binman

Very good point.

Sure. If you need to. Not sure why you would need or want to though. Lever wont replace no 28. But if we want to compare them - and avoid a silly who will better argument - lets factor in that all players, but particulaly talls develop at different rates. Lever is a gun. But blind freddy can see that. But it is not inconceivable he might level out given he is alreafy playing at a high level. Though it should be noted in this context he is playing in a better side. And it is not inconceivable no 28 has scope for considerable improvement. And pwrhaps more upside than lever. And it should also be noted that whilst there are similarities - age, height, weight, both defenders - lever is much more a rance style intercepr player. No 28 will likely end up 10kgs heavier and play different role, ine more akin to tbat played by tmac. If lever comes to the dees - which i reallt hopes he does - he will be a perfect combination with no 28.

Call me old fashion but i always though supporters defend their own players and bag opposition players not vice versa.

I am. Steve is obsessed with trying to prove himself right about Tmac's younger brother. To be frank it is getting ridiculous.

Of course you do. But you don't overspend. He's a value add.

Careful steve you might scare Lever off with your feverish passion for him. I don't think i can ever recall a DL poster express so much love for a MFC player, let alone one who plays for an opposition team. Have you seen the film swimfan?

Yep, the Astbury and Rance set up is the pro type zone set up. You can't really have gorilla keepers anymore (think Frawley and dunn) as if they are not mobile enough you are one runner down. The skyscrapers are hard to stop no doubt and if you went man on man you would need a taller player rather then Frawley style man on man player to guard them. But with the zones all teams are playing (some zones are more aggressive) you can't really have a defender running with them all day or else your whole ground zone suffers and you are almost a man down (which is why taggers, with some obvious exceptions, have by in large gone out of style). The answer - at least at the moment - to stop the power forward like Dixon and the skyscrapers like Danhier that most teams employ is the zone. And it is hard to do and when it goes wrong the skyscrapers and gorillas have a field day. Look at some of the goals Pedo and Hogan kicked on Sunday. At least four were from marks where the lions zone failed and both players were allowed a free run at the ball. But on other occasions their defensive zone worked really well and they got easy marks down back. They are a young team and it takes time to get zones right. Moving Tmac back and dropping Salem and Frost was risky as it is impacted on the synergy down back, which is critical for zones in football (and soccer and basketball) to work well. I think some of the Saints second half goals and the lions goals were as a result of the zone breaking down. Geelong used Taylor to force Rance to go one on one on him and cut down the damage he usually does with his intercepts. Interestingly Rance, who some consider to be the best defender of the modern era, really struggled one on one and was well beaten by Taylor in the air and the scoreboard. The tigers often send martin really deep knowing generally someone will mark him, which makes it harder for the opposition to set their zone. Lever would fit perfectly into our zone set up and very much play the Rance role.

Perhaps he could also school him on taking a man on in his back half, getting done for dropping the ball 40 meters out and then compounding his error (after his man missed the goal) giving away a silly 50 and giving up a gimme goal. How much did they lose by? Oh that's right 3 points. Just imagine the response from some if the whipping boy had made those errors and cost us a game?

I cannot believe there is any discussion at all of swapping hogan for Lever. Really apart from the emotional aspect of hogan being a much loved demon, objectively no club would do that deal. Hogan is miles ahead of lever as a player. I get that Lever is good now and in all likelihood will become a top shelf player, and perhaps even a star (though i do think some on here are getting ahead of themselves a bit with their assessments - i really worry about his history of hamstring issues - as i think Webber has pointed out before once a player starts to get them it can become a problem) but Hogan is a star now and will become one of the greats. Look at his numbers. For Pete's sake he won the NAB rising star - an award forwards never win, pipping Cripps who was unbelievable that year. And has kicked 99 goals in only 49 games - amazing for a young KPF. This season has been a write off yet he is still kicking goals when he plays. I can't believe how short some people's memories are. The Crows would take that trade in a heartbeat and be laughing as they signed the paper work. Crows fans would be saying "Lever who?"

