We need to talk about Paddy.

[White Winmar]

Indeed, LL. When you invest in a number one , you are hoping for a franchise type like Roo. Paddy ain't no Roo. He's a Rich man's Jack Watts. Petracca ain't no Roo either, so it was one of those years when it didn't really matter. Unlike 2001 when Judd was there and we screamed at the coach to take him. But GT and Johnnypenis knew better.

[the dome]

Just had a look @ games played for a few of the young'uns:
Paddy McC 18 Games
Daniel McK 16 Games
Jack Steele 19 Games
Jade Gres 20 Games
Darren Minch 23 Games
Jack Sinc 27 Games
Hugh Godd 9 Games

I'm guessing that a few in the sainter community would have Gresh in front atm & I wouldn't disagree but there are another 6 there as well as a few with zero or close to games played yet high in expectations for some of us.
At the start of this year I simply hoped Paddy would get a full season under his belt and get to September with 20 games played with some valuable experience to help him along.
I'm still taking it one game @ a time for the young fella.
Same for the others on that list above.
Liking it that we have Gresh on board/ enjoying his style & focus.
Given that the team came in to the season with a new Defensive spine I would have assumed overall team cohesion would hopefully occur a ways into the season.
I listened to the Coasters clash last weekend (radio) and certainly shared the disappointment with the guys but it sounded like the effort was in the ball park and that they can go the extra step in round 3.

All the very best to our Saintly community.
G O S A I N T S !!

[saynta]

You need 50 games at least into all those guys before you can make a call on them.

[saynta]

I agree if you all love Bont and Petracca so much then go and fin support the Bulldogs and Dees and do us all a favor

Not about supporting another team.

Looks at this point, that in the last few years we've taken options with top 5 draft picks that were not the best choices. Daniel instead of Lonie would also have been a better option. Easy to cherry pick recruiting and compare specific players to make the recruiting look bad - and it's easy in hindsight - but the fact appears to be that Bont, Petracca and Daniel would have been better options than the one's we chose. Significantly better. It's not even a criticism of our recruiters, it's easy in hindsight. Just a shame we didn't make the most of our top end picks. I hope BIllings and Paddy prove me totally wrong.

Not sure Daniel is better than Lonie.

Jury still out there.


"One player who has started the year strongly is Jack Lonie. The pocket rocket has had a hand in 18 scores so far – 15 in the attacking half – the equal most of any Saint. He is also averaging the second most pressure points (53.5 points) at the club, narrowly behind Ross. Pressure is king and Lonie is the current pressure king."

That's from the match wash up on saints .com

[Sainternist]

After 51 years, my patience is wearing a bit thin mate.

With you Saynta, after nearly 60 years my patience is also starting to thin out

Cheer up, me old muckers! At least you got to see a premiership.

Anyway, what are you gonna do without the Saints? I've tried to give it up, it just ends up being worse.

At St.Kilda, you live by the sword, so you have to die by the sword!

[White Winmar]

None of those you look at are No. 1s . What is the point of such a comparison? Paddy is a No.1. A poor won at that.

[Proph3t of egan]

None of those you look at are No. 1s . What is the point of such a comparison? Paddy is a No.1. A poor won at that.

Yeah, he truly hasn't reached the great heights of Patton or Boyd or even the great Jack Watts yet. Give him some time, and he could end up much better then those blokes

[Bluthy]

None of those you look at are No. 1s . What is the point of such a comparison? Paddy is a No.1. A poor won at that.

Wow 18 games in - you're right WW. I'm furious he isn't a Coleman AND Brownlow medalist yet. Piss poor Paddy. And with the elite disposal silky skills of Steven, Armo, Dunny, Savage, Webster, Roo putting the ball down his throat...well maybe not his throat, more like shins and ankles if he's lucky. I mean we all know the big men are always brilliant from game 1 and most certainly do not take time to develop as they lose their puppy fat and turn that into muscle in a controlled, measured way.

