Cleve Hughes

[the claw]

imo i think pattison will make a great traditional chf you know the type one who does alot of bullocking work stands his ground takes a strong contested mark etc.the tall forward option im hoping takes some strides forward next yr is mcguane lets hope he stays injury free and can spend lots of time in the weight room.

I have doubts how much use the 'traditional', non-agily CHF will be in the modern game.

Patto is great in a stright line.. turning circle of a boat.

McGuane & Limbach were specultive picks. I hold no great hope for either.

mcguane has shown some glimpses before injury cut him down.and must say i hope he wasnt too speculative at pick 36.a very early 3rd round selection.

 

[Tigermad2005]

lets hope he is better than our last kkp from sa.

 

[White Czar]

imo i think pattison will make a great traditional chf you know the type one who does alot of bullocking work stands his ground takes a strong contested mark etc.the tall forward option im hoping takes some strides forward next yr is mcguane lets hope he stays injury free and can spend lots of time in the weight room.

I have doubts how much use the 'traditional', non-agily CHF will be in the modern game.

Patto is great in a stright line.. turning circle of a boat.

McGuane & Limbach were specultive picks. I hold no great hope for either.

mcguane has shown some glimpses before injury cut him down.and must say i hope he wasnt too speculative at pick 36.a very early 3rd round selection.

Specultive in the sence most had him to be rookied, a late pick at best.

Was a surpise to be taken so early.

 

[Dyer'ere]

imo i think pattison will make a great traditional chf you know the type one who does alot of bullocking work stands his ground takes a strong contested mark etc.the tall forward option im hoping takes some strides forward next yr is mcguane lets hope he stays injury free and can spend lots of time in the weight room.

I have doubts how much use the 'traditional', non-agily CHF will be in the modern game.

Patto is great in a stright line.. turning circle of a boat.

McGuane & Limbach were specultive picks. I hold no great hope for either.

mcguane has shown some glimpses before injury cut him down.and must say i hope he wasnt too speculative at pick 36.a very early 3rd round selection.

Specultive in the sence most had him to be rookied, a late pick at best.

Was a surpise to be taken so early.

McGuane was ineligible for the rookie draft. Too young.

By most, WC, do you mean fans, pundits or scouts?

 

[White Czar]

imo i think pattison will make a great traditional chf you know the type one who does alot of bullocking work stands his ground takes a strong contested mark etc.the tall forward option im hoping takes some strides forward next yr is mcguane lets hope he stays injury free and can spend lots of time in the weight room.

I have doubts how much use the 'traditional', non-agily CHF will be in the modern game.

Patto is great in a stright line.. turning circle of a boat.

McGuane & Limbach were specultive picks. I hold no great hope for either.

mcguane has shown some glimpses before injury cut him down.and must say i hope he wasnt too speculative at pick 36.a very early 3rd round selection.

Specultive in the sence most had him to be rookied, a late pick at best.

Was a surpise to be taken so early.

McGuane was ineligible for the rookie draft. Too young.

By most, WC, do you mean fans, pundits or scouts?

Mock drafts, various fans, other clubs.

 

[Dyer'ere]

I have to admit I was a bit surprised when we took McGuane. He was picked for youth and enthusuasm, I think.

I've got an unusual take on Cleve at #24.

I'm still trying to verify but I think there was a lot of interest in JON in the second half dozen or so selections and there were some rumours about Casserley, hence his selection in Burgan's draft (rumours). I still need more info on these two.

But I think our left field choice might have been Cleve Hughes.

I suggested prior to this draft that Cleve might be this years Heath Grundy. Grundy rated top fifteen or so by every phantom draft was not selected at all in the 2004 draft. A similar over age smallish All-Aust KPP.

Grundy, simply taken for granted by the pundits, was not rated highly by clubs. That's why I posed the question "Which clubs have shown interest in CH?"

I'm not potting Cleaver. What I'm trying to establish with our recruits is where they'd have been drafted had we not taken them.

Has anybody got info on which other clubs had spoken to CH or public comments from other recruiting officers saying that they'd have taken him next choice?

 

[skiptomystu]

I think all we can do now is "Leave it to Cleaver" to show us his talent. :hihi :hihi

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Interesting point JD.I was a bit surprised that the Crows didnt take Hughes with either pick 16 or 17 considering they lost Mummy boy Watts.

 

[pahoffm]

Interesting point JD.I was a bit surprised that the Crows didnt take Hughes with either pick 16 or 17 considering they lost Mummy boy Watts.

When we went through the team reviews at the start of the season, we all read clearly that the Crows had a plethora of talls. What they seemed to lack were developing flankers & midfielders. (I may have got their position on the ladder a tiny bit out. ) Yes, they lost Watts, but their draft choices of 3 midfielder/flankers, followed by a CHB, showed that they went for what we and they recognised as their weakness.

They didn't go for Hughes, 'cause they didn't need him.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

When we went through the team reviews at the start of the season, we all read clearly that the Crows had a plethora of talls. What they seemed to lack were developing flankers & midfielders. (I may have got their position on the ladder a tiny bit out. ) Yes, they lost Watts, but their draft choices of 3 midfielder/flankers, followed by a CHB, showed that they went for what we and they recognised as their weakness.

They didn't go for Hughes, 'cause they didn't need him.

Fair enough.Lets hope they regret it ;D

 

[pahoffm]

When we went through the team reviews at the start of the season, we all read clearly that the Crows had a plethora of talls. What they seemed to lack were developing flankers & midfielders. (I may have got their position on the ladder a tiny bit out.  ) Yes, they lost Watts, but their draft choices of 3 midfielder/flankers, followed by a CHB, showed that they went for what we and they recognised as their weakness.

They didn't go for Hughes, 'cause they didn't need him.

Fair enough.Lets hope they regret it ;D

Yeh, hope so.