stevethemanjordan

Oath. You've just got to giggle at posters who relentlessly draw black lines through players names who haven't played consistently good football yet. It's as if people have no [censored] idea about how clubs operate. Every draft pick and trade has a risk attached. And every year we see clubs unearth gems and at the same time, have players who don't end up working out. There are numerous stories of players who struggle with discipline who seemingly are able to turn it around. Michael Walters being one. Even Gary Ablett was told he didn't work or train hard enough and that if he did, he could become anything. Motlop hardly has 'disciplinary issues'. There'd be that many players who would turn up at pre-season training who could have been in better shape. Garlett and Hogan for us last year? Should we trade them this year? Ya'll carry on like damn fools. Motlop has runs on the board as posters have pointed out and if the club are interested in securing him then [censored], we should be excited at the opportunity of what he may return rather than think about how he performed in his last game. I can guarantee the same posters think Jack Watts is Jesus after having one really good year out of how many poo ones? Srsly.

Needs to train with Usain Bolt if he is going to be a midfielder for us in 2017. I still love him, but there's no doubting his lack of pace is still holding him back. Now that he has had a full year of serious volume to his running, he'll be able to concentrate solely on his acceleration and power over the pre-season. When I look at a player like Matty Boyd, I think to myself that there's still light at the end for Jack. Maybe a change positionally would be perfect for him.

Dogs list is unbelievable. They're the most well balanced list within the AFL surely with their players and game style perfectly suited to modern day footy. With the amount of MFC listed players we have, it's clear we're still a way off. Absolutely must inject some more speed and kicking skills to our list over the next few drafts.

Commentators do it far too often also. It's weird.

This is a response to all of those who are astronomically simplifying an incredibly complex situation by stating what they think the players 'should' have done after much of the evidence was brought to light, years later. To take any form of moral high-ground without having physically been in the situation that those players were in is [censored] insane. By far the easiest thing to do is to say, 'questions should have been asked there and then'. This is a Melbourne supporter forum talking about an opposition club and it's players. Is it any wonder the overwhelming number of opposition supporters point the blame at the Essendon players? Any at all? I refuse to respond after this, again because of the complexity the situation that clearly many posters are oblivious to. Below is the four corners interview with Hal Hunter, a former Essendon rookie. Some of you should have a watch before sitting back from your ego-strong standpoint and pointing the finger at players who were masterfully manipulated and betrayed by a handful of people. That's enough from me. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/03/21/4426753.htm

Knowing Jobe personally, I'm over reading posts like this and haven't commented a great deal about the saga because some minds are impenetrable. Dank and Hird were the perpetrators with the players being lead to believe that everything being administered was legal and the players signed consent forms stating the program was ASADA approved. It was leading edge and they were the first club to run the program. If anyone has been involved in any form of elite sport, you'd know that supplement programs are a big part of preparation, recovery and performance. No doubting this was really pushing the boundaries but to reiterate, if you're an elite level athlete who is used to supplement programs and have been told that you're about to be partaking in a program to help reach your physical potential and that everything was legal, why would you question it? Although it might sound an odd/simplistic analogy, I wonder for instance how many of those who have taken an Ecstasy pill would know what else (other than MDMA) is cut to make up that pill, and that they'd therefore be consuming. Of course MDMA is present. But I assure you it's not only MDMA. Ketamine, broken glass, Caffeine, Meth and plenty of trace amounts of other substances. The same can be said for the players who partook in the supplements program. A football club is not a Chemistry lab. And I highly doubt anyone who has even taken any sort of pre or post recovery drink really has an understanding of what it is they're consuming. Dank was trusted. Hird trusted Dank. And Dr Bruce Reid was the only one who began raising concerns about what was going on at a later date. I dislike Essendon a lot. But not because of this. Two people out of an entire club have caused this.

No, we want player upgrades. Which means the sooner Spencer moves on, the better. It'll be a sign of talent and depth improvement, just has been the case since the departure of McKenzie, Bail, Nicholson etc etc. Most obviously he is still on the list because we literally have nobody else. And no, neither King is anywhere near ready.

Barrett-scum has done this week's 'sliding doors' nonsense and of course our 'if' is about J Hogan. Two top 8 draft picks for Hogan and he thinks we should do it. Is he hearing things or is he just genuinely running out of information and has to make [censored] up? Either way I despise him.

I don't know what else to say to you when you come up with responses like, 'apparently preparation is now a reason to sign up a 39 year old front running player'. Like, you literally refuse to think in a broader capacity.

