@Pevster can't figure out how to quote just small sections, so apologies.
I went back and double checked, but I never called him a truck or overrated (pretty sure you’re crediting me with other posters).
I also specifically qualified that my opinion was only based on the game last night (and the small handful of other times I’ve seen him), this was in response to those suggesting last night’s game was definitive evidence of why we should pick him up.
I didn’t see a lot of the power forward skillset I was looking for and so, at this stage, I don’t value him (at the pick 1 downgrade cost) as the panacea to Essendon’s forward line. That was all.
I was referring to some of the labels others have used about Patton. But you do realise that Clay Smith and Patton cannot be compared. A fantastic kp fwd would do wonders for our structure.
@Pevster can't figure out how to quote just small sections, so apologies.
I went back and double checked, but I never called him a truck or overrated (pretty sure you’re crediting me with other posters).
I also specifically qualified that my opinion was only based on the game last night (and the small handful of other times I’ve seen him), this was in response to those suggesting last night’s game was definitive evidence of why we should pick him up.
I didn’t see a lot of the power forward skillset I was looking for and so, at this stage, I don’t value him (at the pick 1 downgrade cost) as the panacea to Essendon’s forward line. That was all.
I was referring to some of the labels others have used about Patton. But you do realise that Clay Smith and Patton cannot be compared. A fantastic kp fwd would do wonders for our structure.
Completely agree. Only part I’m not sold on is whether that’s Patton.
We should be focussing on mids mids mids, and keeping spare salary for a real push at players next year as we move up the ladder.
Do you reckon I get a little bit of guilty pleasure out of witnessing you finally seeing the light? :wink:
If so it is a bit odd. I always said talls first. We got them, and we got a good set. I've been saying mids mids mids (well, except for some later picks) since about 2010 (recognising we were always taking JD in 2012).
@Pevster can't figure out how to quote just small sections, so apologies.
I went back and double checked, but I never called him a truck or overrated (pretty sure you’re crediting me with other posters).
I also specifically qualified that my opinion was only based on the game last night (and the small handful of other times I’ve seen him), this was in response to those suggesting last night’s game was definitive evidence of why we should pick him up.
I didn’t see a lot of the power forward skillset I was looking for and so, at this stage, I don’t value him (at the pick 1 downgrade cost) as the panacea to Essendon’s forward line. That was all.
I was referring to some of the labels others have used about Patton. But you do realise that Clay Smith and Patton cannot be compared. A fantastic kp fwd would do wonders for our structure.
I'm with Don@Birth, I haven't seen many of Patton's games. But anyone using last night's match to talk about Patton as a KP seems odd, since his goals came in a similar fashion to Clay Smith. I haven't called him a truck, I compared him to Lynch and Dawes. Who were both important parts of winning their sides premierships, and both kicked bags of at least 3 in prelims/grand finals (and at similar ages to Patton). Both would be useful in our side in 2017 - but not at the cost being talked about here.
We already have enough talls for the modern game.
Would be a mistake to draft him.
Who are these talls you speak of ? TBC? He's not that great , if anyone's a truck he's it. He won't get you many goals. Hell, won't get you many games.
Love him, and we all know he had that great year once a few years back , but I don’t see that coming back.
Move forward we must.
Well, as options up forward we have JD obviously. Then we have Hooker, Brown, Belly and this guy we picked up with freaking #6 called Francis last year. Effectively compared to 2016 we’re adding in two AA talls into the side, hoping the tall we got with #6 gets going, plus a ruck/forward who has shown in the past (albeit in limited periods prior to injury) fantastic form. So if we’re adding 4 talls to a part of the game we didn’t do too badly in last year, why not see how they settle before spending big on another one? We know the ages of our best midfielders.
On a side note, why is everyone writing of Belly as a truck because he his good season was followed by two injury plagued ones, but Patton season with similar stats is lauded and said he’s just finding his feet and will get a lot better? Isn’t this a disconnect? Patton is nice and shiny, so his future progression is up up up, while Belly disappointed due to injury for two years (then out due to suspension) so he’s just written off.
Some serious BS in here. Patton wasn't just sitting on his ■■■■ in the f50 and getting lucky. He read the play before anyone else and ran forward.
