stevethemanjordan

Didn't happen to see the O&K grand final at the rovers ground last weekend did you?

Calm your farm. Do you really think Melksham is the only player we'll be bringing in? The reason we're not a destination club is our own fault. You do realise that?

Just as embarrassing as when we picked up Bernie Vince? What'd you say again? 'Excitement level equal to that of getting David Rodan', or something similar? Haha. Club being embarrassing you say? Mate, have a look at some of those posts RPFC highlighted from when we got Bernie. Yours topped the list for embarrassing! You should just hold your tongue on this one and it's the same with everyone else who jumps the gun thinking the sky is falling. You're all being stupidly short-sighted. We won't pay overs and he'll turn out to be better depth replacement than the blokes we've just delisted with the potential to be even better than that. Sadly, not many can see that.

Love it so much. No idea.

Fitzy stiff?! Haha! Have heard it all.

As I've said, we'll be laughing at their faces with demands like that. Of course they're going to begin negotiations with outlandish requests. They eventually accepted picks 17 and 37 for the Ryder trade, because he wanted out. If Melksham wants out, they'll deal appropriately. I'm also not sure why anyone would think we'd pay overs for him anyway. As for Greg Denham, is this the same Greg Denham that said Mitch Clarke to St Kilda was a done deal last year? Cool.

Yeh and we'll say no...Essendon ended up getting picks 17 and 37 in exchange for Ryder. A fair trade off in the end in my eyes. WGAF what they ask for? We'll either work out a deal that works for us, or he stays at Essendon? Big whoop.

Fair enough on the argument count then. As for the bolded bit of what you've written, I tend to disagree. If we had the sort of depth that Roos and co' had genuine trust and belief in this year, I don't think we would have seen nearly the amount of games given to Stretch and ANB. I see the fact that they were given games consistently ahead of players like Bail, Jones, McKenzie etc is because Roos doesn't see them at the club going forward. Stretch is clearly an under-developed kid who wasn't exactly tearing up the VFL. He competed admirably when he was played in or firsts but it's fair to say that he drifted in and out of games as did ANB. Players like Melksham (who is a direct upgrade on those others I mentioned), is the kind of player who is the perfect target for this kind of role. If you look outside of his 'ability' or 'inability' as a player alone you see that a club like us needs to have depth players in Melksham's age bracket and who clearly possess some talent to allow players like Stretch and ANB to develop their games, bodies and minds at VFL level. When this happens, the gap in performances from VFL level to AFL level won't be as much. We've got to remember that it takes time with kids. Melksham wouldn't be getting games 'ahead of' or 'in place of' ANB and Stretch. They're still kids and we need to get to a stage where they're banging the door down in the VFL before getting games. It's not happening yet because of our problems with list depth. Here's a scenario: Let's say we have a couple of injuries in our starting midfield brigade and we've got a choice of bringing in Melksham or ANB both of whom have been playing VFL. Of course it's form permitting but if they've been playing their role but not dominating, I'd still bring Melksham in as ANB is a second year player and the more time he has developing and feeling comfortable and confident at VFL level, the better off we'll be in the future. Stretch and ANB have just played their first year. Go and have a look at a club like Sydney or Freo's depth and tell me how often they bring in first or second year kids who were picked in the second and third rounds of their drafts and tell me how many games they're 'given' in their first years. Unless those clubs have a terribly injured best 22 players, you'll find that most of the kids will spend their first and second year playing in the twos. We need to get to that stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1k5DFakV9E Tell me McKenzie, Matt Jones or Bail could kick a left-footed goal from 50...?! This was the year in which his talent was on display and without doubt it's something to work with. Happy to give him a chance and a change of scenery might be exactly what he needs. Like his anger and competitive streak too.

It's a non-argument. We've got completely different lists and Essendon's has been much much stronger than ours over the course of both Watts and Howe's careers to date. We see players just like Melksham being given chances every single year on many different clubs lists. Blease to Geelong, O'Rourke to Hawthorn, Schulz to Port, Martin to Brisbane. Some turn their careers around, others don't. Given the fact that we will not be landing five A-grade midfielders this trade period, if we're not paying overs, and the club know the risks involved, (re WADA) and think he's in the clear, why would anyone be against picking up a player who will clearly help the midfield depth at the club given the amount of delistings to we're going to see. A handful of whom will be midfielders. Goodwin has seen far more of him than any of the posters who won't shut-up about how upset they'll be if we get him. I would much rather throw a lifeline to a player like Melksham than have McKenzie, Bail, Matt Jones etc on the list. He's better than all of them and you're kidding yourselves if you think otherwise. Zero risk as he's depth at best atm and plenty of reward if he can get his act together. Look at what Taylor Hunt has done at Richmond after being in and out at Geelong for years. He's no world beater and I'm sure Richmond supporters weren't thrilled in the trade most likely for the same short-sighted views that are being thrown around here. No-one has to be overly excited about the idea of getting him. Lists like the MFC's need more than one or two years to build a strong foundation of depth, the right personality traits and characters, A-grade talent, role-playing ability etc. We're trying to change the club. But jesus it's like the world is ending up in here.

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.

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.