Game Day Crows V Weagles 21 Feb

Remove this Banner Ad

AmericanCrow said:
Not sure I see a difference in thinking. Lever earned his way on and played whilst the organization felt he could help the team win. That is exactly what you want to see.

Incidentally, he has all the makings of being a really good player and we didn't need a single digit draft pick to get him.

Players can always be found. Especially if you have great scouting.
Click to expand...

Thing is Lever didn't earn his spot. Per champion data he was one of the worst 1 on 1 defenders in the comp. the B&F showed how poorly the coaches thought he was contributing. He just didn't deserve a spot in the 22 on merit or performance

And I think it's fantastic that he was gifted games. Bloody marvellous
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So! What some people here are saying is that: Unless we know we can get to be top 4, we should play the new draftees do give them game time!
Because all our draftees are guns and since all the players above 29 will not be in our premiership team, we should remove them to give the young guns the time they need to progress.
The above seams, even to me, very stupid and, some people would say, misconstrued. Unfortunately that is exactly how it comes off by the "play the young ones" brigade.
If the GWS and GC clubs do became power forces in the next couple of years, it won't be because they played a lot of young players at the same time. If it happens it would have been because they played 12-16 top ten picks at the same time.
The other thing is, if we do not play the best team we have to get as high as we can in any one year, how do we know when to go for top 4? Do we say at the beginning of the season "Ok. we got the team to get to top 4, so we are going to play for it". ( Didn't Pot Power say that last year?).
 
Iron said:
The "keep winning because any finals exposure is good" argument falls down if, when we actually make finals, we don't okay the kids we want exposed to finals.

I actually don't think we did this too badly last year. We unearthed some good talent but we did waste game time on players like Wright who obviously was headed straight for delisting. Room for improvement.
Click to expand...
Is it worth noting that Wright wasn't headed straight for delisting, at least not at the start of the season. He certainly was by the end of the year, having had a poor season in his own right and being overtaken by players like Knight and Atkins. But at the start of the season he was clearly in our best 22 and selecting him was the right decision.

I love people re-writing history with the benefit of hindsight. He was delisted, so why did they select him for 16 games (that could have contributed to the development of a kid). FFS, this line of thinking is complete and utter rubbish.

Argue that he should have been dropped earlier, based on form. Anything more than that is just revisionist rubbish.
 
moogerfooger said:
not sure why anyone's even arguing - surely the drafting of Seedsman and Hampton spells the end for Mackay and most likely for VB as well?

they're not even being replaced with kids - we drafted ready made replacements who will be upgrades on both players in Round 1 and still have plenty of upside.

what's not to like?
Click to expand...
Possibly. They still have to prove that they're better than VB and Mackay, which they haven't done yet. Seedsman didn't do himself any favours in the first MMC game. Hampton gets his first opportunity to make a case this weekend.
 
Vader said:
Is it worth noting that Wright wasn't headed straight for delisting, at least not at the start of the season. He certainly was by the end of the year, having had a poor season in his own right and being overtaken by players like Knight and Atkins. But at the start of the season he was clearly in our best 22 and selecting him was the right decision.

I love people re-writing history with the benefit of hindsight. He was delisted, so why did they select him for 16 games (that could have contributed to the development of a kid). FFS, this line of thinking is complete and utter rubbish.

Argue that he should have been dropped earlier, based on form. Anything more than that is just revisionist rubbish.
Click to expand...

We offered Wright a rookie spot IIRC. Can't have stunk it up quite as much as some reckon.
 
Vader said:
Is it worth noting that Wright wasn't headed straight for delisting, at least not at the start of the season. He certainly was by the end of the year, having had a poor season in his own right and being overtaken by players like Knight and Atkins. But at the start of the season he was clearly in our best 22 and selecting him was the right decision.

I love people re-writing history with the benefit of hindsight. He was delisted, so why did they select him for 16 games (that could have contributed to the development of a kid). FFS, this line of thinking is complete and utter rubbish.

Argue that he should have been dropped earlier, based on form. Anything more than that is just revisionist rubbish.
Click to expand...
I didn't comment on his early season form. You're putting words in my mouth a bit. Didn't imply that he shouldn't have played at all, I implied it was obvious he was going to be delisted but was still getting games. Thank you for giving me permission to make the argument I initially made though.
 
Vader said:
Is it worth noting that Wright wasn't headed straight for delisting, at least not at the start of the season. He certainly was by the end of the year, having had a poor season in his own right and being overtaken by players like Knight and Atkins. But at the start of the season he was clearly in our best 22 and selecting him was the right decision.

I love people re-writing history with the benefit of hindsight. He was delisted, so why did they select him for 16 games (that could have contributed to the development of a kid). FFS, this line of thinking is complete and utter rubbish.

Argue that he should have been dropped earlier, based on form. Anything more than that is just revisionist rubbish.
Click to expand...
Get your head out of your rear.

How many players get delisted after playing 16 games in a season? Dropped to regain form...sure, but 16 games on the way out the door is yet another example of poor selection policy.

If he was bad then fine, drop him to regain form. He was so bad that his 16 games led to the sack...that's stinking it up and if you're stinking it up to that extent, you can't possibly play 16 games - unless your at the AFC.
 
Vader said:
Possibly. They still have to prove that they're better than VB and Mackay, which they haven't done yet. Seedsman didn't do himself any favours in the first MMC game. Hampton gets his first opportunity to make a case this weekend.
Click to expand...

