« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Hampson V McEvoy  (Read 1695 times)

Offline WA Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14257
  • For We're From Tigerland
Hampson V McEvoy
« on: October 11, 2013, 07:38:02 AM »
So away we go, let's get this going now and follow it through the season...
Logged
DIMMA - You will be held ACCOUNTABLE...

“We are really excited about what we have brought in. We have got great depth of players that can take us where we need to go. We are just putting some cream on the top at the moment,” he said.

"Rucks:
Shaun Hampson is the No.1 man"

dwaino

  • Guest
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2013, 08:13:53 AM »
Wowee big boy obviously the better ruckman, but it would have cost us at least pick 12 so to be fair we should only compare bang for buck.

The other comparison we could make could be Hampson + 12 vs McEboyohboy + 28 (31)
Logged

Offline WA Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14257
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2013, 08:22:42 AM »
Quote from: dwaino on October 11, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Wowee big boy obviously the better ruckman, but it would have cost us at least pick 12 so to be fair we should only compare bang for buck.

The other comparison we could make could be Hampson + 12 vs McEboyohboy + 28 (31)

Yes, all bang for he buck must be considered.. :thumbsup
Logged
DIMMA - You will be held ACCOUNTABLE...

“We are really excited about what we have brought in. We have got great depth of players that can take us where we need to go. We are just putting some cream on the top at the moment,” he said.

"Rucks:
Shaun Hampson is the No.1 man"

Online Damo

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4534
  • Member of famed “Gang Of Four”. Ground the airbus!
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2013, 08:27:10 AM »
Quote from: dwaino on October 11, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Wowee big boy obviously the better ruckman, but it would have cost us at least pick 12 so to be fair we should only compare bang for buck.

The other comparison we could make could be Hampson + 12 vs McEboyohboy + 28 (31)

Lets not forget his player payments would be near enough to double
Logged

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2013, 08:33:52 AM »
statistically they stack up pretty well, with hampson taking more contested marks per game.
McEvoy poos on him in terms of disposal efficiency though
Logged
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

tony_montana

  • Guest
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2013, 08:34:34 AM »
Quote from: Damo on October 11, 2013, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: dwaino on October 11, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Wowee big boy obviously the better ruckman, but it would have cost us at least pick 12 so to be fair we should only compare bang for buck.

The other comparison we could make could be Hampson + 12 vs McEboyohboy + 28 (31)

Lets not forget his player payments would be near enough to double

that's a good point
Logged

Offline Loui Tufga

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
  • Beaver BLT
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2013, 08:54:53 AM »
To be honest they are both compleaty different player types, Hampson is more the athletic ruckman who plays (not rests) forward while McEvoy is you big strong body'd first ruckman type.
In the grand scheme of things the Hampson is the player type we need at the moment, McEvoy would compeat for a spot in the side with Maric as they are pretty unless you were willing to lay both together which would be ludicrest in this day and age.
Lets see what the pick we gave (28) up brings down the track, that the only way to tell weather we have made the right move or not.
Logged

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2013, 09:03:22 AM »
even then, success or bust, who is to say we would have taken the same player had we kept the pick?
Logged
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2013, 10:47:56 AM »
Quote from: tony_montana on October 11, 2013, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Damo on October 11, 2013, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: dwaino on October 11, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Wowee big boy obviously the better ruckman, but it would have cost us at least pick 12 so to be fair we should only compare bang for buck.

The other comparison we could make could be Hampson + 12 vs McEboyohboy + 28 (31)

Lets not forget his player payments would be near enough to double

that's a good point

The key point.
Logged

Offline eliminator

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2013, 11:48:52 AM »
Quote from: Loui Tufga on October 11, 2013, 08:54:53 AM
To be honest they are both compleaty different player types, Hampson is more the athletic ruckman who plays (not rests) forward while McEvoy is you big strong body'd first ruckman type.
In the grand scheme of things the Hampson is the player type we need at the moment, McEvoy would compeat for a spot in the side with Maric as they are pretty unless you were willing to lay both together which would be ludicrest in this day and age.
Lets see what the pick we gave (28) up brings down the track, that the only way to tell weather we have made the right move or not.

Agree. McEvoy is a top ruckman. If he came to the club he would be the number one ruckman. There is not enough room for Maric and McEvoy in the side with how the game is played presently. To get him the Hawks had to give up a high draft pick and a player who is not a complete dud. Further the Saints will get the Hawks compo pick for Buddy. We didn't have enough trade bait to get him and it would have been madness to give up our first round pick for him
Logged

tony_montana

  • Guest
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2013, 11:59:41 AM »
Quote from: Bentleigh-esque on October 11, 2013, 10:47:56 AM
Quote from: tony_montana on October 11, 2013, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Damo on October 11, 2013, 08:27:10 AM
Quote from: dwaino on October 11, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Wowee big boy obviously the better ruckman, but it would have cost us at least pick 12 so to be fair we should only compare bang for buck.

The other comparison we could make could be Hampson + 12 vs McEboyohboy + 28 (31)

Lets not forget his player payments would be near enough to double

that's a good point

The key point.

stick to measure and quotes
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 01:08:34 PM by one-eyed »
Logged

Offline tigs2011

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5517
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2013, 12:12:05 PM »
Quote from: al on October 11, 2013, 08:33:52 AM
statistically they stack up pretty well, with hampson taking more contested marks per game.
McEvoy poos on him in terms of disposal efficiency though
That is a shock with the marks. Hampson would poo on him in the ruck too. McEvoy is very good around the ground mark. Big Hammer.  :bow
Logged

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Hampson V McEvoy
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2013, 12:44:22 PM »
They comparison is not intelligence unless

A) wage
B) what draft picks / players were used yo get said ruckamn
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »