Crows commit to Stevens, Begley AFC.com article

[Stiffy_18]

Stiffy, I see him more than a filler - he will be the marshall we need in the forward line to teach the other youngsters about forward play. If Stevo stays sound, it will take the heat of the younger players, both in terms of their importance to the current line-up (of Hentschel / Perrie) & not having to rush the likes Watts & Krueger.

I agree that a fit Stevo gives us real opportunity to push for the finals, whereas without him it is unlikely. A fit Goodwin & Hart will make heck of a differene too!

I agree whole-heartedly hence the reason I had filler in the quotation marks.

I guess what I was getting at is that Stevo will be someone that those youngsters look up to and someone that gives us a bit of time so the likes of Krueger, Watts and Hentschel are not rushed to play KP week in week out

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Stiffy, I see him more than a filler - he will be the marshall we need in the forward line to teach the other youngsters about forward play. If Stevo stays sound, it will take the heat of the younger players, both in terms of their importance to the current line-up (of Hentschel / Perrie) & not having to rush the likes Watts & Krueger.

I agree that a fit Stevo gives us real opportunity to push for the finals, whereas without him it is unlikely. A fit Goodwin & Hart will make heck of a differene too!

I think your spot on with those comments - that extra experience, if they can stay sound and in form, will benefit the development of our young players and give us the opportunity of scraping into the finals.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Firstly, a warm welcome to Body Blow.

Secondly for young Stiffmeister - while we are always managing others with injury including Macca, none of these have an injury to the extent of Stevens. As for the pre-season bit, I remember commenting in training reports at least as late as mid-January this year, that Stevo had never moved better or more freely.

I'm not sure what has changed over the last 2 years or what better methods they have to manage Stevo's injury, other than getting down on their knees and praying.

While I hope like hell Stevo plays all year and gives our structure that stiffening it needs, I'm far from convinced that is what will happen. The true test will be when he has to stand up under genuine and intense match conditions.

I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic.

What he said.
And Ill think we'll regret it
Ill be the first to eat the humblest of pies if he lasts half way thru the season.
The coaching staff have used the word luck fairly loosely.

 

[PtLincolnpower]

both tops flight players given the chance

 

[Mad Dog]

Firstly, a warm welcome to Body Blow.

Secondly for young Stiffmeister - while we are always managing others with injury including Macca, none of these have an injury to the extent of Stevens. As for the pre-season bit, I remember commenting in training reports at least as late as mid-January this year, that Stevo had never moved better or more freely.

I'm not sure what has changed over the last 2 years or what better methods they have to manage Stevo's injury, other than getting down on their knees and praying.

While I hope like hell Stevo plays all year and gives our structure that stiffening it needs, I'm far from convinced that is what will happen. The true test will be when he has to stand up under genuine and intense match conditions.

I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic.

I've talked myself into being pretty positive about the Stevo thing. I think he is very important to us......but if he falls over - whack him on the long term injury list......promote a rookie....let him go at the end of 2005.

End result = We've promoted our best rookie to the main list and given Stevo a crack and the benefit of the doubt. We wouldn't be any worse placed than if we had sacked Stevo last Thursday and had a PSDP IMO.

Net result is pretty similar.

 

[Mad Dog]

What he said.
And Ill think we'll regret it
Ill be the first to eat the humblest of pies if he lasts half way thru the season.
The coaching staff have used the word luck fairly loosely.

long term injury list...promote a rookie....not much to regret there IMO

 

[blighty]

Get Mark Stevens right for round one at full forward.......


Brisbane have been able to nurse Lynch through the past 3 seasons with chronic hamstrings,CFS & back injuries & other related injuries....while being the most dangerous goalsquare player in the comp.
With the same player & injury management & a gameplan that ensures Stevens is played never more than 30-40 metres from goal we could have a fantastic assett.His pack marking over the years has been a great feature of his game.
His marshalling of the forward line with Welch & leadership of the young players would be invaluable.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I've talked myself into being pretty positive about the Stevo thing. I think he is very important to us......but if he falls over - whack him on the long term injury list......promote a rookie....let him go at the end of 2005.

