skeptic wrote: ↑Wed 04 Mar 2020 10:17am
Well you know what they say... stats lie and people that use stats are liars. Forgive me if I misread the goals one... only glanced at them because I didn’t see the point.
It’s a very warped view IMO when you need numbers to demonstrate a point for you and it’s usually to confuse the issue. It’s AFL... not rocket science hence it’s really not the hard to look at performance and judge it. Think it’s much better to watch games and form an opinion as opposed to look at the % inside 50s or some garbage
I think very few ppl would Paddy ahead of Dougal on exposed form injury concerns not withstanding
It’s a very weird scenario because you’re basically asking me to disregard arguably the main factor that has hampered Paddy’s development. This discussion wasn’t about who was the better prospect but about whether Paddy would be redrafted. My opinion is that I’d consider him an extremely risky prospect
Obviously you would redraft him in a heartbeat and that’s fair enough but you’re rating him on potential rather than what he’s produced
I was just countering your wierd scenario/hypothetical,
"if he was pick 70 on what he’s produced so far, would anybody be having this discussion?". However with my hypothetical you can use the facts of history and statistics as a baseline for reality. Meaning two players entered the same draft and were 56 picks appart. Both of them have had a very long time to produce an underwhelming number of games and value and both are still trading on potential. One of Dougal's assistant coaches even went on the public record to say Dougal had not grabbed his opportunity while at Port. So there is conflicting views coming out of Adelaide on Dougal.
Without question concusion has been Paddy's reason for delivering under 50 games over 5 seasons, Dougal has had his injuries too but it's unclear to many in the industry outside of Adealaide why he also only has under 50 games over 5 seasons.
Yet there are some who refuse to acknowledge Paddy's form and value was impacted by his concussion injury but rather it was either a stuff up for picking him ahead of others in the first place or because of the way he was coached and/or various other really strange opinions.
But here we have a guy who has been very underwhelming over the same amount of time in the game as Paddy, was picked 56 spots below Paddy, so potential for Dougal was assessed much lower than Paddy, and virtually zero supporters have even seen Dougal kick a ball in anger, yet we are so willing to accept he is worth a 5 year and $3 million contract. Fascinating.
If Paddy didn't have a concussion injury would we be having this discussion. And would we be offering Paddy a 5 year $3 million contract or would we give it too a bloke we haven't seen play yet and who has struggled to hobble 50 games over 5 years.
