Red and Blue realist

The majority of trades get done with picks instead of players, but I can understand why the Crows would throw out the hail-mary trade of Tracc or Oliver. If you look at who's been traded over the last few years in a similar situation, Treloar, TMitchell, O'Meara, Danger and Beams, they've all nearly been done with 1 first rounder and something else (2nd) or 2 firsts but with a something else coming back as well as the player (either pick or decentish player). Most of the suggestions have been pick 10 plus a second this year or next, or next years first plus this years 2nd, or even 2 firsts plus we get Lever and a 2nd or fringe player, I think that'll be the way it plays out. Good on Adelaide for trying to get more, but if they really valued Lever then offer him a decent deal to begin with and he might not have wanted to walk away.

Hard to get a read on that, and I'll be waiting for the "love the place was never going to leave" if he stays or "just wanted to be back closer to family and friends" if he goes. I think his partner might have a lot to do with the decision, but then his younger brother plays with the Crows SANFL team so that might be another consideration. I wonder if he does come, if his brother ends up at Casey?

Adelaide don't really have much of a choice here though, Lever is un-contracted so in theory if he really wanted out he can go via the PSD - he won't - but the salary cap doesn't come into play from Adelaide's point of view, unless he wants to stay. However I agree we need to ensure that getting Lever won't cause the loss of a required player in a year or 2 due to salary cap pressure. We've got Gawn, Tracc, Oliver and Hogan who'll all command very decent coin plus Brayshaw, the Macs etc. who'll also want to be paid reasonably well. Hopefully the club has planned for this and front loaded Jones, Viney, Watts, Hunt and even Hogan now so that if we get Level he's salary just gets absorbed so not to disrupt the team long term.

Very interesting if true, I did think we all of a sudden looked very tired again in the last 3 or 4 games, which we did last year. Could also explain why we suddenly seemed to drop off the drive we had from defense early in the season. I wonder if this was done with the intention of preparation for finals where the games seem to go a lot more man on man? Although we didn't make it, hopefully it might help over the next few years if players are again required to adapt with finals in mind.

I'd see Lever playing the role Frost should have until he became a bit lost in the last half dozen games or so. My backline would be below: Jetta OMac Lever Hunt TMac Hibberd That means TMac stays back, which I think he is better suited too anyway, and if during a game we need to switch things up he can always go forward for a cameo or 2. Lewis, Salem, Jones and maybe Vince (but I don't like him down there) would then rotate through when the others are either having a break or have moved down the ground. Lever and Lewis would be in charge of organsing the backline, with hopefully one of TMac or OMac picking up the skills to do that (alongside Lever) once Lewis is gone. One of the mids to go back to take the kick ins - in no circumstances are TMac or OMac ever to do it again.

Agree completely, I do think Lever would automatically make OMac and Tmac better players, and also make Hibberd even more dangerous. OMac and TMac wouldn't get caught in no-mans land as often as they do if we have a reliable 3rd tall who sticks more-or-less to the back half. We all know both the Macs do have a tendency to run down the field a little, not that that's always bad but doing it with Lever in the team carries so much less risk than say Frost who again can run forward with little regard to who's left behind - makes for exciting play but can also make us too easy to score against on the rebound. Hopefully then OMac and TMac combined can take care of those taller forwards.

I think why people defend him, is that using the logic of needing to come in and dominate from the word go, you'd never have seen Gawn, Hunt, ANB, Pedersen, Hibberd or Jetta ever make it, and that's just from our current list. I acknowledge that he's not there yet, and he may never get to become the player we want him to be, but like so many others I'm not prepared to cast away a guy who coming to us was always going to take time to develop. No one's saying its a fait accompli that he'll make it, just that he has actually shown some signs that he's got a good chance if he continue's developing at the same rate. In fact you raised Hipwood and if you compare their first 10 games their stats are pretty similar, Hipwood had a few more goals but they mainly came from 2 games where he got a couple of cheap over the top ones, Weid has a lot more tackles which shows me he's prepared to be involved in the game even if not yet taking the big marks or kicking the goals you want. Hipwood then came on very nicely this year and that's what I'd hope Weid can start to do next year. If the conversation is still happening this time next year then I'd be worried, but a tall coming to the end of his second season having spent his draft year virtually out of the game should be looked at in the same light as some others who've taken longer to come on.

For years everyone on here banged on about letting players come through Casey in the right way. In fact if you go back to the preseason best 22 thread most said they wanted Pedo to start and let weid develop at Casey. If he had been forced to play every game would be best more developed, of course, but would that be the best for him? His work rate, in particular in the Adelaide and saints games was fantastic for a developing tall, as he gets stronger he'll also be able to put the contested marking he's shown at Casey on show. That's what people are seeing, if you can't that's fine.

That game against GWS when he took 2 shots on goal from outside 50 only taking 2 or 3 steps showed how little confidence he had in his hammy. I thought we'd be better at injury management this year, but we got it wrong with Watts, then everyone slams him for it.

Not sure if you've actually seen either play if that's your position.

I actually think our draw should be easier than this year. In an even comp who you play becomes less relevant for example North beat us 2x and also Adelaide, Brissy beat Essendon, Carlton beat Sydney, Freo beat us and Richmond, Gold Coast beat Geelong etc etc. What killed us this year was the actually draw timing. I posted this in another thread, but we got a horror run of 6 day games and also played few teams coming of shorter breaks. Given we were a younger team I think with a more even draw we would have been better placed to recover. You can see how we fared against the draw for the top 8 teams and clearly we got a poor draw, so I'm hopeful PJ will be addressing this and getting us the same advantages as other teams have. 6 day breaks Playing teams on 6 day breaks Games against teams with shorter breaks Adel 7 10 10 Geel 8 9 8 Rich 6 5 8 GWS 5 7 9 Pt Adel 6 5 8 Syd 6 7 10 Ess 7 7 9 WC 6 5 5 Melb 9 2 5

How much do you expect from a tall coming into a system after playing next to no footy in his draft year? When drafted if they said he might get a taste in his first year then play 5 - 10 games in year 2, we all would have thought that was fine, at last we aren't rushing guys in before they are ready and developing them properly. Hipwood had to be played as they had nothing else up there, plus he seems to have a bigger tank already, Curnow came in as a smaller ready to go player. If you want to compare look at the pick straight after Weid, Harry McKay, he came into the draft with pretty big wraps and has only played the 2 games and was very very ordinary in them.

I don't see the Lever and OMac comparison as fair or correct, given that they do play different roles, and the way we play as a team being much different to the way Adelaide play. If OMac was playing for Adealide he'd be taking Hartigan/Keith's role, whereas if Lever was with us he'd be taking Frost's role (I know he's not playing at the moment) as the 3rd tall with Hibberd returning to a 4th tall/primary interceptor/re-bounder role. The Lever discussion should be about what he can bring to the team rather than who/what he could replace at the moment. I think he'd actually make guys like TMac and OMac considerably better players as they can both take the game on and might find a better balance when rebounding from Def50. At the moment some of the frustration is that Tmac, OMac and Frost seem to get caught out with their run forward, where Lever seems to have a better ability to read the play and would bring better leadership and structure to the backline.

Not sure why this has turned into a Lever vs Oscar thread, they would play in the same team if Lever came to us. With Adelaide, Lever plays with Talia and Hartigan/Keith as the 2 'bigger' guys and also has Jake Kelly in the mix. Ideally we'd have Lever, TMac, OMac and Hibberd, which I think would be an even better combination than Adelaide's. OMac incidentally average's around the same intercepts as both Talia and Hartigan.

I assume you've got access to Champion Data stats that aren't readily found? I imagine that unfortunately one of our biggest culprits in losing one-on-one's would be Nev Jetta. The argument would be that yes Ben Brown should out mark him because he's 30cm taller, but that's too simplistic, why is Jetta trying to man up on someone way taller (it happens a fair bit) and the answer would be what GD67 was talking about. Unless you've got stats to say who our back 6 have lost their one-on-one's too (direct opponent or covering player etc.) then the OP having a shot at OMac and Frost may have little basis. Like others have done on here I think it's better to prevent the wound rather than focus on stopping the bleeding.

