Rookie List

[macca23]

Originally posted by napsyd
Biglands is a single case, he is not the rule. I agree that a player recruited at 18 will not show his best by 20. But 9 times out of ten, he'll be showing something of his potential.

Injury certainly can't be helped. Looking at John**** last year, you can be pretty confident he would have played in 2001 if fit.

None of this changes my original proposition though. Barring the rare odd case and injury, 2 years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds.

So either Port have a heap of young diamonds or are full of ...

While there are late developers, and usually that is more the case in big blokes, I agree that 9 times out of 10 a player will be showing that he has potential by the time he is 20, barring injury.

While Adelaide and Port Adelaide seem to have totally differing philosophies on how to get there, they are both pretty good at what they do and how they do it, or they wouldn't have finished where they did at the end of the minor round this year, and with the lists they are taking into next year.

As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port. Poor excuse!!

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by macca23
While there are late developers, and usually that is more the case in big blokes, I agree that 9 times out of 10 a player will be showing that he has potential by the time he is 20, barring injury.

Probably more like 75 - 80 % of the time, but close enough.



While Adelaide and Port Adelaide seem to have totally differing philosophies on how to get there, they are both pretty good at what they do and how they do it, or they wouldn't have finished where they did at the end of the minor round this year, and with the lists they are taking into next year.

Agree.



As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port. Poor excuse!!

Disagree entirely ....... this depends on exactly how each club intends to use their rookie list.

Port seems to use it each year to pick up a player who can come in and play a role if injury requires it (I.e. Ben Hollands, 2 years ago, Jaxon Crabb last year) and also a couple of players (higher risk) that are a longshot at being something reasonable, whereas the crows seem a little more conservative with these selections, being more likely to go for home grown.

That being said, remember that Port was pretty ****ed at the way some of their rookies were handled this year, and I beleive stated that it was pointless keeping them cause they wern't being allowed to show their wares.

That being said I would not be dissapointed if Port grabbed a few local rookie listed players this season.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by macca23

As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port. Poor excuse!!

I didnt think our rookie choices were that bad.

Barham kicked 65-70 goals in Centrals reserves yet never got given a go. Was a bit stiff not to get a go. Was Centrals reserves best finals player - kicking something like 18 finals goals for them. He could of been given another year on the rookie list but because he was never given a try at Senior level we dunno how he would of performed.

Mckenzie was fantastic this year for the Eagles. Would of been promoted to the senior list but he busted his arm badly in one of the Eagles finals, so was unlucky in that part. According to Williams, his busted arm is the only reason he wasnt promoted or kept on the rookie list - as he would of been behind the 8 ball next year.

Crabb played AFL this season for Port. I dont see how thats a dud choice.

Jackman was unlucky as he was considered a long term prospect. He played well for Souths in the second half of this year. Bit stiff to not be given another year when he was always considered a longer term prospect.

Most supporters expected at least two of these to be put on the senior list or at least kept on the rookie list - and were surprised when none were kept.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by napsyd
Biglands is a single case, he is not the rule. I agree that a player recruited at 18 will not show his best by 20. But 9 times out of ten, he'll be showing something of his potential.

A couple of other late developers that spring to mind are Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus and Josh Francou. There are plenty out there.

I agree that most players will show something of their potential by 20 - most in fact have. The question is over whether or not they will realise that potential....Michael Stevens a great example. Tore it up in the SANFL, but did nothing at AFL level. We hung onto him for four seasons on the basis of his unfulfilled talent and still managed to find a trade for him at the end of it. Hell, even our former rookies get looked at by other clubs. They're quality, but with flaws, or not meeting our requirements, so out they go. There aren't too many recent Crows delistings that you could say have gone on to prove the club wrong on their talent - maybe Picioane.

None of this changes my original proposition though. Barring the rare odd case and injury, 2 years is plenty of time to sort diamonds and turds.

Nothing of this changes my clarification either. Port have diamonds, and they try to work out the flaws. The Crows sort through the crud to find gems, flawed or not, and dedicate more room on their list to doing this.

