Player Watch #5: Caleb Daniel

[LB2Snake]

Maybe when he was preparing his votes, the collingwood coach asked somebody in the box, "Who's that North bloke wearing the helmet" and instead of saying "Xerri" the assistant yelled back "Caleb Daniel".

And that is what's been put in the book.

This makes little sense, but makes me think of Monty Python and the Hold Grail when the guards are all laughing…..”I told him we already got onel” Like they just don’t give a shit.

 

[zoomba23]

He can play, but he’s clever in the way he gets the ball, in not dangerous positions. I also reckon the Pies didn’t mind him getting the ball either, he’s never “breaking zones” with that lack of penetration. Reminds me of Brady’s time in defence, later in his career, opposition were more than happy for him to be the 20 metre target from a kick on or switch.

Dunno. I reckon he helped us a fair bit on the weekend, particularly in the first half. Reckon he even hit a couple of 40m passes. Yes, his power pales in comparison to basically everyone else, but he was the main reason we could get it out of our d50 in the first three quarters imo. Then... well, whatever it was that happened, happened, and all our players transformed into drooling muppets

 

[zoomba23]

Can we let this week prove once and for all that coaches votes are not a strong metric of success?

Yes. I, for one, always defer to Chadwiko's opinion before looking at any of that 'official' fluff

 

[chubbspeterson]

CD's first half vs Coll was terrific. I'll give him that.

I wonder how long the WB deliberated for after we offered pick 25 for him? I'm tipping 10-15 seconds.

Chris Grant was smiling. They knew how desperate we were to get CD and that we'd cave.
I'd love to know who the guy was standing up really advocating for both trades as part of the list/recruiting team, seemed to be very vocal in the room.

 

[chubbspeterson]

First things first, I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive.

Secondly...

View attachment 2325488

We took Whitlock with 27. Our original pick of 25 (that became 29 on the night as you note) was two picks later. Neither Sims nor Jacques are KPDs, so I think it's a fair assumption to make that Whitlock likely would have still been available at 29.

And if he wasn't, I don't think Whitlock is any significantly better than Sims/Jacques in terms of potential.

Tigers would have taken Sims and either picked or shopped the other pick to another team.
Hard to predict what that other team may have picked. Fair to assume Jack Whitlock there at 29 given he went 33.
I would disagree with your last point. Mattlock was more talented than those two imo.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Let's make this simple.

Plausible Alternative Reality-

2024 #2 Finn O'Sullivan
2024 #29 Matt Whitlock or worst case Jack Whitlock (solid reports we tried to engineer getting both)
2025 #2 Gun kid
2025 R3 Daniel - or a kid

Reality-
2024 #2 Finn O'Sullivan
2024 #27 Matt Whit.ock
2024 #29 Daniel
2025 R2 - some useless player because R2 picks won't get you players like Fyfe. Even though he was taken R2

2nd Alternate Reality (assume we make the same F1 trade to get Mattlock, Take Jacklock with Daniel pick)

2024 #2 Finn O'Sullivan
2024 #27 Matt Whitlock
2024 #29 Jack Whitlock (GMan? Shanahan?)
2025 #21 (Tigers R2 currently) ???
2025 R3 Daniel - or a kid

3rd Alternate Reality (assume we slide back in the order from #2 to take a tall)

2024 #2 Finn O'Sullivan
2024 #29 Matt Whitlock or worst case Jack Whitlock (solid reports we tried to engineer getting both)
2025 #5 (Saints), #6 (Swans), #7 (Hawks), #8 (*) - Ludowyke/Josh Lindsay/Curtin?
2025 R3 Daniel - or a kid
2025/2026 R1/R2 (depends on which team assets for sliding back in the order)

 

[speedy]

CD's first half vs Coll was terrific. I'll give him that.

I wonder how long the WB deliberated for after we offered pick 25 for him? I'm tipping 10-15 seconds.

15 minutes. They would have had to compose themselves after the simultaneous fits of laughter.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

15 minutes. They would have had to compose themselves after the simultaneous fits of laughter.

It's the funny way to look at it but the real truth is we offered later picks and the Dogs said 25 or no deal, it's why it was one of the deals done right at the death, because they held out and we had some daft plan to get a premiership winner on each line.

 

[muttley45]

This clown had a big part in the price we paid for him

 

[chubbspeterson]

It's the funny way to look at it but the real truth is we offered later picks and the Dogs said 25 or no deal, it's why it was one of the deals done right at the death, because they held out and we had some daft plan to get a premiership winner on each line.

Yep. We should've "25 is off the table" and moved on. Then the ball is back in their court as to whether they wanted to keep CD and his salary playing VFL. But they knew we were overly keen to get him in.

 

[Arthur Cloke]

It's the funny way to look at it but the real truth is we offered later picks and the Dogs said 25 or no deal, it's why it was one of the deals done right at the death, because they held out and we had some daft plan to get a premiership winner on each line.

In that case, NMFC should've just said "No Deal". The Dogs would've buckled. There's no way the Dogs wanted to hold on to CD.
But as Signor Rawlings said, "It's a good deal. Both teams got what they wanted."

 

[The Nostradamus]

Yep. We should've "25 is off the table" and moved on. Then the ball is back in their court as to whether they wanted to keep CD and his salary playing VFL. But they knew we were overly keen to get him in.

would love to play poker against brady

 

[Ether]

It's the funny way to look at it but the real truth is we offered later picks and the Dogs said 25 or no deal, it's why it was one of the deals done right at the death, because they held out and we had some daft plan to get a premiership winner on each line.

Love the navel gazing about this trade. Around the time, the prevailing view was that it was overs. During preseason, it looked worthwhile. Now back to overs. My view on it is: Dylan Stephens. It's not looking good now, but it still may pay off. We expect that senior players will fit in to our structure straight away, but they often take longer to adapt to changes than younger players. Fingers crossed. He hasn't lost the skills. Just not executing consistently now.

 

[chubbspeterson]

Love the navel gazing about this trade. Around the time, the prevailing view was that it was overs. During preseason, it looked worthwhile. Now back to overs. My view on it is: Dylan Stephens. It's not looking good now, but it still may pay off. We expect that senior players will fit in to our structure straight away, but they often take longer to adapt to changes than younger players. Fingers crossed. He hasn't lost the skills. Just not executing consistently now.

It was always overs in my minds, given he wasn't really best 22 and they potentially wanted his salary gone.
Overpay compared to Macrae and Kennedy deals (late 30's-early 40's picks) and what we could have gotten in that particular draft with a tall I think was better long term for us. This year it wouldn't be a huge deal in this draft.
But agree we need to give him some time to adjust to the new team and getting another distributor so the pressure isn't all on Caleb I think would help him. We can always shift him up the ground and have him kicking inside F50.

I don't think anyone really had an issue with Dylan's trade price (40's pick), it was more the 4 year contract length, but honestly after a while I thought that wouldn't be such a big deal as a squad depth player and gives the younger kids we draft some more development time before they are thrown into the fire.
That's looking better than the Logue and Fisher deals right now.

 

[chubbspeterson]

would love to play poker against brady

 

[koshari]

would love to play poker against brady

He would even struggle with checkors

 

[Samsquanch]

He would even struggle with checkors

You have to admit Kosh, that is the ironic post of the year!

 

[bennymate]

This clown had a big part in the price we paid for him
View attachment 2327551

I would kill for him turnover our list

 

[TruRoo]

This clown had a big part in the price we paid for him
View attachment 2327551

A dud recruit from back in the day having his way with a club champion in Brady, conning us into further dud recruiting.
Wish we had Powers and the Dogs had Rawling.

 

[speedy]

Not one to hastily write off players. I’m writing off this guy. Has no business playing AFL footy in 2025.

 

[speedy]

Pay this guy out and **** him off along with the footy department. Playing one of the most important roles in footy and the footy department settled for this hood ornament.

 

[Dinkers]

Chris Grant was smiling. They knew how desperate we were to get CD and that we'd cave.
I'd love to know who the guy was standing up really advocating for both trades as part of the list/recruiting team, seemed to be very vocal in the room.

We've a nasty little case of CD. Dose of penicillin might be in order.

 

[Ether]

It was always overs in my minds, given he wasn't really best 22 and they potentially wanted his salary gone.
Overpay compared to Macrae and Kennedy deals (late 30's-early 40's picks) and what we could have gotten in that particular draft with a tall I think was better long term for us. This year it wouldn't be a huge deal in this draft.
But agree we need to give him some time to adjust to the new team and getting another distributor so the pressure isn't all on Caleb I think would help him. We can always shift him up the ground and have him kicking inside F50.

I don't think anyone really had an issue with Dylan's trade price (40's pick), it was more the 4 year contract length, but honestly after a while I thought that wouldn't be such a big deal as a squad depth player and gives the younger kids we draft some more development time before they are thrown into the fire.
That's looking better than the Logue and Fisher deals right now.

My DS reference is not about his trade cost / contract length. Plenty of people had him in the "should never play for North again" basket last year, but he is coming good this year.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

My DS reference is not about his trade cost / contract length. Plenty of people had him in the "should never play for North again" basket last year, but he is coming good this year.

What is wrong with Daniel can’t be fixed.

Stephens was soft. He goes in a lot harder now.

 

[Blightys Barrel]

What is wrong with Daniel can’t be fixed.

Stephens was soft. He goes in a lot harder now.

100% correct. Daniel will not get taller, become faster or jump higher. As an AA and Best and Fairest player he excelled with deft kicking, being part of chains and being composed to extract himself from a phone booth with pressure all around.

Clarko, Viney and Rawlings created the mess. They need to see if there is anything salvageable from this incompetence by trying him in some other role outside of defence.

It’s like a school headmaster recruited this experienced Mathematics teacher. Halfway thru the year all the students are averaging a D. Maybe switch him to Art, History or Geography and see what he can do.

Poor Hardeman, FOS, Comden and Archer having to play with this fraud each week in the backline. The guy that was meant to mentor them and lead by example.