Jarrad McVeigh

#101

Some of the stuff being thrown around to why we should get him is ridiculous

in no way do I want him taking up a spot on the list. No fkn way

#102

Probably right which makes the urgency of the situation all the more serious.

#103

McVeigh ? Yeah nah.

#104

Can he kick in after a behind, you know to an actual team mate so they can take a mark and move the ball into attack? If so I donā€™t care how old he isā€¦

#105

Lol, not after he arrives here and has our players in our kick in formations. Heā€™ll look exactly like Goddard and Hurley, good kicks who for ā€œsome reasonā€ look crap taking kick ins.

#106

So the way to catch up to teams like Sydney is to take their discarded rubbish?

#107

Not sure why people are complaining. Our backline of McVeigh, Boyd and Lulumba is going to get the job done.

#108

Man, the off-season seems to start earlier and earlier every year.

#109

Arguably played his best 2 games in the past 3 weeks, not sure why weā€™re jumping up and down about cutting him now. He might do enough, I suspect heā€™ll be rookied.

#110

Wouldnā€™t surprise me if we did rookie him. Itā€™s the sort of mistake weā€™ve made many times over.

A couple of 10 touch VFL games from a full-time footballer should not be enough to get another contract.

#111

Itā€™s a pretty low base when the VFL watchers were saying how much better he was playing last week and yet ended up only having 10 touches for the game.

#112

Lol, yep. The draft would have to be ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā–  thin to be considering keeping Morgan.

#113

Nick Hind from the VFL team would be a smarter choice than McVeigh or Morgan.

#114

Heā€™s missed the best part of 18 months so yes, thatā€™s about as low a base as you can get.

He looks like heā€™s starting to trust his body and use his pace

I donā€™t know if heā€™ll ever be great but he could be something useful.

#115

There would be plenty I would chop first, there are guys we know canā€™t do what we need, heā€™s just a big question mark.

Can fill in those blanks nicely from the rookies though.

#116

Iā€™d say weā€™re abit concerned that in terms of running half back, all our eggs are placed in one basket with McKenna and Gleeson.

Kelly has been so valuable to settle the smalls down back. Iā€™d say weā€™re wanting the same thing with McVeigh.

#117

Redman has apparently been doing well as a HBF, may not be up to their standard but if it allows conor/mcgrath to push up to the wing/midfield might be a better aggregate benefit?

#118

You could make the argument that he is the first to be delisted. We have had two years working with him and his near best performance is 10 possessions in the twos, which would have him at the bottom of the list in terms of pure output. Iā€™m assuming the poor performance is largely based on his continual hamstring issues and the lack of confidence he has in his body. If we re-contract him, rookie or main list, it would have to be based on the ascertain that we now think we can ā€˜manageā€™ his body and there is some upside, otherwise itā€™s a very easy decision.

#119

l look forward to this ti me next year, when the next ā€˜Popsā€™ replacement candidate is poo - pooed.

#120

Redman doesnā€™t seem to get the ball enough as required perhaps (or heā€™s not not knocking Hurley/Gleeson/Kelly out of the best 22)ā€¦ however I like him and think he could make a good, aggressive half backā€¦ I really hope the club have a plan for him.