I think people are now discussing is that weakness because of our defenders or because of the way the team plays? For mine nearly every team would have the same weaknesses if the opposition is allowed to move the ball as quickly away from stoppages/the center and we've allowed lately.

I think it's a bit too simplistic to blame the defenders (not all have I agree) without looking at the whole picture. It's much like when the Australian Cricket team kept 'rotating' the fast bowlers when they were beaten and leaving the batsmen alone. There's another article on afl.com.au today about where we've dropped off lately, and it probably shows some of the reasons why it's so easy for teams to score against us. In a nutshell, in rounds 1 - 13 we averaged over 7 more contested possessions a game, 2.7 more points from stoppages and 4.2 more points from center clearances. Since round 14 that's changed so we average 3.8 less contested possessions, concede 9.8 more points from stoppages and 10.3 less from center clearances. Put basically we're allowing the oppositions to get their hands on the ball too easy, which then results in getting the ball quicker and better into their forward line, so it's easier for their forwards (and harder for us to defend). If we win the ball in the middle and around stoppages, it's harder for the opposition to score because they can't move it as quickly. No coincidence that Jonesy has been out for all those games and Viney also missed 2.5 of them.

I think the majority would have Lever in a heartbeat, it's just that most are now debating his cost/value. Realistically we can't sell the farm for one player because we're still going to have to pay guys like Tracc, Hogan, Gawn, Salem, the Macs and Oliver either by the end of next year or 2019. So we need ensure that we not only have enough to keep them, but also continue to invest in the future as well.

They should have been up and about as well - they were in a game they had no right to be - we'd just returned from Darwin, had 4 guys returning from injury who were going to tire and they'd just been gifted 2 goals, on top of this Gawn had rolled his ankle. I'd like to think that other teams watching our last quarter efforts would have more fear of their ability to get back into a game with us that if we had of just ran out winners by 10 goals. What we did to kill their momentum and win the game (while slammed by some as boring???) shows we do have the ability to put the contest beyond reach even under trying circumstances.

Agree with the all that you said, one thing I think we need the coaches to work on is for a better plan with our 'bail out' kicks. OMac and Frost, seem to kick their bail outs shorter than most and on 45 degree angles so seem very easy to read. With time i expect they'll get better, but it's also up to the coaches to get them there and provide a plan for those pressure kicks. Leave the creativity to Hibberd or Hunt, or like Frost does often, tuck the ball under the arm and sprint out of trouble until they can go for those easy targets.

I liked him as well, hopefully he's matured a bit from when he was with us. I heard very early on that, nearly the opposite to some indigenous players, he actually liked the Melbourne lifestyle a bit too much and might have been focusing his efforts elsewhere rather than his footy. Maybe returning home and engaging with his community a bit more has given him greater perspective and if he comes back he'll be prepared to give it his all, in which case I'd happily give him another chance.

Doubt Adelaide would actually want a future 1st rounder, I'd imagine they'll be gunning to add something immediate to their team as they are well in the so called 'premiership window' and won't want to wait. We might need to get creative to move up the draft order if they want a really high pick, something like our first this year and a 2nd next year for a clubs 1st this year, meaning we might be able to give pick 6 or 7 instead of pick 14 or higher.

I wonder if we've spend a lot of time trying to fix our deficiency's on those other grounds that we've become less effective on the 'g. That should hopefully be pretty easy to over come, and possibly was put in place for the front half of the season, knowing we had more games away from home?

Well done with the amount of research that's gone into this! I wonder if it tells us anything, we won 6/7 on grounds less than 129m wide and then 2/6 on the G which is 141m. My guess is that when were on the wider ground we still have a higher possession rate but those possessions might be of greater distance (forwards, backwards or sideways) so our guys are expending more energy getting to the ball or give's us too much space in which to make error (then less space to minimise them)??? Maybe we'll see more direct play tomorrow night because of this.

Make's you wonder why they do it, or why this hasn't been called to attention earlier. If I were a supporter of those clubs then I'd be furious and lose a little trust that the clubs there for the supporters not just using them. I can understand the supply vs demand aspect as long as clubs don't go overboard, but only when a sell out is likely and fans are then compensated when lower attended matches have there prices reduced.