Hines Drafting Player....

[Dave The Man]

He seems to follow these 3 Lines:

1-Victorian

2-Underage

3-Coachable

If you can find player with those 3 you could have a good chance of Finding players that we could draft

 

[smiddaz123]

Ok then...

 

[MagpieGirl_13]

More than half the players a Victorian so I guess that narrows it down.... slightly....
but he shouldn't be like that.... there are just as good players from other states.

 

[DWil6]

-1 on the threads, Dave. This one is a stinker.

 

[Dave The Man]

-1 on the threads, Dave. This one is a stinker.

Why - I am just saying how Hine has drafted the last 3 years and Does show what he is looking for

 

[Godfrey Jones]

thanks for regurgitating what royal sample has been saying for the last year

 

[FIGJAM]

I think it was Jack Ziebell that Hine was interviewing on 10 news.

Fits the above criteria. Only way we'll get him is by trading Didak though.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

thanks for regurgitating what royal sample has been saying for the last year

Whoa whoa whoa!

Don't put my words into Sampler's mouth - I've been using these criteria, plus the idea of a sexually suggestive name to put Steele Sidebottom as our first round pick for almost a year now.

Unfortunately for me, I didn't account for him kicking 10 goals in the TAC GF.

 

[typewriter]

do u think his grand final performance is going to have a massive difference to steeles drafting? in recent history it hasnt made a massive difference. buchannon dominated from memory with 5 or so goals and went mid draft, goodes dominated and wasnt in the first 2 rounds either. so am i clutching at straws when i say he may still slide to number 11? surely recruiters arent going to decide who theyl pick up in round 1 based on one dominant display well i hope they dont anyway.

 

[B&W Army]

do u think his grand final performance is going to have a massive difference to steeles drafting? in recent history it hasnt made a massive difference. buchannon dominated from memory with 5 or so goals and went mid draft, goodes dominated and wasnt in the first 2 rounds either. so am i clutching at straws when i say he may still slide to number 11? surely recruiters arent going to decide who theyl pick up in round 1 based on one dominant display well i hope they dont anyway.

What he said

 

[shawthing09]

Try and keep it fresh davey boy.

 

[MightyQuinn]

this is a thread for threads sake dtm

 

[pocketrocket#24]

do u think his grand final performance is going to have a massive difference to steeles drafting? in recent history it hasnt made a massive difference. buchannon dominated from memory with 5 or so goals and went mid draft, goodes dominated and wasnt in the first 2 rounds either. so am i clutching at straws when i say he may still slide to number 11? surely recruiters arent going to decide who theyl pick up in round 1 based on one dominant display well i hope they dont anyway.

yeh i think it does. daisy went at 2 apparently based quite a lot on his 4 goal bog in the tac granny.

 

[M-Train]

I think it was Jack Ziebell that Hine was interviewing on 10 news.

Fits the above criteria. Only way we'll get him is by trading Didak though.

Yeah I thought it was Jack Ziebell as well but it doesnt mean anything. This time last year, Channel 10 should Derek Hine and company speaking to Ashley Arrowsmith during their sports report.

 

[Invigoration]

I didn't want to start a new thread, so may as well crash a crappy one.

I was just thinking about how we gifted Hawthorn Jordan Lewis, which made me interested in looking what we got out of the deal... And I must say, looking at the deal I don't why how the hell we thought we were benefiting out of it.
The trade was:

Bo Nixon (A #21(?) draft pick) and our pick #7 (To be Jordan Lewis)
for;
Their pick #10 (Egan) and their #37 draft pick.

Am I missing something in this trade, or did we effectively drop our 1st round draft pick three spots and trade a #21 draft pick (regardless of how good he was) JUST so we could get pick 37?

I must be missing something, someone enlighten me... Please!

Nixon probably would have fetched a #37 pick on his own.... Even if he couldn't though, I don't see how our guys could reason that #37 was worth moving our 1st rounder back 3 spots.

We all know the potential difference there can be between just one spot in the draft, it can clearly mean the difference between a Lewis and an Egan in this case.
I am not harping on it simply because we got Egan in though, I mean, if the tables were turned and they took Egan with 7 and we got Lewis with 10, it would still be a ridiculous trade to have done. The earlier you have your pick, the more chance you are at securing the best talent.... Anyways...

 

[loki04]

I didn't want to start a new thread, so may as well crash a crappy one.

I was just thinking about how we gifted Hawthorn Jordan Lewis, which made me interested in looking what we got out of the deal... And I must say, looking at the deal I don't why how the hell we thought we were benefiting out of it.
The trade was:

Bo Nixon (A #21(?) draft pick) and our pick #7 (To be Jordan Lewis)
for;
Their pick #10 (Egan) and their #37 draft pick.

Am I missing something in this trade, or did we effectively drop our 1st round draft pick three spots and trade a #21 draft pick (regardless of how good he was) JUST so we could get pick 37?

I must be missing something, someone enlighten me... Please!

MM wanted it IIRC he was told after that year to keep away from our top picks.

 

[Invigoration]

I don't understand what he wanted though... He did it just so he could get pick 37?

I guess it is feasible, seeings he traded that pick along for f*cking Chad Morrison, so it would be no surprise he had his eyes just firmly set on #37 and didn't care how he got it.

 

[shawthing09]

I didn't want to start a new thread, so may as well crash a crappy one.

