Cyclonus wrote:
... to everyone on this site for surely realising that if a playing list has ever needed a priority pick, it is us.
To those who were under the impression that Carlton don't need an extra pick in the top 5 of the draft. That a winning culture is all you need, and the rest will take care of itself. Anti-taking, Pro-Tanking, whatever your stance - today has to have driven the message home to everyone in both camps: We truly don't have the talent.
Have just finished watching the replay after a long night shift, so apologies for my late night rant.
To the people who were all for getting the PP: Congratulations. It would seem we have it, and regardless of whether we obtained it deliberately or not, few will ever know. But we have it, and we need it, and for long-term realists it's cause for celebration
To the people who were against it: Please show me proof that we don't need it. Give me theories, facts and figures, statistics, any form of data that will convince me that our list can consistently match it with anyone else's without draft concessions.
If we were tanking today: We did a good job of it. For any team to resort to tanking, they must have a deep and serious understanding of their own lists' massive deficiencies, and are taking such desperate measures to correct them.
If we weren't: Then things are even worse than the above scenario. We have genuinely tried to beat one of the worst lists in the competition, and fell 100-odd points short, even with a full strength list of our own.
Regardless of which camp you're in, from both points of view all the evidence now points in one direction: We NEED that pick. Worse than anyone could have imagined prior to now.
Question: Can you guarantee to me and all other anti-tank supporters that our priority pick will be a marquee player?
That is what i want in return for a wooden spoon in the history books.