Opinion Drafting since 2003 (taken from the Myers thread)

[Doss]

Thread needs more idiocrcy

I am Costanza, lord of the idiots.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Thread needs more idiocrcy

Nurse! Mainboard injection, stat!

 

[yaco55]

Yoda

We have the same debate at the same time every year.

Hopefully we can revisit this thread in 5 years, and find that all our first rounders, are very good AFL players.

 

[NAB777]

This is where history is being re-written to suit an argument. There is no way anyone could have sensibly predicted that the Jobe of 2006 would have evolved into a Brownlow medalist and gun of the competition. Why is the club doctor a reliable authority for predicting the development of a player.

How does a plodding inside midfielder who can't kick the ball to save himself when he isn't just handballing, and can't play more than 60% of game time, but can get the ball 25 times show more potential than a guy with the ability to move through stoppages as though the rest of the players on the ground are standing still to then drill 50-60m bullets or bomb goals despite his tendency to float in and out of games/seasons?

Jobe's consistency from 2006 is something that Melksham has not gotten close to but the potential best of Melksham (based on the glimpses he has shown) is so far in front of Jobe's potential best pre 2010 that it isn't funny.

1) The club doc is inside the club every day, and knows a fair bit about what makes a player. Jobe was showing his promise pre season 2006, and I spoke to the doc about him. He couldn't believe the transformation & his exact words were that they expect him to be the club's 'diesel'.
2) The reason he couldn't get over 60% game time was because of Sheedy's issues with Jobe's dad, not because he was a dud. He was runner up in the B&F that year... the signs were promising.
3) Predicting that someone is going to be a good player is a bit different than predicting that they are going to be a Brownlow medallist. I said it was obvious he was going to be a player. You are born with Jobe's vision & awareness - you don't develop it.
4) I didn't see Jake do any of what you described last year, and fleetingly in the two years prior.

I am scratching my head at the concept that people don't seem to think that Jake needs to step it up. He was pretty ordinary last year. As I said earlier... I hope I am wrong.

 

[Doss]

I don't think people are suggesting that Jake doesn't need to step up, per se.

I think it's more that they are just wanting to see how he goes this year, and that any writing off of him is premature. He didn't have a great time of it last year, but at this point, he's still only 21 so it's still reasonable to back him in. And hopefully, with less bulk he will move more freely this year- in which case his better form is much more likely to return.

 

[BrunoV]

1) The club doc is inside the club every day, and knows a fair bit about what makes a player. Jobe was showing his promise pre season 2006, and I spoke to the doc about him. He couldn't believe the transformation & his exact words were that they expect him to be the club's 'diesel'.
2) The reason he couldn't get over 60% game time was because of Sheedy's issues with Jobe's dad, not because he was a dud. He was runner up in the B&F that year... the signs were promising.
3) Predicting that someone is going to be a good player is a bit different than predicting that they are going to be a Brownlow medallist. I said it was obvious he was going to be a player. You are born with Jobe's vision & awareness - you don't develop it.
4) I didn't see Jake do any of what you described last year, and fleetingly in the two years prior.

I am scratching my head at the concept that people don't seem to think that Jake needs to step it up. He was pretty ordinary last year. As I said earlier... I hope I am wrong.

If you think the bolded is being questioned by anyone you're confusing the issues. Even the most ardent fan of Melksham is not going to agree that Jake does not need to break free of last year's malaise and "step up". The thing is that whether or not Melksham needs to step up is totally irrelevant to the discussion about his potential and what people see in him.

The reason Watson and Melksham/Myers were being set against each other was because Watson is an example of the scope for improvement that is in a player once his comes to terms with the required work load, his own game and gains the necessary physical maturity and experience.

