Remove this Banner Ad

Certified Legendary Thread Nathan Freeman Updates

  • Thread starter Thread starter SK_MD_#7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Keg on legs said:
Putting my tin foil hat on for a second...

Could it be that the club has seen his psychological barriers and that he is lacking confidence in his body? So the club has decided to cough up 10k to get the best expert in the world to look over him and confirm that there's nothing holding him back. And hope that allows him to just go out and back himself and his body.....

That could be it.






Of course, it could also be that he's stuffed! ;)
Click to expand...

Or his psychological barriers could be some crap that they made up on bf.

Remember Riewoldt's degenerative knee?
They could have used doctor Nick ( or whoever ) to do his best. Or they could use the best expert they could find to give him the best chance.
 
Nutsngum said:
Yes it does, the rookie list is a 1 year contract under AFL rules. You cannot delist him and then just stick him on the rookie list without paying out his initial contract entirely and then attempting to rookie list him.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, that's just not true. You can do what many clubs do, this year included, and delist a contracted player without paying out their contact. The caveat is that someone has to pay it eventually, so if no-one else picks then up then you have to. Doesn't matter whether it's the rookie list or not, you pay them the amount specified in the contract. The rookie list gives a minimum wage but not a maximum. We did it with (amongst others) Robert Eddy.
 
sunny3193 said:
Okay, thought about this a bit more given people's responses.

I really focused on him in the Round 17 game against Williamstown, particularly the last quarter.

This would have been his third of the four consecutive games in the seniors.

(I was down the Hampton St end and Willy were kicking that way: Sandy were in their end of season play for early draft picks funk rather than let's get ready for finals, and Willy were playing contested, in tight football. A combination guaranteed to produce a shocking spectacle.)

He was playing inside mid and small defender, and given the context of the game - particularly that last quarter, the Sandy backline was seeing a lot of the ball.

He only had 12 possessions for the game (same as Sinclair) but 4 marks and 4 tackles.

I reckon those tackles all happened in the last quarter.

To give you a reference: his tackling is comparable to that of Mav Weller or David Armitage.

I remember thinking that he seemed to enjoy/relish the body contact.

Seemed to get great satisfaction putting someone into the turf.

It was like he had been missing something and now had rediscovered it.

And given it was so scrappy, he spent a great deal of time standing under the rucks and in packs. Not much opportunity for break out flair there.

This was also the game and quarter where his direct opponent ran away from him and kicked the goal.

Look, he wasn't great but he wasn't hopeless either.

He played at the same level as most of his teammates.

But he was clearly playing within himself, which is why I found it so interesting.

I was (positively) surprised by his tackling and his inside game: I had a different impression of him as a player.

And there was absolutely nothing to distinguish his performance from anyone else on the park, and by that I mean his injury history.

To all intents, he was just another player.

Which given his history, is a huge positive.

He played more football in those seven weeks than the two years he had at Collingwood.

He was comfortable in his environment.

He held his own.

And apart from the cautious running, I saw nothing that limited his ability to perform.

My take on this was the club decided to get game time into him, to rebuild his confidence in his body and his ability to prepare for next year.

Whether that was with Sandy or in the Development League was not relevant as there is no questioning his natural skills.

And I think it worked.

I did not see a player second guessing his football, simply one playing to instruction, within a defined limit.

So the trip to Germany should be seen in this context.

I think it more likely the trip is preparatory to removing his running restriction.

To reaffirm the progress to date, and to put in place the programme that will put an unencumbered Nathan Freeman back on the park.
Click to expand...

Just nominated you for longest post of the month!

Good Luck
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

bergholt said:
Sorry mate, that's just not true. You can do what many clubs do, this year included, and delist a contracted player without paying out their contact. The caveat is that someone has to pay it eventually, so if no-one else picks then up then you have to. Doesn't matter whether it's the rookie list or not, you pay them the amount specified in the contract. The rookie list gives a minimum wage but not a maximum. We did it with (amongst others) Robert Eddy.
Click to expand...
Think that only works if there's only one year left on the contract. Freeman's got two.
 
St_Laz said:
When was the last time a 21yo player retired because of persistent hamstring injuries. I can't even think of one? Cyril has issues, but they worked through it now he's elite.

He needs time to work out the best training and processes for his body, this is part of that.
Click to expand...


When was the last time a top 10 pick took 1000+ days to play a single game?

Whichever way it goes, freeman is in uncharted waters.
 
The_Steadier said:
When was the last time a top 10 pick took 1000+ days to play a single game?

Whichever way it goes, freeman is in uncharted waters.
Click to expand...

Some interesting reading of drafting debacles ...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/06/the-joy-of-six-afl-draft-debacles

... including a St Kilda player taken at pick 6 in 1987 that I don't remember at all.

