Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:52 pm
Mark Robinson on SEN said his inside mail has us picking up Looney with our first pick. Said some of the the other clubs believe this to be so as well. Interesting times... ![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Well if that's the case, I am convinced that our recruiting department is completely and utterly f*****.Doctor Fish wrote:Mark Robinson on SEN said his inside mail has us picking up Looney with our first pick. Said some of the the other clubs believe this to be so as well. Interesting times...
You see, this is where I get pissed off. Who actually rates HIM as No.2????Sol wrote:I fear for the club if shortsighted people like some BT'ers are ever on the recruiting team.
Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.
But I will catagorically say that we should pick up the best available player regardless of position and only consider the position they play in the event that the best available is a split descision.
From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.
If the guy you pick isnt exactly what you need this year then you would at least be in a strong position at the trade table next year with the ability to trade any of Loony, Ryder or Laycock. Looney or Ryder possibly attracting a very high pick in next years draft/ maybe even no.1 and/or possibly a player of very high caliber. There are also other possibilities like maybe playing Laycock or even Ryder at CHB? who knows?
We have pick 2 we should use pick 2, not downgrade our pick to affectively pick 4 by taking the 4th best player available just because he plays a position we need filled short term. we need to take a long term view.
We can trade for anyone just about any time if you have the quality to trade with. Its not often pick 2 lands at Essendon and it is imperative we get maximum value for this pick.
You see, you're actually making an assumption based from,From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.
All I f****** know is that we are shitfull at Centre Half f****** Back and that's what we NEED.Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.
Personally, I'd take Cox because as good as the eagles midfield is, he is the lynchpin. Watch and see how many times he puts the ball onto the chest of Cousins and Judd during a game. His dominance at stoppages is a key for them.nmgilbert wrote:He might be the best ruck prospect in years but that still doesnt mean he'd be the most important addition to any side. Rucks just arent that influential.
If u could choose out of Nick Reiwoldt and Dean Cox who would u choose? Id take Reiwoldt everytime.
We need to pass on Looney and get stuck into Hansen or Gumbleton. Unless Selwood is going to be a better player, he is the only other possible option in my book.
Tell that to Grant Thomas Gilbert. It's ironic that the club Reiwoldt plays for is destined to under-achieve until they do get an 'influentual' ruckman. It's the first thing Ross Lyon addressed upon arriving there...nmgilbert wrote:He might be the best ruck prospect in years but that still doesnt mean he'd be the most important addition to any side. Rucks just arent that influential.
If u could choose out of Nick Reiwoldt and Dean Cox who would u choose? Id take Reiwoldt everytime.
By a number of so called experts from various media. But ultimately like I said, I'm going off oppinions from not necessarily reliable sources and as such, the point of my arguement is not to support taking Loony, it is that we shouldn't discount him just because we dont necessarily need another ruckman.BenDoolan wrote:You see, this is where I get pissed off. Who actually rates HIM as No.2????Sol wrote:I fear for the club if shortsighted people like some BT'ers are ever on the recruiting team.
Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.
But I will catagorically say that we should pick up the best available player regardless of position and only consider the position they play in the event that the best available is a split descision.
From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.
If the guy you pick isnt exactly what you need this year then you would at least be in a strong position at the trade table next year with the ability to trade any of Loony, Ryder or Laycock. Looney or Ryder possibly attracting a very high pick in next years draft/ maybe even no.1 and/or possibly a player of very high caliber. There are also other possibilities like maybe playing Laycock or even Ryder at CHB? who knows?
We have pick 2 we should use pick 2, not downgrade our pick to affectively pick 4 by taking the 4th best player available just because he plays a position we need filled short term. we need to take a long term view.
We can trade for anyone just about any time if you have the quality to trade with. Its not often pick 2 lands at Essendon and it is imperative we get maximum value for this pick.
You tell me how these kids are rated and then by whom.....
No as i pointed out above it is just an example of why not to discount him.You see, you're actually making an assumption based from,From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.
