Dangerfield >>>>>>>>> Ebert

[Blue Red and Gold]

Re: Congratulations Lads

The OP forgot to mention a bloke by the name of McKenzie. His disposal could be likened to a blind man playing darts.

wouldnt look out of place in our line up at the moment unfortunately.

 

[Crow-mo]

Re: Congratulations Lads

Depends what you are looking for I guess, Ebert will be a Kemp type player rather than a Mainwaring type player. He will be OK.

WTF? Kemp was awesome

 

[Crow-mo]

Worth remembering that, had Dangerfield been taken before us, we'd have taken Ebert. The club rate him, and for good reason. Made a number of awful errors this weekend, but Ebert is still going to be a fine player.

Dangerfield, on the other hand, will be a superstar

I thought we didn't particularly rate him, and he was surprisingly low on rendell's list.

 

[Coopers]

Ebert was a disgrace last night, doesnt look where he's kicking / cant kick.. a dime a dozen player

So... he's on par with the rest of our squad then?

(bar dangerfield)

 

[cmndstab]

I thought we didn't particularly rate him, and he was surprisingly low on rendell's list.

I could be wrong... my recollection was that we had him rated 7th or something like that?

Our top ten for that year is in Emma Quayle's book so it should be easy to check.

 

[Crow-mo]

I could be wrong... my recollection was that we had him rated 7th or something like that?

Our top ten for that year is in Emma Quayle's book so it should be easy to check.

that sounds about right, and he wasn't close to being selected going by that list.

 

[Macca19]

that sounds about right, and he wasn't close to being selected going by that list.

How do you come to this conclusion?

His top 7 were:

Kruezer (pick 1)
Cotchin (2)
Dangerfield
Myers (6)
Morton (3)
Henderson (8)
Ebert

On face value, if Dangerfield had gone to the Saints at 9, then Ebert would have been a Crow. Not sure how this can be disputed really.

 

[jarmanagic]

The reason for the original post was twofold

• The Adelaide media gave the Crows a hard time over not selecting Ebert, more so when Danger stayed at home in 08
• The bleatrng of the Ebert family "the Crows got our hopes up "etc which was unprofessional and over the top. Not from Brad mind you who will probably be a good AFL footballer yet. His uncle was a clown during that episode though. Great footballer, the worst 5AA commentator in living memory and that is a big call call because most of them are rubbish

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

What does R Ebert know about the modern game. Isn't he now the Head Coordinator of Witches Hats at Alberton.

 

[Cap]

I like Brad Ebert as a player and what i've heard he seems a decent bloke as well.

I wish him well but thank god Rendell picked up Dangerfield.

 

[Go the Guts]

me thinks he would not be close

And methinks you have barely seen him play.

 

[Go the Guts]

I like Brad Ebert as a player and what i've heard he seems a decent bloke as well.

Can confirm this 100%, without a shadow of a doubt.

I'm not trying to over-rate him, but I do think many on here are under-rating him, having barely seen him play, or basing opinion on how he played against Port. Geez, he went at 11-12 or so in the draft, that didnt happen coz he is crap.

 

[Glenno23]

And methinks you have barely seen him play.

Check my location and think twice about that.

I have probably seen more Eagles/ Docker games than most going around. I see him a lot. He will be a good player but i stand by my comment that he would not have got a game with us last year when we were at the peak of our powers

 

[Crow-mo]

How do you come to this conclusion?

His top 7 were:

Kruezer (pick 1)
Cotchin (2)
Dangerfield
Myers (6)
Morton (3)
Henderson (8)
Ebert

On face value, if Dangerfield had gone to the Saints at 9, then Ebert would have been a Crow. Not sure how this can be disputed really.

ok, maybe I am wrong. But I had thought there were still a few players left over. for example where is scott selwood in that list?

 

[Crow-mo]

Can confirm this 100%, without a shadow of a doubt.

he's a friend of yours?

I'm not trying to over-rate him, but I do think many on here are under-rating him, having barely seen him play, or basing opinion on how he played against Port. Geez, he went at 11-12 or so in the draft, that didnt happen coz he is crap.

please. you are absolutely over rating him. and you're doing in without talking about how he actually plays, don't talk about others not having seen him play when you mention nothing about him as a player.

fwiw Adam Thompson went at 11, Danny Meyer at 12. are they not crap?

 

[Macca19]

Selwood, Rance and Lobbe were 8, 9 and 10 on his list.

Ebert has already done more than Meyer has.

I think Ebert will turn out a great player, and watching the game again, his first three quarters were very good. Yeah he had a horrid last 10 minutes, but how many are defending Cook to the hilt with his skills, which are none better than Eberts?

Also, West Coast as a whole had arguably the worst display of skills ive seen from an AFL team in probably 10 years. Cant recall seeing that many unforced turnovers before. Mackenzie, Embley, Shuey, Brown, Spangher and Selwood barely hit a target between them. So given their lack of skills under no pressure as a group, you have to weigh in how much is due to Ebert being no good, and how much is due to his training. Id also weigh in that I think Ebert would be better under the Crows tutelage (given their usual good skills) as opposed to at the Eagles.