Agree he is best 22 atm (though he'ed be in the 15-22 range) and that the coaches love him. Has really come on this year. But that is precisely why there is a good chance he is chance to be part of any deal to get Lever. Crows don't want a player like Kent or ben ken who can't get a regular game of senior football. They want someone who can be a best 22 in their side. They need mids and we are reasonably well covered for players of ANB's size and skill set, particularly with Smith coming on, Maynard getting a senior gig and Gus not having played this year. And of course he is an SA boy, which is a big factor i reckon given how many players they lose who are going back to their home state. As i have said before i hate to lose players that are not peanuts and who want to stay at the club. But no doubt he will be in discussions. Trading Frost would be robbing Peter to pay Paul but not ANB. The alternative to trading a player of his ilk is to give up this years and next years first round draft picks (perhaps with a late pick coming back this year, for example if Taylor had another smokey in mind). But that is risky as it starts to muck around with your age spread in the next two or three years as you need quality young players filtering in as our older players drop off and/or filter out .

Please stop.

Apologies if this has been posted already. A lot of love at the dees http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2017-08-03/spycam-corey-maynard

For the first time in a very long time i have complete faith in the judgement of the football department when it comes to recruitment and trades. Whilst there a many factors at play (eg pay scales, contract status of list, culture, perceived risk of lever continuing to suffer hammy injuries, refusal to pay overs etc) their offer to lever will give us an indication of a couple of things (assuming of course we get wind of the ball park figure and length of contract). It will give some objective measure of how highly they rate lever and also of where they see their most need. On the second point it will be interesting to see who they target if they dont land lever. If collingwood get him they will be paying overs, as they did with mayne. Happy for the dees to nor get in a bidding war with the pies

Agree, to an extent. We were bloody unlucky that is for sure. But despite encouraging signs at the beginning of the season i still have doubts about spencer. Also ideally we have a player who less a straight back up but also can sometimes play in the same side as gawn. It would have to be a pretty mobile player who can play in various positions. King might fit this bill. But i can't see Gawn and Spencer ever playing together. But you're probably right - perhaps we can cover it until Flip and king come on.

It seems clear that if he leaves he is coming home to Vic. Lucifer's Hero makes a good point about Lynch ending up staying at the Crows despite many saying him leaving was a fait accompli. So despite the loud jungle drums it its not a done deal he is leaving the crows. But jeez if you putting a bet on it you'd land on him going. If the last point is true surely the dees would be a more attractive option than either the dogs or pies (who seem to be the other key suitors) given we are close to our premiership window. Dogs have had their flag and will struggle to get another any time soon. Who knows how far away the pies are but they have a fair bit of rebuilding to do and the situation with Buckley and the review wouldn't make a potential recruit very comfortable. I agree with those that say we shouldn't be paying too much above market rate. and i doubt we will, so the pies might well out bid us. We have a range of other needs, in particular at least one more mid who is an elite user of the ball and a really good second ruck option as Gawn going down exposed our vulnerability in this area (king might come good, but seems a fair way away). But in addition to his ability to play the intercept role really well and to fit into our system i like lever's ball use. Not sure if it is elite but not far off. Also goody values flexibility and i reckon Lever with his marking ability could thrive up forward when/if needed and perhaps also as an occasional ruckman.

Good lord, we could get into all of each other's accounts!

Boring is a far sigt better than being unable to manage a debate without being dismissive and rude.

Agree with your comment about the evidence. Which is why i was bemused you rejected my argument about tmac being a forward option before the blues game. As i pointed then and just now the evidence was already there for all to see.

