On 15/10/2015 at 23:45, rpfc said:

Way too much of Dwayne Russell in those highlights.

Say what you will about Melksham - the club identified him a long way out for a particular role and here he is and, again, if he can release Salem into the middle more then that is gold weight.

Totally agree re Derwayne- such an annoying voice and turn of phrase. Hadn't seen any of that before due to my refusal to watch and EssenDrug matches.

  On 15/10/2015 at 23:49, beelzebub said:

My only concern is not IF he can play, as I'll defer to the club on that , it is WHEN he can play and the wisdom of such

He could well be ok as a player. I just have this uneasy feeling we're being played by Essendon.

You too don't trust that club. It is a concern. Still hope they gave put some form of get out clause into the contract.

  On 16/10/2015 at 06:22, demonjamo said:

Jake reminds me a bit of Ted Richards, Roos and his coaching staff did a fairly good job in turning him around after he left Essendon

Welcome Jake

  On 16/10/2015 at 06:59, ProDee said:

In what way ?

Try reading the second sentence as well as the first, ProDee

Edited October 16, 20159 yr by monoccular

  On 16/10/2015 at 13:57, Curry & Beer said:

What's the difference between Jake Melksham and Dom Tyson?

From where I sit, Dom has more talent in close, has better vision with the footy and execution with the footy. I think he is a better footy player than Melksham.

That isn't to say that players like Melksham are not required, but understandably, they don't excite.

We are about to lose a player (hopefully with more than ND25 coming back) who is not as good a player as Melksham.

Hi guys and girls,

I'm a long time reader but first time poster on this forum and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the Melksham deal. For me I think it's a win for the club, Melksham in comparison to Watts statistically speaking are almost identical since they were drafted although Watts is a year older. Jake was once a high draft pick (granted it doesn't mean everything) but it meant Essendon must have rated him highly in his draft year as we did with Watts. And both haven't lived up to their potential yet. So it begs the question would anyone on this forum happily trade out jack watts for anything less than pick 25? Personally I wouldn't and that's why I think Melksham deal was a good get. Granted I will say Watts has a higher ceiling due to his polish but with Melksham we will get someone who will give their all and not afraid to hurt the opposition (fairly) which is what a lot of you have wanted in our team in previous years. No I don't believe he will rack up 25+ touches every week and be top 5 in our B and F but I see a player who will go out and give his all and play the way the game should be played. I believe there is a negative view of Melksham not just because he hasn't quite lived up to his potential but just purely because he is a ugly bastard and he gets under your skin, maybe that's the sort of player we need in our back half to get under the skin of the opposition a bit.

Just my 2 cents and no this post was not made to belittle Watts in anyway, I think Watts will be a star for the MFC.

  On 17/10/2015 at 02:03, GCDee said:

Hi guys and girls,

I'm a long time reader but first time poster on this forum and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the Melksham deal. For me I think it's a win for the club, Melksham in comparison to watts statistically speaking are almost identical since they were drafted although Watts is a year older. Jake was once a high draft pick (granted it doesn't mean everything) but it meant Essendon must have rated him highly in his draft year as we did with Watts. And both haven't lived up to their potential yet. So it begs the question would anyone on this forum happily trade out jack watts for anything less than pick 25? Personally I wouldn't and that's why I think Melksham deal was a good get. Granted I will say watts has a higher ceiling due to his polish but with Melksham we will get someone who will give their all and not afraid to hurt the opposition (fairly) which is what a lot of you have wanted in our team in previous years. No I don't believe he will rack up 25+ touches every week and be top 5 in our B and F but I see a player who will go out and give his all and play the way the game should be played. I believe there is a negative view of Melksham not just because he hasn't quite lived up to his potential but just purely because he is a ugly bastard and he gets under your skin, maybe that's the sort of player we need in our back half to get under the skin of the opposition a bit.

Just my 2 cents and no this post was not made to belittle watts in anyway, I think watts will be a star for the MFC.

Hey Jake, welcome aboard buddy.

It still tickles me that we would have drafted Melksham with Pick 11 in 2009 if he was available, but he went at pick 10 and we took Gysberts. (At least Melksham is still in the AFL.)

PS: I think better development (and the club not being a basketcase) would have enabled us to do more with Gysberts, who despite having Grover arms, seemed to know how to get the footy in traffic.

Studied his highlights today, I think he could be useful if he decides to pursue the half-back role. He has a monster kick and seems pretty accurate as well. If he doesn't, he seems to have some poise in the midfield that could help, wont be the A+ were looking for but he seems to have some class about him and experience with Goodwin can only help.

  On 17/10/2015 at 02:03, GCDee said:

Hi guys and girls,

I'm a long time reader but first time poster on this forum and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the Melksham deal. For me I think it's a win for the club, Melksham in comparison to watts statistically speaking are almost identical since they were drafted although Watts is a year older. Jake was once a high draft pick (granted it doesn't mean everything) but it meant Essendon must have rated him highly in his draft year as we did with Watts. And both haven't lived up to their potential yet. So it begs the question would anyone on this forum happily trade out jack watts for anything less than pick 25? Personally I wouldn't and that's why I think Melksham deal was a good get. Granted I will say watts has a higher ceiling due to his polish but with Melksham we will get someone who will give their all and not afraid to hurt the opposition (fairly) which is what a lot of you have wanted in our team in previous years. No I don't believe he will rack up 25+ touches every week and be top 5 in our B and F but I see a player who will go out and give his all and play the way the game should be played. I believe there is a negative view of Melksham not just because he hasn't quite lived up to his potential but just purely because he is a ugly bastard and he gets under your skin, maybe that's the sort of player we need in our back half to get under the skin of the opposition a bit.

