Our 2005 selections - thoughts

Canberra · Post by **Canberra** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:52 pm

How do you consider Ellis as having the potential to be a Del Santo,Dave?
Have you read Wisbey's thoughts yet?
Del Santo gets his own ball. Ellis thinks he is above that. That may well be the key reason we didn't draft him first pick.
As I said in another post in this forum,we congratulated the recruiting people on last year's draft. So from all the heartburn you are displaying over Ellis,do you think they have lost it after just 12 months.

collingwoodjoe · Post by **collingwoodjoe** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:58 pm

Thats right perthmagpie! we rate Thomas because he can win his own ball, and Pendlebuty wasn't going to slip to 21, hence 2 Thomas 5 Pendlebury!

favourites 2008 · Post by **favourites 2008** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:13 pm

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.

DaVe86 · Post by **DaVe86** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:13 pm

oh cmon Canberra...i know you dont like me very much but are you telling me you've never heard the Dal Santo = Ellis comparison made. Its been said over and over again.

I just finished saying that THomas strikes me to be a matchwinner, Ellis perhaps not. Potential wise, it sounds like Ellis may be the better player in the long run, but whether he will be as influential as Thomas remains to be seen.

Like it or not....many critics will be licking their chops at the fact we passed on Ellis. They will watch closely now the Ellis vs Thomas battle for a long time to come just waiting to can us for it. Im confident Thomas will be a great player, but it will receive as much hype as Hodge vs Judd in previous years. Hawthorn suprised by not taking Judd, we have suprised by not taking Ellis. HOpefully we get as good a result.

And i have not once criticised our recruiters. Its absolutely ridiculous to do that considering these guys have not played yet. You cant criticise them until mid next year when we start seeing some results, and even then it is too early. I have not even once said we made the wrong move. If you have been reading my posts, all i have pointed out is the pro's and cons of the move.

I am happy with our pick 21...Stanley strikes me to be a bargain as he missed a lot of footy and should be a great future player.

Dont start critiscing everything i say because you disagree with me on Guerra.

Canberra · Post by **Canberra** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:34 pm

Can't work out the bit about " I know you don't like me very much".
My reason for highlighting your opinions on Ellis relate to the number of posts you have already lodged with Ellis in mind.
I doubt even our resident Peter Whore could keep up with that.

Let's be realistic. Our recruiting staff achieved a very unusual strike rate last year. Very few drafts by ANY club have got that kind of turnaround in one year. It may have been an Indian summer and may never be repeated but Hine seems to be out of left field with his selections and suggestions.
We drafted a lot differently to everyone's expectations last year and it seems we have done more of the same.

Cannibal · Post by **Cannibal** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:58 pm

Being one of the very many who thought we'd go for Ellis with pick 2 and Hurn with pick 5 (although I also said I'd be happy with Thomas at 5 after reading Burgatron V), I also now one of the very many struggling to come to grips with our choices!

Having said that, Hine got the runs on the board last year and I'm willing to give his judgement a go this year.

I also came across an interesting comment on another board, which went, "I have no idea if Collingwood have made the right choice (who does), but I do like Thomas and I do like to see a club with the balls to not go with the recruiting consensus view (which more often than not is wrong). Hopefully for them he'll rewards their faith in spades."

An articulate, well put perspective. Just because the consensus was that we'd take Ellis with pick 2 but we didn't doesn't mean we're wrong. Let's give Hine the time to prove whether he was correct or otherwise.

I also find it amusing that we've got "experts" going head-to-head not long after the bleedin' draft over whether one 17 year old is going to be a better footballer than another 17 year old! We won't know until they are both 23 and, frankly, for the sake of the game, I hope they both turn out to be bloody good footballers.

scoobydoo · Post by **scoobydoo** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:26 pm

loki04 · Post by **loki04** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:32 pm

Not sure about these picks they sound alright and Thomas is exciting when he has the ball though he does go missing in games won't know until 2-3 yrs.

Although it was possible to get this (all rated highly):

#2 Ellis - #3 Hawks
#5 Hurn - #13 Eagles their midfeild is gonna be unstoppable.
#21 Muston - #22 Hawks

ahh well welcome all the new lads and I hope you are as good as the recruiters say.

Joel · Post by **Joel** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:44 pm

I will let time be the judge, but I'm happy with picking up Thomas, although he probably would have been available at 5.

collingwoodjoe · Post by **collingwoodjoe** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:49 pm

yeh but Pendlebury wouldn't have been available at 21! we got both, Yay!

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:58 pm

di**s

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:59 pm

dave86.... how many games have u seen Ellis play?

Harvey · Post by **Harvey** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:47 pm

EddieGold wrote:
twaters wrote:Also, other than Thomas (dob=June 87), we have chosen all under age players [Pendlebury & Anthony = Jan 88; Stanley & Cook = Feb 88]. This draft's picks seems to be for the year after next; gamble now on stars later. Fair enough.

Great guts by our recruiters - to stare down the whole expectations of Ellis at 2 and gamble that in a year it will be Pendlebury who is more damaging.

I can't "see" the Cook/ Anthony combo, but obviously Hine etc can see them shining in the year after. So 4 mids; one firey KPB.

This is Stupidity not intelligence. If 500 experts say Ellis is the 2nd best player in the draft. You take him. The Draft is not a time to experiement. Cause more times than not, Danny Roach, Billy Morrison etc etc etc, it doesn't work.

yea why waste money on our on experts when we can get the opinions of the media the night before and pick according to who they think is the best. They're bound to be right.

Why didn't we pick Ruory Kirkby second round last year? that's where he was rated by 500 experts. Where is he now?

Why didn't the Hawks pick Tambling with their second pick last year and why didn't WB take him instead of Griffen when he fell through? The 500 experts did rate him 2nd.

I mean seriously how stupid are the pies to form their own opinion on who is the best player.

pietillidie · Post by **pietillidie** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:04 pm

Agree Harvey.

So are we saying we've taken the most consistent high quality midfielder in the draft as well as the most physically gifted athletic midfielder?

If so, no complaints from me.

vinnie_vegas69 · Post by **vinnie_vegas69** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:09 pm

loki04 wrote:Thomas is exciting when he has the ball though he does go missing in games won't know until 2-3 yrs.

Wisbey rates him as one of the more consistent and hard working players in the draft.

As an aside, both him and Pendlebury were amongst the league leaders in tackling in the TAC Cup this year, so they both work hard both ways.

This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.

Our 2005 selections - thoughts