Discussion Paddy v Petracca

Remove this Banner Ad

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
42,243
31,373
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
That's the thing, it's not luck. It can be a luck sometimes but to go for years without getting any top talent in or staying up for 15 years without dropping down isn't luck. Bottoming out can be quick or slow depending on how well you draft. The Hawks stayed up for a long time and decided to top up which was a poor call because they would have been better going to the draft. They stopped doing what they did to get themselves up and concentrated on doing the thing that sustained an already good list. The Tigers are still drafting in a really strong way so should ge a long run at it too.
Hawks haven't gone to the draft assuming that every pick they get early will be great, or assuming that every late pick will be terrible.
They've made some horrible clangers. Mitch THorp. Beau Dowler.

They got really lucky having a priority pick and trading in a first rounder in a year that had a great top end, and little depth in the draft.
Lewis , Roughead and Franklin.

They built a competative team, as did StKilda.
The KEY!!.
They managed their salary cap so that they could leverage their high performances, becoming a destination club, trading in exactly the players they needed at the right times. Its finally caught up with them, but a 12 year window from a 2 year rebuild can't be considered bad.

Saints struggled to hold onto the players that they had , and as the team aged , were forced to replace the oldies with foot soldiers prepared to work for minimum wage.
Its debateable that our current position is stronger because we shipped off Goddard, DalSanto, and McEvoy.
We might have even made finals a few years ago if we hadn't.

Were we trying to be too clever?

I think 2 year rebuilds are a thing of the past now.
Both StKilda and Hawks used Priority picks to launch themselves back up. You really have to wonder how rampant the tanking was . 2 years??
It takes a special kind of talent to stuff up both the first and second pick . ( Melbourne almost did ).

1999 Hathorn 9th Saints 10th
2000: Hawthorn 8th. Saints 16th. ( Priority pick to Saints 2 games one in 2000).
2001: Hawthorn 6th. Saints 15th. ( Priority pick to Saints. Freo PP traded to Hawks ).
2002: Hawthorn 10th Saints 15th ( No Priority Pick)
2003: Hawks 9th Saints 11th.
2004: Hawks 15th Saints 3rd ( Priority pick to Hawks ).
2005: Hawks 14th Saints 4th ( Priority pick to Hawks ).
2006: Hawks 9th Saints 6th.
2007: Hawks 5th Saints 9th.

Now i'm going to suggest that a couple of first and second year players isn't the difference between an uncommunicative team and a competitive team.

Have Clark , Coffield, King and Battle improved us to a huge extent? Are they the difference between 15th sport and 5th spot?
There is a reason the AFL scrapped the priority pick system and it sure looks a hell of a lot like the Hawks took a 2 year dip to rebuild.

Its interesting that in 2007 ,a lot of Saints supporters were saying we were out of the window, after making finals for 3 years.
The Hawks have had a decade long window.
If you make finals , luck can go your way or against, if you don't you can't get lucky.
 

Crusty Undies

This means peace here!
Oct 22, 2016
3,098
6,794
AFL Club
St Kilda
I understand fine, if you thought that before we drafted him why would you think I was talking to you?
You seemed to be talking to generally everyone criticising the club for the decision making in 2014. I was justifying the opposite position that it was not in fact a good decision even with boyd costing the bulldogs an exorbitant amount that they were stupid enough to pay.
 

George

Moderator
Aug 17, 2015
20,117
65,029
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
You seemed to be talking to generally everyone criticising the club for the decision making in 2014. I was justifying the opposite position that it was not in fact a good decision even with boyd costing the bulldogs an exorbitant amount that they were stupid enough to pay.
Yeah because everyone was speaking as if they knew Paddy would be a bust even before he was drafted despite the general consensus of him being a top 5 pick. It's easy to criticise the decision in hindsight. He was the best forward in the draft and with all things considered it was the correct decision. It's just unlucky it didn't turn out the way we would've hoped.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crusty Undies

This means peace here!
Oct 22, 2016
3,098
6,794
AFL Club
St Kilda
Yeah because everyone was speaking as if they knew Paddy would be a bust even before he was drafted despite the general consensus of him being a top 5 pick. It's easy to criticise the decision in hindsight. He was the best forward in the draft and with all things considered it was the correct decision. It's just unlucky it didn't turn out the way we would've hoped.
I disagree on both fronts. It wasn't the correct decision by any measure at the time or since. And as I said, I (and many others) have been saying he'd be a bust since before day 1.
 

