stevethemanjordan

And I agree that there's clearly a source he has and his contribution to the murmurings are interesting.But coming out and definitively stating, 'Colin re-signed yesterday' in a one-sentence post only to follow it up a week later by second-guessing the situation isn't exactly the smartest way to go about it on a football supporters forum.

Jarred Grant's playing style epitomises all that we're trying to rid ourselves of as a club. Not a hope in hell would I imagine we'd be interested.

Lols.Unless you were present whilst Colin was 'telling' your source that he'd signed, I don't know why you didn't just say something like, 'I was told by my source that Colin has re-signed'. I don't understand why people are always so definitive in what they say when their info is usually second, third or fourth hand.

But he's an AA Backman and our best defender! They don't grow on trees... He'd be a huge loss to us... Omg

I'm assuming that they'll be monetary fines rather than bans. I also should have prefaced my argument with that. Obviously if there's a chance of him being banned then we won't be picking him up but no doubt the club know more about that. Will edit, thanks.

This can be in reply to both of your posts: Whether or not I could see Martin reach the level of football he produced last year isn't really relevant. It's the fact that he made such a significant step forward as a player. I think it's fair to say he hadn't shown much at all throughout his time with us which is backed by us letting him go for not much in return. It's also irrelevant that you weren't happy that he left. The fact is, he is now playing really consistent and competitive football at a DIFFERENT club and it's clear to me that a change of clubs contributed to this change in his playing form. How much or little I'm not sure. Are you refuting that? He became the player he is now after a change of clubs. As for the drafting comment and comparisons between Melksham, Morton and Sylvia, I really should have prefaced my first comment by saying the following: During the BP recruiting years, it has now become fairly obvious that many of the players we picked including most if not all of our top 20 picks completely lacked certain key attributes/personality traits. For example: Self-determined and driven characters, extremely competitive, naturally hard working players. I'm not sure if you've realised that under the new recruiting department, those types of attributes/personality traits are now the ones at the top of the list for players who are being brought to our club. Melksham, (unlike Watts, Morton, Gysberts, Cook, Blease, Strauss etc) actually possesses those traits which is one reason of many that we'd be interested. You're right, I shouldn't have just said 'he's a former top 10 draft pick so clearly there's some sort of talent or good mix of attributes there'. I should have gone into more detail about the differences in those attributes and general personality traits. Obviously I'm aware that certain picks are just bad picks. But a pattern has emerged from our previous recruiting compared to the recruiting we are now doing in terms of the 'type' of players we are going for. Does all of this mean that I'm dying to get Melksham at our club?! No! 'Little Goffy', when you say things like, 'in a midfield crying out for speed, Melksham is not the answer' it just confirms that you don't actually understand why the club would be potentially interested in his services. No [censored] he's not the answer to any of our list problems! Fark. Those comments are infuriating. If it were possible for the club to attract Bennell, Dangerfield, Treloar, O'Meara and Prestia in one trade period, do you think we'd be talking about this?! Here are the facts: *We are not a destination club for top players and we'd be extremely fortunate to land any of the above names in one trade period let alone over the next few years. *We have the worst list depth and more than likely have the most amount of dead-wood still on our list with a large portion to be moved on over the coming months. *Because of this reason, it's an unfortunate reality that we need to take our chances on players like Melksham in the hope that a new club will be the catalyst they need for a breakout in form/change in mindset. Ala Stef Martin, Jay Schulz,Ted Richards etc. *Bringing in new depth players and pushing out old depth players is part of every clubs list management process and for us trying to build a strong brand and playing culture is absolutely necessary. Every post against the idea of bringing Melksham to the club is for some reason idiotically assuming one or two of the following: Assuming that the club will pick him up irrespective of the risk that he may be banned from playing. He'll be brought to the club as a best 22 starting player and contribute to poor performance. We'll be paying way overs for him. We'd be better off with McKenzie, Matt Jones, Bail instead of him as depth. Completely writing off the idea that a change of clubs could actually be what he needs as a player. Scratch the [censored] surface and you'll see a whole lot of reasons as to why we'd be potentially interested in bringing him to our club.