Who needs those annoying big guys who smash open packs in congested finals like Brown, Hawkins, Buddy - what have they ever done for their teams (ok apart from winning premierships, lots of them)

[White Winmar]

Only one ever did it for us. The cowboy in '66. I reckon Paddy will be good. I've stated that on here many times. It's just I doubt he'll ever be a great of the game, like Roo is. Number one, especially these days when players are scrutinised from primary school up to draft day, should deliver you an absolute gun. The best going around. Roo was clearly that player, who dominated against men prior to his AFL career.

We have a habit of letting good and great big men go. Ditterich, Lockett, Hall, Everitt. Depressing, really. What's the bet he struggles with his diabetes, gets traded and becomes a star at another club, because after the day he was traded, an announcement was made about the discovery of a complete cure for diabetes.

I've mentioned on here before that I worry about his type 1 diabetes. It is a draining condition, physically and psychologically. My sister in law has been one since she was diagnosed at 11 years of age. She's had 40 years experience in dealing with it. Not many memories about it are encouraging. I still recall having a conversation about Paddy with a recruiter before his draft. I was pretty exited about Paddy and Petracca. He cooled my jets about Paddy, especially. Petracca was too tubby and would need a couple of preseasons to get into AFL shape, but was an outstanding talent. In his opinion, and quite a few others, he was the obvious number one. As good as Paddy is, I can't imagine him sprinting away from defenders, bouncing it three times and bombing the long goal while running at full tilt. I can't see him going into the ruck like Boyd did and turn a GF. He does , at this stage appear a bit one dimensional. Early days, I know, but where else would you, or could you play him?

His knock on Paddy was that he was born twenty years too late. He felt the game had changed so much that he lamented that specific positions were soon to be a thing of the past. He doubted Paddy had the body to become the elite runner everybody needs to be at that level. There is nowhere to hide, unlike the days where plugger would kick a lazy 6 in the first half and then park himself in the goal square for the rest of the game. AFL is probably the most brutally hard team sport there is. My recruiter friend said he would be surprised if they took Paddy at one, especially with what else was on offer. In his opinion, Peter Wright would've been the tall forward/ruckman he would've chosen, if there was an urgent and specific need for that type. I asked him about the diabetes and if that was the reason he wasn't as keen on Paddy as others were. He explained to me that while everything might work out, it was a condition that posed too great a risk, especially with your first pick. The good news is that he knew Paddy was a terrific young man, a hard worker, disciplined, had good judgement and had very strong hands. The Knocks were on his goal kicking, not general kicking, specifically set shots which he had a habit of missing. As I said, I think he'll be a good player for us. I withdraw the bust bit. Of course it's too early to tell. Anything could happen.

Someon
Franklin is an exception, but he is a freak, who would've been entirely deserving of the Number one choice. Boyd? He can double up in the ruck, as he did so superbly in the GF.

[saintsRrising]

. Number one, especially these days when players are scrutinised from primary school up to draft day, should deliver you an absolute gun. .

Trouble is though that our luck was to get first pick in a year when there were no absolute guns.

[saintsRrising]

. Boyd? He can double up in the ruck, as he did so superbly in the GF.

Against very little. Right time right place.

As it stands he is not good enough to play No1 Ruck, and is not good enough to be your No1 Forward. So that leaves him as a ruck/forward being paid 3 to 4 times per year what he should be on.

Ignoring the $$$, Cloke is better value as a key forward for the Dogs this year and if the Doggies get their rucks back Boyd will be back playing VFL again. I certainly would be playing Roughead in front of Boyd.

