How fun is it hearing the Bummers whine about being pushed around by the mighty Demons. 

Ha ha ha suck it up Dons... 

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by PaulRB

6 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Sorry wasn't being a pedant. Just meant there's as much impetus from Windy Hill as there is from the chip wrappers !

Didn't take it that way at all Bub.  Your point was well made.  The impetus from Tullamarine (hahaha, now who's the pedant) is, as I said, nothing but flag waving, by a club that has had its reputation ruined.  They still may well face civil action from players, for failing to provide a safe 'workplace'.  Whoosha probably thinks that by going on the front foot,  it gives them some respite from serial dragging through the mud they have endured in the media.

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

12 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Everyone chases everyone - you just don't admit to it until seasons end.

(you are under contract to Demonland - I shouldn't even be replying to your post)

I agree ppl are always after players buti like this development. We're  on the front foot. Done nothing wrong or untoward. We've  expressed an interest. We're entitled to do so, even talk with him if desiring . How delicious to see Essendon squirm. They are so used to things their way .

A bit rich of a club who breaks rules to castigate anyone playing within them.

More pain ahead bombers.....embrace it lol

9 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Didn't take it that way at all Bub.  Your point was well made.  The impetus from Tullamarine (hahaha, now who's the pedant) is, as I said, nothing but flag waving, by a club that has had its reputation ruined.  They still may well face civil action from players, for failing to provide a safe 'workplace'.  Whoosha probably thinks that by going on the front foot,  it gives them some respite from serial dragging through the mud they have endured in the media.

Personally I don't see the term pedant necessarily as an insult. I was having this discussion with my son (the MFC supporter not the throwback RFC supporter) last night and I stand by the origins of the meaning and can imagine being described a pedant as a compliment. There is nothing wrong with being right.

For once I agree with Barrett's 'Sliding Doors':

Essendon

IF...you represent the Bombers and you start bemoaning the    actions of another club for acting "outside the laws of the game" by having a chat with one of your drug-banned players ...

...THEN we have to remind you: for the foreseeable future you  have fully relinquished any right to question the morals and ethics of others.

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

For once I agree with Barrett's 'Sliding Doors':

Essendon

IF...you represent the Bombers and you start bemoaning the    actions of another club for acting "outside the laws of the game" by having a chat with one of your drug-banned players ...

...THEN we have to remind you: for the foreseeable future you  have fully relinquished any right to question the morals and ethics of others.

Bazinga ?

On 6/9/2016 at 11:31 AM, Redleg said:

A no for me as we have bigger needs to chase and Melksham will be another we have next year. 

Given his record at Essendon, I see Melksham as a depth player and not an automatic pick. Also unless he tidies up his disposal and gains some composure when getting the footy, he may a liability and becomes another one of our defenders who turns it over just to often. He may be tough and uncompromising but we have plenty of those guys now and we need quality outside players with great disposal skills.

5 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Given his record at Essendon, I see Melksham as a depth player and not an automatic pick. Also unless he tidies up his disposal and gains some composure when getting the footy, he may a liability and becomes another one of our defenders who turns it over just to often. He may be tough and uncompromising but we have plenty of those guys now and we need quality outside players with great disposal skills.

He's not here as depth Ernest.

5 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

He's not here as depth Ernest.

This is true, but with the development of Wagner and Hunt, Salem and Lumumba most likely slotting into our backline I wonder the position that is best suited to him.

Im intrigued by Hibberd, probably suits us as an upgrade on a Garland type, intercept mark 3rd tall type?

On 6/9/2016 at 11:31 AM, Redleg said:

With our development this year, Melksham is going to have to improve and become a consistently good player, the latter quality being absent at EFC. He was a source of great frustration to many Bomber supporters for his inconsistency and the dumb things he would do. 

Sorry Redleg this post screwed up, I would never try and put words in your mouth.

7 minutes ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

This is true, but with the development of Wagner and Hunt, Salem and Lumumba most likely slotting into our backline I wonder the position that is best suited to him.

Im intrigued by Hibberd, probably suits us as an upgrade on a Garland type, intercept mark 3rd tall type?

Hes an intrigue now of sots definitely.  

We must be looking to develop a very agile and quick mobile style defense. A FB doesnt seem high on our shopping list.. Must be huge faith in Oscar and Snowman then

1 minute ago, Mad_Melbourne said:

This is true, but with the development of Wagner and Hunt, Salem and Lumumba most likely slotting into our backline I wonder the position that is best suited to him.

Im intrigued by Hibberd, probably suits us as an upgrade on a Garland type, intercept mark 3rd tall type?

Not knowing anything about Hibbard I just watched a few clips. So, while Im clearly no expert....on first impression he looked more in the puoppolo mold for me. Dont  get the 3rd defensive tall thing. He looked more Small, chunky with a burst of speed...or was that just the clips?  How tall is he?

