Like who genius? I Spose you wanted Owies...Fmd
Wtf! I said “DRAFT”. Read my post before replying to it.
Narkle isn’t going to offer more than Pick 30 is let alone Pick 14.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like who genius? I Spose you wanted Owies...Fmd
Your opinion on Narkle does seem to have him in the Noah Cumberland tier of potato so I see why you are upset at this ideaWtf have you been watching? Walters is still way way ahead.
Christ, that's rough. I'm thinking we're about to experience a seismic 180 on the goal scoring front. It started to turn last year with the emergence of Treacy, but if you include expected growth from experience and same players staying together, plus Bolton adding more than the sum of his parts (genuinely think he's going to free everyone up a bit and we'll see a big overall leap from this), we're going to be keeping the ad execs at 7 very happy.
Stark set of statistics here.
Finally we appear to be fixing the area that in truth has been a weakness for the entire existence of the club
I'm no huge fan of the potential signing by any stretch because it's depth that we pretty much know will be depth and we don't need it, but 2 things with noting:Depth for the sake of depth isn't a good thing at all. My best 23 wouldn't have Banfield or Walters in it and they're far superior to Narkle.
If he's behind Simpson as well why the **** should he be on our list.
Draft a younger actual genuine small forward (not a failed midfielder like Narkle) and they can play the 0-5 games Narkle would've played.
He's not in our top 30 players and he isn't even close to that. He spent six months outside the system and has been delisted again for a reason.
Your opinion on Narkle does seem to have him in the Noah Cumberland tier of potato so I see why you are upset at this idea
Not actually sure if you're serious here. You need veteran depth on your list. You can't afford to have it full of untried, inexperienced kids. There would be no window at all if our list profile looked like that. For the last 10 years, premiership winning teams have used between 37 and 40 players during that year. You need plug and play depth.He’s just a waste of a list space. It doesn’t make any sense no matter how much people try to justify.
We have 42-44 players on our list depending on number of Category B rookies. You just can’t afford to have players like Brodie and Narkle on your list taking up the space of a talented youngster - That’s on top of two clearly cooked veterans. This ‘premiership window’ isn’t going to last very long if we keep making these decisions. We’re on track to have a gun best 22 with nothing but laughable hacks as depth in 2-3 years.
A good top 30 players with some good youth underneath to challenge them is what is ideal. Maybe throw in some spud talls as genuine last resorts if needed. I don’t see the need for spud smalls. There’s nothing wrong with 5-6 players on our list being developing players nowhere near the best 23 as long as 2-3 or them develop into at least decent depth in the following seasons.
Not actually sure if you're serious here. You need veteran depth on your list. You can't afford to have it full of untried, inexperienced kids. There would be no window at all if our list profile looked like that. For the last 10 years, premiership winning teams have used between 37 and 40 players during that year. You need plug and play depth.
Yeah it’s brutal.Christ, that's rough. I'm thinking we're about to experience a seismic 180 on the goal scoring front. It started to turn last year with the emergence of Treacy, but if you include expected growth from experience and same players staying together, plus Bolton adding more than the sum of his parts (genuinely think he's going to free everyone up a bit and we'll see a big overall leap from this), we're going to be keeping the ad execs at 7 very happy.
On SM-G988U1 using BigFooty.com mobile app
No current season stats available
He would be their 10th best playerI wonder if Tom Clurey, also delisted by Port while contracted, is going to end up at WC to serve as a key defender stop gap while others build up.
No current season stats available
Would rather Grainger- Barass tbh.
He can replace Pearce. Don’t back any of the KPDs, even Cox.
Narkle brings such a meh to the squad. It’s a Mates Rates type Rookie
We're on the same page then. Typically 28-30 would play more than 5 games in any given premiership year over the last 10 so that's what's important. The odd cameo could also mean the difference but it's more about having a consistent group together. Either way, I think there's room for a stable pony.By ‘good youth underneath them to challenge them’ I’m referring to guys that’ve been on the list 1-3 years and have already played AFL football.
You’re 100% right that teams use 37-40 players but the amount of players that make a meaningful contribution (i.e. more than 5 games) is closer to 28-30 players. I can’t see Narkle being anywhere near best 22 so I think it’s a waste of time to have him play say three games when that could’ve been Simpson or a draftee from this year.
I might not have written it the best way but I don’t think anything you’ve said is overly inconsistent with my opinion tbh. Do think in hindsight 30 isn’t a great enough number though but I’m still lost at what Narkle provides that this doesn’t have.
FWIW we had 29 players play five or more games this year and 36 play overall.
According to Barich, Narkle is joining our rookie list starting next week.
I'll only be really against it if they keep Emmett. That's less against Emmett and more about having too many maturespudsdepth roleplayers. I'll be pretty peeved not taking 3 actual picks in this draft
It's the role he's playing though. With the number of small forwards in the draft (including later ones), I'd be pretty bemused if we didnt take one regardless of what we do with Narkle and EmmettHe’s not really a genuine small forward either. Doesn’t solve the issue everyone is claiming it does even if he was good, which he isn’t.
We need to draft a proper small forward if we delist Emmett and put Narkle on the rookie list. With Emmett instead of Narkle on the list I would’ve been comfortable enough waiting until next year if a small forward was too far from best available with our first two picks.
2022When did that happen
I wouldn’t waste my time with either of them. Given how close he is with Bolton and Kozzie it can’t hurt to add a little depth for 12 months.Narkle failed a medical??
I don’t see the point myself. Obviously the final nail for Emmett though. Being totally honest Emmett is a long shot due to lack of composure.
The equivalent of getting Colyer again, but our best 22 is a lot stronger.He’s just a waste of a list space. It doesn’t make any sense no matter how much people try to justify.
We have 42-44 players on our list depending on number of Category B rookies. You just can’t afford to have players like Brodie and Narkle on your list taking up the space of a talented youngster - That’s on top of two clearly cooked veterans. This ‘premiership window’ isn’t going to last very long if we keep making these decisions. We’re on track to have a gun best 22 with nothing but laughable hacks as depth in 2-3 years.
A good top 30 players with some good youth underneath to challenge them is what is ideal. Maybe throw in some spud talls as genuine last resorts if needed. I don’t see the need for spud smalls. There’s nothing wrong with 5-6 players on our list being developing players nowhere near the best 23 as long as 2-3 or them develop into at least decent depth in the following seasons.