[saint64]

My recruiter friend said he would be surprised if they took Paddy at one, especially with what else was on offer. In his opinion, Peter Wright would've been the tall forward/ruckman he would've chosen, if there was an urgent and specific need for that type. I asked him about the diabetes and if that was the reason he wasn't as keen on Paddy as others were. He explained to me that while everything might work out, it was a condition that posed too great a risk, especially with your first pick. The good news is that he knew Paddy was a terrific young man, a hard worker, disciplined, had good judgement and had very strong hands. The Knocks were on his goal kicking, not general kicking, specifically set shots which he had a habit of missing. As I said, I think he'll be a good player for us. I withdraw the bust bit. Of course it's too early to tell. Anything could happen.

So how close were we to trading our number one pick for two top ten picks? Presumably we could have used one of those for Peter Wright.

[White Winmar]

Well, he was good enough on GF day, and if you're going to be good in any game, that's the one to choose. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, and all that. Sounds more like the title of a porno movie than a well-worn aphorism. Anyway, a bit rich saying he's not good enough to play No.1 ruck, isn't it? He's the very prototype of the modern player. Tall enough to take on the monsters, good enough to play a key position. Perhaps Shane Mumford and John Longmire would also disagree with your assessment of his ability and versatility. The PF effort when he took on and beat Mumford was a huge factor in their win, as was his effort on GF day. Many a good judge felt he should've won the Norm Smith. I doubt he could've been more impressive in those two outings. Those sorts of performances buy you a lot of patience at the selection table. I doubt we'll see Tom in the VFL again for some time. Like Paddy, he has taken time to develop and still needs more. I think he will be a genuine star.

[White Winmar]

My recruiter friend said he would be surprised if they took Paddy at one, especially with what else was on offer. In his opinion, Peter Wright would've been the tall forward/ruckman he would've chosen, if there was an urgent and specific need for that type. I asked him about the diabetes and if that was the reason he wasn't as keen on Paddy as others were. He explained to me that while everything might work out, it was a condition that posed too great a risk, especially with your first pick. The good news is that he knew Paddy was a terrific young man, a hard worker, disciplined, had good judgment and had very strong hands. The Knocks were on his goal kicking, not general kicking, specifically set shots which he had a habit of missing. As I said, I think he'll be a good player for us. I withdraw the bust bit. Of course it's too early to tell. Anything could happen.

So how close were we to trading our number one pick for two top ten picks? Presumably we could have used one of those for Peter Wright.

This guy worked for North Melbourne and said Petracca reminded him of a young Sam Kekovich. Explosive, powerful, a bull, with the same swagger and self-confidence of Keka (read arrogant little bugger). Yes, my mate is getting on a bit. I don't know how close we came to grabbing two top tenners for number one, but I do know the team was very keen on Paddy. FWIW, my North Melbourne snout would've picked Petracca, Brayshaw, Marchbank, Wright or Hugh Goddard, before Paddy. He was amazed when Goddard slipped to pick 21. He also reckons we did very well in grabbing Gresham at what was effectively pick 18 in 2015. Had the Gresh in his top 8. Swings and roundabouts.

[saint64]

My recruiter friend said he would be surprised if they took Paddy at one, especially with what else was on offer. In his opinion, Peter Wright would've been the tall forward/ruckman he would've chosen, if there was an urgent and specific need for that type. I asked him about the diabetes and if that was the reason he wasn't as keen on Paddy as others were. He explained to me that while everything might work out, it was a condition that posed too great a risk, especially with your first pick. The good news is that he knew Paddy was a terrific young man, a hard worker, disciplined, had good judgment and had very strong hands. The Knocks were on his goal kicking, not general kicking, specifically set shots which he had a habit of missing. As I said, I think he'll be a good player for us. I withdraw the bust bit. Of course it's too early to tell. Anything could happen.

So how close were we to trading our number one pick for two top ten picks? Presumably we could have used one of those for Peter Wright.

