I think Sam had a very high opinion of himself.....A bit like Gysberts.

and nothing of value was lost

I find his comments amazing. He disagreed with the game plan at the start of the year? At the start of the year Roos was just trying to institute basic behaviours, 'non-negotiables'. So what, Sam didn't agree with the non-negotiables, righto champ then you won't play AFL footy.

He had the perfect opportunity to learn how to PLAY AFL from one of the best minds in the game, and instead he sulked because he didn't get to play the way he wanted to play.

Find it very unlikely his attitude will change before its too late. Bye bye.

He sounds like a [censored]. Bugger off, Blease.

Is tw-at too offensive?

I'm not a fan of Blease, if we get steak knives for him we will have won IMO.

But lets not get too critical. Melbourne's game plan this year led to 6 games where we scored less than 40 points. I don't think we kicked 100 points once. We were the lowest scoring team in the comp.

If you think our game plan is the same as PA or Richmond I think you're wrong. If you think it's purely personnel I think you're wrong.

Sam should have bought in, no doubt. But like him, I don't like our game plan.

Our game plan is set up on building blocks that take time to master. Roos early on in his tenure said we didn't have the basic skill level of AFL which I don't think any here could argue with. Skills first , then defence and then attack - If you build it they will come.

The crucial part is having players that buy in and also possess the skills and character to perform what is asked of them. That's why the draft trade is so important to us. We made some great choices last year and I have full trust that this year will be the same.

Our game plan is set up on building blocks that take time to master. Roos early on in his tenure said we didn't have the basic skill level of AFL which I don't think any here could argue with. Skills first , then defence and then attack - If you build it they will come.

The crucial part is having players that buy in and also possess the skills and character to perform what is asked of them. That's why the draft trade is so important to us. We made some great choices last year and I have full trust that this year will be the same.

"Building Blocks" being the key expression there. Step by step.

I actually think Blease cam across really well in the interview. Sounded much more polished than Burbury from Geelong who followed him.

Yes some of the messages about him not fitting with where the club was going stood out, but he demonstrated a desire to work on his deficiencies and knows what his strengths are. Someone will take a punt on him. I'm actually disappointed it didn't work out with us, because I believe he has the ability to be a game breaker with his goal-kicking and speed. But in today's game, if you can't do the little things you don't get a game.

Yes some of the messages about him not fitting with where the club was going stood out, but he demonstrated a desire to work on his deficiencies and knows what his strengths are. .

Why has it taken him to be delisted for this to happen?

Blease has had many years to work on his weaknesses. Problem is they are so weak his strengths mean very little.

I'm not a fan of Blease, if we get steak knives for him we will have won IMO.

But lets not get too critical. Melbourne's game plan this year led to 6 games where we scored less than 40 points. I don't think we kicked 100 points once. We were the lowest scoring team in the comp.

If you think our game plan is the same as PA or Richmond I think you're wrong. If you think it's purely personnel I think you're wrong.

Sam should have bought in, no doubt. But like him, I don't like our game plan.

Statistics can be bent anyway you like BB. Fact is, we had so few inside 50's because we could not hit the side of a barn under pressure from the backline or through the middle.

Some see this, simplistically, as an overly defensive game plan.

I however see it as shocking skills that continued to gift the ball back to the opposition when most had made the commitment to run into an attacking structure. Only to be burned on the turnover.

EDIT from here. Sammy is a reciever who would have been caught in no mans land playing in this scenario.

Edited October 3, 201410 yr by Left Field

I think Sam had a very high opinion of himself.....A bit like Gysberts.

Is it much wonder, when we spent the first few years he was on the list pumping him up as one of our next supertsars?

Likewise Watts, Gysberts, Tapscott, Scully and Trengove.

We anointed them all before kicking a footy in the red & blue.

Held press conferences for their jumper presentations.

All hype, no substance.

He's had that drilled into him.

Is it much wonder, when we spent the first few years he was on the list pumping him up as one of our next supertsars?

Likewise Watts, Gysberts, Tapscott, Scully and Trengove.

We anointed them all before kicking a footy in the red & blue.

Held press conferences for their jumper presentations.

All hype, no substance.

He's had that drilled into him.

If he's saying "remember my name" in a game of school footy he must already have bought a few tickets on himself.

I'm not a fan of Blease, if we get steak knives for him we will have won IMO.

But lets not get too critical. Melbourne's game plan this year led to 6 games where we scored less than 40 points. I don't think we kicked 100 points once. We were the lowest scoring team in the comp.

