So what if we finish 9th...it's different this time !

[Big Cat Lover]

Because the players we replace them with will be on your dud list in another 2 years because he's a 7th rounder who hasn't shown enough yet.

I'd prefer to see that than get the same crap from the same duds for another 3 years? What do you have to lose? What are the likes of Hyde/Pettifer/McMahon/JON/Pattison etc going to give you that they haven't already?

Are you saying there is no chance of drafting talent outside the 2nd round? Crap.

Hughes? Schulz? Not good enough. You think they will take over the key positions?

We need to draft height and lots of it.

 

[the claw]

The defensive ability of Geelong back 6 is vastly overrated. Scarlett is getting beaten more and more. David Hale kicked 8 goals on the weekend.

Geelong had 64 inside 50s to North Melbourne’s 35 on the weekend. Geelong is a great team because they have a great midfield.

Our back 4 KKP defenders (counting Rance) is a strength of the club, upgrading there is folly given our weakness elsewhere.

unbelievable post no theres been lots of unbelievable posts on this thread.
geelongs back 6 is overrated oh boy thats gold.geelongs backline is versatile and capable of dealing with all types comfortably when all fit and going. yet they miss their biggest defender when asked to deal with opposition monsters.

can you see the irony in saying our back 4 kpds are our strebgth.and geelongs back 6 overrated. we are not stong in kpds in fact we have one genuine kpd and he hasnt played a senior game as yet. the tall situation is perilous when compared to the onball/mid situation.

hale at 201 cm kicking 8 tells me geelong were undersized as far as height goes no one can tell me they did not miss the 196cm 101kg egan. they missed him in the preliminary final and they certainly missed him again in the game against collingwood this yr. the 195cm 103 kg rocca troubled them and so did the 196cm and 103 kg cloke. harley scarlett milburn and taylor are bigger than anything we have yet we dont need big strong kpds who are capable of multiple roles.no we will stick with shorter skinny types who are going all out just to hold their own.

A lot of supporters are obviously satisfied with our list. A couple of minor changes should do it hey?

Names like Hyde, Tivendale, King, Pattison, Jackson, JON, McMahon, Pettifer, Howat, Jackson, Casserly & Hughes, will surely lead us to the promised land....

some people cant see the forest for the trees bct you can call it till you are blue in the face but the ferals just cant see i think mainly because they dont want to.

Now you're just being silly, skipper. We'll manage to upgrade each of these picks into a top 30 pick, no problem.

That's how it works when you decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

what baby? your worried about throwing out the likes of out and out hacks or pld past it players like tivva pettrified mcmahon bowden johnson king hyde jackson howat sylvester pattison etc etc. they are clearly not good enough and they most certainly are not what we need going forward yet people like you want use just 3 or 4 nd picks and hang onto these hacks. what do we lose in throwing them out.the simple answer is absolutely nothing.

Upto 10 delistings? .
Cant wait for picks 112,128,144,160. :hihi :hihi :hihi :hihi :hihi

now this is what pisses me of. you take the *smile* and distort what is said yet dont have the balls or guts to throw out there your thoughts on how we should go about things your as weak as *smile* mate.

you know what though i would gladly use pick 112 on a kid than keep a 7 or 9 yr underachiever.it seems you would rather hang onto the underachiever.

just for the record on this thread i have suggested we use in the nd picks picks roughly around the following depending on where we ultimately finish.
picks 7, 26, 40,trade away some of those hacks you so dearly like for a pick between 26 and 39, 56, and pick 72. i suggested we use 1 psd pick i think a few will go here this yr. and i suggested we do a trade for a player if possible. thats 8 players plus 3 rookies.

every yr i have come up with similar scenarios yet every yr have to put up with the utter *smile* from the likes of you sprouting off about loading the list up with late picks.do you see picks in the above scenario above 112 madcow i see one pick above 56 but thats a real late pick and no good according to you. at least i throw my thoughts out there and i at least expect them to have the *smile* taken out of them accurately.

 

[the claw]

I'd prefer to see that than get the same crap from the same duds for another 3 years? What do you have to lose? What are the likes of Hyde/Pettifer/McMahon/JON/Pattison etc going to give you that they haven't already?