George

Moderator
Aug 17, 2015
20,117
65,029
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
I disagree on both fronts. It wasn't the correct decision by any measure at the time or since. And as I said, I (and many others) have been saying he'd be a bust since before day 1.
Well it's easy to say it wasn't a correct decision since it happened because like I've already said it's easy to criticise a decision in hindsight. I haven't even disagreed with that, it turned out to be a horrible call. But how were we to know that at the time of the draft given how highly rated he was? Not just by us but by every club? I'm disagreeing with those that think it was the wrong decision before the draft because people "knew he would be a bust". Definitely an interesting view. General consensus throughout the industry was he was a clear top 5 pick and the best forward in the draft. With Tom Lee and an aging Nick Riewoldt, and given what I mentioned before about trading in KPF's, the decision was most definitely justified.

I mean, if you and "many others" thought he was a bust before the draft why would any club take him at all let alone be considered as a top 5 pick and then be drafted first overall? He wouldn't even have been taken in the first round if the overwhelming view was the same as your own personal view.

Here you go - Cal Twomey is rated very highly in the media for his knowledge on the draft. This is what he posted before the 2014 draft.


PADDY McCARTIN – 19/4/96, 193cm, 95kg, Geelong Falcons
The most imposing key forward in the draft, McCartin carries a presence like all the best power goalkickers. His game is based around his marking: he uses his size to crash packs and take contested grabs, and his smarts and breakaway speed to get on the lead and find space. Some injuries got in the way of him putting together a more productive campaign, but in the games McCartin played he kicked goals and accumulated plenty of shots. He'll give his all every time the ball's kicked to him, and would offer long-term back up to the Saints' forward line with Nick Riewoldt nearing the end of his glittering career. McCartin has probably deserved more discussion as a possible No.1 pick through the year, because he's got some special traits.
Surely if many others thought he was a bust, Cal Twomey would know about it.
 

st_trav_ofWA

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 17, 2015
5,387
14,467
AFL Club
St Kilda
Roo, Hodge, Goddard, Cooney, Deledio, Kruezer, Swallow, Weitering, Whitfield, McGrath, Walsh and Rowell all have arguments that they're some of the best if not the best from their draft, every other player drafted at 1 pretty much ever has been more serviceable for their club than McCartin. And the point isn't that the player who turns out best from the draft has to go at 1. But if you use pick 1 on a player who isn't considered the best IN THEIR DRAFT YEAR, and they turn out to be the worst pick 1 ever I'd say the extensive criticism is pretty well justified. All those other players I listed and even the likes of Boyd, Patton, Murphy, Gibbs etc were pretty universally considered better to some degree than the rest in their draft year. The only exception is McGrath who I maintain is still the worst of the top 3 in his draft year but will also still be infinitely better than Paddy.
ummm again point is going over your head .... No one is saying PADDY was the best pick .. no one is disputing that he was a wasted pick for us ... but again given his draft year form he was still ranked top three in his class ... rightly or wrongly he was in the mix of EVERY phantom draft and every teams top three .. had we not taken him Melbourne would have at two ...
now you can beat your chest all you like that you were some all seeing wizard who knew it was going to fail and maybe you are but the rest of the world saw Paddy McCartin having a long and successful football career regardless of where he was picked ...

as for you other comment
none of Hodge, Deledio, Kruezer, Swallow, Weitering were the best of their draft ..
Judd, Franklin, Pendlebury, Gaff, Grundy, Oliver or Gresh turned out the better picks

so as we are going round and round and round with this bored over done pointless conversation its very clear we made the wrong call but so much time has now passed its a pointless activity to get bogged down in it , as shown clearly EVERY club has had successes and fails at the draft unfortunatly Paddy was ours .. the thing that we can be thankful of is Tractor although is having a good season this year is still not what i would call the best in the comp more the best from a fairly hohum draft
 

Winmar2Lockett

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 14, 2008
5,884
18,529
The Bear Cave
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Bulls
Paddy was wrong.
Barry Brooks was wrong.
Fergus Watts was wrong.

