Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft? - Part 2

[Pessimistic]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss if drafting is the best way of Hawthorn rebuilding. For a hundred pages, Hawthorn fans said how pointless drafting was and you shouldn't bottom out.

Now it has come full circle and apparently the Hawks are obviously tanking to improve their draft position from pick 4 to pick 3 because that will make all the difference.

FWIW, I never thought Essendon would make finals this year because our forward-line doesn't function without Daniher. But I also don't go around saying the draft doesn't matter, then less than a year later saying it's clever to tank to improve your pick by 1 spot in a draft where most of the top draftees haven't played a game of footy all year.

I seem to be the most active in this thread and I have heavily emphasised that hawks seem to replace best 22 players equally from drafts and trades.
It leaned more to trades this season but lately they have played drafted players who were on the list.
Eight of the 22 on sunday were traded in. Missing best 22 players: Burgoyne, O'meara McEvoy Patton Impey (traded) and Sicily Smith (drafted). Didnt include Stratton Henderson Puopolo as they are commonly thouhgt to be 'retiring'

So I have called out that Hawthorn have not ignored the draft. The elite bit is the kicker. If you think as many do the top 10 is the elite end, Hawks simply haven't had many of those pick at all so a moot point.
When you do get access to those picks, make the most of them. Eagles and Tigers have managed a single down year recently very well indeed.

I also said you shouldn't intentionally bottom out.

 

[Pessimistic]

With the schedule Hawks have had, (not blaming anyone) there would be no thought of officially calling out any tanking.

There were (across the AFL, not including GWS Gold Coast) a hell of a lot more sub 80% seasons between 2001 and 2020 than 1981 to 2000. something has been happening

 

[hawkman]

Thanks for going to the effort RUNVS - I guess going by BF logic, that means we now have the bestest youth!

As a supporter of a team at the bottom end of the average ages, you really have to worry about teams like Carlton and North, both old but terrible teams. You can't see them going anywhere in the next 5-7 years

 

[RUNVS]

As a supporter of a team at the bottom end of the average ages, you really have to worry about teams like Carlton and North, both old but terrible teams. You can't see them going anywhere in the next 5-7 years

Yes those are the teams that are in a terrible position, ones that are not young, but not in the 8 either. If a team is over 26 in age they better be in the top 8 at the very least.

 

[Hot Diggity]

Sorry. Experimenting with younger players and others in various positions.

Agreed - that's the "acceptable" description of tanking.

It's a bit like "minimising your tax" as opposed to "tax evasion" or "tax avoidance'...

 

[Saint]

Carlton are in a pretty good position. They've got lots of really good players in key positions. Walsh, Cripps, McKay, Curnow, Weitering are a good core of a team to trade and work around.

Quoting Hawthorn's age of their last match as proof of their youth is ridiculous. Not only are they 3rd bottom, but for the rest of the year (when they got to 3rd bottom) they'd been playing one of the oldest lists in the competition including the oldest team put onto the park this year. Round 2 their average age was 28 years and 10 months. 9 months older than the next oldest: Geelong (28 y 1 month) who sit third on the ladder with a % of 140+.

The average age put on the park by Hawthorn this year is the highest of any other team, over 28yo. Carlton's is just over 25yo.

Kangaroos are also cooked.

Hawthorn's team this year has finished 3rd bottom-ish, is the oldest in the competition and has no elite draft picks in it from the last 5 years. It's a list manager's worst nightmare.

 

[matey]

A pick nu 3 today being told by Greg Williams to “pull your finger out and toughen up”!

Still a hit and miss process and just another example that it can’t be seen as the only way to succeed.

 

[Pessimistic]

Carlton are in a pretty good position. They've got lots of really good players in key positions. Walsh, Cripps, McKay, Curnow, Weitering are a good core of a team to trade and work around.

Quoting Hawthorn's age of their last match as proof of their youth is ridiculous. Not only are they 3rd bottom, but for the rest of the year (when they got to 3rd bottom) they'd been playing one of the oldest lists in the competition including the oldest team put onto the park this year. Round 2 their average age was 28 years and 10 months. 9 months older than the next oldest: Geelong (28 y 1 month) who sit third on the ladder with a % of 140+.

