Nate Caddy

[DeeSpencer 23,828]

Given he's now been linked to us by a number of media outlets (potentially all just copying from Twomey's original report mind you) I think it's time for his own thread.

Pros:
- 25 goals in 9 games at Coates league level, including 4 with bags of 4 or more and 4 games of 19 or more disposals
- Has a natural presence to the way he hits contests and uses his body
- top 10 in agility
- big wingspan and solid frame
- competes at ground level
- didn't look out of place in the VFL
 

Cons:
- Undersized for a tall forward and his midfield time looked like a worthy experiment more than a sure thing
- Not a huge impact at the national champs
- Field kicking looks a little shaky

 

[DeeSpencer 23,828]

 

 

 

 

 

[adonski 9,747]

Future star or just a tease? 

[JJJ 692]

I watched a lot of TAC Cup and state footy in 2014-15 with a friend who was working for a Melbourne based club as a talent scout. Any comparisons between Caddy and Charlie Curnow are way off.

Caddy doesn’t have the explosiveness nor the ability below the feet like Curnow did back then. I thought Curnow was Kouta II. I also thought Harry McKay was a future all-Australian CHB and that Weitering was overrated. Anyway…

Not to say we shouldn’t draft Caddy, rather the Curnow comp is not a good one in my eyes. 

[Ted Lasso 17,483]

Just now, JJJ said:

I watched a lot of TAC Cup and state footy in 2014-15 with a friend who was working for a Melbourne based club as a talent scout. Any comparisons between Caddy and Charlie Curnow are way off.

Caddy doesn’t have the explosiveness nor the ability below the feet like Curnow did back then. I thought Curnow was Kouta II. I also thought Harry McKay was a future all-Australian CHB and that Weitering was overrated. Anyway…

Not to say we shouldn’t draft Caddy, rather the Curnow comp is not a good one in my eyes. 

A better comparison is Jake Stringer, i don't think we will take Caddy unless he is there at pick 11. 

there is no universe where he's a better player than Riley Sanders 

[Clintosaurus 7,033]

Got a bit of manchild about him. 

[Little Goffy 13,485]

Would seem like a reliable forward presence, willing to compete, all of that.

I'd feel okay if we got him but I suspect we'll miss out on who we really have our eye on because of North's bonus pick. Such is life.

[Dingo 904]

Dyed hair….um.

[spirit of norm smith 13,887]

15 hours ago, Dwight Schrute said:

A better comparison is Jake Stringer, i don't think we will take Caddy unless he is there at pick 11. 

there is no universe where he's a better player than Riley Sanders 

Spot on 

[Deespicable 2,634]

How about the universe where we need a potential key forward more than anything else.

Having watched his highlights, we will take Caddy at No.6 because we can't risk him being taken at 7, 8, 9 or 10.

The only reason we won't is that he may yet go to North at pick 3 - his agility makes him impossible to overlook.

[Ted Lasso 17,483]

7 minutes ago, Deespicable said:

How about the universe where we need a potential key forward more than anything else.

Having watched his highlights, we will take Caddy at No.6 because we can't risk him being taken at 7, 8, 9 or 10.

The only reason we won't is that he may yet go to North at pick 3 - his agility makes him impossible to overlook.

Both Curtin and O'Sullivan can play the key forward role better than Caddy can. he's not a key forward, he doesn't quite fit into any of the traditional player catagories, he's not good enough to be a pure mid, and he's probably a 3rd tall as a forward which we already have covered with Smith/Fritsh/Melksham/McAdam

[Deespicable 2,634]

Curtin is sliding and I reckon Geelong and Essendon will have tricky times deciding whether to take him if the more versatile Caddy ain't available - so he could yet slip to our pick 11.

O'Sullivan looks good - is he good enough for our pick 6? I reckon Adelaide may take him at 10. If not he'd be a great project get for us at 11.

[chook fowler 18,873]

6 minutes ago, Deespicable said:

Curtin is sliding and I reckon Geelong and Essendon will have tricky times deciding whether to take him if the more versatile Caddy ain't available - so he could yet slip to our pick 11.

O'Sullivan looks good - is he good enough for our pick 6? I reckon Adelaide may take him at 10. If not he'd be a great project get for us at 11.

So the Curtin is coming down.

