View Full Version : Magpies Selections - your views please
Snoop Dog
26 Nov 2005, 10:49
Well there they are;
D.Thomas
S.Pendlebury
D.Stanley
R.Cook
J.Anthony
I must admit I am pretty disappointed we passed Ellis at 2. I am not an expert recruiter but I sure watched enough to see the quality of this kid and he was/is terrific. Surely Balme and Co. knew it was very likely that Thomas would still be there at 5. Kennedy would have gone at 3 to Hawthorn if Ellis was not there and Carlton would have taken a tall at 4 like Ryder or Dowler (as they ultimately did anyway in Kennedy). This would have left us with Thomas at 5 and we would have 'bagged' Ellis. It seems to me this was a gamble that would have paid off. Just have this nasty feeling we missed an opportunity. Ellis and Thomas would have been excellent.
As one of the recruiters said "Collingwood would be mad to pass Ellis at 2 - he is a certainly". Time will tell if we were or weren't I guess.
Notwithstanding, Pendlebury seems like the goods - have seen him play and he is a long kick and moves real nice. Question in my mind is that essentially Collingwood have said he is better than Ellis! A pretty big call and certainly one most opposition clubs do not agree with.
I like Stanley is a hard nut midfielder - not unhappy there. Watched him and I like.......
Do not know much about Cook but I was sure we would look at a tall back like Hughes, Spanghar or Mills before him. 37 was a real shock - Anthony???? Seemed to be plenty of obvious talent still out there.
Keen to hear what the good judges say. Sheehan certainly a bit surprised about our early picks.
Great drafting.
Hine at his absolute best.
We needed quick mids - we took quick mids
NICK THE PIE MAN
26 Nov 2005, 10:51
Knowing our drafting luck Xavier Ellis will win a brownlow, a Norm Smith, will be premiership skipper and will cure cancer all in his first year, while Thomas will be soon widely seen as the love child of Laurence Angwin and Danny Roach.
Knowing our drafting luck Xavier Ellis will win a brownlow, a Norm Smith, will be premiership skipper and will cure cancer all in his first year, while Thomas will be soon widely seen as the love child of Laurence Angwin and Danny Roach.
That's the good old Collingwood spirit, can the kids before they have even played a game.
I think they are looking for you over at Nicks
philhawk
26 Nov 2005, 10:53
Knowing our drafting luck Xavier Ellis will win a brownlow, a Norm Smith, will be premiership skipper and will cure cancer all in his first year, while Thomas will be soon widely seen as the love child of Laurence Angwin and Danny Roach.
ROFL - hahahahahahahaha thats gold mate : u:
NICK THE PIE MAN
26 Nov 2005, 10:55
That's the good old Collingwood spirit, can the kids before they have even played a game.
I think they are looking for you over at Nicks
Oh bloody hell.
I was only slightly extracting the urine.
johnson_26
26 Nov 2005, 10:58
im really disapointed. We got 2 classy kids in thomas and stanely, butt he others im suss. No doubt, they can play for sure, but pendlebury at pick 5? if we were goin for a kpp as stated in B and W magfazine sent to me yestie, id be much comfortable with ryder, kennedy or even BOWER. as for cook, another bottom age, why take him when we ahd the opp o0f taken somone else, eg: lucy, swallow etc. Furthermore, anothoiny is another punt at 37. Not much available, i woulodve been comfortable with swallow, laidlaw or lucy. Anyways its done with, tlets hope this aint another pie f up
gandaal
26 Nov 2005, 10:58
Anthony sounds like a good late pickup.
Am i the only one not worried by not picking up ellis.
It doesnt matter who we draft or what we do people still complain or take pot shots at us.
Hine done a pretty good job in his first draft last year so im willing to back his selections this year.
Ill have to wait until i see them play next year for a final opinion.
Magpies' selections are fantastic.
Hawthorn supporters sincerely thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
Cook, big gamble, may settle down, but is trouble ala Lawrence Angwin.
How would you know.
NICK THE PIE MAN
26 Nov 2005, 11:03
Magpies' selections are fantastic.
