Red and Blue realist

I don't mind that idea, such as giving the Tigers our pick 10 and maybe a 2nd next year and then getting their 1st and also the 1st they've got from Geelong and handing that off, if Adelaide get fixated on two 1sts. At least that's what I'd present to Adelaide as the only way we'll come up with the two 1st, they might panic and think there better off just taking 10 and next years 2nd themselves.

Geelong don't have a first this year, Richmond hold that. Plus Menzel is a free agent. Still don't think we'll give up anything near 2 firsts for Lever, maybe a 1st and 2nd, or 1st and other arrangement.

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 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.

We had the chance to do it on Queens Birthday and I'm not sure if was from respect to Danners Fight MND, but we didn't. This isn't correct, I don't think any of the teams you've mentioned there WB, St K or WB have reached capacity at any of their home games and they've still used it. Same as Carlton, they got around the same crowd to their home game vs Essendon as we did the week before as a home game against them, but Carlton have used the pricing 5 out of 6 games. Maybe what we can't afford to do is shaft supporters while we're building something special. No point turning off those who might be just starting to support us or re-connecting with the club.

Well done to the Dees for being the only Victorian club not to slug an extra price on reserved seating on any games so far this season. A lot of other teams have done so every game or for their bigger games. Shows we're in a very good position that we don't need to exploit our fans anymore than the AFL already do!! http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/clubs-are-exploiting-fans-by-increasing-the-price-of-reserved-seating-at-games-afl-fan-association/news-story/bb765bc6da860e9f060592144f3cb8bc

Of every club, not just ours. In fact he's just about second in line to Rance as a key defender. If he does leave there'll be a big fight between just about all the Victorian clubs I'd think.

Yes, I'd imagine they'd be happy to 'let' Trengove go in free agency if they could guarantee a 'first' in return. Similar to the Vickery deal, if we front loaded the deal it would not only help our longer term player payment structure but also inadvertently (take that anyway you want too) push the deal into the higher compensation bracket and net them a better draft pick. They wouldn't be getting our first, we'd keep that, it'd be a compensation pick. At worst no loss to us, at best we get shuffled one pick back in the draft.