End result = We've promoted our best rookie to the main list and given Stevo a crack and the benefit of the doubt. We wouldn't be any worse placed than if we had sacked Stevo last Thursday and had a PSDP IMO.

Net result is pretty similar.

Well said

Giving Stevo 1 year contract is worth the risk IMHO. If he comes up and plays his 15 games then it would have been worth its weight in gold. If he does break down we can place him on long term injury list and promote a rookie to the main list. In the end you are not losing anything.

I think that the player we would have picked up in the PSD would still be there with pick 5 in the rookie draft.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

A bit harsh on Steveo. I thought he was the main reason we went as far as we did in 2002. Begley, is a hard one to define, as he spends more time injured than out on the ground. Although, you would have to admit he has played some good games for the club.I would think this has to be his last chance.
The concern I have is I would expect the Crows to only intend to delist another 4-5 players at the end of 2005. If these two are injured again in, then you would expect they would be 2 of the 4-5. Throw in a retiring Clarke, and that would leave 1-2 possible delistings. Meaning our long list of hacks - Smith, Bock, S Stevens, Ladhams, Massie, Shirley and our iffy players - Bode, Biglands, Doughty, Mattner, Burton, Schuback and Perrie would gain another reprieve. Christ, how long would it take for us to turn our list over at this rate, 4-5 years?

 

[No 1 Draft Pick]

The concern I have is I would expect the Crows to only intend to delist another 4-5 players at the end of 2005. If these two are injured again in, then you would expect they would be 2 of the 4-5. Throw in a retiring Clarke, and that would leave 1-2 possible delistings. Meaning our long list of hacks - Smith, Bock, S Stevens, Ladhams, Massie, Shirley and our iffy players - Bode, Biglands, Doughty, Mattner, Burton, Schuback and Perrie would gain another reprieve. Christ, how long would it take for us to turn our list over at this rate, 4-5 years?

Excellent point. IMO we wont be delisting 10 odd players next year even though a number of the above deserve it (and you didnt even mention Skippy). From my understanding Bock and Shirley are contracted for the 2006 season (from reading threads here)

I reckon we will have 2 retirements (Clarke and M Stevens probably) and probably delist 4-5 of the players mentioned below - meaning 6-7 places turned over on the list. Probably some iffy players will survive due to this. The 4-5 to go IMO will come from:

Smith
SKippy
Ladhams
S Stevens
Massie
Schuback
Mattner

 

[Damien_R1]

IMO I see no reason why we wouldn't delist up to 10 players next year, especially if we finish in the bottom 5 again. Hard calls have to be made in times when you are underperforming.

As for Smith, are we obliged to offer him a 2 year deal like we do for ND picks ? Or is it different for rookies ? If he has a 2 year deal, it'd be unlikely he would be delisted next year.

Also, those who say Smith is a 'dud', I'd like to disagree. At present I think he is a good SANFL footballer, and 'duds' do not make it to AFL lists. I am just as puzzled as to why he got promoted (especially ahead of Parker), but I think players deserve respect (even on these boards) and don't deserve to be called duds.

 

[Mad Dog]

IMO I see no reason why we wouldn't delist up to 10 players next year, especially if we finish in the bottom 5 again. Hard calls have to be made in times when you are underperforming.

As for Smith, are we obliged to offer him a 2 year deal like we do for ND picks ? Or is it different for rookies ? If he has a 2 year deal, it'd be unlikely he would be delisted next year.

Also, those who say Smith is a 'dud', I'd like to disagree. At present I think he is a good SANFL footballer, and 'duds' do not make it to AFL lists. I am just as puzzled as to why he got promoted (especially ahead of Parker), but I think players deserve respect (even on these boards) and don't deserve to be called duds.

Smith has a 2 year deal

 

[mymansyd]

Smith has a 2 year deal

C'mon. Smith, would surely only have a 1-year deal.

 

[Mad Dog]

C'mon. Smith, would surely only have a 1-year deal.

I think you'll find it's 2.....confirmation / denial......somebody ?? somebody ???

 

[mymansyd]

I think you'll find it's 2.....confirmation / denial......somebody ?? somebody ???

Stiffy...come out, come out, wherever you are...

