I would have thought pace and skill are the same.

Hate to credit the scum with anything, but unfortunately DS has him covered. Tatts 'n all...

Hate to credit the scum with anything, but unfortunately DS has him covered. Tatts 'n all...

As a player... of course. He might even have EVERYONE covered this year if the Brownlow odds are anything to go by.

But people must be seeing things if they think his pure kicking skill is all that much more amazing than Nathan's. Both are up-and-unders with no booming Sylvia-like distance. I reckon as far as the mechanics go, the end result is pretty similar for both guys. What makes Dane the better player is the sheer amount of touches he gets, and how well he knows his kick. This kind of footy brain may never evolve to that degree with Jones, but I still think there's room for improvement there.

As for pace, you may well be right. But then while Jones isn't blisteringly quick, he's not Woewodin-like.

Swan averages 10+ disposals more per game than Jones, kicks many more goals, is deceptively quick, which seems to escape most people and certainly quicker than Jones, is a very good mark for his size (better than Jones), he's 5cms taller, he reads the play better and is a better decision maker. In fact he does everything better as the following stats show. There are many intangibles about this great game of ours and the waddling Swan is but one of those mysteries.

And no, toughness will never weaken in its importance. The game is faster and harder than its ever been.

I thought Swan had Jones easily covered on every base. Swan has been very good for years and in the past 2 years has been elite.

As for pace, you may well be right. But then while Jones isn't blisteringly quick, he's not Woewodin-like.

In R22, a 32 yo Harvey made Jones look pedestrian....very pedestrian,

Jones will run all day but his pace is ordinary and he needs other strengths to combat that.

In R22, a 32 yo Harvey made Jones look pedestrian....very pedestrian,

To be fair, Harvey has built a career on making blokes look pedestrian, 32 or not.

Everything Hannibal states is on the money. The difference between Swan and Jones is Swan improved his application my understanding is Jones is already well applied. If Jones does go to the Swans he may end up being a star and I will seriously miss him that one game we play on that postage stamp of an oval a year.

To be fair, Harvey has built a career on making blokes look pedestrian, 32 or not.

Agree with that. It only backs my point that I dont think Jones has any pace at AFL level above the average.

Everything Hannibal states is on the money. The difference between Swan and Jones is Swan improved his application my understanding is Jones is already well applied.

Cant fault Jones's application as he gives it his all.

The major difference between Swan and Jones is speed.

Speed of movement (swan has always been deceptively fast in his shuffling style).

Speed with regard to reflexes, speed at which he assesses the best option, speed at which he reads the play.

These are things that likely won't change in Jones, unfortunately.

most of you are missing the point.

No one is saying Jones is close to Swan currently. What was suggested that five years ago (when they were the same age) Swan was crap. Jones at 22 would smash Swan at 22, on ability and perceived upside.

Some players keep improving, a little bit every year until at the age of 27 - 32 they reach their peak. Others hit the peak at 21 and go backwards. Some like Swan just click and go from pedestrian to super player in a few years.

The question is whether Jones has reached his peak. Currently he is a fringe 22 midfielder in every team in the competition and an automatic starting 18 selection in half of them. He is an AFL footballer. He will keep being an AFL footballer. The question is what sort of incremental improvement can we expect going forward?

From what I have observed he is better footballer this year than last, and better than the year before. His decision making keeps improving. McDonald was always fringe up till he was 28+ and then suddenly he became an A grader. This was just from pure incremental improvement.

Compare Jones to McDonald. I would say Jones has

a much better kick

similar to better pace

Similar to better endurance

More weight

McDonald wins on tackles and overhead marking

In theory I would say Jones has more upside than McDonald ever had so Jones could easily end up all Australian with his physical attributes.

Anyway what matters is what is between the ears in terms of desire to improve and coach-ability. Only the footy department will know this and I will back there decision and be disappointed if he leaves. (I was disappointed with Brock and it looks like MFC has got that right so far.)

The question is whether Jones has reached his peak.

I think he has.

And on the the comparison to Macca:

Macca was a tagger and a bloody good one, and when he was allowed to - found the pill at will.

He has a much better footy brain than Jones.

But in the end, it comes down to decision making and execution.

Jones is getting better at the latter but hasn't progressed (and not many do) in the former.

In this thread I feel many have understated Jones' strengths and overstated his weaknesses.