Port draft less, and delist less than Adelaide pretty much every year. When they draft, they very rarely draft late on. Less opportunity, higher picks - its clearly harder to be drafted to Port than Adelaide.

ok.crows, I was going to respond to your post, but Malibu#27 seems to have pretty much made the points I was going to make.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by napsyd
Hey, while we're at it, using your logic, shouldn't Biglands still be on your list Porthos?

With the list reducing from 46 to 42 to 40 in two seasons, it was always going to be hard to not make mistakes. By the end of 1998, both Primus and Lade had shown to be top notch ruckmen - obviously Biglands as an excess ruck was put under pressure by this, and as such got the arse.

If he'd been on the list this year at that same age, I expect he'd be getting the same amount of time to develop as Brogan and Ackland have enjoyed.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by macca23
As for Porthos's comment "For a player to do the same at Port is rarer/harder, because Port will give more time, and have less spots available on a yearly basis to be filled" that is a total cover up for the 4 rookie choices at the beginning of 2002 who proved to be inappropriate for one reason or another. Rookies who are good enough will be promoted on to the main list or at worst redrafted on to the rookie list, whichever the club, including Port.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that they weren't good enough because Port's list, and manner of list maintenance, was too good for them!

If Adelaide hadn't promoted those three rookies this year, they would've had extra picks at 80, 90, 92 or some other extremely low number. Are Bock, Rutten and Mattner worth those picks? Sure, why not?

If Port had promoted those three, we would not have Champion, Ebert or Gilham (or would've somehow had to make room for them). Are they worth those picks? No.

The Crows make room for speculation and have high turnover - Port go for safer bets (higher picks) and have less turnover. It is harder to get onto Port's list than Adelaide's.

The recent past has shown that a draftee that isn't getting regular games will be given more time on Port's list than Adelaide's. It is harder to stay on Adelaide's list than Port's.

I really don't see why this is a bone of contention.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Porthos
ok.crows, I was going to respond to your post, but Malibu#27 seems to have pretty much made the points I was going to make. [/B]

I repeat, I haven't decided, and any "contradiction" with respect to the middle-age on Port's list can only be thought of as an "apparent" contradiction. I don't know if any of it is wrong or not, but I do agree there is a difference in the approach to recruiting by Port & the Crows - yet both approaches seem to be working OK.

wrt Malibu#27 post in the 22-25 barcket, I'm wondering what happened to Burton as one "who seem to be regular contributors to the team that are also players drafted by the Crows as kids". What category also does Gallagher come into?

 

[Malibu#27]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I repeat, I haven't decided, and any "contradiction" with respect to the middle-age on Port's list can only be thought of as an "apparent" contradiction. I don't know if any of it is wrong or not, but I do agree there is a difference in the approach to recruiting by Port & the Crows - yet both approaches seem to be working OK.

wrt Malibu#27 post in the 22-25 barcket, I'm wondering what happened to Burton as one "who seem to be regular contributors to the team that are also players drafted by the Crows as kids". What category also does Gallagher come into?

Burton should have been in the Crows list of regular contributors, the reason I lost him in the system was that from memory he was drafted pretty late in life (ie 20 or 21) and I forgot to go back and include him .... good pick up. (Blame it on the crappy AFL web site set up )

As for Galllagher according to the Crows web site - 10 games for the season - 62 posessions ..... 23 years old, not sure how many the season before ... basically I just didnt rate him as a player who is regularly contributing to your team .... do you ?

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Porthos
A couple of other late developers that spring to mind are Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus and Josh Francou. There are plenty out there.

I agree that most players will show something of their potential by 20 - most in fact have. The question is over whether or not they will realise that potential....Michael Stevens a great example. Tore it up in the SANFL, but did nothing at AFL level. We hung onto him for four seasons on the basis of his unfulfilled talent and still managed to find a trade for him at the end of it. Hell, even our former rookies get looked at by other clubs. They're quality, but with flaws, or not meeting our requirements, so out they go. There aren't too many recent Crows delistings that you could say have gone on to prove the club wrong on their talent - maybe Picioane.

