Andrew McQualter

[BenDoolan]

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

As for Visiting Saint.....well, he wouldn't regard ANY player on our list when his team is currently creaming the entire competition!

Not so. The Saints have still got a bit of deadwood on their list and there are plenty of guys on the Bombers list I'd be happy to have on ours.

Who would they be? Ryder? Lovett?

[Doctor Fish]

Stanton v Kerr
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2001110

Stanton v Judd
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002147

Stanton v Black
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 02&pid2=48

Stanton v Swan
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002032

Stanton v Bartel
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Mitchell
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Cousins
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 2&pid2=150

And so on....

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

=D>

...Essendon supporters can be pretty thick between the ears BD. Lets face it, it's true all that guff they say about us being the same as Collingwood fans, just with a better education and less jail time. It's got me buggered why our fans insist on trading the young players on our list that actually get the ball... It happens every year. God knows why. Last year it was Ricky D. A year or two ago it was Jobe. Before that Spike. Before that Scotty etc... You'd think they'd learn from their mistakes and zip it a tad. We've all been spoilt by success I suppose... Unlike our good friend from StinKilda here of course...

And as for trading Stants for McQualter. Pfffffft!... That's a laugh...

[j-mac31]

Ditto.

Why are we wedded to Stants - I just dont get it - yep he's a good average player who gets the ball a bit. However his disposal efficiency is average, he has no defensive game, he doesnt score goals or even set them up, he is mid-paced and not very strong, he doesnt mark the ball and lacks penetration in his kicking??? So whats the big deal. OK, he's not our worst but gee, even Visiting Saint doesnt want a bar of him!!!

However, I reckon Stanton's glossy marketing brochure looks good enough that some club will give us something for him, someone who can add more to our set up than what Stanton currently does.

Stanton v Kerr
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2001110

Stanton v Judd
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002147

Stanton v Black
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 02&pid2=48

Stanton v Swan
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002032

Stanton v Bartel
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Mitchell
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Cousins
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 2&pid2=150

And so on....

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

As for Visiting Saint.....well, he wouldn't regard ANY player on our list when his team is currently creaming the entire competition!

I don't quite know what to say except "stats whore".
C'mon BD, I normally highly respect your analysis, but this is silly. Football is not one that lends itself to effective detailed statistical analysis.
I'm not going to weigh in on The Stanton Debate either way, but the fact that two players may have comparative stats in AFL means diddly squat.

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that."

[BenDoolan]

I don't quite know what to say except "stats whore".
C'mon BD, I normally highly respect your analysis, but this is silly. Football is not one that lends itself to effective detailed statistical analysis.
I'm not going to weigh in on The Stanton Debate either way, but the fact that two players may have comparative stats in AFL means diddly squat.

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that."

Stats have a purpose, and they do in this instance.

It disproves certain assumptions like,

"his disposal efficiency is average" - stats suggest it is at 72.5% and up there with the "guns" of the league.
"he has no defensive game" - when the stats show he has a higher tackle and 1%er ratio than most of the other "guns"
"he doesnt score goals or even set them up" - when the stats show he averages higher in both areas than most other "guns"

So, if you may want to believe people's biased opinions over raw statistics, that's up to you. But I'd rather look at the data and then confirm if people's assumptions are correct.

It's all too easy to say "his disposal is shithouse" without backing it up with any evidence to suggest that it is. This stupid train of thought is carried through based on one lousy kick that probably happened 3 seasons ago....

[j-mac31]

I don't quite know what to say except "stats whore".
C'mon BD, I normally highly respect your analysis, but this is silly. Football is not one that lends itself to effective detailed statistical analysis.
I'm not going to weigh in on The Stanton Debate either way, but the fact that two players may have comparative stats in AFL means diddly squat.

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that."

Stats have a purpose, and they do in this instance.

It disproves certain assumptions like,

"his disposal efficiency is average" - stats suggest it is at 72.5% and up there with the "guns" of the league.
"he has no defensive game" - when the stats show he has a higher tackle and 1%er ratio than most of the other "guns"
"he doesnt score goals or even set them up" - when the stats show he averages higher in both areas than most other "guns"

So, if you may want to believe people's biased opinions over raw statistics, that's up to you. But I'd rather look at the data and then confirm if people's assumptions are correct.

It's all too easy to say "his disposal is shithouse" without backing it up with any evidence to suggest that it is. This stupid train of thought is carried through based on one lousy kick that probably happened 3 seasons ago....

OK fair enough. I wasn't quite sure what point you were making.
However overall the statement "he is up there with the guns of the competition" is false.

[BenDoolan]

I don't quite know what to say except "stats whore".
C'mon BD, I normally highly respect your analysis, but this is silly. Football is not one that lends itself to effective detailed statistical analysis.
I'm not going to weigh in on The Stanton Debate either way, but the fact that two players may have comparative stats in AFL means diddly squat.

"People can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that."

Stats have a purpose, and they do in this instance.

It disproves certain assumptions like,

"his disposal efficiency is average" - stats suggest it is at 72.5% and up there with the "guns" of the league.
"he has no defensive game" - when the stats show he has a higher tackle and 1%er ratio than most of the other "guns"
"he doesnt score goals or even set them up" - when the stats show he averages higher in both areas than most other "guns"

So, if you may want to believe people's biased opinions over raw statistics, that's up to you. But I'd rather look at the data and then confirm if people's assumptions are correct.

It's all too easy to say "his disposal is shithouse" without backing it up with any evidence to suggest that it is. This stupid train of thought is carried through based on one lousy kick that probably happened 3 seasons ago....

OK fair enough. I wasn't quite sure what point you were making.
However overall the statement "he is up there with the guns of the competition" is false.

Statistically he is. Dynamically - nowhere near it

[Windy_Hill]

Stanton v Kerr
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2001110

Stanton v Judd
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002147

Stanton v Black
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 02&pid2=48

Stanton v Swan
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002032

Stanton v Bartel
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Mitchell
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Cousins
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 2&pid2=150

And so on....

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

=D>

...Essendon supporters can be pretty thick between the ears BD. Lets face it, it's true all that guff they say about us being the same as Collingwood fans, just with a better education and less jail time. It's got me buggered why our fans insist on trading the young players on our list that actually get the ball... It happens every year. God knows why. Last year it was Ricky D. A year or two ago it was Jobe. Before that Spike. Before that Scotty etc... You'd think they'd learn from their mistakes and zip it a tad. We've all been spoilt by success I suppose... Unlike our good friend from StinKilda here of course...

And as for trading Stants for McQualter. Pfffffft!... That's a laugh...

Talking about yourself there Doc I hope as to even suggest that Stanton is in the same class as the player that BD has selected is not only stupid but completely deluded. My point about Stanton has always been that he is not a bad player, he's just not as good as the stats may have you believe. There is a rason why Stants hasnt got within a Bee's Dick of a Brownlow you know, he's just not that good! I for one would have Dyson in my best 22 over Stanton if the choice had to be made.

I like him as a depth player but if you could get a better 'in close player' , for example, then we should look at Stanton as trade bait

[BenDoolan]

My point about Stanton has always been that he is not a bad player, he's just not as good as the stats may have you believe. There is a rason why Stants hasnt got within a Bee's Dick of a Brownlow you know, he's just not that good! I for one would have Dyson in my best 22 over Stanton if the choice had to be made.

I like him as a depth player but if you could get a better 'in close player' , for example, then we should look at Stanton as trade bait

Not sure if you are suggesting McQualter is a "better in close player" than Stanton (I'm assuming this because you are offering him up for his trade), I cannot see what McQualter has proven other than running out on the field with St. Kilda. His performances suggest he isn't the better in close player you are hoping for...

http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2005100#

[Windy_Hill]

My point about Stanton has always been that he is not a bad player, he's just not as good as the stats may have you believe. There is a rason why Stants hasnt got within a Bee's Dick of a Brownlow you know, he's just not that good! I for one would have Dyson in my best 22 over Stanton if the choice had to be made.

I like him as a depth player but if you could get a better 'in close player' , for example, then we should look at Stanton as trade bait

Not sure if you are suggesting McQualter is a "better in close player" than Stanton (I'm assuming this because you are offering him up for his trade), I cannot see what McQualter has proven other than running out on the field with St. Kilda. His performances suggest he isn't the better in close player you are hoping for...

http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2005100#

You are probably right - but a tough inside ball winner to help jobe is what we need - how do we get a decent crack at someone elses excess baggage you need to offer them something rhey dont have - So a ball receiving outside running player is a good swap for an in and under, hard ball winner

[robrulz5]

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

As for Visiting Saint.....well, he wouldn't regard ANY player on our list when his team is currently creaming the entire competition!

Not so. The Saints have still got a bit of deadwood on their list and there are plenty of guys on the Bombers list I'd be happy to have on ours.

Any that you'd want in your best 22?