Hawthorn supporters sincerely thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
I would have thought a Hawthorn supporter, of all people, would know how stupid it is bag other club's selections an hour or so after the draft.
I remember on Hawk Headquarters at this exact time last year reading you all having the biggest whinge of all time about passing up Tambling at pick 2. How quickly you all forget. There was even talk of walking away from the club from some people.
You don't want know what is going to happen, either do any of us, so I wouldn't be so cocky yet.
Its started already Murray...........lol;)
philhawk
26 Nov 2005, 11:06
I would have thought a Hawthorn supporter, of all people, would know how stupid it is bag other club's selections an hour or so after the draft.
I remember on Hawk Headquarters at this exact time last year reading you all having the biggest whinge of all time about passing up Tambling at pick 2. How quickly you all forget. There was even talk of walking away from the club from some people.
You don't want know what is going to happen, either do any of us, so I wouldn't be so y yet.
The views of that bloke dont reflect the reviews of other supporters mate
Its started already Murray...........lol;)
Mate it is as weird as.
Most of the idiots got the trades wrong
Most of the idiots got the draft wrong
Now those same idiots think they are able to predict whether a player will make it or not an hour after the draft
Funkalicous
26 Nov 2005, 11:11
Collingwood may or may not have gotten the players they wanted, but I don't think they played the draft too well. If anything, they were the ones being played..
Collingwood may or may not have gotten the players they wanted, but I don't think they played the draft too well. If anything, they were the ones being played..
Based on what?
vinnie_vegas69
26 Nov 2005, 11:13
I'd like to point out that I predicted people would complain about our picks no matter who we went for in this thread (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=211835)
It's funny that Hawthorn supporters are thanking us for giving them Ellis when we clearly chose Thomas over him. Hawthorn straight out said that they would take Ellis if he was available at #3 - there is no way we thought he'd slip through to #5. We obviously just wanted Thomas more than Ellis, and weren't willing to risk Thomas falling through to #5.
Considering that the rumour of Pendlebury at #5 came out yesterday, it's clear that we didn't pick him simply because Ellis was gone. it's possible we may have rated Pendlebury higher than Ellis or Thomas, but in his case, we knew he'd be available at #5.
Back Pocket Rocket
26 Nov 2005, 11:13
I would have thought a Hawthorn supporter, of all people, would know how stupid it is bag other club's selections an hour or so after the draft.
I remember on Hawk Headquarters at this exact time last year reading you all having the biggest whinge of all time about passing up Tambling at pick 2. How quickly you all forget. There was even talk of walking away from the club from some people.
You don't want know what is going to happen, either do any of us, so I wouldn't be so cocky yet.
Second that! Let the boys play for 3 years before judging them. I still remember Richmond fans giving us an absolute towling this time last year.
philhawk
26 Nov 2005, 11:19
I'd like to point out that I predicted people would complain about our picks no matter who we went for in this thread (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=211835)
It's funny that Hawthorn supporters are thanking us for giving them Ellis when we clearly chose Thomas over him. Hawthorn straight out said that they would take Ellis if he was available at #3 - there is no way we thought he'd slip through to #5. We obviously just wanted Thomas more than Ellis, and weren't willing to risk Thomas falling through to #5.
Considering that the rumour of Pendlebury at #5 came out yesterday, it's clear that we didn't pick him simply because Ellis was gone. it's possible we may have rated Pendlebury higher than Ellis or Thomas, but in his case, we knew he'd be available at #5.
??? :confused: Who's laughing at you guys mate? Solid performance , just an intruiging pick with Pendelbury because I hadnt heard about him being considered a top 5 pick , but best of luck with the lot of them : up:
Pie 4 Life
26 Nov 2005, 11:19
Dale Thomas - Good but too early.
Pendlebury - WTF???
