Rookie List

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Zombie


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.

Based on what?

Mattner and Rutten both played AFL footy this year. Granted Rutten only played wizard Cup, but his form was consitant during the year finished third in West's B & F.

Matter showed some great promise during the AFL season and played in Sturt's premiership side.

[/B][/QUOTE] Adelaide had no early draft picks so were forced to elevate from the rookie list.[/B][/QUOTE]

We were'nt forced to pick them they earned their spots.

Jerome

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Jerome

We were'nt forced to pick them they earned their spots.

Indeed. We may not have valued having lower draft picks but we could've just as easily hung on to the likes of Fitzgerald, Shir and Handby instead.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Zombie
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.

No wrong again, as this was in fact mentioned by non-Crow recruiters too.

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.

You are in true Zombie form if you reckon your rookies are better - ie. a complete load of bollocks as usual. Mattner played good football at AFL level. Crabb was the only one of the Port rookies to play AFL & really didn't look up to it. 1-nil! Rutten looked very promising in the pre-season & had a good enough SANFL year to make the team of the year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of you rookies making the team of the year. 2-nil! Game over!

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.

Rutten & Mattner you will discover in the next year or so will become very handy players who would be capable of being on any AFL list, including Port's. I agree with Bock as I'm not convinced about him yet. The bottom line is none of your rookies were good enough, although it could be argued that a couple were unlucky not to get upgraded.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
No wrong again, as this was in fact mentioned by non-Crow recruiters too.

You are in true Zombie form if you reckon your rookies are better - ie. a complete load of bollocks as usual. Mattner played good football at AFL level. Crabb was the only one of the Port rookies to play AFL & really didn't look up to it.

Thats up to personal opinion and bias.

I thought Mattner looked ok. Nothing special. Good negater. Crabb looked good in his first match, got a lot of the ball. He got next to no gametime in his other 3 games.

I reckon both would be seen as even on last years form. Both tore it up at SANFL level, played some ok footy at AFL level.

As for the other rookies being better. Id rate Mark Mckenzie ahead of all but Mattner out of both of our rookie lists. Williams said he would be on our list right now if he didnt break his arm quite badly in the Eagles last final in the SANFL. He was fantastic last year. Certainly matched Bock and Rutten for form.

If Barham was anywhere but Centrals he probably would of been a senior regular. Jackman id rate higher than Bock as well. Bock doesnt do much for me at this point in time.

Id probably rate the rookies in order of: Mattner, Mckenzie, Rutten, Jackman, Bock, Barham, Thomas.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Macca19

Id probably rate the rookies in order of: Mattner, Mckenzie, Rutten, Jackman, Bock, Barham, Thomas.

Possibly a bit harsh on Rutten, but overall a pretty reasonable rating. What is the story with Mckenzie and his arm - is it a long-term or short-term injury - because I saw a fair bit of him and really rated him?

Also agree that Barham got a raw deal at Centrals. Would probably have played league at another club.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
No wrong again, as this was in fact mentioned by non-Crow recruiters too.

Names? Proof?


You are in true Zombie form if you reckon your rookies are better - ie. a complete load of bollocks as usual. Mattner played good football at AFL level. Crabb was the only one of the Port rookies to play AFL & really didn't look up to it. 1-nil! Rutten looked very promising in the pre-season & had a good enough SANFL year to make the team of the year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any of you rookies making the team of the year. 2-nil! Game over!


Crabb, for the game time he had, was a better player than Mattner last year. In his first game he racked up 14 possessions in a little under a half of football, his other games were less impressive but he probably only spent a total of 1/2 an hour on the ground for all of them so it can't really be compared. Crabb was sensational in the SANFL, regularly racking up 25+ possessions. Mattner was handy for Centrals but not sensational like Crabb was.

Rutten scraped the final spot on the bench of The Advertiser's "team of the year" and well done to him, however a young guy by the name of Corey AhChee made the full back spot, however he isn't considered good enough to play in the SANFL.

