James Stewart I think we made a mistake not taking him as a father son

[Scodog10]

I think this one might hurt long term. Our list build looks nice, but adding another tall option makes it look perfect.

Having said that though I (and I think the rest of the football world) will watch with interest as to how GWS fit Cameron, Patton, McCarthy, Stewart and Thomlinson in the one side.

I hazard a guess that Collingwood were in constant contact with James and his family so without knowing the conversations behind closed doors you never know!

 

[loki04]

I think this one might hurt long term. Our list build looks nice, but adding another tall option makes it look perfect.

Having said that though I (and I think the rest of the football world) will watch with interest as to how GWS fit Cameron, Patton, McCarthy, Stewart and Thomlinson in the one side.

I hazard a guess that Collingwood were in constant contact with James and his family so without knowing the conversations behind closed doors you never know!

He may very well tell Collingwood to go get stuffed for overlooking him in the first place, especially when 2 years earlier they were very keen on him before his growth spurt.

 

[Anzacday]

Surely it comes down to what pick we were going to be forced to use if we nominated him?
So, assuming we nominate him and then GWS offer their 2nd rounder we have to match it.
Sure we can decline to pick him but what message does that send to him and his family saying we'll draft him and then not.
I much prefer what we clearly did i.e, had open/honest dialogue with them.

 

[Apex36]

Because this topic hasn't already been discussed ad nausem...

 

[mattys123]

As I've said all along with him and Jake Kelly, if they are any good they will come back to Collingwood anyway.

 

[FIGJAM]

Surely it comes down to what pick we were going to be forced to use if we nominated him?

You don't get forced to match a bid. You can choose to match it in the bidding process, assuming anyone bothers.

That said though, you are ultimately forced to use the last rookie pick if you nominate a player with no bids.

In the end, we weren't willing to bring him into the system. That's our call and it's pretty definitive. FWIW I agree with it. He's too light, lanky and imbalanced for mine, for me to have confidence that he'll make it long term as a KP player (which he will need to be).

GWS disagree with me and the Pies, so good luck to them and Jimmy Stewart!


FWIW, I find it pretty funny that all of our games are 'meaningless practice matches', and any good form is largely written off, yet if someone like Clark or Stewart or Heath Shaw has a half decent hitout, we've had epic recruiting fails!

 

[ppoiter]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/bring-james-stewart-home.1075087/

Heres the last round of discussion on this topic, think it was after he kicked a few goals in an extremely open game against the dogs(?). Lets see him produce a bit against tougher opposition before we get too upset, exactly the same reason that its silly to be predicting rising stars and brownlows for De Goey and Scharenberg/Freeman after one good performance against depleted opposition (for DG) and two offseasons worth of hype for the others

 

[Scodog10]

He may very well tell Collingwood to go get stuffed for overlooking him in the first place, especially when 2 years earlier they were very keen on him before his growth spurt.

I don't know the conversations that do/ did go on behind closed doors. So yeah he may well say that, but who am I to to say he won't say I'd love to play for Collingwood and I understand why you overlooked me because I drifted through my top age 18 year...

 

[Anzacday]

You don't get forced to match a bid. You can choose to match it in the bidding process, assuming anyone bothers.

My point is if we wanted to draft him after bidding for him then we are essentially forced to use a pick.
One we were clearly not prepared to risk at the time as from memory it was the Grundy, Broomy and Kenno year.

 

[FIGJAM]

I know, but that pick is the last pick in the rookie draft. Not really much "risk" at the arse end of two drafts. Pretty damning.

Stewart also struggles to be prolific enough IMV. Not devoid of potential, but I wouldn't have rocked him either.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I know, but that pick is the last pick in the rookie draft. Not really much "risk" at the arse end of two drafts. Pretty damning.

Not quite - If you nominate him at the regular time, as we did with Darcy Moore, then if no one bids you use the last pick in the national draft, i.e. the last senior list spot you have.

If you don't nominate them before the ND, and they go through it undrafted, then you can nominate them as a F/S rookie, where you get them with the last pick in the rookie draft.