Stanley - Great result although has poor kicking
Cook - Gamble
Anthony - "Richo" 2
powerpies
26 Nov 2005, 11:21
don't worry snoop dog we rated thomas and hawks would have taken him at 3 from P.Diddy.
dont now why they didnt get Ellis. Ive gotta say that Ellis is a better player then Thomas. Yeah preety good
vinnie_vegas69
26 Nov 2005, 11:27
??? :confused: Who's laughing at you guys mate? Solid performance , just an intruiging pick with Pendelbury because I hadnt heard about him being considered a top 5 pick , but best of luck with the lot of them : up:
I didn't say anyone was laughing at us, just find the suggestion that if we passed on Ellis it had to be because Hawthorn tricked us to be absolutely ludicrous.
thought we could have taken lucy with pick 52 instead of keeping it for what will be a weak psd,this guy was ment to be going in the top 10 at one stage.
powerpies
26 Nov 2005, 11:30
thought we could have taken lucy with pick 52 instead of keeping it for what will be a weak psd,this guy was ment to be going in the top 10 at one stage.
yeah who picked him his grandmother?
vinnie_vegas69
26 Nov 2005, 11:30
Dale Thomas - Good but too early.
Pendlebury - WTF???
Stanley - Great result although has poor kicking
Cook - Gamble
Anthony - "Richo" 2
Anthony is not Richo - He doesn't complain, he gets angry - much like Glen Archer. There's a difference between a dummy-spitter and a player with fire. Remember when we had firey players like Craig Kelly, Damian Monkhorst, Ton Shaw and Darren Millane (R.I.P) ? As a bonus, he's quick for his size and a good kick.
As for Pendlebury, he's a 190cm midfielder that averaged 23 possessions a game at TAC Cup level, is super-agile and quick, as well as having excellent footskills on both feet. That's "WTF"...
We need more WTF's with good skills and athleticism!
I reckon you're right vinnie, I have a gut feeling that we may have rated Pendles higher, but knew he'd be there at 5.
JeffDunne
26 Nov 2005, 11:38
I think Collingwood made the decision of two other clubs very easy by taking Thomas at 2..
Good to see they had the balls to go with Thomas and not risk picking him at 5.
dirk pitt
26 Nov 2005, 11:38
I'd like to point out that I predicted people would complain about our picks no matter who we went for in this thread (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=211835)
It's funny that Hawthorn supporters are thanking us for giving them Ellis when we clearly chose Thomas over him. Hawthorn straight out said that they would take Ellis if he was available at #3 - there is no way we thought he'd slip through to #5. We obviously just wanted Thomas more than Ellis, and weren't willing to risk Thomas falling through to #5.
Considering that the rumour of Pendlebury at #5 came out yesterday, it's clear that we didn't pick him simply because Ellis was gone. it's possible we may have rated Pendlebury higher than Ellis or Thomas, but in his case, we knew he'd be available at #5. For what it's worth Pies fans, Thomas may not have been the popular number 2 but quite a few Blues fans thought there were fewer question marks over him than their were over Ellis. Time will tell I guess. Pendelbury looks like a high risk, high return pick to me. Could go either way. Don't know enough about the rest of your picks to comment.
Ellis has stated he is a Hawthorn supporter and that was his perferred club. Maybe the Pies saw Thomas as someone that would give them 100% and stay with the club his whole career. If they were rated the same, this might of pushed Thomas ahead
Lockyer24
26 Nov 2005, 11:57
Very ballsy selections
Murphy was exactly what we needed (bona fide midfielder who can get 30 touches) but after that it was very even. So we went for the classy flank/part time midfielders
Thomas - love the kid, has the potential to be a matchwinner. Love his tenacity moreso though. Im really thinking he mustve been a danger to go at 3 if we took Ellis
Pendlebury - happy to get him although thought he wouldn't last til 21. Obviously Hine rates him highly and his scope for improvement to gamble at 5
Stanley - sounds like a taller Scott Burns, we have a open slot at HBF if he wants it
Cook - can't remember him in the U18 GF to be honest, young though and on the skinnyish side so something to work with
Anthony - sounds like a bad arse, we've recruited big guys in the past who haven't had that streak (Tex Walker for one) so hope he can find a spot at CHB/FB for us
magpies42
26 Nov 2005, 11:58
why didnt we take muston at 21?! i just dont get it!
morgoth
26 Nov 2005, 12:10
Lets face facts, we will have no idea for 3 years unless they are a Judd like freak or an utter dud.
