Rate a Tiger's year - 47. Ben Nason?

[Judge Roughneck]

we lost every game so leading the bf doesn't mean much, if true.

Not hard to see a best 22 without nason

Moore. Grimes. Gourdis.
Newman. Deledio. Astbury. 
Morton. Martin. Edwards. 
Tuck. Griffiths. Connors. 
King. Riewoldt. Taylor. 
Graham. Cotchin. Foley.
Jackson. Grigg. Webberly. Post.

Then nason has the like of orielly, dea, farmer, white trying get a similar role in the team

Gave him a 5. The reason being that in terms of rating players for me everyone is held to the same standard so if lids, jack etc get 8's then Ben deserves a 5. Probably wasn't quite as impressed with his season as some others appear to be i don't think getting 15 possies as a somewhat unaccountable wingman is that impressive if your opponent is getting 25. However, did kick some big goals for us provided some run often being the first released from a rebound from the 50 and for his first year it was a very solid perfomance. Don't think he is in our best 22 currently and don't see him becoming a regular in it but definately a good player to have on the list pushing others to perform and i hope his potential is higher than my expectations

3, needs to be a lot more involved

Pretty sure Nason was leading the B&F about 1/3 of the way into the season. Yet he still gets a 3 from you?
Laughable rating for a 1st year player

[Infamy]

Who cares if we lost every game, he was a first year player working harder than anyone else on the ground for the first 7-8 weeks of the year
In fact he would have been one of the hardest working players all year until he tired around 2/3rds of the way into the season

[Smokey]

Who cares if we lost every game, he was a first year player working harder than anyone else on the ground for the first 7-8 weeks of the year
In fact he would have been one of the hardest working players all year until he tired around 2/3rds of the way into the season

He certainly was.

[the claw]

just a 4 from me cant see him being a long term propisition. in fact of the two mature players we took late nd webberley looks a likely far better player to me. and even with him i dunno if he has emough strings to his bow.
said it at the time will say it again we should have tried at least one more tall with those picks. sheesh majak daw. the only saving grace in taking both nason and webberley is they were both decent kicks but when you are their size you damn well expect them to be good kicks. hmm how many possesions a game did nason ave would not be more than 10 or so i reckon. geez you expect just a little more from a 20 21 yr old wingman.
im still dirty that nason or white and a few others were not offered up instead of collins. oh thats right carlton requested collins they had no interest in the others.

[Judge Roughneck]

I'd also have webberly ahead of mason

[Infamy]

Majak Daw is not actually that fast, is not that tall and can't kick. North only took him for the publicity.

[the claw]

Majak Daw is not actually that fast, is not that tall and can't kick. North only took him for the publicity.

did they well in time we will see.

[Infamy]

Majak Daw is not actually that fast, is not that tall and can't kick. North only took him for the publicity.

did they well in time we will see.

If we'd taken him you'd have had a field day with his lack of skills

[jackstar is back again]

i just double checked were we finished on the ladder.
yep 15.

[WilliamPowell]

i just double checked were we finished on the ladder.
yep 15.

And that's got what to do with how people viewed Ben Nason's year exactly?

[jackstar is back again]

i just double checked were we finished on the ladder.
yep 15.

And that's got what to do with how people viewed Ben Nason's year exactly?

 well well well.

[WilliamPowell]

i just double checked were we finished on the ladder.
yep 15.

And that's got what to do with how people viewed Ben Nason's year exactly?

 well well well.

Well well well ... you are slipping Jack 

I know we finished 15th, we all do but seriously I don't see what that has to do with how people viewed Nason's year

You didn't rate it one way or another because we finished 15th  ???

[jackstar is back again]

too tired to explain
I would rate our best and fairest a 10
then 2 players a 7
The rest fall under 7
As a team, we failed, so you would think that the majority of players perform well below expectations
therefore 5 and under is where the majority of players would sit.
in comparison, most Collingwood players would be rated a 5 and over, with at least 10 players 7 and over.

[the claw]

Majak Daw is not actually that fast, is not that tall and can't kick. North only took him for the publicity.

did they well in time we will see.

If we'd taken him you'd have had a field day with his lack of skills

you have nfi how id react if we had taken him. he was one tall i wanted us to take.
grimes at 67 hartigan 71 bradshaw psd. daw rookie. may not be exactly what i advocated but its close. if i remember correctly it went morabito/martin at 6 bastinac at 19 astbury at 35 shaw 44. as also if you remember a big advocate of tanking if we had tanked and had 18 and 19 i would have gone bastinac  carlisle/black/griffiths.
yep if we had taken daw i would have been over the moon despite the deficiencies in his game. dont presume to know what others think.

 

[WilliamPowell]

too tired to explain
I would rate our best and fairest a 10
then 2 players a 7
The rest fall under 7
As a team, we failed, so you would think that the majority of players perform well below expectations
therefore 5 and under is where the majority of players would sit.in comparison, most Collingwood players would be rated a 5 and over, with at least 10 players 7 and over.

So you apply the same criteria to all players - especially first year players ?

And I suppose it depends if you think we failed as a team? Certainly the win/loss ratio says we failed (again) but I think as Club we are finally on the right track.