This guy worked for North Melbourne and said Petracca reminded him of a young Sam Kekovich. Explosive, powerful, a bull, with the same swagger and self-confidence of Keka (read arrogant little bugger). Yes, my mate is getting on a bit. I don't know how close we came to grabbing two top tenners for number one, but I do know the team was very keen on Paddy. FWIW, my North Melbourne snout would've picked Petracca, Brayshaw, Marchbank, Wright or Hugh Goddard, before Paddy. He was amazed when Goddard slipped to pick 21. He also reckons we did very well in grabbing Gresham at what was effectively pick 18 in 2015. Had the Gresh in his top 8. Swings and roundabouts.

Okay, cheers. Looking forward to seeing how Goddard goes this weekend. I am not at all surprised about his Gresham assessment.

[saintsRrising]

The PF effort when he took on and beat Mumford was a huge factor in their win,.

How did he beat Mummy ?
21 HOs to 46
10 Dis to 14
1 Marks to 3
2 Tackles to 6

[White Winmar]

It was the second half in which Boyd helped turn the game, greatly reducing Mummy's influence on the game. Wasn't Roughead rucking until going off with bleeding in his eye? Boyd came into his own in the second half. Do you have the stats for when they competed directly, or after half time? Mummy was on fire early, but faded. Not even named in the GWS best players from the two reports I've read about the game.

[saintsRrising]

It was the second half in which Boyd helped turn the game, greatly reducing Mummy's influence on the game. Wasn't Roughead rucking until going off with bleeding in his eye? Boyd came into his own in the second half. Do you have the stats for when they competed directly, or after half time? Mummy was on fire early, but faded. Not even named in the GWS best players from the two reports I've read about the game.

I never said that Boyd was not capable of playing well at times.

However in picking players a team from the Doggie's list he would not be in my 22 if I had a full list of players to select from.

[Wombat15]

Can anyone update me if paddy is playing seniors or reserves this weekend he's listed in the VFL squad? Thought this week would be good for his confidence even though he shat the bed a few times in front of goal against west coast. Also just to chime in I personally feel the main issue with paddy is he goes through large patches of being non existent in the game much like billings.

[spert]

I doubt Roo will come up- so Paddy should get a chance

[kosifantutti]

Paddy and Roo are both playing.

[White Winmar]

The WC outsmarted us and GT's obstinance beat us that day. But I digress.

I didn't think GT even attended draft day?

<warning for baiting>

Baiting??

The post I replied to stated that GT was involved directly in drafting, but I was under the impression that he was criticised for not being involved at all - and not even attending the draft? I might be wrong though, hence me asking the question.


Who am I supposedly baiting?

See JM, this is where you fall down. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that you were baiting me. You do post some really good things. I even praised another of your posts recently, but this is a classic example of where you muck up, and paint yourself into a corner. Of course coaches have a say in drafting. Having been to numerous meetings where draft strategy is discussed, they have an enormous input, especially in the time of GT. Probably a bit less now but I have been out of the game since 2012.

GT insisted on Ball. We wanted Judd, but the final consensus was that we would take Ball at 2, WC would take Polak or Sampi at 3 (both WA boys) and that Fremantle would take the one left over at 4, leaving Judd at 5. When the day came, WC looked at our table with huge grins as they announced Judd at 3. They rolled us, pure and simple. GT was as furious as anyone, as was RB, who'd coached Judd at East Sandy juniors and was red hot on him. Quite simply, he was the best player in the draft by a mile, with only his shoulders a question mark.

Hawthorn only took Hodge because his coach at the Falcons, Mickey Turner, monstered them into it. GT said afterwards that he left the drafting to Bevo, which was complete bulls*** and typical of what GT always did. Accept the praise, deflect the criticism. I was there. That's how it went down. If you knew anything about the way GT did things, you would know that he was a complete control freak. Nothing happened without his imprimatur. He was the right man at the right time, but that howler will haunt him forever, because it cost him, and us at least two flags. He could've gone down in history as our greatest coach. In the end, he didn't even get us to a GF. When they broke up, Butterrsssssss let him know all about it as well. Hope that clears all that up for you.

Fall down? Paint myself into a corner??

