Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Sainternist wrote:It was a pragmatic decision to draft Paddy. Why is this debate still going?
whether it was pragmatic or not, it can still be a bad decision.
If Petracca is a start and Paddy striuggles, then it is a bad decision. Simple as that.
And it is not as though Petracca came from nowhere. Essentially every recruiter had him as no. 1
GWS wanted to give up 2 early first rounders (4+7) for the chance to draft Petracca + getting a second rounder (21) back.
That is the type of currency that gets big name players.
We knocked them back and then did not even take Petracca!
So.. of course the debate is still going. In two years we will likley know enough to end the debate, the problem is that it may well end in a clear defeat for our recruiters.
Sainternist wrote:It was a pragmatic decision to draft Paddy. Why is this debate still going?
whether it was pragmatic or not, it can still be a bad decision.
If Petracca is a start and Paddy striuggles, then it is a bad decision. Simple as that.
And it is not as though Petracca came from nowhere. Essentially every recruiter had him as no. 1
GWS wanted to give up 2 early first rounders (4+7) for the chance to draft Petracca + getting a second rounder (21) back.
That is the type of currency that gets big name players.
We knocked them back and then did not even take Petracca!
So.. of course the debate is still going. In two years we will likley know enough to end the debate, the problem is that it may well end in a clear defeat for our recruiters.
Well, hopefully it won't haunt us like the Portland Trail Blazers after they overlooked Michael Jordan in the 1984 NBA draft for pragmatic reasons in needing a Center instead of a Shooting guard.
Curb your enthusiasm - you’re a St.Kilda supporter!!
takeaway wrote:Petracca is a good player, better forward than mid field. Buckley did not really put a good defender matchup on him when he went forward today.
IMO he is nothing special & certainly not a dangerfield or ablett, never will be near it.
Proficient midfielders are everywhere, but good target forwards are very hard to find, and Paddy will be one.
Absolutely the right decision to draft Paddy.
That is your "expert" opinion on Petracca, is it? Nice early call. He's in his third year, like Paddy, has had a year off with injury and is impacting games. Going on the available evidence and form displayed so far, it is a little difficult to support your assertions. Petracca is influencing games and has years of improvement and development left in him. He already shows real evidence of being a future star.
Paddy hasn't even kicked three in a game yet. Some have been creaming themselves because he's kicked a goal in meaningless junk time of two games when we've already been badly beaten. Up to your usual standard. One could be forgiven for believing you are a troll.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
I think Paddy is fully aware that the footballing experts are writing him off. But do so at your peril. Whether he went 1,2 or 3 doesn't make him a better or worse footballer. He obviously has undoubted talent that at this stage he hasn't tapped into. There will come a time soon, when his belief catches up with his talent and he will show the stuff he is made of. Unfortunately at this stage he looks ordinary which is impacting the perception of his ability.
Sainternist wrote:It was a pragmatic decision to draft Paddy. Why is this debate still going?
whether it was pragmatic or not, it can still be a bad decision.
If Petracca is a start and Paddy striuggles, then it is a bad decision. Simple as that.
And it is not as though Petracca came from nowhere. Essentially every recruiter had him as no. 1
GWS wanted to give up 2 early first rounders (4+7) for the chance to draft Petracca + getting a second rounder (21) back.
That is the type of currency that gets big name players.
We knocked them back and then did not even take Petracca!
So.. of course the debate is still going. In two years we will likley know enough to end the debate, the problem is that it may well end in a clear defeat for our recruiters.
Again, I'll ask the question - had we picked Petracca with pick 1 would the Dees have taken Paddy with pick 2?
ie was Paddy a clear top 2 pick??
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
takeaway wrote:Petracca is a good player, better forward than mid field. Buckley did not really put a good defender matchup on him when he went forward today.
IMO he is nothing special & certainly not a dangerfield or ablett, never will be near it.
Proficient midfielders are everywhere, but good target forwards are very hard to find, and Paddy will be one.
Absolutely the right decision to draft Paddy.
That is your "expert" opinion on Petracca, is it? Nice early call. He's in his third year, like Paddy, has had a year off with injury and is impacting games. Going on the available evidence and form displayed so far, it is a little difficult to support your assertions. Petracca is influencing games and has years of improvement and development left in him. He already shows real evidence of being a future star.
Paddy hasn't even kicked three in a game yet. Some have been creaming themselves because he's kicked a goal in meaningless junk time of two games when we've already been badly beaten. Up to your usual standard. One could be forgiven for believing you are a troll.
There are plenty of early calls from people with no patience that Paddy is no good, even though big forwards take a while. My early call is that he will be a prime target on the forward line for years to come, when as always there will be a few teams crying out for a decent forward. Having said that, he will be no plugger, the days of consistent bags of goals has gone, and a good forward today occasionally gets a bag but more often his job is to be a target and get the ball down to the smalls.
My early call on Petracca - see my previous comments. Plenty of other mid types drafted around Petracca's time would be in my team before him
Early calls only - come back to this in say 5 years
Sainternist wrote:It was a pragmatic decision to draft Paddy. Why is this debate still going?
whether it was pragmatic or not, it can still be a bad decision.
If Petracca is a start and Paddy striuggles, then it is a bad decision. Simple as that.
And it is not as though Petracca came from nowhere. Essentially every recruiter had him as no. 1
GWS wanted to give up 2 early first rounders (4+7) for the chance to draft Petracca + getting a second rounder (21) back.
That is the type of currency that gets big name players.
We knocked them back and then did not even take Petracca!
So.. of course the debate is still going. In two years we will likley know enough to end the debate, the problem is that it may well end in a clear defeat for our recruiters.
Again, I'll ask the question - had we picked Petracca with pick 1 would the Dees have taken Paddy with pick 2?
Sainternist wrote:It was a pragmatic decision to draft Paddy. Why is this debate still going?
whether it was pragmatic or not, it can still be a bad decision.
If Petracca is a start and Paddy striuggles, then it is a bad decision. Simple as that.
And it is not as though Petracca came from nowhere. Essentially every recruiter had him as no. 1
GWS wanted to give up 2 early first rounders (4+7) for the chance to draft Petracca + getting a second rounder (21) back.
That is the type of currency that gets big name players.
We knocked them back and then did not even take Petracca!
So.. of course the debate is still going. In two years we will likley know enough to end the debate, the problem is that it may well end in a clear defeat for our recruiters.
Again, I'll ask the question - had we picked Petracca with pick 1 would the Dees have taken Paddy with pick 2?
ie was Paddy a clear top 2 pick??
probably
From my memory, he was clearly a top 3 pick. The dees may have taken Brayshaw at 2 then paddy at 3, as they were pretty committed to Brayshaw all year and loved the way he played, but it was viewed as those 3 clearly at the top. The dees were in a no lose position at 2 and 3, either getting 2 potential gun mids or another forward to team with Hogan.
It would have been interesting if Darcy Moore was free to be selected as he was viewed as the forward of the draft by a few.
Didn't Butters want us to recruit Judd way back, but we baulked due to his bad shoulders? Instead Judd went on to become an elite premiership mid. What's done is done, we have Paddy and supposedly one of the best player developer coaches around, so if at one stage at least this season Paddy has a breakout game, then the decision is fine, if not then we failed.
takeaway wrote:Petracca is a good player, better forward than mid field. Buckley did not really put a good defender matchup on him when he went forward today.
IMO he is nothing special & certainly not a dangerfield or ablett, never will be near it.
Proficient midfielders are everywhere, but good target forwards are very hard to find, and Paddy will be one.
Absolutely the right decision to draft Paddy.
Hey takeaway, see the part of your comment above that I have highlighted in red? Ask any Statement Analysis expert what they think and you know what they will say? You are "Fearing" that he will be as good as Dangerfield and Ablett but you are "Hoping" that he won't be.
You hired a Statement Analysis expert to review my comments? Thanks for the compliment
spert wrote:Didn't Butters want us to recruit Judd way back, but we baulked due to his bad shoulders? Instead Judd went on to become an elite premiership mid. What's done is done, we have Paddy and supposedly one of the best player developer coaches around, so if at one stage at least this season Paddy has a breakout game, then the decision is fine, if not then we failed.
He did, spert, as did we. It was a bit of a stuff up. We outsmarted ourselves as WCE did. Hodge was locked in at one. Ball at two. We thought WCE and the shockers would take two WA players in Polak and Sampi at 3 and 4, then we would swoop on Judd at 5. All went to plan until the WCE table cracked a large, collective grin at us and called out Judd's name. Missed by that much, Chief!
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
Devilhead wrote:Petracca's 18 disposals and 3 goals against a bottom 8 side is unprecedented in the history of Football - we absolutely stuffed up
Some sanity at last.
this is totally not relevant to this thread.
Anyway, it's not just raw numbers.
It's the way he got them, and how young he is.
He's no Bont, but he is quality and has elite acceleration. Enuff said
A real Sainter will pledge allegiance to the ❤ and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
First thing on Judd, a bit rich coming from him considering Carlton f**ked up spectacularly in recruiting him and giving up Kennedy. A classic case of too many eggs in the one basket (Judd) leaving that Carlton list irretrievably compromised and doomed. His recruitment was of no use to Carlton and had plenty to do with that list never being a contender.
Now, imagine if we had recruited Bontempelli ahead of Billings (I was interested to recently hear that The Bulldogs were going to take Billings ahead of Bontempelli) and Petracca instead of McCartin. Let's also assume that Bontempelli hit the ground running as he did at The Bulldogs and even assume that Petracca didn't do a knee. Where would we be now?
We may have won a few more games this year and last. We may have even played finals last year, although I very much doubt we'd be a bonafide Premiership contender. Our midfield would be better, run deeper, albeit that neither Bontempelli or Petracca are outside speedsters with elite footskills.
However, where would that leave our list management?
We'd have two key forwards, Bruce & Membrey, whom are solid citizens, will be good contributors, but neither will be a gun or even very good key forwards. Rather solid/good 2nd tall forwards. We'd also be lacking a midfielder with absolutely elite footskills who could land the footy on a 5 cent coin from distance, who plays both sides of the body and can score heaviliy from midfiled (Billings).
