Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft?

[QuietB]

I'm not fixated on just top 10 draft picks, although I recognise it makes a huge difference if you nail elite talent from the top 10.

But even top 30 draft picks. You've had six since 2008. Smith was a great get for Hawthorn at pick 19. Grundy was a good get at 18 for Collingwood. We got Gawn at 34.

I'm rapt we've got 23 and 28 in this year's draft. Who wants an ageing list to have pick 53 as their first pick ?

It doesn't have to be an either/or approach. Trading should complement your draft strategy, but Hawthorn seem to have completely forsaken it.

Last year you traded 33 for Impey. In 2014 you traded 19 for O'Rourke. When you actually went to the draft in 2015 you picked up Burton and Hardwicke.

I'm certainly not against the trades you did for Mitchell and O'Meara. As I said, it doesn't have to be either/or. If I was a Hawks fan I'd like to see a more balanced approach. I don't like the Wingard trade, but Hawks fans seemingly do. He seems too half-dedicated to me. Last to training, first to leave, known for not doing the extras - according to Port fans and these things come out around clubs. But in the Hawks cultural environment he might shift his focus.

In 2014 we traded pick 23 for Frost, and picks 40 and 42. At the time Jon Ralph said it was a silly trade. Frost filled a need and we picked up Neal-Bullen with pick 40 and Billy Stretch under F?S with pick 42. That was a trade that still used drafting as a strategy. I don't see that at Hawthorn these days.

Jarman Impey for pick 33 you do every single day. The chance of picking up a better player with pick 33 is maybe 10%. And Impey is 23 y/o.

TMitch I would do 5 times a year if it were available. He is 25 y/o.

JOM is still to be proven. He is a jet when he is going - just need to get him going more. 21 games for 500 touches this year is a pretty good return. And he is 24 y/o.

Wingard is a interesting one. I was in the camp that the Hawks should go to the draft. But ultimately the draft is still a raffle and Winged is a 2 time AA. He is 25 y/o as well.

Even players like Gunston, Bruest, Shiels and cellar are only 27 and will be there if this comes together in a couple of years.

There is no doubt that the Hawks list has massive holes still. Mainly they desperately need another key forward to replace Rough and ideally another key back and another gun mid - ideally all 3 players need to be able to mark the pill as no one else currently can - not too much to ask. It is actually not that many pieces.

If they can find them then Clarko has built a new squad that will be turning 27/28 at the time the squad is complete and the players are all absolutely peaking.

 

[Nugett]

The eight or nine 30+ year olds will all be gone by 2020.

I thought we found the fountain of youf, which is why we have no youf!

 

[faible]

we have seen teams like Melb and Carlton take best part of 20 years to finally get sides that can compete, look at St Kilda 6 years into a rebuild and they look no closer to a finals series despite having great picks

This is a flawed analysis because of the number of other botched decisions during this time at those clubs.

Hawthorn got 'lucky' (in the sense that it was actually right first go, not necessarily luck) that they nailed the coaching appointment first go when Clarkson came in, whereas Melbourne and Carlton both ended up basket-cases because of coaching and recruiting staff being terrible for a lot of that period.

Given a different set of circumstances, Melbourne and Carlton could have been significantly better teams in that time span. Bulldogs and Richmond are probably a more accurate reflection of the time it should take to add some top-level talent and then flesh out the list.

 

[Trav 20]

Jarman Impey for pick 33 you do every single day. The chance of picking up a better player with pick 33 is maybe 10%. And Impey is 23 y/o.

TMitch I would do 5 times a year if it were available. He is 25 y/o.

JOM is still to be proven. He is a jet when he is going - just need to get him going more. 21 games for 500 touches this year is a pretty good return. And he is 24 y/o.

Wingard is a interesting one. I was in the camp that the Hawks should go to the draft. But ultimately the draft is still a raffle and Winged is a 2 time AA. He is 25 y/o as well.

Even players like Gunston, Bruest, Shiels and cellar are only 27 and will be there if this comes together in a couple of years.

There is no doubt that the Hawks list has massive holes still. Mainly they desperately need another key forward to replace Rough and ideally another key back and another gun mid - ideally all 3 players need to be able to mark the pill as no one else currently can - not too much to ask. It is actually not that many pieces.

If they can find them then Clarko has built a new squad that will be turning 27/28 at the time the squad is complete and the players are all absolutely peaking.

I'm not much of an Impey fan. But at least 16 disposals per game was better than his average at Port.

