Who has the worst...

[go you pups]

Defence: Brisbane (young developing KPPs with no mediums/smalls of any note helping out, will get better in time but need to find a couple of smaller guys to help the talls and offer quality rebound)
Midfield: Carlton (Cripps then daylight, Murphy and Gibbs are soft while Curnow is honest but just a role player, massive lack of spread hurts them)
Rucks: Bulldogs (lol)
Attack: Carlton (they were all traded)
Youth: Geelong/North (most of Geelongs "youth" are 24-25 now, Norths are mainly unproven so would probably improve, but outside of Brown and McDonald not much else knocking the door down right now)
Coach: Richmond

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Why are people bothering with you, you've just outed yourself as a flog. Cripps has a club B&F

Jesus, learn to read.
I never even mentioned Cripps.

Richo has just spent the last page arguing that Hawthorn youngsters who've played senior football have proven nothing, and then he mentions Weitering, Curnow, and McKay.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

Jesus, learn to read.
I never even mentioned Cripps.

Richo has just spent the last page arguing that Hawthorn youngsters who've played senior football have proven nothing, and then he mentions Weitering, Curnow, and McKay.

Apologies
Cripps is 20 he was in the quote you made, you weren't at all specific in skipping over him. Pick another team Carlton has better U 23s just from his inclusion never mind their draft picks he made his point in the initial players who are keepers.

 

[go you pups]

Lol at people bagging Essendon's youth

They'll be ok with Daniher, Z Merrett, Langford, Laverde etc, while Edwards looked ok too and Heppell is a star imo.

They're the opposite to Brisbane with smalls imo though, Essendon have a lot of solid smaller defenders but not much damaging smalls/mediums up forward, whereas Brisbane are loaded up forward with smalls but are not great down back.

 

[NLC78]

Pretty obvious atm carlton and brisbane are the worst ...
But under 23 melbourne are the worst after carlton and brisbane.thats the real story.

 

[go you pups]

Pretty obvious atm carlton and brisbane are the worst ...
But under 23 melbourne are the worst after carlton and brisbane.thats the real story.

2012-13 Melbourne yes

2015-16 Melbourne no

Hogan, Brayshaw, Tyson, Viney, T McDonald, Salem etc go ok and are all 23 or under with quite a few unknown quantities to still be unleashed. Their recruiting has massively improved since the 2012 Toumpas/Dawes debacle imo.

 

[beta_condition]

Why are people bothering with you, you've just outed yourself as a flog. Cripps has a club B&F

"Carlton players who have barely pulled on a training top" Quite obviously he was referring to the draftees... really trying to look for things that aren't there huh


Not sure why people are referring to youth as "under 23" just due to the op, if youre going to argue about youth as a whole you have to include 24-25 age bracket since the majority of footballers don't peak until 26. Could easily say Hawthorn have the worst under 23 group of players with only 2 established players but i'd hardly so we have the worse youth.

 

[NLC78]

Viney? Overated
Brayshaw? Calm down one year city boy
Tyson?? Serious??

Hogan and macdonald only 2 showing wxceptional talent. Uuuummmm need at least 15 to win a flag and at least 5 not to be the worst in the comp. weller smashed viney last year no one talks of weller
Melbourne are crap. We smashed em by 7 goals in the wet and we are babies

 

[NLC78]

I should add weiderman is a joke people in the know KNOW this.
They are lacking on avery line. Dawes and limimba cross and dunn??? Come on thats terrible. They are soft and jones who is awesome will be too old by the time
They rebuild.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Viney? Overated
Brayshaw? Calm down one year city boy
Tyson?? Serious??

Hogan and macdonald only 2 showing wxceptional talent. Uuuummmm need at least 15 to win a flag and at least 5 not to be the worst in the comp. weller smashed viney last year no one talks of weller
Melbourne are crap. We smashed em by 7 goals in the wet and we are babies

You need a bex and a lie down. The Dees have finally got some good youth into the club.

Viney overrated. Wow just wow.

Bradshaw, Tyson, Salem, Hogan, McDonald, Petracca is a good starting point and they have McCartney as a development coach who laid the framework at Geelong then got the young Pups started and taught them the right way.

 

[Richo83]

Litherland certainly has.

Litherland is 23. And again, his form, both at VFL and AFL level has been patchy.

Well Hawthorn have Langford too, but he doesn't quite fit into this arbitrary 'u23' ruling that the thread is running with.

It has to be cut off eventually. Langford is 23 years and five months old, it feels unfair to compare him to 18 year olds. If we're going to fudge with age limits then it will also help other clubs as well.

Anyway, Hartung is capable of playing both in time. Breust was once a forward pocket, who's transitioned into a part time mid who wins his own ball.

I think it's silly to put a ceiling on someone in a team that has shown how well they've been able to get players to play different roles and develop new sides to their game.

You've literally plucked a random Hawthorn player to somehow prove that Hartung can transition (it doesn't prove it, but anyway). Hartung can run, he can also rack up the outside ball. But he's never been a big inside player, either at junior, VFL or AFL level. Maybe he develops an inside game, but at the moment, evidence suggests he doesn't.

Of course they've showed more, he's struggled with hamstrings at GWS and then had to learn how to play the Hawthorn way at Box Hill for most of 2015.

Oh every young player has to learn a bunch of things. The excuse list is getting longer.

Agree to disagree.

I've seen kids at VFL level who had not yet debuted who showed all the right traits to play AFL, and have since won multiple flags.

I don't necessarily think a kid has to play some magical number of games at AFL level in order to know whether he has a future or not.

VFL level is often a pretty poor test of whether a player will make it. And sure, there's no magical marker, but I really think it's more than three.

So you spend time telling me that Hartung, Howe, Litherland and whoever else who have actually played senior football have proven nothing, but then you rattle off a bunch of Carlton players who have barely pulled on a training top.

Interesting.

BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHER DRAFT PICKS AND HISTORICALLY, THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS

I've said that a number of times, Jesus Christ. There's a number one pick in there. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

By the way, it's not only that they haven't proven anything, it's also that they're less likely to be stars compared to say very high draft picks. And it's not just unproven picks as I said before, Cripps and Docherty are better players than any of Hawthorn's kids. So Carlton have you covered in terms of likely potential as well as exposed form. They have a number one draft pick and arguably one of the best young midfielders in the league. You have neither of those.

 

[NLC78]

I promise you melbourne will be a finals side at best behind saints dogs and others in the 2020s. No soul. Soft. They havent traded for balance leadership or exceptional skill.
Viney whats he done?? its the name that has you all flustered. Jones brayshaw maybe and the two keys. But you need 5 good keys to be good. Frost? Ha more athlete than footballer. Wrong melbourne. Wrong.
Garland and dunn??? For real?

 

[go you pups]

You need a bex and a lie down. The Dees have finally got some good youth into the club.

Viney overrated. Wow just wow.

Bradshaw, Tyson, Salem, Hogan, McDonald, Petracca is a good starting point and they have McCartney as a development coach who laid the framework at Geelong then got the young Pups started and thought them the right way.

Melbourne so far have shown they will have more future A graders than St Kilda, Gawn will be a jet also, he was dominating games late in the season. I have them down for a middle 6 finish next season as they are slowly getting players into the right age group and don't have too many liabilities except Dawes, Watts and Lumumba who lack consistency.

St Kilda are developing into a North MK2 pretty much, honest B/C graders in midfield or on the flanks, but not much X Factor except Steven and Billings and they have one of the smaller midfields in the league with most of their mids being 175-183cm, I can see them being bullied by bigger/stronger midfields potentially as that is the way the game is headed towards currently.

They also are relying on a large number of older players to get them over the line most weeks in key posts, Dempster/Fisher down back as the number 1/2 defender, Montagna in the guts and Riewoldt up forward. Carlisle will help down back but the transition is still in progress.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Litherland is 23. And again, his form, both at VFL and AFL level has been patchy.



It has to be cut off eventually. Langford is 23 years and five months old, it feels unfair to compare him to 18 year olds. If we're going to fudge with age limits then it will also help other clubs as well.





You've literally plucked a random Hawthorn player to somehow prove that Hartung can transition (it doesn't prove it, but anyway). Hartung can run, he can also rack up the outside ball. But he's never been a big inside player, either at junior, VFL or AFL level. Maybe he develops an inside game, but at the moment, evidence suggests he doesn't.



Oh every young player has to learn a bunch of things. The excuse list is getting longer.