Jones could be a very good to excellent footballer. The issues he has exist mainly in his head. I feel strongly that Bailey has been and is working on those issues, thus the possible impasse with his contract and or role.

I think we will know about whether is still right for the club by the decision he makes or has made.

They said on SEN today, I think it was Race Track Ralphie, that he had spoken to Essendon .

In this thread I feel many have understated Jones' strengths and overstated his weaknesses.

Jones could be a very good to excellent footballer. The issues he has exist mainly in his head. I feel strongly that Bailey has been and is working on those issues, thus the possible impasse with his contract and or role.

I think we will know about whether is still right for the club by the decision he makes or has made.

The issue still is, if Nathan goes are there enough proven in and under players to replace him? I don't think so. Currently our in and unders are Maloney, Scully, Trengove, McKenzie and sometimes Silvia, then it starts to fall away. To get rid of Nathan before we see the development of Bleese, Gysberts, Strauss etc would be a huge mistake. He is still young and has potential to improve as seen this year in his new role as tagger. He deserves club loyalty until he can no longer claim a spot in the best 22. I for one will support him to the hilt.

The issue still is, if Nathan goes are there enough proven in and under players to replace him? I don't think so. Currently our in and unders are Maloney, Scully, Trengove, McKenzie and sometimes Silvia, then it starts to fall away. To get rid of Nathan before we see the development of Bleese, Gysberts, Strauss etc would be a huge mistake. He is still young and has potential to improve as seen this year in his new role as tagger. He deserves club loyalty until he can no longer claim a spot in the best 22. I for one will support him to the hilt.

agree.

They said on SEN today, I think it was Race Track Ralphie, that he had spoken to Essendon .

Apart from picks does Essendon have anything we want that would make for a reasonable trade? I'm scratching my head on that.

Apart from picks does Essendon have anything we want that would make for a reasonable trade? I'm scratching my head on that.

Jake Carlisle, but they can't afford to trade him

He deserves club loyalty until he can no longer claim a spot in the best 22. I for one will support him to the hilt.

If this was our policy, we would never get anything decent for any player we ever traded. We would have waited until McLean and Johnstone were not in our best 22 anymore, and then traded them for late draft picks. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and trade decent players while they're still in your best 22 and have market value, if you think they'll be superfluos to your needs in the near future. Also, it is folly to keep Jones as "insurance" in case Gysberts, Blease, Tapscott etc do not come on; if our young players dont make it, we are stuffed with or without Jones.

I'm not dogmatically for or against trading Jones, but it might be that A] he wants to go, or B] by trading him, we can get a pick or a player who is worth more to us than Jones. We've got a handful of players I'd consider "untouchable", and Jones isn't one of them.

The issue still is, if Nathan goes are there enough proven in and under players to replace him? I don't think so. Currently our in and unders are Maloney, Scully, Trengove, McKenzie and sometimes Silvia, then it starts to fall away. To get rid of Nathan before we see the development of Bleese, Gysberts, Strauss etc would be a huge mistake. He is still young and has potential to improve as seen this year in his new role as tagger. He deserves club loyalty until he can no longer claim a spot in the best 22. I for one will support him to the hilt.

Couldn't have said it better...Yes every man has his price so each player is tradable, but if Nate Goes, who do we get to replace him with. A Draft pick does not do it.

Nate May be slow in the pace dept. but he is Match Hardened at 22y/o so we need him for at least 2 more years.

Couldn't have said it better...Yes every man has his price so each player is tradable, but if Nate Goes, who do we get to replace him with. A Draft pick does not do it.

Nate May be slow in the pace dept. but he is Match Hardened at 22y/o so we need him for at least 2 more years.

The next 2 years aren't the ones to be concerned about.

The 3rd & 4th years are the ones where we'll need all the class players we can get, but we need to get them together Now.

It'll be too late to start to sort out the problems in 2013 - 2015.

Apart from picks does Essendon have anything we want that would make for a reasonable trade? I'm scratching my head on that.

alwyn davey. might be the change he needs. i dont think many will agree. if he dicides to go and they wont give us a decent pick , we could do worse

Couldn't have said it better...Yes every man has his price so each player is tradable, but if Nate Goes, who do we get to replace him with. A Draft pick does not do it.

