Which team out of Adelaide, North and Hawthorn has the better youth?

[Ligma]

OK CAN WE STOP I AM GETTING MESSAGES FROM MANY PEOPLE RN.

I AM TIRED PLZ STOP

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Don’t think I’m the obsessed one here Dommy

Yeah I love you xx

 

[Dewyyyyy]

OK CAN WE STOP I AM GETTING MESSAGES FROM MANY PEOPLE RN.

I AM TIRED PLZ STOP

 

[chopflop]

Dominic03 and Psicosis

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Dominic03 and Psicosis

I’m the real spidergoat

 

[Psicosis]

He couldn't disprove Cameron value is similar to Rankine, because the stats say Cameron was better when he left.
Without evidence all he has was his biased opinion attempting to win a pretty weak argument.

That's not even to mention the fact Cameron was contracted.

List managers take into consideration a bit more then stats when evaluating players. Not sure if this is difficult to comprehend?

Rankine is largely valued on potential, no doubt about that. But pointing to the stats of someone that wasn’t rated as high as Rankine was by the AFL public, is a meaningless exercise. It doesn’t mean that they have the same value.

 

[1990crow]

List managers take into consideration a bit more then stats when evaluating players. Not sure if this is difficult to comprehend?

Rankine is largely valued on potential, no doubt about that. But pointing to someone that wasn’t rated as high as Rankine was by the AFL public & pointing to stats, is a meaningless exercise. It doesn’t mean that they have the same value.

What's difficult to comprehend Cameron has gone on to be an elite small forward.
Something Izak may or may not do?
They are very similar, and Cameron had more runs on the board at the time of trade. And was contracted.

Meaningless exercise. Lol.
"Don't throw evidence at me because I don't like it"

 

[Psicosis]

What's difficult to comprehend Cameron has gone on to be an elite small forward.
Something Izak may or may not do?
They are very similar, and Cameron had more runs on the board at the time of trade. And was contracted.

Meaningless exercise. Lol.
"Don't throw evidence at me because I don't like it"

You’re arguing something that I don’t particularly care about, but simply disagree with.

I don’t think the Charlie Cameron trade has any bearing on the Rankine trade. They’re different players and Isaak is rated higher then Charlie was, regardless of stats. You don’t want to hear that, it’s fine.

 

[Soggy2112]

Well it does as it’s been used in multiple recent negotiations as a value point. I haven’t heard of “where they would be taken in a redraft” being used in a negotiation, perhaps it’s a south Australian thing.

Rankine has shown many of the same attributes that Cameron has, sure, however the common belief amongst many neutrals would be that Rankine has the higher ceiling and is capable of being better in nearly all of those attributes, then Charlie.

It’s a strange argument. You’re trying to validate why Rankine isn’t worth pick 4, whilst I disagree. He absolutely is worth that IMO, hence why you’re paying him 4 or 5 years at 850k.

Also this is unrelated to me an the Hawk nuffies beef, they have enough of their own cavalry on their knees.

Just saying it’s the common belief doesn’t make it so. The numbers show that they had very similar attributes, and suggest that Charlie’s performances to that point were better.

I do agree that Rankine has a higher ceiling than Charlie did. However, as I’ve said, Cameron was a proven consistent performer, he was a much less risky selection. There is still a lot of risk with Rankine, he’s only this year established himself as a clear best 22 player, he’s got injury worries, that risk brings his value down.

Provide for me a comparable player to Rankine who the club trading them received a top 5 pick for, go on, find one, then I’ll accept what you’re saying, because I can give you a lot of comparable players in the 8-12 range, which is where I value him. Hypothetically, if we win our last two games and our final pick ends up as pick 8 then I’d say we bite the bullet and send it to Gold Coast.

Your beef with the Hawks fans is relevant to you calling me biased, because you’ve made a lot of massively biased statements about North players.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Just saying it’s the common belief doesn’t make it so. The numbers show that they had very similar attributes, and suggest that Charlie’s performances to that point were better.