That said, Thomas sounds a better prospect for the pies. We have a very predicable team and we are obviously trying to get some x factor type players (egan last year). It also appears that we are targetting bottom age kids in the hope we can identify top 10 picks whilst they are still developing. High risk but also high return and you would hope with all our money that we have done a truck load of work.
On the Ellis issue, good luck to the Dawks, we wanted Thomas, time will tell.
jimmy35
26 Nov 2005, 12:22
Obviously rated Thomas and Pendlebury over Ellis , I like the bio on Pendlebury but as stated before , let's have a look in 4 years and see shall we.
Ranking kids in phantom drafts and stepping up from under age footy is speculative at best.
Interesting to hear the comment from an SEN reporter that spoke to Balme."Collingwood took Thomas over Ellis because they (Collingwood) believe they have a couple of players coming through who are already in the Ellis mould"
My assumption is Balme meant Davies, Rowe and Egan
Cerpin Taxt
26 Nov 2005, 12:33
I wouldn't normally post in a Collingwood thread, but I noticed their picks more than any club other than West Coast. I think they have have taken their policy a bit too far. Although it's a youth policy, they're looking at their current side and seeing midfielders as the missing link. By the time these guys are older enough, the KPP stocks will be down. Time will tell. I'll probably eat my words, but I think they could've done better.
mattyc2422
26 Nov 2005, 12:39
I would have thought a Hawthorn supporter, of all people, would know how stupid it is bag other club's selections an hour or so after the draft.
I remember on Hawk Headquarters at this exact time last year reading you all having the biggest whinge of all time about passing up Tambling at pick 2. How quickly you all forget. There was even talk of walking away from the club from some people.
You don't want know what is going to happen, either do any of us, so I wouldn't be so cocky yet.
Well put NTPM.
I would have taken Thomas at 3, so I can't argue with taking him at 2. Pendlebury's hype progressed lately and whilst he went earlier than I thought, he'll go alright.
Cook was taken pretty early, but he's a bottom ager so plenty to work with.
mattyc2422
26 Nov 2005, 12:41
Ellis has stated he is a Hawthorn supporter and that was his perferred club. Maybe the Pies saw Thomas as someone that would give them 100% and stay with the club his whole career. If they were rated the same, this might of pushed Thomas ahead
Thought Ellis stated that he followed Essendon but his whole family supported Hawthorn.
jimmy35
26 Nov 2005, 12:46
Interesting to hear the comment from an SEN reporter that spoke to Balme."Collingwood took Thomas over Ellis because they (Collingwood) believe they have a couple of players coming through who are already in the Ellis mould"
My assumption is Balme meant Davies, Rowe and Egan
Not a bad point either.
vinnie_vegas69
26 Nov 2005, 12:55
Interesting to hear the comment from an SEN reporter that spoke to Balme."Collingwood took Thomas over Ellis because they (Collingwood) believe they have a couple of players coming through who are already in the Ellis mould"
My assumption is Balme meant Davies, Rowe and Egan
That is interesting - and true, to an extent. If they really only rated him as a wingman/flanker, then it is indeed true that we have many of that type.
Coin_Toss
26 Nov 2005, 13:02
Ellis has stated he is a Hawthorn supporter and that was his perferred club. Maybe the Pies saw Thomas as someone that would give them 100% and stay with the club his whole career. If they were rated the same, this might of pushed Thomas ahead
Clever thinking, MG77B!
If we went Ellis over Thomas, we wouldn't have wanted Ellis to leave 2-3 years down the track. Thomas said he was a Geelong supporter growing up, but he jumped off their bandwagon when he was a teenager.
Funkalicous
26 Nov 2005, 13:13
Based on what?
With Murphy basically off limits since a couple of months ago, Collingwood had pole position and held all the trump cards in the draft..... but they didn't use them. They could've easily could've stolen Ellis off Hawthorn and subsequently given themselves a red-hot chance of taking Thomas at 5.
