Delisted #2: Ricky Dyson

[srobbo]

Nothing is easier than finding faults in players. It's only the skilled that can look past the obvious faults to find the positives.

If it was up to you the Swans wouldn't have got near the flag this year as you would have got rid of half their list.

Hang on a sec...your comparing a side who has consistently been a threat for the past 8 years, won 2 flags, to Ess who have barely been a blip on the radar since 2004! Dont insult Sydney please!

See the thing is....Essendon havent shown a great skill as you say...in finding positives beyond the faults of a lot of players that they have persisted with....hence why we've been so ordinary for so long. The challenge is getting better at calling players out that arent up to it earlier, so we can improve quicker...much like sydney do!

And apart from a handful of players....namely Monfries, Melksham, Dyson, Hooker and Hardingham...who else have i criticised that doesnt warrant it??

 

[Super Gusto]

Hang on a sec...your comparing a side who has consistently been a threat for the past 8 years, won 2 flags, to Ess who have barely been a blip on the radar since 2004! Dont insult Sydney please!

See the thing is....Essendon havent shown a great skill as you say...in finding positives beyond the faults of a lot of players that they have persisted with....hence why we've been so ordinary for so long. The challenge is getting better at calling players out that arent up to it earlier, so we can improve quicker...much like sydney do!

And apart from a handful of players....namely Monfries, Melksham, Dyson, Hooker and Hardingham...who else have i criticised that doesnt warrant it??

I;m not really sure what your point is.

What you fail to understand is that Sydney back their ability to develop players who don;t necessarily have the most skill but have great work ethic and are excellent as playing the team role. Sydney have had success because they have taken a chance on players who have been overlooked by most other clubs.

Be honest, how may of these players would you have persisted with had they been at Essendon - R Shaw (30yrs old), Morton (25), Bird (23), Robert-Thompson (29), Alex Johnson (21), Grundy (26) , Pyke (28), N Smith (24)

All the players you have mentioned have shown alot of potential. Three of them are still very young have their best footy ahead of them - Hardingham has just turned 24, Hooker is only 23 and Melksham only recently turned 21.

 

[AlexEss]

The fact that dyson can actually kick effectively means we should keep him he definitely wasn't our worst performer this year....I remember earlier in the year how hird and co were saying how impressed they were that ricky had turned his career around

 

[srobbo]

I;m not really sure what your point is.

What you fail to understand is that Sydney back their ability to develop players who don;t necessarily have the most skill but have great work ethic and are excellent as playing the team role. Sydney have had success because they have taken a chance on players who have been overlooked by most other clubs.

Be honest, how may of these players would you have persisted with had they been at Essendon - R Shaw (30yrs old), Morton (25), Bird (23), Robert-Thompson (29), Alex Johnson (21), Grundy (26) , Pyke (28), N Smith (24)

All the players you have mentioned have shown alot of potential. Three of them are still very young have their best footy ahead of them - Hardingham has just turned 24, Hooker is only 23 and Melksham only recently turned 21.

Sydney have had success because primarily they've always had a strong core of players to build a team around over the past decade, Essendon havent. Most of the players you've mentioned has also illustrated the superior recruiting of sydney compared to Ess... so thanks for that!

Alex johnson #57 has shown 10 times more than mellksham in 2 years as a 3rd tall, as had Bird #59 at the same stage, similarly Nick Smith as well!! Grundy showed an ability to stitch up key forwards CONSISTENTLY after he was asked to fill the void left by Craig Bolton at the same age as hooker....sorry Hooker hasnt come close to doing that. '

HardinGham is a different kettle of fish. All im saying is he isnt a backman. He plays on instinct and would be far better served up fwd with his marking/agility strengths. His margin for error isnt as magnified there.

Its one thing persisting with a player who has talent and another trying to get blood out of a stone which i think the case is with hooker, whilst Melksham simply IMO isnt a first rounder, yet we treat him like he is. Again, i ask you, would you be defending him if he were an 2nd or 3rd rounder like Johnson, Bird and Smith???

 

[The Speaker]

I came in here to read about Ricky Dyson.

As an aside, these mega player threads are starting to annoy me again.

 

[qwertyboy]

bit of a nothing player better to take a risk on another draft pick than keep hanging on to players that will not take us further up the ladder
it is the time to start taking risks with our youngster and not hope a 27 year old will just keep hangin on and doin his thang we need better quality and what started with mcveigh slettery and lee leaving has to end with dyson leving aswell

 

[Duckworth]

Yeah let's de-list Dyson. We need more speculative pick 100+ players.

