5 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

How is this place going to go off when we don't land him? (no info, but I reckon this website would melt quicker than Godzilla's underpants!)

I'm not sure STMJ could take it.

Well we will find out soon enough. 

18 minutes ago, binman said:

Yep. A more revealing example was how Dangerfield out marked him at the start of the Crows cats game. No shame in getting out marked by danger but it was a pure one one contest rather than the more common zoning off Lever employs. Leverr tried to spoil without taking the body (like say Dunn or talia would have) and missed it, gifting Danger an easy mark (which he even had time to juggle). Don't get me wrong i'm not having a shot at him merely highlighting that man on man is not his go. 

Seriously binman. You're making an assessment of his lack of capabilities based on one example. 

Couldn't be worse then the JW sooking?

Surely?

3 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

Firstly, he is not an AA and quite frankly no one would have had him close to the team. He was listed in the squad but was never going to make it.

The fact that no other club is willing to spend that kind of money on him is just as telling, despite you having more of an idea than all of us that don't want to pay overs for him and the 17 other AFL clubs.

Where would you rank him with our younger players? Oliver, Hogan, Viney, Petracca and Lever. Can you please order them 1-5 so I can get an understanding. 

 

Sorry extended squad. I should have specified.

No one would have had him close to the team? Haha. What does that mean?! He made the squad you peanut. That means he had a fantastic season whichever way you look at it. He made it as a key pos player at 22. Let's just imagine if Oscar had made the extended squad for a minute.. This place would have exploded.

Given the conjecture surrounding Lever's move, none of us really know how much money or how many clubs are interested. Only ball-park figures. Clearly, he is wanted and clearly we want him. 

If we are indeed offering that amount of money for him, what does it tell you mate? What does it indicate?

Clearly, we are desperate for talent at that end of the ground. We have one of the weakest key defensive units within the league and one of the least talented. All of Frost and both McDonald's have glaringly obvious weaknesses in their games that are on display weekly.The reported offer to Lever supports my view of that. Why else would we offer that money? Any idea?

The ranking of where he'd fit within that group of 5 is plain silly. He is clearly in that mix and his form and development since he's been drafted is proof of that is it not? Way too early in all their careers.

High-end talent across all lines is hugely important for sustained success. It doesn't phase or surprise whatsoever that we're willing to pay Lever handsomely given the state of our key defensive group.

 

Edited September 27, 20177 yr by stevethemanjordan

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

Seriously binman. You're making an assessment of his lack of capabilities based on one example. 

No i wasn't. I was using that as an example that man on man, one on one play is not his strength (ie not his go - an assessment i arrived at from watching him over his short career and one that few would argue with), which was a follow up from DeeSpencer making that same point a few posts earlier (a point that i agreed with in a post quoting that comment).

I thought the fact that i used the word highlighting (as opposed to saying for instance that the danger example proved man on man is not his strength), which ironically you highlighted, would make it clear i was using the danger fail as an example. But there you go. 

By the way i didn't say he was hopeless man on man, just that it wasn't his strength. 

 

1 minute ago, binman said:

No i wasn't. I was using that as an example that man on man, one on one play is not his strength (ie not his go - an assessment i arrived at from watching him over his short career and one that few would argue with), which was a follow up from DeeSpencer making that same point a few posts earlier (a point that i agreed with in a post quoting that comment).

I thought the fact that i used the word highlighting (as opposed to saying for instance that the danger example proved man on man is not his strength), which ironically you highlighted, would make it clear i was using the danger fail as an example. But there you go. 

By the way i didn't say he was hopeless man on man, just that it wasn't his strength. 

 

Out of interest, could yourself of some other chap please highlight a strength of Oscar's at AFL level please? Not like a one-off piece of play. Like a genuine strength.

Genuine question.

 

21 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Sorry extended squad. I should have specified.

No one would have had him close to the team? Haha. What does that mean?! He made the squad you peanut. That means he had a fantastic season whichever way you look at it. He made it as a key pos player at 22. Let's just imagine if Oscar had made the extended squad for a minute.. This place would have exploded.

