Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
No one from the new or the old regime at Moorabbin can remember just how clearly Jack came into contention and the man who chose Armitage, recruiter John Beveridge, declined to discuss an opposition player this week.
Probably cost the Western Bulldogs a premiership also with their decision to draft Everitt (since given the flick) instead of Jack.barks4eva wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/h ... 1cgct.html
No one from the new or the old regime at Moorabbin can remember just how clearly Jack came into contention and the man who chose Armitage, recruiter John Beveridge, declined to discuss an opposition player this week.
FAIR DINKUM
Has most likely cost us two premierships already!
I read somewhere that Pavlich could have been taken by anyone at any draft pick the year before... But no one did.Johnny Member wrote:And/or Pavlich over Fiora!SainterK wrote:Wonder if Richmond fans are wondering what there forward line would look tomorrow night if they'd taken Buddy over Tambling
I said that a couple of pages ago Spinner, I see no prood to suggest he could co-exist in a forward line with someone as dominant as Roo, given his growth and development has been a result of being the only option after Richo retired.Spinner wrote:BTW It isnt a coincidence that the year Richo retired... Jack improved immediately.
Hey mate, lets not get ahead of ourselves...at least wait 4 years after he's been recruited by someone before we start making such claims.plugger66 wrote:Havent heard many hero's say we should have got Jack's brother lately but there were plenty saying we should have before the draft. Again I doubt anyone saw that guy play more than one game.
Seriously, how many posters on here who live outside Tassie actually saw a lot of Jack playing before the draft?barks4eva wrote:AND taking Ball ahead of Judd had most likely cost us another two!
Butterss coached Judd in under 14's and urged Thomas to take him BEFORE Ball, but Thomas wanted his love child first!
Then put him on $600,000 our second highest paid player, more than Lenny Hayes, FAIR DINKUM which ultimately caused massive problems later
along with ignoring "training services" and playing Ball into the ground
Are the DNA results in yet?
Who could forget Thomas and Bundy giving up not just pick 6 for Barry Brooks, apparently this wasn't value enough, we had to throw in our second round pick to sweeten the deal, seriously, FAIR DINKUM
Hilarious
Not selecting Riewoldt was and is a monumental **** UP
NO HINDSIGHT AT ALL, I would have drafted him and was hoping we would
As if placing our hopes on Kosi rediscovering his form from 2005 wasn't galling enough
FAIR DINKUM
Yes I don't think many are saying Ball is no good - it's just that they could have worked out to get both Judd and Ball at 2 & 5Sobraz wrote:I was disappointed when we took Ball over Judd, but in the first 4 season post draft, Ball was a fine pick...
...His AA year was outstanding, and while Im not saying he was, or would have become as good as Judd, he was a very good player before he was cut down...
I would not swap McEvoy for Rioli now, let alone then with hindsight... I have huge faith in BigMac, and he will be in the very elite groups of Rucks in the AFL very soon...
The Jack Riewoldt v's Armo one stings tho...
Frawley would've been handy also... That was our poorest draft, that cost us most IMO....
You can say it thousand times but lies are still lies and this is one big lie. Admit it. You have no idea.barks4eva wrote:AND taking Ball ahead of Judd had most likely cost us another two!
Butterss coached Judd in under 14's and urged Thomas to take him BEFORE Ball, but Thomas wanted his love child first!
Then put him on $600,000 our second highest paid player, more than Lenny Hayes, FAIR DINKUM which ultimately caused massive problems later
along with ignoring "training services" and playing Ball into the ground
Are the DNA results in yet?
Who could forget Thomas and Bundy giving up not just pick 6 for Barry Brooks, apparently this wasn't value enough, we had to throw in our second round pick to sweeten the deal, seriously, FAIR DINKUM
Hilarious
Not selecting Riewoldt was and is a monumental **** UP
NO HINDSIGHT AT ALL, I would have drafted him and was hoping we would
As if placing our hopes on Kosi rediscovering his form from 2005 wasn't galling enough
FAIR DINKUM
Good-o. Well, I wasn't on this forum to argue, so I'll take it as you say.barks4eva wrote:NO HINDSIGHT at all, wanted him drafted at the time!degruch wrote:In hindsight.barks4eva wrote:Not selecting Riewoldt was and is a monumental **** UP
NO HINDSIGHT AT ALL, I would have drafted him and was hoping we would
Correct P66. I've corrected B4E many times over the years on the Ball v Judd recruiting. He always puts it on Thomo.plugger66 wrote:You can say it thousand times but lies are still lies and this is one big lie. Admit it. You have no idea.barks4eva wrote:AND taking Ball ahead of Judd had most likely cost us another two!
Butterss coached Judd in under 14's and urged Thomas to take him BEFORE Ball, but Thomas wanted his love child first!
Then put him on $600,000 our second highest paid player, more than Lenny Hayes, FAIR DINKUM which ultimately caused massive problems later
along with ignoring "training services" and playing Ball into the ground
Are the DNA results in yet?
Who could forget Thomas and Bundy giving up not just pick 6 for Barry Brooks, apparently this wasn't value enough, we had to throw in our second round pick to sweeten the deal, seriously, FAIR DINKUM
Hilarious
Not selecting Riewoldt was and is a monumental **** UP
NO HINDSIGHT AT ALL, I would have drafted him and was hoping we would
As if placing our hopes on Kosi rediscovering his form from 2005 wasn't galling enough
FAIR DINKUM
Absolutely, my Tigers mates were thrilled to pieces he popped up out of nowhere last year...before that they'd almost put him in the same basket as Fiora, McMahon, Tambling, etc. God, I can only imagine how many pages their recuiting what-if threads go for!Moods wrote:SainterK has hit the nail on the head. Not even Richmond supporters thought J. Riewoldt was any good when they got him and he first started playing.
'What' ain't any country I ever heard of.Johnny Member wrote:What?!! The president getting involved in the draft because he coached a 13yo old kid!!barks4eva wrote:Butterss coached Judd in under 14's and urged Thomas to take him BEFORE Ball, but Thomas wanted his love child first!
You're kidding right?
Correct.plugger66 wrote:Of course we should have got Jack because he is Rooy's cousin. Doesnt matter that probably not one person on here saw him play more than one game or our forward line at the time didnt need a player like him. He is rooy's cousin. Havent heard many hero's say we should have got Jack's brother lately but there were plenty saying we should have before the draft. Again I doubt anyone saw that guy play more than one game.
Must say I find it funny when people claim they would have picked so and so and then say they mentioned it before the draft. They then fail to mention the hundreds they get wrong. Hindsight is a wonderful way of recruiting.
The president wasn't involved in the draft Johnny, just that he suggested that in his opinion we should use our first pick on Judd, but obviously he had no say in the final decision!Johnny Member wrote:What?!! The president getting involved in the draft because he coached a 13yo old kid!!barks4eva wrote:Butterss coached Judd in under 14's and urged Thomas to take him BEFORE Ball, but Thomas wanted his love child first!
You're kidding right?