So with our list development at a stage when we are looking to take the next step, we'd still be short a good key forward (with Riewoldt in the twighlight of his career) and a classy midfielder with elite footskills. We would also still be in the situation we are now, where we need quick & skilled outside mids. So in effect we'd be further behind in our list development than we are now.
It easy for many here to say (in hindsight) that we made the wrong call. Well that's easily said and to those who have that view, what would you do now if we had taken Bontempelli and Petracca? Because that wouldn't have made us a Premiership list, nowhere near it.
There isn't an abudance of key forwards available. Richmond were probably willing to pay way overs for Schache (currently behind McCartin). Or how about paying way overs for Sam Reid? Not a lot of options. Travis Cloke? It'd be slim pickings. Also remember that it looks like The Bulldogs will lose Johanissen (huge loss) because of the Boyd deal. I don't know how good McCartin will be, but I am confident he will be a far better player than Bruce or Membrey.
We also have huge space in our salary cap by design, which would have been earmarked for midfielders, obviously because there's more of them. Sound, intelligent planning I think. If we were to get Kelly, well he's going to be better than Bontempelli and Petracca put together, then the non-recruitment of Bontempelli/Petracca is completely irrelevent.
So, I think we've gone about it the right way and refuse to panic over a handful of results. Those of you who disagree, well at best you've gone way too early in your revisionism and I ask again, what would you do?
It's pretty well known that Judd left the Eagles because of the drug problem. He was pretty well entrenched in that system and wanted to get out as he didn't want to sink further. (edited by MOD)
Judd is entitled to his opinion. Having been part of a star midfield at WCE which effectively carried a rather bumbling and inaccurate forward line to a premiership, I guess he's not a huge fan of big lumbering forwards.
Petracca always looked a pretty good bet to me. If we picked McCartin because we thought we wanted a full forward more than a midfielder, then more fool us. The proportion of early draft picks who go on truly to make it at AFL level isn't high enough to warrant drafting a player for a particular position. Just go for the best available every time IMO.
However, McCartin continues to look reasonably promising to me. Since coming back to AFL level, he hasn't exactly starred, but he hasn't looked totally out of place either. It's too early to write him off.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
Linton Lodger wrote:First thing on Judd, a bit rich coming from him considering Carlton f**ked up spectacularly in recruiting him and giving up Kennedy. A classic case of too many eggs in the one basket (Judd) leaving that Carlton list irretrievably compromised and doomed. His recruitment was of no use to Carlton and had plenty to do with that list never being a contender.
Now, imagine if we had recruited Bontempelli ahead of Billings (I was interested to recently hear that The Bulldogs were going to take Billings ahead of Bontempelli) and Petracca instead of McCartin. Let's also assume that Bontempelli hit the ground running as he did at The Bulldogs and even assume that Petracca didn't do a knee. Where would we be now?
We may have won a few more games this year and last. We may have even played finals last year, although I very much doubt we'd be a bonafide Premiership contender. Our midfield would be better, run deeper, albeit that neither Bontempelli or Petracca are outside speedsters with elite footskills.
However, where would that leave our list management?
We'd have two key forwards, Bruce & Membrey, whom are solid citizens, will be good contributors, but neither will be a gun or even very good key forwards. Rather solid/good 2nd tall forwards. We'd also be lacking a midfielder with absolutely elite footskills who could land the footy on a 5 cent coin from distance, who plays both sides of the body and can score heaviliy from midfiled (Billings).
So with our list development at a stage when we are looking to take the next step, we'd still be short a good key forward (with Riewoldt in the twighlight of his career) and a classy midfielder with elite footskills. We would also still be in the situation we are now, where we need quick & skilled outside mids. So in effect we'd be further behind in our list development than we are now.
It easy for many here to say (in hindsight) that we made the wrong call. Well that's easily said and to those who have that view, what would you do now if we had taken Bontempelli and Petracca? Because that wouldn't have made us a Premiership list, nowhere near it.
There isn't an abudance of key forwards available. Richmond were probably willing to pay way overs for Schache (currently behind McCartin). Or how about paying way overs for Sam Reid? Not a lot of options. Travis Cloke? It'd be slim pickings. Also remember that it looks like The Bulldogs will lose Johanissen (huge loss) because of the Boyd deal. I don't know how good McCartin will be, but I am confident he will be a far better player than Bruce or Membrey.
We also have huge space in our salary cap by design, which would have been earmarked for midfielders, obviously because there's more of them. Sound, intelligent planning I think. If we were to get Kelly, well he's going to be better than Bontempelli and Petracca put together, then the non-recruitment of Bontempelli/Petracca is completely irrelevent.
So, I think we've gone about it the right way and refuse to panic over a handful of results. Those of you who disagree, well at best you've gone way too early in your revisionism and I ask again, what would you do?
But had we taken Bont over The Method I highly doubt Footscray would've won the flag last year. That would've been some sort of a bonus.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
Some sanity at last.
and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
