Player Watch #21: Callum Coleman-Jones - has resumed light training post his Achilles rupture and many months rehabbing post op.

[Shinboner1]

It’s become awkward.

Goldy will play next year. So will Xerri.

Comben is a better forward.

If Edwards is on the precipice next year, then it’s going to get really awkward.

God forbid we develop talent that's worth something at the trade table.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

God forbid we develop talent that's worth something at the trade table.

Don't want to become a feeder club to clubs in contention.

 

[Shinboner1]

Don't want to become a feeder club to clubs in contention.

North has never had players with capital on the trade table and the ruck position is the hardest to fill. I'd be all for North drafting and extra tall every year with the hopes we can offload them for a first rounder in a few years.
Obviously taking the best of the talent for ourselves.

 

[Val Keating]

Probably always going to have at least one of that group injured or out of form. Worst case they are all capable AFL players and one asks to leave.

IMO that’s best case scenario.

 

[Kangaroos techno]

Pretty weak article by derm. On the surface you might think it's odd but if you look in a little you'd understand xerri has been the least of our worries this year. He's played well and goldy has been forced to play forward with larkey. Up to CCJ to force Goldie out.

We don't have the luxury to play 3 talls up top like some other teams do because we have others like Zurhaar and now ziebell to fit in too.

Ideally CCJ comes on this season and we bid goldie fair well at the end of the year.

 

[Andyy]

What's going on with this fella?

Have to say Tarrant has been underwhelming this year so far but the 2nd rounder we got for CCJ is starting to look like a fleecing.

 

[r_boy]

Whoever is responsible for giving up the second rounder - get f'd

 

[the flying ham]

What's going on with this fella?

Have to say Tarrant has been underwhelming this year so far but the 2nd rounder we got for CCJ is starting to look like a fleecing.

4 rounds into a 4 year deal, talk about early crow

 

[Devington]

What's going on with this fella?

Have to say Tarrant has been underwhelming this year so far but the 2nd rounder we got for CCJ is starting to look like a fleecing.

I'm not a great judge but it looks to me like his stamina is quite poor and as a result of increased Ruck time it's exposing some flaws. No idea how what his tank was poor at Richmond or if he perhaps had COVID and that's f'd him perhaps, but right now not only is he not in the team but on the back of both rucks in the seniors having different types of nightmare games I still don't think he deserves a spot in the 22.

Early days though

 

[Le Grille]

4 rounds into a 4 year deal, talk about early crow

True but Personally I can’t see the promise …..yet, certainly acquiescing to throwing in the second rounder is pretty poor in hindsight

 

[LB2Snake]

Where is the Derm article mentioned?

 

[Merlin007]

True but Personally I can’t see the promise …..yet, certainly acquiescing to throwing in the second rounder is pretty poor in hindsight

Whoever is responsible for giving up the second rounder - get f'd

I think we can ease up on the self-flagellation about this trade. I've expressed some doubts about CCJ myself, but (a) it's a bit early to write him off just yet and (b) people get fixated about 'future second rounder', and forget that the draft/trade system is points-based. Yes, we gave up a future second, but we got back picks 42 and 47, which when the dust settled, turned into Paul Curtis and Miller Bergman. Both show a bit of promise to my eye, so let's keep the total picture in mind, and not just the thumbnail about a future second

 

[the flying ham]

True but Personally I can’t see the promise …..yet, certainly acquiescing to throwing in the second rounder is pretty poor in hindsight

4 weeks of hindsight heck me

 

[the flying ham]

I think we can ease up on the self-flagellation about this trade. I've expressed some doubts about CCJ myself, but (a) it's a bit early to write him off just yet and (b) people get fixated about 'future second rounder', and forget that the draft/trade system is points-based. Yes, we gave up a future second, but we got back picks 42 and 47, which when the dust settled, turned into Paul Curtis and Miller Bergman. Both show a bit of promise to my eye, so let's keep the total picture in mind, and not just the thumbnail about a future second

Far more diplomatic than I merls

 

[Samsquanch]

Don't want to become a feeder club to clubs in contention.

The thing is, to get value you have to give value. If we are looking for a trade that benefits us in 3 or 4 years then we give up something that another club needs immediately, when we really can't make do with it (Shwatta for Shagga).

The exceptions of course are when we do trades with Hawthorne and Richmond where we get our arses handed to us at the trade table.

True but Personally I can’t see the promise …..yet, certainly acquiescing to throwing in the second rounder is pretty poor in hindsight

 

[Andyy]

4 rounds into a 4 year deal, talk about early crow

So you think it's early days and he'll come good?

 

[Merlin007]

So you think it's early days and he'll come good?

Yes and let's touch base in 2024

 

[giantroo]

I think we can ease up on the self-flagellation about this trade. I've expressed some doubts about CCJ myself, but (a) it's a bit early to write him off just yet and (b) people get fixated about 'future second rounder', and forget that the draft/trade system is points-based. Yes, we gave up a future second, but we got back picks 42 and 47, which when the dust settled, turned into Paul Curtis and Miller Bergman. Both show a bit of promise to my eye, so let's keep the total picture in mind, and not just the thumbnail about a future second

Good post. We don't make the trades we did and we don't have Curtis or Bergman. As you say, they are looking like very good prospects.

 

[the flying ham]

So you think it's early days and he'll come good?

I dont think it's early days, it is early days

 

[the flying ham]

Good post. We don't make the trades we did and we don't have Curtis or Bergman. As you say, they are looking like very good prospects.


View attachment 1377112

I've been super impressed with both GR, but Bergman was a surprise. He is built like a glass of water but he looks super composed with the pill, lovely skills, decision making and a bit of mongrel. It could be an inspired trade

 

[Zondor]

I think we can ease up on the self-flagellation about this trade. I've expressed some doubts about CCJ myself, but (a) it's a bit early to write him off just yet and (b) people get fixated about 'future second rounder', and forget that the draft/trade system is points-based. Yes, we gave up a future second, but we got back picks 42 and 47, which when the dust settled, turned into Paul Curtis and Miller Bergman. Both show a bit of promise to my eye, so let's keep the total picture in mind, and not just the thumbnail about a future second

LOL but we also gave up pick 40. The CCJ Trade was imbecilic when we should’ve walked him through to the preseason draft. :stern look

 

[Ball Dont Lie]

I think we can ease up on the self-flagellation about this trade. I've expressed some doubts about CCJ myself, but (a) it's a bit early to write him off just yet and (b) people get fixated about 'future second rounder', and forget that the draft/trade system is points-based. Yes, we gave up a future second, but we got back picks 42 and 47, which when the dust settled, turned into Paul Curtis and Miller Bergman. Both show a bit of promise to my eye, so let's keep the total picture in mind, and not just the thumbnail about a future second

If that’s was the actual trade with those picks back and that’s who we got then I am not really sure why anyone here has an issue. We are actually ahead. How many second round picks have we burnt on the draft in the last 8 years.

 

[Sillygit]

I dont think it's early days, it is early days

early days hasn't started yet

 

[Samsquanch]

If that’s was the actual trade with those picks back and that’s who we got then I am not really sure why anyone here has an issue. We are actually ahead. How many second round picks have we burnt on the draft in the last 8 years.

A percentage would be easier to calculate. Lemme see... 100% ?

 

[Zondor]

What I laugh most at the CCJ Trade is we gave up pick 40 to get back pick 42. Nice one Rawling. :stern look