Watts the matter

Why? They have already got a Pick 2 on their list who didn't play this season. They have more than enough young talent on their list, their issues are with the people in charge at the club. The AFL used an untried Jesse Hogan and average prospects such as Toumpass and JKH as a reason for us not getting a PP, so I expect the same will be applied with Rankine and other GC prospects.

Grand Final v Richmond Jacobs – 12 Laird – 11 M. Crouch – 9 Sloane – 9 B. Crouch – 6 Hartigan – 6 Cameron – 5 Douglas – 5 Kelly – 2 Lever – 2 Mackay – 2 Brown – 1 Lynch – 1 https://www.afc.com.au/news/2017-10-06/club-champion-round-by-round

To everyone saying he had a good game (and remember this all started with a poster claiming he was their best player), think about the following. Adelaide's best and fairest voting has 5 people score players using the following guidelines. 1 vote: Played their role. Solid game without significant influence on the game 2 votes: Played his role well and influenced the game 3 votes: Played his role very well with significant influence on the game 4 votes: Played his role outstandingly and dominated the game A player can score a maximum of 20 votes in a game. Lever scored a total of 2 votes for the game. This means 3 or 4 of the 5 people voting on the game deemed Lever to not even have played his role.

It's fine if you want to back up your claims but they are so far from the truth I couldn't let it slide. *Lever didn't play in a key position at Adelaide, yet you claim he was a top 5 key defender in the comp. *Lever had a poor game in the grand final, I don't know how he all of a sudden became their best player. I don't think anyone else watching the game could share your opinion on that. Sorry for not agreeing with your opinions.

The one where he had the super tough match up of Jacob Townsend and still got 2 goals kicked on him? We must have watched a different game, Lever was a non factor and not even close to their best player. He was a player who played a role in a good team, not a star.

Lever a top 5 key defender? Turn it up. Adelaide offered him 300k a year, that shows how he was rated by those who saw him most. Lever is not a key defender and we had just given up Howe for squat before getting an inferior version for massive overs. We messed up. May costed a lot, but at least he is a good key defender.

This is exactly my point. How can Richmond and Collingwood have that kind of money and we don't when you compare lists? They certainly have more a graders than we do. So have we tied up too much money paying b and c graders?

Miles and Ellis would have been delisted regardless, they were clogging Richmond's list. Stengle is a stretch to call depth considering he played 2 games in 2 seasons. Lloyd and Conca were the only ones of note who they let go, hardly the same calibre of player as Hogan. What do you mean for us? Lynch, Coniglio are not good enough for us?

Don't kid yourself, we showed Hogan the door. If we genuinely wanted to keep him he would still be here. You appear to have ignored the part where I stated Mahoney said we couldn't take May if we had Hogan. Clearly our cap isn't really being managed that well. Yet, Richmond can go out and pick up Tom Lynch on a fat contract coming off a dominant season.

How so? He said we couldn't afford May if we had Hogan. Which part of retaining young players was getting rid of Hogan? (I forecasted when we got Lever that it would cost us Hogan, Brayshaw, Petracca or Oliver and it only took one year for that to happen). We have Lever on one of the biggest contracts at the club and he isn't in our best 10 players. We seem to be quite tight with the cap and just finished 17th.

I agree, at the time of the trade, I didn't know how I felt about it and am still unsure. I like May as a player, but we gave up a lot to get him. I don't see how after finishing 17th and the season he had you could call it anything but a disaster. If he was to win our next 3 best and fairest's and we don't make the finals in any of those seasons would you call that a successful trade? Have you seen Bailey Smith play?

There is a lot to play out here, but it's looking like a disaster. I agree he looked good when he played but...... Firstly, he gave us very little this season and would have been a free agent now, Collingwood got Jordan Roughead for nothing and have got more out of him this season. Secondly, if we don't bounce back and compete for a flag next season, it is a disaster. If he is a good player and we don't make finals it's a bad trade even if he wins our best and fairest. He is/will be 28. He should be in his prime and we need to be competing. We didn't just give up Hogan, we gave up Bailey Smith or Ben King to get him. Both look like outstanding prospects so that is what he will be compared to unless the team is competing for a premiership.

How so? They play completely opposite styles of football. One is a lead and mark player and the other can barely take a mark.

Really struggles below his knees probably due to his injuries, can't imagine him applying any type of pressure as a forward so not what we need. Can do some good things but we have other more pressing needs.

Inflated stats because he handballs it 2 meters and often gets it back because it has not cleared his area.

Did you read the article, he wants 3 years......

I don't get that impression, I think he will be going the media route.

Definitely a player we should be interested in. It would all come down to what he would cost? I would imagine the Power would be looking for a 2nd rounder.

I don't even think you could say he's an excellent inside player after this season. He is excellent at getting the ball on the inside. But an excellent inside player would absorb the tackle and give the ball to a player in a better position. He rushes to get rid of the ball and often gives it to someone who is also under pressure. I (like many on here) mark him harder because he has the ability to be a great player. His season has been disappointing, he has tried to kick more and it has maybe exposed his kicking (which many thought was quite good on a limited sample size), he hasn't developed his game as a forward (tried a few times going forward with little impact) and teams have adopted different strategies to combat him at stoppages, which he is yet to have worked through. Despite all of this, he has still been one of our better players this season. I think our clearance work in general has been poor this year, we rarely get value for money and Oliver is a contributing factor to this with his inability to hold onto the ball for more than half a second. The best clearance I can recall this season came on the weekend with Petracca in the ruck hitting it to Viney on an aggressive run forward (pretty sure it was a lovely kick which Frost dropped),

At that price they are welcome to him.

How so? Have you seen Oliver deliver the ball inside 50 on his left? Struggles on his right. He would have probably given another handball to a player under pressure.

It wasn't even like he was in a great position to choose an option either.

I am not sure why you have listed Scully in that list? Regardless, who are the best midfielders in the game? Dangerfield, Selwood, Martin, Cotchin, Cripps, Bont, Coniglio, Heaney, Oliver, Sidebottom, Fyfe, Macrae, Cunnington, Neale**, Zorko**, Shiel, Treloar, DeGoey, Kelly**, Yeo**, Shuey**. There is no guarantee obviously but the majority of the top liners were taken with picks before 19. Stop being so condescending and think about how stupid your point is. Excluding Langdon, then you have essentially traded pick 2 for Petrucelle and pick 19 and 25 (you then traded pick 19 for Langdon which is irrelevant as we could just trade our current 2nd round pick for him). So you are trading pick 2 AND OUR pick 39 for Petrucelle and pick 19 and 25. Either way we get 2 draftees, the only difference is you seem to think that Petrucelle is the difference, as that would be the only difference in the 2 scenarios. You either don't rate Andersson as highly as you claim or you rate Petrucelle a bit too highly. I am all for going after certain types of players, but there is no need to include pick 2 unless it is for an elite talent (Ben King) or a proven quality player.

There is a much better chance of getting elite talent at the pointy end of a draft, you don't throw that away for average players. I can not think of any circumstances where a trade as you proposed has been completed in the AFL. You simply don't throw away picks that early. Trading for Langdon has nothing to do with pick 2 if that is part of your justification.

Who are the good quality players you are referring to? Petrucelle is a huge unknown, his season looks very similar to Sam Blease's 2nd season on paper. Promising player, but good quality is an overstatement. The other 2 you suggested, I've never heard of. The Kelly trade is relevant because we passed up the opportunity to draft an elite talent and ended up with a good player and a player who had his moments and is now not AFL quality. The point about not drafting Kelly is poor judgement from our recruiting team. It's quite the opposite, I have little faith in Taylor with picks between 20 - 40. If you were proposing a trade that actually included 'good quality players' then it would be a consideration, but you are just throwing away an elite pick which most teams would kill for the opportunity for, for 3 averages pieces.