Agreed. I think it's natural for fans to take a look at a fresh newbie and make an off the cuff comparison, more out of hope than anything else.

I think we see these predraft packages which are 3 minutes of a complete season "best of compilation" - so many draft picks packages we see are like trailers for comedy movies - I see the 30 second trailer on TV and wet myself at how funny it is - then I spend my hard earned and see it at the cinema and come out realising that the only funny parts of the whole freakin movie was the 30 second trailer I saw on TV.

(Fans that don't have the faintest..)

Whilst I tend to wait for the real bullets to be fired in the AFL before declaring a player a gun, you do understand that those guys were making judgements purely based on TAC footage taken in their last season of underage footy ?

I could make comparison on all those clips to current players - in fact if you see some of the draft analysis they actually have the comparison as to which current listed AFL players they are like - and not only do they compare them but the players the liken them to are all stars - like Pendlebury and Jonno Brown ! Obviously a large amount will not only not be like the stars they liken them to but wont make the grade at all.

Whilst I tend to wait for the real bullets to be fired in the AFL before declaring a player a gun, you do understand that those guys were making judgements purely based on TAC footage taken in their last season of underage footy ?

I could make comparison on all those clips to current players - in fact if you see some of the draft analysis they actually have the comparison as to which current listed AFL players they are like - and not only do they compare them but the players the liken them to are all stars - like Pendlebury and Jonno Brown ! Obviously a large amount will not only not be like the stars they liken them to but wont make the grade at all.

Always find this funny and the fans then think they are getting the next Judd or Ablett and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Considering the results of the previous comparisons...

I see similarities between Salem and a young Brent Grgic only a little softer.

Always find this funny and the fans then think they are getting the next Judd or Ablett and it couldn't be further from the truth.

I understand why the papers give the comparisons - so the uninitiated who don't get to watch TAC you get some indication of how they play, their style. But to expect that by seeing the name "Judd" next to your drafted player means thats what you will get is plainly ludicrous.

Whilst I tend to wait for the real bullets to be fired in the AFL before declaring a player a gun, you do understand that those guys were making judgements purely based on TAC footage taken in their last season of underage footy ?

I could make comparison on all those clips to current players - in fact if you see some of the draft analysis they actually have the comparison as to which current listed AFL players they are like - and not only do they compare them but the players the liken them to are all stars - like Pendlebury and Jonno Brown ! Obviously a large amount will not only not be like the stars they liken them to but wont make the grade at all.

I distinctly remember Morton being compared to Adam Goodes during his first season. He'll be 'our Adam Goodes'.

Gysberts first 3 or 4 games I remember reading the same thing however the comparison was Joel Corey.

That was on demonland. After AFL games. Not TAC cup games.

Gysberts' ability to attract the ball was fascinating as he was so slightly built, and I maintain that the opposition - (especially in that first game against Geelong) - gave him absolutely no respect or attention. His possessions and disposals were next to useless. He had zero hurt factor. He couldn't put on weight. Had terrible aerobic capacity so would blow up early in games, foot skills were average, not a goal kicker and marking ability was non-existent.

As for Morton, where do I begin... The bloke was given a free pass to 50 AFL games. Didn't have to earn one thanks to Dean Bailey's 'let's play the kids' mantra. I've never seen someone float around so aimlessly gathering the most useless possessions possible. And again, doing very little when he had the pill. Foot skills were terrible for someone who was claimed to be classy pre-draft. No contested ball winning ability, zero hurt factor, lacked intensity, avoided physical contact, didn't hurt the opposition with his skills, average mark, couldn't put on size.

All of these deficiencies seemed so obvious from seeing them play an AFL game only a handful of times, and there are plenty of people who'd agree.

However, there are of course certain supporters who believe 'numbers = gun'. The comparisons began after a handful of games in which these two players found it seemingly easy to gain possessions. It most certainly isn't so black and white.

Here's a good example. Greenwood for North. He is consistently in and out of the side, yet there have been a number of games in which he has had leather poisoning and because of that very reason, there a people on this forum who wanted him at our club. Because of few high possession games. Were they meaningful possessions? Did he hurt the opposition? Far more important questions in determining a players potential.

They're the same supporters who call players like Morton and Gysberts 'guns' from the get-go.

Edited May 1, 201411 yr by stevethemanjordan

The examples given were from TAC packages.