Move on.
Luke Ball was wrong

Last time I checked not taking Petracca hasn’t cost us multiple premierships like over looking Judd did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gringo2011

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2011
32,050
76,488
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Luke Ball was wrong

Last time I checked not taking Petracca hasn’t cost us multiple premierships like over looking Judd did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But poor drafting has cost us 8 years without playing in a final. Ball might have cost us a premiership but at least the drafting around him was excellent.
 

Saints43

Team Captain
Mar 18, 2010
304
902
Kensington
AFL Club
St Kilda
With hindsight we obviously should have taken Petracca.
But, he's been rubbish until this year and we all would have hated him by now.
And his career may have already finished at Sandy while blokes with muscle definition like Mav kept him out of the team.
I can still see the reasons they had for going for a tall forward at the time.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
42,243
31,373
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
With hindsight we obviously should have taken Petracca.
But, he's been rubbish until this year and we all would have hated him by now.
And his career may have already finished at Sandy while blokes with muscle definition like Mav kept him out of the team.
I can still see the reasons they had for going for a tall forward at the time.
We'd have been so frustrated we'd have traded him to Melbourne for Trengove by now.
 

Crusty Undies

This means peace here!
Oct 22, 2016
3,098
6,794
AFL Club
St Kilda
Well it's easy to say it wasn't a correct decision since it happened because like I've already said it's easy to criticise a decision in hindsight. I haven't even disagreed with that, it turned out to be a horrible call. But how were we to know that at the time of the draft given how highly rated he was? Not just by us but by every club? I'm disagreeing with those that think it was the wrong decision before the draft because people "knew he would be a bust". Definitely an interesting view. General consensus throughout the industry was he was a clear top 5 pick and the best forward in the draft. With Tom Lee and an aging Nick Riewoldt, and given what I mentioned before about trading in KPF's, the decision was most definitely justified.

I mean, if you and "many others" thought he was a bust before the draft why would any club take him at all let alone be considered as a top 5 pick and then be drafted first overall? He wouldn't even have been taken in the first round if the overwhelming view was the same as your own personal view.

Here you go - Cal Twomey is rated very highly in the media for his knowledge on the draft. This is what he posted before the 2014 draft.




Surely if many others thought he was a bust, Cal Twomey would know about it.
He wasn't THAT highly rated though. As was said in an article someone else linked earlier some recruiters had him around 5. He was very clearly not a pick 1. And as I've already said several times I'm not just criticising the pick because it was paddy. I'm criticising the pick because pick 1 should be used on the best player in the draft not to fill list needs. Pick 1 should be used on a player who doesn't have latent health issues and question marks over their capacity to transition from TAC to AFL. It was the wrong call not just because Paddy was a bust but because using pick 1 on a KPF purely because they're a KPF when they clearly weren't the best player in the draft was the wrong decision. I said so beforehand, I said so at the time and I've said so ever since.

And as I've already responded to but you might've missed. This assertion that KPFs are so ridiculously expensive is wrong. Boyd is the only one who's gone really anywhere near that much but every year a marquee midfielder gets traded for more. You keep saying the decision was "most definitely justified" but I don't agree. I don't think it was justified and saying "they got spooked by how much Boyd went for" isn't a satisfactory defence. If our list management team didn't have the foresight to understand that the bulldogs overpaid astronomically for an essentially unproven KPF and that it wouldn't be a norm then that's yet another indictment on their capacity to perform their jobs not a reason to take Paddy at 1. It's a poor defence and frankly I'm just getting a bit tired of seeing the same thing written over and over.

