Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
All over?
I wonder how many goals Bruce would have kicked if he was playing full back this year?
Dont worry about goals (even though they are important).
Hes got twice as many contested possies and twice as many tackles and 7 times more contested marks and more marks in general (much harder take marks inside 50 than down back).
Heck Bruce even equals him in hit outs.
So yeah hes all over him anyway you slice it or dice and adjusting for positions. Just all over him.
You're funny.
Their stats are basically the same
Same kicks, handballs, marks.
Bruce is ahead in tackles, Stanley 20% more efficient.
Since they are playing conpletely different positions it's a pretty irrelevant comparison anyway.
He's probably all over dustin fletcher at the same age too.
All over?
I wonder how many goals Bruce would have kicked if he was playing full back this year?
Dont worry about goals (even though they are important).
Hes got twice as many contested possies and twice as many tackles and 7 times more contested marks and more marks in general (much harder take marks inside 50 than down back).
Heck Bruce even equals him in hit outs.
So yeah hes all over him anyway you slice it or dice and adjusting for positions. Just all over him.
You're funny.
Their stats are basically the same
Same kicks, handballs, marks.
Bruce is ahead in tackles, Stanley 20% more efficient.
Since they are playing conpletely different positions it's a pretty irrelevant comparison anyway.
He's probably all over dustin fletcher at the same age too.
Bruce has 3 goals per game average and twice as many contested possessions.
Bruce has 3 x time as many tackles.
Bruce has more marks and is playing a harder position
Bruce has 3 inside 50 marks per game - one of the hardest things to do in football
Bruce has TWICE AS MANY contested marks!
I can only assume you are joking.
Seriously you must have some weird crush thing for Stanley (not that there is anything wrong with that) because any rational person can see Bruce is all over him.
Perhaps get someone independent to make an analysis and get back to me because you just arent thinking straight.
Last edited by Con Gorozidis on Sun 26 Apr 2015 11:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
habds down Bruce geez this is really being debated? guy can play forward can play defense and is second in the Coleman atm.
Stanley was good but Bruce is much better.
ShanghaiSaint wrote:habds down Bruce geez this is really being debated? guy can play forward can play defense and is second in the Coleman atm.
Stanley was good but Bruce is much better.
"Stanley was good" is seriously debatable. If you mean in the Freo game last year then yes.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
ShanghaiSaint wrote:habds down Bruce geez this is really being debated? guy can play forward can play defense and is second in the Coleman atm.
Stanley was good but Bruce is much better.
"Stanley was good" is seriously debatable. If you mean in the Freo game last year then yes.
ha ha i was just trying to be nice to an ex sainter. 8856 i really believed in stan hoped every week he would just click and turn into a killer forward. anyway it happened but he transformed in Bruce!
All over?
I wonder how many goals Bruce would have kicked if he was playing full back this year?
Dont worry about goals (even though they are important).
Hes got twice as many contested possies and twice as many tackles and 7 times more contested marks and more marks in general (much harder take marks inside 50 than down back).
Heck Bruce even equals him in hit outs.
So yeah hes all over him anyway you slice it or dice and adjusting for positions. Just all over him.
You're funny.
Their stats are basically the same
Same kicks, handballs, marks.
Bruce is ahead in tackles, Stanley 20% more efficient.
Since they are playing conpletely different positions it's a pretty irrelevant comparison anyway.
He's probably all over dustin fletcher at the same age too.
Bruce has 3 goals per game average and twice as many contested possessions.
Bruce has 3 x time as many tackles.
Bruce has more marks and is playing a harder position
Bruce has 3 inside 50 marks per game - one of the hardest things to do in football
Bruce has TWICE AS MANY contested marks!
I can only assume you are joking.
Seriously you must have some weird crush thing for Stanley (not that there is anything wrong with that) because any rational person can see Bruce is all over him.
Perhaps get someone independent to make an analysis and get back to me because you just arent thinking straight.
Bruce's stats have been great this year but you're comparing his four games this year to 18 games for Stanley when he was playing in the back line. I hope Bruce keeps it up all season but four games is not a lot to make a comparison on.
You are saying they're the same age but with Bruce born in June and Stanley in December Bruce has half a year on him. Maybe give it a few more games and then compare Bruce 2015 to Stanley 2014.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Stanley is a no position player.. Drafted as a ruckman. But because
of his speed and lack of physicality/competitiveness, was made to play forward and back.
An athlete playing football unfortunately. Played 3 good games in 6 years. Still kicked 19 goals
last year and can be the relief ruckman. 2 goals in 3 games in year.
Bruce was a forward before GWS. Forced to play backman because
GWS had Cameron, Patten and Boyd. He came to us as a Backman.
