Blackburn bid for Jamie Mackie

[priceyrice 133]

Just seen this on sky sports news, think it''s from one of the papers. Apparently a bid of £3.5M could be enough, if that''s the case i feel we should hijack any potential deal. That would be a bargain for a player who was outscoring people for fun in the championship before his broken leg. 

He has looked good under Hughes and has recently signed a new contract i believe so not sure he is actually available but if he is he is just the sort of player to improve our strikeforce, much better than Martin or Jackson IMO

[Hog 0]

I wouldn''t want any player from QPR, the new scum for me.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,215]

Agree with you PR - there''s only one player I would want from QPR and that''s Mackie.

[Jacko 0]

For all the millions they have splashed around Mackie was certainly one of their best performers last season.

[AJ 1,359]

Whilst I do think there are better options out there, at such a low price that is a steal! Not a bad player at all, and offers something none of our players have. I would love to see Shane Long here though, him and Holt would be fantastic up top

[Gingerpele 0]

I suggested Mackie last summer I think, maybe Jan as well. Would love it if we signed him, surely at that price he must be interesting to clubs like us, and surely he''d choose us over Blackburn.

[priceyrice 133]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]I suggested Mackie last summer I think, maybe Jan as well. Would love it if we signed him, surely at that price he must be interesting to clubs like us, and surely he''d choose us over Blackburn.[/quote]

Considering the fact Rodrigez (? spelling) cost £7M, half of that for a player who scored more goals in the champ than him while only playing for half the season would represent a bargain. I hope this is something the club are looking at, but who knows.

As others have said, the only player from QPR i would want, from all accounts and interviews you hear of him he has a great attitude as well.

[Wizard Slayer 0]

Hate QPR and everything they stand for in Football, but I would take Mackie at that price [;)]

[Indy_Bones 444]

Jesus wept.We''ve got fans turning their nose up at the likes of Owen, Berbatov and Odemwingie, but suggest signing Mackie for 3.5m and everyone''s cheering???WTF is going on here???Mackie is horribly average and I''d much rather use that sort of transfer fee to bring in a better player possibly on higher wages but with no transfer fee, than I would spend it on a clogger like Mackie.Can''t fault his attitude, but his ability level leaves me cold - especially at that sort of price...

[Hog 0]

Yep, average player who had a good season playing for a scum team. Not good enough for us.

[ncfcstar 342]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Jesus wept.We''ve got fans turning their nose up at the likes of Owen, Berbatov and Odemwingie, but suggest signing Mackie for 3.5m and everyone''s cheering???WTF is going on here???Mackie is horribly average and I''d much rather use that sort of transfer fee to bring in a better player possibly on higher wages but with no transfer fee, than I would spend it on a clogger like Mackie.Can''t fault his attitude, but his ability level leaves me cold - especially at that sort of price...[/quote]Couldn''t have put it better myself, ridiculous.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Jesus wept.We''ve got fans turning their nose up at the likes of Owen, Berbatov and Odemwingie, but suggest signing Mackie for 3.5m and everyone''s cheering???WTF is going on here???Mackie is horribly average and I''d much rather use that sort of transfer fee to bring in a better player possibly on higher wages but with no transfer fee, than I would spend it on a clogger like Mackie.Can''t fault his attitude, but his ability level leaves me cold - especially at that sort of price...[/quote]

Jamie Mackie is now a better player than Michael Owen. Owen effectively gave up on playing football seriously when he joined Man Utd. He knew he was never to going to play much but wanted to be based in Chesire. He made a lifestyle choice and fair enough I can understand his decision. But I would take someone with 7 Premiership goals (only 1 less than Pilkington) who was being played wide over Owen (who last hit that figure when being played through the middle at Newcastle around 4 years ago.

Berbatov is never going to sign for Norwich in a million years. You can do all the asking you want but he is 31 years old and will still feel at that age he can play Champions League football and command around £70k + a week. You are leaving in fantasy land to think otherwise.

Odewingie would be a very decent signing and I think a lot of people would be happy with it judging by what I have read on that thread. But who knows how realistic it is?

[priceyrice 133]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Jesus wept.We''ve got fans turning their nose up at the likes of Owen, Berbatov and Odemwingie, but suggest signing Mackie for 3.5m and everyone''s cheering???WTF is going on here???Mackie is horribly average and I''d much rather use that sort of transfer fee to bring in a better player possibly on higher wages but with no transfer fee, than I would spend it on a clogger like Mackie.Can''t fault his attitude, but his ability level leaves me cold - especially at that sort of price...[/quote]

A striker who playing as a winger and scored 8 in 7 games for QPR- must be crap! Also his comeback into the team the end of last season helped keep them up. 

