5 minutes ago, stuie said:

1 year does not a career make. I have faith in him, but you can hardly call his career a "turn around" after last year.

 

And that 1 year was enough for me to say he will have a good career for the Dees. Even though he played injured all year last year he still showed his ball winning ability and midfield class. Lets not forget still only 21. I have no doubt Paul Roos has been a big factor in his career so far.

Just now, dazzledavey36 said:

And that 1 year was enough for me to say he will have a good career for the Dees. Even though he played injured all year last year he still showed his ball winning ability and midfield class. Lets not forget still only 21. I have no doubt Paul Roos has been a big factor in his career so far.

Yes, but it hasn't happened yet, so you can't judge his career at this stage.

 

39 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

These are the careers that Roos has turned around from when they are on the outter or just fringe player.

Ted Richards

Ben Mcglyn 

Josh Kennedy 

Rhys Shaw

Shane Mumford

Darren Jolly

Nick Davis

Bernie Vince

Jeff Garlett

Dom Tyson

That is a pretty good track record. If there are any i have missed please feel free to add more.

Mattner

8 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

But he's not some washed-up fringe player. He was drafted at pick 3 in 2011, and two years later we traded for picks 2, 20 and 72 for Tyson, 9 and 53 - that's not a huge currency drop.

Not washed up but i dont think he would have been in the Giants best 22 in 2014 and had the impact he did with us if he had stayed.

13 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

he is average, which makes it a questionable trade in the first place, but losing a year of his footy prime makes it worse. How is that 'having it both ways'?

If he's an average player, you can't argue that losing him for a season will make a great difference to the team.

If you are arguing that pick #25 was wasted on him, you have no evidence until he plays and we see what he can do for the team. Until then it's just your supposition.

5 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Mattner

Another Paul Roos typical solider who i completely forgot. So underated but he thrived at the swans.

What I think Roos does better than most is that, when recycling these players, he clearly gives them a set role he wants them to play.  They know exactly what is expected of them and, if they fulfill that role, then they play.  

Bugg is someone that will be asked to play a lock down role, either through the middle or across half back.  He will know exactly why the club has traded for him and know that if he does what is asked of him then he can not only play, but thrive as well.

It's too hard to judge what we will get with Dom Tyson as his time in falafelville was marred by injury. He would have been one of the first 'ins' every week had that not been the case. He is all class and the best part is that nobody has seen his best yet. 

This tells me that if he can get a good run at it then the sky is the limit.

One of the best net trade results in recent history IMO.

21 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

Why do people keep saying stuff like this. We stole from next year to use another pick this year. That is not a gain. Weideman is one of the picks so it's not two picks AND Weideman, is it? Also we lost a second round pick this draft which nobody seems to mention. It remains a FACT and will always BE a fact, that the club did not do it's homework in assessing the risk associated with Melksham.

 

 

I see where you are coming from, but i am backing a recruiting team who has hardly missed a beat the last few years to have judge Weiderman higher then whatever our 2016 prospect might have been, if we make the finals or even go close, pick 7 could have been pick 10 next year, which might not seem like much but in the top 10 in the draft, it's pretty significant i reckon, especially with the player we got.

 

and you can't run that off as a FACT, how do you know they didn't do any homework? you don't think it's possible they knew this was a risk and decided he was worth it? Roos clearly rates the kid, as does Goodwin.

1 hour ago, Peter Griffen said:

I see where you are coming from, but i am backing a recruiting team who has hardly missed a beat the last few years to have judge Weiderman higher then whatever our 2016 prospect might have been, if we make the finals or even go close, pick 7 could have been pick 10 next year, which might not seem like much but in the top 10 in the draft, it's pretty significant i reckon, especially with the player we got.

 

and you can't run that off as a FACT, how do you know they didn't do any homework? you don't think it's possible they knew this was a risk and decided he was worth it? Roos clearly rates the kid, as does Goodwin.

fair enough but in the discussion of how good we went in the '15 draft/trade period, it is more accurate to say we are talking about the improvement of a pick and not the gain of a pick. If we happen to go backwards and give up a very high pick then god help us all.

no, I can't see it as a possibility that they saw a 1yr ban as a genuine threat and went ahead anyway. If they did, I'm not thrilled about that either. Maybe it's harsh to expect them to have foreseen this, but they should have just played it safe and steered clear of trading with that scum of a football club.

35 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

fair enough but in the discussion of how good we went in the '15 draft/trade period, it is more accurate to say we are talking about the improvement of a pick and not the gain of a pick. If we happen to go backwards and give up a very high pick then god help us all.

no, I can't see it as a possibility that they saw a 1yr ban as a genuine threat and went ahead anyway. If they did, I'm not thrilled about that either. Maybe it's harsh to expect them to have foreseen this, but they should have just played it safe and steered clear of trading with that scum of a football club.

My opinion is they were probably given advice that even if it was a guilty verdict, the bans would be much less, i think the one year caught a lot of people by surprise, simply because within the AFL boys club, they're used to negotiated outcomes rather than justice.

