Our 2005 selections - thoughts

[Inzi 34]

It isn't Thomas v Ellis ----> it is Pendlbury v Ellis.

We had Thomas at 5, so the club decided that Pendlebury would better suit our style and mix than Ellis....

Good decision I think which will pay dividends....i still would have liked Hurn....

[Albow]

Sensational drafting Pies. Really happy about avoiding Ellis, doesnt like the hard ball in the little league, isnt going to improve when playing with the big boys, especially with that matchstick frame. (Also did he not say he only wanted to play for Hawthorn, Have it your way stick insect)
Thomas can make somthing out of nothing and a real goer.
Also Pendlebury is a great pick up with height and pace can play almost anywhere. Will be hard to match up on in the midfield.
Daniel Stanley, Now this guy is my favorite selection hard nut who will put his body on the line, somthing you cant teach.
Collingwood should be commended for avoiding status quo and picking the best players for our club.
Welcome to the club fellas, hope its the start of somthing great for both parties.

[Grug]

I think you made the right decision regarding Ellis.

The hype train on him just snowballed and nearly everyone got sucked in.

With the amount of picks that Hawthorn had, they could afford to take a punt on him. He is just so damn skinny and doesnt appear to me to have the sort of body thatcan accumulate alot of mass.

I've seen alot of people compare him to Aaron Fiora and I can certainly see why.

[dalyc]

what i like about thomas after watching the u18 is his explosiveness. being dual-sided and having toe will make him a magpie favourite.

Agree Cam - I saw a bit of Akermanis in him from the clips I saw.

[dalyc]

#5 Hurn - #13 Eagles their midfeild is gonna be unstoppable.

Yeah but there forward line will still not kick enough goals to win a GF.

[stui magpie]

As you blokes say time will tell.

As a Collingwood supporter I will be behind our new boys 100%.

Go Pies.

Thats the best position to be in if you want to stab someone in the back oh Midstrength one.

From my perspective, I was flipping out on Saturday monrning trying to find out what was going on and my first thoughts were WTF our recruiters have had a brain explosion.

But the more I look at the kids we've picked up, the happier I am with the deal.

We have selected midfielders with speed and physical presence who get their own ball.

Maybe Ellis is/will be a better player but obviously he wasn't the player we wanted.

Let's get on board and give the recruiters the benefit of the doubt. I've been as critical as most as some of the decisions we made in the past, but it's not an exact science. Just because a bunch of media types start hyping up some players doesn't mean they are that good. Sometimes the player might be sensational as a junior but can't take their game up a leve. Last years crop looks good but the jury is still out.

Even the '99 draft which gave us such luminaries as Danny Roach and Dale Baynes also gave us Josh Fraser, Rys Shaw, Ben Johnson and Neon Davis.

No club gets them all right. hindsight is a beautiful thing. There are always going to be the players picked low who everyone (in hindsight) can't believe were picked that late.

Then you get the clubs priority's. Remember that after we took Josh in '99, Freo took Haselby and Richmond took Fiora before Freo then drafted Pavlich at 4. Seems that Freo rated Haselby above Pavlich.

Even the Psych testing that's available to all clubs is used differently by each one.


The point is, it's an imprecise science and all the best skill ability and genetics can be ruined by an inflated ego or an ill timed injury.

I like the look of the kids we've drafted, hopefully they indicate where our team is heading. Fast, skillfull, with physical presence and full of players who have a red hot go each week.

Roll on 2006.

[jackcass]

Interesting that they didn't use last pick, Baird perhaps...

only one problem there;

pick 45 Kangaroos Travis Baird BRISBANE LIONS 25-07-1986

I realised that when I'd seen the full list of drafted players. Having a look at who else is available, that only leaves Davidson!

[jackcass]

We didnt pick up a danny roach, he was injured when we got him.... we got all fit players this yr which is always good to see. The Ellis vs Thomas debate could go on forever but until we see whatthey are capable of at AFL level no one can say anything.

I think Roach actually got hurt after we drafted him.

[EddieGold]

We had two picks in the top 5, which is always a bonus when it comes to drafting. As our position in the drafting pecking order has improved, so should the quality of draftees we have.

Danny Roach got Osteo Pubis after his one and only game which feature the one and only statistic of one tackle. But what a tackle!!

Worth the 7th pick in the draft just for that.

[jackcass]

We had two picks in the top 5, which is always a bonus when it comes to drafting. As our position in the drafting pecking order has improved, so should the quality of draftees we have.

Danny Roach got Osteo Pubis after his one and only game which feature the one and only statistic of one tackle. But what a tackle!!

Worth the 7th pick in the draft just for that.

I believe Roach actually retired due to the frustration of a chronic hip injury. I agree, Roach could have been anything and well worth the pick 7 gamble, he just wasn't commited enough to work through the injury.

[Johnson#26]

He did, jackcass. I remember talking to him at Family Day 2000 - his hip was troubling him even then.

[EddieGold]

Its Danny Roach who we have missed for the last couple of seasons. He could have been a 30 possession a game midfield man, he had all the skills and talent. But alas, the fickle finger of fate pointed at him and said no more. Now he is a champion trout fisherman down in the rivers of Tasmania I am told.

[bokka]

Would have been an interesting ploy to pick Ellis hoping to get Thomas at 5. Very risky since you never know who other clubs might be after, as shown by Collingwood's picks. They would have been kicking themselves if it backfired and they didn't get Thomas, since they seemed very keen on him, but it seemed like it was worth the risk since most lileky would have got away with it - sometimes you have to "go all in".
Then again maybe you (somebody) are right and they preferred Pendelbury to Ellis anyway.,

[Lazza]

Would have been an interesting ploy to pick Ellis hoping to get Thomas at 5. Very risky since you never know who other clubs might be after, as shown by Collingwood's picks. They would have been kicking themselves if it backfired and they didn't get Thomas, since they seemed very keen on him, but it seemed like it was worth the risk since most lileky would have got away with it - sometimes you have to "go all in".
Then again maybe you (somebody) are right and they preferred Pendelbury to Ellis anyway.,

Dermie has already confirmed to Eddie McGuire (NOT GOLD!!) that the Hawk's would have gladly grabbed Thomas at 3.

I have an all time favouirite quote for you Eddie gold..."It is okay to look back sometimes as long as you dont stare".... With all due respect in your case I think you are really STUCK in the past....

[Lone Ranger]

Some of the crap in this thread is amazing ... especially from you EddieGold. Do you seriously believe that the club thought they could pick Ellis at 2 and still get Thomas at 5 but said "nah, stuff that ... lets just get Thomas". That is just so ridiculous it is not funny.
It is obvious that Collingwood had the belief (or knowledge) that Thomas would not still be available at 5. As such, they had to choose one or the other.
Your argument that they could have got both is absolutely ludicrous.