 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BBHS 
bbhs
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Location: Bellarine
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
nailed it Boogie.
Even though I still don't think we should get him you make good points. |
|
|
|
 |
The Average Tourist
Joined: 08 Apr 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The Best part of the Lever discussion is that Petracca has been mentioned as part of a swap!
It would be fantastic to use Pick 6 and our second round picks to Melbourne for Petracca and the "deeees" could use our Pick 6 and their pick 9 for Lever and maybe a swap for Adelaides say pick 18 against the dees pick 27.
This works for Us
the Dees
the Crows can get gibbs from the filth
Where do I sign
_________________
Bucks you just reckon he can still cut it in the middle |
|
|
|
|
Boogie Knights
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Petracca has categorically been ruled out of any trade. |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Boogie Knights wrote: | Interesting thing about draft picks... they hold the most value, before they are used...
Within the top 10 of every draft, using hindsight, there are always 2-3 players who are considered complete busts, and rarely would the order of the remaining 7 or 8 be the same. On this basis, a top 10 pick gives you a 70 - 80% chance of obtaining a player deserving of such status (it could easily be argued this is less but I am only considering complete busts, not those who are serviceable but not stars). So, even with all the time and resources put into evaluating prospects, it is not an exact science.
From 10 onward, picks have diminishing returns, and while people will site some gems discovered in the later stages of the draft, there are far more that don't make it than do.
Now, there is the argument of best available -v- need, and my opinion is that within the top 10, you must take best available - to enhance your chance of achieving that 70-80%. Beyond 10 I would consider needs based drafting due to the diminishing return.
On this basis, lets look at Lever. In hindsight, he is without question one of the top 10 players of his draft class, so this is a big tick and already has the benefit of hindsight. He is also not that far removed in time from his draft year.
Posters here seem to be of mixed opinion in relation to our need for a KPD, and of whether Lever is in fact a KPP. He has been likened in style to a young version of and anointed the air apparent to Alex Rance; so regardless of positional viewpoint, I think everyone would find room for Rance in our best 22. Our current KPDs are aging Dunn and Goldy (both still with plenty to offer) and the third tall of Howe. There has also been a call for Goldy to be used as a defensive forward, but on current list profile, this is unlikely.
For mine, Lever fills both a need and is worthy of a top 10 pick. He is also only 21 so fits within the age profile of our next premiership team/window, whether that be next season (he was all Australian squad 2017) or in the next ten years.
Giving up 6 and 36 for him (if the Crows were agreeable to it) - a need and a player deserving of top 10 status - seems to be to a lay down misere. |
That is very good summary of why the reward for investing in Lever is so much greater than the risk that comes with investing in this draft.
You can pick any 5 /10 year period throughout the history of the draft and there will be a consistent 50 % average only of talls selected in the first round, who go on to carve out a reasonable career as a competent KPP.
Lever comes as a future 200 game plus 195cm CHB who doesn't get beaten very often and reads the play as good as anyone going around.
It probably all stands for nought because it appears he headed elsewhere but conversation about his value will still remain for a while to come. |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lever would be a great pickup. We have not landed a big Fish for quite some time now.
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Were you asleep when we gave up 17 first round draft picks for Treloar? |
|
|
|
|
WarrenerraW
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think we need to move on from lever cos it ain't happening and I can't see us being prepared to offload another 2 first rounders in such a short space of time like we did with treloar. |
|
|
|
|
piedys 
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| masoncox wrote: | From the age this morning
The Crows will not let their star go cheaply though. They will demand two first round picks for Lever, with Melbourne in the box seat to secure him.
Collingwood are also in the race for Lever while the Bulldogs have diverted their attention to Port Adelaide tall Jackson Trengove. |
I'd prefer Jackson Trengove, stronger bodied backman, but that's just me.
