McCartin

[CURLY]

It’s not pedantic, Curly stated I’ve got no idea, when Cleary he does not have a clue?!

BM when McCartin was drafted all Collingwood or Sydney had to do was use there first. Now they have come back with a handful of late draft picks to match which is a crock of s***.

[B.M]

They did do that?!

A bid came in the first round for both players, and they matched.

So now you’ve sort of got your head around it, let’s look at the original argument.

Moore and Heeney were in a group of players who (with hindsight) could/should have gone as the number 1 selection as they have turned out better than McCartin or Petracca for that matter (who I had as a clear #1)

Of course
If Heeney or Moore we’re selected by us (which they COULD have been) Sydney and Collingwood could have matched.

So in hindsight our recruiting dept got it wrong, as most do every year. Rarely does the best player in the draft group go number 1. But as long as the player you select turns out to be a good player, that’s ok. Didn’t happen with Paddy.

Thing is, many saints supporters were wanting Petracca at the time, and whilst he is no star yet, he was in my opinion a better prospect at the time.
Paddy had skin folds of +60 FFS and I could probably beat him around the tan. Petracca is no aerobic athlete either, but he has elite power and acceleration.

Anyway, all history now. We took the right guy last year imo.

[BackFromUSA]

McCartin will have another crack at it once cleared to play but he has to get fit and be selected before he can actually play.

[Joffa Burns]

It’s not pedantic, Curly stated I’ve got no idea, when Cleary he does not have a clue?!

Come on B.M, Give Curly a break.

He is Saintsationals preeminent expert on all things conspiracy and cheating related.

Curly may have stepped outside of his area of expertise here this muddying the waters.

Perhaps there is an element of AFL cheating on behalf of academy clubs therefore Curly has entered the robust debate.

<1 day ban for baiting>

[sunsaint]

McCartin will have another crack at it once cleared to play but he has to get fit and be selected before he can actually play.

my argument for at least 18 months has been - should the club carry the risk and cost of him going down again
In five seasons he has played 35 games ....
The weight of contracts vs return is clearly in his favour not ours.

[kalsaint]

Brayshaw and DeGoey were in the frame too. The Boyd deal spooked us and the rest is history.

The thing that amazes me is that we constantly use high draft picks on talls when we are crying out for mids. Bizarre. Even the decision to pick Billings was odd - a half-forward flanker when we desperately need midfield grunt.

Brayshaw and DeGoey were in the frame too. The Boyd deal spooked us and the rest is history.

The thing that amazes me is that we constantly use high draft picks on talls when we are crying out for mids. Bizarre. Even the decision to pick Billings was odd - a half-forward flanker when we desperately need midfield grunt.

Which Boyd? Tom was the prior year so why would a prior year deal spook our recruitment?

Agree on the need for a quality mid but historically we never seemed that smart as other clubs recognised the impact of midfielders, we didn't and thought we could develop others in the role. Never worked.

Lets see,
1 Great repayment from Nick Rewoldt as a number 1, Kosi went well at pick 2 but suffered with head contact injury (al a McCartin). Both with Champions over their first 2 years bar Nicks injury.

2 Ball was taken after Hodge was the preference but taken by Hawks. Judd was next so we could assume we were spooked by shoulder reconstructions! Both he and Judd were champions around the packs but Ball was slow and less effective with kicking. He later became riddled with injury after being said to be a freak ball magnet with skills at junior level. We damaged him.

3 Did well with Carltons donation of Brendon Goddard, when they were penalised for cheating. Ha Ha to Carlscum.

4 Did well in following years with picks. Dal was great. Lenny was great. Fisher was a bi9g improvement from our past later picks. Clarke was great but injured doing species half the time.

5 Armo was selected one pick before Riewoldt! What part of Riewoldt didn't we understand? He was kicking some massive scores at lower level footy! Obviously no one was watching. Armo had a couple of really influential seasons, was a gutsy player but took nearly 5 years to develop. He wasn't fast and didn't have that Judd type impact we missed in earlier years. Good soldier that Collingwood recognised at our demise in 2010.

6 Little to no prizes in our picks during our better and more successful years. Some good trades like Bruce resulted. He took over the crowd that used to follow Nick Riewoldt every game.

7 2013 - Billings a # 3 pick, Bontompelli was pick 4. Jack is still developing in my mind. Bontempelli was lifting a Premiership cup 3 years later after his massive leadership contribution. You only had to look at the videos on these kids in that draft. Bontempelli featured in nearly all of the them chasing, tackling, passing to others in others videos and kicking goals in his own video. Seemed to me to be a standout midfielder. Hmmm a big/tall midfielder, something we never tried but needed. Other clubs were all doing this, we were behind in this. The football list manager at the bulldogs will have finally realised this by now.

8 2014 - Took a tall forward rather than another bullocking tallish midfielder (Petracca). Yes we can argue whether Petracca was the right choice or not. I did then (many comments on this selection here) and still think this would have been the correct decision. Rushing a top forward in for Nick to guide was a reaction, not true development. The rest about health and availability needs no discussion here oter than we are still not benefitting by these past selections. Feel sad for Paddy but always wondered how an old style leading forward who was diabetic would fare at the elite level.

9 2015 - 2016: Some fair picks but most haven't lasted through injury or skills. Many soldiers developed leading up to this phase and beyond. We tended to avoid the prime midfielder requirement in drafts picks to be successful. WE grabbed a great trade for the Man of Steel.

10 2017 onwards we realised that the rest of the league has been recruiting bigger, faster and realised we had some skills deficiency. Too late we have a team of soldier, no elites so we start the process of quality midfielder picks. Another large amount of trades are required to shift this past history of required. New coach agrees with his prior boss at Hawthorn and stipulates a massive increase in skills is needed. Clarko say if you cant kick you probably shouldn't be playing footy.
You could argue that we only got te message after a Hawk assistant moved to Saints to coach.

On this forum and Facebook there has been plentiful critique on player skills. Why our recruitment has not seen this and acted within a period of AFL policy is beyond me. Call me disappointed, that's an understatement.

[The Fireman]

I think McCartin threads are a good thing..cathartic... Gives us all the opportunity to cry over spilt milk ... not to mention another way to share our outrage towards previous administrators and sink the slipper into our club.

Yeah bringem on.

Any shrink will tell you it's good to bring it out and share.

If you guys don't mind, I'll just move on.

[kalsaint]

I think McCartin threads are a good thing..cathartic... Gives us all the opportunity to cry over spilt milk ... not to mention another way to share our outrage towards previous administrators and sink the slipper into our club.

Yeah bringem on.

Any shrink will tell you it's good to bring it out and share.

If you guys don't mind, I'll just move on.

Rant over by me. I think I will move on from this too. I doesn't really help with my disappointment anyway.

[CURLY]

They did do that?!

A bid came in the first round for both players, and they matched.

So now you’ve sort of got your head around it, let’s look at the original argument.

Moore and Heeney were in a group of players who (with hindsight) could/should have gone as the number 1 selection as they have turned out better than McCartin or Petracca for that matter (who I had as a clear #1)

Of course
If Heeney or Moore we’re selected by us (which they COULD have been) Sydney and Collingwood could have matched.

So in hindsight our recruiting dept got it wrong, as most do every year. Rarely does the best player in the draft group go number 1. But as long as the player you select turns out to be a good player, that’s ok. Didn’t happen with Paddy.

Thing is, many saints supporters were wanting Petracca at the time, and whilst he is no star yet, he was in my opinion a better prospect at the time.
Paddy had skin folds of +60 FFS and I could probably beat him around the tan. Petracca is no aerobic athlete either, but he has elite power and acceleration.

Anyway, all history now. We took the right guy last year imo.