Nothing of this changes my clarification either. Port have diamonds, and they try to work out the flaws. The Crows sort through the crud to find gems, flawed or not, and dedicate more room on their list to doing this.

Port draft less, and delist less than Adelaide pretty much every year. When they draft, they very rarely draft late on. Less opportunity, higher picks - its clearly harder to be drafted to Port than Adelaide.

ok.crows, I was going to respond to your post, but Malibu#27 seems to have pretty much made the points I was going to make.

I'm not really arguing the point of what Port do and what Adelaide do, I suppose I'm more challenging the wisdom of keeping players for a longer periods of time.

I'm no Port Adelaide expert, but the guys you mentioned, Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus, I'm sure showed some of their potential at a reasonably young age. I can't accept that they were all "exceptions to the rule".

You've agreed that most players show their potential by age 20. Yet you argue Port gives players more time. Why? Just in case they are a one in 10 like Biglands who shows his potential much later? Where is the logic and reward in that? We've more or less agreed that most turds at 20 are turds at 25.

And you didn't answer my other question. If Biglands is a late developing diamond, how did he slip through Port's grasp, when they have a policy of keeping turds to see if they turn into diamonds? OK, OK, when they "have a policy of giving players longer to develop".

My personal opinion is that Port are an insular club, who have little regard for players, coaches, philosophies etc that are not part of the "Port Adelaide tradition". Whilst Port are a wholely successful club, this unwillingness to accept concepts, tactics and people from elsewhere is a weakness in my opinion. Undoubtedly you can present me with isolated examples of non-Port people being utilised by Port (although I'd bet the lions share of those have some connection to Essendon), but I think this is an exception rather than a rule. I think this may be another reason why Port hold onto their youngsters longer than say Adelaide. They are Port people and therefore by default they are assumed to be better than whatever anyone else has to offer. Port people generally see this philosophy as a strength. Sometimes it is, but I reckon more often than not it is a weakness. I know I've opened up a can of worms by saying this, I have considered deleting it several times now, but I believe it to be the case so I'll stand by my convictions and await the flaming.

 

[napsyd]

Porthos, I see you have responded to my Biglands point while I was writing. Thanks.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by napsyd
I'm not really arguing the point of what Port do and what Adelaide do, I suppose I'm more challenging the wisdom of keeping players for a longer periods of time.

Fair enough. Hell, I do sometimes - Michael Stevens again a prime example.

I'm no Port Adelaide expert, but the guys you mentioned, Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus, I'm sure showed some of their potential at a reasonably young age.

I dunno about Bishop, but Brett showed a bit - not enough at reserves level though, and then got shunted off to the VFL. Primus didn't look like he was going to be good enough, so again, he got shunted off (to the SANFL). These are the blokes only given one or two years to show what they can do.

You've agreed that most players show their potential by age 20. Yet you argue Port gives players more time. Why? Just in case they are a one in 10 like Biglands who shows his potential much later? Where is the logic and reward in that? We've more or less agreed that most turds at 20 are turds at 25.

Because of a Biglands, or a Francou or indeed a Poulton. Who would've thought he'd come along so well and actually develop a smarter football brain?

The club have seen something in these players, and they don't like giving up on something they think can be a winner.

My personal opinion is that Port are an insular club, who have little regard for players, coaches, philosophies etc that are not part of the "Port Adelaide tradition". Whilst Port are a wholely successful club, this unwillingness to accept concepts, tactics and people from elsewhere is a weakness in my opinion. Undoubtedly you can present me with isolated examples of non-Port people being utilised by Port (although I'd bet the lions share of those have some connection to Essendon), but I think this is an exception rather than a rule.

Some off-field staff I can name off the top of my head...

Alan Stewart, Central Districts
Chris Pelchen, Victorian ops manager, ex-Hawthorn
Dean Bailey, Essendon
Andrew Russell, Essendon
Phil Walsh, recruited from Geelong
Rob Snowdon, recruited from Sydney (now retired from footy)

There are only three Port Adelaide senior staffers - Mark Williams, Bucky Cunningham and David Hutton. Thats it.

I think this may be another reason why Port hold onto their youngsters longer than say Adelaide. They are Port people and therefore by default they are assumed to be better than whatever anyone else has to offer. Port people generally see this philosophy as a strength. Sometimes it is, but I reckon more often than not it is a weakness.

If you like. I say that because, unlike the Crows, Port actively look for high draft picks, then they treat the players selected with them as the important investment that they are.

The Crows pick up the guys that most others don't want with late draft picks that cost them nothing to get and put the onus for development on the players drafted with them. They either make it or they don't. If they don't, the Crows dump them after a shorter time, because its not like they gave up much to get them.

Both methods have strengths and weaknesses.

I know I've opened up a can of worms by saying this, I have considered deleting it several times now, but I believe it to be the case so I'll stand by my convictions and await the flaming.

I think all you've opened up is a window to your outdated perception of Port Adelaide. Port Adelaide will try to steal any idea, staff member or player from anywhere if it'll be better for the club.

Heck, we'll even pick up players on our rookie list that've been training with other clubs if they're any good - I believe this is where I came in

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by napsyd
I'm no Port Adelaide expert, but the guys you mentioned, Brett Montgomery, Matthew Bishop, Darren Mead, Matthew Primus, I'm sure showed some of their potential at a reasonably young age. I can't accept that they were all "exceptions to the rule".

Matthew Bishop played his first AFL game at age 23. He wasnt a regular AFL player until age 25.

Brett Montgomery played his first game at age 24.

Darren Mead wasnt an SANFL regular until he was around 23.

Matthew Primus played his first AFL game at age 21.

My personal opinion is that Port are an insular club, who have little regard for players, coaches, philosophies etc that are not part of the "Port Adelaide tradition". Whilst Port are a wholely successful club, this unwillingness to accept concepts, tactics and people from elsewhere is a weakness in my opinion.

That would be totally wrong. Half our list is from interstate. The majority of our staff is from a club other than Port Adelaide.

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Porthos


If Port had promoted those three, we would not have Champion, Ebert or Gilham (or would've somehow had to make room for them). Are they worth those picks? No.

I know you are a one eyed pap supporter but to rate the above 3 above Rutten, Mattner & Bock is so far fetched it's almost comical,

Why is it that you & most but not all pap supporters are so obsessed with trying to prove that everything & everyone connected with the Paps is so much better than the Crows??

We have had our fingers burnt once to many when it comes to unproven high or mid range draft picks from interstate & if we can use our rookie list like we did last year in selecting young talent why not keep it going, but that is not to say we would sacrifice a top ten pick just for the sake of it,
But just like the reason we chased D Jarman so hard in the mid 90s was for an oppotunity to win a flag so it was the same reason for recruiting W Carey & others this year & if it comes off who cares which club is the hardest list to get on or the easiest club to get put off you guys will be quite welcome to it.

btw, Lance Piccoani [is that how you spell it] was not delisted he was traded to Hawthorn for a draft pick & you also forgot to mention D Pittman in your list of non Port people staff [unless he has been given the flick],

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by noddy
I know you are a one eyed pap supporter but to rate the above 3 above Rutten, Mattner & Bock is so far fetched it's almost comical,

If you want it in numerical terms (rather than Port Adelaide terms that you find hard to swallow), I seriously doubt you could've traded those three for picks #16, #42 and #57.

btw, Lance Piccoani [is that how you spell it] was not delisted he was traded to Hawthorn for a draft pick & you also forgot to mention D Pittman in your list of non Port people staff [unless he has been given the flick],

Picioane. I'm pretty sure he was delisted, and Hawthorn picked him up. And yes, Pittman should be on my list. D'oh.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Porthos

Picioane. I'm pretty sure he was delisted, and Hawthorn picked him up.

