57 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.

Nor would I. I still think we're on the right side of this deal, even though Kelly is seriously good.

It's deals like this that enabled the club to turn the quality of the list around so quickly.

 

Is it just me ? I cant help but feel Dom is consistently under rated here.  I see him as SUPER important to our set up. Kelly may be great...MAY be great. So MAY Salem. Dom is already on the cusp of that imo. 

21 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Is it just me ? I cant help but feel Dom is consistently under rated here.  I see him as SUPER important to our set up. Kelly may be great...MAY be great. So MAY Salem. Dom is already on the cusp of that imo. 

He's the key to our winning contested ball...and missed badly when he's not there.

Viney and Jones in particular rely a lot on Dom's strength around the ball to get things moving.

29 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Is it just me ? I cant help but feel Dom is consistently under rated here.  I see him as SUPER important to our set up. Kelly may be great...MAY be great. So MAY Salem. Dom is already on the cusp of that imo. 

I find Dom the hardest player on our list to rate right now. I'd believe someone if they told me in 5 years he was a multiple AA and in the games best dozen midfielders with seriously good clearance work, excellent accumulating around the ground and a habit of kicking a goal. I'd also believe someone if they said in 5 years he's had a decent career, battled a few injuries but is more of a role player who does ok at the clearances but butchers the ball by foot and can be exploited for pace.

My eyes were telling me that pre christmas he was looking like taking his best form of 2014 and the 2nd half of 2016 and going to a new level. Unfortunately then he was injured. I wouldn't be against taking a bit longer to bring him back by giving him an extra few weeks of preseason just to see him at his best instead of rushing him and having him enter another season underdone.

 

1 hour 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.

It's hard to say. We made the right move going for 2 quality players over a potential star because we seriously lacked AFL quality players at the time. 

Now that we have the foundation for a midfield we need a balance of players running through there and ironically, Kelly would be one of the best fits in the league. We are set for the next 5/10 years for inside mids, we need more run and skill.

It all depends on what Salem becomes as a player. He has the talent but for a number of reasons, some beyond his own control, he hasn't contributed anything significant or consistently yet. 

I feel as far as Melbourne supporters go, Salem is the one we overrate the most. Someone like a Stretch or Kent is just as likely to have as good a career as him. I've seen posters claim that Salem could be our best player previously and I just don't see that ability in him. Potentially a very important cog however and I will support him and give him time to show his worth.

2 hours 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.

 

You were right, there was a bit more to it.

" Melbourne was so keen on Tyson that they parted with pick No. 2 in last year's NAB AFL Draft to land him. The deal also involved the swapping of picks 20 and 72, while the Demons received Tyson and picks nine (Christian Salem) and pick 53. "

We gave up picks 2, 20 and 72 for Tyson and picks 9 and 53. 

We then used pick 53, which became pick 57 because of compo picks, to pick up a kid called Hunt.

Wonder if the media realize that?

Edited February 2, 20178 yr by Redleg

2 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You were right, there was a bit more to it.

" Melbourne was so keen on Tyson that they parted with pick No. 2 in last year's NAB AFL Draft to land him. The deal also involved the swapping of picks 20 and 72, while the Demons received Tyson and picks nine (Christian Salem) and pick 53. "

We gave up picks 2, 20 and 72 for Tyson and picks 9 and 53. 

My understanding/recollection is we weren't all that keen on Kelly and I remember Roos saying Bont was a speculative pick at 4.  I think we would have taken Scharenberg at 2 and if he had repeated his injury history it would have been a disaster.  Not that Salem has been a lot better but if he's overcome his thyroid issue he probably sits better than Scharenberg.  I doubt we would have picked up Cripps because we'd have picked him up at 9 if we thought he was better than Salem.

There was talk of Lewis Taylor wasn't there so we might have ended up with Scharenberg and Taylor or Salem (at 2) and Taylor.  All in all I'm very happy with where we are as I think Stretch will offer a lot of what Kelly does.  Kelly is really an Isaac Smith isn't he?  Dom is a terrific player anyway, had a year or two under his belt and Salem is as much an unknown as Kelly in some ways. 

Would I go back (even including pick 20 in the deal.  No, unless I knew we'd pick the Bont and Zac Merritt!  But I don't think we would have so I'll sit were we are. 

All in all it was a win win.  It's a little like the debate on Oliver v Parish.  I'm happy where we are but Parish will be a very good player and clearly had a better first year than Oliver.  Oliver just did things.  His clearance work, out marking Ward in his first game, getting up and dominating the second quarter after being flattened against Hawks and that one handed pick up against the Hawks in the last quarter were indications that Oliver could be elite.  Please god, give him a tank of an acceptable level and I'll be a very happy man.

 

1 hour ago, Demonated said:

 

I feel as far as Melbourne supporters go, Salem is the one we overrate the most. Someone like a Stretch or Kent is just as likely to have as good a career as him. I've seen posters claim that Salem could be our best player previously and I just don't see that ability in him. Potentially a very important cog however and I will support him and give him time to show his worth.

Nope. We overrate all young players, every team does, but when comparing with each other I don't think Salem's been placed wrong. Billy Stretch is a beauty, he could and probably should play most of the next 100-150 games running a wing, I think he could slot in to most teams in the comp and do a job. Kent has talent and potential to do some really good things but is still an inconsistent prospect for the future given he has to fix up his weaknesses (yet alone his body) and consistently use his great attributes.

Salem's prospects are above both and I wouldn't have many ahead of him. He's a really clever ball user and reader of the play. Sure it was dud game for the team but he racked up 27 touches after being out for 15 weeks in round 23. His tackling is really good. He's far tougher and more courageous than he looks. And he has enough pace to chase down or evade players. If he gets fit I'm convinced he'll easily adjust to being a solid contributor to the team and in time if the team improves and as he gets experience he'll be a big moment guy. We're building a very combative physical side to play a finals footy brand but class players stand up in big moments. 

3 hours 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.

Whilst I agree Kelly has yet to really do much, I think he's a far, far superior kick to Scully. 

The reason I think some MFC supporters might rate Kelly over Fyfe is because the type of player Kelly is seen as, is exactly the sort of player that is missing from our current midfield make up. Of course, if Fyfe wanted to come to Melbourne no one would say no, it's that we have the ball winners assembled, but lack the outside class of a Kelly. I should mention also that Kelly would come a lot cheaper than Fyfe too, so that may play into the thinking.

5 minutes ago, A F said:

....... I should mention also that Kelly would come a lot cheaper than Fyfe too, so that may play into the thinking.

in dollars maybe but not in trades. fyfe is fa

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

in dollars maybe but not in trades. fyfe is fa

Yep, dollars will mean a lot going forward, with our young list and hopefully, our bunch of young stars.

Sheedy is one very sour seagull slighting alien apologist. 

Look where he belongs ffs Essendon. Such a moralistic high horser !!

Meh

5 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

My understanding/recollection is we weren't all that keen on Kelly and I remember Roos saying Bont was a speculative pick at 4.  I think we would have taken Scharenberg at 2 and if he had repeated his injury history it would have been a disaster.  Not that Salem has been a lot better but if he's overcome his thyroid issue he probably sits better than Scharenberg.  I doubt we would have picked up Cripps because we'd have picked him up at 9 if we thought he was better than Salem.

There was talk of Lewis Taylor wasn't there so we might have ended up with Scharenberg and Taylor or Salem (at 2) and Taylor.  All in all I'm very happy with where we are as I think Stretch will offer a lot of what Kelly does.  Kelly is really an Isaac Smith isn't he?  Dom is a terrific player anyway, had a year or two under his belt and Salem is as much an unknown as Kelly in some ways. 

Would I go back (even including pick 20 in the deal.  No, unless I knew we'd pick the Bont and Zac Merritt!  But I don't think we would have so I'll sit were we are. 

All in all it was a win win.  It's a little like the debate on Oliver v Parish.  I'm happy where we are but Parish will be a very good player and clearly had a better first year than Oliver.  Oliver just did things.  His clearance work, out marking Ward in his first game, getting up and dominating the second quarter after being flattened against Hawks and that one handed pick up against the Hawks in the last quarter were indications that Oliver could be elite.  Please god, give him a tank of an acceptable level and I'll be a very happy man.

 

I amended my post, probably after you replied, but what I added was that the player we picked up with pick 53, that we got in the deal for Tyson/Salem, was a kid called Hunt.

We ended up with Tyson, Salem and Hunt, for 2, 20 and 72. A pretty handy day's work.

I think the fact (the real fact not the alternate one) is that we are traumatised as a bunch of supporters by some poor recruiting in the last decade. Having recently reviewed Dom and Salem highlights as well as Kelly and a few others we can call these recruitments a win for the club, that other clubs got Kelly/Cripps/Bont etc is good luck for them, but not something that we obviously stuffed up. I personally think our recruiting staff deserve a big vote of praise, feeling very happy with how we have managed selections and points etc. 

BTW I don't know how to separate Salem/Tyson/Oliver/Bradshaw/Petracca/Hunt and make a call on who is going to be the best - some people here could make serious coin selling time with their crystal balls, they all look super exciting with no obvious limits yet - Viney seems to have found a level, but the others are still developing into a very bright future for the club. 

Lastly - the Bont is just incredible, I would take him over anyone else in the comp.

 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

I amended my post, probably after you replied, but what I added was that the player we picked up with pick 53, that we got in the deal for Tyson/Salem, was a kid called Hunt.

We ended up with Tyson, Salem and Hunt, for 2, 20 and 72. A pretty handy day's work.

When you say it like that - Tyson, Salem and Hunt, for basically Kelly and pick 20. Pretty impressive trading/drafting.