ummm again point is going over your head .... No one is saying PADDY was the best pick .. no one is disputing that he was a wasted pick for us ... but again given his draft year form he was still ranked top three in his class ... rightly or wrongly he was in the mix of EVERY phantom draft and every teams top three .. had we not taken him Melbourne would have at two ...
now you can beat your chest all you like that you were some all seeing wizard who knew it was going to fail and maybe you are but the rest of the world saw Paddy McCartin having a long and successful football career regardless of where he was picked ...

as for you other comment
none of Hodge, Deledio, Kruezer, Swallow, Weitering were the best of their draft ..
Judd, Franklin, Pendlebury, Gaff, Grundy, Oliver or Gresh turned out the better picks

so as we are going round and round and round with this bored over done pointless conversation its very clear we made the wrong call but so much time has now passed its a pointless activity to get bogged down in it , as shown clearly EVERY club has had successes and fails at the draft unfortunatly Paddy was ours .. the thing that we can be thankful of is Tractor although is having a good season this year is still not what i would call the best in the comp more the best from a fairly hohum draft
Hodge was a triple premiership winning captain who played more games and is one of the most respected leaders football has ever seen. If you can't admit that there's even an argument there for him being better than Judd then that's on you. My point wasn't that they were all the best players in their draft, but that all of those pick 1s at least were in the conversation, if they weren't the best they're top 5. (Also just quietly Weitering is outperforming Gresh).

Petracca isn't the best in the comp this year, but he's pretty close. And yeah a pretty hohum draft that also had Moore, Heeney, De Goey, Weller, Lever, Steele, McLean, Miller etc. It was an average draft.

I'm pretty much done on this topic I didn't really intend to start a 13 page thread but at the end of the day I'm less annoyed that it was Paddy in particular and more annoyed that our recruiters took a player at pick 1 who wasn't the best prospect in the draft. I've never been a fan of picking for needs but I understand it with picks in the 40s. Not pick 1 though.
 

Crusty Undies

This means peace here!
Oct 22, 2016
3,098
6,794
AFL Club
St Kilda
Saints were worried about impending retirement of Roo. Petracca was not going to help with that.
No he was just going to help with the recent retirements/moving on of Hayes, Goddard, Dal Santo, Milne, soon to be Monty and so on. Roo isn't the only player that needed replacing and in terms of who was a more capable replacement it was pretty obvious between Trac and Paddy.
 

George

Moderator
Aug 17, 2015
20,117
65,029
Victoria
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles Liverpool
He wasn't THAT highly rated though. As was said in an article someone else linked earlier some recruiters had him around 5. He was very clearly not a pick 1. And as I've already said several times I'm not just criticising the pick because it was paddy. I'm criticising the pick because pick 1 should be used on the best player in the draft not to fill list needs. Pick 1 should be used on a player who doesn't have latent health issues and question marks over their capacity to transition from TAC to AFL. It was the wrong call not just because Paddy was a bust but because using pick 1 on a KPF purely because they're a KPF when they clearly weren't the best player in the draft was the wrong decision. I said so beforehand, I said so at the time and I've said so ever since.

And as I've already responded to but you might've missed. This assertion that KPFs are so ridiculously expensive is wrong. Boyd is the only one who's gone really anywhere near that much but every year a marquee midfielder gets traded for more. You keep saying the decision was "most definitely justified" but I don't agree. I don't think it was justified and saying "they got spooked by how much Boyd went for" isn't a satisfactory defence. If our list management team didn't have the foresight to understand that the bulldogs overpaid astronomically for an essentially unproven KPF and that it wouldn't be a norm then that's yet another indictment on their capacity to perform their jobs not a reason to take Paddy at 1. It's a poor defence and frankly I'm just getting a bit tired of seeing the same thing written over and over.
Well many had him at #1 so there's professional recruiters and unbiased media out there that all had him if not top 5 then definitely 1 or 2. In fact I'd say most of the industry had Paddy & Petracca pretty much even. Paddy quite clearly the best forward in the draft and that cannot be disputed.