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Hog"]Yep, average player who had a good season playing for a scum team. Not good enough for us.[/quote]

Because Holt was setting the world alight before he singed for us.

And Pilkington and E.Bennett were so outstanding playing for Manchester United before we signed them. And that Ruddy, how on earth did we manage to sign Everton''s first choice GK?

Most of our squad is made up of players who you would say are ''not good enough'' in theory none of them were good enough for the premiership, bar Adam Drury, he was the only one who''d had a full season in the premiership in the first team, Vaughan, Surman (and a couple others) had been at Prem teams, but hadn''t been in the first team all season.

Mackie did very well last season before his injury, and has been playing well in the premiership this season. How on earth is he not good enough?

[Jacko 0]

Jamie Mackie (26 years old) : 31 appearances, 7 goals, 4 assists

Anthony Pilkington (24 years old): 30 appearances, 8 goals, 1 assist.

While stats don''t tell you the full story how one of those players can be regarded by our fanbase as an outstanding young talent while the other can be dismissed as not being good enough is absolutely bonkers.

[Indy_Bones 444]

[quote user="Jacko"]Jamie Mackie is now a better player than Michael Owen.[/quote]What? [quote]Owen effectively gave up on playing football seriously when he joined Man Utd. He knew he was never to going to play much but wanted to be based in Chesire. He made a lifestyle choice and fair enough I can understand his decision. But I would take someone with 7 Premiership goals (only 1 less than Pilkington) who was being played wide over Owen (who last hit that figure when being played through the middle at Newcastle around 4 years ago.[/quote]He''s been badly unlucky with injuries as well don''t forget, and he''s still performed at a level that Mackie can only dream of, even if he has slipped a bit in recent seasons. I''d rather take a proven striker who''s previously hit big numbers than a very average guy who hasn''t.Also - Owen is free, not 3.5m or so.[quote] Berbatov is never going to sign for Norwich in a million years. You can do all the asking you want but he is 31 years old and will still feel at that age he can play Champions League football and command around £70k + a week. You are leaving in fantasy land to think otherwise.[/quote]On those sort of wages you''re probably right, but I''d rather we looked at options like this instead of middle of the road options like Mackie.[quote]Odewingie would be a very decent signing and I think a lot of people would be happy with it judging by what I have read on that thread. But who knows how realistic it is?[/quote]I don''t see it as unrealistic, but I do think he''s more likely to go with the money this time and probably return to Russia.[quote]Jamie Mackie (26 years old) : 31 appearances, 7

goals, 4 assists

Anthony Pilkington (24 years old): 30 appearances, 8 goals, 1 assist.

While stats don''t tell you the full story how one of those players can

be regarded by our fanbase as an outstanding young talent while the

other can be dismissed as not being good enough is absolutely

bonkers.[/quote]

Pilks is an out and out winger, he''s not a striker who was asked

to play out wide in some games, therefore they are completely different

players and using a stats comparison between them is like comparing

apples to oranges.

That being said, Pilks outscored Mackie despite Mackie being a striker (and in less games as well).

As to why do I not think JM is good enough? Simply because he doesn''t score

anywhere near enough for his position (striker) and his overall play is nothing special either.

11/12 - 7 goals in 31 apps

10/11 - 9 goals (CCC) in 25 games

09/10 - 8 goals (CCC) in 42 games

08/09 - 5 goals (CCC) in 43 games

The fact is that he hasn''t hit double figures in a season (aside from

when in the Blue Square Prem...) - even when playing at a lower level

like the CCC, so taking this along with his overall play into account,

that''s how I can say I don''t think he''s good enough.

He''s not a prem quality striker, and whilst he''s probably a decent guy

to have as a squad backup, I certainly wouldn''t pay 3.5m or so for the

privilege...

[Gingerpele 0]

Indy, I was under the impression he plays out wide more often than on the wing. Certainly when i''ve seen him play, he seems to be on the wing rather than in the middle.

[Skerritt 0]

If we can''t get snodgrass, seems like a very good alternative

[priceyrice 133]

Indy your stats provided just point to a great reason to sign him - scoring almost ten goals a season when playing out of position is not bad at all. His record last season was good for the prem, considering most of those appearances from the first half of the season were as a substitutes.

He also would have done much better in the champ if he had remained fit, he was top goalscorer up to December or so i believe.

Also can you show me some stats from last season where Jackson, Martin and  Vaughan scored more, got more assists? if not then surely that points to him being a better striker than what we have??

