4 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

Heard on the radio that Lobb has apparently bought a house in Melb and already moved in???

Hard to continue playing for Freo when you live in Melbourne 🤷

And it's hard to buy anything better than a toilet in Melbourne right now, the guy must mean business.

Edited September 13, 20223 yr by layzie

West coast split pick 2 plus pick 26 to gcs for pick 5-7

they keep pick 5 and get Jackson and our pick 32 

dees get pick 7 west coast pick 20 and 2023 west coast first round 

we use pick 20 on Grundy 

Must have a few kids who have requested trades if we are keeping Melksham.

Would have preferred to turn the list over than keep him but will reserve my final opinion at the end of list changes.

1 minute ago, Edm said:

West coast split pick 2 plus pick 26 to gcs for pick 5-7

they keep pick 5 and get Jackson and our pick 32 

dees get pick 7 west coast pick 20 and 2023 west coast first round 

we use pick 20 on Grundy 

Highly doubtful that West Coast would give up next year's first rounder. They should bounce back next year a little bit but it would be a high pick.

I would hate being a west coast supporter if they started the year poorly knowing they gave up a top 5 pick.

8 hours ago, Edm said:

West coast split pick 2 plus pick 26 to gcs for pick 5-7

they keep pick 5 and get Jackson and our pick 32 

dees get pick 7 west coast pick 20 and 2023 west coast first round 

we use pick 20 on Grundy 

I think something like this could work. We might get the 5 instead of 7 then swap next years first and we get their future 2nd. 

Who will fall out of the dogs with Lobb heading there?  A forward line cant fit Naughton, Darcy, unglbungle and Lobb, you wouldn’t think….

Would surprise me if Naughton got floated. 

Freo have really [censored] the bed with this Jackson trade.

They are losing multiple good players who are best 22, that's unforgivable

2 minutes ago, BW511 said:

Freo have really [censored] the bed with this Jackson trade.

They are losing multiple good players who are best 22, that's unforgivable

All the more reason to acquire next years first from them, could be another top 5 pick.

Georgiadis is a good option if available. Larkey would be great as well but there hasn't been a murmur about him in the press

29 minutes ago, layzie said:

Would surprise me if Naughton got floated. 

As mentioned previously, there is a toxic 'party' culture at the Dogs in past years. Those that are averse to those behaviors may want to move away from that environment. That is the only way i can make sense of that potential scenario. But agree, it is very unlikely. 

45 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Who will fall out of the dogs with Lobb heading there?  A forward line cant fit Naughton, Darcy, unglbungle and Lobb, you wouldn’t think….

Naughton or Darcy will play back 

Really disappointing to hear that we're set to recontract Jake Melksham. Michael Hibberd I can understand because he has been consistent with his form all year, but Melksham..?

He's last couple of games showed that he's just past it. Other then the Carlton game he didn't much in any other games and he was incredibly poor against Sydney.

Played as the 2nd tall forward forward so that alone has chewed games off Jacob Van Rooyen who once again justified on the weekend that he was physically ready to go.

He's going to be 32 next year and our focus needs to be on the next wave of talent coming through like Laurie, Chandler, Bedford and Moniz-Wakefield. 

If we can get an extra list spot to bring in another developing tall forward/ruckman then surely that makes more sense then keeping washed up 32 year old forward flanker.

 

The question is do they want too? Is that where they want to play

Would we be silly not to ask naughton that question and get in his ear. Would make us a much better team than Jackson I reckon 

10 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Naughton or Darcy will play back 

The question is do they want too? Is that where they want to play

Would we be silly not to ask naughton that question and get in his ear. Would make us a much better team than Jackson I reckon 

9 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Really disappointing to hear that we're set to recontract Jake Melksham. Michael Hibberd I can understand because he has been consistent with his form all year, but Melksham..?

He's last couple of games showed that he's just past it. Other then the Carlton game he didn't much in any other games and he was incredibly poor against Sydney.

Played as the 2nd tall forward forward so that alone has chewed games off Jacob Van Rooyen who once again justified on the weekend that he was physically ready to go.

He's going to be 32 next year and our focus needs to be on the next wave of talent coming through like Laurie, Chandler, Bedford and Moniz-Wakefield. 

If we can get an extra list spot to bring in another developing tall forward/ruckman then surely that makes more sense then keeping washed up 32 year old forward flanker.

 

I agree with the sentiment, but surely Melksham is merely insurance next year.

3 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree with the sentiment, but surely Melksham is merely insurance next year.

I thought he was this year until we started playing him ahead of guys like Chandler, Van Rooyen and Laurie who were showing much better for at VFL level then what Melksham was.

FWIW, I wouldn't have re-contracted Melksham either, but I guess let's wait and see the rest of the list changes and whether he plays again much next year.

I agree, unless he reinvents himself, if he's playing next year, we're in a bit of trouble IMO.

9 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Really disappointing to hear that we're set to recontract Jake Melksham. Michael Hibberd I can understand because he has been consistent with his form all year, but Melksham..?

He's last couple of games showed that he's just past it. Other then the Carlton game he didn't much in any other games and he was incredibly poor against Sydney.