What the hell is wrong with you? Why would a recruiting team bother preparing to call out a bloke at one only to have the team with pick 17 take them? Yes there were other options other than McCartin but Moore and Heeneycant be included in the conversation. Heeney was rated in the top 3 or 4 players so for Sydney getting him gifted to them at 17 was a no brainer. Just another s*** no brained crack at the club by you.

[Spinner]

Curly

Give it a rest, seriously

And if clubs did have him 1 or 2

Yes, they had it wrong.
DeGoey, Brayshaw, Moore, Lever, Heeney, Wright ... in hindsight were easily better picks.
I do realise Heeney and Moore were bid players, but we didn’t bid on them.

As everyone knows, I had Christian at #1
Which also would have been an average pick... but not a poor pick as he has at least played nearly 100 games.

Moore and Heeney weren’t available. Wright has struggled to play seniors at GC. DeGoey would have been forced out by the media witch hunt if we drafted him and Brayshaw we’d be spewing on because he’s one paced.

McCartin has been killed with injury no one could have predicted.

Agree with this Curly, and all the multiple follow ups.

The bidding process for the Moore/Henry draft was significantly different to the year after which was points based.

Collingwood and Sydney simply had to use their next draft pick in the round the bid came. Therefore Collingwood would still have used 8 and Sydney 18 even if we bid pick 1 so what was the point.

No point. The promotional value attached to the number one pick and the fact that a pick simply had to come before those respective team’s first pick made it ridiculously stupid to do otherwise.

[Spinner]

They did do that?!

A bid came in the first round for both players, and they matched.

So now you’ve sort of got your head around it, let’s look at the original argument.

Moore and Heeney were in a group of players who (with hindsight) could/should have gone as the number 1 selection as they have turned out better than McCartin or Petracca for that matter (who I had as a clear #1)

Of course
If Heeney or Moore we’re selected by us (which they COULD have been) Sydney and Collingwood could have matched.

So in hindsight our recruiting dept got it wrong, as most do every year. Rarely does the best player in the draft group go number 1. But as long as the player you select turns out to be a good player, that’s ok. Didn’t happen with Paddy.

Thing is, many saints supporters were wanting Petracca at the time, and whilst he is no star yet, he was in my opinion a better prospect at the time.
Paddy had skin folds of +60 FFS and I could probably beat him around the tan. Petracca is no aerobic athlete either, but he has elite power and acceleration.

Anyway, all history now. We took the right guy last year imo.

What the hell is wrong with you? Why would a recruiting team bother preparing to call out a bloke at one only to have the team with pick 17 take them? Yes there were other options other than McCartin but Moore and Heeneycant be included in the conversation. Heeney was rated in the top 3 or 4 players so for Sydney getting him gifted to them at 17 was a no brainer. Just another s*** no brained crack at the club by you.

+100

100% spot on with this. No value in bidding at 1 that year.

There’s confusion with the current system I suspect. Sad this can’t be acknowledged.

[ace]

The decision to recruit him (albeit not entirely his fault)

He did not decide (The Saints did), and so 100% not his "fault".

will be one of the most costly decisions in recent history.

The pick was always McCartin or Petracca, and even though I favoured Petracca at the time Petracca has hardly set the world on fire.

By and large it was a weak draft year and it was our bad luck to have had first pick in that year rather than one like this year, or last year.

If Paddy had not have had concussion, he would have as a minimum been a useful player for us. There is no way anyone could have predicted that he would have been so susceptible to concussion.

Sometimes the pick is wrong.
The right choice given the weakness at the top of the draft was to split pick no1.

But that my not have helped given pick 21 was wasted on Goddard - has their ever been a less mobile player and 22 on McKenzie at least he tries.
First you need a recruitment team that understands that Dustin Martin and Marlion Pickett are NOT of good character and do NOT come from good families but they can play football.
You also need an administration that is up front with sponsors - we are the Saints but our players are not.
You become a sponsor, you commit through good media and bad media.

