This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
This is a Collingwood Bulletin Board - use this forum for general, Pies-related topics. For other footy topics, use Nick's Other AFL forum, and for non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar. For non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.
MightyMagpie wrote:
Not my area, but Brander is the guy most "experts" seem to mention for us at 6.
Just looked at the highlight reel, looks fairly mobile (mind you they said the 'knee' word') but he's not a penetrating kick. 194.5 cm
Balta, Naughton and Claveden are also KP players, but likely fall after 6 and before ~36.
I would be shocked if Brander wasn't the first tall picked in this draft. He is a " natural " footballer and he has played both ends as a junior. To be fair, most spotters reckon he looks more comfortable as a defender rather than a forward ( not a great set shot yet but he started out as a KPD )
S A tall forward Callum Coleman - Jones could go early too
Adam Treloar 3 Votes wrote:If the club is so adamant that we will be taking pick 6 to the draft at this early stage of trade period then they have their eyes on someone quality.
Or they have very little salary-cap space to squeeze trades into, which is what's been claimed in the news.
It's been common knowledge for some time that last year's acquisition of Mayne, Wells and Hoskin-Elliott (all on very good coin) has severely squeezed our salary space, making it near impossible to recruit any ready made quality players. We'll have to rely on using our draft picks wisely.
Adam Treloar 3 Votes wrote:If the club is so adamant that we will be taking pick 6 to the draft at this early stage of trade period then they have their eyes on someone quality.
Or they have very little salary-cap space to squeeze trades into, which is what's been claimed in the news.
Or they don't want to use pick 6 on a player that a club wants to get rid of and by rulling it out early sends a clear message. Brander is a good bet at 6 unless the club's have eyes on someone they think is better. If it comes down to it I'd protect the pick as well. Nothing Around or available atm worth 6 in trade.
"Even when Im old and gray, I wont be able to play but Ill still love the game"
Michael Jordan
I'd consider trading for Schache for the following deal, if as rumoured, we offered pick 6 for pick 10 & Watts as we are targeting a guy with pick 6 that is likely to be available later. **sniff LOB, sniff**
Pick 6 & 36 for Schache & pick 12. Values Schache around pick 19.
We could even throw in another late pick that could help them secure Ballenden who appears likely to get a bid after pick 20.
I don't buy the we have no salary cap gibberish, we have been after Tom Lynch for a while and we would have to have a rainy day Tom Lynch said yes fund put aside at the very least.
People forget that our last premiership was only 2010 and rebuilds take some time. 2018 we play finals again.
swoop42 wrote:
How do you think Schache was viewed when he went pick 2 just two years ago?
An elite talent.
Pick 6 this season will come with no more guarantees attached and being able to land another player within the top 20 appeals to me.
yep you are right. Pick 6 could be another Schache or a Watts. Or he could be a Bontempelli or a Lance Franklin! If we use 6 on the draft instead of schache, at least we have a certain probability of getting a bont or a Lance. If we take Schache, wwe get.... well, we get Schache!
look, i'm all for taking a chance on this kid. We desperately need a target up forward as cox will never be the answer to the question - who was the big forward who played in collingwood's premiership. i just dont know why you would burn such a valuable commodity as pick 6. find a way to get a late first round pick and keep 6.
GWS had a top 6 academy talent last year and they did everything to move up to number 2 so that they could get TWO top 6 talents. why would we do the opposite and give one up for someone that we know is not a top 6 talent.
One top 6 player is worth much more than two 18 picks. i know occasionally you pick up a grundy at pick 18. More often you pick up a Ben kennedy or a broomhead. At pick 6, you nearly always get a good one.
Easy to forget how Josh Kennedy was viewed after his first two years at the Blues...
i dont understand the relevance of this. Perhaps you misunderstand me.
Let me be clear. I am not saying that Schache wont be a star of the game in a few years and i'm not saying he will. what i am saying is that he is a much riskier proposition based on what we know now than he was two years agao when he was drafted at 2 and i don't think he is worth our giving up a chance to take the sixth mostly highly rated kid on the planet!
I think we would all agree that Aish is no longer worth pick 7. Again, not to say that he wont turn out to be a gun, but it seems he is projecting to be at the lower end of our hopes that we had for him at the time he was drafted (even though he went to Lions).
if people can make a case that his problems lie in his location, then maybe a low first round pick is wise (if we can get one of those).
My main point is that changing pick 6 for pick 18 is a MASSIVE downgrade in draft picks. People seem to think its better to do this than give up a pick in its entirety. They are wrong.
RudeBoy wrote:It's been common knowledge for some time that last year's acquisition of Mayne, Wells and Hoskin-Elliott (all on very good coin) has severely squeezed our salary space, making it near impossible to recruit any ready made quality players. We'll have to rely on using our draft picks wisely.
"Knowledge" is far too strong. It's been guessed at for a while.
We showed interest in both Lever and Smith, so we obviously have some money to spend. Without moving players out though, no club has more than $600k or so. There's a requirement to spend 95% of the cap. Just like any other club, we can sign just about anyone but will need to move other players out, or structure contracts to accommodate.
The fact is though, we have done quite a bit of trading over the last few years. Having a quieter period would not be a bad thing. List changes can help, but even the best ones are also disruptive.
RudeBoy wrote:It's been common knowledge for some time that last year's acquisition of Mayne, Wells and Hoskin-Elliott (all on very good coin) has severely squeezed our salary space, making it near impossible to recruit any ready made quality players. We'll have to rely on using our draft picks wisely.
"Knowledge" is far too strong. It's been guessed at for a while.
We showed interest in both Lever and Smith, so we obviously have some money to spend. Without moving players out though, no club has more than $600k or so. There's a requirement to spend 95% of the cap. Just like any other club, we can sign just about anyone but will need to move other players out, or structure contracts to accommodate.
The fact is though, we have done quite a bit of trading over the last few years. Having a quieter period would not be a bad thing. List changes can help, but even the best ones are also disruptive.
So how do we a actually get better? Same coach, same list. Seems to me our strategy is "hope"
RudeBoy wrote:It's been common knowledge for some time that last year's acquisition of Mayne, Wells and Hoskin-Elliott (all on very good coin) has severely squeezed our salary space, making it near impossible to recruit any ready made quality players. We'll have to rely on using our draft picks wisely.
"Knowledge" is far too strong. It's been guessed at for a while.
We showed interest in both Lever and Smith, so we obviously have some money to spend. Without moving players out though, no club has more than $600k or so. There's a requirement to spend 95% of the cap. Just like any other club, we can sign just about anyone but will need to move other players out, or structure contracts to accommodate.
The fact is though, we have done quite a bit of trading over the last few years. Having a quieter period would not be a bad thing. List changes can help, but even the best ones are also disruptive.
The best ones disruptive? Jolly and Ball are on the phone. And Francis and Russell. Two players can make all the difference. Combined with the improvement that will come from our very young list.
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930
Looks like if we want him that he may come cheaper than expected. Not a lot of interest shown so far. Maybe KPFs are starting to be more appropriately values after yet another finals series where they did not feature prominently?
