1 minute ago, mo64 said:

No it doesn't. It means we give a 1st round pick, Jack Watts and a 3rd round pick.  Unless we got Collingwood's 2nd round pick back, it's daylight robbery.

Watts is the 3rd round pick

25 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Probably part of the reason why you don't fully understand how good the bloke is.

I would love you to explain how you know Stanley played a defensive role on Lever.

Stanley is just simply not good at finding the footy so it may have appeared that was the case, but I don't know how you could know it was the case.

14 minutes ago, SFebey said:

Watts is the 3rd round pick

Are you seriously trying to suggest he is worth just a third rounder?  Bloke still has years of footy left and can be a matchwinner on his day.  Consistency issues aside, you could easily get a late first rounder for him.  No way we give him away for that.  I'd rather keep him.

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Are you seriously trying to suggest he is worth just a third rounder?  Bloke still has years of footy left and can be a matchwinner on his day.  Consistency issues aside, you could easily get a late first rounder for him.  No way we give him away for that.  I'd rather keep him.

Late second, early third is my opinion yes. We all know he has talent, but in 9 years rarely delivered. Two top 10 BnF finishes? Very much overrated Demonland favourite IMO.

18 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

I would love you to explain how you know Stanley played a defensive role on Lever.

Stanley is just simply not good at finding the footy so it may have appeared that was the case, but I don't know how you could know it was the case.

I didn't actually watch the match lol.

Going by what @rjay said.

Don't know why people are wasting time debating two first rounders. Won't happen. Crows know this. They said themselves last year on Gibbs trade 2 first rounders would be irresponsible list management. I know this isn't Gibbs but he was contracted Lever isn't. 

It will be some sort of combination amounting to a 1st & 2nd & maybe steak knives of pick swaps and or a player of a Wagner level. 

Picks are only worth what you get for them. I have a feeling there will be a combination of other trades involved which might effect lots of horse trading not just what happens in this one. A few have mentioned maybe Motlop. It'll all wash out. 

All I know is the first time since 1964 we have the right people in the right positions making these decisions. I trust their judgement more than mine or anyone on here or anywhere else. 

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by It's Time

3 minutes ago, It's Time said:

Don't know why people are wasting time debating two first rounders. Won't happen. Crows know this. They said themselves last year on Gibbs bid 2 first rounders would be irresponsible list management. 

It will be some sort of combination amounting to a 1st & 2nd & maybe steak knives of pick swaps and or a player of a Wagner level. 

Picks are only worth what you get for them. I have a feeling there will be a combination of other trades involved which might effect lots of horse trading not just what happens in this one. A few have mentioned maybe Motlop. It'll all wash out. 

All I know is the first time since 1964 we have the right people in the right positions making these decisions. I trust their judgement more than mine or anyone on here or anywhere else. 

motlop is a FA

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

motlop is a FA

Cool. Based on last night's game. He'd be ok.

Still think horse trading will go on. 

I wonder if Motlop could be better if he were played more as a deep forward to help out Jeffry? Would add some real speed and class up there 

14 hours ago, PaulRB said:

"He's the best fister in the game!"

I reckon teenage Bruce would have been the most intolerable little [censored] ever. Probably tried to hang around with the jocks and spent most of his time flagellating himself to their every move.

7 hours ago, SFebey said:

This is exactly the reason I don't think we should pay overs, he isn't a CHB at all. He's a floater and intercept player who plays loose in defence. He will never be a key position player so we, as a club, need to be careful/mindful what we pay him and give up for him. On last nights game, he isn't worth two first rounders nor one of our kids. He's worth pick 10 and that's it. He also doesn't have great skills either. What he does bring is consistency, leadership and reliability, but that isn't worth two first round picks IMO.

Josh Gibson won a few flags playing the same role. Worth every cent IMO, mate.

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

Interesting thing would be to go through their side and see where Lever is rated. I doubt he would be rated in their top 10.

As an example start with the Crouch's, Sloane, Tex, Sauce, Eddie, Laird, Cameron, Talia, Smith,McGovern and there is 11 already. 

PS. No wonder they are in the GF.

It'll be interesting to see how their defence goes next year without his incepting and direction back there.

6 hours ago, SFebey said:

I think Cat's kicking efficiency was probably the sole reason why their key forwards didn't do much, it was atrocious, gys like Lever who plug the holes will always get marks. Does anyone know the disposal efficiency of both sides?

One thing that stood out to me and nothing to do with Lever was how quick you can score when not over hand balling the bloody thing, kicking moves it quicker and puts pressure on the opposition. Funnily, the last 3 sides left play this attacking style that kicking as a way to move the ball quickly, GWS Rich and ADEL. Compare that to our rubbish slop chop around packs and we have a bit to work on.

Also does anyone have the kick to h'ball ratio for the crows? I think that's how I'd like to see the Dee's move the ball going forward.

 

6 hours ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

I agree with this. There are times using the handballs to release an open player is important, but I'd like to see us back the players in more and get the ball moving forward. It means the forwards need to always been in the right position to contest and not allow easy marks.

The Hawks did this well during their glory years. They wouldn't always move the ball with precision, but they would always get it moving forward with little knock ons.

I think we'll see our guys tweak this over the summer. We want to move the ball quickly and yet we were one of the slowest teams for ball movement in 2017. We'll be devastating if we can move the ball quicker. This is the natural evolution of our game style and young team.

6 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

His biggest assets are his leadership and composure.

Especially for a player his age

 

A backline of Lever's composure, along with Hibberd and Jetta, is a backline that creates less turn overs. OMac is a surprisingly good kick and ball in hand is decent. Hunt needs to improve his kicking, but without Tommy Mac or Frost back there, we are significantly more composed. The question is can they attack quickly enough? That's where Laird and Smith are so important pinging off the likes of Talia and Lever at Adelaide. 

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

I don't think you can play Bernie and Lewis in the same team, as they are both getting very slow for today's game.

Agreed. Unless we can find a zippy outside user that can play half back and ping off our defensive zone, we'll have to utilise one of these guys in this role next year. My feeling is that it should be Lewis, but his kicking this year was a bit of a worry too. Just slightly less so than Bernard the butcher from Adelaide though. 

The backline is actually the area of the ground that I'm most interested to see how they tweak it. I think our press was too aggressive this year, but it worked in the first half of the year. Particularly, against Richmond earlier in the year. Maybe it's a case of another pre season under the belts of our younger guys enabling us to implement it for longer, but my feeling is that we need to re-think it, back to the drawingboard type stuff.

We desperately need more speed in our line up. Hunt, Hibberd, Frost and Garlett are quick. Not sure I'd call anyone else quick though. Hunt in particular is perfect to play the anchor to our press, but the coaches have realised we need to play him between higher, between half back and the wings. The anchor is too deep for him - we lose what he brings. I suspect they'll try Frost in that role again or even Lever, but I hope we try something new.

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by A F

1 hour ago, Abe said:

I wonder if Motlop could be better if he were played more as a deep forward to help out Jeffry? Would add some real speed and class up there 

Yep, I'd rotate him between deep forward, a wing and half back. I'd keep rotating him until he gets into the game. Put the pressure on him like Watts to the ruck and there's nowhere to hide. I reckon it'd elevate his game.

31 minutes ago, A F said:

I reckon teenage Bruce would have been the most intolerable little [censored] ever. Probably tried to hang around with the jocks and spent most of his time flagellating himself to their every move.

Josh Gibson won a few flags playing the same role. Worth every cent IMO, mate.

It'll be interesting to see how their defence goes next year without his incepting and direction back there.

They have already trained Jake Kelly to do the job - did fine when Lever was out injured.

They got Kelly for zip as a B Rookie - I think he was an elite cricketer and a few clubs were after him. 

Yes they will miss Lever a little bit but they won't be crying about the trade.  

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Lucifer's Hero

15 hours ago, PaulRB said:

"He's the best fister in the game!"

Good heavens!!!!!

10 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

They have already trained Jake Kelly to do the job - did fine when Lever was out injured.

They got Kelly for zip as a B Rookie - I think he was an elite cricketer and a few clubs were after him. 

Yes they will miss Lever a little bit but they won't be crying about the trade.  

And they have that other cricketer

2 minutes ago, binman said:

And they have that other cricketer

My bad - I have confused the names.  Thanks.

Jake Kelly is son of Craig Kelly - Collingwood great.  For some reason Collingwood didn't take him as a father/son and slipped thru to the Crows as a rookie.  I bet they are sorry now.

He is proving a real asset to the Crows and will cover the loss of Lever - they even look alike when they play...

