Remove this Banner Ad

Danger Zone

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

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Word on DL is that Danger is not sold on us so the optimism level over there went from a 10 to about a 2 haha. One of the guys said Danger himself was the source.

I'm optimistic about us trading in another big fish this year but this is already getting me annoyed. One minute i'm optimistic then i'm upset again feels like i'm going through PMS.
 
Franky_024 said:
Word on DL is that Danger is not sold on us so the optimism level over there went from a 10 to about a 2 haha. One of the guys said Danger himself was the source.
Click to expand...

Good news that. If Danger does want to come here and is sold on us, we should avoid him like the plague. Last thing we need is another headcase at the club.
 
I love the ridiculous justifications used regarding trading away top picks. If we pick a kid at #2 it's all about how he will "hold up CHF for 12-15 years", but yet if we trade it away for Dangerfield, despite being quite young at 24 he only "has 6 or 7 years left in him". Therefore, the logic goes, we are better off picking a kid because we get more years out of him.

I understand that Dangerfield is a high-impact type player who probably won't play until he's 35 like Boomer, but jeez it annoys me when people don't want genuine star players because they're prioritising 10 years down the track over the here + now. We've tried to do that for years now and look where it's got us? Up shit creek, that's where. It was the same with Vince last year - "oh he's 27, he only has 3-4 years left in him so let's not bother." Next minute he's our second best player. Worthwhile get instead of using pick 20? Absolutely.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Captain Jack said:
I love the ridiculous justifications used regarding trading away top picks. If we pick a kid at #2 it's all about how he will "hold up CHF for 12-15 years", but yet if we trade it away for Dangerfield, despite being quite young at 24 he only "has 6 or 7 years left in him". Therefore, the logic goes, we are better off picking a kid because we get more years out of him.

I understand that Dangerfield is a high-impact type player who probably won't play until he's 35 like Boomer, but jeez it annoys me when people don't want genuine star players because they're prioritising 10 years down the track over the here + now. We've tried to do that for years now and look where it's got us? Up shit creek, that's where. It was the same with Vince last year - "oh he's 27, he only has 3-4 years left in him so let's not bother." Next minute he's our second best player. Worthwhile get instead of using pick 20? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Yep. I wouldn't trade away a top pick for a player that's 26 or 27, but 24 is still pretty freaking young. Dangerfield is a player right in his prime and will stay there for a good 6 more years.
 
thetank said:
Are we cutting our losses on Toumpas already? In any case, that is still effectively a proposal of Picks 2 + 4 for Dangerfield.
Click to expand...
I'd rather give up 2+3 than 2+Toumpas. We'll get nowhere by just trading away our young players if they don't star after two injury plagued seasons in a shitty team.
 
Captain Jack said:
I love the ridiculous justifications used regarding trading away top picks. If we pick a kid at #2 it's all about how he will "hold up CHF for 12-15 years", but yet if we trade it away for Dangerfield, despite being quite young at 24 he only "has 6 or 7 years left in him". Therefore, the logic goes, we are better off picking a kid because we get more years out of him.

I understand that Dangerfield is a high-impact type player who probably won't play until he's 35 like Boomer, but jeez it annoys me when people don't want genuine star players because they're prioritising 10 years down the track over the here + now. We've tried to do that for years now and look where it's got us? Up shit creek, that's where. It was the same with Vince last year - "oh he's 27, he only has 3-4 years left in him so let's not bother." Next minute he's our second best player. Worthwhile get instead of using pick 20? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Comparing the impact of an 18 year old versus a 27 year old after their first year at their new clubs? Come on. If Matt Crouch is smashing the competition up in 4 or 5 years and Bernie is done and dusted or rolling around in the forward pocket for 10 touches a game, some people will justifiably wonder what could have been. On a par with calling the Buddy move an unqualified success on the back of the first year of his 32 year contract. I still choose to look at it as Colin for Bernie though, so I feel warmth and fuzziness over the move.

As we're discussing guys like Petracca, McCartin and Brayshaw who are supposedly ready to go, we're improving the team now and in 10 years. While it'd be nice to drag ourselves off the foot of the table and up the ladder a few spots, I'd much prefer we build a team capable of challenging for the Premiership. 10th or 17th... no difference in the greater scheme. Questionable how much of an impact he'll have for us given Adelaide couldn't even make the finals in this year's Bradbury race and they have a good forward line and blokes who can kick the ball. We've got Dawes and McDonald.

Happy to get Dangerfield in, but not by paying well over the odds for him (ie two top 3 picks). There's a risk in drafting but we've finally got some decent recruiters and if they do their homework we shouldn't go wrong this time. We're going to be delisting a good portion of the 20-24 year old duds we've picked up in recent years so we need an influx of good kids.