It depends how badly they wanted Thomas and Pendlebury, but I just think they didn't play hardball.
jimmy35
26 Nov 2005, 13:24
With Murphy basically off limits since a couple of months ago, Collingwood had pole position and held all the trump cards in the draft..... but they didn't use them. They could've easily could've stolen Ellis off Hawthorn and subsequently given themselves a red-hot chance of taking Thomas at 5.
It depends how badly they wanted Thomas and Pendlebury, but I just think they didn't play hardball.
They wouldn't have had to 'steal' Ellis , we could have just picked him at 2 , we picked who we wanted obviously. Wether thats a godd decision or a bad one , time will tell.
Just listening to Malthouse on channel 10, he has completely dispelled the stupid myth about selecteing the best available.
He said "We drafted for our needs and that is why we took Thomas"
But of course that shouldn't be a surprise as both he and Balme said we going after mids weeks ago.
What is surprising is that so many supporters felt we should have taken Ryder.
With Murphy basically off limits since a couple of months ago, Collingwood had pole position and held all the trump cards in the draft..... but they didn't use them. They could've easily could've stolen Ellis off Hawthorn and subsequently given themselves a red-hot chance of taking Thomas at 5.
It depends how badly they wanted Thomas and Pendlebury, but I just think they didn't play hardball.
And for a follow up, you will give us this weeks lotto numbers
With Murphy basically off limits since a couple of months ago, Collingwood had pole position and held all the trump cards in the draft..... but they didn't use them. They could've easily could've stolen Ellis off Hawthorn and subsequently given themselves a red-hot chance of taking Thomas at 5.
It depends how badly they wanted Thomas and Pendlebury, but I just think they didn't play hardball.
Malthouse has said that ellis didn't really fit our needs while thomas did.
D.Thomas
S.Pendlebury
D.Stanley
R.Cook
J.Anthony
Don't really like these picks because they followed one gamble with another, with another, with another. Generally a team will go for a mix of speculation and safety.
Thomas I think has been flattered by being able to play forward of the ball in a dominant team. I would never take a specialist HFF in the top-10. Sure he will be good but I don't think he has real stand-out qualities and see him more as a Kayne Pettifer type who was played a similar game.
Pendlebury makes sense. Most raw potential in the draft but with Chris Egan and Sean Rusling already at the club? Probably would have prefered a genuine ball-winner.
Stanley is tough as nails and goes super-hard. Bit of a hint of Archer about him. Will be a fan favourite but can't kick for shyte and again isn't tall enough for KP, doesn't really win enough as midfielder.
Cook is neither an atheltic flanker or a genuine KP player. Real in betweener and AFL footballer is getting tougher for those guys. Bottom age but I think they overrated his GF.
Anthony came on strong at the end of the season and showed good form in the TAC finals. Good cheap late-round gamble for a potential FB or CHB.
For mine there are a lot of 'tweeners' in that group. They all look like filler more than genuine contributors.
doofdoof
26 Nov 2005, 13:37
Just listening to Malthouse on channel 10, he has completely dispelled the stupid myth about selecteing the best available.
He said "We drafted for our needs and that is why we took Thomas"
But of course that shouldn't be a surprise as both he and Balme said we going after mids weeks ago.
What is surprising is that so many supporters felt we should have taken Ryder.
Sorry, Murray. Why is "best available" a stupid myth?
These guys don't actually impact the playing lists all that much for 2-3 years at least. Can Mick see the future? See who will be playing for Collingwood in 3 years? Will Mick even be at the club then?
Funkalicous
26 Nov 2005, 13:40
Malthouse has said that ellis didn't really fit our needs while thomas did.
That's fair enough then. But knowing that Hawthorn could'nt resist the Ellis carrot and that Carlton aren't interested in Thomas, maybe they could've got someone else at pick 2.... unless Collingwood really, really wanted Pendlebury.
Sorry, Murray. Why is "best available" a stupid myth?
These guys don't actually impact the playing lists all that much for 2-3 years at least. Can Mick see the future? See who will be playing for Collingwood in 3 years? Will Mick even be at the club then?