Yes Dyson is an average player. I guarantee you that pick 100 (next year) will be shite. Where I come from average>shite.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Yes Dyson is an average player. I guarantee you that pick 100 (next year) will be shite. Where I come from average>shite.

I think that's where the difference between Dyson and '10-'12 vintage McVeigh/Slattery comes in.

We know what Dyson can do well, and in a team that is functioning, he can do that. He can actually do it in a team that is battling but still in it. His worst game for the year came when we were smashed all across the park (funnily enough, Watson had a stinker too).

What Slattery could do in that construct is dramatically less than Dyson, and Spike just plain deteriorated. Dyson had a few injury issues this year, but with the exception of 2-3 regular players, just about everyone did.

We have spots that we're vacating out of necessity, we have spots that we'll vacate to be given a run at the parts of the draft that are worth having a crack at, but using age as an excuse to dismiss someone who has a function only to replace him with someone who could possibly have a greater function but could just as equally be completely bloody useless doesn't strike me as being totally savvy.

 

[2one2]

I personally think we should delist everyone who hasn't had a top 3 B&F finish in their career.

I know srobbo is with me.

No, just the top 10 picks - it has to be the top 10 picks for some reason

 

[yaco55]

Much ado about nothing.

Nearly everyone on this board, stated during the year, that Melksham should be dropped due to bad form.

Melksham must build up his endurance - or he will end up Lonergan - Having a limited shelf life.

 

[Super Gusto]

Sydney have had success because primarily they've always had a strong core of players to build a team around over the past decade, Essendon havent. Most of the players you've mentioned has also illustrated the superior recruiting of sydney compared to Ess... so thanks for that!

Alex johnson #57 has shown 10 times more than mellksham in 2 years as a 3rd tall, as had Bird #59 at the same stage, similarly Nick Smith as well!! Grundy showed an ability to stitch up key forwards CONSISTENTLY after he was asked to fill the void left by Craig Bolton at the same age as hooker....sorry Hooker hasnt come close to doing that. '

HardinGham is a different kettle of fish. All im saying is he isnt a backman. He plays on instinct and would be far better served up fwd with his marking/agility strengths. His margin for error isnt as magnified there.

Its one thing persisting with a player who has talent and another trying to get blood out of a stone which i think the case is with hooker, whilst Melksham simply IMO isnt a first rounder, yet we treat him like he is. Again, i ask you, would you be defending him if he were an 2nd or 3rd rounder like Johnson, Bird and Smith???

I'll agree to disagree with you on Sydney.

Back to Essendon. Show something in threes years or see you later seems to be your mindset. Is that correct?

Would you them have persisted with Jobe, Dempsey or our latest recruit Goddard? Have a look at their first 3 seasons and be honest, they would have all been looking for new homes had you been in control.

 

[B-Bomber]

Hope they give Ricky a new contract. By all reports is a great clubman, good role model from an off-field training perspective and has experience which we are already losing in Spike and potentially Hille. Plus, even though he isn't a superstar he's a good depth player who is capable of coming in, playing a role and making an impact even when he isn't in the side week in, week out. Need players like this on your list. Draft pick #187 isn't going to be able to do this.

 

[Loonerty]

Well he's gone up to Darwin for that sponsorship thing, so perhaps he does have a contract in front of him.

 

[srobbo]

I'll agree to disagree with you on Sydney.

Back to Essendon. Show something in threes years or see you later seems to be your mindset. Is that correct?

Would you them have persisted with Jobe, Dempsey or our latest recruit Goddard? Have a look at their first 3 seasons and be honest, they would have all been looking for new homes had you been in control.

For what its worth pal, i dont reckon im alone with my views on Hooker and Melksham...just cos i dont rate them doesnt mean id push the eject button on any player that doesnt show a bit in his first 3 years. Stop generalising. As for your hypotheticals on players i think you better just stop now, because for what its worth all 3 mentioned there showed strengths early in their career as did the Sydney ones you mentioned.

What exactly are Hookers and Melksham while we're on the subject?

If it were up to you we'd just pedal mediocrity on our list for the next 10 years just as we have with certain players the previous 10.

For what its worth i dont think we're far away from being a contender, we just need to make decisons on a few positions and back the right guys in our best 22, rather than persisting with guys who have stagnated or gone backwards like Hooker and Melksham who at this stage are def not in it!

 

[BrunoV]

I think that's where the difference between Dyson and '10-'12 vintage McVeigh/Slattery comes in.

We know what Dyson can do well, and in a team that is functioning, he can do that. He can actually do it in a team that is battling but still in it. His worst game for the year came when we were smashed all across the park (funnily enough, Watson had a stinker too).

