Cameron Wood: Linked To Saints
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
That's crapstinger wrote:barks4eva wrote:
Just to clarify
Beveridge did not make the call to draft Brooks, it was not his decision
Rendell and Thomas made the call on Brooks and Rendell and Thomas made the call to give not only pick 6 but pick 31 also to clinch the deal
Beveridge did NOT make this decision
not what jb says........![]()
![]()
![]()
I know as fact that what I stated is 100% true
and besides COACHES and FOOTBALL DEPARTMENTS make calls to trade away draft selections not recruiting managers
Rendell and Thomas decided to trade away these selections
btw, Thomas made the call on McGough and this was 100% his call, noone else had a say in that and that is a fact
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Then you shouldn't have any trouble telling us how you got this information.barks4eva wrote:I know as fact that what I stated is 100% true
Personally, I think you're making stuff up again. I find it highly dubious that Thomas would be keen to give up a top ten pick plus a second round pick for a player that he'd never seen play before. Even Rendell would have seen scarce amounts of Brooks playing football. And I find it hard to believe that he was impressed with Brooks' work ethic at training.
To me, it would seem far more likely that somebody would have recommended getting Brooks, and that person would probably have been from the recruiting staff.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
well...i know for sure that what you say is crap...and i got it from the horses mouth...you are so full of yourself...and hatred that you will believe anything negative about thomas and rendell.....even when it is crap that you made up yourself....barks4eva wrote:That's crapstinger wrote:barks4eva wrote:
Just to clarify
Beveridge did not make the call to draft Brooks, it was not his decision
Rendell and Thomas made the call on Brooks and Rendell and Thomas made the call to give not only pick 6 but pick 31 also to clinch the deal
Beveridge did NOT make this decision
not what jb says........![]()
![]()
![]()
I know as fact that what I stated is 100% true
and besides COACHES and FOOTBALL DEPARTMENTS make calls to trade away draft selections not recruiting managers
Rendell and Thomas decided to trade away these selections
btw, Thomas made the call on McGough and this was 100% his call, noone else had a say in that and that is a fact
.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.
...correct...then it was up to thomas to secure them...vacuous space wrote:[
To me, it would seem far more likely that somebody would have recommended getting Brooks, and that person would probably have been from the recruiting staff.
.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.
Exactly. In his one year at Port, Brooks did not play a single senior game. Whereas he featured in the under 18 carnival and draft camp, both are highly scrutinised by all recruiters. I find it hard to believe that Beveridge would not have had any input on the trade decision.stinger wrote:...correct...then it was up to thomas to secure them...vacuous space wrote:[
To me, it would seem far more likely that somebody would have recommended getting Brooks, and that person would probably have been from the recruiting staff.
If only B4E was part of the recruiting team, he was the only one with the foresight that Brooks would turn out to be a hack
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
_________________
Silly customer, you cannot hurt a twinkie
Silly customer, you cannot hurt a twinkie
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Fri 07 May 2004 10:41am
- Location: under the Fosters sign
B4E your logic on this is fundamentally flawed when taken into consideration with your ranting last year about the Saints ruck inadequacies.
Clearly in 2004 the club recognised we had a glaring hole in our ruck division and sought to rectify this by trading for one of the most promising young ruckmen going around at the time. Barry Brooks. It was the right decision at the time and your raving of last year supports this. The Saints needed a good young ruckman and so we endeavoured to get one.
As a first round pick himself, we might have got Brooks for pick 6 only but clearly Port realised our need to get him was strong and held out for a better deal and thus got pick 31 as well. We were never going to get him for less than pick 6.
How was GT or anyone else at the club to know he would do his knee and never go on to live up to the great potential he showed as a youngster? Trading for him was the correct decision at the time. Yes we gopt shafted in the deal, but I would like to hear you argument as to why we shouldn’t have gone for him at all.
You talk about it like we traded away our future for an old hack. He was promising a 19/20 year old ruckman for god’s sake. Is trading pick 6 for Barry Brooks at 19 really any different from using a first round pick to draft a promising 17 year old ruckman?
Clearly in 2004 the club recognised we had a glaring hole in our ruck division and sought to rectify this by trading for one of the most promising young ruckmen going around at the time. Barry Brooks. It was the right decision at the time and your raving of last year supports this. The Saints needed a good young ruckman and so we endeavoured to get one.
As a first round pick himself, we might have got Brooks for pick 6 only but clearly Port realised our need to get him was strong and held out for a better deal and thus got pick 31 as well. We were never going to get him for less than pick 6.
