Stop the Madness!

[Paralowiepower]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
Mate it will be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG time before we even get near a WOODEN SPOON you Port Choking Feral ****, Port will have ten Wooden Spoons before we even get close to getting one

Porthos you are a ****ING TOOL

Just dont mention about 100 point floggings, I think your boys win hands down

 

[noddy]

Originally posted by Porthos
Interestingly when we played a tagger in Cochrane on him midseason, he faded noticeably. I reckon he's more midfielder than ruck, for sure.

Even the very best can be tagged out of the game by a very determined tagger such as Cochrane so that just means Goodes is not a Barry Robran.

I see Adam Goodes as a ruckman who plays the game as a mid-fielder along the lines of a once use to be called "ruck-rover" type ala = Ron Barassi/Neil Kerley but maybe i'm showing my age.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by noddy
Try telling that to the Port Power !!

Goodes destroyed both Brogan & Lade in that infamous final not long ago

That he did....yet Port dominated the hitouts 54 to 28 in that match. Goodes is only ok at actual ruckwork...he will get beaten ruckwise by the better ruckmen in the league. Its the fact that hes quicker, more agile and has much better around the ground skills than any other ruckmen that turns him into the standout.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by DaveW
And Mark Bolton at four was a terrible waste of a good draft pick.

You can say that again. Dean Soloman was a solid pick up and Bolton is a decent player but surely you would expect a hell of a lot more from a number 4 pick in a very strong draft.

 

[spindoctor]

I think we've drafted well. Stocking up on midfielders can wait another year, at a stretch even another 2. Watts was a no-brainer, Krueger might be good, Hudson could be a gem.

As opposed to the dime-a-dozen midfielders at Krueger and Hudson's end of the draft? Pfft...

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by DaveW

And Mark Bolton at four was a terrible waste of a good draft pick.

Bolton was a terrible waste for many years, however he came on this year very strong, and was hawthorn's earmarked replacement for Jade Rawlings. They accepted Danny Jacobs - what the f*ck for??, but the player they wanted was Bolton.

Late developer, I grant you and if they'd known that he wouldn't have gone at 4. This does not mean he is not a decent player today.

Re: Goodes, you seriously underrate him.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Bolton was a terrible waste for many years, however he came on this year very strong, and was hawthorn's earmarked replacement for Jade Rawlings. They accepted Danny Jacobs - what the f*ck for??, but the player they wanted was Bolton.

Late developer, I grant you and if they'd known that he wouldn't have gone at 4. This does not mean he is not a decent player today.

Hawthorn are fast becoming the recruiting clowns of the AFL, so that doesn't really sell me.

Re: Goodes, you seriously underrate him.

Because I don't think he's a genuine ruckman? Pfft.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by spindoctor
I think we've drafted well. Stocking up on midfielders can wait another year, at a stretch even another 2. Watts was a no-brainer, Krueger might be good, Hudson could be a gem.

As opposed to the dime-a-dozen midfielders at Krueger and Hudson's end of the draft? Pfft...

I don't disagree with you at all on this.

Watts will be the best young tall we've ever drafted IMO. He can seriously play and really wants to play.

All the really good mid-fielders had gone by the time we got to Krueger, and the AFC have documented well their reasons for picking him over Hall.

As for Hudson, he might be the real bargain. He won't be soft, because I read that apart from basketball he played rugby for 2 years, and there's no such thing as a soft rugby player.

Why we didn't take Gayfer at #67 has me stuffed though.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I think we targeted right type of players in the draft. Watts is a bit of a steal IMHO and as macca23 said he has the potential to be the best tall we have ever drafted. (Not that we have a good record in drafting talls)

Every draft has sh|tloads of midfielders. Some of them don't get drafted but are good enough to play AFL. A bloke like Sam Mitchell from Hawks was overlooked in one draft. He got drafted later on and is a genuine clearence specialist.

Midfielders are the easiest players to get your hands on. Good ruckmen and KPPs are entirely different species.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by spindoctor
I think we've drafted well. Stocking up on midfielders can wait another year, at a stretch even another 2. Watts was a no-brainer, Krueger might be good, Hudson could be a gem.

As opposed to the dime-a-dozen midfielders at Krueger and Hudson's end of the draft? Pfft...