The Dogs backline didn’t let anyone else off the hook. Jeremy Cameron… the great white hope didn’t get near it. You don’t lock 4 goals in a prelim being a truck.
4 goals in a Prelim = average
60 goals in a season (Jenkins) = average
Francis is the power forward we need to compliment Joe. Throw in Lav, Langford, and Fantasia for a great forward line setup.
Just need fast outside mids to feed them.
We already have enough talls for the modern game.
Would be a mistake to draft him.
Who are these talls you speak of ? TBC? He's not that great , if anyone's a truck he's it. He won't get you many goals. Hell, won't get you many games.
Love him, and we all know he had that great year once a few years back , but I don’t see that coming back.
Move forward we must.
Well, as options up forward we have JD obviously. Then we have Hooker, Brown, Belly and this guy we picked up with freaking #6 called Francis last year. Effectively compared to 2016 we’re adding in two AA talls into the side, hoping the tall we got with #6 gets going, plus a ruck/forward who has shown in the past (albeit in limited periods prior to injury) fantastic form. So if we’re adding 4 forwards to a part of the game we didn’t do too badly in last year, why not see how they settle before spending big on another one? We know the ages of our best midfielders.
On a side note, why is everyone writing of Belly as a truck because he his good season was followed by two injury plagued ones, but Patton season with similar stats is lauded and said he’s just finding his feet and will get a lot better? Isn’t this a disconnect? Patton is nice and shiny, so his future progression is up up up, while Belly disappointed due to injury for two years (then out due to suspension) so he’s just written off.
There this bloke Patton who has kicked 15 goals in his last 4 games and is only what 22/3 who we could bring in, but you still suggest paying an All Australian backman in the forward line as a better option?
Patton is a developing tall, he’s an excellent kick for goal (that one he had from >50m out on the boundary and it was only just touched over the line) and he would allow us to keep the best intercept mark in the game in the position he plays best.
Yes it’s good to have hooker as a forward option but having him in the backline improves our team, and we have the means to do that
I’m definitely in the ‘don’t want’ camp, if it means downgrading pick 1.
But one thing’s for sure, if he learns to kick any goals at training against Hooker, Hurley and Hartley, then real games will be a breeze for him.
We already have enough talls for the modern game.
Would be a mistake to draft him.
Who are these talls you speak of ? TBC? He's not that great , if anyone's a truck he's it. He won't get you many goals. Hell, won't get you many games.
Love him, and we all know he had that great year once a few years back , but I don’t see that coming back.
Move forward we must.
Well, as options up forward we have JD obviously. Then we have Hooker, Brown, Belly and this guy we picked up with freaking #6 called Francis last year. Effectively compared to 2016 we’re adding in two AA talls into the side, hoping the tall we got with #6 gets going, plus a ruck/forward who has shown in the past (albeit in limited periods prior to injury) fantastic form. So if we’re adding 4 forwards to a part of the game we didn’t do too badly in last year, why not see how they settle before spending big on another one? We know the ages of our best midfielders.
On a side note, why is everyone writing of Belly as a truck because he his good season was followed by two injury plagued ones, but Patton season with similar stats is lauded and said he’s just finding his feet and will get a lot better? Isn’t this a disconnect? Patton is nice and shiny, so his future progression is up up up, while Belly disappointed due to injury for two years (then out due to suspension) so he’s just written off.
There this bloke Patton who has kicked 15 goals in his last 4 games and is only what 22/3 who we could bring in, but you still suggest paying an All Australian backman in the forward line as a better option?
Patton is a developing tall, he’s an excellent kick for goal (that one he had from >50m out on the boundary and it was only just touched over the line) and he would allow us to keep the best intercept mark in the game in the position he plays best.
Yes it’s good to have hooker as a forward option but having him in the backline improves our team, and we have the means to do that
If we play Hurley & Hooker back and have Patton up forward, that means three of Brown, Ambrose, Hartley, Belly and Fancis aren’t getting a game. It means JD is probably spending time in the ruck.