I am a massive fan of Josh Kelly, I think he is a future Brownlow winner. But Dom Tyson is no slouch, and has the points on the board, and Salem and Hunt have massive upside. Hunt might actually be one of the very few youngsters in the league with more upside than Kelly. Hunt could end up better than the lot of them.

Edited February 2, 20178 yr by KingDingAling

8 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

When you say it like that - Tyson, Salem and Hunt, for basically Kelly and pick 20. Pretty impressive trading/drafting.

I am a massive fan of Josh Kelly, I think he is a future Brownlow winner. But Dom Tyson is no slouch, and has the points on the board, and Salem and Hunt have massive upside. Hunt might actually be one of the very few youngsters in the league with more upside than Kelly. Hunt could end up better than the lot of them.

I know it would only be hearsay, but hasn't someone previously posted that Robert Shaw thought Hunt was the best of the Brighton Grammar School bunch of that year?

10 hours ago, Redleg said:

We ended up with Tyson, Salem and Hunt, for 2, 20 and 72. A pretty handy day's work.

Yes, that's right.   It's like saying in the Frost deal we ended up with ANB and Oscar.  I really don't consider that part of the "real" deal.  Picks past 40 are just steak knives really and don't form a key part of the deal.

But I take your point.  As I said I think we were big winners.  One of the benefits of Tyson is that he was a known quantity compared to any draft pick.  For a struggling club that degree of certainty was very valuable (together with the years of development he'd already had). 

19 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nope. We overrate all young players, every team does, but when comparing with each other I don't think Salem's been placed wrong. Billy Stretch is a beauty, he could and probably should play most of the next 100-150 games running a wing, I think he could slot in to most teams in the comp and do a job. Kent has talent and potential to do some really good things but is still an inconsistent prospect for the future given he has to fix up his weaknesses (yet alone his body) and consistently use his great attributes.

Salem's prospects are above both and I wouldn't have many ahead of him. He's a really clever ball user and reader of the play. Sure it was dud game for the team but he racked up 27 touches after being out for 15 weeks in round 23. His tackling is really good. He's far tougher and more courageous than he looks. And he has enough pace to chase down or evade players. If he gets fit I'm convinced he'll easily adjust to being a solid contributor to the team and in time if the team improves and as he gets experience he'll be a big moment guy. We're building a very combative physical side to play a finals footy brand but class players stand up in big moments. 

I still need to see more from him. Completely agree he is far tougher than he seems. Completely destroyed Jeremy Cameron in a one on one either last season or the one before which took me by surprise. I'm still not sold on him having star quality rather than James Kelly-level reliable contributor ability.

13 hours ago, Redleg said:

I amended my post, probably after you replied, but what I added was that the player we picked up with pick 53, that we got in the deal for Tyson/Salem, was a kid called Hunt.

We ended up with Tyson, Salem and Hunt, for 2, 20 and 72. A pretty handy day's work.

It looks like GWS then traded 20 with 21 and 48 for 14 (Cam McCarthy) and 29 (Rory Lobb). They passed on 72.

Both teams have done well out of it - such a strong draft 

5 hours ago, godees said:

It looks like GWS then traded 20 with 21 and 48 for 14 (Cam McCarthy) and 29 (Rory Lobb). They passed on 72.

Both teams have done well out of it - such a strong draft 

Reckon both those boys will be in WA in 3 years time. One already is.

Unlike others on here, ATM,  I don't see the champion in Kelly.

1 hour ago, A F said:

Reckon both those boys will be in WA in 3 years time. One already is.

Nah, Lobb had the opportunity to this past season but recommitted to the Giants. He's a different cat to McCarthy (but that's not saying much).

Lobb will play for flags over the next few years. Can't see Freo recovering that quickly.

21 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Nah, Lobb had the opportunity to this past season but recommitted to the Giants. He's a different cat to McCarthy (but that's not saying much).

Lobb will play for flags over the next few years. Can't see Freo recovering that quickly.

I was thinking more West Coast. If they can look like legitimate contenders, instead of pretenders, I think they're a chance to lure him. Based on absolutely nothing, btw.

2 hours ago, A F said:

I was thinking more West Coast. If they can look like legitimate contenders, instead of pretenders, I think they're a chance to lure him. Based on absolutely nothing, btw.

Did I indicate a club? I didn't mean it to sound purely Freo.

Regardless, the Eagles won't contend around the Giants period.

 

GM	K	HB	D	M	G	B	T	HO	FF	FA	AF *	SC *
Total	24	301	265	566	90	14	16	94	0	13	12	1,977	1,916
Average	24	12.5	11.0	23.6	3.8	0.6	0.7	3.9	0	0.5	0.5	89.9	87.1

Kelly

GM	K	HB	D	M	G	B	T	HO	FF	FA	AF *	SC *
Total	21	230	299	529	87	11	11	90	9	13	19	1,951	1,903
Average	21	11.0	14.2	25.2	4.1	0.5	0.5	4.3	0.4	0.6	0.9	92.9	90.6

 

Tyson

I know stats aren't everything but they are a start.