But, as stated, it's more of a strategy that excludes yourself from decent draft picks.

In my view it's flawed and you've gone "all in". And I disagree that the draft is a "raffle". Although that view probably suits you.

You being happy is more important than me. Do any Hawks fans question the direction ?

 

[Hawker55]

This is a flawed analysis because of the number of other botched decisions during this time at those clubs.

Hawthorn got 'lucky' (in the sense that it was actually right first go, not necessarily luck) that they nailed the coaching appointment first go when Clarkson came in, whereas Melbourne and Carlton both ended up basket-cases because of coaching and recruiting staff being terrible for a lot of that period.

Given a different set of circumstances, Melbourne and Carlton could have been significantly better teams in that time span. Bulldogs and Richmond are probably a more accurate reflection of the time it should take to add some top-level talent and then flesh out the list.

You forget how close Clarko came to being sacked. We didn't get lucky nailing the coaching appointment, we got lucky that we didn't pull the trigger in 2010 - that was the turning point that also made him re-think the way he did things.

Also threads like this are worthless without a proper statistical analysis of the percentage of draft picks that are busts at each given pick. Someone on the Hawks board put up the last 10 pick 15s for example (which we traded in part for Wingard) and the only even B+ player on that list was Daniel Rioli. I recall being at a Hawks supporters event where someone from the list management team talked about how after pick 10, it all becomes about the system rather than the quality of player who is available, so unless you're going to have a really high pick, you're always better off from a team perspective trading for a role player or a 22 year old who you know what you're getting from.

 

[QuietB]

I'm not much of an Impey fan. But at least 16 disposals per game was better than his average at Port.

But, as stated, it's more of a strategy that excludes yourself from decent draft picks.

In my view it's flawed and you've gone "all in". And I disagree that the draft is a "raffle". Although that view probably suits you.

You being happy is more important than me. Do any Hawks fans question the direction ?

I just checked the 2001 draft which is widely considered the best draft ever. I counted 13 players from the top 30 I would be happy with and some of those are marginal - Ladson, Gram, McGuire, Seaby etc. you do not have to go to the draft to get those guys.

The draft is certainly overrated.

Melbournes potential renaissance has little to do with the draft. It has a lot more to do with culture change and systems.

 

[faible]

You forget how close Clarko came to being sacked. We didn't get lucky nailing the coaching appointment, we got lucky that we didn't pull the trigger in 2010 - that was the turning point that also made him re-think the way he did things.

Also threads like this are worthless without a proper statistical analysis of the percentage of draft picks that are busts at each given pick. Someone on the Hawks board put up the last 10 pick 15s for example (which we traded in part for Wingard) and the only even B+ player on that list was Daniel Rioli. I recall being at a Hawks supporters event where someone from the list management team talked about how after pick 10, it all becomes about the system rather than the quality of player who is available, so unless you're going to have a really high pick, you're always better off from a team perspective trading for a role player or a 22 year old who you know what you're getting from.

Would Hawthorn have been successful if they'd dumped Clarkson in 2010? Those core players were already drafted so I do wonder whether any coach would have been able to get them to some level of success - though I think Clarkson has shown he's a very astute coach able to maximise what the team can deliver.

You can't simply say "oh x number of players taken at pick y are terrible, therefore pick y is worthless" given that many clubs would draft different players at that pick given the opportunity. Pick 10 means you have access to all but 9 other players in the draft pool, the better recruiting teams have consistently shown they are more likely to select players that can contribute meaningfully to a team.

The other consideration is timing; Wingard has an approximate value remaining of the entire average pick 13's career, the difference is that Wingard will provide it now whilst other players are also playing at a certain level, whereas a draft selection may take 3 - 5 years to do so.

HPN has provided a very good analysis of the value of draft picks (and players) if you're interested in the area (and haven't already seen it): http://www.hpnfooty.com/?page_id=22741

 

[Hawker55]

To be honest, there were a whole host of factors - 2010, losing prelim 2011 and losing GF 2012. People forget what led into the threepeat.
I've always thought that without losing 2012 we may win 2013 but I don't think we dominate like we did.

 

[parsons nose]

Would Hawthorn have been successful if they'd dumped Clarkson in 2010? Those core players were already drafted so I do wonder whether any coach would have been able to get them to some level of success - though I think Clarkson has shown he's a very astute coach able to maximise what the team can deliver.

