Would have to be Gilmour is someone else was to go, he has shown nothing.
Gilly would be at risk as he hasn't cracked a senior game yet although he just scraped into the 2003 draft as he was at the bottom end of the age scale. [/font] [/color] Unlike Archibald who was last taken a pick 81, Gilmour was a early second round selection at pick 21. We would be admitting we stuffed up on a goodish pick if he's delisted after only 2 years. I wouldn't mind giving him one more year.
Of course there's the option of rookie listing him or whoever it is if they are under 21 like we did with dragga.
I'm starting to get sick of this excuse people seem to keep making about Happy Gilmour
It wasn't meant to be an excuse. Gilmour was a speculative choice given his age. We took the risk that his upside over time may be greater than his slightly older peers available at pick 21. Apart from probably Harry Miller, Jed Adcock, Ricky Dyson, Eddie Sansbury, Michael Pettigrew and Sam Fisher not too many kids picked up after Gilmour have done anything either. The main standout after pick 21 is our very own Shane Tuck at pick 76
. If Gilmour survives the cull this year then they'll be no excuses next year.
Going on current form the mistake we made in hindsight was giving up pick 20 instead of pick 21 to the Dogs as part of the Browny trade. We could have snagged Sam Bulter instead who went at 20. But in the end we can't change that now.
