Think im going to be sick

Lol. The Milk Man. Possibly the last player I'd want us to draft. With ASADA hanging over his head, talk about players being scarred.

Is it really that hard for supporters to take an objective view and put aside this childish 'dislike' for him?

Melksham is the same age as Trengove.

Would you rather give him a list spot ahead of Matt Jones, Bail, McKenzie, Terlich?

All of whom are older, were never rated as highly as him and we've seen how high their ceilings go?

Give me a [censored] break.

Giving a previous top 10 draft pick the opportunity to prove that he can play at a club who has had without out a doubt the most laughable stock of depth players within the AFL makes complete and absolute sense.

Do you think our list managers and coaches sit there saying 'I hate Melksham, he's a dud so I'm not interested'?!

Haha.

What's the worst that could happen anyway?! We give him a two year deal and he doesn't make the grade?! Big [censored] whoop. He provides more than our depth players as is! And the potential gain is much higher than keeping Matt Jones for another two years!

Jesus, it's really not that hard to see why we might be interested in giving him a chance.

Is it really that hard for supporters to take an objective view and put aside this childish 'dislike' for him?

Melksham is the same age as Trengove.

Would you rather give him a list spot ahead of Matt Jones, Bail, McKenzie, Terlich?

All of whom are older, were never rated as highly as him and we've seen how high their ceilings go?

Give me a [censored] break.

Giving a previous top 10 draft pick the opportunity to prove that he can play at a club who has had without out a doubt the most laughable stock of depth players within the AFL makes complete and absolute sense.

Do you think our list managers and coaches sit there saying 'I hate Melksham, he's a dud so I'm not interested'?!

Haha.

What's the worst that could happen anyway?! We give him a two year deal and he doesn't make the grade?! Big [censored] whoop. He provides more than our depth players as is! And the potential gain is much higher than keeping Matt Jones for another two years!

Jesus, it's really not that hard to see why we might be interested in giving him a chance.

With all due respect, Steve, you've based the idea on getting him on the fact he is a previous top 10 pick (which all Melbourne supporters should know means nothing) and that he is, potentially, an 'upgrade' on the list cloggers who shouldn't be getting a game anyway.

He is soft, his disposal isn't great and he's a plodder. Not the greatest mix on the planet.

I hope our FD have their sights set on other players who will truly improve our depth.

I do find it slightly ironic that, for a bloke who bags out someone like Garland, you're happy for us to pursue someone who is nothing more than soft, depth player, but one who may be banned from playing football in the near future. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Lol. The Milk Man. Possibly the last player I'd want us to draft. With ASADA hanging over his head, talk about players being scarred.

i agree. Beggars belief wed be this stupid.

Hopefully just another fluffy piece of imaginative writing ( cant call it journalism )

Lol. The Milk Man. Possibly the last player I'd want us to draft. With ASADA hanging over his head, talk about players being scarred.

Come on..they will get away with it...surely moving to a new environment would be a good thing for the Essendon 34

Just heard Paul Connors Melksham's manager on SEN.

Basically Goodwin wants Melksham, Melksham loves Goodwin from his time at the bombers.

It's either Essendon or Melbourne for Melksham.

If we are "interested", I hope we get him for basically nothing. Can't see him in our best 22 anyway with guys like Petracca, Trengove, Kent and Frost coming back.

With all due respect, Steve, you've based the idea on getting him on the fact he is a previous top 10 pick (which all Melbourne supporters should know means nothing) and that he is, potentially, an 'upgrade' on the list cloggers who shouldn't be getting a game anyway.

He is soft, his disposal isn't great and he's a plodder. Not the greatest mix on the planet.

I hope our FD have their sights set on other players who will truly improve our depth.

I do find it slightly ironic that, for a bloke who bags out someone like Garland, you're happy for us to pursue someone who is nothing more than soft, depth player, but one who may be banned from playing football in the near future. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So Melksham who would be in our best 22 easily, just explain exactly how that doesn't improve our depth FMD

3rd rounder at best.