Are you saying there is no chance of drafting talent outside the 2nd round? Crap.

Hughes? Schulz? Not good enough. You think they will take over the key positions?

We need to draft height and lots of it.

exactly right but in doing it it means going backwards for a little bit. the blind ones would prefer to hang onto players in the hope of ekeing out a few extra wins each yr than go backwards while attempting to find long term players capable of performing a role in the finals cauldron.

 

[the claw]

Because the players we replace them with will be on your dud list in another 2 years because he's a 7th rounder who hasn't shown enough yet.

how many times does it have to be said. if you use 4 picks from say 60 to 85 you are realistically hoping to find one decent player of course you are going to turn over the other 3 fairly quickly. its similar to the rookie list out of 6 you hope for maybe two. when a club has some depth and a decent list you would utilise the rookie draft and cut out the late picks in the nd. unlees of course you have a player you want and are not sure he will last to your first pick in the rookie draft. but we dont have a decent list hence the call for a turnover of players.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

unbelievable post no theres been lots of unbelievable posts on this thread.
geelongs back 6 is overrated oh boy thats gold.geelongs backline is versatile and capable of dealing with all types comfortably when all fit and going. yet they miss their biggest defender when asked to deal with opposition monsters.

can you see the irony in saying our back 4 kpds are our strebgth.and geelongs back 6 overrated. we are not stong in kpds in fact we have one genuine kpd and he hasnt played a senior game as yet. the tall situation is perilous when compared to the onball/mid situation.

hale at 201 cm kicking 8 tells me geelong were undersized as far as height goes no one can tell me they did not miss the 196cm 101kg egan. they missed him in the preliminary final and they certainly missed him again in the game against collingwood this yr. the 195cm 103 kg rocca troubled them and so did the 196cm and 103 kg cloke. harley scarlett milburn and taylor are bigger than anything we have yet we dont need big strong kpds who are capable of multiple roles.no we will stick with shorter skinny types who are going all out just to hold their own.
some people cant see the forest for the trees bct you can call it till you are blue in the face but the ferals just cant see i think mainly because they dont want to.
what baby? your worried about throwing out the likes of out and out hacks or pld past it players like tivva pettrified mcmahon bowden johnson king hyde jackson howat sylvester pattison etc etc. they are clearly not good enough and they most certainly are not what we need going forward yet people like you want use just 3 or 4 nd picks and hang onto these hacks. what do we lose in throwing them out.the simple answer is absolutely nothing.
now this is what p!sses me of. you take the p!ss and distort what is said yet dont have the balls or guts to throw out there your thoughts on how we should go about things your as weak as p!ss mate.

Claw I'm not sure what I did to deserve that attack. My point was that on the hierarchy of need that quailty midfielder is still our most pressing need, followed by rucks and KPP fowards. KPP backs are behind these other needs. In several other posts over the year I've said this too, but also said that our needs are still so great that we need to draft best available early.

Further, as I said myself in the next post the Cats back 6 is excellent (I was -exadurating, to make a point, a technique you may have used in the past once or twice yourself), but their true strength lies in the midfield. That is just a judgment call, but hardly earth shattering. Sure we'd all like the Cats's back 6, but we've got other needs too. Leo Barry to me is a classic example of how a guy like Kelvin Moore could be a good enough premiership backman.

For the record I would be very disappointed if we have less than 5 picks in this draft and 3 in the rookie draft, and I have no problem with delisting many of the guys above, but I did not mention that so I don't know why you're arguing with me about it.

 

[the claw]

Claw I'm not sure what I did to deserve that attack. My point was that on the hierarchy of need that quailty midfielder is still our most pressing need, followed by rucks and KPP fowards. KPP backs are behind these other needs. In several other posts over the year I've said this too, but also said that our needs are still so great that we need to draft best available early.

Further, as I said myself in the next post the Cats back 6 is excellent (I was -exadurating, to make a point, a technique you may have used in the past once or twice yourself), but their true strength lies in the midfield. That is just a judgment call, but hardly earth shattering. Sure we'd all like the Cats's back 6, but we've got other needs too. Leo Barry to me is a classic example of how a guy like Kelvin Moore could be a good enough premiership backman.

