Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #5: Caleb Daniel

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

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.
Stopped reading at "assumption". Because that's the best way to be a recruiter 🙄

And aggressive because it's the internet and lots of people shitting on Caleb unfairly imo.
 
Last edited:
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.
Also, this is a funny way of admitting you were wrong and had NFI what you were saying before.
 
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
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

People seriously acting like we missed out on Nat Fyfe or Dayne Beams with pick 25 😂😂.

Going by our last few second round picks, pick 25 would be lucky to play 20 games.
25 was overs for Daniel. Bottom Line. Forget about who we could’ve picked up instead in the draft. Compare what the Dogs got for Smith and Macrae and Carlton received for Kennedy. We paid overs for a guy who played a chunk of the previous year in the VFL and had been moved from the position we are playing him now. He struggles one on one. His kicking, even though neat at times, lacks penetration. He does not break the lines. He lacks a turn of pace. You don’t cough up 25 for a player of this quality. But we stupidly did. :stern look
 
25 was overs for Daniel. Bottom Line. Forget about who we could’ve picked up instead in the draft. Compare what the Dogs got for Smith and Macrae and Carlton received for Kennedy. We paid overs for a guy who played a chunk of the previous year in the VFL and had been moved from the position we are playing him now. He struggles one on one. His kicking, even though neat at times, lacks penetration. He does not break the lines. He lacks a turn of pace. You don’t cough up 25 for a player of this quality. But we stupidly did. :stern look
If it makes you feel any better, we'd have burned pick 25 on an injury prone flanker that would play 20 games in 6 years before getting delisted.
 
Cal Twomey last week mentioned pick 2 in this year's draft was the equivalent to pick 10 in a normal draft, such how weak this year is.

Need to keep that in mind.
Ahh yes. The old we ****ed up another trade but we will deflect and reason away with some horseshit argument why we made such a bone headed decision to justify our moronic trade. :stern look
 
If it makes you feel any better, we'd have burned pick 25 on an injury prone flanker that would play 20 games in 6 years before getting delisted.
I will repeat. The old we ****ed up another trade but we will deflect and reason away with some horseshit argument why we made such a bone headed decision to justify our moronic trade. :stern look
 
It's the game plan, no doubt.

I don't mind this idea of playing him half forward, but who brings it out of defence? We have too many ordinary ball users back there.

Probably only got a few options.

Sheezel, Kerch, Ford, Scott & Fisher.

With Sheez you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and he isn't the best defender anyway. Same goes for Kerch. Fisher and Scott would be in the same boat too. You are going to lose out with turnovers with Fisher & Scott too.

Ford, obviously is untried down back, but doesn't strike me as a natural one on one defender either.

Powell is one who I think could play the role quite well, but we've been hesitant to move him from the middle of the ground. At least he is a good decision maker and can accumulate the ball.

I hope we pick up one of the state league half backs, we desperately need more options down there.
 
Powell for mine.
would then also allow wilphil to come into the midfield

that combo vs daniel hbf and powell midfield is probably more favourable overall

but the other option that i lean to is swapping sheezel and daniel
 

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

25 was overs for Daniel. Bottom Line. Forget about who we could’ve picked up instead in the draft. Compare what the Dogs got for Smith and Macrae and Carlton received for Kennedy. We paid overs for a guy who played a chunk of the previous year in the VFL and had been moved from the position we are playing him now. He struggles one on one. His kicking, even though neat at times, lacks penetration. He does not break the lines. He lacks a turn of pace. You don’t cough up 25 for a player of this quality. But we stupidly did. :stern look
he calls for the ball 10 metres out from his teammate all the time then appears shocked when it's called 'not 15, play on'.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch #5: Caleb Daniel

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top