Josh Jenkins #1Fan
Lover of David Mckay
- May 15, 2019
- 270
- 388
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Fb&k I miss Charlie
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is true. He left.That is not true
In hindsight we should have let Betts go and paid more to keep CC.Fb&k I miss Charlie
Charlie Cameron also had X factor. Unfortunately he didn't want to display it here.
If Eddie was 10 years younger and CC stayed they would have been the best small forward combo seen on a footy field.Fair, what I meant was Eddie was the last x-factor player who displayed it consistently with us.
If Eddie was 10 years younger and CC stayed they would have been the small forward combo seen on a footy field.
Fair, what I meant was Eddie was the last x-factor player who displayed it consistently with us.
Nathan and Andrew?Krakouer brothers would still have had them
Nathan and Andrew?
(cousins I think)
I would like to know the salaries of their players before making that decision.Nathan Krakouer or Rory Atkins for worst investment by GC
I would like to know the salaries of their players before making that decision.
Rankine may shock all of us.
Fb&k I miss Charlie
Most of us (including me) thought we got a decent return despite not wanting to lose him. It ain’t looking so good with Fogarty at this point.
Goes to show that from the moment someone is drafted, that their draft position means diddly squat.
He displayed X-factor plenty of times at Adelaide. What he didn't do was play consistent footy.
I disagree. If you prove yourself while you're at your AFL club, you get more opportunities. Not even close to a hard-and-fast rule that higher draft picks get more opportunities and liberties by default. Plenty of examples of suchWrong, but its a nice sounding cliche though.
Clubs put significantly more resources into high draftees, they are afforded more liberties and gifted more opportunities. Ya think the club would have let No 71 draft pick Aaron Kite stay in Melbourne in 2008 like they did Patrick Dangerfield?
If you are drafted high it also means a big advantage in getting a 2nd chance at AFL level. sh*t, just looking at our club alone do you think we were able to trade away Fergus Watts & John Meesan based on their AFL play or the fact they were 1st round draftees? Do you think delisted players Darren Pfeiffer & James Sellar are given 2nd chances at other clubs for another other reason than they were first round draftees?
Daniel Gorringe survived 6 seasons in the AFL based purely on the fact he was a top 10 pick.
I disagree. If you prove yourself while you're at your AFL club, you get more opportunities.
Not even close to a hard-and-fast rule that higher draft picks get more opportunities and liberties by default. Plenty of examples of such
Gallucci, our first round pick in 2016, spent less years on our list as the guys drafted 51st (EH) and 75th (Davis) in the same draft, and as many years on our list as Poholke.
Rookie pick Charlie Cameron got almost as many AFL games in his first year as our first pick (Matt Crouch), while Knight didn't even play.
Hell, our top 2 pick, and arguably the most talented prospect to come into the club in years (Thilthorpe), was only our third 2020 draftee to make his debut this year
Sure, there's the occasional example of draftees being played earlier than they should be based on 'hype', but form once you get into the league, both in training and in reserves games, is what mostly counts
Yep, no one was ever trying argue against this point. Of course no-one cared that Swan and Gray were drafted sub-50, once they proved themselves to be quality playersI don't disagree with the fact that you can prove yourself regardless of draft position. Also -I don't think that draft position is viewed negatively once you have established yourself. Nobody cared that Dane Swan and Robbie Gray were pick 50.
Firstly, how can someone be 'rightly gifted' games? You're either gifted games, or you're rightly given gamesTerrible examples that work against your point.
Galluci was gifted 27 average games (rightly so) over the first three years on the list due to him being a first round draft pick. Davis/EH were both long term projects that combined for 21 games in those first three years. I will tell you right now that if Galluci was a pick in the 40's he wouldn't have played 27 games.
It's exactly the point. Charlie and Matt were drafted many draft positions apart, yet still made a similar amount of AFL appearances, based on performance merit, in their first year. Both proved themselves enough to be given early AFL experience. No 'high draftee' bias visible there?Charlie Cameron and Matt Crouch - I am not sure what the point is. Sure one was on the rookie list and the other was pick 23. Both played the same amount of games in their first year and turned into All Australians.
If being a high draft pick allows one to be 'afforded more liberties' and be 'gifted more opportunities', our highest draft pick ever would have played round 1, no? McAsey did. Jones did. Fogarty did. Milera did. Yet Thilthorpe had to wait a number of rounds, unlike some of our other 2020 drafteesNot sure you want to use Thilthorpe as the example here. Our highest draft pick played more games in his first season than 18 of the other 19* first round draft picks we selected since 2000. Its even more impressive considering he is 200cm and big boys notoriously take more time to adjust to AFL level. *The 19th is Brodie Smith who played the same amount of games (14).
Again, I get that some players have been gifted games based on their draft position in the past, but I would honestly like a bit more explanation on how it's so vitally important once you get into the league, because your point is still very unclearWell yeah - Your ability to play football is ultimately what counts in the end.
However - Draft stock does not mean diddly squat. It is important. It always has been and always will be.
Yep, no one was ever trying argue against this point. Of course no-one cared that Swan and Gray were drafted sub-50, once they proved themselves to be quality players
Firstly, how can someone be 'rightly gifted' games? You're either gifted games, or you're rightly given games
Secondly, Davis was a medium-height, reasonably well-performed, overage prospect that was taken as one of the last picks in the draft - barely the classic definition of 'long-term'. EH might have been more of a long-term project due to stature, but he's still spent two more years on an AFL list than Gallucci and Poholke - that's still being given more opportunity to succeed, is it not?
Thirdly, how is it relevant to make hypotheticals of Gallucci being taken in the 40's? Our recruitment team thought he was worthy of being taken at pick 16, and he didn't live up to expectations over his four years at the club - simple as that
It's exactly the point. Charlie and Matt were drafted many draft positions apart, yet still made a similar amount of AFL appearances, based on performance merit, in their first year. Both proved themselves enough to be given early AFL experience. No 'high draftee' bias visible there?
If being a high draft pick allows one to be 'afforded more liberties' and be 'gifted more opportunities', our highest draft pick ever would have played round 1, no? McAsey did. Jones did. Fogarty did. Milera did. Yet Thilthorpe had to wait a number of rounds, unlike some of our other 2020 draftees
Again, I get that some players have been gifted games based on their draft position in the past, but I would honestly like a bit more explanation on how it's so vitally important once you get into the league, because your point is still very unclear
Sure, there's the occasional example of draftees being played earlier than they should be based on 'hype', but form once you get into the league, both in training and in reserves games, is what mostly counts
No need to create false narratives, mateSo you are saying players have been gifted games based on their draft position in the past. But then you are saying that draft position is completely irrelevant once you are on an AFL list.
Only one of your two statements can be correct.
Krakouer can't have been on too much. He was one of the few players (possibly just him and Josh Fraser?) who went to the Suns that didn't earn their former club a first round compensation pick.
Now I'll agree this is true - many clubs seem to prefer to take an immediate second chance on players that were taken earlier in the draft, even if the draftee hasn't shown anything to suggest they'll succeed at the top levelSurely there's more 1st round picks who get a second chance at another club even without playing a single game at their original club
Than there are 3rd round picks who do the same