Roast Opportunity Lost....

[Collingwoodity]

Due diligence - the same people complaining the loudest about not taking the risk on Johnson and Kreuzer will most likely be the same people howling about the selection of Freeman and Schazza.

Some people just want it both ways

This comment would have made sense if the club had performed its due diligence on Freeman and Schazza and not signed them just like they did not sign Kreuzer and Johnson.

 

[Jasper84]

OP is correct.
And not many replies addressing his Kreuzer vs Mayne comparison.

Probably because it's not a good comparison.

We passed up on Kruezer a year before we entertained Mayne.

A certain Football Director who was keen on Mayne wasn't at the club a year earlier.

We passed up on Kruezer because of a failed medical.

Kruezer is a ruckman who rests forward. Mayne is a medium defensive forward with no apparent rucking ability.

So to summarise, they are completely different players, playing in different positions, recruited at different times by a different person.

 

[ThexderX]

Didn't we also miss out on plugga because we wanted to keep Rocca?

Anyway, win some, lose some, everyone's an expert in hindsight.

We've walk passed plenty of duds too --- Chris Mayne aside.

 

[Chameleon75]

Didn't we also miss out on plugga because we wanted to keep Rocca?

Anyway, win some, lose some, everyone's an expert in hindsight.

We've walk passed plenty of duds too --- Chris Mayne aside.

Rocca was part of the deal but Richardson was the sticking point.

 

[jackcass]

This comment would have made sense if the club had performed its due diligence on Freeman and Schazza and not signed them just like they did not sign Kreuzer and Johnson.

Yeah, can't believe they didn't get them both to do the "Long Term Hamstring Injury Predictor Test" and the "Likelihood Of Future ACL Injury Test". Someone needs to be held accountable.

 

[Finnishpie]

How did we do it again?

We missed the boat on Stevey Johnson who then went on to be AA in 07, 08 and 2010 and still played quality football right up until last year.

Now we seem to have done the same with Matty Kreuzer... surely the risk on his body was worth the punt as opposed to the known quantity that was Chris Mayne?

I know we haven't needed a ruckman, but Kreuzer is a threat up forward that would have helped out Darcy so much more than Mayne playing in the twos....

Can you imagine how feral this board would have got if we'd got Kreuzer and his body had broken down in the first month?

 

[Roverjg]

Reason we did not get him because Witts did not want to be in the Treloar Trade

No Dave...the reason we did not get him was he supposedly failed the medical examination. Our medico's stated his foot would not stand up to the rigours of AFL football, so we let him slide.

Probably the same Medico's who at the end of 2006 stated Steve Johnson's ankles would not stand up, and we know what happened?. He played very well against us in the 2007 PF in which he kicked 3 goals (we were possibly less than a kick from being Premiers) and subsequently won the Norm Smith Medal.

Since our prognosis on Kreuzer, he has played 31 out of 33 games and the guys on On the Couch claim he is fighting with Grundy for AA honours. Grundy's stats have him marginally in front.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Yeah, can't believe they didn't get them both to do the "Long Term Hamstring Injury Predictor Test" and the "Likelihood Of Future ACL Injury Test". Someone needs to be held accountable.

I was not the one using Scharenberg and Freeman as an example.

Also, Scharenberg already had injury concerns when drafted.

Some human beings are born more injury prone than others.

 

[jackcass]

I was not the one using Scharenberg and Freeman as an example.

Also, Scharenberg already had injury concerns when drafted.

Some human beings are born more injury prone than others.

Yeah that Scharenberg foot injury should have had "2x ACL injury sufferer" alerts flashing everywhere. There was likely even some discussion about it pre-draft, bound to be in his profile somewhere.

 

[MISFITS]

Reason we did not get him because Witts did not want to be in the Treloar Trade

The Witts trade(or lack of) still hounts me..
2 years of 1st round picks.
(We should have drafted a 2nd Traloar in the 2015 draft)
A case of the tale waging the dog.
Do you think that the club listened to Heater's reservations when he was getting shipped to GWS.
Business is business..

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Reason we did not get him because Witts did not want to be in the Treloar Trade

We could've picked him up as a restricted free agent last year, so no, that's an idiotic call.

 

[TradeDraft]

My understanding is that we were keen if Witts left. Witts decided to stay so we didn't entertain it, especially since rumours say he didn't pass a physical.

In any event, Kreuzer is a number 1 ruck. I doubt he and Grundy combined would have solved our problems.

Kreuzer would of played the Role Moore is playing now

 

[MISFITS]

No, I was fine with the selection of Scharenberg. Feel free to find my posts about it back then. Freeman? I had no idea who he was. I wanted Lennon. I'm still fine with Scharenberg. It's not like knee injuries can be predicted before they happen.

But I am one of the crowd who is pissed we didn't get Stevie J.

Kreuzer? I wanted Kreuzer personally because he can play as a forward if we need him to as well as a ruck. But given Grundy's progression, I"m not 100% certain how that would have played out. It would have meant Cox got absolutely zero exposure and Jesse White/Keefe would never see senior time again.

So I huess yeah, we probably should have gone for Kreuzer.

Haha Lennon..
I'm glad that you're not a recruiter Shprshal..

 

[MISFITS]

For the record.
I like Kreuzer.
I'm glad we passed.
Disorganised chaos.
It was confusing enough with two ruckmen(Witts and Grundy)

 

[jonbe54]

This comment would have made sense if the club had performed its due diligence on Freeman and Schazza and not signed them just like they did not sign Kreuzer and Johnson.