[ace]

The decision to recruit him (albeit not entirely his fault)

He did not decide (The Saints did), and so 100% not his "fault".

will be one of the most costly decisions in recent history.

The pick was always McCartin or Petracca, and even though I favoured Petracca at the time Petracca has hardly set the world on fire.

By and large it was a weak draft year and it was our bad luck to have had first pick in that year rather than one like this year, or last year.

If Paddy had not have had concussion, he would have as a minimum been a useful player for us. There is no way anyone could have predicted that he would have been so susceptible to concussion.

Sometimes the pick is wrong.
The right choice given the weakness at the top of the draft was neither but to split pick no1 into multiple lower picks.

But that may not have helped given the incompetence that resulted in pick 21 was wasted on Goddard - has their ever been a less mobile player and 22 on McKenzie at least he tries.
First you need a recruitment team that understands that Dustin Martin and Marlion Pickett are NOT of good character and do NOT come from good families but they can play football.
You also need an administration that is up front with sponsors - we are the Saints but our players are not.
You become a sponsor, you commit through good media and bad media.

[BackFromUSA]

McCartin was a wonderful prospect as a deep tall forward.

Really never had to back into packs at TAC level as he was a lead up forward that times his leads perfectly. He also was a wonderful judge of an overhead mark when running to a pack from behind.

At St Kilda he had to become a more 360 degree player as even Full Forward pushes to the midfield when the ball is deep in defence.

He hadn’t developed the skill set of contested ground ball or backing into packs to contest marks while protecting himself.

Nobody taught him the instinct of putting his bum where his head could go or raising his knee in the air to ensure first contact was away from his body.

In hindsight the club should have developed these skills at the VFL level but of course in his debut year the concussion issue wasn’t a problem.

Personally I would love to see him play Full Forward again with him never leaving the 50 metre arc.

If he is cleared to play then let him do this for 2020 at VFL level. Let him lead up. Let him crash the packs from behind with eyes for the ball. Teach him to protect his head with his arse. Ball. Body. Defender. At the end of 2020 we can reassess whether he can play AFL level again.

Of course - first the medical world needs to clear him first.

Then Paddy has to want to do it.

And yen of course the Saints would probably need legal advice or some form of backing from the AFL to allow him to play again and protect from future legal ramifications.

He deserved to be #1 or #2 pick on ability and potential.

To date it is a tragedy.

I am hoping his story has a brighter future.

[portosaint]

They did do that?!

A bid came in the first round for both players, and they matched.

So now you’ve sort of got your head around it, let’s look at the original argument.

Moore and Heeney were in a group of players who (with hindsight) could/should have gone as the number 1 selection as they have turned out better than McCartin or Petracca for that matter (who I had as a clear #1)

Of course
If Heeney or Moore we’re selected by us (which they COULD have been) Sydney and Collingwood could have matched.

So in hindsight our recruiting dept got it wrong, as most do every year. Rarely does the best player in the draft group go number 1. But as long as the player you select turns out to be a good player, that’s ok. Didn’t happen with Paddy.

Thing is, many saints supporters were wanting Petracca at the time, and whilst he is no star yet, he was in my opinion a better prospect at the time.
Paddy had skin folds of +60 FFS and I could probably beat him around the tan. Petracca is no aerobic athlete either, but he has elite power and acceleration.

Anyway, all history now. We took the right guy last year imo.

What the hell is wrong with you? Why would a recruiting team bother preparing to call out a bloke at one only to have the team with pick 17 take them? Yes there were other options other than McCartin but Moore and Heeneycant be included in the conversation. Heeney was rated in the top 3 or 4 players so for Sydney getting him gifted to them at 17 was a no brainer. Just another s*** no brained crack at the club by you.

Ahh FFS... I think the point is, if you don't bid until say, the second round, then you don't force the clubs hand to use their first pick.
So, effectively, if they dont have to match a bid until later in the draft, say the 2nd round, they snag Heeney or whoever with a pick in the late 30's (if they had said pick, of course), while still being able to pick a first rounder at 17.