From the Lance Picioane profile at www.hawthornfc.com.au:

"AFL record
1998-99: Adelaide - 4 games, 2 goals
2000-02: Hawthorn - 36 games, 10 goals

Draft history
Selected by Adelaide with the 17th pick in 1997national draft
Traded by Adelaide to Hawthorn for 79th selection in 1999 national draft"

Getting back to this years potential rookies...I hope we can get at least one ruckman/KPP or as many KPP as possible to hopefully replace Perrie, Schell and maybe Crowell next year.

Jerome

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Malibu#27
As for Galllagher according to the Crows web site - 10 games for the season - 62 posessions ..... 23 years old, not sure how many the season before ... basically I just didnt rate him as a player who is regularly contributing to your team .... do you ?

Gags looked like he was going to be in for a good season in 2002 after showing a bit in 2001. Unfortunately he was injured early & Dogga took his spot. Gags is training the house down in pre-season & the guy ooses class & confidence. I reckon he will be in for a big 2003 (& one of those to fill the gap left by Sugar).

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Porthos
If you want it in numerical terms (rather than Port Adelaide terms that you find hard to swallow), I seriously doubt you could've traded those three for picks #16, #42 and #57.

It was claimed that Rutten & Mattner if available would have gone inside the top-30 picks, probably even top-20 with the talent a bit thin this year. Not convinced Bock would have gone by pick #57 though. However, definitely better than our next 3 picks, which means we did well out of the rookie draft.

 

[macca23]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by noddy
I know you are a one eyed pap supporter but to rate the above 3 above Rutten, Mattner & Bock is so far fetched it's almost comical,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Porthos
If you want it in numerical terms (rather than Port Adelaide terms that you find hard to swallow), I seriously doubt you could've traded those three for picks #16, #42 and #57.

Porthos, you normally have some credibility, but you really have lost the plot on this one.

Mattner played AFL football at a creditable level off the rookie list last year and really looks like a player of the future. You're right that you couldn't trade #16 pick for him - he would have already gone.

Ben Rutten at #42 - Porthos, remove your hand. This is too much. He is 19 years of age and has already played 41 SANFL games. Held down CHB for West Adelaide all year and can also play up forward. 3rd in Westies B&F for the year.

Nathan Bock at #57. At 19 years of age he has played 17 SANFL games, 15 this year for the Eagles. Sorry Porthos, wrong again. Bargains like that just aren't around.

Overall, one of your most illogical posts.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
It was claimed that Rutten & Mattner if available would have gone inside the top-30 picks, probably even top-20 with the talent a bit thin this year. Not convinced Bock would have gone by pick #57 though. However, definitely better than our next 3 picks, which means we did well out of the rookie draft.

Yes, indeed, which was the key point. You have done well getting them, as otherwise you'd just have extra picks at 70+ - whether Port would've done well to have them instead of who we got would be another question entirely.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by macca23
Porthos, you normally have some credibility, but you really have lost the plot on this one.

An arrow through my heart! Continue.

Mattner played AFL football at a creditable level off the rookie list last year and really looks like a player of the future. You're right that you couldn't trade #16 pick for him - he would have already gone.

Doubtful. The extra year he's had (not to mention full AFL training) over any player drafted in the top 20 would be taken into account by recruiters. He could be handy, but to get a first round pick, you need to give up something pretty good (ala Chick, Everitt, Brown, Pickett, Carey).

Ben Rutten at #42 - Porthos, remove your hand. This is too much. He is 19 years of age and has already played 41 SANFL games. Held down CHB for West Adelaide all year and can also play up forward. 3rd in Westies B&F for the year.

I hate to say it, but playing SANFL games is no longer the best marker of how good a player is going to be at senior level. Any AFL listed player should be tearing it up in the SANFL, even down to pick #92 or whatever. #42 would be around the mark for Rutten, maybe.

Nathan Bock at #57. At 19 years of age he has played 17 SANFL games, 15 this year for the Eagles. Sorry Porthos, wrong again. Bargains like that just aren't around.

Mark McKenzie was. You want him? He's still available.

Overall, one of your most illogical posts.

I think you're overestimating your players, and don't see the real market value for them. Go and ask supporters of more neutral clubs what they'd give for players of those credentials, and you'll see you're out of line.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Porthos

I hate to say it, but playing SANFL games is no longer the best marker of how good a player is going to be at senior level.