[Indy_Bones 444]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]Indy, I was under the impression he plays out wide more often than on the wing. Certainly when i''ve seen him play, he seems to be on the wing rather than in the middle.[/quote]IIRC he was used as a striker by Plymouth, centrally again by QPR in the CCC and only moved more onto the wing in the last year or so.I guess he''s a bit like Agbonlahor in the respect that he''s a striker who can get used on the wing (I think Walcott is as well) if needed.

[Indy_Bones 444]

[quote user="priceyrice"]Also can you show me some stats from last season where Jackson, Martin and  Vaughan scored more, got more assists? if not then surely that points to him being a better striker than what we have??[/quote]Vaughan - obviously not, the guy was injured all season FFS.Martin - 7 goals in 30 games for Palace in a withdrawn role between midfield and attack (don''t know about assists), so virtually the same as Mackie albeit at a lower level.Jackson isn''t good enough for the prem, I don''t even know if he''s a CCC striker half the time, so you''ll not get arguments there.My entire point however is that I''d rather put the transfer money towards a top class player who''ll kicking Holt/Moro out of the team, than an average one who''s taking Martin/Vaughan/Jackson''s place on the bench...

[priceyrice 133]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="priceyrice"]Also can you show me some stats from last season where Jackson, Martin and  Vaughan scored more, got more assists? if not then surely that points to him being a better striker than what we have??[/quote]Vaughan - obviously not, the guy was injured all season FFS.Martin - 7 goals in 30 games for Palace in a withdrawn role between midfield and attack (don''t know about assists), so virtually the same as Mackie albeit at a lower level.Jackson isn''t good enough for the prem, I don''t even know if he''s a CCC striker half the time, so you''ll not get arguments there.My entire point however is that I''d rather put the transfer money towards a top class player who''ll kicking Holt/Moro out of the team, than an average one who''s taking Martin/Vaughan/Jackson''s place on the bench...[/quote]

Vaughan - history seems to suggest he will spend most of this season injured as well - sorry bit OT here but what i don''t get was how the club wern''t willing to extend Whitbred''s contract due to his injury problems yet they signed Vaughan- bizare - BTW i think Vaughan could be a good striker for us this season if he stays fit.

Martin - Mackie did that in 1/3 of a season in the championship before his injury - most appearances afterwards were as a substitute to try gain match fitness again. Also if you watch Mackie and Martin then it''s quite obvious the difference in ability - Mackie was regarded as the next best thing in the champ while at QPR before his injury.

Also Indy did you watch Mackie towards the end last season, he was exceptional - he may not be the big name signing we all want but i am confident he can score 10+ goals in the prem, if we have 3 10+ goal scoring strikers in our team then we will be doing very well.

I would actually be concerned if we spent 8M on a striker, what if he gets injured within a month and misses the rest of the campaign - i would prefer to see 2 quality players come in for that combined price (Snodgrass and Mackie for example instead of say a Bendtner or another striker around the 8M mark) which also keeps our wage structure in place.

[Brendo 0]

I''d love it if we signed Mackie, a great player. Would be good for him to Pilks/Benno competition for their places.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

I like Mackie.  His attitude and style remind me of Clint Dempsey and he could be very effective for us.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]My entire point however is that I''d rather put the transfer money towards a top class player who''ll kicking Holt/Moro out of the team, than an average one who''s taking Martin/Vaughan/Jackson''s place on the bench...[/quote]Exactly.I don''t think Owen, Odemwingie or Berbatov will be that player, but the principle of what you say is absolutely right IMO.

[Dubai Mark 0]

An excellent player who was outstanding several times last season, and who often had some quality defenders on the back foot not knowing how to handle him. I know a couple of die hard QPR fans who would be absolutely gutted if he moved on and I for one would welcome a quality signing like this.

[Indy_Bones 444]

I''m completely baffled with this one.It seems to some that Mackie is the next big thing and that even proven premiership strikers are lower down the food chain than he is, yet QPR are apparently willing to sell, and the main interest is from big name championship side.............Blackburn.Come on guys, get with the programme here. It''s blindingly obvious by the lack of serious interest that most clubs don''t think that highly of him. There''s no doubt he''s a competent enough player, but comparing him to people who''ve previously won the golden boot and played for the best sides is ridiculous.The key issue is that he''s simply a decent player, not special, not world class, and therefore not really any better than our current first choice options. If he was on a free or a cut price deal, then a signing as a squad player would be perfectly sensible, but at this price we are better either sticking with what we have, or preferably using the funds towards signing a higher quality option to compete with Holt and Morison.Mister Chops gets it, so who else is next for a Eureka moment...?

[Hog 0]

[quote user="Hog"]Yep, average player who had a good season playing for a scum team. Not good enough for us.[/quote]

 

I got it too!