[Ugottobekidding 915]

Caddy looks like he has soft hands and spills loads of marks

[drdrake 3,069]

O'Sullivan if he is there at 6, just gives that key, really Tomlinson, Schache, B Brown, Tmac 2024 will be there last at Melbourne. May and then Petty uncertainly the year after.

You get a key, give them 12 months development at Casey to push for selection the following year.

[Binmans PA 27,374]

Caddy looks a very ordinary kick to me. I don't get the wraps on him.

I'd have Curtin or O'Sullivan at 6 IMO. I'd have O'Sullivan ahead, but that's just me.

JT has a better record with mids than talls (Petty being the exception), so it'll be interesting to see who we rate in the top 10.

[Demonsterative 2,459]

7 minutes ago, Binmans PA said:

Caddy looks a very ordinary kick to me. I don't get the wraps on him.

I'd have Curtin or O'Sullivan at 6 IMO. I'd have O'Sullivan ahead, but that's just me.

JT has a better record with mids than talls (Petty being the exception), so it'll be interesting to see who we rate in the top 10.

I just had a look at JT’s draft history with talls. It is not as bad as some point out. JVR, Petty and LJ are stand out wins. The only big miss I can see is Weid. The rest have been speculative picks used with late draft picks. 
 

Trading in May, BBB, Thommo and Lever and having Max and TMac on the list when he arrived has meant there was little need to draft many talls. 

 

 

[Binmans PA 27,374]

21 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

I just had a look at JT’s draft history with talls. It is not as bad as some point out. JVR, Petty and LJ are stand out wins. The only big miss I can see is Weid. The rest have been speculative picks used with late draft picks. 
 

Trading in May, BBB, Thommo and Lever and having Max and TMac on the list when he arrived has meant there was little need to draft many talls. 

 

 

Good call mate. I guess it's that Weideman pick in a draft with all those talls that makes it seem like a worse record haha.

[durango 1,985]

His highlights are good but you have to see him in the flesh to see what he does when he has not got the ball, his highlights mainly show that he can mark a ball and kick goals from about 40-45 meters.

Also I noticed that his kicking lack the depth required by a CHF.

I need a large sample to say yes or no to recruiting him at 6 or 11.

[Neil Crompton 5,119]

10 minutes ago, durango said:

His highlights are good but you have to see him in the flesh to see what he does when he has not got the ball, his highlights mainly show that he can mark a ball and kick goals from about 40-45 meters.

Also I noticed that his kicking lack the depth required by a CHF.

I need a large sample to say yes or no to recruiting him at 6 or 11.

Are you JT's research assistant?

[DeeSpencer 23,828]

3 hours ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Both Curtin and O'Sullivan can play the key forward role better than Caddy can. he's not a key forward, he doesn't quite fit into any of the traditional player catagories, he's not good enough to be a pure mid, and he's probably a 3rd tall as a forward which we already have covered with Smith/Fritsh/Melksham/McAdam

I’d strongly disagree. If Caddy was listed as 195cm would you question him as a key forward? The way he plays is as a key forward, I’m not worried by a couple of centimetres.

Similarly I don’t see O’Sullivan or Curtin as great aerial players. O’Sullivan especially has great size but I see both of them as much stronger zoning players than they are as aerial contesters. 

[Ted Lasso 17,483]

26 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’d strongly disagree. If Caddy was listed as 195cm would you question him as a key forward? The way he plays is as a key forward, I’m not worried by a couple of centimetres.

Similarly I don’t see O’Sullivan or Curtin as great aerial players. O’Sullivan especially has great size but I see both of them as much stronger zoning players than they are as aerial contesters. 

Yes, because i have seen him play... he's actually a similar height to Jacob Van Rooyen but they're very different players

[Jeremy 791]

25 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Yes, because i have seen him play... he's actually a similar height to Jacob Van Rooyen but they're very different players

Caddy is listed at 193cm at the moment but he’s still growing from reports. JVR around 194 so there’s not much difference there 

[Binmans PA 27,374]

4 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

Caddy is listed at 193cm at the moment but he’s still growing from reports. JVR around 194 so there’s not much difference there 

I think what Dwight is saying is that height is irrelevant. He doesn't think Caddy plays like a KPF. Hence Caddy vs JVR 'they're different players'.

[DeeSpencer 23,828]

55 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Yes, because i have seen him play... he's actually a similar height to Jacob Van Rooyen but they're very different players

So what about his game isn’t key forward if height isn’t your issue? He draws the ball and competes strongly in the air to my eyes