But why are you surprised that people talk up footballers after seeing them for 5 minutes. Morton did have a good first season but his deficiencies could be seen. Gysberts first three games were great and I was surprised he didnt go on with it - but apparently his attitude was very poor.

But again - people are always talking up footballers after seeing them for five minutes.

Here's another being talked up after playing a quarter of football

" In just over a quarter of footy, I have witnessed a coolness and belief in ability, a precise left foot, sound decision making, an intent and hardness around the footy, and most importantly in my eyes - a desire to perform sacrificial acts of desperation for the team."

The examples given were from TAC packages.

But why are you surprised that people talk up footballers after seeing them for 5 minutes. Morton did have a good first season but his deficiencies could be seen. Gysberts first three games were great and I was surprised he didnt go on with it - but apparently his attitude was very poor.

But again - people are always talking up footballers after seeing them for five minutes.

Here's another being talked up after playing a quarter of football

" In just over a quarter of footy, I have witnessed a coolness and belief in ability, a precise left foot, sound decision making, an intent and hardness around the footy, and most importantly in my eyes - a desire to perform sacrificial acts of desperation for the team."

I'm sure there were supporters using those examples without having seen Tac cup footage. Perhaps because of their physical similarities.

Yes people are always talking up players, I don't remember ever talking up either of those two. I was surprised by how much love they were getting from their first seasons as I've said.

I trust my own judgement nutbean. I play the game and have all my life so I'll back my own judgement and opinion of Salem. I think he'll be a fantastic player for us. He has weapons that neither Morton not Gysberts had. He has a terrific blend.

I'm not against talking up players. Players who clearly have ability and a number of attributes.

I'm sure there were supporters using those examples without having seen Tac cup footage. Perhaps because of their physical similarities.

Yes people are always talking up players, I don't remember ever talking up either of those two. I was surprised by how much love they were getting from their first seasons as I've said.

I trust my own judgement nutbean. I play the game and have all my life so I'll back my own judgement and opinion of Salem. I think he'll be a fantastic player for us. He has weapons that neither Morton not Gysberts had. He has a terrific blend.

I'm not against talking up players. Players who clearly have ability and a number of attributes.

I have a steadfast rule against talking up players now because we have been burned so many times by some many "false prophets". I will go as far as "I like what I see" and Salem certainly falls into that category. I actually liked what I saw with Gysberts but was reserved on Morton because whilst I liked his outside running, his timidness was apparent from the get-go.

I like what I see with Tyson as well but I do believe ( and this is not directed at you) that " XXX is going to be a gun" is way overplayed here and frankly has rarely turned out to be the case. I am now firmly in the " Ill let you know 50 games in" camp - players have usually declared their hands by then.

Edited May 1, 201411 yr by nutbean

I distinctly remember Morton being compared to Adam Goodes during his first season. He'll be 'our Adam Goodes'.

Gysberts first 3 or 4 games I remember reading the same thing however the comparison was Joel Corey.

That was on demonland. After AFL games. Not TAC cup games.

Gysberts' ability to attract the ball was fascinating as he was so slightly built, and I maintain that the opposition - (especially in that first game against Geelong) - gave him absolutely no respect or attention. His possessions and disposals were next to useless. He had zero hurt factor. He couldn't put on weight. Had terrible aerobic capacity so would blow up early in games, foot skills were average, not a goal kicker and marking ability was non-existent.

As for Morton, where do I begin... The bloke was given a free pass to 50 AFL games. Didn't have to earn one thanks to Dean Bailey's 'let's play the kids' mantra. I've never seen someone float around so aimlessly gathering the most useless possessions possible. And again, doing very little when he had the pill. Foot skills were terrible for someone who was claimed to be classy pre-draft. No contested ball winning ability, zero hurt factor, lacked intensity, avoided physical contact, didn't hurt the opposition with his skills, average mark, couldn't put on size.

All of these deficiencies seemed so obvious from seeing them play an AFL game only a handful of times, and there are plenty of people who'd agree.

However, there are of course certain supporters who believe 'numbers = gun'. The comparisons began after a handful of games in which these two players found it seemingly easy to gain possessions. It most certainly isn't so black and white.

