WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
Please forgive me if I'm missing something here as I have been too busy working on my 2020 board challenge and am not up to speed on all of the draft scenarios of the past few weeks
I'm mystified as to why we did not take Hamish McIntosh
We need a ruckman and gave up PICK 13 for a young developing one who will be years away
Geelong got McIntosh with pick 36
If we'd given up pick 25 or 26 or whatever it is we had or have surely we could have landed an already developed and quality ruckman originally drafted with pick 9
AND still had pick 13 to use on a quality kid in the draft
Can someone please explain how this happened?
Is this a complete stuff up?
It just seems to me to be totally illogical
Or is there some logical explanation that current;y escapes me!
I'm mystified as to why we did not take Hamish McIntosh
We need a ruckman and gave up PICK 13 for a young developing one who will be years away
Geelong got McIntosh with pick 36
If we'd given up pick 25 or 26 or whatever it is we had or have surely we could have landed an already developed and quality ruckman originally drafted with pick 9
AND still had pick 13 to use on a quality kid in the draft
Can someone please explain how this happened?
Is this a complete stuff up?
It just seems to me to be totally illogical
Or is there some logical explanation that current;y escapes me!
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
He's 28. Hickey is 21. Why the hell would we want a ruckman who is 28? We're certainly not lacking in that age group. You can't always just go after players that are going to help you for 2 or 3 years max. Hickey is meant to be part of a ruck duo with Mac for the best part of a decade.
I would have been livid if we went for McIntosh. Luckily, our recruiters aren't that stupid.
I would have been livid if we went for McIntosh. Luckily, our recruiters aren't that stupid.
- Little Dozer
- Club Player
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Tue 11 Jul 2006 4:44pm
- Location: Forward Pocket, Outer side, Linton Street end or bay 38 Waverley
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
He's always injured and isn't very good is why. Norf dealt him for a reason.
Are we waiting for a saviour?
I'm so sick of waiting!
I've been waiting my whole life!
This is a new day!
I'm so sick of waiting!
I've been waiting my whole life!
This is a new day!
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
The rationale would be we could have got that extra ruckman and still kept pick 13 for a quality young kid in the draftplugger66 wrote:I suppose the question should be why the hell would we take him.
When McIntosh is tearing it up at Geelong perhaps then you might understand
I admit I don't know much about Hickey but it seems on the surface we paid way over for Hickey at 13
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
Answer Part One: Geelong are topping up for one last crack, with an aging corebarks4eva wrote:Please forgive me if I'm missing something here as I have been too busy working on my 2020 board challenge and am not up to speed on all of the draft scenarios of the past few weeks
I'm mystified as to why we did not take Hamish McIntosh
We need a ruckman and gave up PICK 13 for a young developing one who will be years away
Answer Part Two: StKilda are clearly restructuring for the future and are taking a longer term view
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
barks4eva wrote:The rationale would be we could have got that extra ruckman and still kept pick 13 for a quality young kid in the draftplugger66 wrote:I suppose the question should be why the hell would we take him.
When McIntosh is tearing it up at Geelong perhaps then you might understand
I admit I don't know much about Hickey but it seems on the surface we paid way over for Hickey at 13
Do you think we can win a flag in the next 3 years?
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
If we'd taken McIntosh and kept pick 13 for a young jet we were odds on to win the premiership next yearplugger66 wrote:barks4eva wrote:The rationale would be we could have got that extra ruckman and still kept pick 13 for a quality young kid in the draftplugger66 wrote:I suppose the question should be why the hell would we take him.
When McIntosh is tearing it up at Geelong perhaps then you might understand
I admit I don't know much about Hickey but it seems on the surface we paid way over for Hickey at 13
Do you think we can win a flag in the next 3 years?
Once again our club has shot itself in the foot
Time to sack the board
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
barks4eva wrote:If we'd taken McIntosh and kept pick 13 for a young jet we were odds on to win the premiership next yearplugger66 wrote:barks4eva wrote:
The rationale would be we could have got that extra ruckman and still kept pick 13 for a quality young kid in the draft
When McIntosh is tearing it up at Geelong perhaps then you might understand
I admit I don't know much about Hickey but it seems on the surface we paid way over for Hickey at 13
Do you think we can win a flag in the next 3 years?
