Patrick Dangerfield vs Marcus Bontempelli

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

I'm not saying the Bont is better than Danger currently as that would be mad to say but as a counter to you to saying that Danger is so much better as a forward here are some stats from 2016 season:

Goals:
Bont: 26
Danger: 24

Goal Assists:
Bont: 20
Danger: 22

Inside 50's:
Bont: 112
Danger: 194

Contested Marks:
Bont: 13
Danger: 29

Marks I50:
Bont: 22
Danger: 18

Makes some pretty interesting reading.

Shh this makes a mockery of what it has been saying..lol he suggests Dangerfield is a better forward because he takes better high marks apparently

 

[Astro_]

Bont easily*


























* because I support the bulldogs

 

[conrad_437]

I'm not saying the Bont is better than Danger currently as that would be mad to say but as a counter to you to saying that Danger is so much better as a forward here are some stats from 2016 season:

Goals:
Bont: 26
Danger: 24

Goal Assists:
Bont: 20
Danger: 22

Inside 50's:
Bont: 112
Danger: 194

Contested Marks:
Bont: 13
Danger: 29

Marks I50:
Bont: 22
Danger: 18

Makes some pretty interesting reading.

So you're telling me that Dangerfield, who apparently will kick 70+ goals if he played permanent forward, kicked less goals and took less marks inside 50 than Bontempelli?

Not his greatest prediction, have to say.

 

[BigT]

So you're telling me that Dangerfield, who apparently will kick 70+ goals if he played permanent forward, kicked less goals and took less marks inside 50 than Bontempelli?

Not his greatest prediction, have to say.

Simplistic way to view stats wOuldnt you say? Could argue it's hard to take more marks inside 50 and kick more goals when you are the one kicking it inside the 50 roughly 75% more times than the other.

Both great players and who you'd pick would depend on where your list sits and what is the bigger hole. Are you playing more for the now, or are you building. Do you need some serious speed or more inside big mids. So many variables. Anyone would love either or both in their team.

 

[Senor Ed]

Simplistic way to view stats wOuldnt you say? Could argue it's hard to take more marks inside 50 and kick more goals when you are the one kicking it inside the 50 roughly 75% more times than the other.

Both great players and who you'd pick would depend on where your list sits and what is the bigger hole. Are you playing more for the now, or are you building. Do you need some serious speed or more inside big mids. So many variables. Anyone would love either or both in their team.

We wouldn't trade the bont for Danger, and Geelong wouldn't trade Danger for Bont. Win-Win.

Looking at those stats though, I was surprised at Danger's low goal assist numbers compared to his I50's.

 

[conrad_437]

Simplistic way to view stats wOuldnt you say? Could argue it's hard to take more marks inside 50 and kick more goals when you are the one kicking it inside the 50 roughly 75% more times than the other.

Both great players and who you'd pick would depend on where your list sits and what is the bigger hole. Are you playing more for the now, or are you building. Do you need some serious speed or more inside big mids. So many variables. Anyone would love either or both in their team.

They both play the the same positions, midfielder who rests forward, and as a result have kicked at least a goal a game, so I'm not sure what inside 50s have to do with this. It was a stupid prediction to make, Dangerfield will not kick 70+ goals and be like a Fevola if he played permanent forward.

I do agree with your last paragraph though.

 

[HalloweenJack]

Bont easily*


























* because I support the bulldogs

You don't need to support the Bulldogs to have that opinion.

 

[BigT]

I

They both play the the same positions, midfielder who rests forward, and as a result have kicked at least a goal a game, so I'm not sure what inside 50s have to do with this. It was a stupid prediction to make, Dangerfield will not kick 70+ goals and be like a Fevola if he played permanent forward.

I do agree with your last paragraph though.

I didn't make the prediction. Merely pointed out that you had made comment about marks inside 50 and that it is hard for Danger to take as many marks inside 50 when he is kicking it in there a hell of a lot more. Stats can be used to support any argument hence why looking at a couple in isolation is always dangerous and probably doesn't point out the whole picture.

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

Bont might win this by a nose

 

[ManOfClay]

Dangerfield certainly better in home and away. But will he ever achieve the heights Bont has?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Dangerfield easily.

 

[Deep]

Danger at his peak will always be better than what I'm expecting from Bont at 26-28

However I pick Bont because he's much younger.

 

[conrad_437]

Danger at his peak will always be better than what I'm expecting from Bont at 26-28

However I pick Bont because he's much younger.

Agree with this. Bont at his peak I think will be the best player in the game for a period of time, will most likely win a Brownlow or two, but Danger would have been marginally better.

 

[thecatattack]

How the * is the poll this lopsided?

Do people only base Danger on what the think he's like in the media?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

How the **** is the poll this lopsided?

Do people only base Danger on what the think he's like in the media?

Because it's not a poll on who is better now. One has 5 years of footy left, the other has 10. Not hard to see why people would go for the Bont given the extra years and the fact he's really really good, if not quite danger level

 

[blitzer]

I'd prefer Dangerfield. If we had him - I reckon we'd be a good shot for the flag in the next 2 years.

Bont would improve us but he's simply not as good as Danger who is a class above.

 

[Racing line]

Bontempelli is overrated. 1 danger year is worth 10 bontempelli years UNLESS bont improves dramatically from this point forward. Cant see it happening though i reckon bont has reached his max threshold of development and will plateau out from here.

 

[Flags_In_The_Bag]

Bontempelli is overrated. 1 danger year is worth 10 bontempelli years UNLESS bont improves dramatically from this point forward. Cant see it happening though i reckon bont has reached his max threshold of development and will plateau out from here.

Nice try.

 

[Racing line]

Nice try.

What are you talking about mate im being serious.

 

[ManOfClay]

Yep. You'd be mad not to select Bontempelli given the age difference but I find it hard to see him ever coming near Dangerfield's level.

One thing is for sure, in a final 100% would want someone with the clean skills of Bontempelli. Dangerfield heavily overrated and under pressure his below average skills get worse