Not sure about Hutton, name rings a bell but can't remember much off him. I went for Clive given the fact that he only played about 100-150 games (you'd expect a No.1 pick to be a 200 game player) and is probably the most inconsistent of the lot. He was a very talented athlete (strong, fast, could boot the ball a mile), but most of the No.1s are, but he could never really grasp the tactical side of footy, probably due to his less than healthy mental capacity.
Banfield is probably the opposite of Clive, the least naturally talented of the bunch, he used to have speed, but mainly relied on hard work to get to where he is, and to claim that a 200+ game player is a dud is highly unfair. Fraser is a good solid player who will probably play 200 games for the Pies, but will never be the superstar he was expected to be. He will be in the same category as Banfield.
The last 4 are still to young to judge, but I'm sure all will be very good players. The standouts are Riewolt, Gardiner and White, 2 are AA players (I know Gaspar is as well, but he has really slipped since then), Riewolt will eventually be AA, and all have continued to have succcessful careers to be amongst, if not the best at their respective positions.
Banfield is probably the opposite of Clive, the least naturally talented of the bunch, he used to have speed, but mainly relied on hard work to get to where he is, and to claim that a 200+ game player is a dud is highly unfair. Fraser is a good solid player who will probably play 200 games for the Pies, but will never be the superstar he was expected to be. He will be in the same category as Banfield.
The last 4 are still to young to judge, but I'm sure all will be very good players. The standouts are Riewolt, Gardiner and White, 2 are AA players (I know Gaspar is as well, but he has really slipped since then), Riewolt will eventually be AA, and all have continued to have succcessful careers to be amongst, if not the best at their respective positions.