A couple of things pd. Firstly, i thought you were pretty dismissive of my argument as to how we could fit lever in and not lose frost. An element of my argument was that tmac was looking more and more a natural forward. You rejected that comment. Ill note it was made before you had your mind changed by his peter hudson performance on the weekend. But lets be honest the signs were there for a while he was a natural forward - unsurprising given he played all his juniour career as one. Even those ding bats darcy and richo pointed how good his leading patterns and forward instincts were way back against the pies - and he did kick 5 against wc. Yet you change your position after last weekends game and have now come to much tbe same conclusion i did prior to the clues game.? Polar opposite views you said. Perhaps it might be better not to be so quick to reject the arguments of orher posters, particularly when you initiate the discussion saying you like dispassionate logical discussions. The second thing is i actually think omac is starting to show sign his kicking could become more of an offensive weapon. There were a couple of excellent bullet passes on tbe weekend from him. One near the end of tbe 1st q that opened up the corridor before lewis turned it over. But yes a work in progress. Agree wirh frost but a real point of difference for frost - and an important part of game plan - is that he is often an offensive threat. He clearly has been instructed to take players on and run hard out of tbe back half. He so often plays on, runs 20 metres and kicks it 50 metres. Yes he can spray it but often he is driving the ball inside our forward line. Huge for us and with hunt they represent a very important part of our strategy. I suspect smith, who i still say may end up as a mid, will play a similar role. I cant see lever playing this style The most simialr player to lever is actually omac. Both are zone defenders whose strength is gettting across to spoil or intetcept mark.

In some regards perhaps. For exampke I thought watts would play all seaon last year. You didnt And more recently you were on the omac is not up to it bandwagon, arguing pedo would be the prefered option once all the tall came back (a view i see you have softened on i see). I disagreed. On both counts. I think ive got some some credits in the bank on the argument front with you PD.

Blimey PD. Because you gave my argument 'short shrift' does not make my argument unreasonable. It only means you disagree with the argument. You have been known to be wrong PD. Jack Watts says hello. And i have been known to be right. As i have said i don't think the back six would be too tall because of how athletic Frost and Lever are. But you don't agree. That's ok

Leaving aside my romantism pd i think i put forward a pretty reasonable argument about how you could fit lever in without losing frost. As i said it is eary days for smith in his career so plenty of time to develop the skills to go into the midfield. If i was in charge and the club wanted lever and jones in i would consider trading frost for sure. As you say he will have some trade value, but i suspect only second round. We will need a higher draft pick to make jones and lever happen. For that reason i would look at brayshaw, though that would be robbing peter to pay paul a bit. Id definetly look at kent, though he woud need to be part of a package deal to have any value - perhaps with jkh or wirh our first draft pick. We also can trade our first draft pick and one from next year as a package. Wagner might come into the conversation as part of a package also.

Well PD i am obviously more a romantic than you. good thing it is not my call. A couple of things though. I am not as keen as some on Jones. Also as i said i think Smith will end up a midfielder. Probably sooner rather than later. Perfect for that role i reckon. Yes he has played down back thus far but it is early days for his career. I can see him and Maynard being a pretty formidable combination in the middle with their strength, size and basketball honed quick and hands and vision. Lets say i'm right. A back six of Hibberd, Jetta, Frost, the McDonalds, and Lever looks pretty damn good. That allows Hunt to go to the wing, which i reckon is an ideal postion for him as he can still use his run and dash, we will still get great meters gained from him, he ca add a linking up element to his game and he becomes more of an offensive threat. Simples

As i said you make a good point about Frost, particularly about his potential trade value. But my solution would be to keep Frost. Partly because i am not totally convinced you can't have all of Tom McDonald, Oscar McDonald, Frost, Lever, and Joel Smith at the club and perhaps even in the same side, particularly if Smith goes to the midfield which i suspect he might. Keep in mind Lewis and Vince have both been playing off the HB and both will finish soon so that frees up some spots down back. Yes i know Lever, Frost and Smith are tall but they are so athletic that i reckon they can play as running half back flankers rather than just as key position players.And i wonder if TMac might end up as an old fashioned swing man given how natural he has started looking as a forward? But i guess the main reason my solution would be to keep Frost is i hate it when any player is forced out of the club. Unless they are a peanut.

Some good points, particularly Smith's capacity to offer the speed and versatility of Frost. But i would hate to see Frost go. I think he has huge upside (which of course gives him some trade value) and i really like his athleticism. Am i right in thinking he was basketballer that came to footy quite late? Lever is very athletic, as is smith and frost and all have the ability to cover smaller players as well as tall ones, (Omac and TMac less so) - a very handy skill in with the strong zone we favour down back. Handy also to have 190 plus athletic types running of the half back line at centre square restarts. It would be interesting to see if they could all play together. With Smith i can see him going into the midfield at some stage.