While we're at it, let's be honest. Our drafting has certainly not been crash hot, but you'd have to say our recruiting before last season was utterly shithouse as well. Hard to argue that either path is a guaranteed road to success. Let's give up #2, #3 and Toumpas for Dangerfield who then promptly tears his hamstring off the bone or something similar. This all your eggs in one kitchen sink approach is daft in my opinion.
 
thetank said:
Danger is a top 5-8 mid with another 6-8 years to go, with potential to be the Number 1 player in the league. Factor in instant marketability for the Dees, and perhaps captaincy...plus the fact that Dangerfield could likely be the best player to play for Melbourne since Flower. I don't think that 2 top 5 picks is excessive...and at least not in the minds of Roos and Jackson, who will be keen for members to re-sign after a disappointing end to 2014.

Having Danger in the team is also likely to help with drawing (good) players from other teams to the Dees. A big fish needs to be landed one day, why not now?

Doubt that Shiel would be traded for pick 2 alone, Melbourne would have to offer more than that. Melbourne needs results now, another season with young kids and 4 wins could be catastrophic on a survival basis.
Click to expand...
All well and good but I think we can get Danger done without blowing both of those picks, that doesn't mean I'm undervaluing him as a player.

At the end of the day he is concussion prone due to how he plays and has a shoulder needing fixing. Pencilling in 6-8 years of top footy given his lack of self preservation is ludicrous. There has been debate in footy circles whether he can even keep playing the same way for much longer.

Re: Shiel, whether pick 2 alone would get him is irrelevant. We'll still need pick 2 as the main wager. If we need a sweetener who cares, we'll find something eg Clark compo if we get it or a player.

Adelaide are the ones with the conundrum here.
 
thetank said:
Are we cutting our losses on Toumpas already? In any case, that is still effectively a proposal of Picks 2 + 4 for Dangerfield.
Click to expand...

I'd rather lose Toumpas than a pick which would land us Brayshaw, just quietly.
 
I think it's important to remember the whole Roosy episode, every couple of weeks there were rumors he was definitely ours/definitely Brisbanes/definitely West Coasts.

I'll back Roosy, if Dangerfield is open to a trade to us I think Roos and co can convince him to come.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I'd offer pick 3 and 20 for him (and Tapscott if they wanted to give him a go in return for Lyons), and if they don't like it, then I wouldn't cry about it, just go find another young gun to make an offer to. Dangerfield is a good player, but he is somewhat overrated. Giving up picks 2 and 3 for Danger alone would be ludicrous.
 
List our kids versus anyone else's and we still have **** all young talent that's proven at afl level


Toumpas hasn't shown anything yet
Hogan hasn't played a game
JKH and kent have Been promising but with major rough edges
Trengove is an old man
Salem has played <15 games

Tyson and viney have shown they will be afl standard midfielders


Unless I'm mistaken that's it , and they were all taken in the last 2 years bar Trenners


Point is regardless of how I rate them we need a shitload more young talent if we want to compete in a few years

Dangers great an all but we are so void of young talent it scares me still

Collingwoods youth kills ours already and they only just missed finals
 
I'll scream if another poster mentions Lyons. :D

He offers nothing. List clogger. We'd be doing Adelaide a favour by giving them anything for him, he's not even steak knives.

Jenkins is the one to bring into the equation. Tall forward who can pinch hit in the ruck here and there, attacks the footy in a way we could only dream of with Watts, unlike Fitzpatrick he plays with conviction and unlike Clark he isn't downright dodgy.

If Adelaide are likely to get Cameron they'll need room for him up forward along with Walker, Lynch and Betts.

From what I'm reading though Melbourne is a tough sell to Dangerfield so it's not worth worrying too much about it I think.

I'd consider throwing 20 on its own for Jenkins.
 
d7JBymA.png

lookin good buddy ;)
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

nickgrant69 said:
Collingwoods youth kills ours already and they only just missed finals
Click to expand...

Probably not the best example as the Buckley Youth will be moved on to be replaced by the next up and coming Jesse White or Cheynee Stiller. I'm half convinced Bucky FIGJAM is getting rid of all the talent so his playing career is remembered in the fondest light. Probably planning to release a commemorative DVD not long after he gets sacked for the grossest of incompetence.
 
People need to stop bringing up Matt Crouch. We were never going to draft him.
 
JackAttack7 said:
People need to stop bringing up Matt Crouch. We were never going to draft him.
Click to expand...

Of course we were. And we would have drafted Nat Fyfe and Padderick Dangerfield as well.

Proof
 
nickgrant69 said:
List our kids versus anyone else's and we still have **** all young talent that's proven at afl level


Toumpas hasn't shown anything yet
Hogan hasn't played a game
JKH and kent have Been promising but with major rough edges
Trengove is an old man
Salem has played <15 games

Tyson and viney have shown they will be afl standard midfielders


Unless I'm mistaken that's it , and they were all taken in the last 2 years bar Trenners


Point is regardless of how I rate them we need a shitload more young talent if we want to compete in a few years

Dangers great an all but we are so void of young talent it scares me still

Collingwoods youth kills ours already and they only just missed finals
Click to expand...
That comes down to the culture IMO. I refuse to believe that EVERY player we've picked has been a dud. If you're taken in the top 20 of an AFL draft in the last few years, you can damn well play the game.

The culture and development programs in place are the issue. Not the players we draft.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom