course it never seems to go the other way.
Edit: Imagine the huge fuss is Hartlett this year went to the draft camp and told everyone other than Crows and Port "I really don't want to leave Adelaide". People like Rioli can get away with it because they're so talented they know someone will pick them up on talent alone. But the potential SA superstars never do it.
I can't wait until some youngster pulls some shit like that and gets slammed for draft tampering. It annoys me that we have to put up with kids telling us they don't want to move to Adelaide. Of course it never seems to go the other way.
Edit: Imagine the huge fuss is Hartlett this year went to the draft camp and told everyone other than Crows and Port "I really don't want to leave Adelaide". People like Rioli can get away with it because they're so talented they know someone will pick them up on talent alone. But the potential SA superstars never do it.
though it's annoying that players can do that, i'm kind of glad he did made it clear to the Crows. otherwise, the Crows would've picked him up and lost him within a year or two. this way, we don't lose a year of him wasting our resources.
Actually they did! Robert Pyman, Andrew Mackay and Brett Chalmbers all did exactly this and copped significant fines for draft tampering (about $15000). The only difference was that they put it in writing!
Now explain to me how you can fine someone this amount of money for something they have done before even signing a contract with the organisation?
Incredible stuff!
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I imagine the AFL would have worded it in such a way that implied that the $15k fine only counted if they chose to apply for the draft, and that they were within their rights simply to not play AFL and avoid the $15k fine. Heh.
You would think so wouldn't you??
Actually I think it went something like this:
Just before draft, players send letters to certain clubs asking not to be drafted by them.
Draft happens, clubs ignore requests and draft anyway.
Players sign and begin career.
AFL 'tries' and finds players guilty of draft tampering. Players fined.
Players pay fine and finish career.
After career players seek legal advice. Advice is the AFL doesn't have a leg to stand on, but statute of limitations (7 years I think) has passed and therefore they can't take AFL to court to retrieve money.
Another example of the AFL over reacting and then sweeping it under the carpet like it never happened!
I guess the trick is not to put it in writing!!
The thing about Rockliff is that he is probably the smartest footballer, but has no endurance for midfield and not tall enough for key position so where does he play? And do you draft for a specific small forward?
We need some height. I've had enough of building side around small forwards like Welsh or the Porpus. Give me a tall forward that can take a mark any day.
I vaguely remember Chalmbers copping it harder than Pyman and MacKay, i thought he was the only one that had to pay???
- Oct 8, 2004
- 19,401
- 26,799
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
If both Hartlett and Johnston sipped to pick 10 which would you prefer and why ?
