Red and Blue realist

Don't think he's lost the faith of Goody, otherwise he wouldn't have played the last game. I think he just came back to soon from his hammy - he took 2 kicks from outside 50 against GWS of only 2 steps, so had no confidence in himself. This just meant he had a poor couple of games, after a very good first half of the season. His efforts against Geelong and then Richmond were fantastic, he played himself into the ground those games. Would love to see him continue as the second ruck, just to make sure he's involved all the time, and when not doing the relieve ruck play similar to Tom Lynch from Adelaide, making the connection between Def50 and Fwd50, while if feeling he has a mismatch run further forward and see if he can pick up a couple of quick goals. I don't think tying him to a forward pocket or half forward flank is the best option for Watts, he's smart enough uses the ball well enough to let him roam with a view to create as many scoring opportunities as possible.

Like the logic, but doubt West Coast would swap Brayshaw for Gaff - just given the injury history with Gus, I'd say his value is higher to us than what other clubs would value him at, which isn't a bad thing and hopefully he'll reach his potential over the next few years. WC would want some instant replacement and those guys you listed won't give them that, for a player swap they'd want Tracc, Viney or Oliver but we know that's not happening. Came off the back of a twitter rumor from one of the 'throw it at the dart board' journo's I think. We've just taken it and ran.

Doubt Geelong will have the currency to get both though, even if they find the $. They have already brought in a lot of mature players for good picks over the last couple of years. If they went after both (and maybe Ablett) then they'll require this years and next years 1st and probably more, and they'll end up with a massive gap in their playing list - all top end, no middle or developing tier. Might get them close over the next year or 2 but then could fall away horribly with no young talent coming through.

Potentially yes, given he is contracted the Lions will be able to drive a much harder deal. I'm not saying he's worth more, but with Lever is able to say he's going to walk anyway, just get the best deal while someone will have to go to the Lions with a deal they can't refuse. If it worked, I'd still think we'd have to send pick 14 and a 2nd to Adelaide, while pick 10 on it's own would be enough for Schache.

Can't see them satisfying Brissy with a trade, I know they've got 2 first rounders but they'll be something like picks 14 and 16, so might need to trade down to get the pick/s that Brissy might demand. I wonder if we could send pick 10, plus something else to Richmond to get their 2 first rounders, maybe our 2nd this year as well. Then use 2 first rounders, either as a trade (Lever/Gaff etc) and still get a young player - not a huge difference between a player rated at pick 10 compared to pick 16?

Our young depth has been diminished because we've traded away our last couple of 2nd rounders, and also brought forward a 1st to get Weid. On the list those that are under 22 who offer some quality and have been seen at AFL level are - Trac, Harmes, ANB, OMac, Brayshaw, Oliver, Weid, JSmith and Stretch. Those who haven't played yet include King, Flipper, Johnstone, McKenna and Huelett. I don't think it's an issue of not having the kids to be excited about, we've got plenty of those, it's still that middle ground depth we need (at least if we want Casey to be competitive).

Nothing to do with being dropped, lots of rumors involving his ex and another player but that was on the back of Jake not being the most upstanding citizen either. Some suggestions are that he needs to leave to be able to sort out the issues. Not sure if were the place for him, he's not known for his pressure game (he can be great but on a very occasional basis) and hasn't got the tank to move too much further than the Fwd50.

Hoping that is something Gaff also thinks the same thing and tells them it's either trade me this year or I walk next year. With the other players going from the midfield WC might want the pick to accelerate their rebuild now rather than waiting and hoping to change his mind.

Hibberd had just spent a year out of the AFL and had never been in the All Australian team, let alone the squad. He's also only just turned 25, whereas Hibberd played his first game for us at 27.

I think of him doing a job not many of our players are doing at the moment and you could call it 'racking up the cheap ball' but he finds a lot of the footy (takes a fair few marks for a mid too) in the space between the 2 50s. His gut running allows for a better link between the defense and offense, so even though he's not kicking a heap of goals I'd imagine he'd be involved in an incredibly high amount of scoring chains. Gaff not kicking goals seems to be more to do with the Eagles system than anything else, if you look at their goals kickers, only Sheed (11) kicked more than 10 outside of their regular forwards (Kennedy, Darling, Hill, Le Cras, Petrie etc). Whereas we had Jones, Tracc, Melksham, Harmes and ANB who weren't playing in a 100% forward role get over 10. Hopefully it'd be something he could add if he came to us, but doesn't seem to be as vital as the scoring opportunities he'd be involved with.

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 think they'll be asking for a minimum of our first this year or next, and for mine that price is about right. I doubt we'd be able to send a player like Kent and our second to get it done, maybe if Jeffy wanted to get home permanently after the things he had to go back for this year, but only raising him if he wanted to go back. He was All Australian 2 years ago, and was in the squad last year. Also had the 8th most disposals this year and only Clarry had a higher disposal efficiency in the top 10 but Clarry has nearly 3 handballs for every kick while Gaff kicks far more than he handballs. He'd fix the issue of delivery inside 50 and the transition between our back half and Fwd50. I think he'd suit our needs more than Lever if we could only get 1, dream result would be both but I can't see that happening.

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.

Crameri has been talked about coming to us on other forums, not sure if it's just because of the Essendon/Goodwin connection, but he's just spent a year off then another year mostly injured. I'd say he's very very similar to Tim Smith and not sure he'd add much to the AFL team.

Honestly, we need to stop papering over the leadership cracks, which is what I think the club has started to do with Viney being made co-captain. Until Gawn, Tracc, the Macs, Watts, Oliver and even Hogan are seen as the true leaders of the club (I'm including Chunk and Viney as the top of that group) then there's no point in bringing in another guy for their 'leadership qualities'. We got Lewis for an empty pack of chips and he provides the same sort of player/leadership. As some have said we can't have another ex-mid going to the half back line without making us too slow. If Vince was to retire or the plan was to play him purely as either a tagger or forward (and at Casey) then McVeigh might work, again if he costs us nothing, but he's only a stop gap solution in both his playing future and leadership.

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.

Actually we had a horrid run this year, not who we played, given the evenness of the competition. In the table below (as long as it works), I've tried to show us against the top 8 teams and who had the most 6 day breaks (us!); who played against teams coming off a 6 day break (we played the least) and the amount of games against teams coming off a shorter break (we had the least games as well!). Given this takes who we actually played out of it, just the "luck of the draw" it shows we had a pretty ordinary run, especially considering as a younger team you'd think longer breaks would be more beneficial. 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

Surely Jackson and Bartlett, bring this up when speaking with AFL about next year's fixture. I think Jackson has already spoken about those 3 consecutive 6 day breaks and it not happening again. Very good stats, I'm sure every club has a gripe with the fixture, but the amount of time off between games wouldn't be helping a younger team.

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.