Past Jake Edwards

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: 37. Jake Edwards

bluegal1983 said:
Bad news for Jake. He is our for the rest of the season with an ankle injury.
Click to expand...
Bad news for Jake.

Is Jacobs a chance to be elevated and debut?
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

Bluebear said:
Bad news for Jake.

Is Jacobs a chance to be elevated and debut?
Click to expand...

Hrrrm. Interesting point.

I haven't watched the Ants in a few weeks so I'm not sure how he is progressing. Can anybody else comment?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: 37. Jake Edwards

recently blue said:
According to the Melbourne board we have offered him a 2 year deal, and Melbourne has offered a 3 year deal.
Click to expand...
Have I missed something?

Are the Dees pushing for a trade?:confused:
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

Jeremias said:
Hope we don't lose him. If given opportunities, will be a player.

If this was true, what would we get for him?
Click to expand...
Given our forward line (our only line with some depth) we would have to entertain it.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #36
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

Bluebear said:
Given our forward line (our only line with some depth) we would have to entertain it.
Click to expand...

Of course it will be entertained, but I wouldn't want him to leave.

If Fev goes, which even though it is unlikely, it is a possibility, you would have to think that Jake would stay. He could play at full forward for us, would be an exciting build for a full forward.
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

Bluebear said:
Given our forward line (our only line with some depth) we would have to entertain it.
Click to expand...

We'd be remiss to trade him for draft picks. Wouldn't take a 2nd rounder for him because he has shown he has talent, whereas whoever we pick up in the second round, who knows what we'll get. A decent youngster is what I'd want for Edwards if a trade were to happen. Still, as you've said we have depth in our forward line. Do we really want to trade away part of that depth in Edwards?
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

blues4flag said:
We'd be remiss to trade him for draft picks. Wouldn't take a 2nd rounder for him because he has shown he has talent, whereas whoever we pick up in the second round, who knows what we'll get. A decent youngster is what I'd want for Edwards if a trade were to happen. Still, as you've said we have depth in our forward line. Do we really want to trade away part of that depth in Edwards?
Click to expand...
I agree. I think we should keep him, but I'm not convinced the original post has landed in the right thread.
Why would the Dees offer a 3 year deal to a guy who hasn't debuted and has been patchy at best in the VFL.........looking for the logic...........:confused:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Re: 37. Jake Edwards

Bluebear said:
I agree. I think we should keep him, but I'm not convinced the original post has landed in the right thread.
Why would the Dees offer a 3 year deal to a guy who hasn't debuted and has been patchy at best in the VFL.........looking for the logic...........:confused:
Click to expand...

It sounds a little ridiculous to me too mate
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

I'm just the messenger... quote from the Dees board, from a Richmond supporter:

29th August 2007, 21:26 #11
RodneyDangerfield
BigFooty Member

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
Club: Richmond

Re: Trade/Draft/Delist
Hope you don't mind me posting guys.
I know a kid at Carlton,Jake Edwards.Loads of ability,injury plagued season.
Carlton offered him another two years,as have Melbourne.Interestingly though melbourne have come again with three.
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

recently blue said:
I'm just the messenger... quote from the Dees board, from a Richmond supporter:

29th August 2007, 21:26 #11
RodneyDangerfield
BigFooty Member

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
Club: Richmond

Re: Trade/Draft/Delist
Hope you don't mind me posting guys.
I know a kid at Carlton,Jake Edwards.Loads of ability,injury plagued season.
Carlton offered him another two years,as have Melbourne.Interestingly though melbourne have come again with three.
Click to expand...
Well that would be amazing if true.
Given that he is out of contract we don't want to lose him for nothing.
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

recently blue said:
I'm just the messenger... quote from the Dees board, from a Richmond supporter:

29th August 2007, 21:26 #11
RodneyDangerfield
BigFooty Member

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
Club: Richmond

Re: Trade/Draft/Delist
Hope you don't mind me posting guys.
I know a kid at Carlton,Jake Edwards.Loads of ability,injury plagued season.
Carlton offered him another two years,as have Melbourne.Interestingly though melbourne have come again with three.
Click to expand...
I actually trust that poster - so what he says would be correct. As he is family friends with Butch and Jake.

I remember before we even drafted Jake - the poster in question told us of our clubs strong interest in him, so if anything, he'd be on the money.
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

recently blue said:
According to the Melbourne board we have offered him a 2 year deal, and Melbourne has offered a 3 year deal.
Click to expand...

If this is true. What would you be expecting to get for him. It would surprise me if u got anything more than a 3rd-4th round pick
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #48
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

TheGeneral said:
Do you think Edwards can play more than five games in the seniors in '08 if he's lucky?

I don't see him playing CHF next year, so where would he fit into our plans next year? :confused:
Click to expand...

It's a difficult one.

Jake is very much like Fisher in build and player type. Fisher is the better player though, and the only thing Jake has over Fish is pace, IMO.

Will be played if a forward gets injured as he is pretty much ready made now.

Really needs to work his butt off, as opportunities won't be plentiful, I wouldn't have thought. Needs to push for selection hard and early, and needs to maintain it throughout the season. One of Jake's negatives is that when he started to look good in the reserves, he must have come under consideration for senior selection, but then sealed his own fate by failing to continue to push.

One thing I have thought about in the past, is trying to make him a defender, able to run out of defense - very much like Michael Pettigrew from Port. The only problem I have with this is that we already have quite a few running defenders. We need big bodied defenders, and Jake doesn't have a big enough body to play in a Key Position defensive role.
 
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

I thought about Edwards being used a CHB or defender earlier this year, but he really doesn't have the size to play down there. Obviously Austin, Waite, Setanta, Bower and Jamison will get a crack at a spot in the backline before Jake.

I don't know where Jake fits into the team ATM. :confused:

Is he contracted past next year?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #50
Re: 37. Jake Edwards

TheGeneral said:
I thought about Edwards being used a CHB or defender earlier this year, but he really doesn't have the size to play down there. Obviously Austin, Waite, Setanta, Bower and Jamison will get a crack at a spot in the backline before Jake.
Click to expand...

His best is up forward, for sure.

I don't know where Jake fits into the team ATM. :confused:
Click to expand...

That's exactly the problem. Jake has a lot of talent, and would be in our 22 if it wasn't for Fisher, who plays the same position as him, only better. He doesn't fit into our team right now as I see it.

Is he contracted past next year?
Click to expand...

His contract actually expired at the end of season 2007, so I assume that we have/are about to re-sign him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top