The average age put on the park by Hawthorn this year is the highest of any other team, over 28yo. Carlton's is just over 25yo.

Kangaroos are also cooked.

Hawthorn's team this year has finished 3rd bottom-ish, is the oldest in the competition and has no elite draft picks in it from the last 5 years. It's a list manager's worst nightmare.

Round and round. Hawks do have players in the right age bracket who were sub #10 picks, but weren't drafted by them (which is SBO cos they haven't had access to early picks)
its a discussion. 40% of drafted players make it, traded in get more chances in the seniors (obviously) cos they are more of a known quantity. but you may get on average 40% of that players career.

• Hawks have had the least (or equal least) access to draft currency over 10 years
• Have they maximised that ? (as it surely is needed)
• Even if they have, is it enough? (not right now obviously)

 

[Rusty_lucas]

That was when we getting picks after pick 10 most years. If you can do trades like pick 14 for Mitchell, then yes, that's a good idea. If you don't have a pick in the top 5 then you have to weigh up the chances of that pick turning into a good player vs what you can do in trade. Generally speaking most of our picks since our last flag have been outside the top 10. The future pick Saints ended up with might be the only exception. We're getting a top 5 pick this year by the looks of it, and a top 5 pick is much more likely to be a gun than say pick 14, so of course the situation is different to the one we've been seeing for probably a decade now.



Yes, again, have a look at the draft points calculations. Jumping from 4 to 3 is a very significant number of points, about 5 times as much increase in value compared to jumping from 14 to 13, so yes, improving spots at the very pointy end, does make a difference, and the draft points reflect that.



Again, Hawthorn haven't had a draft pick this early in over 10 years, so of course the situation is different. What makes sense when you might have a top 3 pick isn't the same thing that makes sense when your first pick is outside the top 5 (or indeed top 10). It is not that hard to understand why the tune changes this year. We've also not finished this low for a long time, and obviously aside from draft position, that changes perceptions of where the list is at, and whether trading versus drafting makes sense or not. When you are finishing in the 8 or just outside it, it is easier to justify taking your picks to the trade table than when you finish in the bottom 4, irrespective of how early the pick is.

hawks didn’t adopt their strategy of not going to the draft because of where there draft picks fell. They decided that it would be better to build by trading in mature talent.

it is true that because of their finishes, they did not have picks at the real pointy end of the draft. But plenty of elite talent has been found between pick 10-15. (Cripps at 13).

If they wanted to build through the draft they could have used their picks and players to trade up the draft order. An example is rather than trading burton and pick 15 for wingard, they could have traded pick 15 and a bruest/gunston/Smith to get up inside the top 10 which could have netted them butters.

trading picks for players was the strategy which now seems like it has changed (although we are not yet at trade week). If hawks were to continue down their original strategy, we will see them trade pick 3 this year for a player. If they go to the draft, they may have decided that the strategy hasn’t worked and it’s time to build around the draft.

will be interesting

 

[Saint]

A pick nu 3 today being told by Greg Williams to “pull your finger out and toughen up”!

Still a hit and miss process and just another example that it can’t be seen as the only way to succeed.

Just because Diesel thinks another Carlton player isn't as good as he was isn't reason to write off a career. Diesel doesn't think any player is as good as he was.

My own personal theory is that the 2005 draft in which the Hawks drafted:
Xavier Ellis (3)
Beau Dowler (6)
Birchall (14)
Max Bailey (18)
Beau Muston (22)

Clarkson was so scarred by these duds (despite the success of 2004, where he'd just taken the reins and snapped up Buddy, Roughy and Lewis) that Clarkson decided the whole thing was a lottery and never wanted to go back to the pointy end of the draft. And has pretty much stuck to that, besides the Mitch Thorp debacle.

 

[hawkman]

Just because Diesel thinks another Carlton player isn't as good as he was isn't reason to write off a career. Diesel doesn't think any player is as good as he was.

My own personal theory is that the 2005 draft in which the Hawks drafted:
Xavier Ellis (3)
Beau Dowler (6)
Birchall (14)
Max Bailey (18)
Beau Muston (22)

Clarkson was so scarred by these duds (despite the success of 2004, where he'd just taken the reins and snapped up Buddy, Roughy and Lewis) that Clarkson decided the whole thing was a lottery and never wanted to go back to the pointy end of the draft. And has pretty much stuck to that, besides the Mitch Thorp debacle.

