Club Focus North Melbourne 2022 - Logue, Tucker, Sheezel, Wardlaw, George, Harvey, Drury, Free, Howe, Turner

[Taylor]

Spreadsheet created by Lore and Taylor, using data from footywire and AFL Tables. Version above maintained by giantroo.

Spoiler: footywire version

Data from footywire. To check the draft order see the thread here.

Footywire says: "While we make every effort to keep up to date with player contracts, it is likely that our data may at times be out of date, incomplete or inaccurate. If you find any player contracts that need updating, please let us know using our brand new contract submission form."

 

[citizen-erased]

For context the initial 2-3 year timeline was stated by Ben Buckley when Noble was appointed in late 2020.

yeah cool. so really it's this year and next.

a couple of mature key posts & mature mid wouldn't go astray in that time.

 

[freddy mercury]

Their captain reckons they're on the right path, not sure what path that is? Good luck to them, never know what the future holds.

 

[blackshadow]

Their captain reckons they're on the right path, not sure what path that is? Good luck to them, never know what the future holds.

He was sounding like a politician yesterday...

 

[Profop]

when did they consider it started though?
LDU - pick 4 in '17
Thomas - 7 in '18
Trade 8 in '19 that went to become Powell @ 13 in '20
Phillips - 3 in '20
JHF - 1 in '21
Consider also Stephenson as a cheap trade/
Have recruited a lot of highly rated young mids. But without the development, their pick will mean little moving forward

Is it another 2-3 years?

I'm assuming to placate fans they're going to go with the rebuild starting when they hired Noble

 

[blackshadow]

I'm assuming to placate fans they're going to go with the rebuild starting when they hired Noble

That's when the 2-3 year time-frame was stated publicly - see my post above for context.

As a North supporter it feels like ******* decades and we're not even halfway through the second year!

 

[The Filth Wizard]

I'm assuming to placate fans they're going to go with the rebuild starting when they hired Noble

There's a convenient technicality here, I recall the term "aggressive reset" used in Scott's last few years when the plan was to remove our veterans and top up via free agency and the draft. By the time hub life finished and Shaw had handed in his papers it became the full rebuild. Basically it's been a downward spiral since our last prelim final.

 

[GeTrain]

I'm still struggling to see the logic in trading for CCJ. Gave up too much for him, ruck/tall forward is probably the one area North's list isn't horrible. Plus he hasn't even been playing this season

 

[The Nostradamus]

I'm still struggling to see the logic in trading for CCJ. Gave up too much for him, ruck/tall forward is probably the one area North's list isn't horrible. Plus he hasn't even been playing this season

He’s the Goldy replacement

 

[Jeremias]

I'm still struggling to see the logic in trading for CCJ. Gave up too much for him, ruck/tall forward is probably the one area North's list isn't horrible. Plus he hasn't even been playing this season

How is ‘games played this year’ a fair or sensible metric?

He’s a 22 year old ruck/forward. They didn’t bring him in for his impact in 2022.

 

[GeTrain]

He’s the Goldy replacement

There was already Xerri on the list, Comben as a forward that chips in with the ruck and then they drafted Edwards.

 

[The Nostradamus]

There was already Xerri on the list, Comben as a forward that chips in with the ruck and then they drafted Edwards.

edwards wont be ready for a while

CCJ will partner xerri
Comben forward with larkey

 

[eth-dog]

How is ‘games played this year’ a fair or sensible metric?

He’s a 22 year old ruck/forward. They didn’t bring him in for his impact in 2022.

I get the point. They already had 3 talented blokes playing the same role of which you can fit 2, maybe 3 in the side for.

 

[GeTrain]

How is ‘games played this year’ a fair or sensible metric?

He’s a 22 year old ruck/forward. They didn’t bring him in for his impact in 2022.

Because Xerri who is only a few months older was getting games weekly up until his injury. Comben seems like a better 2nd forward than both Xerri or CCJ so you can't play both Xerri and CCJ going forward

 

[The Nostradamus]

Because Xerri who is only a few months older was getting games weekly up until his injury. Comben seems like a better 2nd forward than both Xerri or CCJ so you can't play both Xerri and CCJ going forward

yeah you can

many teams play 2 rucks

dees gawn, jackson
with brown and mcdonald forward

 

[Profop]

yeah you can

many teams play 2 rucks

dees gawn, jackson
with brown and mcdonald forward

Neither CCJ or Xerri have Jackson’s athleticism though and that’s what I think makes it work for the Demons

 

[GeTrain]

Neither CCJ or Xerri have Jackson’s athleticism though and that’s what I think makes it work for the Demons

and McDonald's ability to cover the ground.

 

[Jeremias]

I get the point. They already had 3 talented blokes playing the same role of which you can fit 2, maybe 3 in the side for.

I don't see why it's a bad thing for North to have developing depth in the area. It's not as though Comben, Edwards etc. are certainties to make the grade.

