Cameron Wood: Linked To Saints

[Quixote]

Would rather VR

[vacuous space]

Would rather VR

Because...? Honestly, what has VR done, other than grow to be really tall?

[barks4eva]

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........

That's crap


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

[vacuous space]

I know as fact that what I stated is 100% true

Then you shouldn't have any trouble telling us how you got this information.

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]

Well lets hope someone HAS seen Woods play...and more than one game....

[stinger]

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........

That's crap


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

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....

[stinger]

[

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.

...correct...then it was up to thomas to secure them...

[Apu]

[

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.

...correct...then it was up to thomas to secure them...

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.

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

[elvis lives]

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?

[Oh When the Saints]

Agree with you on Wood mad saint guy.

Would not give up any more than pick #26 (our second rounder).

[Solar]

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?

could not have said it better myself

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.

[linz]

Geez, if we do hold on to Brookessy; wouldn't it be great to see him develop into a star. Dreaming I know

[saintsrule]

was a rising star mominee in r4 if that means anything

[Scoop]

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?

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.

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!

[Animal Enclosure]

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.

[maverick]

What about Meeson is he being thrown around still?
Does he rate better in people's opinions?
IMO we must get a ruckman wih our second pick this year, either through trade or draft....

[Scoop]

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.

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!

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.

[Scoop]

What about Meeson is he being thrown around still?
Does he rate better in people's opinions?
...

No....IMHO.

[Animal Enclosure]

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!

[Scoop]

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.

unfortunately you are probably right.

Even promoting Van Rheenan who is not ready but possibly more of a chance than Brooks would make more sense.

Will probably get your wish.

Play Brooks or give him the rs!

Trade anyone?

[mad saint guy]

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.

[SaintBot]

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.

alot of them seem settled on armo for wood straight trade...

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:


Mark Blake has some high protein meat on him, or his arms at least

[cwrcyn]

Why is it that so many people get excited about second-rate ruckmen from other clubs?

[saint66au]

Exactly...I thought our preferred options, as stated by Ken Sheldon, were Small forwards and mids??

[saintly]

I know as fact that what I stated is 100% true

Then you shouldn't have any trouble telling us how you got this information.

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.

I am sorry this time barks is correct.

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.