3 premiership players in those duds, Dowler was a dud but some bad injuries didn't help him. Muston never got a real run at it due to many knee injuries similar to Bailey.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Round and round. Hawks do have players in the right age bracket who were sub #10 picks, but weren't drafted by them (which is SBO cos they haven't had access to early picks)
its a discussion. 40% of drafted players make it, traded in get more chances in the seniors (obviously) cos they are more of a known quantity. but you may get on average 40% of that players career.

• Hawks have had the least (or equal least) access to draft currency over 10 years
• Have they maximised that ? (as it surely is needed)
• Even if they have, is it enough? (not right now obviously)

It's a shame that Hawks fans are even required to defend their club with threads like these. Little more than salt piled on by opposition supporters who'd give their left arse cheek to enjoy the Hawks little dabble with mediocrity less than five years since a three-peat.

 

[hk89]

hawks didn’t adopt their strategy of not going to the draft because of where there draft picks fell. They decided that it would be better to build by trading in mature talent.

The two go hand in hand. If you are finishing roughly mid table or above then you are by definition in a spot where you are either playing finals or not far off playing finals. In that position it makes sense to have a go at going a step further and trying to make a prelim. It also means you are not getting top 10 picks, especially after all the compo rubbish. When you are in finals contention AND getting picks that tend to be somewhat speculative, together that makes trading sensible. For example it wouldn't have made sense for Carlton to pursue trades in the times when they were finishing bottom or near bottom on a regular basis because the picks were worth more to them than the value of topping up. Now Carlton are in a slightly better place , and topping up makes slightly more sense. I think Carlton may have played finals this year in a normal fixture.

it is true that because of their finishes, they did not have picks at the real pointy end of the draft. But plenty of elite talent has been found between pick 10-15. (Cripps at 13).

And lots of dud picks in the 10-20 range. Just because you can cherry pick a player that worked in that range doesn't mean it has a high hit rate. You need nearly 6 picks in the 10-20 range to hit an AA player whereas every second player picked 1 or 2 ends up with at least one AA. Getting Mitchell with pick 14 was equivalent to hitting a 6-1 shot, and that's just for his AA, if you look at odds for hitting Brownlow players in that range, it is probably even longer odds given they only give one of those out each year.

If they wanted to build through the draft they could have used their picks and players to trade up the draft order.

They were either playing finals or a win or two outside doing so in every year up until this year. They clearly wanted another crack at it, and were not going to ship out players they saw as important in doing that (i.e. the only players would have had any trade value).

An example is rather than trading burton and pick 15 for wingard, they could have traded pick 15 and a bruest/gunston/Smith to get up inside the top 10 which could have netted them butters.

Yes, they could have, and that would have slammed the window shut in one trade period. It is easy to say in hindsight after this year, that this may have been a better choice, but at the end of last year, we beat 3 of the 4 prelim finalists, so it doesn't seem that stupid for them to think topping up wasn't dumb.

trading picks for players was the strategy which now seems like it has changed (although we are not yet at trade week). If hawks were to continue down their original strategy, we will see them trade pick 3 this year for a player. If they go to the draft, they may have decided that the strategy hasn’t worked and it’s time to build around the draft.

It isn't really that black and white. How we use the pick will not say as much as what we do with players currently on the list. We used our first rounder last year, and even if we use it again this year, it doesn't mean we are not still trying to win a flag with players largely already on the list, it could just mean that which picks we hold, and which players are available alters the decisions on a year by year basis. It has never been a 100% strategy in either direction. We used two first rounders at the draft in 2015 for example. If we trade players like Gunston who still have trade value, but will likely not last a full rebuild THEN we've changed strategy. If we keep Gunston, use the pick in the draft, then it might just be that this year, with a very early pick it makes sense to use it given a pick in the 3-5 range is twice as likely to be an AA player as a pick in the 11-20 range.

 

[Wojcinski]

Just because Diesel thinks another Carlton player isn't as good as he was isn't reason to write off a career. Diesel doesn't think any player is as good as he was.