If you genuinely believe this, then tell this to your fellow Powder supporters. The weight of the crap that was being posted by them before bigfooty went down in respect of Morgans and Thurstans, rating these 4 year SANFL players (on their SANFL form) as better players than Ken McGregor who has played 52 AFL games was probably the reason that bigfooty went down.

As for your ratings of Mattner and Rutten in particular, we will just have to disagree, as I think that you are so so wrong. The true comparisons in this case are with your selections of Gilham and Ebert, and I wouldn't swap Mattner and Rutten in a mad fit for those 2.

Sorry Porthos, I still think this is one of your poorer efforts.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
It was claimed that Rutten & Mattner if available would have gone inside the top-30 picks, probably even top-20 with the talent a bit thin this year. Not convinced Bock would have gone by pick #57 though. However, definitely better than our next 3 picks, which means we did well out of the rookie draft.

Claimed by the Crows, no one else. The fact remains that they weren't drafted at all in 2001 because they weren't considered good enough.

I followed the Port rookies in the SANFL a bit aswell as the Crows rookies and I would have rated our 2002 rookies better than the Crows. Crabb was top notch in the SANFL, but I doubt he would have made it in the big league, McKensie was excellent for the Eagles and unfortunately broke his arm, Jackman was also very good on a wing for South towards the end of the year, Barham was also very good, simply didn't get a go in the Centrals first team, I expect him to come back and haunt us.

If the rookie lists were reversed I doubt any of the crows rookies would have been elevated to the power list, none of them have shown enough. Personally Rutten is the one who shows the most promise, but I wouldn't rate him any higher than Barham, although he is physically more mature. Bock has a good long kick but wasn't anything special in the SANFL, not as good as McKensie, same can be said for Mattner. Although Mattner is a good tackle and has an intense game I doubt whether his football ability is up to it.

Personally Barham, McKensie and Crabb showed more promise than Rutten, Bock and Mattner did, but to suggest that those Adelaide rookies are better than Gilham, Ebert and Champion is just laughable. Adelaide had no early draft picks so were forced to elevate from the rookie list, Port on the other hand had traded for early picks which allowed them to pick up good top notch youngsters.

 

[Portia]

Originally posted by macca23
If you genuinely believe this, then tell this to your fellow Powder supporters.

I reckon they already know it. Michael Stevens and Derek Murray have been shining examples of how worthless SANFL form can be. Good SANFL form is in my mind now a minimum requirement of a draftee if they're going to be any good.

As for your atings of Mattner and Rutten in particular, we will just have to disagree, as I think that you are so so wrong. The true comparisons in this case are with your selections of Gilham and Ebert, and I wouldn't swap Mattner and Rutten in a mad fit for those 2.

Which is why I changed it to numerical terms, so you wouldn't take an automatic negative perception of Port's drafting ability into the value of those picks vs your rookies.

I expect we'll see about Rutten, Bock and Mattner at years end.

 

[Mong]

I'm not totally convinced about Rutten.

He could turn out to be adequate and be able to compete at AFL level but I don't see him being anything special. I hope I'm wrong.

Mattner on the other hand I am very impressed with. I really liked what I saw with him this year. And even though he wasn't a big possesion winner I think he has the attributes to improve this part of his game as he gains experience a la Simon Goodwin and Tyson Stenglein.

In fact I see a lot of similarities between Mattner and Stenglein and not just in their looks. Mattner has exceptional defensive skills and courage and is good at winning contested posessions.

He is probably not as versatile as Stenglein but Mattner seems to me to have a big future at AFL level.


****

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Porthos
I reckon they already know it. Michael Stevens and Derek Murray have been shining examples of how worthless SANFL form can be. Good SANFL form is in my mind now a minimum requirement of a draftee if they're going to be any good.

Which is why I changed it to numerical terms, so you wouldn't take an automatic negative perception of Port's drafting ability into the value of those picks vs your rookies.

I expect we'll see about Rutten, Bock and Mattner at years end.

Fair enough.