You can't simply say "oh x number of players taken at pick y are terrible, therefore pick y is worthless" given that many clubs would draft different players at that pick given the opportunity. Pick 10 means you have access to all but 9 other players in the draft pool, the better recruiting teams have consistently shown they are more likely to select players that can contribute meaningfully to a team.

The other consideration is timing; Wingard has an approximate value remaining of the entire average pick 13's career, the difference is that Wingard will provide it now whilst other players are also playing at a certain level, whereas a draft selection may take 3 - 5 years to do so.

HPN has provided a very good analysis of the value of draft picks (and players) if you're interested in the area (and haven't already seen it): http://www.hpnfooty.com/?page_id=22741

thanks for putting the graph in. It demonstrates the chances of getting a really good player increases exponentially inside the top ten. And to get those types of picks we would need to trade out good players.

 

[Trav 20]

I just checked the 2001 draft which is widely considered the best draft ever. I counted 13 players from the top 30 I would be happy with and some of those are marginal - Ladson, Gram, McGuire, Seaby etc. you do not have to go to the draft to get those guys.

The draft is certainly overrated.

Melbournes potential renaissance has little to do with the draft. It has a lot more to do with culture change and systems.

It's about doing all things well, culture, development, trading, drafting. It's about a great Coach, list manager, Board, CEO, etc.

Our prelim team had 6 top 10 picks (not including Lewis and Tyson), 4 Rookies (not including Hibberd), 5 traded in players, and others, including the McDonald brothers, who were both pick 53, and Gawn pick 34.

Hawthorn, Geelong, and Richmond built their success through the draft, so it's unusual for a supporter of one of those teams not to appreciate your access to top 10 picks, i.e. Hodge, Roughead, Franklin, Lewis. You don't win flags without those guys.

But look, I'm glad Hawthorn has abandoned the draft. You won't be good enough to win one before the inevitable slide starts.

 

[Trav 20]

thanks for putting the graph in. It demonstrates the chances of getting a really good player increases exponentially inside the top ten. And to get those types of picks we would need to trade out good players.

Or have a strategy where you spend one or two years down the ladder.

Too hard to cope with ?

 

[faible]

thanks for putting the graph in. It demonstrates the chances of getting a really good player increases exponentially inside the top ten. And to get those types of picks we would need to trade out good players.

I'm not sure it really supports your point at all... the decrease from 1 - 5 is fairly large, then marginal from there on out. Some years the quality will be heavily front-ended, others won't. It's not as though pick 11 is significantly less valuable than 10 for example.

Other factors such as the 3 SA boys expected to go instead the top 5 or 6 picks means that for Adelaide & Port, a top 5 pick is disproportionately valuable compared to other years.

I find it curious that (some) Hawthorn fans are so quick to dismiss the draft when it was very clearly what provided the core group of players that drove the success of the last decade, being able to go out and add players with very specific roles was effective, but only made possible because those drafted players were so structurally important.

It will be interesting to see how effective the FA / trade acquisition model ends up being over the long run.

 

[hk89]

I'm not fixated on just top 10 draft picks, although I recognise it makes a huge difference if you nail elite talent from the top 10.

But even top 30 draft picks. You've had six since 2008. Smith was a great get for Hawthorn at pick 19. Grundy was a good get at 18 for Collingwood. We got Gawn at 34.

I'm rapt we've got 23 and 28 in this year's draft. Who wants an ageing list to have pick 53 as their first pick ?

It doesn't have to be an either/or approach. Trading should complement your draft strategy, but Hawthorn seem to have completely forsaken it.

Last year you traded 33 for Impey. In 2014 you traded 19 for O'Rourke. When you actually went to the draft in 2015 you picked up Burton and Hardwicke.

I'm certainly not against the trades you did for Mitchell and O'Meara. As I said, it doesn't have to be either/or. If I was a Hawks fan I'd like to see a more balanced approach. I don't like the Wingard trade, but Hawks fans seemingly do. He seems too half-dedicated to me. Last to training, first to leave, known for not doing the extras - according to Port fans and these things come out around clubs. But in the Hawks cultural environment he might shift his focus.

In 2014 we traded pick 23 for Frost, and picks 40 and 42. At the time Jon Ralph said it was a silly trade. Frost filled a need and we picked up Neal-Bullen with pick 40 and Billy Stretch under F?S with pick 42. That was a trade that still used drafting as a strategy. I don't see that at Hawthorn these days.