Again who cares!! Let me make it cleaer since you have obviousely completely missed the point. I am not saying we shouldpick Loony I am simply using him as an example that no matter what you take the BEST player avilable. Your logic is that theoretically we should pick the type of player we need ahead of the better talent, so you might take a Barry Hall ahead of say a Judd if you needed a FF more than a midfielder even though Judd is clearly a once in a generation type player and Hall is just a very very good full forward. Sorry mate I'd have Judd thanks, I could probably trade him for a Hall and a Davis in next years trade period if I was stupid enough.All I f****** know is that we are shitfull at Centre Half f****** Back and that's what we NEED.Let me start off by admitting I have no idea how good any of the kids in the draft are and that i bet half the people who say they do have some idea are working off no more than heresay from frieds, newpapers, magazines and of course the internet.
Then f****** pick HANSEN!Sol wrote:
I dont care what position we get in the draft, but at No.2 pick in apparently the strongest draft of the decade we better pick someone who will be a bloody champion of the club for the next 10+ years.
I disagree. Its one thing to trade a surplus midfielder/forward/defender, where they can be playing and showing off their skills. However, if we take Leunberger, in the belief that at least one of Laycock/Ryder will come on, plus that we've got Hille, then that means we either:Sol wrote:But I will catagorically say that we should pick up the best available player regardless of position and only consider the position they play in the event that the best available is a split descision.
From all reports Loony is the second best in the draft followed by Gumby and then Hanson. And if this is the case then Loony should be our pick 2 IMO.
If the guy you pick isnt exactly what you need this year then you would at least be in a strong position at the trade table next year with the ability to trade any of Loony, Ryder or Laycock. Looney or Ryder possibly attracting a very high pick in next years draft/ maybe even no.1 and/or possibly a player of very high caliber. There are also other possibilities like maybe playing Laycock or even Ryder at CHB? who knows?
We have pick 2 we should use pick 2, not downgrade our pick to affectively pick 4 by taking the 4th best player available just because he plays a position we need filled short term. we need to take a long term view.
We can trade for anyone just about any time if you have the quality to trade with. Its not often pick 2 lands at Essendon and it is imperative we get maximum value for this pick.
I'd back our recruitment team to make the right decision.....antcl wrote:bombercol wrote:I would like to see Ryder somewhere else on the ground, maybe as a tall backman picking up the other team's 3rd or 4th forward.
You may see McPhee spending a fair bit of time at CHB next year.quote]
McPhee can't play CHB. And I'd be very surprised if Ryder turns out as anything except a ruckmen. Doesn't move the right way (IMO) to successfully play anywhere else.
Oh, and tom9779, anyone believe the picks are locked in certainties is dreaming. Probably up to half of the top 20 from the 2001 draft haven't made it or have serious question marks. And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.
Are you talking about the former WA wicketkeeper or some footballer I don't know about??!!antcl wrote:And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.
Something short circuited between my head and my hands. Meant to write Ryan Fitzgerald, the guy who went (I think) #2 or #4, meant to be really talented, but kept getting injured.ealesy wrote:Are you talking about the former WA wicketkeeper or some footballer I don't know about??!!antcl wrote:And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.
Because from what I saw of Ryan Campbell he was a decent to good state cricketer but was always about 4th in line for the Aussie job for mine. He was obviously behind Healy, and then Gilchrist but also Seccombe and Haddin.
And I think he ended up on big brother, where there is no talent whatsoeverantcl wrote:Something short circuited between my head and my hands. Meant to write Ryan Fitzgerald, the guy who went (I think) #2 or #4, meant to be really talented, but kept getting injured.ealesy wrote:Are you talking about the former WA wicketkeeper or some footballer I don't know about??!!antcl wrote:And Ryan Campbell is proof that talent doesn't necessarily have any impact.
Because from what I saw of Ryan Campbell he was a decent to good state cricketer but was always about 4th in line for the Aussie job for mine. He was obviously behind Healy, and then Gilchrist but also Seccombe and Haddin.