Rutten & Mattner you will discover in the next year or so will become very handy players who would be capable of being on any AFL list, including Port's. I agree with Bock as I'm not convinced about him yet. The bottom line is none of your rookies were good enough, although it could be argued that a couple were unlucky not to get upgraded.

None of our rookies were good enough to get upgraded to the Port list, there is a difference. My point was it would be very unlikely that any of the Crows rookies would have been good enough to get on to the Port list either, although Rutten would have closely been looked at for his key position potential if he was one of our rookies.

If we are basing our rankings on SANFL and AFL performances from this year I would rate the rookies in the following order:

Crabb, Rutten, Mattner, McKensie, Jackman, Barham, Bock, Thomas.

If you would take any of these players above the likes of Gilham or Ebert then you would be crazy.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Zombie
Mattner was handy for Centrals but not sensational like Crabb was.

I would say Mattner wasn't much value at all for Central, particularly as he was opposed to them on grand final day!

 

[macca23]

"If we are basing our rankings on SANFL and AFL performances from this year I would rate the rookies in the following order:

Crabb, Rutten, Mattner, McKensie, Jackman, Barham, Bock, Thomas.

If you would take any of these players above the likes of Gilham or Ebert then you would be crazy."

Sorry Zombie but you are way off beam with your comparisons of the 24 year old Crabb and Mattner. Crabb was delisted by West Coast after 15 games in 3 years and as Mark Williams put it was rookie listed as an insurance policy against injuries to mid-fielders, not because he was seen as a long term AFL player. Mattner is 20 years of age and is a genuine AFL player of the future. As Porthos said, don't get deluded by SANFL performances. IMO Macca19 has it much more accurately than you have.

I agree that Mattner didn't do much with Centrals - probably cos he plays for Sturt in the SANFL!!

You bet I would take Mattner and Rutten ahead of the pencil thin Gilham and Brett Ebert. Gilham will be one of those pet players at Port - "the project player" - until he bulks up, although I don't doubt that he has ability. As for Ebert, I doubt that he would have been drafted by any other club than Port. As always , only time will provide the answers

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by DaveW
I would say Mattner wasn't much value at all for Central, particularly as he was opposed to them on grand final day!

You know what I mean, whenever I think of Mattner i always picture him in a Centrals guernsey. I don't know if he reminds me of one of the Centrals players or the similarity in the tri-colour guernsey of the Crows and the Dogs or what.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by macca23


Sorry Zombie but you are way off beam with your comparisons of the 24 year old Crabb and Mattner. Crabb was delisted by West Coast after 15 games in 3 years and as Mark Williams put it was rookie listed as an insurance policy against injuries to mid-fielders, not because he was seen as a long term AFL player. Mattner is 20 years of age and is a genuine AFL player of the future. As Porthos said, don't get deluded by SANFL performances. IMO Macca19 has it much more accurately than you have.

You bet I would take Mattner and Rutten ahead of the pencil thin Gilham and Brett Ebert. Gilham will be one of those pet players at Port - "the project player" - until he bulks up, although I don't doubt that he has ability. As for Ebert, I doubt that he would have been drafted by any other club than Port. As always , only time will provide the answers

Hence the 'based on SANFL and AFL performances this year' part of my statement. I have no dleusions about Crabb's AFL potential, he has none, I'm not debating that, it can't be denied that his SANFL form was top notch. He did everything he could have been possibly asked to do and still couldn't get on the Port list, which is testament to the depth and quality of Ports list.

Well that is your opinion, although almost every other opposition supporter would laugh you out of town for it. Gilham was tipped in some mock drafts to go as high as pick #4, although not being ready for AFL for a couple of years he slid to pick #16. Neither Rutten nor Mattner were picked in the 90 players picked in the previous year.

Of course Ebert would have been drafted, if he wouldn't have then Port wouldn't have used the f/s pick to get him, they would simply use their last pick or a rookie listing to get him. He was tipped to go about or a little earlier than Ports 3rd round pick if he was available.

 

[PrideOf]

Pick 13 used on Hayden Skipworth.

We missed out on Adam Fisher, who went at pick 11. The PAPs picked up Patfull with Pick 14.