Well - that might be true in some cases ghostie - but when one of them isn't playing at all, really - what's the point?Ghost Like wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 11:43amSo when people say "Let's compare them in 3 to 5 years", it really isn't worth revisiting in 3 to 5 years?
Not too much else generating some chat in the current environment, especially with 9 days to fill following a disgraceful performance.
The jury is in...
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Fri 07 Jun 2013 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 218 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
Re: The jury is in...
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: The jury is in...
It makes the jury's decision very easy.freely wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 12:01pmWell - that might be true in some cases ghostie - but when one of them isn't playing at all, really - what's the point?Ghost Like wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 11:43amSo when people say "Let's compare them in 3 to 5 years", it really isn't worth revisiting in 3 to 5 years?
Not too much else generating some chat in the current environment, especially with 9 days to fill following a disgraceful performance.
It may also go some way to pointing out Petracca deserves a place in the Top 5 that year with some patience and belief by the club.
That's not just a Petracca / Paddy thing but is proof why 3 to 5 years are needed before making assessments or sweeping statements about players.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Fri 07 Jun 2013 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 218 times
- Been thanked: 343 times
Re: The jury is in...
Fair enough. Can't argue. You're absolutely right. And can we now put this to bed or do we have to assess it again after Petracca's performance next week? and the week after? and the week after that?Ghost Like wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 12:17pmIt makes the jury's decision very easy.freely wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 12:01pmWell - that might be true in some cases ghostie - but when one of them isn't playing at all, really - what's the point?Ghost Like wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 11:43amSo when people say "Let's compare them in 3 to 5 years", it really isn't worth revisiting in 3 to 5 years?
Not too much else generating some chat in the current environment, especially with 9 days to fill following a disgraceful performance.
It may also go some way to pointing out Petracca deserves a place in the Top 5 that year with some patience and belief by the club.
That's not just a Petracca / Paddy thing but is proof why 3 to 5 years are needed before making assessments or sweeping statements about players.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: The jury is in...
We all know what the thread is about now, feel free to click on it or ignore it. I certainly won't be giving a running commentary on Petracca' games. It was simply an observation.
Fingers crossed in a few years we can say, "The jury is in, Byrnes and Bytel are "A" graders!"
Fingers crossed in a few years we can say, "The jury is in, Byrnes and Bytel are "A" graders!"
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13782
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1313 times
- Been thanked: 2052 times
Re: The jury is in...
Right now if Petracca walked into our team he would be our best midfielder.
At the time he was the best available, just another c**k-up in a long line of c**k-ups at the draft for us recently.
I like Paddy, but he was compromised from day 1 with his diabetes, even in his last season with us they were talking about finally getting a handle on playing with it, which says enough.
At the time he was the best available, just another c**k-up in a long line of c**k-ups at the draft for us recently.
I like Paddy, but he was compromised from day 1 with his diabetes, even in his last season with us they were talking about finally getting a handle on playing with it, which says enough.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
- shanegrambeau
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5961
- Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 2:15pm
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 710 times
Re: The jury is in...
Boy.
No one's fault perhaps, but that is damning for our Balance Sheet - the one with the title, 'Idealistic Club with Inclusive Goals vs Brutal Reality and Winning Games of Footy'
You're quite brilliant Shane, yeah..terrific!
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16891
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3583 times
- Been thanked: 2852 times
Re: The jury is in...
I don’t know Curly...
It takes a lot to go right to make it in the AFL as a forward.
Paddy showed some promise
So did Tom Lee, Beau Wilkes and a plethora of other forwards that didn’t amount to much.
People talk about Paddy as though he was a sure thing to make it but the reality is that injury prevented us from even really getting a sense that he was any good.
At his size and with his natural attributes being what they were... he’s have needed to be exceptional to make it as a good forward.
There were some concerns there
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 382 times
Re: The jury is in...
Tom Lee & Beau Wilkes were mature age players when they started with Saints. Paddy was 18, and as a No. 1 draft pick attracted at least the 2nd best defender. Given a decent go at it, by the time he reached the age of those two when they started with the Saints, imo he would have been well ahead of them. Very good lead, and at moving around the forward line, finding space. I have no doubt he would have made it. Would have been perfect in our current forward set up, with King & Membrey.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 3:06pmI don’t know Curly...