Just my 2 cents and no this post was not made to belittle watts in anyway, I think watts will be a star for the MFC.

I suspect you make way too much sense to post on Demonland GCDee.

At least Melksham can fight

  On 17/10/2015 at 02:49, J VINEY FAN said:

At least Melksham can fight

Jack's a lover.

  On 17/10/2015 at 02:58, Return to Glory said:

Jack's a lover.

More just a f*&ker!

Melksham V Draft pick 25

Draft pick 25

Age; 18

Average games; 58.6 (all picks 21-30)

Pros; Could be a late blooming Nat Fyfe type.

Cons; 2016 = a development year, mainly Casey, some MFC.

First 20 games spent picking up the pace of the game, getting stronger

Best football, perhaps 30 games worth, from 2018 onwards

Super unlikely to be next Nat Fyfe

Melksham

Age; 24

Games; 114 to date.

Pros; Mature, seasoned body, ready to play Rnd 1 2016

We know he can actually play at this level should/could get 4-6 seasons (60-100 games out of him)

Has played good AFL footy

Cons; Hasn't played good AFL footy consistently since 2013

Not Nat Fyfe

WADA

There has to be the assumption that our footy dept is confident that the WADA issues are covered. If this is the case then Melksham is the smarter choice. He can play first game next year and Roos believes he will immediately make us a better side. Pick 25 is a long term lottery ticket that is very unlikely to give us a better return than Jake.

If there is no assumption, you'd have to think both Hawthorn & St Kilda have been incredibly negligent in their offers for Carlisle.

  On 16/10/2015 at 20:46, monoccular said:

Totally agree re Derwayne- such an annoying voice and turn of phrase. Hadn't seen any of that before due to my refusal to watch and EssenDrug matches.

You too don't trust that club. It is a concern. Still hope they gave put some form of get out clause into the contract.

Try reading the second sentence as well as the first, ProDee

Technically there are no sentences in the post as there are no full stops. Do you mean "Welcome Jake"?

  On 17/10/2015 at 03:44, Mach5 said:

If there is no assumption, you'd have to think both Hawthorn & St Kilda have been incredibly negligent in their offers for Carlisle.

or just plain risk-takers

it's a big leap of blind faith to assume that these people have any better crystal balls than anyone outside of wada/cas

now with melksham onboard we are all conflicted on whether wada should be successful

We need competitive footballers with skills - tick

We need runners - tick

We need to improve on the players we delisted - tick

Goodwin has intimate knowledge of this guy's ability. We need to back his assessment.

Posted 17 August 2014 - 08:38 AM

Jake Melksham should/could be a target. Hard and classy. Just what Roos stated we need. Believe he is disgruntled and looking for a fresh start. In his own words he 'plays best when given a role'. Pick 23ish should get the job done. Roos should get into bombers ear about a trade/swap scenario. (After we know the ASADA washout)

JV7 likes this Like This

Did I know something 14 months ago..... Lol

  On 17/10/2015 at 04:21, jnrmac said:

We need competitive footballers with skills - tick

We need runners - tick

We need to improve on the players we delisted - tick

Goodwin has intimate knowledge of this guy's ability. We need to back his assessment.

McCartney worked with him too.

Both worked with him directly. One as his line coach and the other in a development role.

I doubt they would have chased him if they didn't see the upside.

I have done a complete 180.. I think im gonna like this guy. Language warning

Edited October 17, 20159 yr by Petraccattack

I will forever love this guy if he knocks out one Jeremy Howe in the opening 5 minutes in the QB clash.

  On 17/10/2015 at 11:19, dazzledavey36 said:

I will forever love this guy if he knocks out one Jeremy Howe in the opening 5 minutes in the QB clash.

Or scummy.

  On 17/10/2015 at 11:19, dazzledavey36 said:

I will forever love this guy if he knocks out one Jeremy Howe in the opening 5 minutes in the QB clash.

Considering the positions both players are likely to assume, I'd say there's a chance they'll play within a reasonable proximity. I think a 3-4 week ban for a busted nose is well worth it.

  On 17/10/2015 at 11:14, Petraccattack said:

I have done a complete 180.. I think im gonna like this guy. Language warning

Yep love it. Exactly what we need.

  On 17/10/2015 at 04:20, daisycutter said:

or just plain risk-takers

it's a big leap of blind faith to assume that these people have any better crystal balls than anyone outside of wada/cas

now with melksham onboard we are all conflicted on whether wada should be successful

I'm not.

If Milkshake does time then thats fine by me. Hes already accomplished stupidity. When the bans transpire then the MFC brains trust will have too.

The fact he decked Lindsay Thomas means he is more than ok in my eyes.