Once again our club has shot itself in the foot
Time to sack the board
Or posters on drugs.
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
Isn't Hickey a quality young kid? He's only 21, and he's played some solid games at AFL level. Why would we want to take a less proven kid in his place?barks4eva wrote:The rationale would be we could have got that extra ruckman and still kept pick 13 for a quality young kid in the draft.
- bobmurray
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7781
- Joined: Mon 03 Oct 2005 11:08pm
- Location: In the stand at RSEA Park.
- Has thanked: 497 times
- Been thanked: 226 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
The club and Barks at loggerheads again...
Only one of them can be right
And the winner is....
THE CLUB
Only one of them can be right
And the winner is....
THE CLUB
Six debutants for the Saints so far in Season 2024. ![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Mon 05 Apr 2004 2:09pm
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
barks4eva wrote:
If we'd taken McIntosh and kept pick 13 for a young jet we were odds on to win the premiership next year
Once again our club has shot itself in the foot
Time to sack the board
mr rixrox.......lmfao....
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
McIntosh not different enough to mac to play in tandem either IMO! Similar type, bit lumbering, good grab, pushes and shoves but not necessarily a prolific tap winner! Hickey looks more athletic and mobile and to be a bit of a leaper, good contrast!
Maybe this year?
- Sick Nal Danto
- Club Player
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Wed 28 Sep 2011 3:00pm
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
lol at this post, Geelong are doing what we did with Garder and King
We have past that period and now have to look to the future
We have past that period and now have to look to the future
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
If it was the year 2008 I'd be all for a McIntosh type. But it isn't and we aren't topping up on expensive injury prone ruckmen.
McIntosh and Goldy didn't go well together. Instead we get a 10 year partnership between two of the top handful of ruckman based on potential. I'm guessing you missed the bit where Quayle rated Hicjey in front of probable #3 draft pick Brodie Grundy.
I get the feeling we could pick up Ablett and you'd still want to sack the board!
McIntosh and Goldy didn't go well together. Instead we get a 10 year partnership between two of the top handful of ruckman based on potential. I'm guessing you missed the bit where Quayle rated Hicjey in front of probable #3 draft pick Brodie Grundy.
I get the feeling we could pick up Ablett and you'd still want to sack the board!
Strength through Loyalty
Go those mighty Sainters!!
Go those mighty Sainters!!
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7064
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 355 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
He's constantly injured, can't play in the same side as another ruckman and the list is being geared up for another crack around 2015, when he'd be gone.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
The new rules make carrying two specialist tap ruckmen less appealing. Athletic rucks that can be handy around the ground will become more valuable now. Mc Intosh looked good a few years ago but hasn't shown much lately and North look worse when they had Goldy and McIntosh together. I'm happier with a long term option.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
- evo
- Club Player
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2011 11:19pm
- Location: Wimmera
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
Under the new rules he will struggle. No more body contact in ruck, suits ruckmen who are athletic and can leap. I think MacEvoy may well be replaced in the long term by Hickey. These new rules were announced during trade week which along with Collingwoods interest pushed Hickeys value up. All the other ruckmen available were spuds.
- samuraisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2011 3:23pm
- Location: M32
- Has thanked: 836 times
- Been thanked: 785 times
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
Judging by the (very) little I have seen of Hickey, he seems to play in (roughly) the same mould as Peter Everitt. I think that is exactly the type of player we really need (apart from a full-back of course).
Your friendly neighbourhood samurai.
- ShanghaiSaint
- Club Player
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Thu 24 Mar 2005 7:43pm
Re: WHY DID WE NOT TAKE McINTOSH
this............SaintTom wrote:He's 28. Hickey is 21. Why the hell would we want a ruckman who is 28?
Fortius Quo Fidelius