Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Very good post. Agree 100%.
Case: Poorly treated by The Saints
Verdict: Guilty.
He played 5 games in his last year at the saints and when he was a year older he played 6 at Adelaide. How have they treated him better than we did?[/quoteApparently was kept isolated from the senior group and not communicated with. No plan put to him. May be Adelaide set him a program. Anyone bagging the whole academy concept need to realise that this kind of simple structure can give the players vision and hope.
A mate of his from Sandy Dragons -third hand passed on to me. Possibly unreliable but maybe some truth to it. The guy was trying to rile me about how s*** our development has been.
gringo wrote:A mate of his from Sandy Dragons -third hand passed on to me. Possibly unreliable but maybe some truth to it. The guy was trying to rile me about how s*** our development has been.
Well i have it first hand than some players werent treated like that. No idea on all the young players but it would be strange if some were treated differently to others.
gringo wrote:A mate of his from Sandy Dragons -third hand passed on to me. Possibly unreliable but maybe some truth to it. The guy was trying to rile me about how s*** our development has been.
Well what's he going to say Gringo? Please.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
The difference is how many games all of those guys have already had in development. That would have made him frustrated watching. There are half a dozen very good players already and some huge potential. Good year.
SaintPav wrote:Sure it's hindsight, but some guys on here who think he should have gone earlier etc are a bit deluded.
So without using hindsight, put together an argument that we should have taken any of the guys you listed.
Given the information that was available at the time, Lynch was a solid pick. Given what he did on the weekend, there's still a decent chance he'll have a greater impact over his career than a lot of the guys you listed will have for the guys that took them. There's still plenty of time. He's about three or four months younger than Tom Lee.
SaintPav wrote:Sure it's hindsight, but some guys on here who think he should have gone earlier etc are a bit deluded.
So without using hindsight, put together an argument that we should have taken any of the guys you listed.
Given the information that was available at the time, Lynch was a solid pick. Given what he did on the weekend, there's still a decent chance he'll have a greater impact over his career than a lot of the guys you listed will have for the guys that took them. There's still plenty of time. He's about three or four months younger than Tom Lee.
You're right, he could still make it and good luck to him but I would not be getting too carried away about his performance on Saturday.
Like I said before, he came with huge wraps from a club legend and this had an impact on our decision to take him.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
I don't think anyone's getting carried away. It's a big bag against a terrible team. We all know that. Perspective has been maintained.
Suggesting we picked him because Stewie said so is a slight against everyone involved. It's gossip and, short of actual evidence, I don't believe it. The pick was credible based on the season Lynch had in his draft year. It didn't work out as planned. That happens too. It's not science. Listing guys who have had better careers since is a hindsight argument.
Listing of picks was in response that he should have gone top ten in a normal draft. Dragit's hampster wheel would have achieved a better result.
Defend the club if you want; that's your choice but there was a pattern of poor recruiting for a period. I'm simply proposing that this came down to more than bad luck and player development. I'm just glad we seem to be heading in the right direction in this area.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
I remember being a bit sad to see him go what seemed to be so soon. I wasn't at all sure if Tom was going to make it - comparatively Simpkin struck me as a young player who would be more likely to succeed on what l saw early on. With Roo as our go to tall in the fwd. line l wondered if T.Lynch would find it even harder to get a go up front and with Fischer and Gwilt down back - same thing.
From memory i think S.Loewe was a big wrap for Lynch so i suppose Buckets will be looking pretty smart if Tom kicks on.
As a Saints supporter it would have been nice for Tom to have stayed for the Watterera and tried his luck.
Anyway good luck to him.
G O S A I N T S !
The boy can play and we can build a defence around him that will have respect.
Hope he barely gets a touch this week. After that, hope he cements a place.
Never saw much in him though. Well done to a great career highlight to pass on to the grand kids!
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
But the big one was Trengrove? He should have been selected, slid too far, for no reason... B&F already
Yep I wanted Trengove on draft day. Why because he was a tall and a promising prospect. He slid because of his serious leg injuries.
Hannebury and Beams would be terrific!
Spot on Trengrove was virtually locked in as a top 10 pick then had a hammy injury similar to Roo's. From memory Hannebury played a lot of private school footy & not a lot of TAC Cup (so query over the quality of the opposition) & Beams was a QLDer who dominated 2nd Div Champs- recruiters generally love the Div 1 onballers & play it safe with them.
Hindsight is great but I if I could I wouldn't be changing the 08 draft... send me back to draft day 2001! PICK 2- St Kilda- C.Judd!
