Dangerfield >>>>>>>>> Ebert

[crowsarethebest]

I would take Ebert over Sloane, Jacky, Cook, Armstrong etc. Ebert's a very good player already and gets alot of the pill and is still young. Remember Chris Knights? He got alot of stick early in his career as his decision making/disposal was very ordinary, however its improved alot since he's gotten more AFL game time and experience. He's not overly damaging but with the amount of ball he'll get he'll have a decent enough impact to make himself into a 200 gamer IMO. He would be playing AFL for us now with the injury crisis and would be ahead of Sloane (very similar players but Ebert has more size) and co.

 

[*PAF]

I would take Ebert ...

Whoa there cowboy. It has already been agreed on this thread (first few pages at least) that if he comes back to Adelaide it will be for Port.

 

[cmndstab]

We'll do a three-way deal that nets us Hartlett


West Coast? I dunno. They can have Griffin.

 

[beartoo]

Obviously we are all pleased we took Danger over Ebert and provided Danger doesn't pull up stumps and head for the GC next year it wll prove to be a correct decision. Ebert seems to me from the few times I've seen him to be a decent sort of footballer. From memory he did okay against us last time we met--or was it the early game last year?

 

[cmndstab]

The first game against us last year, which was actually one of his best matches so far Go figure.

 

[cammo84]

I remember his post match interview for that game. He said that while growing up it was always good to see the Crows lose.

 

[Crow-mo]

I would take Ebert over Sloane, Jacky, Cook, Armstrong etc.

but they aren't your choices.

saying you'd rather a first round pick over a bunch of later round, speculative prospects isn't exactly how it works.

and seeing as there are question marks over those players you listed, I am not sure what your point is. a first round question mark over a 4th round question mark, is the same thing, except one cost a lot more.

my problem with Ebert is this: he's a one paced, accumulator who doesn't nothing particularly well, and somethings badly. these calls that he is solid, and will play 200 games are wide of the mark imo. not that he couldn't, I don't know what will happen tomorrow, but players like that are always under pressure from the younger up and comers.

 

[formula16]

no doubt danger is a better prospect than ebert

question is, why did we overlook rioli!!?!?!?!?

IIRC, the recruiters said he wasn't commited or something like that?

this kid will be the next gary ablett, mark my words, once he builds a tank....

uh oh!

 

[macca23]

no doubt danger is a better prospect than ebert

question is, why did we overlook rioli!!?!?!?!?

IIRC, the recruiters said he wasn't commited or something like that?

this kid will be the next gary ablett, mark my words, once he builds a tank....

uh oh!

You must be the last to know.

Adelaide's recruiting team rate their interview with Rioli - who originally was their first choice - as the worst they have ever had. Not interested and made it clear by his attitude he wouldn't be sticking around after his first 2 years if we did draft him.

 

[cmndstab]

Uh oh!


Seriously though, assuming Danger manages to avoid injuring himself all the time, and Rioli does build up a tank, it will be very interesting to see who does end up the better player. Both have incredible amounts of talents, but very obvious achilles heels.

 

[Sir Vlado]

I'd definitely fancy a Dangerfield v. Rioli showdown.

Would love to see Danger chase down Cyril.