I was just thinking about how we gifted Hawthorn Jordan Lewis, which made me interested in looking what we got out of the deal... And I must say, looking at the deal I don't why how the hell we thought we were benefiting out of it.
The trade was:

Bo Nixon (A #21(?) draft pick) and our pick #7 (To be Jordan Lewis)
for;
Their pick #10 (Egan) and their #37 draft pick.

Am I missing something in this trade, or did we effectively drop our 1st round draft pick three spots and trade a #21 draft pick (regardless of how good he was) JUST so we could get pick 37?

I must be missing something, someone enlighten me... Please!

Pretty sure we were getting rid of Nixon anyway so we were trading 7 for 10 and 37 because we wanted 37 to get Chad Morrison. Bo went on to be delisted not long after it anyway.

 

[BEEG]

If Hine doesnt pick up a Midfielder with our 1st and 2nd Pick he will be hunted down by a blood thirsty pack of Collingwood supporters

 

[3rdMan]

do u think his grand final performance is going to have a massive difference to steeles drafting? in recent history it hasnt made a massive difference. buchannon dominated from memory with 5 or so goals and went mid draft

Buchanan kicked 10 in the TAC cup GF, same as Steele - was picked 55.

Performance, especially in big games is certainly a factor, but long term scouting analysis and draft camp results are a bigger factor.

I reckon Steele will at most move up a few spots (possibly now a 7-12 prospect rather than 10-15, I'm tipping the Roos to take him at 9, though Brisbane at 6 will be some chance if Ziebell's gone). Scouts will have formed quite a definitive view on him before the GF, and his performances in previous games were of similar quality, just without the goals, which in the end don't mean a hell of a lot, he's not going to be playing full forward .

Am I missing something in this trade, or did we effectively drop our 1st round draft pick three spots and trade a #21 draft pick (regardless of how good he was) JUST so we could get pick 37?

We got Chad Morrison out of it. The thinking was that we would have taken Egan at pick 7 anyway, the Hawks wanted to move up, so we got a little extra and picked the player we wanted at 10 rather than 7. There was nothing wrong with the deal, nor I feel the selection of Egan, just unfortunate that he didn't develop into the player we'd hoped. Drafting's not an exact science, sometimes the cards fall your way sometimes not, the Hawks have not been blemish free themselves in the past 5 years, had a few top 10 picks that have not even played a game as yet.

 

[Invigoration]

We got Chad Morrison out of it. The thinking was that we would have taken Egan at pick 7 anyway, the Hawks wanted to move up, so we got a little extra and picked the player we wanted at 10 rather than 7. There was nothing wrong with the deal, nor I feel the selection of Egan, just unfortunate that he didn't develop into the player we'd hoped. Drafting's not an exact science, sometimes the cards fall your way sometimes not, the Hawks have not been blemish free themselves in the past 5 years, had a few top 10 picks that have not even played a game as yet.

So effectively though, every year you would be willing to downgrade your 1st round draft pick, for pick #37?

And you are going to have to explain how you knew we wanted Egan before the draft was actually carried out. Who says we didn't want Lewis but we thought he would easily slip through til 10, only to see Hawthorn snap him up.

It isn't about the players selected with those picks, that is irrelevant, it is just the reasoning that it is worth dropping your pick inside the top 10 three spots for a third round (or close to) draft pick.
I would say there is definitely something wrong with that deal.

 

[3rdMan]

Nothing at all wrong with it, if we wanted Egan, which is what Collingwood recruiters claimed in the media after the draft.

If by downgrading, you can select the same player you would have without, and get something extra, then you've done a good deal.

 

[well left]

So effectively though, every year you would be willing to downgrade your 1st round draft pick, for pick #37?

And you are going to have to explain how you knew we wanted Egan before the draft was actually carried out. Who says we didn't want Lewis but we thought he would easily slip through til 10, only to see Hawthorn snap him up.

It isn't about the players selected with those picks, that is irrelevant, it is just the reasoning that it is worth dropping your pick inside the top 10 three spots for a third round (or close to) draft pick.
I would say there is definitely something wrong with that deal.

That one is always going to come back to haunt us due to the respective careers of Lewis and Egan.

Looking back at it, we had Licuria, Buckley, O'Bree and Holland in the side at that stage and had drafted both Brayden and Heath Shaw the year before so we probably needed some outside flair rather than someone like Lewis.

Between then and our next pick, the midfielders taken were Thomson (who we might be after now), Matthew Bate, Angus Monfries, Danny Meyer, Andrew McQualter and Dean Polo. Van Berlo went the pick after Rusling so we had 2 shots at him and did not rate him. In hindsight, Bate or Monfries would have been better but they are not really skilled outside mids either.

 

[3rdMan]

Yep, I think Egan was the right pick, was happy with him at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that the pick did not turn out the way we'd have liked, doesn't mean it was the wrong one. It's not even as if Jordan Lewis is a blindingly brilliant player, he goes alright, but he's no gun.

In the end it was a decent draft period for us. We got Travis Cloke, Harry O'Brien, and Rusling (hopefully he can still provide something for us).

 

[didaka]

Yep, I think Egan was the right pick, was happy with him at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that the pick did not turn out the way we'd have liked, doesn't mean it was the wrong one. It's not even as if Jordan Lewis is a blindingly brilliant player, he goes alright, but he's no gun.

In the end it was a decent draft period for us. We got Travis Cloke, Harry O'Brien, and Rusling (hopefully he can still provide something for us).

Travis Cloke in the 3rd round is enough compensation for blowing it on pick 10.