I don't think we've completely forsaken the draft, as much as we've lost faith in the value of first round picks versus the players those picks can get us at the trade table. We are still using the draft to fill out the parts of the list that later picks are able to fill out. If a late first rounder is a 50/50 proposition in terms of getting a top level player, than trading two of them out for a known top level player makes perfect sense, and that seems to be pretty much what our strategy has become.

I don't really care if we take a balanced approach or not, I only care if we are using our picks in a way that maximise's the talent we bring in, and I'm not sure it is clear that drafting is the best way of doing that in most cases. I agree Wingard is a poor choice if his attitude remains what it was at Port, but it isn't like Port haven't had long term cultural issues in this area. A big reason Burgoyne left Port is because he had started to find the environment toxic, and while I think things have improved since then , I don't think they've completely resolved their culture issues. Like Scully's ankle, there are clear risks with Wingard, but I think the club is well placed to manage those. There is easily an argument to be made that Wingard is now the most talented player on our list, so the upside in getting him to buy in more into his career is massive. His last couple of years are also better than many think when you look at the role he's been asked to play, so even a 2018 level Wingard improves our list, probably not enough to justify what we've given up though, so obviously the recruiters are hoping to see closer to a 2013-2015 Wingard.

Despite taking some risks we've really only completely buggered up one of these trade choices, and that was O'Rourke (Vickery wasn't a trade). We took a double risk with O'Rourke, because he had both an injury risk AND a 'is he really good enough' risk, never having shown enough at AFL level. They hoped the latter was more caused by the former, and I'm still not convinced it wasn't (I'd re-rookie him if it was up to me, but I'm probably the only Hawk fan that feels that way), but as of his delisting this year he certainly hadn't shown enough to justify his #2 pick status (or the 19 we gave up for him). Scully is much safer because the only risk is the injury. We know he can play if his body is right, and we also gave up way less than we gave up for O'Rourke. O'Rourke is a bit more like Scrimshaw, but again we've paid massively less for Scrimshaw.

So, I'm not really convinced you can't build a premiership list while completely ignoring the first round in the draft. It was definitely true in the past, but free agency appears to make it possible. I'm not at all sure we'll manage it, but I think a club can do it, and if its not us, it will be someone else eventually. I wouldn't be surprised moving forward if people end up deciding it is about as difficult to rebuild using a lot of first round picks in the draft as it is to rebuild by selling those picks for players at the trade table, and they are just two strategies on a continuum of choices that can all lead to flag success. Most clubs will likely continue to use a more middle-ground strategy, but for a team that still has a decent quality core from their last successful flag attempt, I think the popular choice will skew more towards the trading than the drafting end of the spectrum now that free agency has really accelerated player movement. Melbourne is a good example of the hybrid approach that hit the draft well enough that they've been able to reach a point that they can start to fill the gaps by attracting players that see them as a likely flag vehicle. Definitely a list building success story even if they can't win a flag this time around, as any failure to do so will be more about injuries, luck and other intangible factors that all flag winners need to have go their way.

In terms of the specifics of what we've done. We've brought in Wingard, Scully, O'Meara and Mitchell over the last 3 trade periods. People are saying that isn't enough and we'll never replace the old flag winning team at that rate. They are IMO wrong, because they overestimate how many elite players a flag winning team needs. If we have two more trade periods that are semi decent, we could easily have a flag capable list when you consider we'd have an elite core group of Mitchell, O'Meara, Wingard, Scully, Breust, Gunston, Sicily and whoever we trade into the group with our first rounders from the next two years. That elite group is also well supported by players that are very solid B to B+ players that are still under 30 right now, and were still very solid contributors in 2018 like Smith, Stratton, Hardwick and McEvoy.

It is probably not going to be the best list in the competition, but that isn't always the team that wins. The main problem I see right now is that we've not got a replacement for Roughy and Frawley yet. Hopefully that is something we can fix in the next two trade periods. Brand or O'brien still have time to develop into something closer to a decent KPD (both very good down back in VFL finals), but I don't hold much hope of getting a KPF from within. Hawk fans are hoping Mitchell Lewis comes good, but he'd be one of the very very rare late picks that have managed to succeed as a top quality KPF if he does.

Anyway, will be fascinating to watch what happens over the next 2-3 years. Certainly no other team has managed to win a flag doing what we are attempting, but I don't think failure to do so would say much about whether it is the best strategy. Flags are hard to win, and you can get almost everything right and still not make it happen.

 

[Gralin]

I'm not sure it really supports your point at all... the decrease from 1 - 5 is fairly large, then marginal from there on out. Some years the quality will be heavily front-ended, others won't. It's not as though pick 11 is significantly less valuable than 10 for example.

Other factors such as the 3 SA boys expected to go instead the top 5 or 6 picks means that for Adelaide & Port, a top 5 pick is disproportionately valuable compared to other years.

I find it curious that (some) Hawthorn fans are so quick to dismiss the draft when it was very clearly what provided the core group of players that drove the success of the last decade, being able to go out and add players with very specific roles was effective, but only made possible because those drafted players were so structurally important.

It will be interesting to see how effective the FA / trade acquisition model ends up being over the long run.

I don't dismiss the draft I just question the value of trading up vs trading for known talent

If you don't have access to a top 10 pick and you can get a player like Tom Mitchell for a couple of picks I see that as better value than trading into the top 10 and hoping you pick up a player that will be as good in a few years time.

Clarko is clearly trying to stay competitive and take advantage of the players he still had on the list in their primes like Breust, Gunston, Smith etc (probably thought he was going to have Rioli and Birchall last two years and beyond as well)

Whether that turns out to be successful we will know in the next few years, whether we see Hawks return to early rounds of the draft more in the next few years will be interesting.

We wanted to keep 2019 picks, was that for a target next year in the draft or for players we are targeting next year? Find out next October I guess

 

[faible]

I don't dismiss the draft I just question the value of trading up vs trading for known talent

If you don't have access to a top 10 pick and you can get a player like Tom Mitchell for a couple of picks I see that as better value than trading into the top 10 and hoping you pick up a player that will be as good in a few years time.

Clarko is clearly trying to stay competitive and take advantage of the players he still had on the list in their primes like Breust, Gunston, Smith etc (probably thought he was going to have Rioli and Birchall last two years and beyond as well)

Whether that turns out to be successful we will know in the next few years, whether we see Hawks return to early rounds of the draft more in the next few years will be interesting.

We wanted to keep 2019 picks, was that for a target next year in the draft or for players we are targeting next year? Find out next October I guess

I think Mitchell was a good trade - I thought that at the time and his performance over the last two years has probably exceeded what anyone would have expected.

I didn't say all Hawthorn supporters do, there's just some who consistently deny any value to the draft just because it doesn't fit with the current narrative from the club.

 

[Eternal Schism]

Can easily see the Hawks finishing around the top 4 the next year or two but being taken apart in finals due to KPP & depth (bottom 6) issues.

From what I see, Roughead has really been cooked since his illness. Losing him will mean the KPP stocks are at an all time low. Mitchell Lewis may turn out as a better option later on, hard to say as all KPF take time especially late picks. Tim O'Brien wasn't going to cut it, mid age, lacks some ability to impart himself on games. Shoenmakers is a known nothing player.

Out of the older blokes they have:
Birchall - Barely on the field last few years, if he plays all of 2019 he could be a big boost. Him taking the field will be a bonus, losing him would be no difference.
Frawley - Old and will be done very soon. I think they could easily just grab someone from elsewhere. David Astbury could be an option as a F/A next year.
Burgoyne - Will be missed, can't replace leadership and the skill level he has. Genuine loss. Could Hawthorn attempt to get Brad Sheppard for the HB line?
Roughead - Is on the decline, offers a contest, doubt Hawks will seek a forward F/A. Think they'll back in Mitchell Lewis to come good.
Puopolo - Is a journeyman - adds tackles and pressure. Players like this are dime a dozen - easily replaceable.
Henderson - Solid and reliable - not a star whatsoever. Can be replaced.

Hawks have few queries too. Can Worpel, Morrison, Howe and other kids on the edge of the 22 take another step, can they handle finals pressure? Scully is up the air, if he doesn't take the field next year then no biggie, if he does though it is a big boost. Can Jaegar improve with another preseason? If he steps another notch up look out, but just as easily he could be injured again.

Hawthorns defence is alarmingly light on for depth if Stratton or Sicily go out for long periods. If Big Boy goes down can Ceglar be trusted to stay fit as No.1 ruck?

 

[Gralin]

I think Mitchell was a good trade - I thought that at the time and his performance over the last two years has probably exceeded what anyone would have expected.

I didn't say all Hawthorn supporters do, there's just some who consistently deny any value to the draft just because it doesn't fit with the current narrative from the club.

Next few years with the moving on of the over 30s will be interesting.

 

[hk89]

Would Hawthorn have been successful if they'd dumped Clarkson in 2010? Those core players were already drafted so I do wonder whether any coach would have been able to get them to some level of success - though I think Clarkson has shown he's a very astute coach able to maximise what the team can deliver.

You can't simply say "oh x number of players taken at pick y are terrible, therefore pick y is worthless" given that many clubs would draft different players at that pick given the opportunity. Pick 10 means you have access to all but 9 other players in the draft pool, the better recruiting teams have consistently shown they are more likely to select players that can contribute meaningfully to a team.

Hawthorn are thought to have had an above average recruiting team, and still buggered up many first rounders. Hodge, Roughy, Franklin, Lewis makes us look good, but Ellis, Thorp, Dowler etc not so much. Yes, it is much harder to stuff up top 5 picks than first rounders after pick 5, but it isn't easy to get your hands on a large number of those. Hawthorn got 3 very good top 5 picks right and it helped them build a 3-peat list. If we were to do it again in the current free agency environment, I think we have much better chances of trading in 3 core elite players than we do of drafting them. We can also do that without failing miserably for a few years.

The other consideration is timing; Wingard has an approximate value remaining of the entire average pick 13's career, the difference is that Wingard will provide it now whilst other players are also playing at a certain level, whereas a draft selection may take 3 - 5 years to do so.

it is not just timing, it is also peak ceiling. The average first round pick doesn't have anywhere near the talent ceiling Wingard has. Sure, some will, but to get the one that does will require you to have a lot of spins at the wheel if you look at the ratio of first rounders that reach a wingard level ceiling. Look at how many first round picks have won Brownlows. Comparing an average pick 13's total career value to the value of an elite 25 year old is a bit like saying a player that averages 15 possessions a game for 10 years is equally as valuable as a player that averages 30 over the remaining 5 years of his career. During that 5 year window, one is an elite player that can help you win a flag, the other is a list clogger for those 5 years AND the other 5 years you've wasted keeping him on your list. A lot of the online draft value calculators are based on exactly this false premise.

HPN has provided a very good analysis of the value of draft picks (and players) if you're interested in the area (and haven't already seen it): http://www.hpnfooty.com/?page_id=22741

Sorry but I find HPN's 'PAV" highly questionable. Too many examples of player valuations that don't pass the eye test. Shane Tuck was apparently a more valuable player than Sam Mitchell in the year Sam won the Brownlow. HPN thinks the likely future value of Wingard from now until his career is over will be considerably less than Shane Tuck's career value from the same age.

 

[Trav 20]

I don't think we've completely forsaken the draft, as much as we've lost faith in the value of first round picks versus the players those picks can get us at the trade table. We are still using the draft to fill out the parts of the list that later picks are able to fill out. If a late first rounder is a 50/50 proposition in terms of getting a top level player, than trading two of them out for a known top level player makes perfect sense, and that seems to be pretty much what our strategy has become.

I don't really care if we take a balanced approach or not, I only care if we are using our picks in a way that maximise's the talent we bring in, and I'm not sure it is clear that drafting is the best way of doing that in most cases. I agree Wingard is a poor choice if his attitude remains what it was at Port, but it isn't like Port haven't had long term cultural issues in this area. A big reason Burgoyne left Port is because he had started to find the environment toxic, and while I think things have improved since then , I don't think they've completely resolved their culture issues. Like Scully's ankle, there are clear risks with Wingard, but I think the club is well placed to manage those. There is easily an argument to be made that Wingard is now the most talented player on our list, so the upside in getting him to buy in more into his career is massive. His last couple of years are also better than many think when you look at the role he's been asked to play, so even a 2018 level Wingard improves our list, probably not enough to justify what we've given up though, so obviously the recruiters are hoping to see closer to a 2013-2015 Wingard.

Despite taking some risks we've really only completely buggered up one of these trade choices, and that was O'Rourke (Vickery wasn't a trade). We took a double risk with O'Rourke, because he had both an injury risk AND a 'is he really good enough' risk, never having shown enough at AFL level. They hoped the latter was more caused by the former, and I'm still not convinced it wasn't (I'd re-rookie him if it was up to me, but I'm probably the only Hawk fan that feels that way), but as of his delisting this year he certainly hadn't shown enough to justify his #2 pick status (or the 19 we gave up for him). Scully is much safer because the only risk is the injury. We know he can play if his body is right, and we also gave up way less than we gave up for O'Rourke. O'Rourke is a bit more like Scrimshaw, but again we've paid massively less for Scrimshaw.

So, I'm not really convinced you can't build a premiership list while completely ignoring the first round in the draft. It was definitely true in the past, but free agency appears to make it possible. I'm not at all sure we'll manage it, but I think a club can do it, and if its not us, it will be someone else eventually. I wouldn't be surprised moving forward if people end up deciding it is about as difficult to rebuild using a lot of first round picks in the draft as it is to rebuild by selling those picks for players at the trade table, and they are just two strategies on a continuum of choices that can all lead to flag success. Most clubs will likely continue to use a more middle-ground strategy, but for a team that still has a decent quality core from their last successful flag attempt, I think the popular choice will skew more towards the trading than the drafting end of the spectrum now that free agency has really accelerated player movement. Melbourne is a good example of the hybrid approach that hit the draft well enough that they've been able to reach a point that they can start to fill the gaps by attracting players that see them as a likely flag vehicle. Definitely a list building success story even if they can't win a flag this time around, as any failure to do so will be more about injuries, luck and other intangible factors that all flag winners need to have go their way.

In terms of the specifics of what we've done. We've brought in Wingard, Scully, O'Meara and Mitchell over the last 3 trade periods. People are saying that isn't enough and we'll never replace the old flag winning team at that rate. They are IMO wrong, because they overestimate how many elite players a flag winning team needs. If we have two more trade periods that are semi decent, we could easily have a flag capable list when you consider we'd have an elite core group of Mitchell, O'Meara, Wingard, Scully, Breust, Gunston, Sicily and whoever we trade into the group with our first rounders from the next two years. That elite group is also well supported by players that are very solid B to B+ players that are still under 30 right now, and were still very solid contributors in 2018 like Smith, Stratton, Hardwick and McEvoy.

It is probably not going to be the best list in the competition, but that isn't always the team that wins. The main problem I see right now is that we've not got a replacement for Roughy and Frawley yet. Hopefully that is something we can fix in the next two trade periods. Brand or O'brien still have time to develop into something closer to a decent KPD (both very good down back in VFL finals), but I don't hold much hope of getting a KPF from within. Hawk fans are hoping Mitchell Lewis comes good, but he'd be one of the very very rare late picks that have managed to succeed as a top quality KPF if he does.

Anyway, will be fascinating to watch what happens over the next 2-3 years. Certainly no other team has managed to win a flag doing what we are attempting, but I don't think failure to do so would say much about whether it is the best strategy. Flags are hard to win, and you can get almost everything right and still not make it happen.

Good post.

We've just brought in May and Kolodjashnij for pick 6 and Lever the year before for picks 10 and 16, so I do understand the strategy. But I also like some picks in the range where Hannebery, Sloane, Beams, Parker, Fyfe, etc. were drafted.

Once a team is successful it's obviously very hard to get those top 10 picks, but as a very successful team declines I don't mind the idea of missing finals for a couple of years before surging again. You won't become a basket-case like Melbourne.

Our best 6 are Gawn, Oliver, Viney, Tom McDonald, Brayshaw, and it was Hogan. Four of those were top 10 picks (pick 7 was bid on Viney and we gave up pick 3 for Hogan among other things in the mini draft) and we still have high hopes for both Petracca and Weideman, who were also top 10.

That said, we have a litany of disasters in the top 20, because we drafted choir boys like Watts, Morton, Toumpas, Gysberts, Blease, Strauss, Cook...

Imo, you've got to give your recruiters a reasonable shot at getting some home grown talent. Maybe not every year, but I'm not sure it's wise to freeze them out in too many consecutive years.

 

[HolyWars]

To be honest, there were a whole host of factors - 2010, losing prelim 2011 and losing GF 2012. People forget what led into the threepeat.
I've always thought that without losing 2012 we may win 2013 but I don't think we dominate like we did.

I agree.

2012 GF was the best loss we ever had (as much as it hurt at the time).

 

[Coaster2012]

Of course they can, there is no difference with drafting a player and developing him over years, than getting another team to draft him, develop him and taking him.

 

[QuietB]

It's about doing all things well, culture, development, trading, drafting. It's about a great Coach, list manager, Board, CEO, etc.

Our prelim team had 6 top 10 picks (not including Lewis and Tyson), 4 Rookies (not including Hibberd), 5 traded in players, and others, including the McDonald brothers, who were both pick 57, and Gawn pick 34.

Hawthorn, Geelong, and Richmond built their success through the draft, so it's unusual for a supporter of one of those teams not to appreciate your access to top 10 picks, i.e. Hodge, Roughead, Franklin, Lewis. You don't win flags without those guys.

But look, I'm glad Hawthorn has abandoned the draft. You won't be good enough to win one before the inevitable slide starts.

1/ Hawks know how it works
2/ You are projecting

 

[faible]

it is not just timing, it is also peak ceiling. The average first round pick doesn't have anywhere near the talent ceiling Wingard has. Sure, some will, but to get the one that does will require you to have a lot of spins at the wheel if you look at the ratio of first rounders that reach a wingard level ceiling. Look at how many first round picks have won Brownlows. Comparing an average pick 13's total career value to the value of an elite 25 year old is a bit like saying a player that averages 15 possessions a game for 10 years is equally as valuable as a player that averages 30 over the remaining 5 years of his career. During that 5 year window, one is an elite player that can help you win a flag, the other is a list clogger for those 5 years AND the other 5 years you've wasted keeping him on your list. A lot of the online draft value calculators are based on exactly this false premise.

That's not really a true comparison though is it? Generally pick 13 is a meaningful contributor to a team, not a list clogger. So the gamble is that Burton + 15 + 35 would provide less to the team in the short term than Wingard + 45, since in the long-term they will almost certainly provide more. If Wingard can be the extra talent needed to win a flag then I'd say it's probably a success.

Sorry but I find HPN's 'PAV" highly questionable. Too many examples of player valuations that don't pass the eye test. Shane Tuck was apparently a more valuable player than Sam Mitchell in the year Sam won the Brownlow. HPN thinks the likely future value of Wingard from now until his career is over will be considerably less than Shane Tuck's career value from the same age.

HPN also goes on to say that it's based off the average of players at Wingard's age, and that if he plays to 30 (and beyond) this figure will be significantly higher.

I think perhaps you're underestimating the year Shane Tuck had, he was hardly a potato and the difference between the two was extremely marginal, strange reason to dismiss it. I'd say HPN would be the first to admit it's not perfect, but looking at the below I'd say it really is a marginal difference.

 

[yeahmate]

Or have a strategy where you spend one or two years down the ladder.

Too hard to cope with ?

I don't think bottoming out has ever been a viable strategy for any club. Too many variables, too much can go wrong, the negative impact of creating a losing culture, etc. Its basically just giving up and creating excuses for the coaches and administration for failure. Sure some clubs who bottomed out may have had subsequent successful eras (including Hawthorn), but I would put that down to luck and not the deliberate strategy of bottoming out. More clubs have failed than succeeded who went down that path as their strategy for ultimate success.

Clubs should be aiming at the end of each year to improve their playing list and move up the ladder next year. Any club that made finals or was thereabouts should be aiming for a premiership.

Its nice to have access to high draft picks and also start developing some promising youngsters that might make best 22 in a few years, but Hawthorn hasn't had access to top 10 picks for years so its just not an option at the moment. After pick 10 or so there's not really that much deviation in the chance of picking up equivalently good players within a much wider pick range, so there is really not a significant downside in trading away those picks for ready made players that will have an immediate improvement to the best 22.

Hawthorn's greatest strength as a club at the moment anyway is not nailing late picks, it is developing players within a professional environment and system, and instilling belief and understanding of a game plan, which more often than not seems to get the best out of players whatever rating they may have had previously as under 18s. That's a much more consistent recipe for success than guessing correctly (or luckily) in the draft in my opinion.

 

[Pessimistic]

Would Hawthorn have been successful if they'd dumped Clarkson in 2010? Those core players were already drafted so I do wonder whether any coach would have been able to get them to some level of success - though I think Clarkson has shown he's a very astute coach able to maximise what the team can deliver.

You can't simply say "oh x number of players taken at pick y are terrible, therefore pick y is worthless" given that many clubs would draft different players at that pick given the opportunity. Pick 10 means you have access to all but 9 other players in the draft pool, the better recruiting teams have consistently shown they are more likely to select players that can contribute meaningfully to a team.

The other consideration is timing; Wingard has an approximate value remaining of the entire average pick 13's career, the difference is that Wingard will provide it now whilst other players are also playing at a certain level, whereas a draft selection may take 3 - 5 years to do so.

HPN has provided a very good analysis of the value of draft picks (and players) if you're interested in the area (and haven't already seen it): http://www.hpnfooty.com/?page_id=22741

Not sure what the Y value is but it bears out. The y difference from 1 to 10 is the same as from 10 to 90