I bet the Eagles don't regret selecting NicNat.

_________________
There is no footy god

Those are the stats of a tease, not a great. I'm still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to injury/age, but IMO he's got a lot more runs to put on the board before when can get too smug.

Footballers rate him.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

Maybe not but also look at what came after him. Hill, Harlett, Rich, Yarran, Hurley, Ziebell, Sidebottom, Rich etc. Would WCE be a better side with a Sidebottom, Hartlett, Rich or Yarran added to the side. They still have Cox supported by Lynch, Darling, Lycett, Kennedy. Thats a lot of talls.

No system is perfect but also look at all the Premiership ruckman over the last decade or so. Late picks or traded.

I would also have Cox ahead of anyone else and he was a rookie as was Sandilands & Jacobs. Also look at the record of the first round ruck selections over the past few years. Leuenberger & Wood. It is a lot of work and a lot of time to see any return on investment.

I like Kruezer and he will be very good but if we had selected Cotchin we probably would of kept Jacobs. Would we have been better off?

Its about building the best list. Not necessarily getting the best young player.

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015

I agree with you on all points, except for the suggestion that we had a choice with Jacobs. That's not how I understood it.

..naturally we took Krooz, yer bonkers not to.. ..lookit, you can draft first rate mids every year in the first round.. ..you don't always have a ruck/kpp of high quality so readily available year in, year out.. ..forget actual draft positions, and look at it from a pure 'opportunity' perspective.. ..injury notwithstanding, Krooz is the 'heir apparent' of Dean Cox.. ..just cos the former went at rookie, doesn't change the fact that when you can get your hands on such a potentially gifted all round ruck star, you go for it.. ..also note that Cox took a while to get going, and Krooz has offered immediate impact since his debut after missing the first 2 games right after recruitment.. ..there hasnt been any downtime waiting for development with Krooz [acl excepted]..

..simply put, the vast majority of clubs will go for the 'tall' over the 'small' when both are of comparable quality [unless yer richmond and Twice go small]..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

but according to our super coach he is a forward

Maybe we fell short of actually digging our own grave but we certainly mapped out the plot earlier in the season. For the record, I was in favour of the trade but I wasn't happy with how it went. We should never have traded for Warnock, in my opinion.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

A 200 game ruckman who plays like Robinson or a longshot ruckman who was picked in the rookie draft. For every Jacobs, Sandilands and Cox picked in the rookie draft, there would be a dozen spuds taken there. Wonderful argument.

The Bombers should pass on Joe Daniher to get a mid and ignore their bonus. That way, they could have a better balanced list, rather than the best available player who could be a superstar.

WC needed to plan ahead and take a Naitanui to cover for the retirment of Cox and Lynch. No brainer if a Kreuzer and Naitanui falls into your lap.

This thread is a sad indictment on the mentality of footy supporters and the draft era. We must get something better than what we already have. Pathetic to talk about Kreuzer like he wasn't an elite junior.

Re the Warnock trade a couple of points should be considered:
1) Would Jacobs have gone home to Adelaide irrespective of whether Warnock was on the list? There probably was a strong "go home" factor involved.
2) The finals against West Coast last year and the previous year against Sydney we only lost by a kick and Warnock played well in both. I doubt we'd bemoan his recruiting if we won those matches.

_________________
There is no footy god

The ideal situation would have been to;
A - Not get Warnock
B - Trade Hammer to GC for a couple of picks
C - Offer Jacobs the world to stay and love him dearly
D - Make Kreuzer and Jacobs our ruck combo
E - Recruit another via the draft to develop as back up.

We would now have the equal best ruck combo in the comp and some handy picks up the sleeve.

_________________
end of message

Kruezer is an undersized ruckman. Very good below his knees and works his butt off when the ball is in dispute and on the ground. For mine his marking is below par - gets his hands on plenty but not strong enough to hold them. Watch him and you will see he never demands the ball be kicked to him - maybe its part of his "Humphry"like nature. He has a long way to go to become one of the best in the comp. Long way.

Worth no 1? At this moment Jacobs is a better ruckman. But he is young, and coming off a knee reco...

Hindsight is 20/20 ... I think at the time most people inside and out of the club rated Warnock higher than Sauce.

IIRC correctly, our ruck stocks were deplorable when we drafted Kreuzer, has this been lost in this sea of discussion?

Yes, Cotch is a gun, as we all thought he'd be, but wasn't it a matter of desperately needing rucks (or any quality tall) back then?

That depends on how much further we would have went and how much of it you could attribute to Warnock. You can't proclaim a trade to be a success simply because 'said' player plays a few good games. Trading doesn't hinge on occurrences in isolation.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Yes!

At the time of recruiting Warnock the ruck was a weakness. Hampson was an unknown "experiment", Kruezer a kid and Jacobs was just rookied a 2nd time by us with no guarantees.

All looks different now down the track but at the time most thought we really needed Warnock.

Problem now, if we traded Warnock out of contract we'd get "unders". He'd "nominate" his club, like most do, and then we'd be back in the "Jacobs" situation and get bent over, taking what we can get or get bugger all.

Warnock has been outstanding in all finals.

Yeah a lot has been lost in this discussion. Our ruck stocks were terrible when we picked Kreuzer in the 07 draft. Hampson and Jacobs were first year players and Cain Ackland had played 20 games that season. In 08 when we recruited Warnock a lot of people were concerned about Kreuzer's huge workload so early in his career and we were relying on Cloke and a very raw Hampson as his support. Jacobs at this stage hadn't even made it off the rookie list and was about to be delisted and re-rookied.

And there lies the issue. You don't use draft picks 24 and 56 on 'stock'. People reduce these arguments down to the raw bones of whether a player is worthy of being considered and whether there is a 'need' involved. Everything is cause and effect and it all adds up. We need to move on but if we just admit that we have been guilty of a bit of overkill in the past it might make things easier.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I don't think anyone doubts Kruise - or few

or Warnock

but it seems overkill to have them both

and Hampson

and especially when we had Jacobs.

For Jacobs - he left but would he have left if we were building a duo - him and Kruise?

Fact is we went Jacobs Hampson Kruise and Warnock hoping 1 would get it right.

if that wasn't overkill I don't know what was.

Or did they think Kruise would be our CHF - if so wrong. He is a ruckman. Perhaps a great ruckman if injuries give him a chance.

All of them are no 1 ruckmen (with Hammer maybe being the exception and able to become the forward)

why have 3 obvious no 1 ruckmen

so we lose Jacobs

but we still have 2 (and Hammer)


can Kruise and Warnock play in the same side? yes but who rucks no 1? Warnock or Kruise. If Kruise what do you do with Warnock? Sit him on the pine.

If Warnock what do you do with Kruise? (and are you paying Peter to rob Paul? - or however that goes...)

Both are ruckmen but those thinking they could play both on ball forget it - Kruise would be killed on the spread if he was playing a midfield role.

He is a ruckman - not much else (certainly not yet, perhaps not for another 6 years or so).

Warnock is a ruckman and nothing else.

why did we feel the need for both of them -both fighting for the no 1 mantle at the same time!@!!!!

and why when we had Jacobs

and why Hampson?

of all our recruiting its the ruckmen strategy that I don't get.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!