You're viewing Jobe's past through rose coloured glasses based on the level at which he has achieved and then trying to lend it credibility by citing the feud between Sheedy and Tim Watson as though it makes up for the fact that Jobe was as much a liability as he was a strength. There have been plenty of ball magnets who were good in traffic who have not lasted the distance, Mark McGough and Adam Bentick are the first two that spring to mind, who had a number of other deficiencies which cost them a place on an AFL list. Jobe basically shared all of those poor on field traits (and was seriously one of the worst kicks I've seen play AFL).

If we are (sensibly) limiting this discussion to whether Melksham can become a good player rather than a gun of the competition than I consider that Melksham is in a much better position to get to the level than Jobe ever was as a young player (say by the end of Jobe's 5th year). Melksham has been a first choice player under a demanding coaching panel, who clearly have faith in him, which I'd say is based on his ability to do what they are asking of him and because Melksham has shown (I admit too infrequently last year) that he is a very talented player. His first two seasons were excellent for a young player but they are being increasingly ignored because of a disappointing third year (which was most likely the result of physical issues created by the club).

 

[NAB777]

If you think the bolded is being questioned by anyone you're confusing the issues. Even the most ardent fan of Melksham is not going to agree that Jake does not need to break free of last year's malaise and "step up". The thing is that whether or not Melksham needs to step up is totally irrelevant to the discussion about his potential and what people see in him.

The reason Watson and Melksham/Myers were being set against each other was because Watson is an example of the scope for improvement that is in a player once his comes to terms with the required work load, his own game and gains the necessary physical maturity and experience.

You're viewing Jobe's past through rose coloured glasses based on the level at which he has achieved and then trying to lend it credibility by citing the feud between Sheedy and Tim Watson as though it makes up for the fact that Jobe was as much a liability as he was a strength. There have been plenty of ball magnets who were good in traffic who have not lasted the distance, Mark McGough and Adam Bentick are the first two that spring to mind, who had a number of other deficiencies which cost them a place on an AFL list. Jobe basically shared all of those poor on field traits (and was seriously one of the worst kicks I've seen play AFL).

If we are (sensibly) limiting this discussion to whether Melksham can become a good player rather than a gun of the competition than I consider that Melksham is in a much better position to get to the level than Jobe ever was as a young player (say by the end of Jobe's 5th year). Melksham has been a first choice player under a demanding coaching panel, who clearly have faith in him, which I'd say is based on his ability to do what they are asking of him and because Melksham has shown (I admit too infrequently last year) that he is a very talented player. His first two seasons were excellent for a young player but they are being increasingly ignored because of a disappointing third year (which was most likely the result of physical issues created by the club).

At least you didn't ask me what I was smoking..
Like it or not, the reason Sheedy limited Jobe's playing time was to get back at Tim. I am not sure many on here know the depth of the division between the two. It cost Jobe the B&F in 06.
IMO, after Jobe's 5th year, he was a long way ahead of where Jake is now.
IMO, whether Jake needs to step up is totally relevant to the discussion about his potential. Obviously, he is seen buy the club as a guy with talent. If he didn't have 'talent', then the discussion on him stepping up wouldn't even be taking place.

BTW.. I am not viewing Jobe's past with rose coloured glasses... I have been on board since early '06.
I think most of us are on the same page, I am perhaps a tad more pessimistic about Jake's upside than others.
As I said... I am happy to be proven wrong. Everyone wins!

 

[BrunoV]

If you expect a player to step up I suppose you agree that he has the potential to do it.

 

[NAB777]

If you expect a player to step up I suppose you agree that he has the potential to do it.

I can't see what others are seeing, but I will take their word for it..

Step up, Jake..!

 

[yaco55]

I agree with NAB - You saw glimpses with Watson - not so much with Melksham. The one thing that Melksham has in his favour is that Watson worked on his fitness which lead to great improvement in his form.

 

[NAB777]

Some interesting reading here:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/essendon-secures-myers-with-pick-six.398240/

 

[eth-dog]

I love how Palmer is a much better player. I'd take Myers every day of the week