12 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

My bad - I have confused the names.  Thanks.

Jake Kelly is son of Craig Kelly - Collingwood great.  For some reason Collingwood didn't take him as a father/son and slipped thru to the Crows as a rookie.  I bet they are sorry now.

He is proving a real asset to the Crows and will cover the loss of Lever - they even look alike when they play...

Nah wasn't being smart. I assumed from your comment that Kelly was a cricketer also. I was of course talking about keath who was a star cricketer. Looked ok when he played for the crows and i agree that they will miss Lever but have the cattle to cover him. 

44 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

My bad - I have confused the names.  Thanks.

Jake Kelly is son of Craig Kelly - Collingwood great.  For some reason Collingwood didn't take him as a father/son and slipped thru to the Crows as a rookie.  I bet they are sorry now.

He is proving a real asset to the Crows and will cover the loss of Lever - they even look alike when they play...

I don't think the Crows defence will fall apart without Lever, but I think you're underestimating how important Lever is, mate.

Many good posts on this thread. Last night was the first time I'd really looked at Lever closely, and I would have rated his game about a 5 too. But at the same time, it was very impressive nonetheless.

Just as Adelaide were determined to pressure Tuohy at every opportunity to stop Geelong moving the ball too easily out of defence,, Geelong had definitely worked out that they needed to try to stop Lever from coming in 3rd man up, and from peeling off into space to attack. So Lever was the one Crow that Geelong and their cunning umpire-conning coach felt they set up a specific plan against. They weren't hard-tagging him by any means, but they were undoubtedly trying to keep him away from aerial contests and to stop him breaking into space when Adelaide won a turnover or a contested ball in defence.

Fair to say he struggled to get near it in the first quarter, and I wasn't much impressed, and wondered whether he could work his way into the game. He just did this really well. He didn't panic, he didn't try to do anything spectacular, he didn't get frustrated, he just kept working not harder but smarter. He seems to be able to avoid the guy who's trying to block him out while at the same time focussing his attention on the flight of the ball so that he times his run to perfection. He just worked away in an unobtrusive fashion, didn't do anything wrong, was there when he needed to be, didn't try anything too flash, just "kept his head". This was an incredibly mature way of going about it for a 21-year-old.

On the other hand, I thought Geelong gave Laird & Seedsman much too much latitude, and being so "Lever-conscious" may well have played a part in this. So in a way he was prepared to play "just-a-game" in order that his team benefits overall. Of course, this reflects Adelaide's team-based approach to coaching.

So a 5/10 game, but very impressive nevertheless.

My two cents.

8 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Does this mean we don't need Lewis?

Surely a clubs objective is to create a system where not one player is needed but is replaceable and slots into the 22 like a cog, especially not ones with 2 years left. Its the blokes you sign for 4-5 years who would qualify as absolutely needed. So hopefully we dont need Lewis, but instead prefer having him in the 22 for his expertise and overall dynamic. Semantics.

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Deeprived Childhood

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

They have already trained Jake Kelly to do the job - did fine when Lever was out injured.

They got Kelly for zip as a B Rookie - I think he was an elite cricketer and a few clubs were after him. 

Yes they will miss Lever a little bit but they won't be crying about the trade.  

Wasn't Jake Kelly on the Pies list, or at least rejected by them as a father son.

6 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

  Consistency issues aside, you could easily get a late first rounder for him

That's ambitious WB.

He'd be worth about what we paid for Hibberd and Melksham. 

 

On 22/09/2017 at 6:43 PM, Moonshadow said:

Would prefer to keep 2018 first rounder. Super draft apparently 

The super draft discussion is not entirely correct.  There is some top end talent but it drops off after that.  

This years draft has a more even spread of talent just no real stand outs 

Edited September 23, 20177 yr by Demons11

31 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

The super draft discussion is not entirely correct.  There is some top end talent but it drops off after that.  

This years draft has a more even spread of talent just no real stand outs 

Funny how every year it's always next year that's the "superdraft".

It seems Lever is pretty much a certainty to leave the Adelaide Football Club, but just thinking about after winning a flag with Adelaide would that make him more likely to leave now that he has won a premiership, or less likely?

This question has sparked a bit of divided opinions with my mates. Thoughts? I say more likely.

Edited September 24, 20177 yr by juzzk1d