For the record I would be very disappointed if we have less than 5 picks in this draft and 3 in the rookie draft, and I have no problem with delisting many of the guys above, but I did not mention that so I don't know why you're arguing with me about it.

didnt mean it to be an attack as suchand apologise . i think its my bed time im tired and crotchedy and damn frustrated.

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

didnt mean it to be an attack as suchand apologise . i think its my bed time im tired and crotchedy and damn frustrated.

It's alright, no offense taken. I was hoping you challenge me to say who we can delist so I had a excuse to drop my optimistic PRE persona and join the dark side for a while and post my personal list of guys I want to chop.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

now this is what p!sses me of. you take the p!ss and distort what is said yet dont have the balls or guts to throw out there your thoughts on how we should go about things your as weak as p!ss mate.

you know what though i would gladly use pick 112 on a kid than keep a 7 or 9 yr underachiever.it seems you would rather hang onto the underachiever.

just for the record on this thread i have suggested we use in the nd picks picks roughly around the following depending on where we ultimately finish.
picks 7, 26, 40,trade away some of those hacks you so dearly like for a pick between 26 and 39, 56, and pick 72. i suggested we use 1 psd pick i think a few will go here this yr. and i suggested we do a trade for a player if possible. thats 8 players plus 3 rookies.

every yr i have come up with similar scenarios yet every yr have to put up with the utter *smile* from the likes of you sprouting off about loading the list up with late picks.do you see picks in the above scenario above 112 madcow i see one pick above 56 but thats a real late pick and no good according to you. at least i throw my thoughts out there and i at least expect them to have the p!ss taken out of them accurately.

Im abit confused here Claw.You want us to trade away our "hacks" for draft picks.Hmmmmmmmmm ok.If they are Hacks surely the other 15 clubs would come up with the same conclusion.If we get draft picks no higher than 56 for these "hacks" then i looked fwd to your indepth report on these next bunch of hacks who are replacing our current "hacks"

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Im abit confused here Claw.You want us to trade away our "hacks" for draft picks.Hmmmmmmmmm ok.If they are Hacks surely the other 15 clubs would come up with the same conclusion.If we get draft picks no higher than 56 for these "hacks" then i looked fwd to your indepth report on these next bunch of hacks who are replacing our current "hacks"

Surely the chance of a late pick turning out to be a player is better than hanging onto a proven "hack"? Or are the chances almost zip of picking up a decent player that late?

We have a plethora of medium sized utility types - players such as Raines/Hyde/Jackson/Polo/JON that IMO are not in our best 22 now or ever and may hold some interest at other clubs? We may get better than pick 56 for one or some of these?

 

[the claw]

Im abit confused here Claw.You want us to trade away our "hacks" for draft picks.Hmmmmmmmmm ok.If they are Hacks surely the other 15 clubs would come up with the same conclusion.If we get draft picks no higher than 56 for these "hacks" then i looked fwd to your indepth report on these next bunch of hacks who are replacing our current "hacks"

sheesh its like pulling teeth.
read closely im advocating we use these picks assuming these are the picks we get allocated to us because of where we finish they could all be one or 3 spots out in each round. 7, 26 . 40. 56.and 72, i have said we should trade into a pick between 27 and 39 if possible. i have said take a mature player in the psd and i have said trade a player for a player, i also said lets turn over 3 rookies.no where have i suggested we load up with late picks like you have been implying. nowhere have i said lets trade for picks above pick 56.sheesh how hard is it.

anyway as i said rather than hang onto hyde pettifer tivendale king or any one of 10 or so others itds better to delist those 4 and take 4 kids late if you get just one decent player you are in front.

you come onhere taking the *smile* and then act all dumb. like i said weak as *smile*.you want to debate whats actually said fine if not *smile* off .i sometimes wonder if you actually read others posts.most certainly you dont understand whats being said most of the time.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

sheesh its like pulling teeth.
read closely im advocating we use these picks assuming these are the picks we get allocated to us because of where we finish they could all be one or 3 spots out in each round. 7, 26 . 40. 56.and 72, i have said we should trade into a pick between 27 and 39 if possible. i have said take a mature player in the psd and i have said trade a player for a player, i also said lets turn over 3 rookies.no where have i suggested we load up with late picks like you have been implying. nowhere have i said lets trade for picks above pick 56.sheesh how hard is it.

