Scott Stevens

[jmorg1]

This guy will be the next player we love to hate.

 

[tinman]

A bit unfair to condemn him on one performance, as poor as it was.

Why didn't we throw him back at any stage?

He has played in defence for Sydney and it would have been good to see how he went there, especially as we had no Smart or Hart.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Time will tell but if this turns out to be true I would be spewing for missing out on Tim Schmidt.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by jmorg1
This guy will be the next player we love to hate.

Very ordinary effort today. To be fair he was surrounded by a heap of other ordinary players.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Time will tell but if this turns out to be true I would be spewing for missing out on Tim Schmidt...

or Josh Willougby.That boy looked pretty good in the Bays reserves last year.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Jerome
or Josh Willougby.That boy looked pretty good in the Bays reserves last year.

Josh was picked up with pick 16 while Tim was picked up with pick 29 (the one we traded as part of the Stevens trade). The only way we could have had Josh is if we picked him up before Watts. As good as Willoughby is I would take Watts over him.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by jmorg1
This guy will be the next player we love to hate.

Well it doesnt help he is wearing 27. Liptak, Schell, Ricky O'Loughlin (?)...I hope Scott breaks the tradition of 27 being the number we love to hate.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Re: Re: Scott Stevens

Originally posted by Jerome
Well it doesnt help he is wearing 27. Liptak, Schell, Ricky O'Loughlin (?)...I hope Scott breaks the tradition of 27 being the number we love to hate.

Liptak was alright. The rest were duds.

Hope Scott Stevens breaks the tradition.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Whatever the gameplan was, for the first 3 quarters, it didn't suit Stevens. But he certainly wasn't alone - lets judge him after hes settled in, adjusts to a different gamestyle, and the players around him.

 

[Jerome]

Re: Re: Re: Scott Stevens

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Liptak was alright.
B]

I thought so too, but there were a fair few who thought otherwise. He sure used to cop some stick.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scott Stevens

Originally posted by Jerome
I thought so too, but there were a fair few who thought otherwise. He sure used to cop some stick.

Unfairly. He was a pretty handy player and if not for the injuries he would have been even better. Comparing Liptak to those other players who wore #27 is wrong.

Didn't he win B&F with us. I would be happy if Scott Stevens turns out to be as good a player as Liptak.

 

[-WWJD-]

Re: Re: Re: Scott Stevens

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Liptak was alright.

Good old Dr Fumbles. Yeah I admit I gave him sh*t, but he was a good hard nut. Always put his body on the line. Doesn't deserve to be classed with the other two.

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Whatever the gameplan was, for the first 3 quarters, it didn't suit Stevens.

I think it was piggy in the middle. Its just that when the Saints players got the ball, they didn't seem to want to play by the rules anymore.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by jmorg1
This guy will be the next player we love to hate.

Hopefully not. Certainly won't judge though on 1 game.

 

[Damp Squarie]

He did shirk one ball that he was running back with the flight.
Torney or Massie wouldve eaten it up ( ...or Max Hudghton).

The jury is still out.
It will be a long deliberation.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Well I hope he comes good. We need him to fire. I still have doubts whether Carey can play every game this year. If he misses any games we will need both Perrie and Scott Stevens to fire. Both can take marks and kick goals. Hopefully both of them keep developing and provide us with genuine marking, goal kicking options.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Did we draft him as a forward or backman or both?

 

[DaveW]

I didn't think the way we played really allowed Stevens to get into the game.

My opinion of him hasn't changed.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by topjars
Did we draft him as a forward or backman or both?

Probably both. We probably needed to get someone who can play at both ends of the ground but in hindsight I think we recruited him as a forward because of Mark's knee troubles. Either way he could be very handy.

I don't think we can judge him on one game. He looked very good in the trial because we play a much more direct style of footy. He worked well with other forwards and managed to kick 2.3 (missing some easy shots). He is a good mark but needs to work on his kicking.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by DaveW
I didn't think the way we played really allowed Stevens to get into the game.

My opinion of him hasn't changed.

As usual you are correct. The style we played against St. Kilda didn't suit any of the tall forwards. I know its only a trial game against average opposition but against Norwood where we played a much more direct style of footy, he looked good. Combined well with the other forwards, created space and still managed to kick a couple of goals himself.

 

[tinman]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
He looked very good in the trial because we play a much more direct style of footy. He worked well with other forwards and managed to kick 2.3 (missing some easy shots). He is a good mark but needs to work on his kicking.

What a shame Norwood won't be playing any AFL footy this season. Carey also looked the goods against them.

 

[Crow-mosone]

will be interesting to see if he's another steal ala Mark Stevens or more Evan Hewitt.

He was traded for what, a 3rd round pick? maybe we should temper our expectations a fraction.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
He was traded for what, a 3rd round pick? maybe we should temper our expectations a fraction.

Basically thats correct.

Scott Stevens and pick 31 (Josh Krueger) for picks 29 (Tim Schmidt) and 45.

So basically we got him for a 3rd round draft pick. I agree we need to temper our expectation a fraction.

 

[afc9798]

It's heresy to lump Liptak with Schell or the others. How quickly people forget that it was Liptak who almost single handedly kept Adelaide in touch for our first ever finals win against Hawthorn. He was also a B&F winner and definitely not a receiver. True he occasionally had a fumble (who doesn't) and his kicking was not brilliant, but I think he deserves a far better memory than the one he is afforded by a lot of people. Had he had better hamstrings (partially the cause of his kicking issues), I have no doubt Liptak would have been a superstar.

On Scott Stevens, it is far too early to tell. He would have felt the pressure from being his first real hitout against AFL opposition in Crows colours and he was also not being given any clean ball from the midfield. I say reserve your judgement for now.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by afc9798
It's heresy to lump Liptak with Schell or the others. How quickly people forget that it was Liptak who almost single handedly kept Adelaide in touch for our first ever finals win against Hawthorn. He was also a B&F winner and definitely not a receiver. True he occasionally had a fumble (who doesn't) and his kicking was not brilliant, but I think he deserves a far better memory than the one he is afforded by a lot of people. Had he had better hamstrings (partially the cause of his kicking issues), I have no doubt Liptak would have been a superstar.

Spot on.

I think Liptak is treated very harshly on this board. He was a good player who got the best out of his body. As you said if he had better hamstrings, he would have been a star. For crying out loud he was our B&F winner. He deserves better as does Matt Conell.