Spot on - we addressed our needs, so I can't complain about that!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by DaveW
Because I don't think he's a genuine ruckman? Pfft.

Would prefer Goodes in the ruck for the Crows than either Biglands or Clarke, as he is so damaging around the ground.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Would prefer Goodes in the ruck for the Crows than either Biglands or Clarke, as he is so damaging around the ground.

You miss the point though.

If we had Goodes in our side, Clarke and Biglands would still ruck and Goodes would still be damaging around the ground.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by DaveW
You miss the point though.

If we had Goodes in our side, Clarke and Biglands would still ruck and Goodes would still be damaging around the ground.

Sure, but my point is I would prefer Goodes in the ruck to either Clarke or Biglands, because what we would lose in tapwork, we would more than gain in field play. ie. Goodes is a decent ruckman.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by DaveW
Hawthorn are fast becoming the recruiting clowns of the AFL, so that doesn't really sell me.

based on what?? I think they're doing just fine.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
based on what?? I think they're doing just fine.

They're topping up a list that hasn't been good enough to even make the last two finals series. Poor strategy in my opinion.

Getting Jacobs (or even worst Bolton) in return for Rawlings was silly when they could have done much better.

And pick 10 for Croad was paying way over the odds.

It will probably get them into the finals (especially with their soft draw) but I don't see the Hawks being flag contenders.

 

[Portia]

Schwab is running that list into the ground so he can keep his job.

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by Paralowiepower
Just dont mention about 100 point floggings, I think your boys win hands down

Geez I wont mention our Finals Record either, Crows win that hands down Another Port TOOL

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Porthos
Schwab is running that list into the ground so he can keep his job.

I'm not complaining, as at least he is no longer looking after the umpires ... mind you Geish is even worse!

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Porthos
Schwab is running that list into the ground so he can keep his job.

Spot on. Their recruiting of the last couple of years leaves a lot to be desired. Reminds me of AFC not that long ago

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by DaveW
They're topping up a list that hasn't been good enough to even make the last two finals series. Poor strategy in my opinion.

Getting Jacobs (or even worst Bolton) in return for Rawlings was silly when they could have done much better.

And pick 10 for Croad was paying way over the odds.

It will probably get them into the finals (especially with their soft draw) but I don't see the Hawks being flag contenders.

this hardly makes them the recruiting joke of the afl?

I was surprised they wanted Jacobs or Bolton, but it's who they wanted so they couldn't have done much better surely?
They got pick 6 for Rawlings, that's not a bad return.

Pick 10 for Croad? what's wrong with that? I'd do that deal all day long if I am Hawthorn. He never wanted to leave, he can play, he will probably replace Rawlings in the back 6.
2 years on, exchanging pick 10, when you originally got pick 1 seems a smart move.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
this hardly makes them the recruiting joke of the afl?

I was exaggerating a bit. But their recruiting over the last two years has left a bit to be desired.

I've mentioned 2003, here's 2002:
Pick 8 on Luke Brennan? (Expected to go much later)
Picks 6 & 22 for Everitt? (Good player, but a bit over the odds for short term fix - like us & Carey)
Pick 35 for Kingsley Hunter? (Got one game out of him)

I was surprised they wanted Jacobs or Bolton, but it's who they wanted so they couldn't have done much better surely?

We got who we wanted for Vardy; Daniel Schell. Doesn't make it a good deal.

They got pick 6 for Rawlings, that's not a bad return.

No. Essendon got pick 6 (AND Mark Alvey!). They got the Bulldogs to pay a good price for Rawlings and gave the Bombers the spoils.

Pick 10 for Croad? what's wrong with that? I'd do that deal all day long if I am Hawthorn. He never wanted to leave, he can play, he will probably replace Rawlings in the back 6.

Yes, yes, all the talent in the world but he struggled to make Freo's best 22. Far too lazy a player. Give me the 10th best 18yo in the country anyday.

2 years on, exchanging pick 10, when you originally got pick 1 seems a smart move.

The deal to get rid of him was a good one. The move to bring him back wasn't.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by DaveW
We got who we wanted for Vardy; Daniel Schell. Doesn't make it a good deal.

Please don't remind me of that one. 2years on we have nothing to show for losing Vardy.