Patrick Dangerfield vs Marcus Bontempelli

[StevenwellerHFC]

Bontempelli, didn't have to think about it.

 

[Andronicus]

By that nature does that make James Kelly better then them both?

You might not agree with his statement, and fair enough too, but your comparison is so far from what he was saying.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Dangers mum would even select the Bont because of age, but if it was for the next 2 years then it's Danger time all the way, and it ain't close IMO.

 

[OnceKicked50]

You might not agree with his statement, and fair enough too, but your comparison is so far from what he was saying.

Please enlighten me then? Was it not along the lines of 'because Danger is 6 years further into his career it's not worth debating?'

It would have made sense if it was in reference to picking the Bont, because he is younger and has such a scope for improvement...

 

[Andronicus]

Please enlighten me then? Was it not along the lines of 'because Danger is 6 years further into his career it's not worth debating?'

It would have made sense if it was in reference to picking the Bont, because he is younger and has such a scope for improvement...

I don't agree with his initial statement either, but he was still just comparing the 2 players named.

At no point were other players mentioned, until for some reason you decided to bring them in.

 

[OnceKicked50]

I don't agree with his initial statement either, but he was still just comparing the 2 players named.

At no point were other players mentioned, until for some reason you decided to bring them in.

Extrapolate the statement, one player is better then another because of years in the AFL system.

It was tongue in cheek to the logic behind why that gentleman or woman would pick Danger...

 

[therust]

Bont can have the same impact with half the disposals. Only a matter of time before his disposal averages start rising too.

Not even a contest really. Give me the lad who can kick.

 

[blitzer]

I'd go Bontempelli overall because of age and he will ultimately be a similar level player. I still expect Danger to outperform him over the next 4 years though (as a whole). Bontempelli is still taggable - sure he still gets value for his possessions but you can reduce his impact. Danger is extremely hard to tag out of a game - because of his strength and pace plus he's an inside player that has pace to damage afterwards.

There is still a difference between being one of the best players in the AFL eg top 10 or top 15 compared to being the outright best player in the AFL.

 

[juss]

Obviously Bontempelli given his age. Only just turned 21 a few days ago.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Next year only probably Danger, but it's very close. For the rest of their careers, it's not really close. You have to take 10+ years of Bont over 5 years of Danger.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

Good poll, I will go with the Bont purely on the age demographic but I will add that Danger is a super player.

 

[Gone Critical]

Good comparison. I would go the Bont, think he has such a high ceiling. Will be great to have Fyfe back in the argument in 2017 also as he rates above Danger for mine.

 

[Jugada]

Danger easily.

Proven best player in the comp >>>>>>>>>>>>> Young star with potential

 

[ManOfClay]

Danger easily.

Proven best player in the comp >>>>>>>>>>>>> Young star with potential

Best and fairest in a premiership side suggests more than just potential. Bont is proven, there's no discussion on that

 

[Jugada]

Best and fairest in a premiership side suggests more than just potential. Bont is proven, there's no discussion on that

A premiership side that was only fair for most of the year. It was hardly won in a dominant premiership team. B&Fs are overrated anyway

But anyway if this is his top level then it makes the choice to take Dangerfield even easier

 

[Substance]

yeah he's 20 years old and just won a b&f in a premiership year coming off half a pre season. He's hit his ceiling.

Bont being 5.5 years younger you'd have to take ahead of danger. If they were the same age around 21 then it's a close call

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

A premiership side that was only fair for most of the year. It was hardly won in a dominant premiership team. B&Fs are overrated anyway

But anyway if this is his top level then it makes the choice to take Dangerfield even easier

Why would this be his top level? He's just turned 21

 

[TEDDY24INC]

If you could have one of these two on your list right now, who would it be?

On your list for next 2 years or 6? Short term danger, long term Bont

 

[Danger!Selwood]

Bont can have the same impact with half the disposals. Only a matter of time before his disposal averages start rising too.

Not even a contest really. Give me the lad who can kick.

Bont disposal efficiency of 71% to dangers 69%, despite Danger getting a higher % of contested ball. Bont is a great player and to be honest i would probably choose Bont long term, but to say Danger cant kick is rubbish.

 

[Golden_6]

Bont disposal efficiency of 71% to dangers 69%, despite Danger getting a higher % of contested ball. Bont is a great player and to be honest i would probably choose Bont long term, but to say Danger cant kick is rubbish.

Danger's kicking efficiency wouldn't be a true reflection of his kicking ability based on the definition. A lot of his kicks are to 50/50 contests over 40m which is classified as an effective kick. Nothing wrong with that as it's long, direct and puts the opposition under pressure. Although I don't believe he would have a very high % of kicks retained directly by his teammates.

 

[Jade]

A premiership side that was only fair for most of the year. It was hardly won in a dominant premiership team. B&Fs are overrated anyway

But anyway if this is his top level then it makes the choice to take Dangerfield even easier

The bloke is 21.

Surely logic suggests he hasn't peaked yet.

 

[jakefooty23]

Dangers mum would even select the Bont because of age, but if it was for the next 2 years then it's Danger time all the way, and it ain't close IMO.

For me I would take Bont, even if it was just for the next two years. He seems like a much more skilful and natural footballer then Danger (nothing against him.) A one two punch of Fyfe and Bont would be incredible, as would Danger and Fyfe or danger and Bont. But that's just my opinion.

 

[00Stinger]

Anyone who has Bont is kidding themselves

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Anyone who has Bont is kidding themselves

Not sure what you mean.

Bont has an enormous capacity to be better than he has shown despite his high rating.

Dangerfield has just played his best ever season and is a fantastic player with breakaway speed, but his disposal is an issue at times.

Bont has sublime skills and despite lacking the breakaway speed, is able to seemingly position himself to take advantage from most contests. He can be the games best midfielder but he is also exceptionally good as a forward and could easily play CHF.

I would suspect that any list manager would feel very comfortable choosing Bont over Dangerfield if you are looking at the career still ahead for both.

 

[ManOfClay]

The question being who would you rather have on your list I don't think anybody would be kidding themselves if they went either way.

Two of the competition's elite, one better than the other right now but the other much younger. This isn't a superstar v a promising kid either, it's a superstar v a superstar