Collingwoods drafting ordinary

Mick's My Favourite · Sat May 15, 2004 12:32 pm

everyone goes on about how good our drafting has been but since 97 when we have had top draft choices we have wasted them as shown in the Sun today.

only Tarrant and Fraser, a no brainer have got there and the jury is stii out on Didak and Cole (both bench warmers)

we have missed on Wasley, Danny Roach and taken mckee for pavlich..

all bad choices

that is why we are were we are today.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Sat May 15, 2004 12:38 pm

Hindsight = Expert.

Yobbo^LuKa · Post by **Yobbo^LuKa** » Sat May 15, 2004 12:54 pm

come on... Tarrant, Fraser, Didak, Cloke vs Roach, Wasely ect. They are just out of form along with the rest of the team. Its a 50% hit rate in regards to draftee's making it to top level. I'd like to see that up against other teams strike rates.

Daks · Post by **Daks** » Sat May 15, 2004 1:10 pm

Mick's My Favourite wrote:everyone goes on about how good our drafting has been but since 97 when we have had top draft choices we have wasted them as shown in the Sun today.

only Tarrant and Fraser, a no brainer have got there and the jury is stii out on Didak and Cole (both bench warmers)

we have missed on Wasley, Danny Roach and taken mckee for pavlich..

all bad choices

that is why we are were we are today.

Get off the hooch, mate

Post by **Cam** » Sat May 15, 2004 1:12 pm

There are always excuses when we are losing. Who has drafted better than us, and who has drafted worse...

chalky · Post by **chalky** » Sat May 15, 2004 2:15 pm

Circumstances have put the spotlight on our depth. When we look past the top 6 there is a significant lack of experience below (being rectified as we write, but not planned). If we read between the lines on recent articles and statements from the top, Collingwood is reviewing it recruiting policy at the very moment. No doubt we should have a little more bargaining power by seasons end so this could change the trade/recruit philosophy of the past few yrs. Have we got enough youth to work with? Who has to go? who is needed? who's available that is ready made?

Presti_is_god · Post by **Presti_is_god** » Sat May 15, 2004 2:53 pm

Someones been reading the hun.

Post by **Dark Beanie** » Sat May 15, 2004 3:08 pm

Good to see they can read something other than crayon.

Canberra · Post by **Canberra** » Sat May 15, 2004 3:24 pm

Are you a graduate of the Brodie Holland School of Higher Intelligence,MMF? All clubs,that's ALL clubs,have made bad choices from the time of the first draft. Just because a Brain Dead Muppet similar to your good self writes selective garbage in the Hun you take it as gospel. There is an obvious question that must be asked after reading your posts. Are you a Collingwood supporter or a sleazy little troll from Carlscum or one of the other clubs we despise.

Mick's My Favourite · Post by **Mick's My Favourite** » Sat May 15, 2004 6:34 pm

Canberra

facts are Facts

you cant refute

Wasley and Roach were crap choices

other than Tarrant, Fraser was a no brainer as he was first chosen, we have drafted nothing special in 7 years..

and that is how you fall from 2nd to last

Capeesh!

Stop coming on to this site for the simple idea of abusing other patrons..

deal in facts

Canberra · Post by **Canberra** » Sat May 15, 2004 7:55 pm

I appreciate that you don't have the attention span to actually check anything MMF but if you did you would find.
1/ I come on here everyday to post not to bag people. I make an exception in your case.
2/ First round draft picks have been a problem since the original draft. Players like Banik and McDonald have been No1 draft picks highlighted by their mediocrity. Nothing has changed. Every side has skeletons in it's cupboard related to first round picks. We are no different.

chalky · Post by **chalky** » Sat May 15, 2004 10:13 pm

"Circumstances" Tess? You're right, it is piss weak, but I was just trying to be polite. MM has always stated that we had to improve 10% to keep ahead of the opposition. Eddie jumped up and said we would be aggressive during the trade period. Either the team, as it stood, improves or recruit the players. MM obviously chose the former. That our players have in fact gone backwards - lost their skills/fitness/passion/confidence - is mystifying. Hopefully they will seek to redress the obvious age imbalance of the playing list.

Mick's My Favourite · Sat May 15, 2004 10:18 pm

Canberra - so your logic is, cause everyone is wrong it is okay to be wrong..??

Strange?

And with the TAC Cup it is a lot more of an exact science. It is not like it was in the 80s. You get 15 games to see every prospect plus the state games

we still have underachieved in drafting, no matter how you try and spin it.

And thats a fact

now go watch a Brumbies or a Raiders game

Canberra · Post by **Canberra** » Sat May 15, 2004 10:52 pm

We have no more or no less errors in our draft choices than most other teams. Where we fail miserably is in trading. Our lack of pace is so bad that one of the reasons touted for the review of our entire recruiting organisation was,"Why are we drafting players with no pace and no kicking skills"

Johnson#26 · Post by **Johnson#26** » Sun May 16, 2004 7:26 am

Hits: Didak (I think), Fraser, Tarrant, O'Bree (He came from Brisbane as a top 10. Generally has been pretty good), Johnson (pick 50-60 bargen), Cole (Hopefuly), McGough.

Misses: Roach, Wasley (we could have taken N.Stevens), Adkins.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Collingwoods drafting ordinary

Collingwoods drafting ordinary

Re: Collingwoods drafting ordinary