I understand the #1 pick shouldn't be used to fill list needs. That's not what we did though. At the end of the 2014 season the list needs were all over the field. We needed mids yes but we also needed forwards and backs. There's a reason we had the number one pick - our list had bottomed out. Generally the team with the first overall pick has deficiencies everywhere.

I will keep saying the pick was justified because it quite clearly was. Two things - Petracca was not head and shoulders above everyone else in that draft, and Paddy was not a bust leading into the draft. Many had Paddy ahead of Petracca and also I'd like to hear your reasoning to Paddy being a bust before the draft because if you are correct then he wouldn't have been a top 5 pick at all. In fact if you think he was a bust before the draft, then recruiters out there who know more than you would also have said the same. Not once did I hear that. My opinion is backed by facts - he was a consensus top 5 pick, some had him first overall and that's where he landed. If he was a bust why was every club into him.

It's not an assertion that KPF's are ridiculously expensive. It's fact. Tom Boyd set the precedent for what it would've taken clubs to trade for young talented KPF's during that time. They didn't get spooked about the Boyd deal but quite clearly to maximise the potential of improving the list it's quite obvious that for the amount Boyd went for, we could've drafted Paddy in for nothing and used that money leftover for not one player but two players - and two midfielders at that. This is the problem - we didn't do that. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the draft, the issue was our inability to trade in decent midfielders at that time.

You are right in that the Bulldogs did overpay for Boyd but the fact of the matter is that the market was set with that deal. Because if we went to another club and said "look Boyd went for over a million a year but we're willing to pay x player $700,000 because we think the previous deal was exorbitant", the club and player we would be dealing with would laugh in our face. And heck, nobody even knows if we tried that already. Maybe we'd already gone to clubs and asked the question and they knocked us back because we weren't willing to pay the same money. I don't know how you think we could've got a KPF of that quality traded into our club for anything less to be honest.

It's clear to me what the strategy was. Club's overarching view was to improve the list as best we can and as quickly as we can. We've just found out what it is going to take to trade in a quality KPF and how few and far between those types of players come in comparison to midfielders. There's one of those types sitting there in the draft, touted to go 1 or 2, who is the best forward in his class. We can get him for free.

Given everything we knew at the time, why wouldn't we do that. We can't use hindsight in our decision making obviously. Based on everything said at the time, Paddy was the best forward in the draft and lets say on average of opinion he was a top 3 pick. Paddy, Petracca, Brayshaw in any order.

Would you not assume that the thinking was that we could bring in quality KPF talent for free and then bolster other areas of the ground with the money we'd saved in doing so? Pay $1m a year for one player or pay $400-500k a year for 2 or 3? What improves the list more?

I'll keep saying it was justified because it's true. In hindsight yes it was the wrong decision but that's a cheap way to criticise it. Easy to say something was right or wrong after the fact. Will take your word that you said it before the draft and if so it definitely wasn't the opinion of most people at the time so kudos for seeing it unfold before anyone else. Again I am not disagreeing with people who said it was a bad decision BEFORE the fact. So if you are of that opinion then my issue isn't even with you. It's with the others that think it was a bad decision in hindsight.

From what you've said on Paddy I can only assume by the same logic used that King is also a bust. Eerily similar situations and one could argue King is in a more precarious position with his injury history in terms of football longevity.

No he was just going to help with the recent retirements/moving on of Hayes, Goddard, Dal Santo, Milne, soon to be Monty and so on. Roo isn't the only player that needed replacing and in terms of who was a more capable replacement it was pretty obvious between Trac and Paddy.
Exactly my point. We had deficiencies all over the field mate. Are you saying we couldn't have brought in a few decent midfielders to help soften the blow left by losing Hayes Goddard and Dal Santo? Why draft just one midfielder and then have to spend out the nose for KPP's? Why not draft the KPP and spend the money on a few midfielders instead? What helps us more?
 

Patty_vanda

Team Captain
Jul 7, 2015
340
879
AFL Club
St Kilda
I don’t agree that most recruiters had paddy ahead of Petracca. Petracca was clearly the best player in that draft and all the articles stated he was a once in a generation midfielder. The incompetence was cemented when we also selected Goddard @21
And for anyone who’s said he hasn’t done much till now - Dustin Martin did very little at Richmond up until 2016 then exploded.
 

Crusty Undies

This means peace here!
Oct 22, 2016
3,098
6,794
AFL Club
St Kilda
Well many had him at #1 so there's professional recruiters and unbiased media out there that all had him if not top 5 then definitely 1 or 2. In fact I'd say most of the industry had Paddy & Petracca pretty much even. Paddy quite clearly the best forward in the draft and that cannot be disputed.

I understand the #1 pick shouldn't be used to fill list needs. That's not what we did though. At the end of the 2014 season the list needs were all over the field. We needed mids yes but we also needed forwards and backs. There's a reason we had the number one pick - our list had bottomed out. Generally the team with the first overall pick has deficiencies everywhere.

I will keep saying the pick was justified because it quite clearly was. Two things - Petracca was not head and shoulders above everyone else in that draft, and Paddy was not a bust leading into the draft. Many had Paddy ahead of Petracca and also I'd like to hear your reasoning to Paddy being a bust before the draft because if you are correct then he wouldn't have been a top 5 pick at all. In fact if you think he was a bust before the draft, then recruiters out there who know more than you would also have said the same. Not once did I hear that. My opinion is backed by facts - he was a consensus top 5 pick, some had him first overall and that's where he landed. If he was a bust why was every club into him.

It's not an assertion that KPF's are ridiculously expensive. It's fact. Tom Boyd set the precedent for what it would've taken clubs to trade for young talented KPF's during that time. They didn't get spooked about the Boyd deal but quite clearly to maximise the potential of improving the list it's quite obvious that for the amount Boyd went for, we could've drafted Paddy in for nothing and used that money leftover for not one player but two players - and two midfielders at that. This is the problem - we didn't do that. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the draft, the issue was our inability to trade in decent midfielders at that time.

You are right in that the Bulldogs did overpay for Boyd but the fact of the matter is that the market was set with that deal. Because if we went to another club and said "look Boyd went for over a million a year but we're willing to pay x player $700,000 because we think the previous deal was exorbitant", the club and player we would be dealing with would laugh in our face. And heck, nobody even knows if we tried that already. Maybe we'd already gone to clubs and asked the question and they knocked us back because we weren't willing to pay the same money. I don't know how you think we could've got a KPF of that quality traded into our club for anything less to be honest.

It's clear to me what the strategy was. Club's overarching view was to improve the list as best we can and as quickly as we can. We've just found out what it is going to take to trade in a quality KPF and how few and far between those types of players come in comparison to midfielders. There's one of those types sitting there in the draft, touted to go 1 or 2, who is the best forward in his class. We can get him for free.

Given everything we knew at the time, why wouldn't we do that. We can't use hindsight in our decision making obviously. Based on everything said at the time, Paddy was the best forward in the draft and lets say on average of opinion he was a top 3 pick. Paddy, Petracca, Brayshaw in any order.

Would you not assume that the thinking was that we could bring in quality KPF talent for free and then bolster other areas of the ground with the money we'd saved in doing so? Pay $1m a year for one player or pay $400-500k a year for 2 or 3? What improves the list more?

I'll keep saying it was justified because it's true. In hindsight yes it was the wrong decision but that's a cheap way to criticise it. Easy to say something was right or wrong after the fact. Will take your word that you said it before the draft and if so it definitely wasn't the opinion of most people at the time so kudos for seeing it unfold before anyone else. Again I am not disagreeing with people who said it was a bad decision BEFORE the fact. So if you are of that opinion then my issue isn't even with you. It's with the others that think it was a bad decision in hindsight.

From what you've said on Paddy I can only assume by the same logic used that King is also a bust. Eerily similar situations and one could argue King is in a more precarious position with his injury history in terms of football longevity.