Here's a good example. Greenwood for North. He is consistently in and out of the side, yet there have been a number of games in which he has had leather poisoning and because of that very reason, there a people on this forum who wanted him at our club. Because of few high possession games. Were they meaningful possessions? Did he hurt the opposition? Far more important questions in determining a players potential.

They're the same supporters who call players like Morton and Gysberts 'guns' from the get-go.

I think there is some serious hindsight involved here.

Morton walked in to games sure. But he was also a good on field runner in finding space to get the ball. I actually remember him showing up almost all of his lazy Daniher era team mates in 2008 by running to get those cheap possessions. It's actually still a problem we have with lack of midfield spread. Both N and M Jones are our most reliable, a lot of others fail.

I still think the main issue with Morton was not him getting picked but him not getting dropped or when he was dropped him not being required to work on his game. As for saying he was going to be our version of Goodes you only have to look back to us thrashing Sydney and them going head to head to show what his capacity might have been.

Greenwood. I was somewhat interested in him because he's fit, hard at it, good defensively (from what I've seen) and would suit the Roos game plan. Sure we lack quality in the midfield but above all we lacked quantity last year. Nath Jones was on his own pretty much. That's why we got Michie, Cross and Riley. Cross is obviously for 2 years max. The other 2 were cheap buys like Greenwood could've been and hopefully both get opportunities to show what they can do.

Either way back to the guys like Morton and Gysberts, the real issue was the lack of development. With no culture, pathway or expectation for fixing deficiencies how were they meant to do it?

But yes I agree Salem is a more likeable prospect as he seems really well rounded and with significant upside in the way the game is played. But I wont get too excited until I keep seeing more signs of player development.

I'll be pretty disappointed if he is sub again.

I expect he will be. Roos talked about how hard he was blowing at the end of the game, so it sounds like there is still a question over his fitness. I would expect him to be sub again for w couple of weeks while they see how his fitness levels hold up to the more intense game before they start him.

I distinctly remember Morton being compared to Adam Goodes during his first season. He'll be 'our Adam Goodes'.

Gysberts first 3 or 4 games I remember reading the same thing however the comparison was Joel Corey.

That was on demonland. After AFL games. Not TAC cup games.

Gysberts' ability to attract the ball was fascinating as he was so slightly built, and I maintain that the opposition - (especially in that first game against Geelong) - gave him absolutely no respect or attention. His possessions and disposals were next to useless. He had zero hurt factor. He couldn't put on weight. Had terrible aerobic capacity so would blow up early in games, foot skills were average, not a goal kicker and marking ability was non-existent.

As for Morton, where do I begin... The bloke was given a free pass to 50 AFL games. Didn't have to earn one thanks to Dean Bailey's 'let's play the kids' mantra. I've never seen someone float around so aimlessly gathering the most useless possessions possible. And again, doing very little when he had the pill. Foot skills were terrible for someone who was claimed to be classy pre-draft. No contested ball winning ability, zero hurt factor, lacked intensity, avoided physical contact, didn't hurt the opposition with his skills, average mark, couldn't put on size.

All of these deficiencies seemed so obvious from seeing them play an AFL game only a handful of times, and there are plenty of people who'd agree.

However, there are of course certain supporters who believe 'numbers = gun'. The comparisons began after a handful of games in which these two players found it seemingly easy to gain possessions. It most certainly isn't so black and white.

Here's a good example. Greenwood for North. He is consistently in and out of the side, yet there have been a number of games in which he has had leather poisoning and because of that very reason, there a people on this forum who wanted him at our club. Because of few high possession games. Were they meaningful possessions? Did he hurt the opposition? Far more important questions in determining a players potential.

They're the same supporters who call players like Morton and Gysberts 'guns' from the get-go.

and Chris Masten falls into that category, teams let him have plenty of ball because he rarely hurst the opposition

New posters need to push through the barriers - the barriers sometimes being a boys club.

This site has always been very tolerant in regards to free speech, that is what I've found anyway.

So there is no excuse for anyone not to voice their opinion.

Posters might hit a lot of resistance, but they need to push through that.

Sensible post Dinger. FMD if you are frightened of speaking your mind or being challenged on an anonymous forum then - you had better get over it.

This comment is why we are the laughing stock of the AFL.

BBo has been around longer than that mono. His attitude, and that of many others is why we are the laughingstock. Needing to explain this confirms my comment even more. Childish behaviour seems to be a prerequisite around here. I remember the good old days when we used to come here to discuss our Club and other football matters.