How was GT or anyone else at the club to know he would do his knee and never go on to live up to the great potential he showed as a youngster? Trading for him was the correct decision at the time. Yes we gopt shafted in the deal, but I would like to hear you argument as to why we shouldn’t have gone for him at all.
You talk about it like we traded away our future for an old hack. He was promising a 19/20 year old ruckman for god’s sake. Is trading pick 6 for Barry Brooks at 19 really any different from using a first round pick to draft a promising 17 year old ruckman?
I am marching in the Saints army
- Oh When the Saints
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 4:25pm
- Location: QLD
- Contact:
could not have said it better myselfelvis lives wrote:B4E your logic on this is fundamentally flawed when taken into consideration with your ranting last year about the Saints ruck inadequacies.
Clearly in 2004 the club recognised we had a glaring hole in our ruck division and sought to rectify this by trading for one of the most promising young ruckmen going around at the time. Barry Brooks. It was the right decision at the time and your raving of last year supports this. The Saints needed a good young ruckman and so we endeavoured to get one.
As a first round pick himself, we might have got Brooks for pick 6 only but clearly Port realised our need to get him was strong and held out for a better deal and thus got pick 31 as well. We were never going to get him for less than pick 6.
How was GT or anyone else at the club to know he would do his knee and never go on to live up to the great potential he showed as a youngster? Trading for him was the correct decision at the time. Yes we gopt shafted in the deal, but I would like to hear you argument as to why we shouldn’t have gone for him at all.
You talk about it like we traded away our future for an old hack. He was promising a 19/20 year old ruckman for god’s sake. Is trading pick 6 for Barry Brooks at 19 really any different from using a first round pick to draft a promising 17 year old ruckman?
Brooks was rated the best ruckman in the previous draft and according to our recruiting staff he was a better choice then any of the ruckman in that draft.
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
- saintsrule
- Club Player
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Thu 30 Aug 2007 6:37pm
- Location: Australia
- Scoop
- Club Player
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29pm
- Location: On a New Street Corner
- Has thanked: 515 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Elvis, if you are going to knock someone's logic as being flawed, at least get your facts right when you are presenting your argument.elvis lives wrote:B4E your logic on this is fundamentally flawed when taken into consideration with your ranting last year about the Saints ruck inadequacies.
Clearly in 2004 the club recognised we had a glaring hole in our ruck division and sought to rectify this by trading for one of the most promising young ruckmen going around at the time. Barry Brooks. It was the right decision at the time and your raving of last year supports this. The Saints needed a good young ruckman and so we endeavoured to get one.
As a first round pick himself, we might have got Brooks for pick 6 only but clearly Port realised our need to get him was strong and held out for a better deal and thus got pick 31 as well. We were never going to get him for less than pick 6.
How was GT or anyone else at the club to know he would do his knee and never go on to live up to the great potential he showed as a youngster? Trading for him was the correct decision at the time. Yes we gopt shafted in the deal, but I would like to hear you argument as to why we shouldn’t have gone for him at all.
You talk about it like we traded away our future for an old hack. He was promising a 19/20 year old ruckman for god’s sake. Is trading pick 6 for Barry Brooks at 19 really any different from using a first round pick to draft a promising 17 year old ruckman?
We actually picked up Brooks in 2002, not 2004.
And we were trying to get Brogan and ended up with Brooks.
And it is interesting that JB didn't really rate him in 2001, yet was prepared to give up picks 6 & 31 to get him one year later. Also interestingly, Hamish McIntosh, another highly rated young ruckman that would only have cost us one draft pick, went at pick 9 in the same draft.
Ahh the Machiavellian machinations (is that tautology?) of the draft and the value of hindsight!
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Extra! Extra! Read all about it......no I don't want to read about it anymore!!!
- Animal Enclosure
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 2:37pm
- Location: Saints Footy Central
It is interesting to compare Brooks & McIntosh because up until this year McIntosh had done nothing to suggest he'd would play like he has in 07.
The one thing that McIntosh has had over Brooks is game time in the ones. Not saying that Brooks has deserved a great deal but we have a 6 foot 6 ruck/forward and we're still using Jason Blake as a back up.
If he stays on the list Lyon has to get some games into him.
BTW I think the competition for Cameron Wood will put us out of the picture. Collingwood will be sniffing around with their no.14 pick & I can't see us giving up pick 9.
The one thing that McIntosh has had over Brooks is game time in the ones. Not saying that Brooks has deserved a great deal but we have a 6 foot 6 ruck/forward and we're still using Jason Blake as a back up.
If he stays on the list Lyon has to get some games into him.
BTW I think the competition for Cameron Wood will put us out of the picture. Collingwood will be sniffing around with their no.14 pick & I can't see us giving up pick 9.
- Scoop
- Club Player
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29pm
- Location: On a New Street Corner
- Has thanked: 515 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
I think the highlighted sentence of your post sums it up. If Brooks was any good, we wouldn't need to use Blake in the ruck!Animal Enclosure wrote:It is interesting to compare Brooks & McIntosh because up until this year McIntosh had done nothing to suggest he'd would play like he has in 07.
The one thing that McIntosh has had over Brooks is game time in the ones. Not saying that Brooks has deserved a great deal but we have a 6 foot 6 ruck/forward and we're still using Jason Blake as a back up.
If he stays on the list Lyon has to get some games into him.
BTW I think the competition for Cameron Wood will put us out of the picture. Collingwood will be sniffing around with their no.14 pick & I can't see us giving up pick 9.
Having said that, I do think Brooks has some ability, but he is as soft as butter. And that's where he differs from McIntosh, who really has a dip.
By the way, IMO Wood will end up being the best of the three. I would really like us to have a crack at him. At 20 years old, 204cm and pretty mobile for his size, I think he would be a good pick up - especially for a second round pick. Once again it annoys me that we overlooked him three years ago, when we could have got him at 17 instead of Mini. What you see of Mini now is basically what he was in the U18s - nothing special.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it......no I don't want to read about it anymore!!!
- Animal Enclosure
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 2:37pm
- Location: Saints Footy Central
I agree with you Scoop that Wood would be a very good pick up but I can't see us getting him for the 2nd rounder.
GT said about 3 years ago that Brooks has all the skills but his mental toughness and aggression is what he needs to improve. It's pretty obvious that this still hasn't happened. What bamboozles me is why they keep him if he's not part of our plans? Even promoting Van Rheenan who is not ready but possibly more of a chance than Brooks would make more sense.
Play Brooks or give him the rs!
GT said about 3 years ago that Brooks has all the skills but his mental toughness and aggression is what he needs to improve. It's pretty obvious that this still hasn't happened. What bamboozles me is why they keep him if he's not part of our plans? Even promoting Van Rheenan who is not ready but possibly more of a chance than Brooks would make more sense.
Play Brooks or give him the rs!
- Scoop
- Club Player
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29pm
- Location: On a New Street Corner
- Has thanked: 515 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
unfortunately you are probably right.Animal Enclosure wrote:I agree with you Scoop that Wood would be a very good pick up but I can't see us getting him for the 2nd rounder.
Will probably get your wish.Animal Enclosure wrote: Even promoting Van Rheenan who is not ready but possibly more of a chance than Brooks would make more sense.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Trade anyone?Animal Enclosure wrote: Play Brooks or give him the rs!
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Extra! Extra! Read all about it......no I don't want to read about it anymore!!!
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 356 times
alot of them seem settled on armo for wood straight trade...mad saint guy wrote:Brisbane fans on BigFooty expect Pick 9, Armitage or Gilbert for Wood. Not a chance in hell of that happening, and I don't think they would give him up for our second rounder either.
apparently they see armitage as a clear case of "you can take the boy out of brisbane, but you cant take the brisbane out of the boy"
fwiw the picture from the article:
![Image](http://realfooty.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/04/wbFOOTYwood_wideweb__470x337,0.jpg)
Mark Blake has some high protein meat on him, or his arms at least
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4245
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1391 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5410
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
I am sorry this time barks is correct.vacuous space wrote:Then you shouldn't have any trouble telling us how you got this information.barks4eva wrote:I know as fact that what I stated is 100% true
Personally, I think you're making stuff up again. I find it highly dubious that Thomas would be keen to give up a top ten pick plus a second round pick for a player that he'd never seen play before. Even Rendell would have seen scarce amounts of Brooks playing football. And I find it hard to believe that he was impressed with Brooks' work ethic at training.
To me, it would seem far more likely that somebody would have recommended getting Brooks, and that person would probably have been from the recruiting staff.
Thomas said this himself.
that it was JB's call on drafting. but trading or recyled players thomas did.
Logically, why would JB know whehter mcgough would be better than say 2nd round pick. JB knew the kids he saw thair matches, he rarely saw an afl game.