There are some great 'critical thinking' short courses around Stuie. Do a Google search.

Generally I enjoy your insights but with this argument, you're literally providing nothing. Even Stuie with his highly informative stat comparison of Harvey and Kent from this year tried to provide a counter argument, no matter how comical. I guess you've completely missed the consistent msg that Roos and co have driven since arriving. The development of 'elite training habits' for all our players but most importantly our highly rated core. Most of whom are barely 22. You're completely underestimating the significance and influence someone like Harvey would have on a young group. You and so many others. It's really odd.

It's honestly hilarious that Fyfe's name is being thrown up as compensation. He will never leave Freo. Ever.

They had the oldest list in the competition. Is it any wonder? We have the youngest list, (or there abouts) with only two players in our starting 22 who have 150+ games experience. This argument is so ridiculous and I'm so bored of it. He is an exception to the rule. Most obviously. He's a freak. Completely anomalous. His age is completely and utterly irrelevant simply because of the nick he is in which is due to the unbelievable attention to detail he has in regards to looking after his body. (Another leadership quality right there Ethan). His age will be a factor when and only when his on-field performance begins to decline and when he starts losing some of his physical capabilities. Like his speed etc. Honestly, some of the posts in this thread are jaw-droppingly thoughtless. Harvey will play next year, somewhere. I doubt it'll be us simply because we're not even in the eight yet. But if he was interested, does anybody really think that Simon Goodwin, the FD and our entire list would be against the idea? Seriously?

Good to hear. The only thing that concerns me is that GWS will be almost untouchable by the time we're challenging and I reckon Gold Coast will bounce back pretty quickly too with the amount of picks they now possess. But we'll have a shot. Out of interest, are you associated with Xavs in any capacity? Football perhaps?

I don't disagree

No, on his improvement as a player and increase in body size over the off-season.

Sorry, but arguing the difference between De Goey and Brayshaw's field kicking is ridiculous. Both make bad decisions at times and good ones at other times. Neither are elite kicks. And neither are terrible. And actually his kicking penetration is as good as Tysons. He has a cannon of a right foot. It's a strength of his, I'm not sure how much of the guy you've watched. Not a lot obviously. I brought up players who are as good/bad a kick as De Goey in our side. Your post was a one-liner suggesting that the reason we shouldn't get him is because 'he can't kick'. Which not only isn't true, but also ignores his strengths as a player.

Not any worse than Tyson, Brayshaw, ANB, Harmes, Vandenberg, T-Mac etc etc. And if he is, it's so marginal it'd be pointless to argue. All of those names miss targets, like De Goey. And none of them are elite kicks.

Weideman* will be playing round 1 next year unless he is injured.

Peace and love ya'll.

Genuinely laughed out loud.

Let's [censored] Hogan off then. And you may as well throw in Tyson from certain games this year as well as half a dozen others.

Oh we'll chuckle alright.

For the sake of keeping the thread on the straight and narrow, I'm throwing in the towel. But to reiterate, I think you're genuinely missing a much broader picture in regards to what Harvey would add to a club like ours. And it goes far beyond the singular comparison of 'stats' from two players over the course of a year. The fact that you chose to use a stat comparison between Harvey and Kent to back your view is fairly absurd and I guarantee if you took that to Goody, he'd laugh in your face. That's just the truth bro.

Are you mad, man? Firstly, what makes you so sure that all of those players will 'make it'? Christ, if it were that easy to draft and develop any young player into a best 22 consistent AFL level performer, this thread wouldn't even have started. Secondly, how is it possible that you completely ignore the following under your incredibly insular view: His level of experience, his attribute diversity, his training habits and understanding of what it takes to be able to play at the highest level for as long as he has, his level of on-field performance. etc etc. Thirdly, positionally speaking, Harvey is so much more versatile than Kent. The fact that you've chosen to compare both of their stats over the course of a single year in which Harvey has played in different positions and has played in a better and more evenly spread side is also baffling. Look Stuart, like plenty of other sheep on this forum, you prefer to let your emotional state guide your decision making. I'll lump you in with the rest that continue to be so short-sighted and continue to have NFI. Out of interest, how do you think Steve Johnson has performed this year and do you think anyone within the AFL world still questions whether or not GWS should have picked him up? His output last year was nowhere near Harvey's and he was a risk in more ways than only that. I can only imagine the tripe you'd be posting if it were us that were interested. In fact, I'm sure I could dig some of it up. We have two starting 22 players with more than 150 games experience to their name. Think for a minute Stu.