Remove this Banner Ad

Draft Profile Mitch Thorp

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asgardian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

C4[2]Yo`DooR said:
.... and so it begins!
Click to expand...

Curiously wasn't posting on the Carlton board. Call me a cynic but ...

Carlton's intentions towards Thorp may not have anything to do with form or attitude. It's a judgment call against an 18-19 year old, but a bit of a cheap shot against a 24 year old who may or may not be the same person today.
 
It has everything do with form and/or attitude.

Blues ready for 2013 National Draft
"When it comes to drafting players to Carlton, we must remember to differentiate between the best players available in the draft, and the best players available for the Club – they're two different types of players,” Rogers said.

"If a player doesn't fit with the culture at a Club, it will affect his long-term performance.

“So ensuring players will fit within our team is something that we take very seriously.
Click to expand...
Blues ready for 2013 National Draft

The club and the Tassie based posters who didn't want Thorp aren't blind to our need for another depth KPP.
 
A_McKay said:
It has everything do with form and/or attitude.

The club and the Tassie based posters who didn't want Thorp aren't blind to our need for another depth KPP.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's a little too sweeping. Form is a given. That's the nature of drafting. If a player does not show enough form to get picked up, then he probably won't get picked up. Form and attitude do not necessarily go together and there were very few Carlton supporters suggesting that Thorp's Tassie form would equate to AFL form. I think you are misrepresenting many of these posters and that is part of the problem.

Is it at all possible that Carlton aren't prepared to draw a form line between Tassie form and AFL form given Thorp did not make it in his first stint in the AFL? Cachia is a different story because he was a known and he was younger. Is it possible that if Carlton still have attitude concerns about Thorp, that it is because of his first stint, and not his current attitude?

If these things are possible, you are having shots at other supporters based on your own feelings, not anything factual. If Carlton come out and say that they interviewed Thorp and had concerns over his attitude (they won't IMO), then you might have a point.

Right now you're trying to alienate a whole group of supporters, most of who tried to discuss Thorp in a reasonable and constructive fashion. A little self serving perhaps?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bosun said:
We have tried the good cheap option before with little success.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, aside from Kreuzer and the Henderson trade, most of our talls are the good cheap option in recent years. Something we have to address sooner or later.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
Unfortunately, aside from Kreuzer and the Henderson trade, most of our talls are the good cheap option in recent years. Something we have to address sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, we went fairly tall with one draft with McCarthy, Mitchell and Watson, two of them aren't there anymore and the third I'm still not convinced with, there are some questions over development.
 
Bosun said:
Pretty much, we went fairly tall with one draft with McCarthy, Mitchell and Watson, two of them aren't there anymore and the third I'm still not convinced with, there are some questions over development.
Click to expand...

This is why I understand why we aren't loading up with cheap talls in this draft, after having lost Hampson, Mitchell and McCarthy. Most will fail in this part of the draft. I can even see why we didn't go for McCarthy at #13. Unfortunately we need depth, even expendable rainy day depth, just in case of a couple of injuries. God forbid we lose a tall for the season in round 1. Will really be up against it then.
 
Jeremias said:
Do you have the same source as Wayne?
Click to expand...
Sheesh, for a guy who "doesn't care" you seem a little obsessive, following him around, mentioned him non-stop & liking every post of his. Breathe champ.

yaco55 said:
Back on topic - Thorp would be a good fit for Essendon - Expect that he could fill the third tall position vacated by Crameri.
Click to expand...

Good point. Cheap too. I honestly don't think he's a risky proposition, owing to the outlay.

The Old Dark Navy's said:
Unfortunately, aside from Kreuzer and the Henderson trade, most of our talls are the good cheap option in recent years. Something we have to address sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Talls are very hit & miss. I think people get a little too excited about the prospect of big men & KPP. For all of Collingwood's touted drafting success, we have had a plethora of useless big men. It's actually painful to go through some of the names...
 
jasonwilde said:
Sheesh, for a guy who "doesn't care" you seem a little obsessive, following him around, mentioned him non-stop & liking every post of his. Breathe champ.
Click to expand...


I'm surprised it took you this long to resurface. Did Wayne forget to tell you?

As for me liking every post of his, I suggest it probably wouldn't hurt to do some of your own research at times. Relying on what Wayne says is, as he's shown time and time again (including in this thread), fraught with danger. Buyer beware.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Old Dark Navy's said:
This is why I understand why we aren't loading up with cheap talls in this draft, after having lost Hampson, Mitchell and McCarthy. Most will fail in this part of the draft. I can even see why we didn't go for McCarthy at #13. Unfortunately we need depth, even expendable rainy day depth, just in case of a couple of injuries. God forbid we lose a tall for the season in round 1. Will really be up against it then.
Click to expand...
Club didn't pick a back up KPP in the draft. We must rate our depth talls as better players than Joel Tippett and the rest. Passed with two picks in the PSD.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Monkey King said:
Ideally ... something like:

Menzel - Henderson - Yarran
Garlett - Waite - Walker

With a ruck floating in and out and one of Menzel, Yarran or Walker playing further upfield.
Click to expand...


Thats not too bad on paper. Would leave your backline horribly undermanned though without walker and henderson
 
HBFlanker said:
Thats not too bad on paper. Would leave your backline horribly undermanned though without walker and henderson
Click to expand...

You said "ideal" though; and ideally Everitt and/or Docherty along with some further improvement from Touhy, would allow for Walker to move forward without detracting from defense too greatly.

Similarly, Watson would "ideally" continue his improvement as a defender, of which he made great strides IMO at the backend of last season, along with McInnes who showed good things before doing his ACL in 2012 and after his comeback in 2013; and between them, would allow Henderson to move forward more permanently without leaving anything horribly undermanned. This happened last year anyway and while the defense wasn't as strong, it certainly wasn't as extreme as you're proposing.

So, you asked for an ideal situation and this is what I provided you. Like most teams not in the top 4, Carlton will require a few players to improve and outcomes to lean a certain way to deliver their best. If they can pull that off, they'll provide a much more soundly structured team than many expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom