View Full Version : Ackland dropped, Carlos/Kennedy rucking..Carlton are in Kruezer mode...
blues76
16 Jul 2007, 17:20
cmon guys, just 7 more losses to go. it is very obvious now that they are tanking. dud or not, Hackland should be on the bench at least. kennedy in the ruck? jesus christ this guy cant even play yet let alone put him in the ruck.
carlos tries hard but what more can you ask from him?
7 more to go...picks 1,4,20...heaven knows we need em...
ericpascoe
16 Jul 2007, 17:22
Rubbish
Pagan wouldnt tank in a fit
He would not have brought Bannister in if he was tanking - it would be Austin, Benjamin etc - young kids with immature bodies
EddieBettsIsAChamp
16 Jul 2007, 17:25
Pagan cant afford to tank. If we cant win its because were simply not good enough.
deluxeman
16 Jul 2007, 17:26
We're not tanking, if you saw the determination of the players in the first quarter yesterday, you would be aware of that.
Unfortunately, we are simply not good enough to compete with several of the sides in the competition at the moment. And I hate to break it you, but if you think thats going to change by drafting an extra teenager then you are deluded.
a1118374
16 Jul 2007, 17:32
We're not tanking, if you saw the determination of the players in the first quarter yesterday, you would be aware of that.
Unfortunately, we are simply not good enough to compete with several of the sides in the competition at the moment. And I hate to break it you, but if you think thats going to change by drafting an extra teenager then you are deluded.
carlton in kreuzer control would sound better
tanking nont likely for pagan or hes fudged. i think were just not that great of a team....puttng it nicely.........lucky richmond are worse
Unfortunately, we are simply not good enough to compete with several of the sides in the competition at the moment. And I hate to break it you, but if you think thats going to change by drafting an extra teenager then you are deluded.
Absolutely spot on deluxeman.
Couldn't have said it better myself. However, I will add that 3 more top 20 picks will certainly "round off" our drafting very nicely.
So....we're going to use our first pick on a skinny teenage ruckman that is less than 200cm's, that will take 3 years to develop???
Bentick's My Man.
16 Jul 2007, 17:56
So....we're going to use our first pick on a skinny teenage ruckman that is less than 200cm's, that will take 3 years to develop???
We need a ruckman that has showed potential in U/18 system, we need to develop one of our own and hold down good ruckman for the future. And about him being below 200cm's, he will grow another inch or two or three up until he's 21-22.
delirious1
16 Jul 2007, 18:01
We need a ruckman that has showed potential in U/18 system, we need to develop one of our own and hold down good ruckman for the future. And about him being below 200cm's, he will grow another inch or two or three up until he's 21-22.
Predicting kids to grow are we? dont be an idiot, there is a slim chance he could grow, but there is even more of a chance that he will stay the exact same height:eek:
marcmurphy3
16 Jul 2007, 18:01
So....we're going to use our first pick on a skinny teenage ruckman that is less than 200cm's, that will take 3 years to develop???
We would then probably take a mid like Ebert, Palmer or Cotchin who could play straight away with pick 3.
Sockit151
16 Jul 2007, 18:03
So....we're going to use our first pick on a skinny teenage ruckman that is less than 200cm's, that will take 3 years to develop???
What would you do then, trade for another pile of second hand rejects that should see us bottom out for another 5 years..
I find it hard to believe after what we have been through that anyone would question the value of quality draft picks, especially KPP's and ruckmen??
deluxeman
16 Jul 2007, 18:04
So....we're going to use our first pick on a skinny teenage ruckman that is less than 200cm's, that will take 3 years to develop???
I hope you're not implying that to be a negative because just about all KPPs and ruckmen take that long, if not longer to develop. Very rarely do you get a KPP like Franklin that can perform almost instantly as he is the exception and not the rule.
Sockit151
16 Jul 2007, 18:05
Predicting kids to grow are we? dont be an idiot, there is a slim chance he could grow, but there is even more of a chance that he will stay the exact same height:eek:
Predicting that a 17.y.o will get taller, wouldn't call it rocket science, but it is realistic mate, even if you don't think so!!
BryceGibbs#4
16 Jul 2007, 18:17
How would we get pick 1 and 4?
I presume you mean we would get pick #1 as a priority for not winning another game and if this happens then Melbourne will leap frog us on the ladder and we'll finish 15th because we play them in rd 22. (Melbourne have higher percentage than us), therefore we would get picks 1, 3, and 19.
Is that right?
and that means Kreuzer & Ebert come on down!!
Cyborg_
16 Jul 2007, 18:23
Predicting kids to grow are we? dont be an idiot, there is a slim chance he could grow, but there is even more of a chance that he will stay the exact same height:eek:
Why post like that on a teams board?
The 199cms is an AIS figure from earlier this year. Some of these figures are not the most reliable and its quite concievable he is taller than that by draft camp.
A few of the bottom agers would be taller I think.
I would be amazed if C Morton is only 192cms now for example.
As I said many, many times before... tanking is and will never be a solution.
cmon guys, just 7 more losses to go.
This disgusts me.
picks 1,4,20...heaven knows we need em...
Why do we need pick 4 and 20 instead of, say, pick 6 and pick 22?
As I said many, many times before... tanking is and will never be a solution.
This disgusts me.
I lost my lunch reading some of the tanking comments... mmmm Tandori Chucken Roll!
AndyWalkersGirl
16 Jul 2007, 18:34
We're not tanking, if you saw the determination of the players in the first quarter yesterday, you would be aware of that.
Unfortunately, we are simply not good enough to compete with several of the sides in the competition at the moment. And I hate to break it you, but if you think thats going to change by drafting an extra teenager then you are deluded.
Finally! A statment that rings true!:thumbsu:
bLuEbOy1984
16 Jul 2007, 18:40
BS thread.. any talk of tanking is utter stupidity
blues76
16 Jul 2007, 19:18
mate if we're not tanking then we easily are the worst team in the comp. EASILY....richmond would beat us right now.
so you guys think we have a good list, playing low on confidence and just losing? get real. we're CRAP and tanking wouldn't hurt, even though it is painful to endure.
so you guys think we have a good list, playing low on confidence and just losing? get real. we're CRAP and tanking wouldn't hurt, even though it is painful to endure.
Who said we had a good list?
Besides, we know we're better than this anyway. How in heck did we manage to beat the Bulldogs and Port then, and get so close to the other finalists earlier in the year? Hell, we were favourites against Hawthorn when Franklin was out. One of the major issues is a mental one...