Nate May be slow in the pace dept. but he is Match Hardened at 22y/o so we need him for at least 2 more years.

and as proven in the case of D. Swan, not saying he is in the same class, but he is still a work in progress and at his age and with his attitude to the game I back him to become an important player at our club for a very long time.

and as proven in the case of D. Swan, not saying he is in the same class, but he is still a work in progress and at his age and with his attitude to the game I back him to become an important player at our club for a very long time.

You could well be right about the 3-4th years, but for me that is too far ahead to plan. 2 Years is about my limit. Jonesy may well be even better in 2 years so then sure you would keep him.

I am more worried about the now. I f he does want to go because he does not see a future here, what are we to replace him with???

A Match Hardened Tank is not so easy to find-so i am worried about this. People can bag Jonesy, but he does a very important job, that will need replacement and very quickly....otherwise our future stars are going to get hurt.

People can bag Jonesy, but he does a very important job, that will need replacement and very quickly....otherwise our future stars are going to get hurt.

I agree with all of this, and I'm sure the club will take it into account when considering any possible trade. There are downsides to trading any decent player, and obviously in Jones' cases it will depend on what we can get in exchange for him, and whether or not it's worth the short term pain that trading him will probably cause.

Apart from this, most of the arguments that have been expoused in this thread have been a bit ridiculous, particularly the notion that we must keep him for insurance in case our youngsters dont come through, and worse still, the idea that we should not trade our players until they are no longer in our best 22, out of some misguided sense of "loyalty". We can thank our lucky stars that the football department don't think this way, or we'd be in a right mess.

Edited September 12, 201014 yr by two sheds jackson

I agree with all of this, and I'm sure the club will take it into account when considering any possible trade. There are downsides to trading any decent player, and obviously in Jones' cases it will depend on what we can get in exchange for him, and whether or not it's worth the short term pain that trading him will probably cause.

Apart from this, most of the arguments that have been expoused in this thread have been a bit ridiculous, particularly the notion that we must keep him for insurance in case our youngsters dont come through, and worse still, the idea that we should not trade our players until they are no longer in our best 22, out of some misguided sense of "loyalty". We can thank our lucky stars that the football department don't think this way, or we'd be in a right mess.

I have not seen the word "insurance' mentioned in this topic until now. We are talking about a 22 year old player who has shown ability to get the footy and a hard edge to the game that few others in the side has. Don't dismiss these abilities lightly, they are few and far between in this team and have been since one R. Grinter. We need Jones to show the way to the young ones who we hope will follow his leadership around the clearances and his general on field endeavours. Still only 22 years he has plenty of upside to offer the MFC. Don't go Nat we still need you!

Edited September 12, 201014 yr by DemonSG

I have not seen the word "insurance' mentioned in this topic until now. We are talking about a 22 year old player who has shown ability to get the footy and a hard edge to the game that few others in the side has. Don't dismiss these abilities lightly, they are few and far between in this team and have been since one R. Grinter. We need Jones to show the way to the young ones who we hope will follow his leadership around the clearances and his general on field endeavours. Still only 22 years he has plenty of upside to offer the MFC. We need Jones!!

While you didn't use the word "insurance", you did say that to trade Jones "before we see the development of Bleese, Gysberts, Strauss etc would be a huge mistake". I took this to mean that it would be a mistake to trade Jones right now, because there is a chance that these players won't be as good as we hope, in which case you think we'll need him.

It's starting to sound like that's not what you meant at all, and that you were actually saying that Jones is an important player for the next couple of years, because we need him to physically protect those guys as they're coming through, and teach them the ropes. My apologies.

You could well be right about the 3-4th years, but for me that is too far ahead to plan. 2 Years is about my limit. Jonesy may well be even better in 2 years so then sure you would keep him.

I am more worried about the now. I f he does want to go because he does not see a future here, what are we to replace him with???

A Match Hardened Tank is not so easy to find-so i am worried about this. People can bag Jonesy, but he does a very important job, that will need replacement and very quickly....otherwise our future stars are going to get hurt.

I'm not worried about next year, we have the list to make the 8 now.

What I want is a premiership list, not a list to take us to where the bulldogs are. I don't want us to plateau in 3 years. I want us to keep growing this list Now, to develop a premiership team.

Those who won't be able to cut it, we have to make those tough decisions.