The question becomes is Patton soooo much better than one of those guys (either up forward or with Hooker forward and one of them back) that it is worth spending a top 10 pick to get him? I don’t believe he’s anywhere near good enough to justify that. I think we need more mids to replace Goddard, Stanton, Watson, Hocking, Howlett in 2-3 years time than we do another tall.
Do we need a little more tall depth? Sure. Taking a tall at either #19, #26 or in the first two rounds next year to cover Hooker is sensible. But I’d prefer to go two mids, and keep the salary space for a real tilt at tradee next year.
We already have enough talls for the modern game.
Would be a mistake to draft him.
Who are these talls you speak of ? TBC? He's not that great , if anyone's a truck he's it. He won't get you many goals. Hell, won't get you many games.
Love him, and we all know he had that great year once a few years back , but I don’t see that coming back.
Move forward we must.
Well, as options up forward we have JD obviously. Then we have Hooker, Brown, Belly and this guy we picked up with freaking #6 called Francis last year. Effectively compared to 2016 we’re adding in two AA talls into the side, hoping the tall we got with #6 gets going, plus a ruck/forward who has shown in the past (albeit in limited periods prior to injury) fantastic form. So if we’re adding 4 forwards to a part of the game we didn’t do too badly in last year, why not see how they settle before spending big on another one? We know the ages of our best midfielders.
On a side note, why is everyone writing of Belly as a truck because he his good season was followed by two injury plagued ones, but Patton season with similar stats is lauded and said he’s just finding his feet and will get a lot better? Isn’t this a disconnect? Patton is nice and shiny, so his future progression is up up up, while Belly disappointed due to injury for two years (then out due to suspension) so he’s just written off.
There this bloke Patton who has kicked 15 goals in his last 4 games and is only what 22/3 who we could bring in, but you still suggest paying an All Australian backman in the forward line as a better option?
Patton is a developing tall, he’s an excellent kick for goal (that one he had from >50m out on the boundary and it was only just touched over the line) and he would allow us to keep the best intercept mark in the game in the position he plays best.
Yes it’s good to have hooker as a forward option but having him in the backline improves our team, and we have the means to do that
If we play Hurley & Hooker back and have Patton up forward, that means three of Brown, Ambrose, Hartley, Belly and Fancis aren’t getting a game. It means JD is probably spending time in the ruck.
The question becomes is Patton soooo much better than one of those guys (either up forward or with Hooker forward and one of them back) that it is worth spending a top 10 pick to get him? I don’t believe he’s anywhere near good enough to justify that. I think we need more mids to replace Goddard, Stanton, Watson, Hocking, Howlett in 2-3 years time than we do another tall.
Do we need a little more tall depth? Sure. Taking a tall at either #19, #26 or in the first two rounds next year to cover Hooker is sensible. But I’d prefer to go two mids, and keep the salary space for a real tilt at tradee next year.
#37 is still an early pick
We need skill around the ball
3 mids then a tall at 37
We already have enough talls for the modern game.
Would be a mistake to draft him.
Who are these talls you speak of ? TBC? He's not that great , if anyone's a truck he's it. He won't get you many goals. Hell, won't get you many games.
Love him, and we all know he had that great year once a few years back , but I don’t see that coming back.
Move forward we must.
Well, as options up forward we have JD obviously. Then we have Hooker, Brown, Belly and this guy we picked up with freaking #6 called Francis last year. Effectively compared to 2016 we’re adding in two AA talls into the side, hoping the tall we got with #6 gets going, plus a ruck/forward who has shown in the past (albeit in limited periods prior to injury) fantastic form. So if we’re adding 4 forwards to a part of the game we didn’t do too badly in last year, why not see how they settle before spending big on another one? We know the ages of our best midfielders.
On a side note, why is everyone writing of Belly as a truck because he his good season was followed by two injury plagued ones, but Patton season with similar stats is lauded and said he’s just finding his feet and will get a lot better? Isn’t this a disconnect? Patton is nice and shiny, so his future progression is up up up, while Belly disappointed due to injury for two years (then out due to suspension) so he’s just written off.
There this bloke Patton who has kicked 15 goals in his last 4 games and is only what 22/3 who we could bring in, but you still suggest paying an All Australian backman in the forward line as a better option?