But you didn't steve. Which is no hanging offence but you are so routinely condescending and rude (eg  'He made the squad you peanut') and think so highly of your football acumen and so lowly of others that such errors are likely to be commented on.

I don't understand why you think this 'place would have exploded' if Tmac's younger brother had made the AA squad. No one has ever said he is a star, least of all me.   

8 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Out of interest, could yourself of some other chap please highlight a strength of Oscar's at AFL level please? Not like a one-off piece of play. Like a genuine strength.

Genuine question.

 

Give it up steve. You have lost this argument. Quite sad really. How about you take my bet? It is a good one for you i would have thought. As 55 says he will do very well to make the top 10 in the bluey as there are at least 10 other players in the team who will poll well.

By the by it must have burnt you bacon to see Tmac's younger brother get a brownlow vote. Difficult thing to achieve for a back man, especially one with no strengths and not up to AFL standard. Perhaps they liked his haircut? 

Edited September 27, 20177 yr by binman

23 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Sorry extended squad. I should have specified.

No one would have had him close to the team? Haha. What does that mean?! He made the squad you peanut. That means he had a fantastic season whichever way you look at it. He made it as a key pos player at 22. Let's just imagine if Oscar had made the extended squad for a minute.. This place would have exploded.

Given the conjecture surrounding Lever's move, none of us really know how much money or how many clubs are interested. Only ball-park figures. Clearly, he is wanted and clearly we want him. 

If we are indeed offering that amount of money for him, what does it tell you mate? What does it indicate?

Clearly, we are desperate for talent at that end of the ground. We have one of the weakest key defensive units within the league and one of the least talented. All of Frost and both McDonald's have glaringly obvious weaknesses in their games that are on display weekly.The reported offer to Lever supports my view of that. Why else would we offer that money? Any idea?

The ranking of where he'd fit within that group of 5 is plain silly. He is clearly in that mix and his form and development since he's been drafted is proof of that is it not? Way too early in all their careers.

High-end talent across all lines is hugely important for sustained success. It doesn't phase or surprise whatsoever that we're willing to pay Lever handsomely given the state of our key defensive group.

 

We clearly know multiple teams have more money than us to throw around yet aren't pursuing Lever, so that tells me a fair bit.

Close to the team would imply he was almost in it. Find me one expert or even Bigfooty poster who had Lever in their AA team. He was not close to being in it. He was lucky to be in a squad of 40. Not sure what Oscar has to do with any of this, he is a KPP. You have mentioned Lever as a key position player in your post yet as other posters have pointed our repeatedly, He is not a KPP. If he was, then he would have many more clubs going harder at him.

The amount of money tells me that we aren't a destination club which the club wants to be and we hardly have a great record with high profile recruits.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

The amount of money tells me that we aren't a destination club which the club wants to be and we hardly have a great record with high profile recruits.

 

 

And further to this point we don't know the amount of money we have offered him so using rumours of offers of 900k as proof of his ability - or that of the the existing dees defenders for that matter -  is just plain silly.  

In any case rumors of 900k are likely to be codswobble. Jay Clark's stab of 750k x 5  sounds much more likely

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Sorry extended squad. I should have specified.

 He made it as a key pos player at 22.

really? how do you figure that? he's not even a key position player at the crows

lol

This other Lever who's 22 and an AA defender sounds like the one we should be chasing. 

#Levermyths.

Edited September 27, 20177 yr by Ethan Tremblay

2 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

We clearly know multiple teams have more money than us to throw around yet aren't pursuing Lever, so that tells me a fair bit.

Close to the team would imply he was almost in it. Find me one expert or even Bigfooty poster who had Lever in their AA team. He was not close to being in it. He was lucky to be in a squad of 40. Not sure what Oscar has to do with any of this, he is a KPP. You have mentioned Lever as a key position player in your post yet as other posters have pointed our repeatedly, He is not a KPP. If he was, then he would have many more clubs going harder at him.

