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.

these are my thoughts as well stmj, Re Bail, MJones, & McKenzie, type mids

Garland shouldn't be spoken of in this JMelksham equation, as he is a different type player.. he is more a shutdown player, in a team that has to start learning the correct balance & timing, of shutting down defence & ball winning & switching into offence...

Garlo is probably now, one dimensional,,, the ways he has learn't, at our place.

How can people froth over the prospect of bringing in Riley, Michie, Newton, Magner, Couch, who were all completely unproven at AFL level, whilst denigrating Melksham, who has played some good footy at AFL level in one of the most horrific environments for a sporting team in world history?

Melksham played some great footy in the first half of this year as a half-forward.

Goodwin will have slightly more insight than most here.

That environment that Milkshake hasn't developed in is the same environment that Heppel & others have developed exceptionally well in. He's been around a lot longer than just this drug saga.

Agreed. I'm certainly doubting his ability to contribute positively and consistently.

he would help improve the list onfield, but also this changes to the list, allow the culture around the club to be improved along with the changes; stops the culture here from being so solid, so solidified... so the coaches have a chance to impact our poor culture, via the list changes.

his manager said melbourne haven't tabled a deal, so trade winds is just blowing in the breeze

and here's hoping the winds change direction dramatically !!

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.

4 members of the Match Committee vote on our best & fairest. Still going after Garland hey? You have no idea. 24 years old ain't considered young in the afl btw. There's no more excuses after 114 games, soft & slow as a junior in a poor draft year, the exact 2 traits we already have in abundance!!!!

Probably be 26 before he gets to hit the paddock again

stevethemanjordan, you talk like you know it all, but that's a lot of text with very little actual substance.

Comparing Melksham with the likes of Matt Jones, Bail and Terlich is a [censored] poor argument, in fact it just highlights the type of player Melksham is. Better than those 3, wow, what a game changer.

Melksham is no good, hasn't been any good in his first 6 years and that won't change.

Try aiming a bit higher.

Melksham isn't/wasn't slow. There are knocks on him as a footballer, but he is a really good runner who moves very well.

If we are going for him it will be because we think he is a better footballer than he has shown himself to be at Essendon. He has good attributes that would be help him be part for an AFL team, as he's quick, has good endurance, moves well and is versatile (and only 24). For a team that lacks run, these are attractive attributes.

Remember how much people were laughing at Sydney for taking Rhyce Shaw? His background was very similar.

I think I might vomit.

Urghhhhhhhh.... what is Goodwin thinking

4 years? And people think we'll pick him up cheap like Garlett!! Lol

They'll want a 2nd rounder minimum purely based on us giving a former top 10 pick a 4 year offer!!!

Really wish we had've kept Crossy for another year or 2 instead. He is an upgrade on Cross' 2015 form? I highly doubt it. And I thought Cross was moved on to give more time to youngsters, not a 24 year old who'll be 25 & in his 7th year next year, a veteran who is considered soft and a hack by the majority of Essendon fans (I'd say all their supporters but someone here knows one blind, I mean passionate, supporter that really really rates him apparently - they obviously don't post on Bomberblitz however).

don't take a managers comments spread to the media, as gospel. Paul Connors is just doing his job, saying stuff to up the ante`, to try to get the highest contract.

Melksham isn't/wasn't slow. There are knocks on him as a footballer, but he is a really good runner who moves very well.

If we are going for him it will be because we think he is a better footballer than he has shown himself to be at Essendon. He has good attributes that would be help him be part for an AFL team, as he's quick, has good endurance, moves well and is versatile (and only 24). For a team that lacks run, these are attractive attributes.

Remember how much people were laughing at Sydney for taking Rhyce Shaw? His background was very similar.

was Shaw on the same "supplements "

Just curious

stevethemanjordan, you talk like you know it all, but that's a lot of text with very little actual substance.

Comparing Melksham with the likes of Matt Jones, Bail and Terlich is a [censored] poor argument, in fact it just highlights the type of player Melksham is. Better than those 3, wow, what a game changer.

Melksham is no good, hasn't been any good in his first 6 years and that won't change.

Try aiming a bit higher.

You're going to look awfully silly if we sign him, aren't you...

You're going to look awfully silly if we sign him, aren't you...

not half as much as the club !!

Melksham isn't/wasn't slow. There are knocks on him as a footballer, but he is a really good runner who moves very well.

If we are going for him it will be because we think he is a better footballer than he has shown himself to be at Essendon. He has good attributes that would be help him be part for an AFL team, as he's quick, has good endurance, moves well and is versatile (and only 24). For a team that lacks run, these are attractive attributes.

Remember how much people were laughing at Sydney for taking Rhyce Shaw? His background was very similar.