With all due respect, Steve, you've based the idea on getting him on the fact he is a previous top 10 pick (which all Melbourne supporters should know means nothing) and that he is, potentially, an 'upgrade' on the list cloggers who shouldn't be getting a game anyway.

He is soft, his disposal isn't great and he's a plodder. Not the greatest mix on the planet.

I hope our FD have their sights set on other players who will truly improve our depth.

I do find it slightly ironic that, for a bloke who bags out someone like Garland, you're happy for us to pursue someone who is nothing more than soft, depth player, but one who may be banned from playing football in the near future. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Laughable.

Should do Garlett type deal. That would work for me

If Jake picks Melbourne, it's advantage us in trade negotiations, so at least we won't have to overdo it to get a deal done.

I have no idea on his ability or his competitiveness as an AFL player, though. Enlighten me.

So Melksham who would be in our best 22 easily, just explain exactly how that doesn't improve our depth FMD

Laughable.

You answered your own post, mate.

I'd love to see how you fit him in to a best 22 side for 2016 by the way. It's not possible.

Come on..they will get away with it...surely moving to a new environment would be a good thing for the Essendon 34

They're past the point of no return a lot of these blokes. Much like a lot of our blokes who have moved to other environments (Blease, Sylvia, Moloney, Morton etc) and failed. The Milk Man has been Essendonised, so even if he was a reliable disposer of the football (clue, he's not), he's mentally scarred. Move on.

We should be trying to improve our best 22, not going after depth. That's not how you build lists. We should be attempting to improve our 22. Some of the guys that we already have will become depth if we can improve our 22.

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by AdamFarr

I have serious doubts about Goodwin's judgment if this is true. This is not aiming high!

Did some light reading from 2009. Appears he was a silky outside midfielder with sharp skills and great hands but on the downside he was soft, bit slow and lacking defensively.

That seems to fit in with how a lot of Dons supporters see Jake today.

I'll trade him in but for a cheese sandwich at most.

They're past the point of no return a lot of these blokes. Much like a lot of our blokes who have moved to other environments (Blease, Sylvia, Moloney, Morton etc) and failed. The Milk Man has been Essendonised, so even if he was a reliable disposer of the football (clue, he's not), he's mentally scarred. Move on.

We should be trying to improve our best 22, not going after depth. That's not how you build lists. We should be attempting to improve our 22. Some of the guys that we already have will become depth if we can improve our 22.

I used to actually like your posts and agreed with most of them, but for you not see how Melksham would be in our best 22, that's a bit of a worry.....they have in a way served their time already, any punishment they will be given will consider how the past 2 years or so has affected them all...

So what's you're opinion of Goodwin now??

With all due respect, Steve, you've based the idea on getting him on the fact he is a previous top 10 pick (which all Melbourne supporters should know means nothing) and that he is, potentially, an 'upgrade' on the list cloggers who shouldn't be getting a game anyway.

He is soft, his disposal isn't great and he's a plodder. Not the greatest mix on the planet.

I hope our FD have their sights set on other players who will truly improve our depth.

I do find it slightly ironic that, for a bloke who bags out someone like Garland, you're happy for us to pursue someone who is nothing more than soft, depth player, but one who may be banned from playing football in the near future. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Top 10 draft pick means there's clearly 'something' there. You've got to possess either some sort of talent, some elite attributes/traits to get you there.

He's not potentially an upgrade on the list cloggers. He is a [censored] upgrade on them. How anyone can refute that I have no idea... His season in 2013 shits all over any 'best form' we've seen from Bail, McKenzie or Jones.

It sounds much more to me like supporters gathering like vultures in an excitable way only to be talking about their own personal 'dislike' for him. From what I've been reading on this thread, it sounds as if posters don't want him because of this supposed '[censored] attitude' or 'hot-head' character that he is. Is that really a good basis for forming a view on whether or not a player like him could be at the very least an upgrade on our deplorable depth who we've had to hold onto for far too long?

