Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

What'sinaname wrote:

millanedaicos wrote:They say simply don't need him!

Happy for a straight swap for Tom Boyd if they're dumb enough

How about a swap for that cute female trainer.

Reckon you're pushing it there. I'm tipping all we could get for him from the dogs at the momment would be half a pack of menthols.

The way some of you carry on about Cloke - you'd think he never kicked a goal. Yes that is his weakest area, but plenty of Dogs (and eagles) missed simple shots last night.

Beveridge is a very much a players coach similar to Malthouse (without the ego) and his players want to play for him. I'd expect Beveridge to tap in Clokes brain and get the best out of him. Hell he may even motivate Cloke.

Last Boyd dropped a lot of pack marks - something that is Clokes strength, and don't forget that Cloke can run and tackle like a man possessed - as he showed in the R23 game against Haw.

E wrote:

Piesnchess wrote:Doggies don't need cloke, hed be a liability there.

oh contrare. Boyd is probably their option for two years time, but except for the lack of a decent power forward, they a premiership caliber team. Cloke wont impact how good they are in 2018, but he might make a difference in 2016.

My bet is that if the dogs are publicly stating they aren't interested, its a negotiating ploy to diminish our expectations on what we might get for him.

As always, the trade period will be interesting.

Nah mate, Cloke is now a dinosaur type of forward, lumbering and slow, he would not fit the doggies fast, quick ball movement, to guys like Boyd and Stringer, and their mosquito fleet up forward. Hed be only insurance, which is what he was at us, if Moore went down. I think hes nearly cooked actually.

I have never actually minded Cloke but have been really disappointed and dismayed at his form at Collingwood over the past two seasons. To blame Buck's for this is just another cheap shot from the cheeping eternal negatives.
I would be absolutely astounded if Cloke did well for another team but time will tell

And for nobody to question whether Bucks could have done better with one of our most important players over the last 5 years would be irresponsible/negligent.

Tezza23 wrote:The way some of you carry on about Cloke - you'd think he never kicked a goal. Yes that is his weakest area, but plenty of Dogs (and eagles) missed simple shots last night.

Beveridge is a very much a players coach similar to Malthouse (without the ego) and his players want to play for him. I'd expect Beveridge to tap in Clokes brain and get the best out of him. Hell he may even motivate Cloke.

Last Boyd dropped a lot of pack marks - something that is Clokes strength, and don't forget that Cloke can run and tackle like a man possessed - as he showed in the R23 game against Haw.

With some luck Doggies are a top 4 side, why wouldn't they want a forward who would probably take the oppositions best defender.

All for a late 2nd pick, they'd be nuts not too.
]

CarringbushCigar wrote:And for nobody to question whether Bucks could have done better with one of our most important players over the last 5 years would be irresponsible/negligent.

Questioning is totally fine but actually bloody accusing (which is more to the point) is pointless without concrete evidence.
And how you can get this scientific evidence unless you have two identical twins with identical talents playing under two different coaches is the problem, so it is far easier (and in fact sillier) to accuse Buck's without evidence.

As a matter of pure interest, I was watching Mitch Brown at Wet Toast last night and comparing his progress there over the past few years with his twin brother Nathan Brown's progress under Buck's at Collingwood.

Any comments???

I remember the Scott twins but they played for the same team.

The Wakelins were interesting but I thought Shane did better.

CarringbushCigar wrote:

Lazza wrote:

Piesnchess wrote: Nah mate, Cloke is now a dinosaur type of forward, lumbering and slow, he would not fit the doggies fast, quick ball movement, to guys like Boyd and Stringer, and their mosquito fleet up forward. Hed be only insurance, which is what he was at us, if Moore went down. I think hes nearly cooked actually.

I have never actually minded Cloke but have been really disappointed and dismayed at his form at Collingwood over the past two seasons. To blame Buck's for this is just another cheap shot from the cheeping eternal negatives.
I would be absolutely astounded if Cloke did well for another team but time will tell

And for nobody to question whether Bucks could have done better with one of our most important players over the last 5 years would be irresponsible/negligent.

Yep

Lazza wrote:

CarringbushCigar wrote:And for nobody to question whether Bucks could have done better with one of our most important players over the last 5 years would be irresponsible/negligent.

Questioning is totally fine but actually bloody accusing (which is more to the point) is pointless without concrete evidence.
And how you can get this scientific evidence unless you have two identical twins with identical talents playing under two different coaches is the problem, so it is far easier (and in fact sillier) to accuse Buck's without evidence.

As a matter of pure interest, I was watching Mitch Brown at Wet Toast last night and comparing his progress there over the past few years with his twin brother Nathan Brown's progress under Buck's at Collingwood.

Any comments???

I remember the Scott twins but they played for the same team.

The Wakelins were interesting but I thought Shane did better.

Nice try at changing the subject Lazz but this is a Cloke thread.

Look guys will you all just keep it down... you keep talking about it someone will figure it out.

This is all part of the plan, send out double agents to cripple the opposition.

CarringbushCigar wrote:

Lazza wrote:

CarringbushCigar wrote:And for nobody to question whether Bucks could have done better with one of our most important players over the last 5 years would be irresponsible/negligent.

Questioning is totally fine but actually bloody accusing (which is more to the point) is pointless without concrete evidence.
And how you can get this scientific evidence unless you have two identical twins with identical talents playing under two different coaches is the problem, so it is far easier (and in fact sillier) to accuse Buck's without evidence.

As a matter of pure interest, I was watching Mitch Brown at Wet Toast last night and comparing his progress there over the past few years with his twin brother Nathan Brown's progress under Buck's at Collingwood.

Any comments???

I remember the Scott twins but they played for the same team.

The Wakelins were interesting but I thought Shane did better.

Nice try at changing the subject Lazz but this is a Cloke thread.

No dude, not changing the subject at all (like you did with the unicorn sighting earlier!) but actually adding to it.

To make it really bloody simple for you, I was just wondering IF you and your negatives can actually prove that Cloke would have performed better under another coach rather than Bucks, therefore enhancing your stated position of blaming Buck's.
To help with this, I was adding a few examples, that's all.

Get it now dearest CC dude???

Comment away ON the subject at hand!!

Clokes move to the Bulldogs may be in jeopardy because Lin Jong appears to be favouring the Gold Coast over us. Not very flattering when you think about it.

Magpie Jack wrote:Clokes move to the Bulldogs may be in jeopardy because Lin Jong appears to be favouring the Gold Coast over us. Not very flattering when you think about it.

Who cares if it flattering, if it saves us making a really really big mistake

CarringbushCigar wrote:And for nobody to question whether Bucks could have done better with one of our most important players over the last 5 years would be irresponsible/negligent.

yes, in terms of disgrace, it has to be right up there with the way the Hawks handled one of their best in Dermot Brereton. Shit they couldn't even keep him at there own club during his decline into old age.

Cloke hit packs his entire career the way Dermie did. not surprising their respective careers were over at 28. that's why i understood why cloke wanted the extra year because it was obvious that this was to be his last payday of substance.

we should wish cloke well and hope that we are able to turn the final year of his contract into a 10 year player of the future through draft picks or a trade.

think positive wrote:

Magpie Jack wrote:Clokes move to the Bulldogs may be in jeopardy because Lin Jong appears to be favouring the Gold Coast over us. Not very flattering when you think about it.

Who cares if it flattering, if it saves us making a really really big mistake

Jong can go to the GCS, and sit in the stands with the rest of their injured players who all want to return to their state of origin. DO NOT WANT.

Cloke is STILL contracted. Keep him FFS.

edit by BBmods