The not drafting or trading for James Stewart

[thompsoc]

In 2012 we had 3 round 1 picks
If we offered up our 2nd round pick 38
we could have snared him.
This is the way I read it but I could be wrong.
So Hine did not rate him below pick 38.

[thompsoc]

Everyone needs to take a big deep breath... He has played one good game. Far too early to makes big calls on anyone Stewart or our players. Won't be able to call the winners or loser from this draft for five years. Till then it is all just opinion.

Well we got 3 1st Rounders instead of 1 if we had Nominated Stewart

Can you please explain this?

[The Boy Who Cried Wolf]

Everyone needs to take a big deep breath... He has played one good game. Far too early to makes big calls on anyone Stewart or our players. Won't be able to call the winners or loser from this draft for five years. Till then it is all just opinion.

Well we got 3 1st Rounders instead of 1 if we had Nominated Stewart

Can you please explain this?

I'm getting deja va You sound like Hal!!!

[HAL]

A lot of people say that about him.

[AN_Inkling]

In 2012 we had 3 round 1 picks
If we offered up our 2nd round pick 38
we could have snared him.
This is the way I read it but I could be wrong.
So Hine did not rate him below pick 38.

Not quite true. I think we traded for pick 39 which became 38. I think we needed to commit pick 42.

Even accepting it as pick 38, I think passing on Stewart, in hindsight, was a fail. Ramsay looks quite good, but another promising tall on our list would have been far more valuable. We already have Broomhead, Kennedy, Sharenberg, Freeman, Langdon as smaller types in the last two years.

However, the reasoning that our pick situation was uncertain because we'd be active at the draft table, I think is a fair one. Maybe we would need to deal those later picks to get the first rounders we wanted. It might have meant missing out on one of Grundy, Broomhead or Kennedy. The selection then becomes more difficult, and I can understand us passing.

[jackcass]

Ive said previously that I think part of the reason Stewart was overlooked was Gault. Both similar types, Stewart maybe just a bit quicker, Gault a more promising ruck option, and Gault was already on the list. Sadly, his 2013 was crueled by OP and some other injury issues. Now he's fit, we may see if there was wisdom in that.

[derkd]

Gets back to my thoery, if in five years time Stewart is still running around at GWS (or another AFL club) and we have discarded one of our three first rounders then you would say 'yes' we missed our chance. however, if all of the above are still playing, then it is a win all round. either way we won't be able to say for a few years.

[think positive]

Grundy is a given, didn't see jimmy Stewart play, but they were only playing the dogs! After watching broomhead the last few, gotta say thank The Lord we got him. Not only can he kick, he can kick straight, and he can kick goals. And with only half the team around him. He's not greedy, or grandstanding. Got a good head on him too decision wise. Said the very first time if saw him play, lock him up and throw away the key.

Kennedy going nicely too. Guess you can't have your cake and eat it.

Unless your sydneeee

[loki04]

I think. Or hope, on what we've seen, that we'd have selected Stewart ahead of Ramsay. That's what would have been needed after all was done. GWS bid with 27, we take Stewart with our next pick at 38.

However, as Hine said, we had a lot of uncertainty about our picks in that draft as we were active at the trade table. Would we have pick 38? We just didn't know. If we'd committed to Stewart would one of our deals have fallen through? Would we have been forced to take Stewart ahead of Broomhead, Grundy or Kennedy? I think there was just too much risk involved.

You can nominate him and then not match a bid if you didnt think he was rated at the pick.

Clearly Hine did NOT rate him, silly not to at least nominate whos to say with us nominating if gws would of bid with 27?

was a stuff up on clubs behalf.

[loki04]

Stewart much higher ceiling then Gault, is more agile, better skilled and quicker.

[jackcass]

I think. Or hope, on what we've seen, that we'd have selected Stewart ahead of Ramsay. That's what would have been needed after all was done. GWS bid with 27, we take Stewart with our next pick at 38.

However, as Hine said, we had a lot of uncertainty about our picks in that draft as we were active at the trade table. Would we have pick 38? We just didn't know. If we'd committed to Stewart would one of our deals have fallen through? Would we have been forced to take Stewart ahead of Broomhead, Grundy or Kennedy? I think there was just too much risk involved.

You can nominate him and then not match a bid if you didnt think he was rated at the pick.

Clearly Hine did NOT rate him, silly not to at least nominate whos to say with us nominating if gws would of bid with 27?

was a stuff up on clubs behalf.

Too early to say its a stuff up however time may prove that to be true.

Club would have gone to the draft with identified needs, clearly Stewart wasn't seen to match a need.

[jackcass]

Ive said previously that I think part of the reason Stewart was overlooked was Gault. Both similar types, Stewart maybe just a bit quicker, Gault a more promising ruck option, and Gault was already on the list. Sadly, his 2013 was crueled by OP and some other injury issues. Now he's fit, we may see if there was wisdom in that.

Possibly. And I didn't see Stewart's game today, but Gault's debut was quite promising.

it was ok. did a couple of good things.

Agree JW, did a couple of nice things and nice for him to get some reward for some good VFL form, but can't imagine he'd have gotten that chance if we had a full list to choose from. Hopefully he can go to the next level in 2015 and demand senior game time on weight of performances.

[jackcass]

I haven't seen enough of Stewart to say, none live, time will tell.

[Presti35]

Come back to this thread in say three years. We passed on Jake Kelly too. Sometimes you have to pass on the FS.

We're about to get Moore, but at what cost?

[thompsoc]

I think. Or hope, on what we've seen, that we'd have selected Stewart ahead of Ramsay. That's what would have been needed after all was done. GWS bid with 27, we take Stewart with our next pick at 38.

However, as Hine said, we had a lot of uncertainty about our picks in that draft as we were active at the trade table. Would we have pick 38? We just didn't know. If we'd committed to Stewart would one of our deals have fallen through? Would we have been forced to take Stewart ahead of Broomhead, Grundy or Kennedy? I think there was just too much risk involved.

You can nominate him and then not match a bid if you didnt think he was rated at the pick.

Clearly Hine did NOT rate him, silly not to at least nominate whos to say with us nominating if gws would of bid with 27?

was a stuff up on clubs behalf.

So what you are saying is that we could have nominated him
as a 2nd round pick and if gws nominated a prior second round pick
we then would have to match it with our 2nd round pick at this exact point.
in this case pick 27.