Fyfe over Kelly every day of the week.  

I wonder if the Kelly link to Melbourne is nothing more than journos being so used to mentioning them both in the same sentence due to all the Tyson/Salem/Kelly trade analysis.

2 hours ago, S_T said:

Fyfe over Kelly every day of the week.  

I wonder if the Kelly link to Melbourne is nothing more than journos being so used to mentioning them both in the same sentence due to all the Tyson/Salem/Kelly trade analysis.

Plus us taking Hogan as a Priority pick in the mini draft, ahead/instead of Kelly.

 

I was invited to a GWS coterie function a while ago and got on the cans with Kevin Sheedy. We discussed Josh Kelly (more below).

I used to dislike Sheedy until I met him. He's a legend. I've met him a number of times since. My view has not changed. He should've been appointed coach of the MFC in 2008 IMO - all would've been different, but I now don't care because I reckon the club is perfectly positioned for the future and has finally got its act together.

Conversation re Josh Kelly went like this:

Me: 'What do you think of Kelly for Tyson and pick 9?'

Sheedy: 'Stupid deal. Trust me, the Kelly kid is one out of the box - he will be an absolute superstar - we killed this trade.'

Me: 'You said that about Scully too.'

Sheedy: '@&$% you, ya %*+#head!'

Me: 'We're super happy with Tyson and Salem and we need mids desperately, so two for the price of one suits our needs.'

Sheedy: 'Tyson ain't that great and Kelly will be a superstar - glad you're pleased with your club about this because Kelly is out of the box and your club could've had him.'

Me: 'Like we could've had you Sheeeeeds! ?'

Sheeds: 'Yep, exactly. Hate the Melbourne Football Club. Didn't even get invited to the final interview stage. Hopeless $@&%s. They've overlooked me twice now, both as a player and a coach. No wonder they're a freaken basket case!'

We then drank more beer. 

 

 

With all due respect Ron, of course Sheeds would say that about Kelly, especially given he dislikes the MFC. If he's not big enough to let go of a grudge over what happen under a past administration, then IMO it might be us who dodged a bullet. Might be a top fella, but as you say, we are in a good place now. Will be interesting to see if we have a genuine creak at Kelly this time or in a couple of years. 

35 minutes ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Me: 'What do you think of Kelly for Tyson and pick 9?'

Sheedy: 'Stupid deal. Trust me, the Kelly kid is one out of the box - he will be an absolute superstar - we killed this trade.'

 

Have met Sheeds a number of times too 'Ron' and he is good for a chat and good for the game...a likeable larrikin.

...but I don't think he would know much about the relative merits of either player given as I posted recently he was going to sign an autograph for Phil Davis not knowing who he was, the co captain.

Also McCartney was quoted recently as saying Tyson will be an absolute gun...

Hey, we could end up with the 3 of them. Kelly certainly fills a gap in our list.

 

seen more than enough of all three to be really comfy with that deal. Kelly may be the best of the lot but the combined ability of Tyson and Salem is probably a slight win for us imo 

but both sides would be really happy with it 

 

It would be a good bit of fun if we set up some kind of repeat of the Tyson/Salem/Kelly deal.

Trouble is, what does GWS really need, at all, let alone what we have to offer that we'd willingly lose?

Who knows, maybe they'll imagine Spencer as the successor to the great Simmonds, Jolly and Martin tradition of Demons rucks blossoming at other clubs.

 

It is usually regarded as a win/win trade and I tend to agree with it.  It satisfied a need for both clubs at the time in that Melbourne was trying to introduce as much quality to the list as possible, while GWS was reducing their list and concentrating on moving picks down the draft order to maximise their efficiency.  Both teams could have blitzed this deal however with GWS passing on Bontempelli (pick 4) while Melbourne could have collected Cripps (pick 13).

It is what it is, and if Salem can reach his potential, we've done very, very well.

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

It would be a good bit of fun if we set up some kind of repeat of the Tyson/Salem/Kelly deal.

Trouble is, what does GWS really need, at all, let alone what we have to offer that we'd willingly lose?

Who knows, maybe they'll imagine Spencer as the successor to the great Simmonds, Jolly and Martin tradition of Demons rucks blossoming at other clubs.

 

I'm thinking we offer them cam pederson and they give us josh Kelly and Dylan Shiel? 

8 minutes ago, Abe said:

I'm thinking we offer them cam pederson and they give us josh Kelly and Dylan Shiel? 

They'd want Mitch King as part of the deal, and I'm not willing to pay overs.

Why would Kelly want to come to us given that we overlooked him in both the mini-draft and the following year's national draft?  I reckon he'd love proving us wrong playing with GWS and if he moves on, to another Victorian club.

2 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

It is usually regarded as a win/win trade and I tend to agree with it.  It satisfied a need for both clubs at the time in that Melbourne was trying to introduce as much quality to the list as possible, while GWS was reducing their list and concentrating on moving picks down the draft order to maximise their efficiency.  Both teams could have blitzed this deal however with GWS passing on Bontempelli (pick 4) while Melbourne could have collected Cripps (pick 13).

It is what it is, and if Salem can reach his potential, we've done very, very well.

That was a bloody good draft wasn't it?

12 minutes ago, Glenn Molloy said:

Why would Kelly want to come to us given that we overlooked him in both the mini-draft and the following year's national draft?  I reckon he'd love proving us wrong playing with GWS and if he moves on, to another Victorian club.

Well for a start we are an awsome team and will win multiple flags at the greatest ground in the world, as opposed to playing at some two bit ground in the middle of nowhere NSW in front of 5,000 spectators (if lucky) every second week. 

Apart from that, I can't for the life of me answer that question, other than the fact that two of his mates from BGS are there as well.

 

 

1 hour ago, Glenn Molloy said:

Why would Kelly want to come to us given that we overlooked him in both the mini-draft and the following year's national draft?  I reckon he'd love proving us wrong playing with GWS and if he moves on, to another Victorian club.

I'd probably feel that way but then again we picked Hogan over him in the mini draft, he can probably understand that one, and then we traded the pick he was taken at to get the more experienced Tyson and avoid subjecting him to the saviour complex. In many ways we did him a favour. 

10 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I'd probably feel that way but then again we picked Hogan over him in the mini draft, he can probably understand that one, and then we traded the pick he was taken at to get the more experienced Tyson and avoid subjecting him to the saviour complex. In many ways we did him a favour. 

He owes us !!

On 31/01/2017 at 8:35 PM, Ron Burgundy said:

I was invited to a GWS coterie function a while ago and got on the cans with Kevin Sheedy. We discussed Josh Kelly (more below).

I used to dislike Sheedy until I met him. He's a legend. I've met him a number of times since. My view has not changed. He should've been appointed coach of the MFC in 2008 IMO - all would've been different, but I now don't care because I reckon the club is perfectly positioned for the future and has finally got its act together.

Conversation re Josh Kelly went like this:

Me: 'What do you think of Kelly for Tyson and pick 9?'

Sheedy: 'Stupid deal. Trust me, the Kelly kid is one out of the box - he will be an absolute superstar - we killed this trade.'

Me: 'You said that about Scully too.'

Sheedy: '@&$% you, ya %*+#head!'

Me: 'We're super happy with Tyson and Salem and we need mids desperately, so two for the price of one suits our needs.'

Sheedy: 'Tyson ain't that great and Kelly will be a superstar - glad you're pleased with your club about this because Kelly is out of the box and your club could've had him.'

Me: 'Like we could've had you Sheeeeeds! ?'

Sheeds: 'Yep, exactly. Hate the Melbourne Football Club. Didn't even get invited to the final interview stage. Hopeless $@&%s. They've overlooked me twice now, both as a player and a coach. No wonder they're a freaken basket case!'

We then drank more beer.

Forget Kelly, if we had the pick we should have taken Bontempelli or Cripps.

Sheedy isn't wrong about Tyson either.

36 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Forget Kelly, if we had the pick we should have taken Bontempelli or Cripps.

Sheedy isn't wrong about Tyson either.

I reckon Kelly will end up a better player than both those two. Kelly is the only young player in the league I'd take ahead of them. Watch him this year. He will go close to overtaking both of them. Kid is a jet. 

49 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Forget Kelly, if we had the pick we should have taken Bontempelli or Cripps.

