Pick 10 P.Dangerfield vs Pick 13 B.Ebert

[RustyCage]

No doubt though that Dangerfield is a better player than Ebert

How do you measure that? What has dangerfield done that Ebert hasnt?

Ebert would be a fringe player at the Crows this year IMO would be fighting say Chris Knights for a HF role & with his poor disposal he wouldn't be picked everyweek. Also the reason he couldn't get a full time gig at the Eagles.

Has improved but burns the ball doesn't hurt the opposition like Danger does.

Also doesn't go missing for large parts of games like Dangerfield.

[westcoastpanther]

No doubt though that Dangerfield is a better player than Ebert

How do you measure that? What has dangerfield done that Ebert hasnt?

Ebert would be a fringe player at the Crows this year IMO would be fighting say Chris Knights for a HF role & with his poor disposal he wouldn't be picked everyweek. Also the reason he couldn't get a full time gig at the Eagles.

Has improved but burns the ball doesn't hurt the opposition like Danger does.

Also doesn't go missing for large parts of games like Dangerfield.

Pre 2012, yes

[the joker]

Crows got it right 100% quite possibly drafted one of the all time greats of the game, as opposed to a decent player in Brad Ebert.

I've heard some shit in my time, but that just about takes the cake.

Im a Crows supporter BC and I tend to agree with you. That statement might be a little over the top

if you speak to Roo he thinks danger will retire as the greatest crow of all time.

[overloaded]

Crows got it right 100% quite possibly drafted one of the all time greats of the game, as opposed to a decent player in Brad Ebert.

I've heard some shit in my time, but that just about takes the cake.

Im a Crows supporter BC and I tend to agree with you. That statement might be a little over the top

if you speak to Roo he thinks danger will retire as the greatest crow of all time.

how many cans had he had?

Ebert more consistant, and would rather him in finals footy. PD goes MIA too often

[am Bays]

Think I've just spotted Brad Ebert at the 20 min of the final qtr...

[DOC]

No doubt though that Dangerfield is a better player than Ebert

How do you measure that? What has dangerfield done that Ebert hasnt?

Ebert would be a fringe player at the Crows this year IMO would be fighting say Chris Knights for a HF role & with his poor disposal he wouldn't be picked everyweek. Also the reason he couldn't get a full time gig at the Eagles.

Has improved but burns the ball doesn't hurt the opposition like Danger does.

Also doesn't go missing for large parts of games like Dangerfield.

Yep. Yet to get a disposal while resting on the bench.

[the joker]

[quote="scoob"]Crows got it right 100% quite possibly drafted one of the all time greats of the game, as opposed to a decent player in Brad Ebert.

I've heard some shit in my time, but that just about takes the cake.

Im a Crows supporter BC and I tend to agree with you. That statement might be a little over the top

if you speak to Roo he thinks danger will retire as the greatest crow of all time.

how many cans had he had?

Ebert more consistant, and would rather him in finals footy. PD goes MIA too often[/quote]
dangerfield number 11 in disposals in the AFL, and number one in the comp for contested possestions
People who would take ebert first, have no idea about the game of aussie rules football

[kickinit]

Ebert more consistant, and would rather him in finals footy. PD goes MIA too often

dangerfield number 11 in disposals in the AFL, and number one in the comp for contested possestions
People who would take ebert first, have no idea about the game of aussie rules football[/quote]

Are you sure about that? here are some stats from last night see if you can do the math.

Brad Ebert: 20 disposals 11 contested 10 uncontested 11 + 10= 21 not 20
Patrick Dangerfield 22 disposals 12 contested 9 uncontested 12+9=21 not 22

As you can see the AFL stats are not always right and also what they call a contested disposal and a uncontested disposal is ridiculous, Dangerfield got a contested disposal after receiving the ball in between 2 port players that where more then a metre away didn't touch him and he ran away to open space and had a kick.

There both younger footballers and have a long way and a lot to learn about footy. What happen if Dangerfield did an injury next week which caused him to never play football again? would you then say he was the better pick over Ebert?

[the joker]

Stupid comment. Pick a player because one might get injured.
I will post the stats after work today to confirm my post

[Footy Smart]

Love Brads work rate, toughness and overall football ability. He isnt a match winner but a very solid contributor and most teams would have him. In saying that he isnt going to get any better than he already is IMO.

Dangerfield has the capacity to still improve dramatically and can be a match winner.

They really are apples and oranges in the way they play and cant be compared. Both will/should have very long and successful careers.... move on people

[Psyber]

Lets face it, this debate is driven by the fact that the Crows chose another player when they could have chosen a Port-bred EBERT!
It is about Port supporters feeling their brand as devalued, or disrespected, by this decision, not about who is the better player.