Just had a look through this thread. Did Stuie put you up to this Sambo? And then you recruited Autocol? Surely you couldn't have come up with such stupidity one your own?

It must be a joke - surely.

Anyway if you are fair dinkum having a crack at me, then I feel appropriately chastened and truly regretful. After all that soggy lettuce leaf attack really stung!

BTW Sambo could you please enlighten me about "the good old days" since you joined this august board on 25/7/13.

New posters need to push through the barriers - the barriers sometimes being a boys club.

This site has always been very tolerant in regards to free speech, that is what I've found anyway.

So there is no excuse for anyone not to voice their opinion.

Posters might hit a lot of resistance, but they need to push through that.

Sensible post Dinger. FMD if you are frightened of speaking your mind or being challenged on an anonymous forum then - you had better get over it.

HERE HERE, if new posters and new members to the forum are affected or reluctant to post due to US idiots who spend too much time on here, than i pity them, for we have no idea what we are talking about and are strange members of society.

That looks like my cousin song! Did you get his permission to post that clip?

That looks like my cousin song! Did you get his permission to post that clip?

nah bro, slip him a $5 and he/she/it/they will do whatever you want.

Hey, i just realised i hit my 2000th post speaking to your stupid "ass" about nothing MFC related.

Party time:

Is that Sambo and his twin or Sambo and his best friend (ie a mirror) ?

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/23707-lucas-cook/?hl=%2Blucas+%2Bcook

hells bells: "Personally looking at the footage, I thought he moved a little like J. Brown."

Maybe I'm just hopeful..."

ChaserJ:

"The Cook over Darling selection makes a lot of sense and BP clearly rated Cook a better fit ahead of guys like Watson and Luke Mitchell (who I liked). Anyone else think he plays a bit like Pavlich?"

That was only on the first page.

OMG - seriously ???

In response to Steve the man Jordan" post 281 (I pressed "quote" but it won't....what am I doing wrong?)

I seem to remember a game early in Morton's career, when he tagged Goodes, and beat him.?On the MCG, . Does anyone else recall this? I may be wrong. Perhaps that's why some people (like me), started getting optimistic about Cale.

(It's irrelevant to this thread, but I definitely remember Simon Godfrey, killing Goodes , and Goodes getting so frustrated he disgracefully crashed him in the back behind play.)

Like all Melbourne recruits, Cale had no luck with injury, not being able to do a pre season till at least his third year.

In response to Steve the man Jordan" post 281 (I pressed "quote" but it won't....what am I doing wrong?)

I seem to remember a game early in Morton's career, when he tagged Goodes, and beat him.?On the MCG, . Does anyone else recall this? I may be wrong. Perhaps that's why some people (like me), started getting optimistic about Cale.

We won the game . but Morton was about the only player on the ground to lose his matchup. Goodes kicked 4 goals from m memory and was the Swans best player

We won the game . but Morton was about the only player on the ground to lose his matchup. Goodes kicked 4 goals from m memory and was the Swans best player

To be fair though, he was far from disgraced.

OMG - seriously ???

Jesus that wasn't my most insightful post. Obviously I was just hopeful.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/23707-lucas-cook/?hl=%2Blucas+%2Bcook

ChaserJ:

"The Cook over Darling selection makes a lot of sense and BP clearly rated Cook a better fit ahead of guys like Watson and Luke Mitchell (who I liked). Anyone else think he plays a bit like Pavlich?"

Yeah…nah, not one of my better posts.

In my defence, that comment was based on the purely on the video clip, I didn't see much of the champs or TAC Cup that year. I was also referring to aspects of playing style not overall ability. And was hopeful that there was a good reason we took Cook ahead of where he was widely tipped to go. Oh wells.

From a playing point of view he had good skills and very good disposal for a tall. Unfortunately he didn’t have much by way of pace. Whilst Darling was the one with behavioural red flags, Cook (viewed as a safer KP pick) is the one who was unable to adapt to life as an AFL player.

Edited May 1, 201411 yr by ChaserJ

What if JKH missed that goal? I wonder what the Game Day thread would have contained in the seconds after that miss and Dawes' reaction to the miss?

Some of Demonland's finest work I would wager.

lol... The good old "what if"... Haven't heard that here before...