So even though Heeney was always going to Sydney, it would have been negligent of all clubs with the first 16 picks to allow them to not use their first pick on him.

This is why a recruiting team would bother to call out a player at 1, irrespective of the fact that bid is likely to be matched. Especially if that player is worthy of the first selection. Imagine gifting Heeney to Sydney with a second or third round pick because "there was no point" making them use their first??

This argument is just going in circles.

[portosaint]

Curly

Give it a rest, seriously

And if clubs did have him 1 or 2

Yes, they had it wrong.
DeGoey, Brayshaw, Moore, Lever, Heeney, Wright ... in hindsight were easily better picks.
I do realise Heeney and Moore were bid players, but we didn’t bid on them.

As everyone knows, I had Christian at #1
Which also would have been an average pick... but not a poor pick as he has at least played nearly 100 games.

Moore and Heeney weren’t available. Wright has struggled to play seniors at GC. DeGoey would have been forced out by the media witch hunt if we drafted him and Brayshaw we’d be spewing on because he’s one paced.

McCartin has been killed with injury no one could have predicted.

Agree with this Curly, and all the multiple follow ups.

The bidding process for the Moore/Henry draft was significantly different to the year after which was points based.

Collingwood and Sydney simply had to use their next draft pick in the round the bid came. Therefore Collingwood would still have used 8 and Sydney 18 even if we bid pick 1 so what was the point.

No point. The promotional value attached to the number one pick and the fact that a pick simply had to come before those respective team’s first pick made it ridiculously stupid to do otherwise.

The point being, better to make them have to use a first rounder instead of a second or third, allowing them to gain extra early talent.

Remember, they only had to match the bid with their next pick, so make them do it as early as possible.

[CURLY]

Curly

Give it a rest, seriously

And if clubs did have him 1 or 2

Yes, they had it wrong.
DeGoey, Brayshaw, Moore, Lever, Heeney, Wright ... in hindsight were easily better picks.
I do realise Heeney and Moore were bid players, but we didn’t bid on them.

As everyone knows, I had Christian at #1
Which also would have been an average pick... but not a poor pick as he has at least played nearly 100 games.

Moore and Heeney weren’t available. Wright has struggled to play seniors at GC. DeGoey would have been forced out by the media witch hunt if we drafted him and Brayshaw we’d be spewing on because he’s one paced.

McCartin has been killed with injury no one could have predicted.

Agree with this Curly, and all the multiple follow ups.

The bidding process for the Moore/Henry draft was significantly different to the year after which was points based.

Collingwood and Sydney simply had to use their next draft pick in the round the bid came. Therefore Collingwood would still have used 8 and Sydney 18 even if we bid pick 1 so what was the point.

No point. The promotional value attached to the number one pick and the fact that a pick simply had to come before those respective team’s first pick made it ridiculously stupid to do otherwise.

The point being, better to make them have to use a first rounder instead of a second or third, allowing them to gain extra early talent.

Remember, they only had to match the bid with their next pick, so make them do it as early as possible.

Yeah that would look good. After months of preparation we chose Heeney then the Swans grab him at 17. What a s*** look and boost for the club. By all means bid at 12 or 15 where is far more speculative.

[portosaint]

Curly

Give it a rest, seriously

And if clubs did have him 1 or 2

Yes, they had it wrong.
DeGoey, Brayshaw, Moore, Lever, Heeney, Wright ... in hindsight were easily better picks.
I do realise Heeney and Moore were bid players, but we didn’t bid on them.

As everyone knows, I had Christian at #1
Which also would have been an average pick... but not a poor pick as he has at least played nearly 100 games.

Moore and Heeney weren’t available. Wright has struggled to play seniors at GC. DeGoey would have been forced out by the media witch hunt if we drafted him and Brayshaw we’d be spewing on because he’s one paced.

McCartin has been killed with injury no one could have predicted.

