Wiseblood

The way I'm reading it is this - sign James Harmes to a 10 year contract and Jesse will follow suit. C'mon Peter, you know what to do...

Great opportunity to give the kid a real taste of senior footy over the coming weeks. I don't see him getting a gig in Round 1 but he'll know a bit about what it takes at the highest level and hopefully spur him on to earn his spot early in the season.

Nothing in it really. The new CBA could see a number of changes happening and it only makes sense to see what those are. As long as we look after him and keep winning then he will sign. I'm not worried.

It wasn't necessarily about his ability to play the game, more that we picked him in the Top 10 of what was dubbed a super draft and missed out completely, just like Cook. Very different players but we picked them both and missed out on others. I was only being light hearted, didn't think you would take it so seriously.

I was hoping we could go even further back and have a discussion about Luke Molan...

And Brayshaw was the one who was subbed off for Toumpas in the end.

Even if 6 midfielders somehow improved unbelievably out of sight over the next month or two, Jones is still a lock for the Round 1 side. He is our captain for a reason.

Agree with all of that. And you're right - it's not a knock on Jones, but more about the fact that we need the kids to surpass him over the next few years and push us to the next level. Jones has been a warrior for us, but you wouldn't class him as an A grader with some of the other elite mids who are on that level. We've got the players who can get there though, and thankfully a guy like Jones is an excellent role model due to his terrific work ethic and willingness to improve.

Rubbish. I had an opinion that differed and responded in kind. I wasn't rude about it. Your post, however, added nothing to the conversation either, so go ahead and sort yourself out.

Is that a realistic hypothetical though, mate? It sounded like a few players returned from the 6 week break before pre-season a little underdone, but would the modern footballer turn up with terrible skin folds these days? They might not do everything asked of them, or play basketball and injure themselves, but you would have to do plenty of terrible things not to get picked if you're Hogan. Roos himself even suggested that, even though he is disappointed with the injury Petracca sustained, he is still well and truly in the running to play Round 1. That tells us plenty. I wasn't looking to start an argument and derail the thread in this case, more that the idea that every spot is up for grabs is ludicrous and we all know it. We need to play our best players each and every week.

Don't twist your words and meaning around now. You said that no one was guaranteed a game, and I argued that this notion is ridiculous as we have a number of players who are an automatic walk up start. If you didn't say Hogan and Jones wouldn't be playing then you should have said SOME spots are up for grabs, not all.

You're kidding yourself. Really, you are. Jesse Hogan plays in Round 1 no matter what. Even if he plays in two NAB Cup games and doesn't get a kick, he plays. The same goes for a number of other players. We aren't Hawthorn. We need our best 22 on the park. The players might be on 'notice', but any person with half a brain knows that guys like Jones, Vince, Viney, McDonald, Gawn, Garland, Dunn, Salem, Tyson etc. will be playing in Round 1 if they aren't injured. That's just common sense.

Serious question - you are trying to tell me that Jesse Hogan, for example, is not a lock to play in Round 1 this year?

Matt Jones a lock in the best 22 again this year Saty? Without a doubt. There are 5-7 spots up for grabs in the side for Round 1. Plenty of them are well and truly filled and everyone knows it, no more so than the players.

I said much the same thing earlier in the thread. It's not as if Jake went out and deliberately cheated. As Fifty-5 so eloquently put, he was 20 at the time and from all reports what he was taking wasn't illegal. A year out of the game and what they've been through for the last 4 years is punishment enough.

Well you'll just have to learn to deal with it. That's up to you. I'm okay with it because he didn't go and do it himself. He's not someone like Lance Armstrong. I agree in that he should have queried it more, asked questions, done a little research etc, but I also believe the 34 players were misled and they put their trust in who they believed were the experts. They got burnt big time and they'll live with that stigma for the rest of their lives. But they didn't do it of their own volition and that makes it a different proposition... for me anyway. I can handle it.

You take yourself too seriously. He's at the club, either deal with it or support another club. Easy.

And that's what we did for years - talk up the kids to give us hope. We have barely done that at all this year, and it's telling. I see it as a real positive.

Fair enough mate. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers.

There's so much more to it than this simplistic view and you know it. Personally, and I can speak for others as well, I'm not okay with anyone cheating, and Melksham was part of that and he will serve his suspension. Then he will get a second chance at turning his career around in the red and blue and I'm more than happy to give him an opportunity to do so. If anything I hope sitting out this year really spurs him on and he becomes a really integral player for us off the half back line. Sitting out for a year is punishment enough.

Quality as always.

He'll be back in a year. He has the stigma of cheating around him but, to quote you, you're better than that. You know it's not just down to him and there is far more at play here than that. There might be a difference, but he will come back without any injury history and be ready to go. If he can play a good role for us over the coming years then the trade is a win, it's as simple as that. You know more than us do you, big mouth?

They wouldn't have known it would happen, but that would have considered all the options and outcomes, and this was one of them. They would have known there was a possibility of this outcome and planned accordingly.

I'm not sure why people are missing this point in amongst everything else. We've had a variety of players over the last few decades miss huge chunks of game time, yet we've stuck with them and they've come out well on the other side. Stephen Tingay is a prime example. Missed a few years and then came back with a vengeance in '98. There is no reason why Melksham can't do the very same thing. Missing the year isn't ideal, of course, but it's hardly the end of the world.

Big chunk? Turn it up. The contract the Dogs gave Boyd is what people would describe as a 'big chunk' out of the salary cap. Melksham's hardly compares to that. If he doesn't miss a year of footy then nobody would be in here calling this a terrible trade. He will only be 25 next year and moving in to the prime years of his career. He'll be right.