Also re Melksham...he could play in many positions imo. and he's still going to be handy,  but I suggest that if the footy department could have their time again knowing what they now know re Hunt and Wagnar they may not make the same choice. But hindsight whilst easy is also a  stupid / painful place to be looking.  Its amazing how far Wagnar, Hunt and Oscar have come isnt it....In half a season! 

 

All this posturing is simply Essendon seeking to inflate his market value.  They'll take every chance they can get between now and November to say how 'valuable' 'talented' 'important' and 'required' Hibberd is in an attempt to get more back in return.

4 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Not knowing anything about Hibbard I just watched a few clips. So, while Im clearly no expert....on first impression he looked more in the puoppolo mold for me. Dont  get the 3rd defensive tall thing. He looked more Small, chunky with a burst of speed...or was that just the clips?  How tall is he?

Also re Melksham...he could play in many positions imo. and he's still going to be handy,  but I suggest that if the footy department could have their time again knowing what they now know re Hunt and Wagnar they may not make the same choice. But hindsight whilst easy is also a  stupid / painful place to be looking.  Its amazing how far Wagnar, Hunt and Oscar have come isnt it....In half a season! 

 

Height: 1.86 m (6'1")

Weight: 86 kg

28 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

Height: 1.86 m (6'1")

Weight: 86 kg

A very tall Puoppolo :-)

1 hour ago, Ricky P said:

Does anyone else think that perhaps pj shouldn't have been so forthright about our interest and that hibberd might resent things being made uncomfortable for him?

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

For anybody who represents the club in the media, they are coached about how to answer questions they might be asked, that if answered in the wrong way could cause trouble for the club or the AFL. There is obviously a particular script by which to answer the common mid-season question "Are you interested in player X?"

Jack Watts pretty much stuck to that script on TFS in relation to Prestia: "I'm not the recruiting manager" "don't know who we're talking to" and "we'd be stupid not to look at someone of the calibre of player X if he remains uncontracted" Player X's current club can't object to that, and it doesn't give the impression that we are flouting any AFL rules. Roos also stuck pretty close to that script when he answered the question about Hibberd, and Essendon had no objection to Roos' answer.

As you've rightly picked up, PJ stepped over that line when he answered the Hibberd question - so much so that he drew an over-reaction from Woosha. And I'm saying that there was no way this was an accident & he slipped up. It was deliberate, for the reasons I've given in an earlier post. His words were very carefully chosen; he doesn't slip up over issues like this. He was trying to provoke an over-reaction and he got it.

And the main problem by taking this approach - as you've also rightly pointed out - is the highly important risk that "Hibberd (and almost certainly Hurley - they'd have to be trying for the double package) might resent things being made uncomfortable for him" at Essendon. The way to manage this risk is to make sure that Hibberd's OK with it, which he obviously is.

PJ's easily smart enough & competent enough to get the desired result while managing reasonable risks. If it was a slip-up, I'd be concerned too. But with PJ, there's no way it's a slip-up. He knows exactly what he's doing.

3 hours ago, Ricky P said:

Does anyone else think that perhaps pj shouldn't have been so forthright about our interest and that hibberd might resent things being made uncomfortable for him?

For mine...PJ is no bunny. Immediately I think....all is maybe not as it seems. Maybe a bigger game at play here. What that is ?  No real idea...but the Hibberd thing is a sympton not the cause (maybe ) 

25 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

A very tall Puoppolo :-)

yes, but by comparison garland is 191 cm (6'3") so i don't see him as a garland replacement who could take a tall, more a running half back flanker. which is ok

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes, but by comparison garland is 191 cm (6'3") so i don't see him as a garland replacement who could take a tall, more a running half back flanker. which is ok

Garland can't take a tall either. Height isn't everything in a defender. 

I'd rather Hibberd than Melksham. A trade?

I don't care if we get Hibberb or not, but if talking to him... or just floating it... gets up the noses of the powers at Drugland then I say talk away.

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by Uncle Fester

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

For once I agree with Barrett's 'Sliding Doors':

Essendon

IF...you represent the Bombers and you start bemoaning the    actions of another club for acting "outside the laws of the game" by having a chat with one of your drug-banned players ...

...THEN we have to remind you: for the foreseeable future you  have fully relinquished any right to question the morals and ethics of others.

I don't think the speccy git understands what a "sliding doors"  scenario actually is,  but he's bang on here! 

49 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Garland can't take a tall either. Height isn't everything in a defender. 

Hibberd in & Garland out makes our back-line sooooo much better. Hibberd is an attacking defender, Garland is too passive and scared/afraid to take the game on. 

Run and delivery out of the backline is still a requirement in my opinion.  Hibberd would be a sizeable improvement (defensively and offensively) on Lumumba, and is younger to boot.  As other's have pointed out, this could release Salem to give us more class and speed in an outside mid role (along with securing a key back, adding pace and outside class to the midfield is the other list need).

 

We'd be improving ball use and movement in two areas of the field. Hibberd would make the team better, and surely that's among the first questions you ask when determining whether we try to acquire a player.