anyway as i said rather than hang onto hyde pettifer tivendale king or any one of 10 or so others itds better to delist those 4 and take 4 kids late if you get just one decent player you are in front.

you come onhere taking the p!ss and then act all dumb. like i said weak as p!ss.you want to debate whats actually said fine if not p!ss off .i sometimes wonder if you actually read others posts.most certainly you dont understand whats being said most of the time.

Oh really Sport?

"you know what though i would gladly use pick 112 on a kid than keep a 7 or 9 yr underachiever"

"trade away some of those hacks you so dearly like for a pick between 26 and 39, 56, and pick 72'.

All the above out or your mouth Claw.
Perhaps you should go forth Claw.
Or better still give us a list of those hacks and in your opinion what draft pick they will attract.This will be good :-*

 

[the claw]

Im abit confused here Claw.You want us to trade away our "hacks" for draft picks.Hmmmmmmmmm ok.If they are Hacks surely the other 15 clubs would come up with the same conclusion.If we get draft picks no higher than 56 for these "hacks" then i looked fwd to your indepth report on these next bunch of hacks who are replacing our current "hacks"

didnt mean it to be an attack as suchand apologise . i think its my bed time im tired and crotchedy and damn frustrated.

sheesh its like pulling teeth.
read closely im advocating we use these picks assuming these are the picks we get allocated to us because of where we finish they could all be one or 3 spots out in each round. 7, 26 . 40. 56.and 72, i have said we should trade into a pick between 27 and 39 if possible. i have said take a mature player in the psd and i have said trade a player for a player, i also said lets turn over 3 rookies.no where have i suggested we load up with late picks like you have been implying. nowhere have i said lets trade for picks above pick 56.sheesh how hard is it.

anyway as i said rather than hang onto hyde pettifer tivendale king or any one of 10 or so others itds better to delist those 4 and take 4 kids late if you get just one decent player you are in front.

you come onhere taking the p!ss and then act all dumb. like i said weak as p!ss.you want to debate whats actually said fine if not p!ss off .i sometimes wonder if you actually read others posts.most certainly you dont understand whats being said most of the time.

as i said quite clearly you are incapable of reading posts correctly. more than likely though you take from posts what you want.

as i said weather you read it right or not. picks 7 26 40 56 and 72. trade a player or players for a pick between 26 and 39. i dont know where picks 112 thru 115 come into it. looks pretty clear to me.on top of the above ive asked for 3 rookies 1psd and 1 player for player trade how hard is it to understand sheesh some are thick.i dont see many late picks or much effort to try and trade into picks do you i hope the penny drops for you this time. :
oh again as something different to what i actually advocated we do this draft. yes an aside. : lets use one of those late picks you are fixated on instead of keeping a tivva hyde etc.

like i said your weak. sitting back on the fence never offering up an alternative distorting things taking the *smile* and ready to rip into those who do. shame on you madcow.

from your stance i take it you dont want to go past the third round of the nd. you dont want to use a psd pick. you dont want to trade for a draft pick in the 26 thru 39 range. i also take it you dont want to take on any new rookies tell me madcow what do you want.where do you think the list is at.
finally i put out there what i think, i get a bit narky when people like you try to paint a different picture to what im saying i would have thought what i was saying was straight forward but for you obviously not.
anyway i hope your happy supporting the hacks madcow you must be you dont want to do anything to get rid of them.

oh are you saying we dont have any players worth trading sounds lkike it to me.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

A lot of supporters are obviously satisfied with our list. A couple of minor changes should do it hey?

Names like Hyde, Tivendale, King, Pattison, Jackson, JON, McMahon, Pettifer, Howat, Jackson, Casserly & Hughes, will surely lead us to the promised land....

A lot of supporters?