It takes a lot to go right to make it in the AFL as a forward.
Paddy showed some promise
So did Tom Lee, Beau Wilkes and a plethora of other forwards that didn’t amount to much.
People talk about Paddy as though he was a sure thing to make it but the reality is that injury prevented us from even really getting a sense that he was any good.
At his size and with his natural attributes being what they were... he’s have needed to be exceptional to make it as a good forward.
There were some concerns there
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10127
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1299 times
Re: The jury is in...
Paddy showed more than enough to suggest he was a AFL standard key forward. His leading patterns and ability to read the drop of the ball and protect the zone were excellent. He was rated numebr one for a reason it wasn't left field.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 3:06pmI don’t know Curly...
It takes a lot to go right to make it in the AFL as a forward.
Paddy showed some promise
So did Tom Lee, Beau Wilkes and a plethora of other forwards that didn’t amount to much.
People talk about Paddy as though he was a sure thing to make it but the reality is that injury prevented us from even really getting a sense that he was any good.
At his size and with his natural attributes being what they were... he’s have needed to be exceptional to make it as a good forward.
There were some concerns there
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23011
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8909 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: The jury is in...
Correct Curley, as usual. He wasn't a no 1 draft pick for no reason. Comparing him to a couple of never were nobodies is f****** insulting.CURLY wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 4:06pmPaddy showed more than enough to suggest he was a AFL standard key forward. His leading patterns and ability to read the drop of the ball and protect the zone were excellent. He was rated numebr one for a reason it wasn't left field.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 3:06pmI don’t know Curly...
It takes a lot to go right to make it in the AFL as a forward.
Paddy showed some promise
So did Tom Lee, Beau Wilkes and a plethora of other forwards that didn’t amount to much.
People talk about Paddy as though he was a sure thing to make it but the reality is that injury prevented us from even really getting a sense that he was any good.
At his size and with his natural attributes being what they were... he’s have needed to be exceptional to make it as a good forward.
There were some concerns there
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16891
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3583 times
- Been thanked: 2852 times
Re: The jury is in...
Ok not the best examples but what I’m saying is that many young key forwards show promise early and fade away. It doesn’t mean that you can bank on a Coleman just yet.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16891
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3583 times
- Been thanked: 2852 times
Re: The jury is in...
Correct... in your opinion.takeaway wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 3:55pmTom Lee & Beau Wilkes were mature age players when they started with Saints. Paddy was 18, and as a No. 1 draft pick attracted at least the 2nd best defender. Given a decent go at it, by the time he reached the age of those two when they started with the Saints, imo he would have been well ahead of them. Very good lead, and at moving around the forward line, finding space. I have no doubt he would have made it. Would have been perfect in our current forward set up, with King & Membrey.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 3:06pmI don’t know Curly...
It takes a lot to go right to make it in the AFL as a forward.
Paddy showed some promise
So did Tom Lee, Beau Wilkes and a plethora of other forwards that didn’t amount to much.
People talk about Paddy as though he was a sure thing to make it but the reality is that injury prevented us from even really getting a sense that he was any good.
At his size and with his natural attributes being what they were... he’s have needed to be exceptional to make it as a good forward.
There were some concerns there
Not based on actual demonstrated form
King has already shown more that Paddy ever did
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13782
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1313 times
- Been thanked: 2052 times
Re: The jury is in...
Didn’t we give a first round pick for Lee?saynta wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 4:19pmCorrect Curley, as usual. He wasn't a no 1 draft pick for no reason. Comparing him to a couple of never were nobodies is f****** insulting.CURLY wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 4:06pmPaddy showed more than enough to suggest he was a AFL standard key forward. His leading patterns and ability to read the drop of the ball and protect the zone were excellent. He was rated numebr one for a reason it wasn't left field.skeptic wrote: ↑Mon 20 Jul 2020 3:06pmI don’t know Curly...
It takes a lot to go right to make it in the AFL as a forward.
Paddy showed some promise
So did Tom Lee, Beau Wilkes and a plethora of other forwards that didn’t amount to much.
People talk about Paddy as though he was a sure thing to make it but the reality is that injury prevented us from even really getting a sense that he was any good.
At his size and with his natural attributes being what they were... he’s have needed to be exceptional to make it as a good forward.
There were some concerns there
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.