As for his personal attributes and qualities, again I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.

I see him as someone who is really competitive and has a flair of aggression at the ball and player, he is a really hard runner, he has an ability to hit the scoreboard. I agree he's not an elite kick but I see it as more of a decision making thing than anything else. Similar to Viney.

If we're talking about his draft number I'd say that he possesses qualities that are much more important to the foundation of a side than qualities we've seen with our own past top 10 draft picks who haven't made it. Morton being one. No competitive edge, outside receiver, poor contested player, poor tackler, no elite kick etc.

As for Garland, he's a 28 year old senior figure at our club who's fluctuation in form over the years has been painful to watch. Regardless of the bluey, (which is voted by members of the board), his position in the backline could be filled by someone who provides more than just a 'beat your man' philosophy. The backline is a major problem and I see Garland as someone who in this day and age of football, doesn't provide enough run, intensity, counter attacking play, foot or decision making skills to propel us forward.

Melksham is a young midfielder who even if he was playing at Casey, would absolutely be an upgrade on having someone like Matt Jones as a depth midfielder.

Do you genuinely believe we'd be better off having one of Jones, McKenzie or Bail as a replacement for an injured starting 22?

C'mon.

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

We should be trying to improve our best 22, not going after depth. That's not how you build lists. We should be attempting to improve our 22. Some of the guys that we already have will become depth if we can improve our 22.

TBH this is some of your finest work................

I used to actually like your posts and agreed with most of them, but for you not see how Melksham would be in our best 22, that's a bit of a worry.....they have in a way served their time already, any punishment they will be given will consider how the past 2 years or so has affected them all...

So what's you're opinion of Goodwin now??

I hope Goodwin's got it, but too early to tell. The players appear to really like him though.

I posted my best 22 for next year on another thread the other day. It involves going after A graders in Prestia and Bennell and landing them both. Melksham wouldn't even make the emergencies in that scenario.

Ultimately, I don't want us going after blokes with suspect disposal and decision-making. We've been there, done that.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-trade-period-2015-jake-melksham-to-be-either-at-essendon-or-melbourne-in-2016-20150912-gjl0ka.html

We should be trying to improve our best 22, not going after depth. That's not how you build lists. We should be attempting to improve our 22. Some of the guys that we already have will become depth if we can improve our 22.

When you're the MFC, you need to do both...

We've seen how hard it is to attract A-grade talent to this club. We're not exactly Disney Land up in here.

If you think that off-loading a bunch of dead-wood and not bringing in upgraded talent, (as replacement) that doesn't happen to be A-grade and may not be considered best 22 upon arrival then you're living in fantasy land.

The reality is, on top of targeting serious talent, we need to keep targeting players who will help build depth and help build a competitive environment until it gets to a stage where we won't be delisting 6-8 players a year!

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

Do you genuinely believe we'd be better off having one of Jones, McKenzie or Bail as a replacement for an injured starting 22?

C'mon.

It all depends on what we give up for him and his contract. I don't want to give up a 2nd round pick (25ish) for a depth player, nor do I want to have a depth player on a 3/4 year contract. I just don't see Melksham as offering any more than another fringe player in Grimes.

When you're the MFC, you need to do both...

We've seen how hard it is to attract A-grade talent to this club. We're not exactly Disney Land up in here.

If you think that off-loading a bunch of dead-wood and not bringing in upgraded talent that doesn't happen to be A-grade and may not be considered best 22 upon arrival then you're living in fantasy land.

The reality is, on top of targeting serious talent, we need to keep targeting players who will help build depth and help build a competitive environment until it gets to a stage where we won't be delisting 6-8 players a year!

I'm just not convinced he's much of an upgrade, if at all on blokes like Matt Jones and Bail. It'd be a step backwards in terms of where our list is. He can run, but he's a turn over merchant. Sound familiar?

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by AdamFarr