Not sure Mackay and VB did themselves many favours either. Still lots of skill errors even against a seconds grade side. At least Seedsman has the excuse he's new to the club.

By virtue of not playing Hampton has almost risen in the pecking order already.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sanders said:
Thing is Lever didn't earn his spot. Per champion data he was one of the worst 1 on 1 defenders in the comp. the B&F showed how poorly the coaches thought he was contributing. He just didn't deserve a spot in the 22 on merit or performance

And I think it's fantastic that he was gifted games. Bloody marvellous
Click to expand...

You missed my point. His play in the SANFL warranted a chance. Whilst he was contributing enough without causing the team to drop games he played.

When his form faded at the top level he was removed. He no longer was a viable option for a team trying to WIN games.

You guys get much to much hung up on stats and B&F votes. At any rate, the team handled Lever exactly as they should have.

If they did what many here propose he would have played no matter what because 2017 or 2018. ;)
 
Vader said:
Is it worth noting that Wright wasn't headed straight for delisting, at least not at the start of the season. He certainly was by the end of the year, having had a poor season in his own right and being overtaken by players like Knight and Atkins. But at the start of the season he was clearly in our best 22 and selecting him was the right decision.

I love people re-writing history with the benefit of hindsight. He was delisted, so why did they select him for 16 games (that could have contributed to the development of a kid). FFS, this line of thinking is complete and utter rubbish.

Argue that he should have been dropped earlier, based on form. Anything more than that is just revisionist rubbish.
Click to expand...

Vader, sometimes your black and white view of the world makes me wonder if there is a real person under that helmet or a robot.:p

I'm guessing you've never been involved in professional club sport or at least close to people who have, otherwise you'd know that while clubs claim they select based only on merit they're really lying, because that's the most palatable answer to give to the public. But even if there weren't such things as club politics to contend with, coaches still don't select entirely on merit, sometimes they do so because they see it will help the team in the long run. Lever's selection last year is proof of that, so was Cameron's when he was quiet early on.

I suspect in Wright's case he was given 16 games because he was a 25 year old fringe player on the last year of his contract, so of those who were on the fringe of selection, he was given an opportunity to save his career by showing some improvement. Let's face it players of his ability are a dime a dozen and not worth holding on to when you're still a few steps away from legitimately contending the premiership.

Was 16 games too much? I think so, but it seems the two players the club were most keen on replacing him with in Knight and Atkins had their seasons held back by injury, so their availability was delayed. It's also understandable that the coaches would be hesitant to cut him from the team when they knew it was likely to mean pulling the plug on his AFL career.

In the end I just think your suggestion that Wright went from "clear best 22" to delisting in the span of one season is way off the mark, because no club would let go of player deemed that valuable at the start of year after just one bad season.
 
Last edited:
Interesting reading about VB, MacKay, and why they have should been dropped, using Data/vote/coaches reports from last year to support or disprove any argument, What I have not seen is, who should have replaced them, Now before you all go off, think first.
Some of the names I have seen bandied about as replacments are Lever, CEY, Grigg, Lyons Funny how they all play different roles, Which some you do not think matter ???. We need to remember VB and MacKay are notable outside runners not the best but better than an inside or KPP. And yes they did run of the half back line, but not as defensive backs the were more the running backs (no pun intended), Like Smith, Jaensch, Henderson and Laird It was not until Atkins and Knights started playing regular good football that there was anyone capable of putting presure on these guys to be dropped.
Remember the SANFL side was pretty ordinary for most the year and the only good mids week were inside. that team was lacking outside run.
So last year the Crows were lacking outside run, and VB and MacKay were in that small group of outside running players available.
As to the finals, Crows were looking at improving there speed to match both the Dogs and Hawks, and again both those players had that ability.
Now this year its a different story,
You Always pick the best team that you think will win the game.
 
AmericanCrow said:
You missed my point. His play in the SANFL warranted a chance. Whilst he was contributing enough without causing the team to drop games he played.

When his form faded at the top level he was removed. He no longer was a viable option for a team trying to WIN games.

You guys get much to much hung up on stats and B&F votes. At any rate, the team handled Lever exactly as they should have.

If they did what many here propose he would have played no matter what because 2017 or 2018. ;)
Click to expand...

But he did play no matter what ;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Game Day Crows V Weagles 21 Feb

Similar threads

C
Preview Trial game - Crows V Port - 5pm Friday 23 Feb at Alberton Oval
39 40 41 42 43
Replies
1K
Views
46K
1990crow
1990crow
arrowman
Game Day Bombres v Crows, it will be a Marvel!
83 84 85 86 87
Replies
2K
Views
40K
Carmo
C
dogs105
2nds 2025 Adelaide Crows SANFL thread
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
cleanhands
C
George Kramer
  • Poll
Game Day Crows v Dees - Gather Round for a Crows Win
63 64 65 66 67
Replies
2K
Views
35K
Crow_Magnon
Crow_Magnon
1970crow
Game Day McMurphy Crows at the G v Collingwood
71 72 73 74 75
Replies
2K
Views
35K
Soggy2112
Soggy2112
C
Game Day Round 18 - Crows v Saints - Battle for Pick 4
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
751
Views
17K
D Style
D Style
WaynesWorld19
Injury 2025 Crows Injury Update
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Blue Red and Gold
Blue Red and Gold

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top