I asked a question. That's all. Very simple.


You're very emotive, and very defensive.


Why would you perceive such a simple question as baiting?

I didn't. The moderators did. You posted, whining about being pinged for baiting. I tried to clear up your mistaken beliefs with the truth. That was obviously too much for you. Are you ok? You seem unwell and unable to grasp the simplest concepts of truth. I won't upset you by engaging you further. I really feel sorry for you.

Very emotive once again. Borderline hysterical.


I didn't whine.

I asked a question. Very simple.

Remember this little gem, Johnny? Oh wait. It must be a fabrication or you've been quoted out of context, right? Thought I'd save you the trouble.

[Johnny Member]

The WC outsmarted us and GT's obstinance beat us that day. But I digress.

I didn't think GT even attended draft day?

<warning for baiting>

Baiting??

The post I replied to stated that GT was involved directly in drafting, but I was under the impression that he was criticised for not being involved at all - and not even attending the draft? I might be wrong though, hence me asking the question.


Who am I supposedly baiting?

See JM, this is where you fall down. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that you were baiting me. You do post some really good things. I even praised another of your posts recently, but this is a classic example of where you muck up, and paint yourself into a corner. Of course coaches have a say in drafting. Having been to numerous meetings where draft strategy is discussed, they have an enormous input, especially in the time of GT. Probably a bit less now but I have been out of the game since 2012.

GT insisted on Ball. We wanted Judd, but the final consensus was that we would take Ball at 2, WC would take Polak or Sampi at 3 (both WA boys) and that Fremantle would take the one left over at 4, leaving Judd at 5. When the day came, WC looked at our table with huge grins as they announced Judd at 3. They rolled us, pure and simple. GT was as furious as anyone, as was RB, who'd coached Judd at East Sandy juniors and was red hot on him. Quite simply, he was the best player in the draft by a mile, with only his shoulders a question mark.

Hawthorn only took Hodge because his coach at the Falcons, Mickey Turner, monstered them into it. GT said afterwards that he left the drafting to Bevo, which was complete bulls*** and typical of what GT always did. Accept the praise, deflect the criticism. I was there. That's how it went down. If you knew anything about the way GT did things, you would know that he was a complete control freak. Nothing happened without his imprimatur. He was the right man at the right time, but that howler will haunt him forever, because it cost him, and us at least two flags. He could've gone down in history as our greatest coach. In the end, he didn't even get us to a GF. When they broke up, Butterrsssssss let him know all about it as well. Hope that clears all that up for you.

Fall down? Paint myself into a corner??

I asked a question. That's all. Very simple.


You're very emotive, and very defensive.


Why would you perceive such a simple question as baiting?

I didn't. The moderators did. You posted, whining about being pinged for baiting. I tried to clear up your mistaken beliefs with the truth. That was obviously too much for you. Are you ok? You seem unwell and unable to grasp the simplest concepts of truth. I won't upset you by engaging you further. I really feel sorry for you.

Very emotive once again. Borderline hysterical.


I didn't whine.

I asked a question. Very simple.

Remember this little gem, Johnny? Oh wait. It must be a fabrication or you've been quoted out of context, right? Thought I'd save you the trouble.

?

Where did I say you were hysterical?

[White Winmar]

In the quote. Illiteracy added to the list. I knew you'd do this. Surely you're taking the piss. If not, you need help. You have has much credibility as Chemical Ali.

[Johnny Member]

In the quote. Illiteracy added to the list. I knew you'd do this. Surely you're taking the piss. If not, you need help. You have has much credibility as Chemical Ali.

?

You have an utter meltdown about you crying about being baited - and I describe your behavior as borderline hysterical.

Then on other topic, a week later when having a discussion with another poster, you claim that I assert you were hysterical about our drafting?? And then use this as some sort of proof?


Seriously, you need to regroup and have a think about your state of mind.

It's unhealthy behavior.