My own personal theory is that the 2005 draft in which the Hawks drafted:
Xavier Ellis (3)
Beau Dowler (6)
Birchall (14)
Max Bailey (18)
Beau Muston (22)

Clarkson was so scarred by these duds (despite the success of 2004, where he'd just taken the reins and snapped up Buddy, Roughy and Lewis) that Clarkson decided the whole thing was a lottery and never wanted to go back to the pointy end of the draft. And has pretty much stuck to that, besides the Mitch Thorp debacle.

Hindsight is wonderful but look at the players taken after some of these guys. Josh J Kennedy (4), Pendlebury (5), Ryder (7), Higgins (11), Hurn (13). Unlucky hawkies

 

[hawkman]

Hindsight is wonderful but look at the players taken after some of these guys. Josh J Kennedy (4), Pendlebury (5), Ryder (7), Higgins (11), Hurn (13). Unlucky hawkies

Cost us another flag or 2

 

[Wojcinski]

Cost us another flag or 2

Snag a couple of those players and draft Selwood instead of Thorp and you're probably right

 

[Pessimistic]

hawks didn’t adopt their strategy of not going to the draft because of where there draft picks fell. They decided that it would be better to build by trading in mature talent.

it is true that because of their finishes, they did not have picks at the real pointy end of the draft. But plenty of elite talent has been found between pick 10-15. (Cripps at 13).

If they wanted to build through the draft they could have used their picks and players to trade up the draft order. An example is rather than trading burton and pick 15 for wingard, they could have traded pick 15 and a bruest/gunston/Smith to get up inside the top 10 which could have netted them butters.

trading picks for players was the strategy which now seems like it has changed (although we are not yet at trade week). If hawks were to continue down their original strategy, we will see them trade pick 3 this year for a player. If they go to the draft, they may have decided that the strategy hasn’t worked and it’s time to build around the draft.

will be interesting

Yet the fact remains that just 7 of sundays 22 were trades (And Scrimshaw Gunston traded in very young)
On the sidelines (best 22) were draftees Sicily and Smith and trade ins McEvoy Patton Omeara Impey and of course Burgoyne Stratton Henderson Puopolo who may not be there next year)
Early in the year it would have been just 7 players in the 22 who were draftees. the opposite ratio.

My point is the draft isn't ignored completely. bruest/gunston/smith didn't want to leave anyway

 

[Pessimistic]

Just because Diesel thinks another Carlton player isn't as good as he was isn't reason to write off a career. Diesel doesn't think any player is as good as he was.

My own personal theory is that the 2005 draft in which the Hawks drafted:
Xavier Ellis (3)
Beau Dowler (6)
Birchall (14)
Max Bailey (18)
Beau Muston (22)

Clarkson was so scarred by these duds (despite the success of 2004, where he'd just taken the reins and snapped up Buddy, Roughy and Lewis) that Clarkson decided the whole thing was a lottery and never wanted to go back to the pointy end of the draft. And has pretty much stuck to that, besides the Mitch Thorp debacle.

Also in 2010 they were 'almost' and the eleite end of the draft looked like GWS and Gold coast would pick the eyes out of it. they took a different tack then and it worked well initially. no doubt they stuck with the program. Take a look at this ('successes' in colour):

so since 2009, 16 (out of 25 At 65%) from trades and 16 (out of 33 at 48%)

 

[HairyO]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss if drafting is the best way of Hawthorn rebuilding. For a hundred pages, Hawthorn fans said how pointless drafting was and you shouldn't bottom out.

Now it has come full circle and apparently the Hawks are obviously tanking to improve their draft position from pick 4 to pick 3 because that will make all the difference.

FWIW, I never thought Essendon would make finals this year because our forward-line doesn't function without Daniher. But I also don't go around saying the draft doesn't matter, then less than a year later saying it's clever to tank to improve your pick by 1 spot in a draft where most of the top draftees haven't played a game of footy all year.

Except no-one has said drafting is pointless. Getting the best possible players you can by whatever method matters. We didnt trade our 1st round last year and got Will Day who is looking to be a brilliant young player. If Clarko and Wright thought they could have got a better player than Day with that pick then they would have.

Just like this year. If the best player with Pick 3 is found in the Draft then we will draft. If there is someone better we can get by trading we will do that.