Or..... it just makes sense? Considering he'll be on our list for more than... this year? It's logic big dawg. I agree his year wasn't great. Underwhelming. Does it mean I think he was a bad pickup? Far too early to make that call. The argument for Melksham is there. Which is why the club are interested bro.

Which isn't often, let's be honest.

Right. Well I'll give Lamumba more than 'one' average year before I judge whether or not he's a good pickup. In fact I might wait until his time is up at the MFC and then reflect on his contribution and whether or not he was a good pickup for us or not. But good on you for saying that.

Yes, regretfully so. I honestly thought he'd have trouble putting on weight from early photos and clearly I'm wrong. Is this the same BenHur trying to create a cool and new online identity? You'll also look silly if Melksham ends up at our club.

You're going to look awfully silly if we sign him, aren't you...

Read some of the posts and I think that sentence might change.

Kade Kolodjashnij - Half Back Flanker/Wingman with elite kick and running ability Nathan Freeman - Highly rated midfielder with serious running power and x factor, hopefully can overcome hammy issues Bennell - The A-grade talent we're crying out for Tomlinson - The hulking CHF who would love playing with best mate Dom Tyson at the G. Adcock - Another experienced leader with a hard edge, is clear he can still play and would be the right replacement for Crossy

In my opinion he's a better user of the ball than both.

Of course, I agree with that. I'm basing my argument on the fact that we'd be getting him for something like we got for Garlett.

When you're the MFC, you need to do both... We've seen how hard it is to attract A-grade talent to this club. We're not exactly Disney Land up in here. If you think that off-loading a bunch of dead-wood and not bringing in upgraded talent, (as replacement) that doesn't happen to be A-grade and may not be considered best 22 upon arrival then you're living in fantasy land. The reality is, on top of targeting serious talent, we need to keep targeting players who will help build depth and help build a competitive environment until it gets to a stage where we won't be delisting 6-8 players a year!

Top 10 draft pick means there's clearly 'something' there. You've got to possess either some sort of talent, some elite attributes/traits to get you there. He's not potentially an upgrade on the list cloggers. He is a [censored] upgrade on them. How anyone can refute that I have no idea... His season in 2013 shits all over any 'best form' we've seen from Bail, McKenzie or Jones. It sounds much more to me like supporters gathering like vultures in an excitable way only to be talking about their own personal 'dislike' for him. From what I've been reading on this thread, it sounds as if posters don't want him because of this supposed '[censored] attitude' or 'hot-head' character that he is. Is that really a good basis for forming a view on whether or not a player like him could be at the very least an upgrade on our deplorable depth who we've had to hold onto for far too long? As for his personal attributes and qualities, again I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. I see him as someone who is really competitive and has a flair of aggression at the ball and player, he is a really hard runner, he has an ability to hit the scoreboard. I agree he's not an elite kick but I see it as more of a decision making thing than anything else. Similar to Viney. If we're talking about his draft number I'd say that he possesses qualities that are much more important to the foundation of a side than qualities we've seen with our own past top 10 draft picks who haven't made it. Morton being one. No competitive edge, outside receiver, poor contested player, poor tackler, no elite kick etc. As for Garland, he's a 28 year old senior figure at our club who's fluctuation in form over the years has been painful to watch. Regardless of the bluey, (which is voted by members of the board), his position in the backline could be filled by someone who provides more than just a 'beat your man' philosophy. The backline is a major problem and I see Garland as someone who in this day and age of football, doesn't provide enough run, intensity, counter attacking play, foot or decision making skills to propel us forward. Melksham is a young midfielder who even if he was playing at Casey, would absolutely be an upgrade on having someone like Matt Jones as a depth midfielder. Do you genuinely believe we'd be better off having one of Jones, McKenzie or Bail as a replacement for an injured starting 22? C'mon.