Exactly my point. We had deficiencies all over the field mate. Are you saying we couldn't have brought in a few decent midfielders to help soften the blow left by losing Hayes Goddard and Dal Santo? Why draft just one midfielder and then have to spend out the nose for KPP's? Why not draft the KPP and spend the money on a few midfielders instead? What helps us more?
That's a lot of text and I can't really respond to all of it. So I'll do the main 2. Firstly I thought Paddy would be a bust before the draft because the reason he was so dominant in TAC was his weight advantage. I had a strong feeling he'd struggle to move that to the afl given zone defence is banned in TAC and he'd be against better defenders who were taller, faster, just as heavy and much smarter than him. I don't think he ever showed any real forward craft in TAC he just pushed people off the ball. He was unable to protect the drop of the ball, poorly timed his leads and tended to look gassed by half time. All this on top of being diabetic, short for a KPP and slow. With all that in mind it leads me to my second point.

Gun midfielders are more important than any other position on the ground. Games are won and lost from the middle and it's one of the reasons Geelong has been dominant for so long despite Hawkins being fairly average through a lot of his career with the odd purple patch and why Collingwood have been high the last few years despite Mason Cox being the "best" KPF they have. So to answer your last question, because we wouldn't have needed to spend out the nose for the best KPF in the AFL. We could've looked literally anywhere else to find a half decent KPF. VFL, later picks, rookie picks, reformed defenders, GWS/GC. And again you still haven't addressed my main point. Where is this precedent that was set by Boyd? Why haven't any other clubs forked up a mil a year for KPF since and yet they do the same thing every year for gun mids? The game revolves around midfielders so actually I'd rather have drafted the best one available, traded for midfielders too and made the forward line work with whatever was leftover.

Finally any comparison between King and Paddy is laughable but for what it's worth I still wanted Rozee or Smith in 2018.
 

gringo2011

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2011
32,050
76,488
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
That's a lot of text and I can't really respond to all of it. So I'll do the main 2. Firstly I thought Paddy would be a bust before the draft because the reason he was so dominant in TAC was his weight advantage. I had a strong feeling he'd struggle to move that to the afl given zone defence is banned in TAC and he'd be against better defenders who were taller, faster, just as heavy and much smarter than him. I don't think he ever showed any real forward craft in TAC he just pushed people off the ball. He was unable to protect the drop of the ball, poorly timed his leads and tended to look gassed by half time. All this on top of being diabetic, short for a KPP and slow. With all that in mind it leads me to my second point.

Gun midfielders are more important than any other position on the ground. Games are won and lost from the middle and it's one of the reasons Geelong has been dominant for so long despite Hawkins being fairly average through a lot of his career with the odd purple patch and why Collingwood have been high the last few years despite Mason Cox being the "best" KPF they have. So to answer your last question, because we wouldn't have needed to spend out the nose for the best KPF in the AFL. We could've looked literally anywhere else to find a half decent KPF. VFL, later picks, rookie picks, reformed defenders, GWS/GC. And again you still haven't addressed my main point. Where is this precedent that was set by Boyd? Why haven't any other clubs forked up a mil a year for KPF since and yet they do the same thing every year for gun mids? The game revolves around midfielders so actually I'd rather have drafted the best one available, traded for midfielders too and made the forward line work with whatever was leftover.

Finally any comparison between King and Paddy is laughable but for what it's worth I still wanted Rozee or Smith in 2018.
Before the draft plenty were arguing about the way his diabetes might hold back his training and recovery too. He'd been pretty injury prone before we picked him up. The club let out that he was likely to be our pick and he firmed then but no-one had him over Petracca until that point.

It was just one of those monumental fu** ups that Trout had a few of. To get more access to this ordinary draft we sold Stanley who was a developing junior player like Battle is now and took Goddard. At the time I suggested it was a bizarre thing to do, sell a young tall KP/Ruck.....for a young tall KP who ended up being sh*t. We'd also sold Big Mac and then spent up big on Hickey and Longer. He had no ******* idea Trout.
 

Top Bottom