I do agree that Rankine has a higher ceiling than Charlie did. However, as I’ve said, Cameron was a proven consistent performer, he was a much less risky selection. There is still a lot of risk with Rankine, he’s only this year established himself as a clear best 22 player, he’s got injury worries, that risk brings his value down.

Provide for me a comparable player to Rankine who the club trading them received a top 5 pick for, go on, find one, then I’ll accept what you’re saying, because I can give you a lot of comparable players in the 8-12 range, which is where I value him. Hypothetically, if we win our last two games and our final pick ends up as pick 8 then I’d say we bite the bullet and send it to Gold Coast.

Your beef with the Hawks fans is relevant to you calling me biased, because you’ve made a lot of massively biased statements about North players.

I’ll chime in and say I do believe you’d be overpaying both in contract money and draft currency. But that’s what it takes to get him. Really that simple. In comparison to Cameron he’s always been best 22 at Gold Coast and has been very good this year with a clear elite ceiling.

 

[Soggy2112]

I’ll chime in and say I do believe you’d be overpaying both in contract money and draft currency. But that’s what it takes to get him. Really that simple. In comparison to Cameron he’s always been best 22 at Gold Coast and has been very good this year with a clear elite ceiling.

“That’s what it takes to get him”.

Wish that logic got applied when we traded players.

We lost Dangerfield for ******* pick 9.

 

[BloodRet]

Honestly north imo come to think of it

 

[Dewyyyyy]

“That’s what it takes to get him”.

Wish that logic got applied when we traded players.

We lost Dangerfield for ******* pick 9.

Overs lmao, Danger is a hack!

And I mean, he’s under contract isn’t he?

 

[Soggy2112]

Overs lmao, Danger is a hack!

And I mean, he’s under contract isn’t he?

Rankine or Dangerfield?

Either way they’re both are/were uncontracted.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Rankine or Dangerfield?

Either way they’re both are/were uncontracted.

Danger comment was a joke btw

And yeah I didn’t know, he’s wanting to leave then maybe you give up less but if he’s fine and doesn’t mind staying, you’d have to convince he with contract (he’d be getting a massive offer by the Suns) plus to please the suns who clearly value him.

 

[hk89]

I for one don't want to see the club sign Clarksons for the same reasons you have mentioned.

The North board right now is going nuts because they believe David King has a 20-year-old bigfooty account and is posting there.

What is he saying? Clarksons to North is as good as done, will be announced officially in coming days, etc.

And it seems like all of the North fans are happy about this, they seem to think Clarksons will solve our problems.

I think Clarksons would in fact become one of our biggest problems if he were head coach, especially if he were on a 3+ year deal.

Do not want.

Personally I think North should do what Hawthorn did when they first signed Clarkson. Look for a young coach with fresh ideas and some experience in a program that has won a recent AFL flag (his time at Port as assistant), and ideally has coached their own team at the next level under that (Clarko won an SANFL flag in 2001, and got them to the grand final the year after, had also coached Werribee in the VFL, and had seen how not to do it, as Tim Watson's assistant in 1999). Clarko was only around 37 when he got the Hawthorn gig.

Noble and Clarko are nearly the same age. Noble had some good experience, but he was hardly the 'fresh ideas' guy, and if anything had been stagnating in the system for a few years - still involved in footy departments, but no longer hands on coaching. He had won a reserves flag as coach, but had never been part of an AFL premiership coaching unit (AFAIK), and the reserves flag as coach was last century. I understand the temptation to go with a tried and tested coach in Clarko, especially when you've had a bad end to the last coach, but it often feels like arse covering IMO ("They can't hang us for hiring Clarko, the guy's a coaching legend".... It is a safe decision when a brave one should be made. I liked Carlton giving voss a second chance (although that seems to have been after Clarko said no, so perhaps not the best example). I'm sure there must be some other young coaches going around with similar resumes to what Clarko had in 2005, and I reckon that's the bloke North should go for right now. At this stage, I'd be looking to Clarko for mentoring roles for a younger coach rather than giving him the head job , but I doubt that's part of Clarko's plan right now.

I would be interested to see how Clarko goes in another job, if you look at the age of premiership winning coaches, he really would be one of the outliers if he can snag another one, especially at North who are likely at least 3-4 years away. If they give him a 6 year contract he'll be 60! Are there any older premiership coaches than Jeans and Malthouse (who I think were both 56?). If that's the oldest then Clarko will likely be setting a record for oldest coach ever if he can get Roos to a flag , given how much work is ahead of them.

 

[SSSSSS]

WTF is a Comben?

 

[hk89]

Dominic03 how do you feel about the Hawks and North only having 1 player in the 22under22 squad?

I'll chime in on that. North have only 1 player in the 22 and under squad because their kids are mostly s**t.

Hawthorn having only 1 is partly because of Clarko's recruiting drive. You have your best chance of being in that squad when you're closer to 22, and you've had a few years development under your belt. That's sitting around the 2017 and 2018 draft years when we got O'Meara and Wingard instead of young picks that would be eligible for the 22 and under team. It is no accident our only player in the squad was brought in as a mature age recruit via the mid season draft, as he slotted into that age group range for us. We've got some players that might make it in coming years from our more recent dips into the draft, but they are not developed enough yet to be considered, if it was 23 we might have had a few more (and North maybe 1 more).

 

[The acurate one]

Under 22 aye, I'd expect some moment in that considering we have a fair few with zero or limited exposure.

Will Phillips, JHF, Paul Curtis, Josh Goater, Charlie Comben, Flynn Perez are the ones I'd expect to make an impact on that squad over the next couple of seasons.
Of course most likely adding another pick #1 and a couple of PP's.

Life isn't that bad when you're putrid

 

[SSSSSS]

I'll chime in on that. North have only 1 player in the 22 and under squad because their kids are mostly s**t.

Hawthorn having only 1 is partly because of Clarko's recruiting drive. You have your best chance of being in that squad when you're closer to 22, and you've had a few years development under your belt. That's sitting around the 2017 and 2018 draft years when we got O'Meara and Wingard instead of young picks that would be eligible for the 22 and under team. It is no accident our only player in the squad was brought in as a mature age recruit via the mid season draft, as he slotted into that age group range for us. We've got some players that might make it in coming years from our more recent dips into the draft, but they are not developed enough yet to be considered, if it was 23 we might have had a few more (and North maybe 1 more).

We also give our players (especially in the Clarko era) a very long Box Hill apprenticeship.

This has changed with Mitchell.

 

[WilloTree]

WTF is a Comben?

Type of harvester.

 

[SSSSSS]

Type of harvester.

Potato?

 

[WWSD]

Two U22B22 for Adelaide. Time to close thread, we've got our answer.

Yes, but North Melbourne are still winning the poll!

 

[Holy Rioli]

My humble opinion is we've played this internally well with our list cuts etc.

The Hawks have won six more games than us, so well done you've beaten the..

* 18th placed side
*12th
*5th ( Tassie ?)
*15th
*11th
*17th
*18th
*11th

That is Brad Scott 101. I'd rather bottom out than finish like we did for ten years, beating ordinary sides for the majority of the time.

I am not suggesting you won't come good and you had a wonderful period over the last, well forever. I hate you but I do respect you.

My point was, glass houses and all.

Pretty sure Geelong are 1st and we beat them at the MCG with no ruck after quarter time. We've been right in games against Melbourne, Freo, Carlton and Collingwood as well and even had Sydney's measure for 3 quarters. Pretty piss poor argument on your behalf.

 

[mick500]

“That’s what it takes to get him”.

Wish that logic got applied when we traded players.

We lost Dangerfield for ******* pick 9.

We could of traded him with a year left on his contract before he could leave for free. That was our own stupid mismanagement. He was always leaving. Same as playing lever in the 2017 GF and the half time arguments it caused with Tex.