Is it really that hard for supporters to take an objective view and put aside this childish 'dislike' for him? Melksham is the same age as Trengove. Would you rather give him a list spot ahead of Matt Jones, Bail, McKenzie, Terlich? All of whom are older, were never rated as highly as him and we've seen how high their ceilings go? Give me a [censored] break. Giving a previous top 10 draft pick the opportunity to prove that he can play at a club who has had without out a doubt the most laughable stock of depth players within the AFL makes complete and absolute sense. Do you think our list managers and coaches sit there saying 'I hate Melksham, he's a dud so I'm not interested'?! Haha. What's the worst that could happen anyway?! We give him a two year deal and he doesn't make the grade?! Big [censored] whoop. He provides more than our depth players as is! And the potential gain is much higher than keeping Matt Jones for another two years! Jesus, it's really not that hard to see why we might be interested in giving him a chance.

As someone who is happy to defend Colin Garland and his place within this team, I can't understand how or why you completely write off the possibility of bringing a player who'd help our depth at the very least and who could possibly be someone who responds really well to a change of clubs. Do you really not think he'd be an upgrade on Matt Jones, McKenzie, Bail who are all likely gone? No [censored] we can 'do better' than Melksham but there are number of ways you improve your list overall and targetting players like him are part of the equation.

I think what posters continually forget is that history suggests certain players respond really well to a change of clubs. As an example, never in my wildest dreams did I think Stefan Martin would become a really consistent and valuable AFL ruckman let alone last this long on an AFL list. It's clear he needed a change. The same can be said for many players. Jay Schulz from Richmond to Port. Kennedy from Hawthorn to Sydney. Conversely, I'm also aware that there a host of names who haven't 'come-on' even after changing clubs. But looking at the Melksham case, we're talking about a former number 10 draft pick. Clearly, he was rated. He actually possesses attributes that our list lacks. I can't understand why the same posters who vehemently defend the development of Jack Watts are happy to completely write off a player who has been similarly frustrating for supporters. Those saying that he's at the same level as Jones, McKenzie and Bail are kidding themselves. We are talking about a former number 10 draft pick who dominated a TAC grand final the year he was drafted and had a breakout AFL season in 2013. These are the kinds of players that the club need to continue to give chances to in the hope that we can steer them on the right path. We have arguably three of the best development people/coaches within the AFL. As I've previously said, of course he is not someone I'd be desperate to bring to the club, but if we could get him cheaply on a two year deal, I think it'd be a good move by the club.

Always thought he was overrated.. I wonder if posters still believe our team is missing him? Last night he was bog ordinary and it looks like he may be on the chopping block next week.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-09-11/jones-to-undergo-neck-surgery I guess it sheds some light on what's been a slight 'down year' for him. (Makes me wonder about whether Garland has carried anything considering my criticism of his lack of spark and intensity all year). Unbelievable warrior though Jonesy, lucky to have him.

Bad day Norm?

I think the next phase of our forward-line development needs to be more of a willingness and understanding for whoever plays that CHF position to roam deep up the ground taking with them what will most likely be the oppositions second best/tallest key back. The idea of playing Patracca and Garlett as pockets rather than another tall is that Hogan will monster most in a one-on-one contested situation if given the chance. Playing Watts as a third tall works also because he is not a contested pack marking forward and wouldn't get in Hogan's way. But again, he'd need to be really willing and understanding of where to lead, run and make space.. He's a natural forward runner so it suits him, we've seen him push hard into space when he knows there's ball on offer. Having Gawn play deep forward as a resting Ruckman next to Hoges was just a mess this year and doesn't work. I'd much rather Hogan be given space deep in our F50 with Garlett and Petracca eating anything that falls short etc. Petracca's contested marking for his height is as good as having a KPP in that position anyway. The beauty is that he wouldn't command a tall because he's too quick and agile at ground level.

Saw him ruck against Dunn a few times which tells us nothing... But no, he's no Ruckman. It's the only position I can see for Watts now. It just makes sense. Played 18's and juniors as a forward, can kick goals, has a forward's understanding of the game. He needs to own it though. The article Gary Lyon wrote this year about Watts needing to become our Gunston resonated with me. Not that I enjoy saying 'player x needs to become player y', but in that they share some similar traits and attributes and if Watts really wanted, he could be a really valuable and consistent third tall with a bit of spice.