Best argument 'for' so far...... If we get him really cheap I might swallow this line.

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by thevil1

You're going to look awfully silly if we sign him, aren't you...

Not really, everything I said about Lumumba when he was on the cards turned out to be on the mark.

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.

I had to search back, to find this pearl of tease... I flipped thru it moving thru the post missing the subtleties, until I read the responses further on. then thought, hmmn worth digging back to find this sucker, of a post...

Before I respond, I need to know if this is the same stevethemanjordan who thinks Christian Salem is an ectomorph ?

Yes, regretfully so.

I honestly thought he'd have trouble putting on weight from early photos and clearly I'm wrong.

Is this the same BenHur trying to create a cool and new online identity?

4 members of the Match Committee vote on our best & fairest. Still going after Garland hey? You have no idea. 24 years old ain't considered young in the afl btw. There's no more excuses after 114 games, soft & slow as a junior in a poor draft year, the exact 2 traits we already have in abundance!!!!

You'll also look silly if Melksham ends up at our club.

The other consideration is he hasn't been wallowing at some poor development club; say what you will about the club but Essendon's development program is one of the most lavish in the league. They're not exactly short of a quid.

So if he hasn't exactly "blossomed" after 6 years in this system, when exactly will it happen?

Not really, everything I said about Lumumba when he was on the cards turned out to be on the mark.

Right. Well I'll give Lamumba more than 'one' average year before I judge whether or not he's a good pickup. In fact I might wait until his time is up at the MFC and then reflect on his contribution and whether or not he was a good pickup for us or not.

But good on you for saying that.

Yes, regretfully so.

I honestly thought he'd have trouble putting on weight from early photos and clearly I'm wrong.

You'll also look silly if Melksham ends up at our club.

No sillier than when you are wrong.....

No sillier than when you are wrong.....

Which isn't often, let's be honest.

How can people froth over the prospect of bringing in Riley, Michie, Newton, Magner, Couch, who were all completely unproven at AFL level, whilst denigrating Melksham, who has played some good footy at AFL level in one of the most horrific environments for a sporting team in world history?

Melksham played some great footy in the first half of this year as a half-forward.

Goodwin will have slightly more insight than most here.

Lol. When did people froth over Riley, Michie, Newton, Magner, Couch etc?

Right. Well I'll give Lamumba more than 'one' average year before I judge whether or not he's a good pickup. In fact I might wait until his time is up at the MFC and then reflect on his contribution and whether or not he was a good pickup for us or not.

But good on you for saying that.

It's spelt 'Lumumba', have some respect.

Nice and easy approach to wait wait for the career to be over before making a call.

Why bother arguing in favour of Melksham before we've even got him then?

Melksham isn't/wasn't slow. There are knocks on him as a footballer, but he is a really good runner who moves very well.

If we are going for him it will be because we think he is a better footballer than he has shown himself to be at Essendon. He has good attributes that would be help him be part for an AFL team, as he's quick, has good endurance, moves well and is versatile (and only 24). For a team that lacks run, these are attractive attributes.

Remember how much people were laughing at Sydney for taking Rhyce Shaw? His background was very similar.

yes, & admired Rhys Shaw, except for his family name sake... a very hard worker across the ground, I was rapt when he got a go with the Swans. & he's helped them a Lot.

I know little of Melksham, as I don't like the bummers, so they're a team I've watched least of, over the last few years.

It's spelt 'Lumumba', have some respect.

Nice and easy approach to wait wait for the career to be over before making a call.

Why bother arguing in favour of Melksham before we've even got him then?

Or..... it just makes sense? Considering he'll be on our list for more than... this year?

It's logic big dawg. I agree his year wasn't great. Underwhelming. Does it mean I think he was a bad pickup? Far too early to make that call.

The argument for Melksham is there. Which is why the club are interested bro.

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by stevethemanjordan

The other consideration is he hasn't been wallowing at some poor development club; say what you will about the club but Essendon's development program is one of the most lavish in the league. They're not exactly short of a quid.

So if he hasn't exactly "blossomed" after 6 years in this system, when exactly will it happen?

when Sheedy or Goodwin get him under they're wing.

..... the bummers have gone backwards, since Sheedy was chopped; & a new bummer board installed, Matthew Knights was removed, and that Hird parachuted in...

as have we, since that Craig Hutchison came out of a Wheely Bin, outside one of our MFC peoples homes, (like https://bobthebard.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/jack-in-the-box.jpg), to surprise & embarrass Sheeds, after his secret MFC interview meeting...

as we now Know, Sheeds went to GWS, who are traveling just terribly, after his "too old", ancient ways...... talk about cutting off our Nose, merely to spite our own face.

.

Edited September 12, 20159 yr by dee-luded