23 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

What I think Roos does better than most is that, when recycling these players, he clearly gives them a set role he wants them to play.  They know exactly what is expected of them and, if they fulfill that role, then they play.  

Bugg is someone that will be asked to play a lock down role, either through the middle or across half back.  He will know exactly why the club has traded for him and know that if he does what is asked of him then he can not only play, but thrive as well.

This seem to be the assumption but it really wouldn't surprise me to see Bugg a lot more freed up. He was clocking 27-28 possessions in his debut year before having limitations placed upon him as far as his defensive role.

NAB is going to be very interesting to watch, although we all assumed Lumumba was going to dominate after his pre-season performances last year, so best to approach with caution.

On 1/24/2016 at 11:24 AM, mauriesy said:

If he's an average player, you can't argue that losing him for a season will make a great difference to the team.

If you are arguing that pick #25 was wasted on him, you have no evidence until he plays and we see what he can do for the team. Until then it's just your supposition.

The real comparison is what we could have got at 25 in a particularly weak draft with not much talent outside the top 10.

No matter who it was it's doubtful we would have seen much of them at that pick in their first year. So then you look at their untried potential in their second season against a proven, hardened AFL player, who Goodwin and McCarthy have first hand experience of and see unrealised potential. I admit I didn't understand this trade but I'm prepared to admit these two might know a thing or two more than me about players they have coached.

1 hour ago, P-man said:

This seem to be the assumption but it really wouldn't surprise me to see Bugg a lot more freed up. He was clocking 27-28 possessions in his debut year before having limitations placed upon him as far as his defensive role.

He was used this way because he's not a quality ball user.  He's combative and tough.  They played to his strengths and minimised his weaknesses.

On 1/23/2016 at 7:44 AM, dazzledavey36 said:

These are the careers that Roos has turned around from when they are on the outter or just fringe player.

Ted Richards

Ben Mcglyn 

Josh Kennedy 

Rhys Shaw

Shane Mumford

Darren Jolly

Nick Davis

Bernie Vince

Jeff Garlett

Dom Tyson

That is a pretty good track record. If there are any i have missed please feel free to add more.

Pedersen?

Jetta?

24 minutes ago, ProDee said:

He was used this way because he's not a quality ball user.  He's combative and tough.  They played to his strengths and minimised his weaknesses.

He had some reasonable competition in the young midfielder stakes at GWS. He's actually a decent ball user from what I've seen over his career which includes several games at Manuka, and that aligns with the view of Giants fans I've spoken to. DE isn't everything but 76% suggests he's not exactly spraying it everywhere.

56 minutes ago, P-man said:

He had some reasonable competition in the young midfielder stakes at GWS. He's actually a decent ball user from what I've seen over his career which includes several games at Manuka, and that aligns with the view of Giants fans I've spoken to. DE isn't everything but 76% suggests he's not exactly spraying it everywhere.

DE is the worst stat in sport.

He's an ok ball user, not a quality ball user,  which is what I said.  And as you correctly point out, he was well down the pecking order ar GWS.  He spent 6 weeks in the NEAFL in the second half of last year. 

He's your quintessential "good ordinary" player.   He certainly is good depth at worst and could be handy.  Little to get overly excited about, although I recognise that won't stop some 

3 hours ago, ProDee said:

DE is the worst stat in sport.

He's an ok ball user, not a quality ball user,  which is what I said.  And as you correctly point out, he was well down the pecking order ar GWS.  He spent 6 weeks in the NEAFL in the second half of last year. 

He's your quintessential "good ordinary" player.   He certainly is good depth at worst and could be handy.  Little to get overly excited about, although I recognise that won't stop s

On form to date, there's probably not too much to argue with about the bolded statement, except I would add that Bugg does a very solid job week-in week-out.  I'm very happy to have a player with those credentials recruited to Melbourne, especially as Paul Roos has a second to none record of turning "good ordinary players" into "quintessential excellent role players".  Players of this ilk played a significant part in winning a Flag for Sydney.  Time will tell, but I'll back Roos on this one.

On 23/1/2016 at 7:46 PM, Middymalt said:

Yeah and those old timers have probably seen flags at least they have those memory's.

what about the ones in between.

the ones too young to recognise ('64), in a non Melbournefc family.  who have only seen the '87 night flag,  & some finals games,  some great,  some just going thru the motions since mid nineties.

 

 

27 minutes ago, dee-luded said:

whatabouttheonesin between.

theones too youngtorecognise ('64), inanon Melbournefc family.  whohaveonlyseenthe '87night flag,  &somefinals games,  somegreat,  some just going thru themotionssince mid nineties.

 

 

One day when I'm an old man I'll be able to tell my grandkids I saw Melbourne in the 2000 Grand Final and they will be so envious....

On 23 January 2016 at 0:43 AM, Curry & Beer said:

It remains a FACT and will always BE a fact, that the club did not do it's homework in assessing the risk associated with Melksham.

It's not a fact, and even putting it in capitals won't make it a fact. It's an assumption on your part. None of us know what discussion took place around taking Melksham.