Toast Sir Patrick F Dangerfield

[Boxhead_31]

so if the suns asked for danger, selwood, hawkins would you consider giving them duncan as not folding?

Your post is one of the most ridiculous strawmen Ive seen on here in a while. Strawmen posts should be banned.

At the start of the negotiations, the Suns asked for those two players for Ablett.
How is that a strawman argument?

 

[Warhorse]

I admire that you're so over committed to your ideological bent that you'll actually trash talk the best footballer in the AFL (as of 2017). Its a spectacular feat.

He wasn't the best player in the afl 2017. Not much in it though. He is not the 'generational' player described, that would be ablett.

With the amount of flogging you accomplish maybe you should change your name to " Deadhorse"

 

[Landgraft]

He wasn't the best player in the afl 2017. Not much in it though. He is not the 'generational' player described, that would be ablett.

If you don't think that a guy who was a shaky mrp call away from giving back to back Brownlows a serious tilt is a generational player then you've got rocks in your head.

Though perhaps you aren't clear on the meaning? Generational does not mean the single best of their generation to the exclusion of any other, rather a player who clearly stands out from their generation to the extent that they are irreplaceable. Ablett, Judd, Danger are all generational players. I'd like to see more than one truly dominant season from Fyfe and Dusty before regarding them on the same level, though.

 

[Strange Cat]

He wasn't the best player in the afl 2017. Not much in it though. He is not the 'generational' player described, that would be ablett.

Keep backpeddling and making more shit up, Danger was very close to back to back brownlows and yet you don’t rate him.

Idiotic

 

[Warhorse]

If you don't think that a guy who was a shaky mrp call away from giving back to back Brownlows a serious tilt is a generational player then you've got rocks in your head.

Though perhaps you aren't clear on the meaning? Generational does not mean the single best of their generation to the exclusion of any other, rather a player who clearly stands out from their generation to the extent that they are irreplaceable. Ablett, Judd, Danger are all generational players. I'd like to see more than one truly dominant season from Fyfe and Dusty before regarding them on the same level, though.

Ablett was dominant year after year and was favourite for the brownlow most years in the last decade.

Dangerfield was the best players last year and second best player this year. He also is a ball butcher.

I wonder which one is a generational player

 

[Warhorse]

Keep backpeddling and making more shit up, Danger was very close to back to back brownlows and yet you don’t rate him.

Idiotic

Generational player suggests he is a once in a generation player. He is definately not that

 

[Landgraft]

Generational player suggests he is a once in a generation player. He is definately not that

This confirms it, rocks in your head.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Great player that fell in our lap. Can this pointless argument cease?

 

[Strange Cat]

Generational player suggests he is a once in a generation player. He is definately not that

Absolutely clueless , you don’t almost get a B2B Brownlow wins by not being a great of the game.

He’s easily a generational player, but then again you think we overpaid for him

 

[Strange Cat]

This confirms it, rocks in your head.

That’s harsh on rocks they deserve better

 

[Ricketz]

Look what we payed for ablett compared to hodge and mitchell. Shit the bed bigtime. Yet some people are saying we won the trade because we didnt trade cockatoo or duncan. Hilarious

Its not even in the same ballpark.

1. That is just how much better Ablett is than either of those guys, over their careers and at the current stage.
2. Hodge retired. Hawthorn convinced him to reneg, so that they got something from him moving north. He is going up there as part of a similar deal that they nutted out with Mitchell/WC. It should be looked at - offering jobs post retirement is as much an incentive as cash in the pocket. I am glad we don't do dodgy shit like that.
3. Ablett was the Suns most important player, they did not want to lose him. Mitchell and Hodge were superfluous to Hawthorn's needs.

 

[Ricketz]

Ablett was dominant year after year and was favourite for the brownlow most years in the last decade.

Dangerfield was the best players last year and second best player this year. He also is a ball butcher.

I wonder which one is a generational player

To be fair - this is correct. Ablett is THE once in a generation player. You can't have guys who are nowhere near his standard (Fyfe, Dusty, Danger) also as once in a generation players - that would make it 4 times in a generation and drag Ablett's standards back to theirs.. They are greats, and without Ablett on the scene, they may have all been considered the same.

Still, who says that the Danger trade was not a win for us? Nobody with any clue about football.

 

[Seeds]

Its not even in the same ballpark.