Clarko and Wright have far more wins than losses so Im happy waiting and seeing what they do. We also have Pick 21 so we may get 2 very good kids. Or may trade for very good players.

What I do know is that BF is only accurate in hindsight. And even then is still often wrong.

 

[Pessimistic]

You only have to look at the social media aftermath of drafting Rough Buddy and Lewis in one draft. both Hawks fans and others.

In hindsight its one of the best hands ever. Half our 'A team'

 

[Rusty_lucas]

The two go hand in hand. If you are finishing roughly mid table or above then you are by definition in a spot where you are either playing finals or not far off playing finals. In that position it makes sense to have a go at going a step further and trying to make a prelim. It also means you are not getting top 10 picks, especially after all the compo rubbish. When you are in finals contention AND getting picks that tend to be somewhat speculative, together that makes trading sensible. For example it wouldn't have made sense for Carlton to pursue trades in the times when they were finishing bottom or near bottom on a regular basis because the picks were worth more to them than the value of topping up. Now Carlton are in a slightly better place , and topping up makes slightly more sense. I think Carlton may have played finals this year in a normal fixture.



And lots of dud picks in the 10-20 range. Just because you can cherry pick a player that worked in that range doesn't mean it has a high hit rate. You need nearly 6 picks in the 10-20 range to hit an AA player whereas every second player picked 1 or 2 ends up with at least one AA. Getting Mitchell with pick 14 was equivalent to hitting a 6-1 shot, and that's just for his AA, if you look at odds for hitting Brownlow players in that range, it is probably even longer odds given they only give one of those out each year.



They were either playing finals or a win or two outside doing so in every year up until this year. They clearly wanted another crack at it, and were not going to ship out players they saw as important in doing that (i.e. the only players would have had any trade value).



Yes, they could have, and that would have slammed the window shut in one trade period. It is easy to say in hindsight after this year, that this may have been a better choice, but at the end of last year, we beat 3 of the 4 prelim finalists, so it doesn't seem that stupid for them to think topping up wasn't dumb.




It isn't really that black and white. How we use the pick will not say as much as what we do with players currently on the list. We used our first rounder last year, and even if we use it again this year, it doesn't mean we are not still trying to win a flag with players largely already on the list, it could just mean that which picks we hold, and which players are available alters the decisions on a year by year basis. It has never been a 100% strategy in either direction. We used two first rounders at the draft in 2015 for example. If we trade players like Gunston who still have trade value, but will likely not last a full rebuild THEN we've changed strategy. If we keep Gunston, use the pick in the draft, then it might just be that this year, with a very early pick it makes sense to use it given a pick in the 3-5 range is twice as likely to be an AA player as a pick in the 11-20 range.

i don’t disagree with a lot of what you have said so I won’t back over it...but the fact remains that you probably slightly misread where the list was at, which has been compounded by a couple poor trades.

I don’t think it’s unrecoverable at this point, but a couple more poor decisions could see hawks in a similar position to Carlton were after malthouse.

I don’t think it will get there because Clarko and Wright are too good for that...but it will take them reshaping their strategy and hitting the draft a bit harder over the next couple years.

 

[Rusty_lucas]

Also hawks drafting and development has been pretty sound over a long period, so I would have though that they would back themselves to find some gems in that 10-20 range and develop them into elite players as it looks with will day. I know i cherry picked the example of cripps, (I wasn’t going to list all of them) I was just suggesting that plenty of elite talent can be found outside the top 10 and good clubs back themselves to draft and develop them. (As hawks did for several years)

 

[FairKouta]

Don't want Sam Mitchell...

Howcome ? You don’t rate him ?

 

[FairKouta]

As a supporter of a team at the bottom end of the average ages, you really have to worry about teams like Carlton and North, both old but terrible teams. You can't see them going anywhere in the next 5-7 years

I happen to think we will be contending for the next 5 to 7 years if we can add some talent the next few years. The kpps and ruck stocks are sorted. Midfield is our main worry which can be addressed via trade if we can convince people to come to our club.

 

[Hot Diggity]

Howcome ? You don’t rate him ?

Judging by the midfield's performance this season, probably not.

I also have reservation over his leadership style - I get the sense he wasn't the most popular captain we've had.

Still, the WC midfield liked him, so...