Agree with this Curly, and all the multiple follow ups.

The bidding process for the Moore/Henry draft was significantly different to the year after which was points based.

Collingwood and Sydney simply had to use their next draft pick in the round the bid came. Therefore Collingwood would still have used 8 and Sydney 18 even if we bid pick 1 so what was the point.

No point. The promotional value attached to the number one pick and the fact that a pick simply had to come before those respective team’s first pick made it ridiculously stupid to do otherwise.

The point being, better to make them have to use a first rounder instead of a second or third, allowing them to gain extra early talent.

Remember, they only had to match the bid with their next pick, so make them do it as early as possible.

Yeah that would look good. After months of preparation we chose Heeney then the Swans grab him at 17. What a s*** look and boost for the club. By all means bid at 12 or 15 where is far more speculative.

You're missing the point.

By your own admission he was always going to Sydney... Everyone knew this, the clubs included. As long as a token bid came in the first 16 to make them use that first pick. Be that pick 1 or pick 16, doesn't matter. Just make them use it. All the preparation would have been done knowing that Sydney would match it.

You're saying there was no point, when clearly there was. Imagine how you'd be carrying on if no one selected him early and held Sydney accountable for that first selection, effectively throwing them another free shot at a first rounder?

I wonder whose fault that would have been. Probably the umpires

[CQ SAINT]

Curly

Give it a rest, seriously

And if clubs did have him 1 or 2

Yes, they had it wrong.
DeGoey, Brayshaw, Moore, Lever, Heeney, Wright ... in hindsight were easily better picks.
I do realise Heeney and Moore were bid players, but we didn’t bid on them.

As everyone knows, I had Christian at #1
Which also would have been an average pick... but not a poor pick as he has at least played nearly 100 games.

Moore and Heeney weren’t available. Wright has struggled to play seniors at GC. DeGoey would have been forced out by the media witch hunt if we drafted him and Brayshaw we’d be spewing on because he’s one paced.

McCartin has been killed with injury no one could have predicted.

Agree with this Curly, and all the multiple follow ups.

The bidding process for the Moore/Henry draft was significantly different to the year after which was points based.

Collingwood and Sydney simply had to use their next draft pick in the round the bid came. Therefore Collingwood would still have used 8 and Sydney 18 even if we bid pick 1 so what was the point.

No point. The promotional value attached to the number one pick and the fact that a pick simply had to come before those respective team’s first pick made it ridiculously stupid to do otherwise.

The point being, better to make them have to use a first rounder instead of a second or third, allowing them to gain extra early talent.

Remember, they only had to match the bid with their next pick, so make them do it as early as possible.

Yeah that would look good. After months of preparation we chose Heeney then the Swans grab him at 17. What a s*** look and boost for the club. By all means bid at 12 or 15 where is far more speculative.

You're missing the point.

By your own admission he was always going to Sydney... Everyone knew this, the clubs included. As long as a token bid came in the first 16 to make them use that first pick. Be that pick 1 or pick 16, doesn't matter. Just make them use it. All the preparation would have been done knowing that Sydney would match it.

You're saying there was no point, when clearly there was. Imagine how you'd be carrying on if no one selected him early and held Sydney accountable for that first selection, effectively throwing them another free shot at a first rounder?

I wonder whose fault that would have been. Probably the umpires

So you tell your first pick he was actually your 2nd choice. Chump move. Let one of the lesser picks do that unless the father/academy pick is top 5 and a certain star. McCartin and Petracca were our targets. One of them was going to get upset, why upset both. FFS.

[portosaint]

Seriously?

If a kid gets drafted, I think he's pretty happy if its pick 1 or pick 100.

[ace]

Seriously?

If a kid gets drafted, I think he's pretty happy if its pick 1 or pick 100.

It should not matter whether you are pick 1 or pick 100, you should all be equal at the first training session. (yeah some guy may get paid more but that's life).

