James Aish

Remove this Banner Ad

Chief Crow said:
Have you not seen the kicking skills of our players? WE DESPERATELY NEED GOOD BALL USERS!!!!!!!!!

Aish is very good by foot and is composed with ball in hand
Click to expand...

I just don't agree, have we been watching the same games lately. Aish has a relatively slow kick, a touch on the high side and he's no monty to hit a target constantly.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
Freddy's point is a good one though.

Gaining Aish whilst keeping our first rounder would be ideal. Then we can hopefully add a pacey mid through the draft as well.

Whether that's possible...?

Have ROB, Dear, Lowden, Osborn shown enough that we'd be comfortable trading Jenkins to Brisbane?
Click to expand...
Based on this year has Jenkins shown enough to not get traded?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Golumless said:
Aish only dropped as he was deemed a flight risk. If he wasn't, he'd either be with Collingwood or Western Bulldogs right now.

And a midfielder with elite disposal and above average pace is definitely a need for us.
Click to expand...

I'll freely admit I hadn't seen any of his games at Norwood but I did see his U18 games on the TV prior to his drafting....and I have seen most of his VFL games and on that basis I'd class his disposal as neat, not elite and speed wise when compared with the better outside mids in the comp as average, definitely no better than that. The one thing he does have that's elite is decision making.
 
Bicks said:
I'll freely admit I hadn't seen any of his games at Norwood but I did see his U18 games on the TV prior to his drafting....and I have seen most of his VFL games and on that basis I'd class his disposal as neat, not elite and speed wise when compared with the better outside mids in the comp as average, definitely no better than that. The one thing he does have that's elite is decision making.
Click to expand...
So he's a slightly poor mans Brad Crouch ?
 
Bonkers000 said:
Lever was heading towards being the no. 1 pick before doing his acl. Adelaide thought they could get a bargain and it still could turn out that way. The fact he is a talk defender is merely coincidence.
Click to expand...

We took Lever because he was the best tall rebounding defender available to us in the draft! A position we were severely undermanned in.
It was no coincidence his named was called out. It had nothing to do with bargain hunting.
In my mind a defender was always our top priority.
According to Noble they were confident the player (s) they wanted would still be there at pick 14.
If Lever had been off the table by then I'm fairly sure a lot of consideration would have been given to Durdin another potential tall defender.
With our first pick last year we definitely drafted for need IMO.
 
LC40 said:
We took Lever because he was the best tall rebounding defender available to us in the draft! A position we were severely undermanned in.
It was no coincidence his named was called out. It had nothing to do with bargain hunting.
In my mind a defender was always our top priority.
According to Noble they were confident the player (s) they wanted would still be there at pick 14.
If Lever had been off the table by then I'm fairly sure a lot of consideration would have been given to Durdin another potential tall defender.
With our first pick last year we definitely drafted for need IMO.
Click to expand...
Didn't CC say we would have drafted one of the guys the Bombers took later in the 1st if Lever was gone? Laverde I think it was, he was the Jack Gunston type forward who was being projected at going to Collingwood with Pick 5 for a bit.
 
MRB37 said:
Didn't CC say we would have drafted one of the guys the Bombers took later in the 1st if Lever was gone? Laverde I think it was, he was the Jack Gunston type forward who was being projected at going to Collingwood with Pick 5 for a bit.
Click to expand...

I think mckenzie was our next choice if lever was gone
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LC40 said:
We took Lever because he was the best tall rebounding defender available to us in the draft! A position we were severely undermanned in.
It was no coincidence his named was called out. It had nothing to do with bargain hunting.
In my mind a defender was always our top priority.
According to Noble they were confident the player (s) they wanted would still be there at pick 14.
If Lever had been off the table by then I'm fairly sure a lot of consideration would have been given to Durdin another potential tall defender.
With our first pick last year we definitely drafted for need IMO.
Click to expand...
You've misunderstood my post. I never meant to imply we were bargain hunting, it's more like we got a bargain because clubs overlooked lever due to his acl.
I believe adelaide would of used a pick in the top 10 to get lever if we had one because we thought he was the best available. I never said it was a coincidence we called his name out. It was a coincidence the player we thought was best available happened to be a type we needed.

The fact that you've used the term "in my mind" and I've used "I believe" clearly says we both don't know the complete reason as to why we chose lever and are only speculating.
 
LC40 said:
We took Lever because he was the best tall rebounding defender available to us in the draft! A position we were severely undermanned in.
It was no coincidence his named was called out. It had nothing to do with bargain hunting.
In my mind a defender was always our top priority.
According to Noble they were confident the player (s) they wanted would still be there at pick 14.
If Lever had been off the table by then I'm fairly sure a lot of consideration would have been given to Durdin another potential tall defender.
With our first pick last year we definitely drafted for need IMO.
Click to expand...
Think they had a list lever , Goddard and marchbank in that order - all KPD and all v highly
rated , giants surprised by taking marchbank in top 10 and Goddard was next option after lever. It was v strong draft for KP so they thought they would have at least 1 good option at 14
 
Mr MysteryGuest said:
I think mckenzie was our next choice if lever was gone
Click to expand...
Think we were really happy with the 3 defenders lever Goddard and marchbank then also laverde who slid from top 10 projection and then a smoky Dan McKenzie who looks the goods from the saints and we were maybe hoping for him 2nd round also .... Can see why they weren't too worried sliding from 10 to 14 despite it being high risk

They also said you wouldn't consider that most years but last year you could as even until pick 25
 
Jeffcrowe said:
Think we were really happy with the 3 defenders lever Goddard and marchbank then also laverde who slid from top 10 projection and then a smoky Dan McKenzie who looks the goods from the saints and we were maybe hoping for him 2nd round also .... Can see why they weren't too worried sliding from 10 to 14 despite it being high risk

They also said you wouldn't consider that most years but last year you could as even until pick 25
Click to expand...
Bicks was hot in Laverde for us predraft. Kept banging on about him.

I would not be surprised that when Lever was available we snapped him up.
 
LC40 said:
We took Lever because he was the best tall rebounding defender available to us in the draft! A position we were severely undermanned in.
It was no coincidence his named was called out. It had nothing to do with bargain hunting.
In my mind a defender was always our top priority.
According to Noble they were confident the player (s) they wanted would still be there at pick 14.
If Lever had been off the table by then I'm fairly sure a lot of consideration would have been given to Durdin another potential tall defender.
With our first pick last year we definitely drafted for need IMO.
Click to expand...
It is never a matter of drafting purely for need or talent, it is a mixture of both. The idea would be be to get the balance between need and talent so that it has the greatest net benefit on the team.

LC40 said:
I'm with Fred Bassett on this. We definitely need another KPP (or two) and a pacy elite midfielder who can hit a target.A backup Ruck man is needed but I wouldn't be drafting early for one.
"Take talent when talent is available"...Why not take the most talented player in the position you need such as Lever and Talia?

Aish is a nice player but he doesn't fit the description of any of those wants IMO. These are absolute needs and we need to draft/trade accordingly.
If the club can work out a fair deal, excellent. 'No throwing in the kitchen sink stuff ' for a bloke who till now has shown himself to be a good honest footballer in the AFL.
As for Aish going pick 2, in some fantasy draft maybe but those players selected before him would still be selected before him now, even without the help of hindsight. That is an impressive list of players, all who have a game as good or better than Aish. Scharenberg's injuries haven't allowed him to shine yet.
It had nothing to do with flight risk, those players were selected by those clubs because they rated them higher than Aish.
Click to expand...
Last year was the ideal situation in that Lever appeared to be the best available talent and a player of the greatest need. I doesn't work like that all the time though. Most years if you go into the draft with too much emphasis on need, you will jeopardise the amount of talent you are bringing in.
 
1970crow said:
PHIL is very bullish about his return. Obviously rates what he brings to the table.
Click to expand...

He's been bullish a couple of times on players that are being criticised (in here more than in media in general). Makes me wonder if they are monitoring this place.

He did it with Mackay.
He's done it with Hendo.
He's just done it with Jenkins.

Theyre the ones I can clearly recall. I think he may have also done it (but was more subtle) with CEY, Cameron, Tex and Thommo.
 
Carmo said:
He's been bullish a couple of times on players that are being criticised (in here more than in media in general). Makes me wonder if they are monitoring this place.

He did it with Mackay.
He's done it with Hendo.
He's just done it with Jenkins.

Theyre the ones I can clearly recall. I think he may have also done it (but was more subtle) with CEY, Cameron, Tex and Thommo.
Click to expand...
Maybe he just reckons he can get something more out of these guys? (See CEY)
 
Jeffcrowe said:
Think we were really happy with the 3 defenders lever Goddard and marchbank then also laverde who slid from top 10 projection and then a smoky Dan McKenzie who looks the goods from the saints and we were maybe hoping for him 2nd round also .... Can see why they weren't too worried sliding from 10 to 14 despite it being high risk

They also said you wouldn't consider that most years but last year you could as even until pick 25
Click to expand...

I think we were right into Kyle Langford as well....went to Essendon at pick 17.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top