VFL level is often a pretty poor test of whether a player will make it. And sure, there's no magical marker, but I really think it's more than three.



BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHER DRAFT PICKS AND HISTORICALLY, THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS

I've said that a number of times, Jesus Christ. There's a number one pick in there. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

By the way, it's not only that they haven't proven anything, it's also that they're less likely to be stars compared to say very high draft picks. And it's not just unproven picks as I said before, Cripps and Docherty are better players than any of Hawthorn's kids. So Carlton have you covered in terms of likely potential as well as exposed form. They have a number one draft pick and arguably one of the best young midfielders in the league. You have neither of those.

So what you're saying is that players are unproven unless they are high draft picks?

Then you can assume they're going to be really good even in spite of form.


Richie Tambling likes that sort of thinking.

Maybe I can start talking about how good Lovell and Burton are going to be, seeing as they were first rounders, and are in a much brighter development program....but I guess you'd say that they weren't taken high enough to fall into the 'will definitely be good players' region, eh?

Langford was only mentioned because you were making out like Hill and Hartung are the only young mids on our list.

And btw, you wanted to compare O'Rourke to players who have been playing senior football, which I said was silly....then you say I'm making excuses for him when I say he's hardly played a senior game for 3 years so it's obvious they'll have shown more.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

"Carlton players who have barely pulled on a training top" Quite obviously he was referring to the draftees... really trying to look for things that aren't there huh

He replied to the trail off of the argument without bolding it or specifying in a quote that included Cripps.
I've already apologised to his reply.

 

[beta_condition]

BECAUSE THEY'RE HIGHER DRAFT PICKS AND HISTORICALLY, THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS

I've said that a number of times, Jesus Christ. There's a number one pick in there. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

Love you can't have it both ways, so what if they were a high draft pick I guess that means Burton is instantly a star since he was rated in the top 5, once you've been drafted you equal to any other player picked up and that includeds rookies, "historically" (boy how do you love that term) The best player from a draft wont be in the top 4 picks.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Pretty obvious atm carlton and brisbane are the worst ...
But under 23 melbourne are the worst after carlton and brisbane.thats the real story.

No, what that is is utter rubbish. This isn't the Bay.

 

[Richo83]

So what you're saying is that players are unproven unless they are high draft picks?

1. Higher picks are more likely to succeed than lower picks.
2. Carlton has more higher picks.
3. They also have players who have played better and are considered (at least by me) to be better prospects.
4. You have a number of lowish picks who haven't played many games.

Then you can assume they're going to be really good even in spite of form.

I think you assume that I'm pretty dense, but I'm really not. But I would take Carlton's u-23 list based on output and potential.

Richie Tambling likes that sort of thinking.

He's an outlier. It's like claiming that because Tom Brady was picked in the 200s, that you don't need to spend high draft picks on quarterbacks. Generally though, you do.

Maybe I can start talking about how good Lovell and Burton are going to be, seeing as they were first rounders, and are in a much brighter development program....but I guess you'd say that they weren't taken high enough to fall into the 'will definitely be good players' region, eh?

They were picked later. But sure, add two players from a draft where Carlton picked four first rounders.

Langford was only mentioned because you were making out like Hill and Hartung are the only young mids on our list.

I never said that. And you're mentioning Langford because you want to because it makes your argument better.

And btw, you wanted to compare O'Rourke to players who have been playing senior football, which I said was silly....then you say I'm making excuses for him when I say he's hardly played a senior game for 3 years so it's obvious they'll have shown more.

O'Rourke has been playing football at VFL and AFL level. He just hasn't been performing as well as the guys I mentioned. You're quibbling at every turn. I mean seriously, if Hawthorn were offered Macrae, Wines or Stringer for O'Rourke right now, they'd take it in a heartbeat.

Love you can't have it both ways, so what if they were a high draft pick I guess that means Burton is instantly a star since he was rated in the top 5, once you've been drafted you equal to any other player picked up and that includeds rookies, "historically" (boy how do you love that term) The best player from a draft wont be in the top 4 picks.

Historically, (yeah, I like the word, it refers to like history and evidence and stuff) the higher the pick, the more likely they are to be good players, have longer careers etc. And every team ranks players differently so this "rated top five" business doesn't wash, either they're picked high or they're not. Cold hard facts tell us that players picked in the top 10 play more games, play better than later picks. I don't know how many times I can say this.

