From memory Sloane was much loved from day one as well, if you might recall.It was the opposite, actually. Because he remained in Victoria and continued to play in the TAC Cup or whatever it was called back then, we were on constant Danger watch as he put together regular bags of goals and 35+ possession games against juniors. There was a sense that when he finally got to play AFL footy he was going to be a gun.
The thing with Dangerfield was that it was immediately obvious that he had elite traits. And not just his speed - from his debut match where he was tackled by David Hille and refused to go down, dragging Hille behind him, you could tell this kid was going to be a raging bull in the contest. The only question was whether he would be a flashy player who only gets 15 touches a game, or if he could turn that into 25+ touches and become an elite midfielder.
McHenry is a very different kind of player. He does some of the off-the-ball stuff well, although I'm not sure how highly I rate pressure acts. They're valuable traits to have, sure, but they're like having icing without the cake. They can't be the only real strength a player has. His composure when he actually has the ball leaves a lot to be desired. I'm not seeing anything in terms of pace, athleticism, disposal, or general footy smarts that tells me he could be a high-quality player. Lots of energy, lots of passion, yes, but that seems to result in frees against or shanked kicks more often than anything productive.
I could be wrong, and with some more games under his belt his composure could improve and he could turn into a quality player. But I don't see it. I think he'll stay in our side for as long as it takes to recruit/develop some high-quality mids and then he'll be replaced.
If McHenry makes it then the conversation will look more like that for young Doughty and Hartigan. Arguably Charles. Eventual grudging acceptance from most he is actually playing a useful role for the team but always at least a few doubters.