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| On what I saw last night, I wouldn't give up a first-round draft pick, let alone 2, for Lever. He's a solid, not great, player. Talia goes alright, though. |
|
|
|
|
Clifton Hill-Billy
Joined: 29 Sep 2011
Location: 3068----> 3076
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lever started poorly and got better as the game went on. Got a crows supporting mate who outright stated he struggles against the bigger forwards in the same way Goldsack does, we need a kpd that can cover Dixon, Hawkins etc
_________________
"Hey Ma get off the dang roof!" |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Clifton Hill-Billy wrote: | | Lever started poorly and got better as the game went on. Got a crows supporting mate who outright stated he struggles against the bigger forwards in the same way Goldsack does, we need a kpd that can cover Dixon, Hawkins etc |
Yes, I think that's a fair assessment, based on what I saw. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Most 21 year old defenders struggle against the bigger forwards and it's not a role he's had to play that often given the makeup of the Adelaide side.
He's 195cm to Goldsack's 193cm and does not have Tyson's wiry build. Right now he's just about the best intercept player in the game and worth a first round pick just for that. Going forward there's no reason why he won't develop into a genuine FB or CHB and it's pretty certain that he will. He definitely looks like what we badly lack, a defensive general; plays smart and hard. As types, he and McClarty (197cm and bigger build) would be a great pairing in the key defensive posts, with Sam at FB and Jake at CHB, not too different to Lever and Talia.
I don't think Adelaide will get two first round picks for him, but that's close to his value if the second is a late one. More likely a first round pick and a player they can sell as being "worth" a first rounder or at least having been picked there. If they're still interested in Aish, I feel pick 6 and he may be enough, maybe with an exchange of later or future picks in Adelaide's favour.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Pies2016
Joined: 12 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | On what I saw last night, I wouldn't give up a first-round draft pick, let alone 2, for Lever. He's a solid, not great, player. Talia goes alright, though. |
Right now I would happily take a 10 year " solid " CHB for a top ten 10 pick any day. You can guarantee at 21, he will only get better.
Looks like he's going elsewhere, so it will interesting to watch the trade play out without any " emotional investment " attached.
Slightly off topic, what will be interesting is the trade that unfolds between Brisbane and the Crows for Cameron. He and Betts looked like they were playing with a different footy last night. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | Most 21 year old defenders struggle against the bigger forwards and it's not a role he's had to play that often given the makeup of the Adelaide side.
He's 195cm to Goldsack's 193cm and does not have Tyson's wiry build. Right now he's just about the best intercept player in the game and worth a first round pick just for that. Going forward there's no reason why he won't develop into a genuine FB or CHB and it's pretty certain that he will. He definitely looks like what we badly lack, a defensive general; plays smart and hard. As types, he and McClarty (197cm and bigger build) would be a great pairing in the key defensive posts, with Sam at FB and Jake at CHB, not too different to Lever and Talia.
I don't think Adelaide will get two first round picks for him, but that's close to his value if the second is a late one. More likely a first round pick and a player they can sell as being "worth" a first rounder or at least having been picked there. If they're still interested in Aish, I feel pick 6 and he may be enough, maybe with an exchange of later or future picks in Adelaide's favour. |
so will McLarty and Scharenberg. especially with Howe and Langdon back there to help out.
I am just not worried about our backline. We NEED some forward structure.
Look at the Crows. Walker, Lynch AND Jenkins, and two genuinely dangerous little guys.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^I'd hate for us to play three tall forwards. Actually reckon even the Crows would be better off without Jenkins, though they don't really have any other ruck cover. Two is my limit.
Scharenberg is only 191cm. It's very unlikely he ever becomes a key back. Equating him with Lever (195cm), who definitely can be, is wrong in my view.
We need one more young key back and one more young key forward on our list. Only one of them needs to be an A grader or close to. At the moment, we have Moore who projects to be a star, forward or back.
If we picked up a brilliant young key forward I'd not be against moving Moore back. At the moment though, he's a forward, so I see a quality key defender as a more pressing need. Up forward we have Moore for the long term and Cox for the medium. Down back it's McClarty long term and that's it (add Reid for the medium term if you think he can play another 3 years). I like the balance of one A grade tall forward, defender and ruck (wouldn't want to waste the money on more than that, they are declining in importance). We have forward and ruck, just defence is needed. Fill in the other key posts with solid players, McCarty looks to be one.
Lever looks far better than the KPFs in the draft and if that was the choice, it's an easy one to make, even ignoring that drafting talls has a high failure rate.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