[skeptic]

McCartin was a wonderful prospect as a deep tall forward.

Really never had to back into packs at TAC level as he was a lead up forward that times his leads perfectly. He also was a wonderful judge of an overhead mark when running to a pack from behind.

At St Kilda he had to become a more 360 degree player as even Full Forward pushes to the midfield when the ball is deep in defence.

He hadn’t developed the skill set of contested ground ball or backing into packs to contest marks while protecting himself.

Nobody taught him the instinct of putting his bum where his head could go or raising his knee in the air to ensure first contact was away from his body.

In hindsight the club should have developed these skills at the VFL level but of course in his debut year the concussion issue wasn’t a problem.

Personally I would love to see him play Full Forward again with him never leaving the 50 metre arc.

If he is cleared to play then let him do this for 2020 at VFL level. Let him lead up. Let him crash the packs from behind with eyes for the ball. Teach him to protect his head with his arse. Ball. Body. Defender. At the end of 2020 we can reassess whether he can play AFL level again.

Of course - first the medical world needs to clear him first.

Then Paddy has to want to do it.

And yen of course the Saints would probably need legal advice or some form of backing from the AFL to allow him to play again and protect from future legal ramifications.

He deserved to be #1 or #2 pick on ability and potential.

To date it is a tragedy.

I am hoping his story has a brighter future.

It’s an underrated story just how bad we’ve been at developing players over the last few years... McCartin is pbly the best example.

Look at how he tries to mark the ball... tries to take it directly over his head like he’s out positioning smaller players... exposes it for every defender to see whilst at the same time actually mechanically reducing his ability to hold onto the ball.

Now I have little sports experience but can plainly see that that technique is horribly flawed...
Either the club, Paddy or both can’t. It’s actually quite disturbing

[damienc]

He is nowhere near it... should pull the pin.

The decision to recruit him (albeit not entirely his fault) will be one of the most costly decisions in recent history.

At the bottom of our rebuild with the prized pick 1 and picks 21/22
We drafted
McCartin, Goddard and McKenzie
Lonie at pick 41 has been the best player we took from a bottom out draft year. FFS

Sadly, you are right about Paddy. With his concussion history, he can never play footy again.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

They did do that?!

A bid came in the first round for both players, and they matched.

So now you’ve sort of got your head around it, let’s look at the original argument.

Moore and Heeney were in a group of players who (with hindsight) could/should have gone as the number 1 selection as they have turned out better than McCartin or Petracca for that matter (who I had as a clear #1)

Of course
If Heeney or Moore we’re selected by us (which they COULD have been) Sydney and Collingwood could have matched.

So in hindsight our recruiting dept got it wrong, as most do every year. Rarely does the best player in the draft group go number 1. But as long as the player you select turns out to be a good player, that’s ok. Didn’t happen with Paddy.

Thing is, many saints supporters were wanting Petracca at the time, and whilst he is no star yet, he was in my opinion a better prospect at the time.
Paddy had skin folds of +60 FFS and I could probably beat him around the tan. Petracca is no aerobic athlete either, but he has elite power and acceleration.

Anyway, all history now. We took the right guy last year imo.

And what do you base that on. He has already torn his ACL and done his ankle and failed to play a single senior game. Yet you're saying we took the right guy last year!!
All I know is if I'm investing picks 1 and 4 I'm not taking a diabetic or someone who has already done an ACL.

[ralphsmith]

I went to the preseason game at Ballarat and at first was really happy to see what Paddy could do. I was so hopeful that it would finally work out.

Then he got what looked like a pretty standard knock and was down. Someone in the crowd immediately commented "that is career ending" and that looks to be the case.

He will get knocks like that again if he continues, guaranteed. I can understand him wanting to try again, but I can't see anything but the same thing happening again, or even worse.

Agreed, though i wasn't there.

From the little i have seen of him he simply doesn't look anywhere near AFL standard. The concussions have been shocking.

I wish McCartin all the best in his life after football.