I'd be happy for the Crows to pick up Brad Ebert sometime as he has potential, but I wouldn't give up Dangerfield, Sloane, or even Mackay for him.

[overloaded]

Mackay

[JK]

Love Brads work rate, toughness and overall football ability. He isnt a match winner but a very solid contributor and most teams would have him. In saying that he isnt going to get any better than he already is IMO.

Dangerfield has the capacity to still improve dramatically and can be a match winner.

They really are apples and oranges in the way they play and cant be compared. Both will/should have very long and successful careers.... move on people

Well said FS

[Booney]

Love Brads work rate, toughness and overall football ability. He isnt a match winner but a very solid contributor and most teams would have him. In saying that he isnt going to get any better than he already is IMO.

Dangerfield has the capacity to still improve dramatically and can be a match winner.

They really are apples and oranges in the way they play and cant be compared. Both will/should have very long and successful careers.... move on people

Are they that different, as far as the game position / style they play? I think they are pretty similar, but most midfielders are alike now anyway, you need more than one asset ( inside player / outside player ) to be a contributor in the modern game.

Both can polish up on the skills, thats for sure. Ebert more so than Dangerfield.

[scoob]

There is not a player in the league that I would swap for Paddy - He more upside than anyone

[Lightning McQueen]

There is not a player in the league that I would swap for Paddy - He more upside than anyone

[Footy Smart]

Love Brads work rate, toughness and overall football ability. He isnt a match winner but a very solid contributor and most teams would have him. In saying that he isnt going to get any better than he already is IMO.

Dangerfield has the capacity to still improve dramatically and can be a match winner.

They really are apples and oranges in the way they play and cant be compared. Both will/should have very long and successful careers.... move on people

Are they that different, as far as the game position / style they play? I think they are pretty similar, but most midfielders are alike now anyway, you need more than one asset ( inside player / outside player ) to be a contributor in the modern game.

Both can polish up on the skills, thats for sure. Ebert more so than Dangerfield.

Yeah they play the same position but IMO Ebert is a work horse who will accumulate possessions over the 4 qtrs. Dangerfield is an explosive player who will not always get 30+ touches but what touches he does get will have a massive offensive upside for the team.

Skills on both definately need polishing up on. Dangerfield is a 70mtr player, Ebert is a 40-50mtr player. Is one better than the other? No, they play their role within a team structure.

[overloaded]

Love Brads work rate, toughness and overall football ability. He isnt a match winner but a very solid contributor and most teams would have him. In saying that he isnt going to get any better than he already is IMO.

Dangerfield has the capacity to still improve dramatically and can be a match winner.

They really are apples and oranges in the way they play and cant be compared. Both will/should have very long and successful careers.... move on people

Are they that different, as far as the game position / style they play? I think they are pretty similar, but most midfielders are alike now anyway, you need more than one asset ( inside player / outside player ) to be a contributor in the modern game.

Both can polish up on the skills, thats for sure. Ebert more so than Dangerfield.

Yeah they play the same position but IMO Ebert is a work horse who will accumulate possessions over the 4 qtrs. Dangerfield is an explosive player who will not always get 30+ touches but what touches he does get will have a massive offensive upside for the team.

Skills on both definately need polishing up on. Dangerfield is a 70mtr player, Ebert is a 40-50mtr player. Is one better than the other? No, they play their role within a team structure.

So they are equal. End of thread

[Lightning McQueen]

So they are equal. End of thread

Cool

[scoob]

Love Brads work rate, toughness and overall football ability. He isnt a match winner but a very solid contributor and most teams would have him. In saying that he isnt going to get any better than he already is IMO.

Dangerfield has the capacity to still improve dramatically and can be a match winner.

They really are apples and oranges in the way they play and cant be compared. Both will/should have very long and successful careers.... move on people

Are they that different, as far as the game position / style they play? I think they are pretty similar, but most midfielders are alike now anyway, you need more than one asset ( inside player / outside player ) to be a contributor in the modern game.

Both can polish up on the skills, thats for sure. Ebert more so than Dangerfield.

Yeah they play the same position but IMO Ebert is a work horse who will accumulate possessions over the 4 qtrs. Dangerfield is an explosive player who will not always get 30+ touches but what touches he does get will have a massive offensive upside for the team.

Skills on both definately need polishing up on. Dangerfield is a 70mtr player, Ebert is a 40-50mtr player. Is one better than the other? No, they play their role within a team structure.

So they are equal. End of thread

Carp!