[BenDoolan]

My point about Stanton has always been that he is not a bad player, he's just not as good as the stats may have you believe. There is a rason why Stants hasnt got within a Bee's Dick of a Brownlow you know, he's just not that good! I for one would have Dyson in my best 22 over Stanton if the choice had to be made.

I like him as a depth player but if you could get a better 'in close player' , for example, then we should look at Stanton as trade bait

Not sure if you are suggesting McQualter is a "better in close player" than Stanton (I'm assuming this because you are offering him up for his trade), I cannot see what McQualter has proven other than running out on the field with St. Kilda. His performances suggest he isn't the better in close player you are hoping for...

http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2005100#

You are probably right - but a tough inside ball winner to help jobe is what we need - how do we get a decent crack at someone elses excess baggage you need to offer them something rhey dont have - So a ball receiving outside running player is a good swap for an in and under, hard ball winner

I won't argue with you on that point. But I think we have a good cluster of inside middies on the list - Watson, Prismall, Lonergan, Hocking, Welsh, McVeigh. We need to compliment them with good running outsiders like the Lovett's, Winderlich's, Stanton's etc. I generally think we have a good blend of both at the moment. I tend to think our weakest links are a lack of small opportunistic forwards and another one or two tough, rugged back pocket types.

But on the subject of trade - yes, normally you need to offer something of value if you are chasing something of value. What I'd like to see is gaining someone of value by not losing much in the process - a la the Brent Prismall trade. And the reality is, no-one at the club will trade Stanton away (not for a few years anyway).

[ealesy]

Stanton v Kerr
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2001110

Stanton v Judd
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002147

Stanton v Black
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 02&pid2=48

Stanton v Swan
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002032

Stanton v Bartel
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Mitchell
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Cousins
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 2&pid2=150

And so on....

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

=D>

...Essendon supporters can be pretty thick between the ears BD. Lets face it, it's true all that guff they say about us being the same as Collingwood fans, just with a better education and less jail time.

It's not only that, but the majority of us are so busy whinging and sooking about umpires, injuries, the draw etc etc that they seem to be too busy to actually critically assess the performance of our players. Seriously, we give shit to the Tiger supporters and Pies supporter about their sooking and moaning and bitching, but give us an extended period of poor performance (like the last 7 years) and the majority of our mob and just as pathetic.

[Windy_Hill]

Stanton v Kerr
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2001110

Stanton v Judd
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002147

Stanton v Black
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 02&pid2=48

Stanton v Swan
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002032

Stanton v Bartel
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Mitchell
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... d2=2002057

Stanton v Cousins
http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/com ... 2&pid2=150

And so on....

And I don't even think Stanton is playing to his best at the moment. But you can see by these coparisons that he is up there with the guns of the competition. Plus he has more tackles, 1%ers, rebound from 50, and F50 entries than most of them. So he does work hard, but gets no thanks from anyone.

=D>

...Essendon supporters can be pretty thick between the ears BD. Lets face it, it's true all that guff they say about us being the same as Collingwood fans, just with a better education and less jail time.

It's not only that, but the majority of us are so busy whinging and sooking about umpires, injuries, the draw etc etc that they seem to be too busy to actually critically assess the performance of our players. Seriously, we give shit to the Tiger supporters and Pies supporter about their sooking and moaning and bitching, but give us an extended period of poor performance (like the last 7 years) and the majority of our mob and just as pathetic.

Geez we'd be shutting Bombertalk down in your world Ealesy if we couldnt have the odd moan. Seriously though, the difference between us and Richmond fans is that we stick to the subject of football whereas the Tiger nongs get personal. We put forward logical argument based on statistical evidence - they talk about sleeping with their player's sisters.

[ealesy]

Nothing wrong with a bit of moaning, but there isn't a bit of moaning on here, it is nigh on constant, their are certain posters who simply cannot find a positive thing to talk about from any aspect of the game or club, and they feel the need to make constant threads sooking and moaning about certain things.

Hell their are certain posters who are still bitching about the umpiring in the Bulldogs game from what 5 weeks ago and have gone as far to suggest it has cost us our season. I'm sorry but two absolute rat shit performance against Richmond and West Coast that no-one but ourselves are responsible for, are what have cost us our season.

If we really turned in the performances we did against the Tigers and Eagles because we were mentally shot because of the umpiring in the Bulldogs game, then we don't deserve to win another game, let alone play finals football, while there is a single player who played in that game still on the list!!

[ealesy]

And we don't get personal on Bombertalk, yeah sure and the Pope's f****** Islamic.

Tell that to the likes of Aaron Henneman and Jason Laycock etc.