Hudson quits Crows.

[Eggzoi]

If that is the case (which the phone messages report seem to imply), then Hudson can bugger off.

This phone messages thing, do you have a non bigfooty source on this? I was reasonably sure it was just Embers making shit up as he tends to do.

 

[bus24]

This phone messages thing, do you have a non bigfooty source on this? I was reasonably sure it was just Embers making shit up as he tends to do.

Channel 10 reported it last night

 

[King Elvis]

No. If the policy is good enough for Andrew Mcleod, it's good enough for Ben Hudson. There need to be some things within any company that are unbending.

I think Hudson wants to leave. Perhaps we underbid, but his position is about more than years or money. He just wants to leave.

The policy is completely stupid, why have a rule which puts yourself in a corner and limits your options?

It's an arbitary rule which never needed to be made - now we can't break it without looking stupid; every case should be judged on it's merits.

 

[Asgardian]

Of course you do.


Then again, you happen to be a moron.

Classy

So you happen to believe Meesen has shown more on the footy field than Wood has, it must have been in the SANFL I guess, as his 2 AFL games have been less than stellar.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Classy

So you happen to believe Meesen has shown more on the footy field than Wood has, it must have been in the SANFL I guess, as his 2 AFL games have been less than stellar.

I dont feel like laughing right now. Can you take the jester act elsewhere?

 

[Asgardian]

If you can't answer a question, just say so

 

[Southerntakeover]

If you can't answer a question, just say so

Theres a difference between being unable to, and not respecting you enough to indulge you.

Ring Geoff Parker and ask him.

 

[out of order]

ass guardian lol

 

[Crow-mo]

pfft....I expected something a little more imaginative...what a let down

that's nice for you

 

[Crow-mo]

******, the chances of you getting pick 5 are 0.

the chances of a player that fits our needs falling to us in the PSD if you guys play 'hardball' is something significantly greater than 0.

normally, I'd think you were an idiot.

but seeing as you are somewhat of an expert on these matters, I know because because you said you were, i'll have to revise.

 

[crowugoodthing]

Classy

So you happen to believe Meesen has shown more on the footy field than Wood has, it must have been in the SANFL I guess, as his 2 AFL games have been less than stellar.

When they played each other this year I felt they were close to even if not Meesen having a little better of it than Wood.

 

[jmorg1]

ass guardian lol

If only the victim of this crime had an ass guardian to protect her.

 

[stefoid]

I've just picked out some alternatives to the players you pointed out were drafted at #10. Which backs up my "strawman" argument, that a club will draft quality players, if the recruiters are good. No matter what draft picks they have to work with.

Speaking of strawman arguments, what the feck was yours then? Despite the fact that we're dealing with 5 & 10 in real life, they're still just random picks. Speaking of random picks, let's do another 'random comparison' exactly what your's was.

Pick 4 vs Pick 56 from the 2000 - 2005

2000 -- Pick 4 (Luke Livingston) vs Pick 56 (Daniel Cross)

2001 -- Pick 4 (Graham Polak) vs Pick 56 (Paul Medhurst) - Pretty Even

2002 -- Pick 4 (Tim Walsh) vs Pick 56 (Robert Shirley)

2003 -- Pick 4 (Farren Ray) vs Pick 56 (Brent Le Cras)

2004 -- Pick 4 (Richard Tambling) vs Pick 56 (Chris Knights)

2005 -- Pick 4 (Josh Kennedy) vs Pick 56 (Joel Patfull) - Fair to say Patful has shown more at this stage, so I'll go with him.

So it looks as though (at the present time) the players taken with pick 56 have outperformed those taken with pick 4.

Wow

But doesn't a top 5 draft pick guarantee success. Thats what I've been hearing anyway . Thought a top 5 pick is always a GUN, or a SUPERSTAR!

The clubs with the best recruiting staff, will generally do better than the ordinary recruiters, with excellent picks.

you obviously know how to use a strawman argument even if you dont know thats what its called. did I say pick 5 was always a gun? did I say you never get gun players with late picks? stop wasting everybodies time and do the work.

in fact Ill save you the trouble. the probability of drafting a gun player starts off quite high with pick 1, and drops very , very rapidly, after that through the next 3 or 5 picks until by about pick 10, the odds of drafting a gun player are getting fairly low. and the later the pick, the lower they get. its a reverse exponential curve, not linear. that means a difference in 5 picks near the start is very much greater than a difference of 5 picks latter on.

now if you arent going to accept that, then prove otherwise without sifting information to suit yourself. pick 4 vs pick 56? rubbish.

 

[stefoid]

Why do you think that pick 5 is so vital to your club? Exactly how many more top 5 picks is it going to require for your club to be a genuine contender? You've already got at least 3 playing for you. Another 2? 3? 4? I just can't comprehend this Victorian obsession with early draft picks.

if you cant work it out after frittering away daniel wells on wayne carey, what else could I possibly say?