Patton is a developing tall, he’s an excellent kick for goal (that one he had from >50m out on the boundary and it was only just touched over the line) and he would allow us to keep the best intercept mark in the game in the position he plays best.
Yes it’s good to have hooker as a forward option but having him in the backline improves our team, and we have the means to do that
If we play Hurley & Hooker back and have Patton up forward, that means three of Brown, Ambrose, Hartley, Belly and Fancis aren’t getting a game. It means JD is probably spending time in the ruck.
The question becomes is Patton soooo much better than one of those guys (either up forward or with Hooker forward and one of them back) that it is worth spending a top 10 pick to get him? I don’t believe he’s anywhere near good enough to justify that. I think we need more mids to replace Goddard, Stanton, Watson, Hocking, Howlett in 2-3 years time than we do another tall.
Do we need a little more tall depth? Sure. Taking a tall at either #19, #26 or in the first two rounds next year to cover Hooker is sensible. But I’d prefer to go two mids, and keep the salary space for a real tilt at tradee next year.
We already have enough talls for the modern game.
Would be a mistake to draft him.
Who are these talls you speak of ? TBC? He's not that great , if anyone's a truck he's it. He won't get you many goals. Hell, won't get you many games.
Love him, and we all know he had that great year once a few years back , but I don’t see that coming back.
Move forward we must.
Well, as options up forward we have JD obviously. Then we have Hooker, Brown, Belly and this guy we picked up with freaking #6 called Francis last year. Effectively compared to 2016 we’re adding in two AA talls into the side, hoping the tall we got with #6 gets going, plus a ruck/forward who has shown in the past (albeit in limited periods prior to injury) fantastic form. So if we’re adding 4 forwards to a part of the game we didn’t do too badly in last year, why not see how they settle before spending big on another one? We know the ages of our best midfielders.
On a side note, why is everyone writing of Belly as a truck because he his good season was followed by two injury plagued ones, but Patton season with similar stats is lauded and said he’s just finding his feet and will get a lot better? Isn’t this a disconnect? Patton is nice and shiny, so his future progression is up up up, while Belly disappointed due to injury for two years (then out due to suspension) so he’s just written off.
There this bloke Patton who has kicked 15 goals in his last 4 games and is only what 22/3 who we could bring in, but you still suggest paying an All Australian backman in the forward line as a better option?
Patton is a developing tall, he’s an excellent kick for goal (that one he had from >50m out on the boundary and it was only just touched over the line) and he would allow us to keep the best intercept mark in the game in the position he plays best.
Yes it’s good to have hooker as a forward option but having him in the backline improves our team, and we have the means to do that
If we play Hurley & Hooker back and have Patton up forward, that means three of Brown, Ambrose, Hartley, Belly and Fancis aren’t getting a game. It means JD is probably spending time in the ruck.
The question becomes is Patton soooo much better than one of those guys (either up forward or with Hooker forward and one of them back) that it is worth spending a top 10 pick to get him? I don’t believe he’s anywhere near good enough to justify that. I think we need more mids to replace Goddard, Stanton, Watson, Hocking, Howlett in 2-3 years time than we do another tall.
Do we need a little more tall depth? Sure. Taking a tall at either #19, #26 or in the first two rounds next year to cover Hooker is sensible. But I’d prefer to go two mids, and keep the salary space for a real tilt at tradee next year.
Yep.
I do think Patton will be very good for someone... but I'm of the opinion we need more young mid guns first, given our list.
Agree. A big bodied Key forward is part of the missing puzzle. But midfielders are an even bigger piece of the missing puzzle.
We’re not going to be factor in the finals without another genuine big bodied key forward, but we’re not going to make the finals without bolstering the midfield as well.
Rumour has it that Whorethorn has him lined up for 2018… (From the same source that said that Jaeger would be a Hawk in 2017 and that he had been advised by the Hawks not to play this year back in Feb).
Rumour has it that Whorethorn has him lined up for 2018.. (From the same source that said that Jaeger would be a Hawk in 2017 and that he had been advised by the Hawks not to play this year back in Feb).
Rumour has it that Whorethorn has him lined up for 2018.. (From the same source that said that Jaeger would be a Hawk in 2017 and that he had been advised by the Hawks not to play this year back in Feb).