Because you could end up with a team of Full Forwards, or a team of midgets.
It is stupid and makes no sense what-so-ever.
You draft for what you need.
If a team had no ruck and the best available was a 180cm mid, are you advocating taking the mid?
It is just dumb.
doofdoof
26 Nov 2005, 13:48
Because you could end up with a team of Full Forwards, or a team of midgets.
It is stupid and makes no sense what-so-ever.
You draft for what you need.
If a team had no ruck and the best available was a 180cm mid, are you advocating taking the mid?
It is just dumb.
Good way to argue ... take the most extreme view you can.
Do you really think that taking the best available talent for years on end (not just one draft!) you will end up with a team of midgets or giants?
If the team has no ruck then you can trade for one - drafting a ruckman, who may or may not turn out to be an AFL footballer, will not solve a current list's ruck problems
At the end of the day the pies rated Thomas over Ellis. I belive and the hint was that if the pies took Ellis then the hawks would have taken Thomas next so that the pies would have only got one not 2 of these players. They did their homework worked out the sums and obviously thought it was best to go with Thomas just in case. Simple as that, just something we have to deal with. I'm more than happy as I wasn't too sure about Ellis and his commitment to Collingwood, obviously the recuiters felt the same.
Good way to argue ... take the most extreme view you can.
Do you really think that taking the best available talent for years on end (not just one draft!) you will end up with a team of midgets or giants?
If the team has no ruck then you can trade for one - drafting a ruckman, who may or may not turn out to be an AFL footballer, will not solve a current list's ruck problems
Good way to argue, bury your head in the sand and pretend the best available will solve a clubs deficiencies.
Look I gave it my best shot, you can't understand it so no more soup for you
doppleganger
26 Nov 2005, 14:17
pretty simple fellas
hine & the pies wanted thomas more than ellis
must have thought that the hawks would take whomever we didn't pick from those two at pick 3
pies happy with thomas
hawks happy with ellis
but the pies made the choice, hawks had to work around the pies
did anybody else notice that pies choice was straight away whilst the hawks had to think about their pick for quite a long time 3or4 minutes i think!!
pies got who they wanted
whether right or not will be found out down the track
I'd be scratching my head if i were a pies fan. But hey, Hawks thought so last year and now Roughead, Franklin and Lewis look terrific picks.
Thomas vs Ellis will be compared a lot in the years to come.
Pendlebery ahead of Dowler, Ryder, even Clark looks a massive call but Pies drafted on needs so time will tell.
doofdoof
26 Nov 2005, 14:34
Good way to argue, bury your head in the sand and pretend the best available will solve a clubs deficiencies.
Look I gave it my best shot, you can't understand it so no more soup for you
Head in the sand? Rigggghhhhht ....
No worries, you tried hard. Thankfully, I can think for myself ..... and I am almost certain the Hawks ripped us a new hole by making us choose between Ellis and Thomas, when we actually did not have to.
doofdoof
26 Nov 2005, 14:36
pretty simple fellas
did anybody else notice that pies choice was straight away whilst the hawks had to think about their pick for quite a long time 3or4 minutes i think!!
...... or perhaps they just could not believe their luck and had a hard decision to make between Kennedy and Ellis.
This is all moot anyway. Let's come back in 4 years and see how these guys are going.
doppleganger
26 Nov 2005, 14:45
Head in the sand? Rigggghhhhht ....
No worries, you tried hard. Thankfully, I can think for myself ..... and I am almost certain the Hawks ripped us a new hole by making us choose between Ellis and Thomas, when we actually did not have to.
where are you pulling all this from??
hawks said all along that they wanted ellis
pies wanted thomas more, didn't want to risk him but were ok with risking ellis
who knows if their decision was right, but it can be assured that collingwood picked up the players that they wanted
Murray, the "best available" theory is NOT a myth. It's just that in an even draft like this one, there is usually not a stand out player at every pick as the "best", so clubs can choose between evenly matched players for the one that best suits them. Choosing players for positions is a dangerous tactic.