jimmae wrote:
Cazzesman wrote:
keogh wrote:
Maybe I should PM you Cazz, but I will ask again about Warnock.
Why did we pursue him so hard when we had Jacobs
That and other recruiting questions have been answered many times in the past. Do a search or see if someone else can find the answer for you.
Regards CazzesmanThe answer to that is the club recruited Warnock to lead the ruck division, given he was believed to be further along his development curve than the three rucks who were virtually identical in that respect, albeit coming from different directions.
IMO, Jacobs is still barely about where Warnock is in overall game presence, and only because Warnock isn't fit. At centre bounces, Warnock is number one out of all the four. That's undeniable.
The issues with saying that Warnock was more developed (when traded in) than Kreuz and Hammer are:
He had only been on a list for 3 years, where Hammer had 2 years, Jacobs 2 years and Kreuzer 1.
He was physically underdeveloped, even compared with his colleagues.
He had serious injury issues when traded, and we were told by the club a) that they didn't expect him to play much in 2009 and b) that he would blossom in his 3rd year at Carlton
In light of all that, it makes little sense to justify the Warnock trade as "getting someone to carry the ruck while Kreuzer and Hammer develop". Which is EXACTLY what we needed.
If that is the kind of rationale the club would put forward, it's no wonder Cazzesman has declined to explain