If you think our game plan is the same as PA or Richmond I think you're wrong. If you think it's purely personnel I think you're wrong.

Sam should have bought in, no doubt. But like him, I don't like our game plan.

I find it hard to imagine players like Chad wingard and Matt white would have excelled in the current melbourne game style as they have at Port adelaide. That said, while port were ordinary for a few seasons, they still had a lot of early draft picks often injured, along with some good older mentors like kornes and cassisi. The biggest issue for blease has always been consistency. Much of that has been injury or fitness based, however you need to be able to adapt in afl football. as much as he may not have liked the stop start game plan (along with you, me and many others) he hasn't been able to add any more tricks to his game than an average skilled, quick outside receiver. He couldn't develop into a pressuring small forward or defender, he couldn't develop off half back and he certainly ly couldn't impact games in the middle due to his fitness.

I wish sam all the best in getting a new club, While I agree Sam often had little or poor delivery to him in the forward line, he did not seem to battle through that to get the ball. i always was concerned about his lack of defensive pressure, not sure of his stats but he was really very low on the tackle count you would expect someone with a bit of pace to be able to catch a few of the opposition players.

Statistics can be bent anyway you like BB.

People ignore stats when it suits them and use them when it suits them.

I watch a lot of footy. We played boring unadventurous footy in contrast to many other clubs. We scored less in 2014 than 2013 with what most would have said was a much better list - Cross, Tyson, Vince for starters.

I hear that Roos says our game is built on defense and I hear that we've only instituted part of his game plan - building blocks if you like, but I want to see the other half this coming year.

I can understand that someone like Blease didn't like it. I don't support him in that attitude but lets not kid ourselves that our game plan is anythhng but bog ugly and not much fun for the players to play.

Then compare that with someone like PA, NM and Richmond. Even Brissy play attacking footy and with a list that was ravaged with injury and a team that on paper wasn't as good as ours had a much more successful season.

Simply put he can't play 2 way footy.. Very basic .... You attack & defend ....pressure the opposition & cause turnovers... FFS not that hard....

People ignore stats when it suits them and use them when it suits them.

I watch a lot of footy. We played boring unadventurous footy in contrast to many other clubs. We scored less in 2014 than 2013 with what most would have said was a much better list - Cross, Tyson, Vince for starters.

I hear that Roos says our game is built on defense and I hear that we've only instituted part of his game plan - building blocks if you like, but I want to see the other half this coming year.

I can understand that someone like Blease didn't like it. I don't support him in that attitude but lets not kid ourselves that our game plan is anythhng but bog ugly and not much fun for the players to play.

Then compare that with someone like PA, NM and Richmond. Even Brissy play attacking footy and with a list that was ravaged with injury and a team that on paper wasn't as good as ours had a much more successful season.

Do you have anything positive to add to this BB?

Do you have anything positive to add to this BB?

Unless he's talking about Caro he usually doesn't have much positive to say.

They kept referring to him as "delisted" however I thought we were ganging on to him to try and work a trade?

I guessing it shouldn't be a surpeise they were talking up Ashton Hams to a caller this morning and the caller had to advise them Hams was delisted - at the end of last season.

I wonder how many clubs want a player that criticised the coaches game plan... They guy can not defend that's why he doesn't like the game plan.

Unless he's talking about Caro he usually doesn't have much positive to say.

And James Hird lost his job yesterday. Thanks Caro! Your always right and always on the money! Utmost respect........

Don't hate Blease for not buying in to the game plan. Why would you want to play in a defensive team when you can't defend.

If by some miracle he got on Port's list he could probably play some good attacking footy for them. But not doubt at some stage he'd either improve or fall out of the team because Hinkley doesn't tolerate poor efforts.

Anyway, Blease needed some things to go right for him by way of coaching (and some better injury luck). He never got it at Melbourne and might get it at another club.

If we can find a trade it's a great result to get anything for him and get him to another list.

Don't hate Blease for not buying in to the game plan. Why would you want to play in a defensive team when you can't defend.

If by some miracle he got on Port's list he could probably play some good attacking footy for them. But not doubt at some stage he'd either improve or fall out of the team because Hinkley doesn't tolerate poor efforts.

Anyway, Blease needed some things to go right for him by way of coaching (and some better injury luck). He never got it at Melbourne and might get it at another club.

If we can find a trade it's a great result to get anything for him and get him to another list.

except i don't think he was that good offensively anyway

Probably a stupid idea to tell the world he didn't agree with a premiership winning game plan.

But who knows, maybe he'll come good at a team like Port that attack at all costs.