 

[Pugz89]

Viney? Overated
Brayshaw? Calm down one year city boy
Tyson?? Serious??

Hogan and macdonald only 2 showing wxceptional talent. Uuuummmm need at least 15 to win a flag and at least 5 not to be the worst in the comp. weller smashed viney last year no one talks of weller
Melbourne are crap. We smashed em by 7 goals in the wet and we are babies

Average age of your top 10 in club B&F is 27. Hardly babies.

 

[scott_the_man]

Pretty obvious atm carlton and brisbane are the worst ...
But under 23 melbourne are the worst after carlton and brisbane.thats the real story.

Are you saying Brisbane have the 3rd worst u23 talent on the comp? Or have I misunderstood you?
Brisbane would be right up there with the best in terms of u23 talent: Taylor, Mayes, Mcstay, Clarke, Freeman, Andrews, Gardiner, Cutler, Robertson, Jansen, Mcgrath, Paparone, Close, Dawson. And that's not including the 6 highly rated draftees from this year

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

1. Higher picks are more likely to succeed than lower picks.
2. Carlton has more higher picks.
3. They also have players who have played better and are considered (at least by me) to be better prospects.
4. You have a number of lowish picks who haven't played many games.

Carlton have Cripps. I'll give them that.
Docherty, I can't really get your excitement about, as he's just a player.
Two players who we could say are proven....unless we follow your bending of your own rules.

I think you assume that I'm pretty dense, but I'm really not. But I would take Carlton's u-23 list based on output and potential.

I don't assume your dense at all, I just think you've got it wrong rating Carltons U23 as better than Hawthorn's on the basis that they've had more high picks.
Carlton have struggled for years, and have had numerous first rounders who've not come on.

They were picked later. But sure, add two players from a draft where Carlton picked four first rounders.

No, I don't want to add them because they've barely even started at the club, and that's the point.

You want to say Carlton have the better kids because first rounders are more likely to be better players, but that's not always the case.

Richmond fans should recognize that not all first rounders are going to flourish, especially at clubs who are having all sorts of off field issues. Just look at all the first rounders Melbourne have struggled with over the years.

I never said that. And you're mentioning Langford because you want to because it makes your argument better.

You said that most clubs have a young midfielder who can play inside and out, while stating that Hill and Hartung can only play outside. That's why Langford was mentioned.

O'Rourke has been playing football at VFL and AFL level. He just hasn't been performing as well as the guys I mentioned. You're quibbling at every turn. I mean seriously, if Hawthorn were offered Macrae, Wines or Stringer for O'Rourke right now, they'd take it in a heartbeat.

Of course they would, but you're still missing the point. I don't think O'Rourke is proven, and I know that he has been told he has to work on a number of things before he'll play senior games.

Historically, (yeah, I like the word, it refers to like history and evidence and stuff) the higher the pick, the more likely they are to be good players, have longer careers etc. And every team ranks players differently so this "rated top five" business doesn't wash, either they're picked high or they're not. Cold hard facts tell us that players picked in the top 10 play more games, play better than later picks. I don't know how many times I can say this.

Cold hard facts tell us that top 10 picks also have at least one failure amongst them almost every year, so it's best to wait and see who that player might be.

 

[CarnDaTigg's]

Defenders - Carlton. Weitering is a start, but it is exactly that.
Midfielders (Ruck-man inc) - Goal Coast. After GAJ it drops significantly, and we all saw it last year.
Forwards - Carlton easily.
Coach - Gold Coast. No idea why they brought Eade back, but happy to wait and see.
Young talent (Under 23) - North.

No... Just no. Prestia, swallow, Omeara and Hall are all B grade minimum add them to gaz and they aren't even bottom 6. Essendon, Melbourne, St Kilda, Carlton and Brisbane are far worse

 

[Infra Ted]

I'm not and I'm not surprised...

As always it's the minority who ruin it for the rest who I'm sure aren't that way at all.

LOL

 

[Art Vandelay_]

LOL

I'm only just warming up with you lot.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Are you saying Brisbane have the 3rd worst u23 talent on the comp? Or have I misunderstood you?

Yes, you've misunderstood him. He was saying it's the 2nd worst and that Melbourne's is 3rd!