Jeezuz how hard can it be to understand ??????
Alright then seeing as you either don't or won't understand I'll use baby talk.
IF we hadn't done our due dilligence on and signed Johnson AND if he turned out to be injury prone then people like you would have been screaming blue murder.
Just another hindsight wise nitpicker.

 

[TradeDraft]

No Dave...the reason we did not get him was he supposedly failed the medical examination. Our medico's stated his foot would not stand up to the rigours of AFL football, so we let him slide.

Probably the same Medico's who at the end of 2006 stated Steve Johnson's ankles would not stand up, and we know what happened?. He played very well against us in the 2007 PF in which he kicked 3 goals (we were possibly less than a kick from being Premiers) and subsequently won the Norm Smith Medal.

Since our prognosis on Kreuzer, he has played 31 out of 33 games and the guys on On the Couch claim he is fighting with Grundy for AA honours. Grundy's stats have him marginally in front.

and Yet again then showing how Usless our Medical Team is then

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Haha Lennon..
I'm glad that you're not a recruiter Shprshal..

I"m just saying, I had never heard of Freeman.

My picks for that draft (given Bont was always going ot be gone by pick 6) was Scharenberg and Lennon.

In all fairness, I think Lennon would have been better at Collingwood.

 

[Apex36]

This comment would have made sense if the club had performed its due diligence on Freeman and Schazza and not signed them just like they did not sign Kreuzer and Johnson.

What kind of due diligence are you suggesting they should have done with Scharenberg? Unless there's a crystal ball available there's no way they could have known he was going to do both his knees within 3 years.

 

[Apex36]

I"m just saying, I had never heard of Freeman.

My picks for that draft (given Bont was always going ot be gone by pick 6) was Scharenberg and Lennon.

In all fairness, I think Lennon would have been better at Collingwood.

Was bont always going to be gone by 6? I seem to remember us being tipped to take him at 6 for weeks leading in to the draft before it got leaked that the dogs were keen about a week before. Hell I remember wanting McCarthy at 6 and Bont at 10 in the lead up. Now that would have been an amazing draft, even if McCarthy had headed home. We would have been given two firsts for him from Freo imo.

 

[TradeDraft]

Was bont always going to be gone by 6? I seem to remember us being tipped to take him at 6 for weeks leading in to the draft before it got leaked that the dogs were keen about a week before. Hell I remember wanting McCarthy at 6 and Bont at 10 in the lead up. Now that would have been an amazing draft, even if McCarthy had headed home. We would have been given two firsts for him from Freo imo.

Maybe he was going to be there at 6 Until Shaz Feet Problems came up and Dogs took Bont as he not had the Injury Issue Shaz had

 

[MISFITS]

I"m just saying, I had never heard of Freeman.

My picks for that draft (given Bont was always going ot be gone by pick 6) was Scharenberg and Lennon.

In all fairness, I think Lennon would have been better at Collingwood.

Hindsight...
Yes. I heard of Lennon too.
Great wraps.
Unfortunately for a forward to stop growing when he was 14 or 15yo didn't help.
He went from KP forward to a mid size(awkward) forward hence why he was a draft slider.

The Bont hypothesis is just too much..
Hine risked a lot.
The gap of talent comparing between both Bontempelli and Scharenburg(assuming that he was the next best available) is as vast as the Sahara.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I"m just saying, I had never heard of Freeman.

My picks for that draft (given Bont was always going ot be gone by pick 6) was Scharenberg and Lennon.

In all fairness, I think Lennon would have been better at Collingwood.

Lot of talk about us taking Salem at 10, but Freeman was in that discussion too
Actually to eventually get a 2nd Round pick for Freeman who I suspect will have a very limited AFL Career is the best outcome from a disaster selection (not blaming the kid here)

 

[Quicky]

Kruezer was a massive dodged bullet. He's a number one ruck and number one ruck alone. His key forward play is very limited. Given we already have Grundy, Kruezer would have been completely superfluous to our needs.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Jeezuz how hard can it be to understand ??????
Alright then seeing as you either don't or won't understand I'll use baby talk.
IF we hadn't done our due dilligence on and signed Johnson AND if he turned out to be injury prone then people like you would have been screaming blue murder.
Just another hindsight wise nitpicker.

IF we hadn't done our due dilligence on and signed Johnson AND if he turned out to be injury prone then people like you would have been screaming blue murder.



The fact is we did not sign Johnson or Kreuzer (hindsight wins) but we did sign Freeman and Scharenberg (hindsight losses).

You said:

Due diligence - the same people complaining the loudest about not taking the risk on Johnson and Kreuzer will most likely be the same people howling about the selection of Freeman and Schazza.

Some people just want it both ways

No, those "people" as you call them, want to have the good with the bad. That means some draft/trading wins and losses.

That means that since Collingwood saw fit to take a "risk" with Freeman and Scharenberg, the club could have similarly taken a "risk" with Kreuzer and Johnson.

There is genuine merit in this argument.

Now, in your response, let's see if you can not resort to making a personal insult.

 

[Markfs]

People make mistakes sometimes.... such is life as ben would say.

Good news is that the AFL is considering a change in the draft rules so that teams can select their players after they have played 50 games. That should mean that every recruiting decision will be checked out.