Played as the 2nd tall forward forward so that alone has chewed games off Jacob Van Rooyen who once again justified on the weekend that he was physically ready to go.

He's going to be 32 next year and our focus needs to be on the next wave of talent coming through like Laurie, Chandler, Bedford and Moniz-Wakefield. 

If we can get an extra list spot to bring in another developing tall forward/ruckman then surely that makes more sense then keeping washed up 32 year old forward flanker.

 

From a list management perspective, the right call was to delist Melksham. What Melksham showed in the back half of the season was adequate, but he's hardly a lock to be best 22 next year.

If you look at the make up of our taller forwards potentially next year, we have a lot of players with question marks. There's a lot that could be playing at Casey.

BBB - Knee is shot.

T. Mac - Had his injury concerns and is not getting younger.

Weid - Seems like the coaches have put a line through him as an AFL forward.

Joel Smith - Now playing up forward for Casey. Shown very little.

Grundy - Shown nothing as a forward.

Gawn - Shown little as a forward.

JVR - Hasn't played a game, but we have high hopes.

Fritsch - The beacon in our forward line.

Melksham is a medium sized forward, which we badly need. But he's also old and slow, and doesn't change the dynamics of our forward line. Very few of our medium/tall forwards apply defensive pressure at ground level.

I'd rather have chased a proven goalkicker in Gunston as an UFA, and not re-signed Melksham.

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Really disappointing to hear that we're set to recontract Jake Melksham. Michael Hibberd I can understand because he has been consistent with his form all year, but Melksham..?

He's last couple of games showed that he's just past it. Other then the Carlton game he didn't much in any other games and he was incredibly poor against Sydney.

Played as the 2nd tall forward forward so that alone has chewed games off Jacob Van Rooyen who once again justified on the weekend that he was physically ready to go.

He's going to be 32 next year and our focus needs to be on the next wave of talent coming through like Laurie, Chandler, Bedford and Moniz-Wakefield. 

If we can get an extra list spot to bring in another developing tall forward/ruckman then surely that makes more sense then keeping washed up 32 year old forward flanker.

 

Pretty bizarre, was insurance this year and came in and played a role for one game, then had multiple stinkers.

He must be accepting very little cash to stay on and keep the dream alive.

30 minutes ago, mo64 said:

From a list management perspective, the right call was to delist Melksham. What Melksham showed in the back half of the season was adequate, but he's hardly a lock to be best 22 next year.

If you look at the make up of our taller forwards potentially next year, we have a lot of players with question marks. There's a lot that could be playing at Casey.

BBB - Knee is shot.

T. Mac - Had his injury concerns and is not getting younger.

Weid - Seems like the coaches have put a line through him as an AFL forward.

Joel Smith - Now playing up forward for Casey. Shown very little.

Grundy - Shown nothing as a forward.

Gawn - Shown little as a forward.

JVR - Hasn't played a game, but we have high hopes.

Fritsch - The beacon in our forward line.

Melksham is a medium sized forward, which we badly need. But he's also old and slow, and doesn't change the dynamics of our forward line. Very few of our medium/tall forwards apply defensive pressure at ground level.

I'd rather have chased a proven goalkicker in Gunston as an UFA, and not re-signed Melksham.

 

 

 

What all that tells me is that we should be seriously considering playing Petty forward next year

He is our best tall defender IMO (yes better than May) but we need to play him forward and find a replacement in the back 6 that can cover the 195cm + talls - problem is I don't think that's Tommo - it could be Turner but he is probably a bit small - it could be Weideman but I just can't see him ever being a defender, it could be Joel Smith because he does have the spring to compete/spoil taller opponents

All draftees get an automatic 2 year contract. For a supposed Melksham replacement with whatever pick, it will mean that we have to keep them past next year, and we probably would want to. Our names next year for delisting are not very many at all, and the ones you think may be going, may have already gone (Tomlinson).

So it begins to make sense to give Melksham another year to space out the delistings and the number of kids we want to develop in set 2 year contracts.

12 minutes ago, Sydee said:

What all that tells me is that we should be seriously considering playing Petty forward next year

He is our best tall defender IMO (yes better than May) but we need to play him forward and find a replacement in the back 6 that can cover the 195cm + talls - problem is I don't think that's Tommo - it could be Turner but he is probably a bit small - it could be Weideman but I just can't see him ever being a defender, it could be Joel Smith because he does have the spring to compete/spoil taller opponents

All comes down to some poor list management for mine. We have far too many of the same type of player that are too good for Casey. And almost no developing talls over 195cms. 

Ben Long has requested a trade to GC

10 minutes ago, MoeSyzlak said:

All comes down to some poor list management for mine. We have far too many of the same type of player that are too good for Casey. And almost no developing talls over 195cms. 

That's a bit harsh for mine.  No team has depth in every position on the field and we are no exception.  To make the cutoff at 195cm conveniently rules out JVR and Turner who are both promising young KPP.  Weid hasn't come on as hoped (but was a high pick) and Jackson has performed well beyond his years when compared with other ruck/forwards at the same age.

The reality is good players over 195cm are rare - the good ones generally get snapped up pretty high in the draft and a fair portion of them end up as busts anyway.