The amount of money tells me that we aren't a destination club which the club wants to be and we hardly have a great record with high profile recruits.

 

 

Rumours were the Dogs and Pies were both heavily in to him. I think the Dogs lost out on salary cap space but I think he chose us over the Pies. There was a lot of talk for both teams before the finals started after which the media have only mentioned Melbourne. The Pies are also salary cap strapped. 

Hawthorn around 2009-2013 are about the only club I've seen as a true destination club where players were lining up to join them at a cut price rate. Even the Swans had to pay huge money for Buddy.

The salary cap has rocketed up and with free agency players know how much others are getting when they are out of contract. The only players who will be signing somewhere below market rate will be experienced veterans keen for success. No 22 year old will move club for a less price to go to a destination.

I feel like this thread has reached the point where people don't want Lever because STMJ wants him.

4-way trade;

Dees get Lever lose Picks 10 & 27

Crows get Picks 15 & 16 lose Lever & 35

Tigers get Schache & 35 lose Picks 15 & 16

Lions get Picks 10 & 27 lose Schache

10 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

4-way trade;

Dees get Lever lose Picks 10 & 27

Crows get Picks 15 & 16 lose Lever & 35

Tigers get Schache & 35 lose Picks 15 & 16

Lions get Picks 10 & 27 lose Schache

According to the AFL site and Richmond they have given up the chase for Schache.

Schaches not leaving the Lions

19 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

4-way trade;

Dees get Lever lose Picks 10 & 27

Crows get Picks 15 & 16 lose Lever & 35

Tigers get Schache & 35 lose Picks 15 & 16

Lions get Picks 10 & 27 lose Schache

I feel like either Melbourne or Adelaide could just turn 10 & 27 in to 15 and 16 themselves without all the other stuff.

10 - 1395
27 - 703
= 2098

15 - 1112
16 - 1067
= 2178

Very little difference between that as it stands. And the Tigers want to shift those picks to avoid matching a good pick on father son player Naish. Pick 10 might be high enough to get them ahead of any bid for him which they'd then only have to match with pick 27.

30 minutes ago, Dee tention said:

4-way trade;

Dees get Lever lose Picks 10 & 27

Crows get Picks 15 & 16 lose Lever & 35

Tigers get Schache & 35 lose Picks 15 & 16

Lions get Picks 10 & 27 lose Schache

Why can't it be as simple as Watts and pick 10? Why does there need to be multiple trades?

19 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Why can't it be as simple as Watts and pick 10? Why does there need to be multiple trades?

Why would the Crows want Watts?  Makes zero sense.

12 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Why would the Crows want Watts?  Makes zero sense.

HF: WATTS, WALKER, LYNCH

F: BETTS, JENKINS, CAMERON

Watts can fit into that forward line.

1 minute ago, WERRIDEE said:

HF: WATTS, WALKER, LYNCH

F: BETTS, JENKINS, CAMERON

Watts can fit into that forward line.

I think you'll find you are forgetting Mitch McGovern, who would play ahead of Watts.

 

9 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

How is this place going to go off when we don't land him? (no info, but I reckon this website would melt quicker than Godzilla's underpants!)

This is the most done deal on gut-feel in recent MFC history*. Well, maybe Hibberd as well. We're gonna pay what feels like slight overs in wage and trade, and then we're all going to forget about after Round One, 2018,  just like Hibberd this year.

*So why do I insistently keep checking this thread for any hint of an indicative rumour?

Massive coup if we get him, confident he will become one of the premier defenders in the coming years. He led average intercepts this season ahead of Rance and Hurley which shows that he reads the play as good as anyone.

As for the trade, I don't see why we should have to pay more than what Hawthorn paid for Mitchell which was P10 and swap of late picks. Also similar was the trade for Charlie Dixon which was P10 & Future 2nd Round Pick for Dixon & P49.