 

[No 1 Draft Pick]

C'mon. Smith, would surely only have a 1-year deal.

agree. On what reasonable basis could they have given him 2 years when he hasnt done anything in four years on the list

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Excellent point. IMO we wont be delisting 10 odd players next year even though a number of the above deserve it (and you didnt even mention Skippy). From my understanding Bock and Shirley are contracted for the 2006 season (from reading threads here)

I reckon we will have 2 retirements (Clarke and M Stevens probably) and probably delist 4-5 of the players mentioned below - meaning 6-7 places turned over on the list. Probably some iffy players will survive due to this. The 4-5 to go IMO will come from:

Smith
SKippy
Ladhams
S Stevens
Massie
Schuback
Mattner

The odds are that a few of these fringe players will be worth keeping, whilst I'm sure a few others will be cut. Also, if we choose our rookies wisely, there may be 1-2 worth promoting, to lessen the turnover.

 

[macca23]

The odds are that a few of these fringe players will be worth keeping, whilst I'm sure a few others will be cut. Also, if we choose our rookies wisely, there may be 1-2 worth promoting, to lessen the turnover.

Isn't that allowing us to increase the turnover Kane?

Say we want to have 6 draft picks, and Clarke and Stevens retire, that only enables us to delist 4 duds.

Working on the same criteria of wanting to have 6 draft picks, and Clarke and Stevens retiring, but with 2 rookies promoted to the main list, then we have to delist 6 duds to still have 6 picks.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Isn't that allowing us to increase the turnover Kane?

Say we want to have 6 draft picks, and Clarke and Stevens retire, that only enables us to delist 4 duds.

Working on the same criteria of wanting to have 6 draft picks, and Clarke and Stevens retiring, but with 2 rookies promoted to the main list, then we have to delist 6 duds to still have 6 picks.

It was a poor choice of words Macca.

What I meant to say that if a rookie or 2 are worth promoting, then we wouldn't need as many new drafted players as otherwise.

 

[mr snip]

what benefit do we get from turning over such a large number of players except that we make ourselves feel better. They have to be replaced by someone elses rejects who may be better or worse.e.g scott stevens or they are promising juniors who take 2-3 yrs to develop any way either way we don't win. List management eeds to be done carefuly and slowly unless we trade some bigname players while they still have some value.

 

[macca23]

I think you'll find it's 2.....confirmation / denial......somebody ?? somebody ???

Definitely a 1 year deal if the 'tiser had it right at the time he was signed.

Stiffy also had him listd as a contract expiry at the end of 2005.

About 12 months too long IMO.

 

[macca23]

It was a poor choice of words Macca.

What I meant to say that if a rookie or 2 are worth promoting, then we wouldn't need as many new drafted players as otherwise.

Right.

 

[Mad Dog]

what benefit do we get from turning over such a large number of players except that we make ourselves feel better. They have to be replaced by someone elses rejects who may be better or worse.e.g scott stevens or they are promising juniors who take 2-3 yrs to develop any way either way we don't win. List management eeds to be done carefuly and slowly unless we trade some bigname players while they still have some value.

Mr Snip I agree with the carefully bit - but I don't think that also means it needs to be slowly. We have a very shallow squad at the moment with about 10 players who might consider themselves fortunate to be on a senior list. We need to turn over players as quickly as we can over the next 2 years....contracts will ultimately set the pace for us. Give me a young fella who has potential over someone who appears to have maximised their football ability (and is still a fringy) any day. We don't need to trade players to improve our list - in fact there is a lot of talk here about wheeling and dealing at the end of '05 for Cooney / Griffen / Waters / etc.....I reckon we're either dreaming...or potentially sacrificing good picks or players too early.
Lets just turn over our duds at the end of the year (contracts permitting)....draft well again (this year was a great start)....and trade if it suits us.
Lets not rush into trades....I get the feeling that enough opportunities will come our way over the next few years with some of our boys wanting to head home. Let them make the running - and we can sit in the box seat - much like then Stenglien trade

 

[Mad Dog]

Definitely a 1 year deal if the 'tiser had it right at the time he was signed.

Stiffy also had him listd as a contract expiry at the end of 2005.

About 12 months too long IMO.

thanks Macca23.......this is one time I'm happy to say...I love it when I'm wrong !!