Rampaging Demons 1 Posted December 15, 2008 Posted December 15, 2008 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 5,912 Posted December 15, 2008 Posted December 15, 2008 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 Posted December 15, 2008 Posted December 15, 2008 He was held back by injury when he was on our rookie list last time
Bring-Back-Powell 15,578 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 dunno who you have been watching. Danny Hughes has great skills and I've always thought he was stiff to get delisted.
jacey 333 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 1,559 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 1,559 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 3,049 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 That's because we're not Carlton! Or Richmond for that matter!
mo64 5,912 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 68,976 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 16, 2008 Posted December 16, 2008 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 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 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 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 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
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.