 

[noddy]

Selwood, Rance and Lobbe were 8, 9 and 10 on his list.

Ebert has already done more than Meyer has.

I think Ebert will turn out a great player, and watching the game again, his first three quarters were very good. Yeah he had a horrid last 10 minutes, but how many are defending Cook to the hilt with his skills, which are none better than Eberts?

Also, West Coast as a whole had arguably the worst display of skills ive seen from an AFL team in probably 10 years. Cant recall seeing that many unforced turnovers before. Mackenzie, Embley, Shuey, Brown, Spangher and Selwood barely hit a target between them. So given their lack of skills under no pressure as a group, you have to weigh in how much is due to Ebert being no good, and how much is due to his training. Id also weigh in that I think Ebert would be better under the Crows tutelage (given their usual good skills) as opposed to at the Eagles.

^^^^
Agree with all this especially the clanger display put on by the Eagles bar the all-in-one super star with the strange hair cut.

Very hard on Brad Ebert by some people & he will be a very good AFL player in the years ahead.

 

[Crow-mo]

Selwood, Rance and Lobbe were 8, 9 and 10 on his list.

ok fair enough.

Ebert has already done more than Meyer has.

but that is irrelevant to the point made. He was suggesting that crap players don't get picked at 11/12 and we know that is wrong.

I think Ebert will turn out a great player, and watching the game again, his first three quarters were very good. Yeah he had a horrid last 10 minutes, but how many are defending Cook to the hilt with his skills, which are none better than Eberts?

I wonder if you'd be seeing that with a different surname?

the difference with Cook is what we're expecting of him. I think of cook as a pacy wingman, who makes space, and mix it up a bit - give us something we don't have in a complimentary role. whereas if I was expecting Cook or Ebert to be a prime mover, then my views would be very different.

and of course, quick with poor disposal is different to slow with poor disposal

 

[footy4ever]

Selwood, Rance and Lobbe were 8, 9 and 10 on his list.

Ebert has already done more than Meyer has.

I think Ebert will turn out a great player, and watching the game again, his first three quarters were very good. Yeah he had a horrid last 10 minutes, but how many are defending Cook to the hilt with his skills, which are none better than Eberts?

Also, West Coast as a whole had arguably the worst display of skills ive seen from an AFL team in probably 10 years. Cant recall seeing that many unforced turnovers before. Mackenzie, Embley, Shuey, Brown, Spangher and Selwood barely hit a target between them. So given their lack of skills under no pressure as a group, you have to weigh in how much is due to Ebert being no good, and how much is due to his training. Id also weigh in that I think Ebert would be better under the Crows tutelage (given their usual good skills) as opposed to at the Eagles.

Ah M19, always the statesman.

 

[crowralph]

barring significant injury (or a world record amount of concussions) there is absolutely no doubt that dangerfield will be a long way ahead of ebert. hopefully this all occurs while playing for the crows. however, there is far too much underrating of ebert going on in this thread. i expect he is going to be a very good player for wce for some years.

 

[Go the Guts]

he's a friend of yours?

I do know him.

please. you are absolutely over rating him. and you're doing in without talking about how he actually plays, don't talk about others not having seen him play when you mention nothing about him as a player.

Yawn. Really, I don't have the time or inclination to go back through this thread and list exactly where I have talked about how he actually plays. It may pay you to read things properly next time, before trying to belittle me with your inaccuracies.

barring significant injury (or a world record amount of concussions) there is absolutely no doubt that dangerfield will be a long way ahead of ebert. hopefully this all occurs while playing for the crows. however, there is far too much underrating of ebert going on in this thread. i expect he is going to be a very good player for wce for some years.

Agree totally, including as I have said already, that Dangerfield will be clearly better than Ebert.

 

[Go the Guts]

Also, West Coast as a whole had arguably the worst display of skills ive seen from an AFL team in probably 10 years. Cant recall seeing that many unforced turnovers before. Mackenzie, Embley, Shuey, Brown, Spangher and Selwood barely hit a target between them. So given their lack of skills under no pressure as a group, you have to weigh in how much is due to Ebert being no good, and how much is due to his training.

Makes a lot of sense also Macca.

 

[Crow-mo]

I do know him.

thank you captain obvious

Yawn. Really, I don't have the time or inclination to go back through this thread and list exactly where I have talked about how he actually plays. It may pay you to read things properly next time, before trying to belittle me with your inaccuracies.

ok, so you're just a bad and biased judge. my apologies.

 

[Sekaj]

how many are defending Cook to the hilt with his skills

To the hilt? One i.e. Drummond if that. The rest of us acknowledge Cook isn't really the best of kicks.

 

[Mattman93]

I actually thought Ebert was one of our better players in the Port game. That last play where he fumbled the bounce and then got his kick smothered only occurred because he was absolutely spent due to a hard-working game. Having said that, it is a little strange how he seems to have gone backwards the past year, in his skills and elusiveness in traffic. The latter used to be top notch, and well compensated for his lack of pace.

Ain't no spud.