1. That is just how much better Ablett is than either of those guys, over their careers and at the current stage.
2. Hodge retired. Hawthorn convinced him to reneg, so that they got something from him moving north. He is going up there as part of a similar deal that they nutted out with Mitchell/WC. It should be looked at - offering jobs post retirement is as much an incentive as cash in the pocket. I am glad we don't do dodgy shit like that.
3. Ablett was the Suns most important player, they did not want to lose him. Mitchell and Hodge were superfluous to Hawthorn's needs.

mitchell was the hawks most important player. it was a major reason why they crashed this year.

 

[Seeds]

To be fair - this is correct. Ablett is THE once in a generation player. You can't have guys who are nowhere near his standard (Fyfe, Dusty, Danger) also as once in a generation players - that would make it 4 times in a generation and drag Ablett's standards back to theirs.. They are greats, and without Ablett on the scene, they may have all been considered the same.

Still, who says that the Danger trade was not a win for us? Nobody with any clue about football.

they can all be generation players if you define it by club and not by competition. well except for dangerfield cos he has played in the same generation as ablett.

 

[Landgraft]

they can all be generation players if you define it by club and not by competition. well except for dangerfield cos he has played in the same generation as ablett.

This would be a really poor set of criteria to use. You'd basically say that even if two utterly remarkable players were in the same team that only one can be generational? Load of crap tbh.

Generational players are not just once in a generation either, every player is unique if you try hard enough. Generational means that they are a consistent superstar of their generation - where Danger has been the best player in the league since 2016 and was second best in 2015 he pretty safely qualifies.

 

[Ricketz]

mitchell was the hawks most important player. it was a major reason why they crashed this year.

Not denying that - he had a great season at WCE too. But the fact remains, Hawks went for the rebuild and did a dodgy with WCE to secure a coaching gig after he retired. That is why they were happy with pick 88 - WCE gave up nothing, and Hawks looked after their man. Not comparable at all to our situation at the trade table.

 

[Ricketz]

This would be a really poor set of criteria to use. You'd basically say that even if two utterly remarkable players were in the same team that only one can be generational? Load of crap tbh.

Generational players are not just once in a generation either, every player is unique if you try hard enough. Generational means that they are a consistent superstar of their generation - where Danger has been the best player in the league since 2016 and was second best in 2015 he pretty safely qualifies.

I think this is the problem. I have never really heard of the term "generational player". I have heard of once in a generation type players. By definition, you only have one in each generation.

Define what constitutes a generational player. Otherwise, it is all just too ambiguous. Actually, probably not worth it - great, generational, once in a generation - we have them all covered.

 

[Landgraft]

I think this is the problem. I have never really heard of the term "generational player". I have heard of once in a generation type players. By definition, you only have one in each generation.

Define what constitutes a generational player. Otherwise, it is all just too ambiguous. Actually, probably not worth it - great, generational, once in a generation - we have them all covered.

It's more commonly used in American sports I think.

Either way it's just the players who define their generation. So this can also showcase differences between eras - the generational players of the 90s would be the key position players, while today its a midfielders game.

 

[Seeds]

This would be a really poor set of criteria to use. You'd basically say that even if two utterly remarkable players were in the same team that only one can be generational? Load of crap tbh.

Generational players are not just once in a generation either, every player is unique if you try hard enough. Generational means that they are a consistent superstar of their generation - where Danger has been the best player in the league since 2016 and was second best in 2015 he pretty safely qualifies.

the whole concept of generation player is poor criteria. thats what my post was pointing out.

And generation is roughly 20-30 years. to be once in a generation you have to be the best player in that 20-30 years in a given set. Otherwise you are not once in a generation. Its not hard to understand.

 

[Seeds]

It's more commonly used in American sports I think.

Either way it's just the players who define their generation. So this can also showcase differences between eras - the generational players of the 90s would be the key position players, while today its a midfielders game.

you are just making this up on the spot now arent you?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

If there was a nitpick award you'd win it yearly Seeds.
Arguing over the definition of "generation player" is clearly a sign of a slow week.

 

[Strange Cat]

If there was a nitpick award you'd win it yearly Seeds.
Arguing over the definition of "generation player" is clearly a sign of a slow week.

Could be worse could be trying to argue that the club overpaid for Danger

 

[Warhorse]

Could be worse could be trying to argue that the club overpaid for Danger

And in comparison to what other clubs have given up in draft picks for a restricted free agents?

 

[Strange Cat]

And in comparison to what other clubs have given up in draft picks for a restricted free agents?

Because every trade has the same situation/circumstances

Give it a rest you clearly don’t have an idea

 

[candiehappy]

Ablett was dominant year after year and was favourite for the brownlow most years in the last decade.

not this year, or last year, or the year before ......