Stevens, and how many?

[naughty monkey]

How many games do the Crows need out of Stevens this year to justify their decision to keep him on the list?

....And how many do you think he will play?

Is there any point in trying to play him anywhere other than CHF?

 

[drakeyv2]

How many games do the Crows need out of Stevens this year to justify their decision to keep him on the list?

....And how many do you think he will play?

Is there any point in trying to play him anywhere other than CHF?

Games required 18
Games played 5

 

[Eggzoi]

1, and hope like mad he has a son.

 

[conVINCEd]

How many games do the Crows need out of Stevens this year to justify their decision to keep him on the list?

....And how many do you think he will play?

Is there any point in trying to play him anywhere other than CHF?

I don't know if there is an exact figure, but definitely more than half.

I think he should play CHF - if he is restricted in where he can play - then why is he still on our list? Also, Welsh is a quality player whose best position is FF - so that leaves Stevo at CHF, IMHO.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

For his own self preservation he hast to be played at FF. If they play him at CHF I doubt he will play more than 6 games. For the whole thing to have been a success, I think he would need to play at least 14 games.

 

[No 1 Draft Pick]

How many games do the Crows need out of Stevens this year to justify their decision to keep him on the list?

....And how many do you think he will play?

Is there any point in trying to play him anywhere other than CHF?

I think they would want 14 odd games from Stevo. I think he may surprise us all and play around that many, if not a few more. I know im taking the contrarion approach here but just have a feeling (could be wishful thinking though ) that he may be about to play a decent season

I would play him around the half forward line 50- 60 metres out from goal. Perrie or someone else (dare I say Bock) can play a leading forward option further up the ground - have the pace and endurance to do this. Stevo though is very valuable NEAR TO GOALS. Good mark, smart player, good disposal and we can 'structure' our forward line around him.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Games needed = 22
games he will play = 12.

FF is his best spot where he can lead up the ground IMO.

 

[Lozza71]

Wishful thinking...25 and finishes on a winning note.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

1. How many games do the Crows need out of Stevens this year to justify their decision to keep him on the list?

2. ....And how many do you think he will play?

3. Is there any point in trying to play him anywhere other than CHF?

1. Need to get 14+ games out of Stevo.

2. No idea how his knee will stand up.

3. Would play him between Perrie & Welsh as a deep CHF, closer to goals.

 

[Crowked]

Needs 12+ to be worth it, hopefully all 22 + finals (fingers, toes and everything else crossed)


Also I think he can and will play tall forward roles across both FF and HF lines.

 

[Mad Dog]

How many games do the Crows need out of Stevens this year to justify their decision to keep him on the list?

....And how many do you think he will play?

Is there any point in trying to play him anywhere other than CHF?

I would love to see Stevo play 25 games this year (thats 22 games + 3 finals.. )

...but I am not going to put a figure on what "justifys their decision"

take a step back for a minute people.....if Stevo falls over tommorrow and can never play again......what do we do.....??......we put him on our long term injury list......elevate a Rookie that we probably would have taken in the PSD anyway........and say seeya to Stevo when we delist next year.

End result - we've given Stevo a chance to play another year and the chance to benefit from his skills...........if it doesn't work.......we've now got a young fella elevated to our main list..

The other scenario was that we didn't re-new Stevo's contract.........had a pick in the PSD........and got a new young fella on our main list..

How are these 2 scenarios any different in the long run....except for the way we've decided to do it we've given Stevo a chance at another year..........???

To me it was a no risk decision.....so there is not an amount of games that justifies it......

hopefully we can move on

in answer to the other question - I'd play him at CHF.

 

[mymansyd]

I would love to see Stevo play 25 games this year (thats 22 games + 3 finals.. )

...but I am not going to put a figure on what "justifys their decision"

take a step back for a minute people.....if Stevo falls over tommorrow and can never play again......what do we do.....??......we put him on our long term injury list......elevate a Rookie that we probably would have taken in the PSD anyway........and say seeya to Stevo when we delist next year.

End result - we've given Stevo a chance to play another year and the chance to benefit from his skills...........if it doesn't work.......we've now got a young fella elevated to our main list..

The other scenario was that we didn't re-new Stevo's contract.........had a pick in the PSD........and got a new young fella on our main list..

How are these 2 scenarios any different in the long run....except for the way we've decided to do it we've given Stevo a chance at another year..........???

To me it was a no risk decision.....so there is not an amount of games that justifies it......

hopefully we can move on

in answer to the other question - I'd play him at CHF.

Beautifully put Mad Dog. This is a no-loss situation for the AFC.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I would love to see Stevo play 25 games this year (thats 22 games + 3 finals.. )

...but I am not going to put a figure on what "justifys their decision"

take a step back for a minute people.....if Stevo falls over tommorrow and can never play again......what do we do.....??......we put him on our long term injury list......elevate a Rookie that we probably would have taken in the PSD anyway........and say seeya to Stevo when we delist next year.

End result - we've given Stevo a chance to play another year and the chance to benefit from his skills...........if it doesn't work.......we've now got a young fella elevated to our main list..

The other scenario was that we didn't re-new Stevo's contract.........had a pick in the PSD........and got a new young fella on our main list..

How are these 2 scenarios any different in the long run....except for the way we've decided to do it we've given Stevo a chance at another year..........???

To me it was a no risk decision.....so there is not an amount of games that justifies it......

hopefully we can move on

in answer to the other question - I'd play him at CHF.

Couldn't have said it better myself. There is no loss whichever way it goes.

Personally, I would play him closer to geal at FF.

 

[marvin]

1, and hope like mad he has a son.

Mad Dog has summed up my thoughts perfectly.

 

[tribey]

IMO Stevens' most effective position was CHB.

He didn't have to worry about taking contested marks or twisting and turning, he could just run straight at the ball and use his ability to get to the contest (which is his greatest asset) and make the spoil.

While I agree with those of you who have said that we should play him out of the goalsquare provided he can actually get onto the paddock next year, I think he could be a lot more useful, and his body spared a helluva lot of torment, if deployed as a third-up backman.

 

[mymansyd]

IMO Stevens' most effective position was CHB.

He didn't have to worry about taking contested marks or twisting and turning, he could just run straight at the ball and use his ability to get to the contest (which is his greatest asset) and make the spoil.

While I agree with those of you who have said that we should play him out of the goalsquare provided he can actually get onto the paddock next year, I think he could be a lot more useful, and his body spared a helluva lot of torment, if deployed as a third-up backman.

I think your point is well-made, but we have bigger needs in attack - at this stage - and that's why I'd be surprised if Stevens didn't play there.

 

[conVINCEd]

Bastard! stole my thunder.

If the Crows want Stevens on the park next year instead of the physio tent then he has to play back.

May even free up Mrs Mac to pinch hit at CHF when Perrie forks up and gets dragged.

McGregor is our best CHB and should play there.

 

[naughty monkey]

IMO Stevens' most effective position was CHB.

He didn't have to worry about taking contested marks or twisting and turning, he could just run straight at the ball and use his ability to get to the contest (which is his greatest asset) and make the spoil.

While I agree with those of you who have said that we should play him out of the goalsquare provided he can actually get onto the paddock next year, I think he could be a lot more useful, and his body spared a helluva lot of torment, if deployed as a third-up backman.

Bastard! stole my thunder.

If the Crows want Stevens on the park next year instead of the physio tent then he has to play back.

May even free up Mrs Mac to pinch hit at CHF when Perrie forks up and gets dragged.

 

[No 1 Draft Pick]

Bastard! stole my thunder.

If the Crows want Stevens on the park next year instead of the physio tent then he has to play back.

May even free up Mrs Mac to pinch hit at CHF when Perrie forks up and gets dragged.

Mc Gregor/M Stevens/Hart/Rutten/Bassett couldnt all play in the backline IMO - someone would have to go - perhaps Mc Gregor to CHF but he hasnt played consistently good footy there - I think in his own words he has said CHB is his best possie

The thing is we have a bigger NEED for quality talls in the forward line. The backline is already sound. Welsh is proven quality but is a leading forward. Perrie is hit or miss. And we have a number of young guys coming thru in the forward line. None are really proven IMO at the moment. I think we need Stevens up forward to both make us more competitive by helping create structure and help mentor the youngsters

 

[Mad Dog]

The thing is we have a bigger NEED for quality talls in the forward line. The backline is already sound. Welsh is proven quality but is a leading forward. Perrie is hit or miss. And we have a number of young guys coming thru in the forward line. None are really proven IMO at the moment. I think we need Stevens up forward to both make us more competitive by helping create structure and help mentor the youngsters

spot on #1 !

 

[Stiffy_18]

The thing is we have a bigger NEED for quality talls in the forward line. The backline is already sound. Welsh is proven quality but is a leading forward. Perrie is hit or miss. And we have a number of young guys coming thru in the forward line. None are really proven IMO at the moment. I think we need Stevens up forward to both make us more competitive by helping create structure and help mentor the youngsters

Well said.

While I can see the point that dyertribe and naughty monkey are making (and its a valid comment) we need Stevens in the forward line. McGregor is our best CHB and a reasonable CHF but we all agree he plays his best footy in the backline.

Stevo must play forward.

 

[macca23]

1. Need to get 14+ games out of Stevo.

2. No idea how his knee will stand up.

3. Would play him between Perrie & Welsh as a deep CHF, closer to goals.

Yep, that's about how it sits IMO.

We'll be lucky to get that 14 though.

Having said that I hope we get 25.

 

[-VC-]

I think we need to see a bit over half from him. 14-16 would be a reasonable output. I think it's unfair to say someone at that age with that much injury history should be expected to play every game. Best case scenario and he'll be sitting out a week or two at different parts of the season with general soreness.
I don't think he needs to really do anything to justify the decision, unless one of our intended rookie selections goes before we get the chance to get them. If we still end up with a rookie list consisting of two or three of Grundy, Pearce, Fisher, Priddis then we've not really given anything up for him staying.
I'm more worried about his groin than his knee at this stage.
Don't play him in a traditional CHF role. Keep him around the goals and close to the main contest but I think it's a risk to put him in the most physically demanding position on the ground. With that said, I think playing him in a traditional FF role would take him too far out of the play and his acceleration could not be too crash hot these days.

 

[Stafford678]

he's originaly from my town same as leigh brown, wojcinski, cox, ferguson, and hes brother and dad were up at our cricket the other day and they said hes struggling and will be suprised if he plays at all

 

[-VC-]

he's originaly from my town same as leigh brown, wojcinski, cox, ferguson, and hes brother and dad were up at our cricket the other day and they said hes struggling and will be suprised if he plays at all

YOU BASTARD!