Delisted #28: Ned Cahill - Not offered a new contract, thanks Ned! - 13/8

[Lore]

Contract Status: Not offered another contract
Last Game Played: Round 14, 2021 (omit)
Injury Status: n/a

 

[Ambrosia]

Jeez I’m not his biggest fan but I think the ratings of him in this thread are harsh.

Big positives:
- Good footy iq
- Big tank
- Good finisher
- Good skills

If he can add some mongrel to his game he’d fit in fine on the HFF.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

He should get another season to prove himself only because we'll have enough dead wood to remove at the end of the year as it is. Still, needs to take chances like yesterday with both hands if he's going to make a case for an extension. Plenty of promising draftees have been cut after their initial contract was up.

 

[Summer Nights]

Yeah he’s not shown much and it’s hard to pinpoint where the upside will come from. I’m not saying delist just yet as we can afford to keep him on the list as a backup but I’d be very surprised if he develops into more than an average fringe player.

 

[Kyptastic]

He has something - the goal he kicked was pretty clever. He just doesn't have a lot else going for him at the moment that screams AFL player.

 

[Mikevk123]

I don’t mind Ned. Just looks scared sometimes at the ball but he can kick a goal. If he can get more psychical and lay tackles he will be a gem.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I find it hard to believe he’s 178-179cms!! Can’t be

 

[Milanista28]

Back the boy in, 5 vs the Dees!!!

 

[Vander18]

Back the boy in, 5 vs the Dees!!!

5 goals would require 5 kicks…..that’d be a 400% increase from the Hawthorn game!

 

[ant555]

Still think he will be a midfielder but he is also a bit down that list.

 

[Zach Package]

Think Ned is a classic case of people getting exactly what they asked for and not liking the result.

We didn’t want another Josh Green so we went out and found someone who looks to be just as smart around the goals but has also shown the ability to get up the ground and find it, which is exactly what we need and what the game requires of the position.

Has played 11 total games of senior footy and a couple were wasted stupidly playing him as a small back.

 

[Megabattimus]

Think Ned is a classic case of people getting exactly what they asked for and not liking the result.

We didn’t want another Josh Green so we went out and found someone who looks to be just as smart around the goals but has also shown the ability to get up the ground and find it, which is exactly what we need and what the game requires of the position.

Has played 11 total games of senior footy and a couple were wasted stupidly playing him as a small back.

To be fair, he only played as a half back 'cause Redman wasn't ready yet. Was always a placeholder move that we'll hopefully never have to do again.

On Pixel 3 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lore]

So apparently small forward is his best spot. I guess they know that for real now that they've tried him everywhere else...

Ned Cahill
Stats: 15 disposals, six marks, four tackles

“Ned played as a permanent forward which is probably his best spot. He’s a really smart, crafty forward. He kicked two goals and tackled well so he attacked and defended as well as a small forward. I think he showed his smarts. He was a good player for us.”

VFL player review: Rd 11 v Casey

The stats and assessments of 13 senior-listed Bombers in VFL action on Sunday.

www.essendonfc.com.au

 

[eth-dog]

Personally thought he was best on

 

[Lore]

Personally thought he was best on

I think the VFL player reviews are generally in order of best to worst, in which case he's after about 6 other guys with Cutler BOG for us. But idk.

In general the ones nearer the top do seem to be more glowingly positive anyway.

 

[eth-dog]

I think the VFL player reviews are generally in order of best to worst, in which case he's after about 6 other guys with Cutler BOG for us. But idk.

In general the ones nearer the top do seem to be more glowingly positive anyway.

Thought he was better than Gleeson, Reid and Hird from my viewing, who were all solid but Cahill was really the only dangerous one inside 50 for us consistently.

 

[eth-dog]

Oh and looking at the format in the link it seems that they've ordered it by how many disposals they've had

Cutler 35
Zaka 27
Hird 20
Gleeson/Reid 16
Cahill 15
Ambrose 13
Bryan 11
Durham/Eyre 10
Johnson 8
McBride 3
Phillips 1

 

[Ambrosia]

Think Ned is a classic case of people getting exactly what they asked for and not liking the result.

We didn’t want another Josh Green so we went out and found someone who looks to be just as smart around the goals but has also shown the ability to get up the ground and find it, which is exactly what we need and what the game requires of the position.

Has played 11 total games of senior footy and a couple were wasted stupidly playing him as a small back.

I don’t think Green’s problem was a lack of ability to get up the ground. His biggest problem was that he didn’t have the physical tools to win a contest against any AFL level defenders. At this stage Cahill looks to have the same problem.

 

[Zach Package]

I don’t think Green’s problem was a lack of ability to get up the ground. His biggest problem was that he didn’t have the physical tools to win a contest against any AFL level defenders. At this stage Cahill looks to have the same problem.

I would disagree with that, even though it may have been part of the issue. A purely stay at home small forward that didn’t have a pressure game at all, couldn’t run and averaged just a goal a game despite never getting attention? No thanks.

I still reckon we have something here, the fact that he can find it further up the ground and genuinely cover ground gives him a point of difference. Needs to do serious core work though, wants to tackle but his tackles don’t stick at the moment.

 

[Nicholas61]

I would disagree with that, even though it may have been part of the issue. A purely stay at home small forward that didn’t have a pressure game at all, couldn’t run and averaged just a goal a game despite never getting attention? No thanks.

I still reckon we have something here, the fact that he can find it further up the ground and genuinely cover ground gives him a point of difference. Needs to do serious core work though, wants to tackle but his tackles don’t stick at the moment.

Hit a couple of contests at speed reading the ball nicely that resulted in shots at goal. It is very hard to stop that. Looks like he will make the most of his chances too. Agreed there is a bit to work with.

 

[Lore]

Another one noted for wayward kicking, but otherwise a really good game up forward.

Ned Cahill
Stats: 13 disposals, four marks, three tackles

“Ned played forward and looked really dangerous at times. He probably should’ve kicked two goals to be honest. It was a great forward ball effort by him. He had a shot on goal but missed and then took a really nice contested mark late in the game to go back and have a set shot but unfortunately he missed that too, so if he’d kicked those he would have capped off a really good game.”

VFL player review: Rd 15 v Southport

The stats and assessments of 11 senior-listed Bombers in VFL action against Southport on Sunday.

www.essendonfc.com.au

 

[eth-dog]

Honestly, who's saying these things? He barely got near it.

 

[Lore]

Honestly, who's saying these things? He barely got near it.

Cam Roberts. According to him he got near enough to it but didn’t convert.

 

[eth-dog]

Cam Roberts. According to him he got near enough to it but didn’t convert.

It's a puff piece

 

[TheFrenchCut]

It's a puff piece

A puff piece? From the club's media department? On its own website?

I guess it's true, nothing is sacred.

 

[Lore]

A puff piece? From the club's media department? On its own website?

I guess it's true, nothing is sacred.

It’s not like they’re gonna say stuff to the club’s media people that they wouldn’t say to his face are they? By the same token, if they’re saying that he was great here, I highly doubt they’re roasting him behind closed doors.

I think the VFL coach reviews are still relevant though, as much for what they don’t say as what they actually say. For example, “played a great team game” generally means “didn’t do anything worth commenting on beyond the basics”. They don’t have to say they played an amazing game, and often don’t…