Because Xerri who is only a few months older was getting games weekly up until his injury. Comben seems like a better 2nd forward than both Xerri or CCJ so you can't play both Xerri and CCJ going forward

Comben has played one senior game. He's not exactly a sure thing.

Why can't you play Xerri as #1 ruck and two of Larkey, Comben and CCJ in the forward line?

 

[GeTrain]

I don't see why it's a bad thing for North to have developing depth in the area. It's not as though Comben, Edwards etc. are certainties to make the grade.


Comben has played one senior game. He's not exactly a sure thing.

Why can't you play Xerri as #1 ruck and two of Larkey, Comben and CCJ in the forward line?

They traded what's going to be a pick around 20-25 for CCJ though. You don't use picks that high in the draft when rebuilding on unknown players (9 games in 4 seasons before the trade) in areas where you've got a bit of depth there already.

 

[Jeremias]

They traded what's going to be a pick around 20-25 for CCJ though. You don't use picks that high in the draft when rebuilding on unknown players (9 games in 4 seasons before the trade) in areas where you've got a bit of depth there already.

I agree giving away their 2nd this year doesn't look great. Just not a fan of judging young players - particularly talls - on their impact in their first year at a new club, particularly given it's not the first year he's really being recruited for.

He's seen as a piece for the long term. You can't judge that at this stage.

 

[Yoda_]

I agree giving away their 2nd this year doesn't look great. Just not a fan of judging young players - particularly talls - on their impact in their first year at a new club, particularly given it's not the first year he's really being recruited for.

He's seen as a piece for the long term. You can't judge that at this stage.

I think the judgement has nothing to do with CCJ but everything to do with North Melbourne.

The argument for North Melbourne doesn't equal the argument against. They already had under developed, unproven ruck / forward talent on the list.

 

[Jeremias]

I think the judgement has nothing to do with CCJ but everything to do with North Melbourne.

The argument for North Melbourne doesn't equal the argument against. They already had under developed, unproven ruck / forward talent on the list.

How do you know they're under-developed? Maybe they're developing just fine?

Regardless, see no reason why another is such a bad thing. It's as though people think there's only room to develop one at a time, and that one will detract from the development of another.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Yoda_]

How do you know they're under-developed? Maybe they're developing just fine?

Regardless, see no reason why another is such a bad thing. It's as though people think there's only room to develop one at a time, and that one will detract from the development of another.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

They have 6 players named as ruckman (&/or forward) on there list. 5 of those aged 19 - 23.


The only reasonable point is that they view CCJ as a #1 for next year (when Goldstein realistic,ally retires or moves on) but then where does that leave Comben and Xerri?

 

[The Filth Wizard]

They have 6 players named as ruckman (&/or forward) on there list. 5 of those aged 19 - 23.


The only reasonable point is that they view CCJ as a #1 for next year (when Goldstein realistic,ally retires or moves on) but then where does that leave Comben and Xerri?

I've got a sneaky feeling we don't think Xerri will be with us next year, he's out of contract and pushed for a move already. His preseason was unexpectedly better than normal and even though some think he's been our #1 ruck he's still not really been that great. If St Kilda put up a suitable pick he'd be with them right now and Campbell would probably still be on our rookie list.

Not sure where Comben is coming into play as far as ruck goes, if he's ever done it for us in the VFL it may have been through necessity with Tom Campbell playing some seniors last year but that's a guess.

Jacob Edwards is very very raw. 2024 at the earliest. It's a good shot both Goldstein and Xerri aren't on our list end of this year so we might be in some trouble in this area.

 

[Jeremias]

They have 6 players named as ruckman (&/or forward) on there list. 5 of those aged 19 - 23.

Again, not really seeing an issue here. It's possible that not all will be there next year, and it's probable not all will make it.

They've got options. Developing options. That's not a bad thing.

The only reasonable point is that they view CCJ as a #1 for next year (when Goldstein realistic,ally retires or moves on) but then where does that leave Comben and Xerri?

Or as has been pointed out, some won't be there next year.

The other very plausible explanation is that they don't believe some will be ready to go next year. Again, young talls...that's not unreasonable.

 

[Yoda_]

Again, not really seeing an issue here. It's possible that not all will be there next year, and it's probable not all will make it.

They've got options. Developing options. That's not a bad thing.

Or as has been pointed out, some won't be there next year.

The other very plausible explanation is that they don't believe some will be ready to go next year. Again, young talls...that's not unreasonable.

All the best lists in recent memory have evenly spaced ruck options, it is not just about the guys at AFL level. No point having 3 guys all wanting #1 ruck minutes at VFL level. one will eventually leave wanting opportunities.

Offering 5 years on a hunch when you have your own developing rucks is poor list management, I'm going to agree to disagree with you asa we see this list management decision very differently and that's fine.