WELCOME BACK TO DEMONLAND - DANNY HUGHES

[Pinball Wizard 313]

Last rookie pick for us.

[Rampaging Demons 1]

he has already spent time on our rookie list before?

i am not sure about him - has not shown much at either levels of the game but.....

[mo64 5,853]

he has already spent time on our rookie list before?

i am not sure about him - has not shown much at either levels of the game but.....

Bit harsh. He was out injured for long periods.

I thought he was a pretty promising player, though I'm not sure of his positional fit in the AFL.

[Spaghetti 264]

He was held back by injury when he was on our rookie list last time

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,777]

If we're going down the path of mature age, why wouldn't have we selected Greg Bentley (who Carlton picked up after us). Best player available at that age and Bailey rates him from his Port days.

[Rampaging Demons 1]

harsh?

we have gone down the youth path and then recruit danny hughes?

like to see him prove me wrong but in his time as rookie and from sandy days, did not work hard enough going the other way and did not think that his skills were up to it...

[hoopla 418]

Don't understand this.

Not young, not tall...waste of a pick

Someone tell me that we had a legal obligation to him after stuffing up his delisting in 2007. Why else would we take him?

[Freak 100]

dunno who you have been watching. Danny Hughes has great skills and I've always thought he was stiff to get delisted.

[jacey 333]

Bailey rates him from his Port days.

Hard to believe considering we overlooked him 120 odd times.

Daniel Hughes has excellent hands. What is he 20-21. Hardly over the hill.

[45HG 1,539]

We recruited Bail, who is 20, why not Hughes?

I've often heard pretty good things about him so you can't be that dissapointed. To claim it's a surprise we didn't get Bentley when Bailey rates him is absurd. If he rated him, we'd have picked him.

[hoopla 418]

22-23 at least and not big enough to get his hands on the ball. Has a spectacular leap - but it takes him too long to regain his feet and he is not a reliable kick.

Struggled to get a regular senior game at Sandy even when he was fit.

[kryton 0]

22-23 at least and not big enough to get his hands on the ball. Has a spectacular leap - but it takes him too long to regain his feet and he is not a reliable kick.

Struggled to get a regular senior game at Sandy even when he was fit.

Yet Melbourne who will have seen heaps of the young fella choose to relist him. Surely they have seen sufficient to know if he can make the grade or not with full knowledge of his recent injury history. I suspect Melbourne have a better idea than most of us.

[montasaurus 0]

Yet Melbourne who will have seen heaps of the young fella choose to relist him. Surely they have seen sufficient to know if he can make the grade or not with full knowledge of his recent injury history. I suspect Melbourne have a better idea than most of us.

I agree with this, surely this is probably the least speculative pick. Hopefully takes the next step!

[hoopla 418]

I agree with this, surely this is probably the least speculative pick. Hopefully takes the next step!

-----

I guess it is the "least speculative pick". But while there is a smaller downside - there is also a smaller upside.

They know him well enough not to have put him on the primary list. There is an argument to say that the rookie list should be speculative.

( Seriously, I know there was some controversy about our obligation to him in 2007)

[Bails 0]

MFC promised Hughes they would put him back on the list in some capacity when they off loaded him after his injury interrupted first campaign.

I think you will find that the MFC (particularly Bailey) are not big on being seen as dishonest, disrespectful, and a pack of liars!

Hence Hughes being the last player put on our list.

[hoopla 418]

Thanks for that , Goose, that explains it.

In a pure football sense a wasted pick - but for the fabric of the club the right call

[45HG 1,539]

I think you will find that the MFC (particularly Bailey) are not big on being seen as dishonest, disrespectful, and a pack of liars!

That's because we're not Carlton!

[H_T 3,043]

That's because we're not Carlton!

Or Richmond for that matter!

[mo64 5,853]

MFC promised Hughes they would put him back on the list in some capacity when they off loaded him after his injury interrupted first campaign.

I think you will find that the MFC (particularly Bailey) are not big on being seen as dishonest, disrespectful, and a pack of liars!

Hence Hughes being the last player put on our list.

I hope this isn't the reason why we've rookied him. If it is, we've totally lost the plot. We are a sporting club that's supposed to aspire to be the best, not a charity organization.

[montasaurus 0]

I hope this isn't the reason why we've rookied him. If it is, we've totally lost the plot. We are a sporting club that's supposed to aspire to be the best, not a charity organization.

No way these days would a club take a player who can't play because its the right thing to do.

He is a rookie and now has a 2nd chance. The club would have seen something in the first place right?

[Jaded No More 68,867]

What have we got to lose?

The chances of getting anyone half decent with your last rookie pick are so slim. At least with Hughes the club knows a fair bit about him.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

i am not sure about him - has not shown much at either levels of the game but.....

Kicked four goals in a NAB match didn't he?

The guy has the bear bones to make it at AFL level skill wise. His body was never anywhere near where it needed to be a couple of years ago.

He'll go ok... I don't know that he has a HUGE future in the AFL, but I reckon he could easily pick up a few games this year, injuries allowing.

[hoopla 418]

Kicked four goals in a NAB match didn't he?

The guy has the bear bones to make it at AFL level skill wise. His body was never anywhere near where it needed to be a couple of years ago.

He'll go ok... I don't know that he has a HUGE future in the AFL, but I reckon he could easily pick up a few games this year, injuries allowing.

----------------

This is probably the most positive you could reasonably be about this selection.

I don't think there is enough upside with him to have warranted a pick. Better to have gone for Shepheard,Bock,Browne or Gaertner - all tall kids who might develop in the long-term..

As to honoring a promise in 2007? What if the AFLPA had gotten into the act...we need to be able to demonstrate to all our players that they can trust us. If that's what got him over the line,I'll accept it. Otherwise he is a disappointing selection

[Adzman 2,154]

I am just going to come out and say this. I liked Danny Hughes the first time around, but sensed there was something a bit off about his game. If it were injuries, he could turn out to be a ripper now that he is fit. If not, at least we went down that path to see what was there.

He might really go hard, as this is his last chance to make it as a professional footballer.

Good Luck to him.

[Yencks 8]

No way these days would a club take a player who can't play because its the right thing to do.

He is a rookie and now has a 2nd chance. The club would have seen something in the first place right?

We were obliged to take him so no, not neccesarily