What Slattery could do in that construct is dramatically less than Dyson, and Spike just plain deteriorated. Dyson had a few injury issues this year, but with the exception of 2-3 regular players, just about everyone did.

We have spots that we're vacating out of necessity, we have spots that we'll vacate to be given a run at the parts of the draft that are worth having a crack at, but using age as an excuse to dismiss someone who has a function only to replace him with someone who could possibly have a greater function but could just as equally be completely bloody useless doesn't strike me as being totally savvy.

This basically shoots the debate to pieces as far as I am concerned.

It is something I hadn't considered but seems water tight.

 

[Super Gusto]

For what its worth pal, i dont reckon im alone with my views on Hooker and Melksham...just cos i dont rate them doesnt mean id push the eject button on any player that doesnt show a bit in his first 3 years. Stop generalising. As for your hypotheticals on players i think you better just stop now, because for what its worth all 3 mentioned there showed strengths early in their career as did the Sydney ones you mentioned.

What exactly are Hookers and Melksham while we're on the subject?

If it were up to you we'd just pedal mediocrity on our list for the next 10 years just as we have with certain players the previous 10.

For what its worth i dont think we're far away from being a contender, we just need to make decisons on a few positions and back the right guys in our best 22, rather than persisting with guys who have stagnated or gone backwards like Hooker and Melksham who at this stage are def not in it!

Firstly I'm not your Pal.

Secondly if you can;t see what Hooker and Melksham have offered in their first three years you stupider than I realised or trolling for a reaction, either way their's no point in trying to reason with you.

I'll look forward to proving you wrong next year.

 

[srobbo]

Firstly I'm not your Pal.

Secondly if you can;t see what Hooker and Melksham have offered in their first three years you stupider than I realised or trolling for a reaction, either way their's no point in trying to reason with you.

I'll look forward to proving you wrong next year.

Hey, this isn't a hate page SDR223, loosen up. We're all Dons men who are having some healthy debate re our list...my apologies for trying to round off the convo with some peaceful overtones.

Let me finish with this. If you think we're a chance of winning a flag with Cale Hooker at CHB, or anywhere in the backline for that matter, you are kidding yourself! Why do you think at the soonest opportunity fellow supporters call for him to be traded, generally with another draft pick because he carries stuff all currency by himself!! Your living in a bubble on that one, he's terrible!

Im happy to reserve my judgement on Melksham however and i hope the kid proves me wrong, all im saying is that from what he's shown in 3 years (apart from you know what game) he's does not warrant anywhere near a first rd draft selection let alone be in our best 22. He needs to step up big time 2013!!

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Just quickly, if you want to talk about Cale Hooker, there's a Cale Hooker thread.

Not biting anyone's head off, jus' sayin'.

 

[BrunoV]

Hey, this isn't a hate page SDR223, loosen up. We're all Dons men who are having some healthy debate re our list...my apologies for trying to round off the convo with some peaceful overtones.

Let me finish with this. If you think we're a chance of winning a flag with Cale Hooker at CHB, or anywhere in the backline for that matter, you are kidding yourself! Why do you think at the soonest opportunity fellow supporters call for him to be traded, generally with another draft pick because he carries stuff all currency by himself!! Your living in a bubble on that one, he's terrible!

Im happy to reserve my judgement on Melksham however and i hope the kid proves me wrong, all im saying is that from what he's shown in 3 years (apart from you know what game) he's does not warrant anywhere near a first rd draft selection let alone be in our best 22. He needs to step up big time 2013!!

That is reasoning on an incredibly slippery slope.

To try and get some objective insight, Hawthorn seems to believe that it has a better chance of winning a flag with Hooker in its side than not.

 

[Slattery_20]

ITT the board discovers another heroic sledger of 20yo kids.

 

[RearNaked]

Worth a 1 year deal

 

[BrunoV]

ITT the board discovers another heroic sledger of 20yo kids.

What is ITT?

 

[Slattery_20]

In this thread

 

[DaSawx]

Certainly not the worst player to have around for depth.

 

[84859300]

Certainly not the worst player to have around for depth.

We have to remember in going stand alone with our reserves in 2013 that we have to include some depth in the twos to put pressure on the first 22.

We can now play players in position and allow them to learn a role, rather than have them play horribly out of position to help a 3rd party win some footy.

As for Ricky, I still see him as fringe, but a quality fringe. One that can come into the side and do a job that gets him a half a dozen games in a row, as opposed to the ones and twos he was getting under Knights.