Sheedy isn't wrong about Tyson either.

Tyson is underrated by many around here. Kelly has some qualities we need and Bontempelli is a freak but Tyson is still among the best we have and still has improvement left in him. I expect if he gets himself right after this knee issue he will be way up near the top of the B&F again.

6 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Tyson is underrated by many around here. Kelly has some qualities we need and Bontempelli is a freak but Tyson is still among the best we have and still has improvement left in him. I expect if he gets himself right after this knee issue he will be way up near the top of the B&F again.

Tyson is good, but as Sheedy (allegedly) said, he's "not great".

Cripps is probably the best of the three, thankfully we have Oliver who is the closest thing in the AFL to Cripps and those two will most likely be the best two midfielders in the AFL for a decade.

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Forget Kelly, if we had the pick we should have taken Bontempelli or Cripps.

Sheedy isn't wrong about Tyson either.

I don't think Sheedy has been right about anything for almost 15 years. Some Essendon supporters I know didn't rate him that highly when he was at the helm during their premierships. Of course, they think Sheedy underachieved with the lists he built. But since the mid-2000s, he's been a bit of a train wreck. He was finished in his last few years at Essendon and then took a pay cheque up in Sydney. As soon as he left GWS, they blossomed - and even now I'm not sure how good Cameron is. With the unprecedented access to talent they had, they still haven't achieved the ultimate. Is that at Sheedy's feet? Potentially partly.

In regards to Tyson, Dom will be a very, very good player. He still has a gear or two to go and he averaged 25 possessions in 2015. He has also played 71 games, so in 2017/2018, he is due to take off. If he can improve again on his 2016 and average say 28-29 possessions, he'll be in the elite category of the competition. Like Oliver, he's a ball magnet extractor, who when unhampered by injury, is one of our most important players.

I said a few years ago that Tyson would make some of our other midfielders look good, and still am of that opinion.

He's almost got a bit of Jimmy Bartel about him.  Very selfless, can bring other players in to the game.

I rarely go the early crow, but I've seen enough of Dom to know he will be a regular best player for us for many years.

17 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

It is usually regarded as a win/win trade and I tend to agree with it.  It satisfied a need for both clubs at the time in that Melbourne was trying to introduce as much quality to the list as possible, while GWS was reducing their list and concentrating on moving picks down the draft order to maximise their efficiency.  Both teams could have blitzed this deal however with GWS passing on Bontempelli (pick 4) while Melbourne could have collected Cripps (pick 13).

It is what it is, and if Salem can reach his potential, we've done very, very well.

Some times you just gotta be lucky. Carlton would have taken Salem over Cripps if we didn't select Salem.

If people want to visit the past, then the question is simple today, would you swap Tyson and Salem for Kelly.

I wouldn't.

37 minutes ago, Redleg said:

If people want to visit the past, then the question is simple today, would you swap Tyson and Salem for Kelly.

I wouldn't.

But the deal was more complicated than that because it involved us losing pick 20 (from memory).  Having said that I think two very good players are more valuable than a great player.

I'm surprised that so many prefer Kelly to Fyfe.  Fyfe is a champion, Brownlow medalist and can play on ball and forward and probably anywhere else, is a dangerous mark and contested ball winning beast who finds it all the time.  Kelly has done little yet.  He's another Scully IMO who is a slightly better kick.  Kelly may be very good, but Fyfe is great.

5 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

But the deal was more complicated than that because it involved us losing pick 20 (from memory).  Having said that I think two very good players are more valuable than a great player.

I'm surprised that so many prefer Kelly to Fyfe.  Fyfe is a champion, Brownlow medalist and can play on ball and forward and probably anywhere else, is a dangerous mark and contested ball winning beast who finds it all the time.  Kelly has done little yet.  He's another Scully IMO who is a slightly better kick.  Kelly may be very good, but Fyfe is great.

Have to agree with that, Fyfe without the leg injury is the best player in the comp, Kelly is an onside mid with talent but has a great midfield to support him. I'd be interested to see how he would go if he was the centre of attention and had to burrow in and get his own ball.

We haven't seen the best of Salem yet and for that matter we haven't seen the best of Dom either.