Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Does anyone feel there was more excitment last year with Egan, Rusling & Trav compared with this year?

I keep getting "View topic with ignored date".
I guess Nick's own serial pest is putting in his usual crap.
The Peter Hoare of Nick's is back. (or should that be spelt Whore in this case)

Canberra wrote:I keep getting "View topic with ignored date".
I guess Nick's own serial pest is putting in his usual crap.
The Peter Hoare of Nick's is back. (or should that be spelt Whore in this case)

Err.....this is a football site.....about people's opinions...

Not a come and love everything Collingwood do site.

Seems you are the serial pest or the serial clown.

thomas wouldve gone to 5. Simple as that. Carlton were commited to a KPP by the looks of things and wouldve taken Ryder. Hawks would've taken Kennedy.

Gutsy move considering our pik 5 wasnt expected to go until after 15. Hope we know what we are doing. Ellis played in the same team as Pendlebury, so we obviously got the chance to watch both play next to each other. Ellis was the one everyone was raving about.

Hawthorn will be laughing. Absolutely laughing.

Too early to call now...its either idiotic or a fantastic piece of forethought.

But what worries me is that Pendlebury is a basketballer and they say he has much to learn of the game. Its a big risk to pick him.

EddieGold wrote:

Canberra wrote:I keep getting "View topic with ignored date".
I guess Nick's own serial pest is putting in his usual crap.
The Peter Hoare of Nick's is back. (or should that be spelt Whore in this case)

Err.....this is a football site.....about people's opinions...

Not a come and love everything Collingwood do site.

Seems you are the serial pest or the serial clown.

**** off idiot.

We know who you are. It's just a matter of time before the mods work it out.

Succinct Eunos. Couldn't have said it better myself.

DaVe86 wrote:thomas wouldve gone to 5. Simple as that. Carlton were commited to a KPP by the looks of things and wouldve taken Ryder. Hawks would've taken Kennedy.

Gutsy move considering our pik 5 wasnt expected to go until after 15. Hope we know what we are doing. Ellis played in the same team as Pendlebury, so we obviously got the chance to watch both play next to each other. Ellis was the one everyone was raving about.

Hawthorn will be laughing. Absolutely laughing.

Too early to call now...its either idiotic or a fantastic piece of forethought.

But what worries me is that Pendlebury is a basketballer and they say he has much to learn of the game. Its a big risk to pick him.

DaVe Great post, when it comes to the draft, you have to play the percentages and go with what the majority think is the best player. Drafting for future upside is fraught with danger but that always seems to be Collingwood's tactic and it rarely works.

Ellis was the one and the worst part is, as you said, we would have got Thomas at 5 as well.

EddieGold wrote:

DaVe86 wrote:thomas wouldve gone to 5. Simple as that. Carlton were commited to a KPP by the looks of things and wouldve taken Ryder. Hawks would've taken Kennedy.

Gutsy move considering our pik 5 wasnt expected to go until after 15. Hope we know what we are doing. Ellis played in the same team as Pendlebury, so we obviously got the chance to watch both play next to each other. Ellis was the one everyone was raving about.

Hawthorn will be laughing. Absolutely laughing.

Too early to call now...its either idiotic or a fantastic piece of forethought.

But what worries me is that Pendlebury is a basketballer and they say he has much to learn of the game. Its a big risk to pick him.

DaVe Great post, when it comes to the draft, you have to play the percentages and go with what the majority think is the best player. Drafting for future upside is fraught with danger but that always seems to be Collingwood's tactic and it rarely works.

Ellis was the one and the worst part is, as you said, we would have got Thomas at 5 as well.

Obviously our recruiters have seen something in Thomas which they rated higher than Ellis.

There are other factors aside from the physical aspects which decide the selections which I think most people are ignoring.

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

only one problem there;

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

im happy to wait and see our new recuiter ( 2nd year ) did a great job last year so im happy to trust his judgement again.

TheGaffer wrote:

EddieGold wrote:

DaVe86 wrote:thomas wouldve gone to 5. Simple as that. Carlton were commited to a KPP by the looks of things and wouldve taken Ryder. Hawks would've taken Kennedy.

Gutsy move considering our pik 5 wasnt expected to go until after 15. Hope we know what we are doing. Ellis played in the same team as Pendlebury, so we obviously got the chance to watch both play next to each other. Ellis was the one everyone was raving about.

Hawthorn will be laughing. Absolutely laughing.

Too early to call now...its either idiotic or a fantastic piece of forethought.

But what worries me is that Pendlebury is a basketballer and they say he has much to learn of the game. Its a big risk to pick him.

DaVe Great post, when it comes to the draft, you have to play the percentages and go with what the majority think is the best player. Drafting for future upside is fraught with danger but that always seems to be Collingwood's tactic and it rarely works.

Ellis was the one and the worst part is, as you said, we would have got Thomas at 5 as well.

Obviously our recruiters have seen something in Thomas which they rated higher than Ellis.

There are other factors aside from the physical aspects which decide the selections which I think most people are ignoring.

Gaffer - the tragedy is we could have got both Ellis and Thomas - oh well as you say time will tell. Go Pies.

Interesting to see Swallow drop so low as well. We probably couldve looked at him with our 3rd round pick, considering many thought of him to be top 10

Yep - but Swallow has no unbelievble upside that no one else can see. So we wouldn't pick someone without unbelievable, supernatural upside.

Who is making our draft selections? The Witches of Eastwick.

EddieGold wrote:Gaffer - the tragedy is we could have got both Ellis and Thomas - oh well as you say time will tell. Go Pies.

That's of this complete and total farce being perpetrated - Hawthorn would've taken Thomas at #3 without question.

We obviously knew that whichever of Ellis and Thomas we didn't take was going at #3, and decided to go with Ellis over Thomas. We KNEW that Ellis was going to be picked at #3 and we still went with Thomas, which implies that if we liked both, we knew that the other was going to be picked up at #3, or at the very least, that Ellis was more likely to slide.

We may have even rated Pendlebury higher than Ellis. Who's to say we didn't get our #1 and #2 rated players (after Murphy) ?

Pendlebury's got the talent to be better than Ellis for sure, and it's not like he can't find the footy or use it well - he's superb in both aspects of the game.

i feel sorry for you vinnie - with the ammount of idiots around this morning you've had to write that about 6 times on various boards!