 

[stefoid]

normally, I'd think you were an idiot.

but seeing as you are somewhat of an expert on these matters, I know because because you said you were, i'll have to revise.

the couple of idiots around here are self evident.

 

[CarnCrows]

if you cant work it out after frittering away daniel wells on wayne carey, what else could I possibly say?

Not that I agree with the trade, but I believe Adelaide gave our 4th round pick (obtained from Richmond) to Roos (Daniel was expected to go in the top 2). Only after the trade period was Carlton removed from the first two rounds (who has picks 1 & 2). So our 4th became 2nd.

The fourth best player taken that year was apparently Tim Walsh - ring a bell (delisted from WBD this year after 1 game).

 

[boydsno1]

in fairness to tim walsh he was always constantly down with injuries. at the start of this season or last season did a kneee then had alot of hammy problems. guy never got a break.

 

[CarnCrows]

in fairness to tim walsh he was always constantly down with injuries. at the start of this season or last season did a kneee then had alot of hammy problems. guy never got a break.

I agree. In hindsight we can all be super hero draft selectors - I know I am

 

[missionpossible]

I've just picked out some alternatives to the players you pointed out were drafted at #10. Which backs up my "strawman" argument, that a club will draft quality players, if the recruiters are good. No matter what draft picks they have to work with.

Speaking of strawman arguments, what the feck was yours then? Despite the fact that we're dealing with 5 & 10 in real life, they're still just random picks. Speaking of random picks, let's do another 'random comparison' exactly what your's was.

Pick 4 vs Pick 56 from the 2000 - 2005

2000 -- Pick 4 (Luke Livingston) vs Pick 56 (Daniel Cross)

2001 -- Pick 4 (Graham Polak) vs Pick 56 (Paul Medhurst) - Pretty Even

2002 -- Pick 4 (Tim Walsh) vs Pick 56 (Robert Shirley)

2003 -- Pick 4 (Farren Ray) vs Pick 56 (Brent Le Cras)

2004 -- Pick 4 (Richard Tambling) vs Pick 56 (Chris Knights)

2005 -- Pick 4 (Josh Kennedy) vs Pick 56 (Joel Patfull) - Fair to say Patful has shown more at this stage, so I'll go with him.

So it looks as though (at the present time) the players taken with pick 56 have outperformed those taken with pick 4.

Wow

But doesn't a top 5 draft pick guarantee success. Thats what I've been hearing anyway . Thought a top 5 pick is always a GUN, or a SUPERSTAR!

The clubs with the best recruiting staff, will generally do better than the ordinary recruiters, with excellent picks.

OK that was using stats that you knew would back up you arguement

Do ma a favour do the same for picks 5, 10, 55 and 60. I have no idea on the results.

Pick 4 has a history of being a shocker.

 

[CarnCrows]

OK that was using stats that you knew would back up you arguement

Do ma a favour do the same for picks 5, 10, 55 and 60. I have no idea on the results.

Pick 4 has a history of being a shocker.

So you use stats that go against your arguments?????

If you say pick 4 has a history of being a shocker, then his argument is correct ie "A top 5 pick does NOT gaurantee you success."

 

[Butane]

So you use stats that go against your arguments?????

If you say pick 4 has a history of being a shocker, then his argument is correct ie "A top 5 pick does NOT gaurantee you success."

Maybe Adelaide would prefer pick 56?

 

[Gets!]

Maybe Adelaide would prefer pick 56?

Dude just go back to your own board.

 

[stefoid]

The fourth best player taken that year was apparently Tim Walsh - ring a bell (delisted from WBD this year after 1 game).

proving what exactly? that your coaching staff was prescient enough to avoid drafting a dud but stupid enough to trade for carey?

as I keep saying, ad nauseum, is that for every tim walsh there is a buddy franklyn at this pointy end of the draft. if you swap that _good chance_ of getting the buddy franklyn for old average players, then it will bite you in the arse sooner rather than later. as you guys have found out.

 

[stefoid]

OK that was using stats that you knew would back up you arguement

Do ma a favour do the same for picks 5, 10, 55 and 60. I have no idea on the results.

Pick 4 has a history of being a shocker.

yes, he conveniently stops at 2000, missing pavlich who was drafted at #4 in 99.

the other thing to notice is how the chances of drafting a gun are improving over the last 5 years compared to previously as clubs realize how important it is to get the draft right.

 

[CarnCrows]

yes, he conveniently stops at 2000, missing pavlich who was drafted at #4 in 99.

the other thing to notice is how the chances of drafting a gun are improving over the last 5 years compared to previously as clubs realize how important it is to get the draft right.

And you also forgot to mention that Okeefe was pick 56 in 1999. Not bad for 56.

Whilst I agree that the last few years have been good picks it still does not gaurantee anything. Better odds, yes.