richie_cole#13
Senior List
On initial impressions have we come out better having Port Adelaide not accept our Stevens for Pick 17 and Scotland deal.
Stevens or not?
- Thread starter richie_cole#13
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
BlahzeyBlah
Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2003
- Posts
- 142
- Reaction score
- 0
- Other Teams
- Collingwood
I'll admit, after the trading period I was a little disappointed. Mostly because we lost Scotland and seemingly didn't get anything in return. I wasn't so much disappointed that we didn't get Stevens, I was only disappointed that we didn't get a class player to replace the one we had lost.
I rated Scotland quite highly, and I even mentioned on these boards leading up to trade week that I would probably have rathered to keep Scotland rather than trading him for Stevens if it came to that. So when things panned out like they did, I was a tad disheartened.
But now, after this drafting period, I'm quite pleased. Leading up to the draft, and with all reports, I was worried we'd walk away from it with a gang of lightly framed midfielders due to the lack of KPP players, and we really don't need any more midfielders. Now though, we've come away with a KPP who is highly rated by most people and a ruckman who is also rated quite well, who apparently has the ability to play KPP.
Hence, I'm quite pleased, I'd rather Morrison and Hall over Stevens any day. Not that they're overall better players, because that's yet to be decided, it's just that they're more of what we need at this point in time. It's made me feel considerably better about losing Scotland, which looking back seems to have been inevitable anyway.
I rated Scotland quite highly, and I even mentioned on these boards leading up to trade week that I would probably have rathered to keep Scotland rather than trading him for Stevens if it came to that. So when things panned out like they did, I was a tad disheartened.
But now, after this drafting period, I'm quite pleased. Leading up to the draft, and with all reports, I was worried we'd walk away from it with a gang of lightly framed midfielders due to the lack of KPP players, and we really don't need any more midfielders. Now though, we've come away with a KPP who is highly rated by most people and a ruckman who is also rated quite well, who apparently has the ability to play KPP.
Hence, I'm quite pleased, I'd rather Morrison and Hall over Stevens any day. Not that they're overall better players, because that's yet to be decided, it's just that they're more of what we need at this point in time. It's made me feel considerably better about losing Scotland, which looking back seems to have been inevitable anyway.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2000
- Posts
- 8,375
- Reaction score
- 36
- Location
- Gold Coast, QLD
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Boston Red Sox (MLB)
I wasn't happy after trade week.
I wanted Stevens badly. But we would have lost pick 17 and effectively lost Billy Morrison. I have heard very good things about him so I am over it now and looking forward to 2004.
The draft result was what I personally needed to excite me and motivate me for 2004 because quite frankly, I was running on empty in regards to Collingwood.
I wanted Stevens badly. But we would have lost pick 17 and effectively lost Billy Morrison. I have heard very good things about him so I am over it now and looking forward to 2004.
The draft result was what I personally needed to excite me and motivate me for 2004 because quite frankly, I was running on empty in regards to Collingwood.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 866
- Reaction score
- 190
- Location
- In the Boardroom
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
Reinforces that Port management are fools.
They could have had Morrison and Hall, now they have zip.
They could have had Morrison and Hall, now they have zip.
Similar threads