But due to injuries, moved to the forward line. Is athletic, competitive,
A fantastic mark. He tackles, chases and has terrific endurance. 12 goals
in 4 games this year. I think can kick 40 goals if he keeps his form up.
Sign him up asap I'd say as his current contract ends this year.
Not really a comparison as they don't play the same position. Cloke versus Steven is about the same relevance. Steven is s*** because he doesn't kick 5 goals a week. Cloke is poor because he doesn't average 28 possessions a game. Geelong are getting Stanley to free up Blicavs apparently. Primarily to turn into a number one ruck.
Bruce looks the real deal. Seems he worked hard at his set shots over summer, and is nailing them.
He is strong in the air, and tenacious on the ground.
Kicked goals with very limited opportunities the past 2 games (including the Pies game when he was sick as a dog and would have withdrawn until Roo did his calf)
Dermot compared him to Cam Mooney. I recon that sells him short. Looking a bit better than Mooney IMO.. I recon we have found a genuine key forward for the next decade... or at least 8 years... He needs more than anything a very good partner in crime down there, lets hope Paddy comes through
gringo wrote:Not really a comparison as they don't play the same position. Cloke versus Steven is about the same relevance. Steven is s*** because he doesn't kick 5 goals a week. Cloke is poor because he doesn't average 28 possessions a game. Geelong are getting Stanley to free up Blicavs apparently. Primarily to turn into a number one ruck.
We tried to play Stanley Fwd for an entire season last year (19 goals).
I agree Stanley is a ruckman only and not a KPP but you cant deny we played him as a key fwd for an entire season.
And of course you can compare them.
If I tell you Fyfe is a better player than Tyrone Vickery you cant tell me -' nah no comparison'.
All over?
I wonder how many goals Bruce would have kicked if he was playing full back this year?
Dont worry about goals (even though they are important).
Hes got twice as many contested possies and twice as many tackles and 7 times more contested marks and more marks in general (much harder take marks inside 50 than down back).
Heck Bruce even equals him in hit outs.
So yeah hes all over him anyway you slice it or dice and adjusting for positions. Just all over him.
You're funny.
Their stats are basically the same
Same kicks, handballs, marks.
Bruce is ahead in tackles, Stanley 20% more efficient.
Since they are playing conpletely different positions it's a pretty irrelevant comparison anyway.
He's probably all over dustin fletcher at the same age too.
Bruce has 3 goals per game average and twice as many contested possessions.
Bruce has 3 x time as many tackles.
Bruce has more marks and is playing a harder position
Bruce has 3 inside 50 marks per game - one of the hardest things to do in football
Bruce has TWICE AS MANY contested marks!
I can only assume you are joking.
Seriously you must have some weird crush thing for Stanley (not that there is anything wrong with that) because any rational person can see Bruce is all over him.
Perhaps get someone independent to make an analysis and get back to me because you just arent thinking straight.
Bruce's stats have been great this year but you're comparing his four games this year to 18 games for Stanley when he was playing in the back line. I hope Bruce keeps it up all season but four games is not a lot to make a comparison on.
You are saying they're the same age but with Bruce born in June and Stanley in December Bruce has half a year on him. Maybe give it a few more games and then compare Bruce 2015 to Stanley 2014.
Fair enough. Lets wait a month and compare Bruce 2015 to Stanley 2014.
The result will be even more comprehensive.
From all reports the Cats have all but given up on McIntosh and Simpson leaving Rhys as their number 1 Ruckman. You'd think he will play a lot of games as a Ruckman in the next few years. There will be plenty of ordinary ones but its no wonder they gave us pick 21 for him.
I wish Rhys all the best in his AFL career, and thank him for his efforts. But seriously happy at how Bruce is travelling ( and hopefully WILL travel in the years ahead!)
gringo wrote:Not really a comparison as they don't play the same position. Cloke versus Steven is about the same relevance. Steven is s*** because he doesn't kick 5 goals a week. Cloke is poor because he doesn't average 28 possessions a game. Geelong are getting Stanley to free up Blicavs apparently. Primarily to turn into a number one ruck.
We tried to play Stanley Fwd for an entire season last year (19 goals).
I agree Stanley is a ruckman only and not a KPP but you cant deny we played him as a key fwd for an entire season.
And of course you can compare them.
If I tell you Fyfe is a better player than Tyrone Vickery you cant tell me -' nah no comparison'.
Bruce has gone really well and I actually remember saying when Rhys had his best game it was because Josh Bruce lead out wide all day. Stanley probably would have done better if they had played him as a KPF close in to goal instead we gave him a roaming nowhere kind of role. He was wasted the way we played him and probably slowed his development. He was an okay player with potential. Josh Bruce looks an okay player who has shown a lot more potential. But don't start strutting around until he has done it for a full year or you'll jinx him. He has had one excellent game so far. I think Stanley had at least one.
gringo wrote:Not really a comparison as they don't play the same position. Cloke versus Steven is about the same relevance. Steven is s*** because he doesn't kick 5 goals a week. Cloke is poor because he doesn't average 28 possessions a game. Geelong are getting Stanley to free up Blicavs apparently. Primarily to turn into a number one ruck.
We tried to play Stanley Fwd for an entire season last year (19 goals).
I agree Stanley is a ruckman only and not a KPP but you cant deny we played him as a key fwd for an entire season.
And of course you can compare them.
If I tell you Fyfe is a better player than Tyrone Vickery you cant tell me -' nah no comparison'.
19 goals is a good return if Stanley played more time in the ruck. He didn't as we played 2 full-blown rucks and therefore, output was not there.
Stanley is a hack. How we could waste pick 47 on him is a joke. When we could of picked, Taylor Hunt, Neville Jetta, Michael Walters, Tom Lee, Luke Lowden and Shane Savage.
Previous administration had no idea.
hayes66 wrote:Stanley is a hack. How we could waste pick 47 on him is a joke. When we could of picked, Taylor Hunt, Neville Jetta, Michael Walters, Tom Lee, Luke Lowden and Shane Savage.
Previous administration had no idea.
hayes66 wrote:Stanley is a hack. How we could waste pick 47 on him is a joke. When we could of picked, Taylor Hunt, Neville Jetta, Michael Walters, Tom Lee, Luke Lowden and Shane Savage.
Previous administration had no idea.
I hope that post is a joke. It has all the signs.
Joke!!!
Well let's look at what was stated: Previous administration (recruiting) had no idea: I would think nearly 100% of people on here would agree with that.
Michael Walters we could have: 100% would agree Walters is better than Stanley.
Hunt, Jetta and Savage: I would guess most on here would agree with that.
The rest, Lee and Lowden some would rate them higher than Stanley.
So i would think looking at who we could of had the majority would say, "We wasted pick 47."
Stanley a hack: Well a lot of here have stated words to that effect.
hayes66 wrote:Stanley is a hack. How we could waste pick 47 on him is a joke. When we could of picked, Taylor Hunt, Neville Jetta, Michael Walters, Tom Lee, Luke Lowden and Shane Savage.
Previous administration had no idea.
I hope that post is a joke. It has all the signs.
Joke!!!
Well let's look at what was stated: Previous administration (recruiting) had no idea: I would think nearly 100% of people on here would agree with that.
Michael Walters we could have: 100% would agree Walters is better than Stanley.
Hunt, Jetta and Savage: I would guess most on here would agree with that.
The rest, Lee and Lowden some would rate them higher than Stanley.
So i would think looking at who we could of had the majority would say, "We wasted pick 47."
Stanley a hack: Well a lot of here have stated words to that effect.
Joke, what part? I am taking the majority view.
Firstly the joke of Lee and Lowden and secondly fancy a club getting pick 47 wrong. Anyway we didn't because we got about pick 21 for him. I could go back over every single club of every single year and find there were better players than a player around that pick. Anyway apart from Walters the rest are ho hum anyway. Im guessing the majority view is they think your post is a joke. How do you say you are taking the majority view. I haven't seen many if any say he was a wasted pick at pick 47. Nice term hack anyway. Was he a hack last year and who are our hacks we now have.
hayes66 wrote:Stanley is a hack. How we could waste pick 47 on him is a joke. When we could of picked, Taylor Hunt, Neville Jetta, Michael Walters, Tom Lee, Luke Lowden and Shane Savage.
Previous administration had no idea.
I hope that post is a joke. It has all the signs.
Joke!!!
Well let's look at what was stated: Previous administration (recruiting) had no idea: I would think nearly 100% of people on here would agree with that.
Michael Walters we could have: 100% would agree Walters is better than Stanley.
Hunt, Jetta and Savage: I would guess most on here would agree with that.
The rest, Lee and Lowden some would rate them higher than Stanley.
So i would think looking at who we could of had the majority would say, "We wasted pick 47."
Stanley a hack: Well a lot of here have stated words to that effect.
Joke, what part? I am taking the majority view.
Firstly the joke of Lee and Lowden and secondly fancy a club getting pick 47 wrong. Anyway we didn't because we got about pick 21 for him. I could go back over every single club of every single year and find there were better players than a player around that pick. Anyway apart from Walters the rest are ho hum anyway. Im guessing the majority view is they think your post is a joke. How do you say you are taking the majority view. I haven't seen many if any say he was a wasted pick at pick 47. Nice term hack anyway. Was he a hack last year and who are our hacks we now have.
So, am i correct in assuming you think he was a reasonable pick at 47?
( God help me)