Sheesh you don't read much on PRE. Forgetting the fact you name Jackson twice (only counts once) 85/90% of those players you names are clearly gone (Tivers & Hyde) or I would say MOST on PRE have bagged or claimed they are no good, have to go, shold be turned over, never been recruited, etc etc

 

[ZeroGame]

What I'd like to know is, if we cut 10 players from the list this year, and replace them with 10 kids on new 2 year contracts, who gets cut the following year?

 

[Dyer Disciple]

What I'd like to know is, if we cut 10 players from the list this year, and replace them with 10 kids on new 2 year contracts, who gets cut the following year?

Sssshh Zero!

You are using too much common sense!

 

[ZeroGame]

Sssshh Zero!

You are using too much common sense!

The thing about common sense is that it's not so common

 

[Big Cat Lover]

What I'd like to know is, if we cut 10 players from the list this year, and replace them with 10 kids on new 2 year contracts, who gets cut the following year?

You think we only have ten duds on the list?

 

[johnson2richo2003]

like i said your weak. sitting back on the fence never offering up an alternative distorting things taking the p!ss and ready to rip into those who do. shame on you madcow.

Now thats the pot calling the kettle black lol

as i said quite clearly you are incapable of reading posts correctly. more than likely though you take from posts what you want.

as i said weather you read it right or not. picks 7 26 40 56 and 72. trade a player or players for a pick between 26 and 39.

Between pick 26 and 39.There,s a fair few who would attract a pick in that range however the question is,The drafted kid/s any better of those who they replaced on the list with that pick.Would they be any better than aolo,Conners,Moore,White,Hughes,Pattison?

anyway i hope your happy supporting the hacks madcow you must be you dont want to do anything to get rid of them.

This is my sticking point with you Claw.On one hand you say Hacks,Yet on the other hand you expect the very same Hacks to attract draft picks from other clubs.Who are these so called Hacks?

 

[the claw]

What I'd like to know is, if we cut 10 players from the list this year, and replace them with 10 kids on new 2 year contracts, who gets cut the following year?

ive answered this before. i have stated that imo we have as many as 27 suspect players including rookies.
i have stated that equates to 9 delistings each yr over 3 yrs.if all 27 dont make it.

i have stated that even though you could easily do 12 this yr i would be happy with a minmum of 9.

i have named the 27 players on other threads it includes impending retirements.
based on performance age and deficiencies in their makeup the first players to go would be.

tivva, hyde, howat, sylvestor, pettifer, jackson, ,cartledge pattison and bowden. its my opinion in dumping these players you have lost nothing.i could have thrown a couple of more talls in there but shoddy list management does not allow for this.

okay yr2 it does get a bit harder for 2 reasons. 1 looking after list structure. 2 the quality of player and what they may be capable of is less defined. most players mentioned are what red likes to call glass half full types. to me they are short term solutions that in time we need to upgrade on.

king, jon, polak, schulz, raines, johnson,meyer,polo, brown . theres another 9. two who will be 32 by then.
it may be that some of the players mentioned do make it but noone can deny they are all in trouble they are all delistable/tradeable.
the second category will be on death row if they cant take that next step. it may be some people think some should be in different categories. it may be that some would argue to keep jackson and put the older johnson in the first category its all just opinion.
i will categorically state that all players mentioned will/should be gone in 3yrs if theres no improvement and age of course dictates there will probably be 5 retirements. imo because of age you can realistically throw simmonds and richo the mix.


you then have your 3rd category or 3rd yr richo simmo and the suspect juniors who dont come on. juniors like hughes graham cartledge they may make it but they have chronic flaws and alarm bells are already ringing.

to me nine is a tad conservative this yr, especially with gc17 and sydney coming into the comp.

 

[ZeroGame]

tivva, hyde, howat, sylvestor, pettifer, jackson, ,cartledge pattison and bowden. its my opinion in dumping these players you have lost nothing.i could have thrown a couple of more talls in there but shoddy list management does not allow for this.

I actually agree with that list with two exceptions, Jackson & Pattison, both for list needs, would add Johnson to your list to compensate.
Unfortunately it looks like the two old farts are going to keep playing next year, but I don't think that means we should cut a couple of extra younger guys to compensate for them playing on.