So at most it says that at the time we either knew that we wouldn't match the bid he'd receive, which given GWS took him at #27 you could assume they would have bid, or that we simply didn't think he was worth a senior list spot. We never got to the rookie list stage with him as we did with Jake Kelly, who we obviously weren't even a little bit interested in given we could have had him for a late rookie pick and declined.

 

[Apex36]

Not quite - If you nominate him at the regular time, as we did with Darcy Moore, then if no one bids you use the last pick in the national draft, i.e. the last senior list spot you have.

If you don't nominate them before the ND, and they go through it undrafted, then you can nominate them as a F/S rookie, where you get them with the last pick in the rookie draft.

So at most it says that at the time we either knew that we wouldn't match the bid he'd receive, which given GWS took him at #27 you could assume they would have bid, or that we simply didn't think he was worth a senior list spot. We never got to the rookie list stage with him as we did with Jake Kelly, who we obviously weren't even a little bit interested in given we could have had him for a late rookie pick and declined.

From memory we were interested in Kelly as a rookie, but it ended up that we had no spots left on the list for him after we unexpectedly got the opportunity to pick up Langdon and Marsh with our late picks.

 

[THATSGOLD]

As I've said all along with him and Jake Kelly, if they are any good they will come back to Collingwood anyway.

Surely our superior development team would assure they make it under anyway or at least increase their chances.

 

[THATSGOLD]

Its simple delist Tony Armstrong and Sinclair but Kelly and Stewart on the list.

 

[Old Spice]

Nup need McCarthy not Stewart

I agree. If he is in and out of the team this year we might be able to make a play for him at a reasonable price.

 

[Knightmare]

James Stewart is getting better and better with every game he could cost us big time

We made a bigger mistake not taking Cameron McCarthy at 10 in 2013 - not to dis Freeman but McCarthy can become one of the best key forwards in the game.

I'd also take Stewart over Ramsay but even as the club who has been arguably the best draft day performer over the past 10 years mistakes and sub-optimal selections have been make and will always be made. And that's to be expected with the sheer number of draft prospects in the pool and many you will be considering.

 

[Seedsfan]

Think it was a bad call but what is done is done

 

[pablo disco bar]

I remember thinking should take Mccarthy at 10 also..im not sold on freeman

 

[76woodenspooners]

If Stewart wasn't a F/S prospect he wouldn't even be on the radar.

All F/S does these days is provide clubs with the opportunity to get a player between 1 and 18 picks ahead of other clubs (5 picks in the case of Darcy Moore), plus a bit of romance for the oldies to enjoy.

Pretty sure in our recruiting review there'd be a bag of "oops" moments before Stewart's name gets mentioned.

 

[Apex36]

I was on the McCarthy train in 2013 too, wanted him at 10. Nothing against Freeman, but he was clearly the second best tall in the draft and he was so raw you could see he was going to be a jet in the right development program.

I reckon he'll end up being better than Boyd tbh. That guy has still done nothing to convince me he's anything other than a glorified Tom Hawkins. Good, but will take years to find his feet and not as naturally talented as Cameron, Patton or McCarthy imo.

 

[sr36]

He looks like a tall low possession flanker to me. I haven't seen much aerial threat. Good luck to him but i am happy for him to be elsewhere

 

[FIGJAM]

Agree with sr36.

Also, I reckon McCarthy will prove to be a frustrating NQR KP forward.

Interesting to see all the different opinions though!

 

[76woodenspooners]

GWS will benefit from having KPF's who are developing together and competing for spots.

We have an old warrior (Cloke), a young buck (Gault), a middle age player who was superfluous to requirements in the backline (Keeffe) and a couple of resting ruckmen (Witts and Grundy) ... A bit of a mixed bag!

 

[Quicky]

I haven't really followed him in his time at GWS but from a purely list management perspective we really are short one (quality) developing key forward. If he becomes any good we may well rue the decision. But I think in the broader context of our drafting we should be pretty satisfied that have been a such strong performer.

 

[Old Spice]

I'd make a play for McCarthy but I think the idea of not taking him at 10 is a bit on the high side. I'd look to try and grab him with a 2nd round or some trade equivalent. He'll be a very solid KPF but I don't know that he oozes talent, just some very solid lead up, mark and conversion which is valuable.

McGovern is the other tall I really like, more than McCarthy, but I'm guessing WC will whack a chastity belt on him.