St Kilda’s 1987 selection, Michael Quirk of Myrtleford, faded into such astonishing obscurity that he doesn’t even warrant a Wikipedia entry. The Saints weren’t alone in taking a dud with their first round pick, but they passed over Graeme Wright, Steven Tingay, Brendan Gale and Chris McDermott to select Quirk.
 
The_Steadier said:
When was the last time a top 10 pick took 1000+ days to play a single game?

Whichever way it goes, freeman is in uncharted waters.
Click to expand...

He ceased to become a top 10 pick ,when we traded for him.
Collingwood paid for a new Ferrari.
We paid for a second hand Ferrari with a blown up gearbox that we think we can fix. ( just hope we don't end up throwing an old Holden Trimatic into it).

I tend to compare him with Daniel Menzel , who DID play AFL but then missed three ( nearly 4 ) years.
If we can get Freeman sorted he wont carry the same risk into the future as Menzel does.

Scott Gumbleton played 5 games in his first season, then missed the next two.
I don't see that makes him significantly different to Freeman because he played those 5 games.
( Oh shit Gumby had chronic hamstring problems , they should have sent him to Germany ).
 
bergholt said:
Sorry mate, that's just not true. You can do what many clubs do, this year included, and delist a contracted player without paying out their contact. The caveat is that someone has to pay it eventually, so if no-one else picks then up then you have to. Doesn't matter whether it's the rookie list or not, you pay them the amount specified in the contract. The rookie list gives a minimum wage but not a maximum. We did it with (amongst others) Robert Eddy.
Click to expand...
Dude for the last time, Freeman has TWO years left on his contract and if you think that the club can just decide "oh actually one more year is enough" when his contract specifically says two then you're balls deep in the Essendon medicine cupboard.
 
Nutsngum said:
Dude for the last time, Freeman has TWO years left on his contract and if you think that the club can just decide "oh actually one more year is enough" when his contract specifically says two then you're balls deep in the Essendon medicine cupboard.
Click to expand...

If his salary is included in the cap and he's paid for the two years i don't see the issue.
Anyway it won't happen.
 
Nutsngum said:
Dude for the last time, Freeman has TWO years left on his contract and if you think that the club can just decide "oh actually one more year is enough" when his contract specifically says two then you're balls deep in the Essendon medicine cupboard.
Click to expand...

Of course we have to pay the two years, not sure where I said we didn't. It just doesn't matter how we pay it. It can be senior list or rookie list or lump sum, whatever we decide. So it would be perfectly fine to drop him onto the rookie list. I don't think it'll happen though.
 
bergholt said:
Of course we have to pay the two years, not sure where I said we didn't. It just doesn't matter how we pay it. It can be senior list or rookie list or lump sum, whatever we decide. So it would be perfectly fine to drop him onto the rookie list. I don't think it'll happen though.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely correct on both fronts.
 
dct66 said:
Some interesting reading of drafting debacles ...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/nov/06/the-joy-of-six-afl-draft-debacles

... including a St Kilda player taken at pick 6 in 1987 that I don't remember at all.

St Kilda’s 1987 selection, Michael Quirk of Myrtleford, faded into such astonishing obscurity that he doesn’t even warrant a Wikipedia entry. The Saints weren’t alone in taking a dud with their first round pick, but they passed over Graeme Wright, Steven Tingay, Brendan Gale and Chris McDermott to select Quirk.
Click to expand...
The last paragraph of the last point of that article.... Matt Scharenberg really was on a hiding to nothing ;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Regardless of the mechanics, he'd never make it to the rookie list, and we'd have to pay the difference in wage between any contract he was given and what we've said we'd pay.

Ergo, don't do it THIS year (if he looks like an utter bust next year and the rookie list still exists, maybe).
 
Highlander35 said:
Regardless of the mechanics, he'd never make it to the rookie list, and we'd have to pay the difference in wage between any contract he was given and what we've said we'd pay.

Ergo, don't do it THIS year (if he looks like an utter bust next year and the rookie list still exists, maybe).
Click to expand...

As people have been trying to point out. He can be a rookie on exactly the same contract.

A possible scenario would be:
We de-list him and tell him he's safe and that his contract is still valid.
We draft him as a Rookie and goes onto the Rookie list at the same salary he is currently on.
( do you really think another team would draft him from under us?)

Advantage. We get an extra list space to draft a de-listed free agent.
Disadvantage , we don't have any Rookie spots left.

On the other hand we could ask any DFA's we are interested in to nominate for the Draft and pick them up as a Rookie if they are available . ( Like Mav for example ).
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Dopey BJ said:
Skunk said in his presser he was going to Germany today
Click to expand...

Skunk has dodgey hammies too?

FFS someone sack the conditioning staff!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom