Hawks were lucky.

[Wildrig]

FWIW...

I despise Hawthorn, have done for years and will do for years. I love footy though and can safely say they were excellent today. Undermanned, coming back from Perth, down by a few goals yet got up and won where other teams may have capitulated.

Im still reserving my judgement on them but its games like these that premiership hopefuls find a way to win.

Well done Hawks and gee North hang around in games

Good game of footy, now for the main event

 

[Mitchell Madness]

the free kick count was 9-4 in the first quarter, of which i would have said 4 or 5 were very questionable (the kangaroos supporter beside me said the exact same thing.)

Now note the semi final last season - 30-15 for the match. coincidence?

Also, note that the kangaroos floo.... sorry, I mean congested the midfield, forcing the club to chip around, simmilar to the semi.


Now, when the players realised that congestion =/= chip kick and began to run, we killed the roos.

in the third, once again the roos floo.... sorry again, congested the midfield, and got the break away. but, in the final term, we killed them when we once again ran.

 

[Z_K]

You can't bemoan luck when you have a team cooked and ____ it up. Should have been up for 40+ early, should have finished them off late.

We contributed more to losing it than they did to winning it. That's not luck, that's us playing like idiots.

 

[71011]

Well done Hawks, well deserved win, played better when it counted!

Having said that, you guys beat us in round three last year too, then we beat you in Tazzie and in the finals.

Hope to meet again!

 

[TheWiseOne]

Top thread

 

[Zvim]

Or collecting your draft picks for our cast offs. Is Laidley looking to trade for Jacobs. He must be worth at least a first and third pick .

I feel this will be moved to bay13 very soon.

Something you will have to deal with, soon enough, is trying to be a strong team on-field for a number of years not only without priority picks but without great picks.

Picks outside top 5 are hit or miss, the ones we traded away have been reasonable players, nobody I dread not ending up with. We have gained better caliber players out of the rookie system.

If you are fortunate enough to see the hawks be as strong as we have been since the 90s then you will come to appreciate how difficult it is to keep the squad strong on-field over a long period of time without having access to exceptional players.

 

[Dippers_Mullet]

Something you will have to deal with, soon enough, is trying to be a strong team on-field for a number of years not only without priority picks but without great picks.

Picks outside top 5 are hit or miss, the ones we traded away have been reasonable players, nobody I dread not ending up with. We have gained better caliber players out of the rookie system.

If you are fortunate enough to see the hawks be as strong as we have been since the 90s then you will come to appreciate how difficult it is to keep the squad strong on-field over a long period of time without having access to exceptional players.

Did you see that article today in the 'Hun? We've done very well with the Rookie draft over the last half-dozen years. Very well indeed.

 

[B&YBlood]

Gee being a North supporter I am happy enough, we are out of form a bit at present and still were unlucky to lose a match against the Hawks.

I must say though I thought the Hawks were a lot better than they are. I was thinking last week they are the only challenge to Geelong, i was wrong. In the form we are in at present Geelong would have won by 11 goals. Hawks are no flag contenders and after last night I dont think the Saints are.

Maybe its Port who are the real chance. Maybe its the Dogs.

I knw its not us at present but it sure isn`t Hawthorn eitheir.

I actually thought the win was a very good sign, maybe we won't win a flag this year, but against a side that knows how to stifle our style and get under our skin, to win in that fashion, was very encouraging.

I did have a chuckle at your dig at the Hawks, but you covered it nicely by saying that the Roos aren't contenders either... But I sincerely think most of us already assumed that.

 

[Animosity1989]

We played very poorly in the 1st and 3rd quarters. However, we dominated when it mattered most.

Kangaroos have had a hoodoo over us for a while but this should see the end of that.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Something you will have to deal with, soon enough, is trying to be a strong team on-field for a number of years not only without priority picks but without great picks.

Picks outside top 5 are hit or miss, the ones we traded away have been reasonable players, nobody I dread not ending up with. We have gained better caliber players out of the rookie system.

If you are fortunate enough to see the hawks be as strong as we have been since the 90s then you will come to appreciate how difficult it is to keep the squad strong on-field over a long period of time without having access to exceptional players.

We experienced our lows after the mid Nineties so we know how some teams will be travelling soon.

Also, we have used the rookie list very well in the last few years and uncovered some great players so it's not just top draft picks.

 

[Zvim]

Did you see that article today in the 'Hun? We've done very well with the Rookie draft over the last half-dozen years. Very well indeed.

I didn't read it.

Hawks have done well in recent years, across the board, but the pressure has been off because you have have a fair few top 5 picks that have become your core team of players.

You are not going to find a lot of Franklin, Roughead, Hodge, etc type of players in the rookie system. Without this caliber of player then a lot more pressure comes onto the later draft picks and the rookies.

If you can't recruit the players you need then trading is one of the only avenues, it has prolongued the Swans' run but there is not much left in the tank.

 

[cs61]

Something you will have to deal with, soon enough, is trying to be a strong team on-field for a number of years not only without priority picks but without great picks.

Picks outside top 5 are hit or miss, the ones we traded away have been reasonable players, nobody I dread not ending up with. We have gained better caliber players out of the rookie system.

If you are fortunate enough to see the hawks be as strong as we have been since the 90s then you will come to appreciate how difficult it is to keep the squad strong on-field over a long period of time without having access to exceptional players.

How many times do you want to mention priorities in one thread?

Deflecting from the result I presume.

 

[cs61]

I didn't read it.

Hawks have done well in recent years, across the board, but the pressure has been off because you have have a fair few top 5 picks that have become your core team of players.

You are not going to find a lot of Franklin, Roughead, Hodge, etc type of players in the rookie system. Without this caliber of player then a lot more pressure comes onto the later draft picks and the rookies.

If you can't recruit the players you need then trading is one of the only avenues, it has prolongued the Swans' run but there is not much left in the tank.

Hodge was traded for.

Besides Roughead and Franklin, which was one draft, name these core players that were gained through priorities.

I'm curious.

 

[Messenger]

Hodge was traded for.

Besides Roughead and Franklin, which was one draft, name these core players that were gained through priorities.

I'm curious.

By my reckoning, Roughead was the only priority pick. Franklin, Hodge (traded for) and Ellis were "conventional picks".

Hawthorn weren't lucky, we were better when we needed to be. Kudos to North, they are a better side than the first three rounds suggest.

 

[moistie]

Yeah, what can we do, we can't all suck for 5+ years sucking up priority picks.

Well, you certainly can't or you'll be moving to the Gold Coast faster than the speed of sound.

 

[SammyB]

Yeah we were lucky, like the cats were lucky in 07.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Something you will have to deal with, soon enough, is trying to be a strong team on-field for a number of years not only without priority picks but without great picks.

Picks outside top 5 are hit or miss, the ones we traded away have been reasonable players, nobody I dread not ending up with. We have gained better caliber players out of the rookie system.

If you are fortunate enough to see the hawks be as strong as we have been since the 90s then you will come to appreciate how difficult it is to keep the squad strong on-field over a long period of time without having access to exceptional players.

Let us have a look at our line up for todays game shall we? Oh, and where they went (and how)

FB: Murphy (21), Gilham (r), Guerra (psd pick 3)
HB: Ladson (16), Brown (32), Birchall (14, traded pick)
C: Young (r), Mitchell (36, traded pick), Lewis (7)
HF: Osborne(r), Boyle(51), Bateman (48)
FF: Rioli (12), Roughead(2), Franklin(5)
R: Taylor (50), Hodge (1, traded pick), Sewell (r)

Int: Campbell (r), Stokes (r), Ellis (3), Tuck (38 f/s)

oh wow, would you look at that! does that prove that we have not tanked to recruit our players?

out of the entire 22, only 5 are from the top 10, of which hodge we recieved of freo

 

[Messenger]

Let us have a look at our line up for todays game shall we? Oh, and where they went (and how)

FB: Murphy (21), Gilham (r), Guerra (psd pick 3)
HB: Ladson (16), Brown (32), Birchall (14, traded pick)
C: Young (r), Mitchell (36, traded pick), Lewis (7)
HF: Osborne(r), Boyle(51), Bateman (48)
FF: Rioli (12), Roughead(2), Franklin(5)
R: Taylor (50), Hodge (1, traded pick), Sewell (r)

Int: Campbell (r), Stokes (r), Ellis (3), Tuck (38 f/s)

oh wow, would you look at that! does that prove that we have not tanked to recruit our players?

out of the entire 22, only 5 are from the top 10, of which hodge we recieved of freo

And 6 rookies. The last few years have taught patience.

 

[Zvim]

Hodge was traded for.

Besides Roughead and Franklin, which was one draft, name these core players that were gained through priorities.

I'm curious.

I think Hawks have had a pretty good run with the draft.

You had pick 6 in 2002, traded it away for Everitt.
You had pick 6 in 2003, traded it away for Jacobs.
You had priority pick 2 and pick 2 in 2004, got Roughead and Franklin
You had priority pick 3 and pick 3 in 2005, got Dowler and Ellis
You had pick 6 in 2006, got Thorp.

That is access to 7 picks within the top 6 (excluding trading) in 5 years.

We had 1.

Of course that makes it harder for us to compete, that is a fair handicap. I think from what we have had access to we have pound for pound as good a team as anyone has.

 

[cs61]

I think Hawks have had a pretty good run with the draft.

You had pick 6 in 2002, traded it away for Everitt.
You had pick 6 in 2003, traded it away for Jacobs.
You had priority pick 2 and pick 2 in 2004, got Roughead and Franklin
You had priority pick 3 and pick 3 in 2005, got Dowler and Ellis
You had pick 6 in 2006, got Thorp.

That is access to 7 picks within the top 6 (excluding trading) in 5 years.

We had 1.

Of course that makes it harder for us to compete, that is a fair handicap. I think from what we have had access to we have pound for pound as good a team as anyone has.

We never had pick 6. The Doggies traded that, the rest of the list is just weird, I'm not quite sure if it shows anything at all.

What is the point in that list?

You originally said priorities make up the core of our side.

I asked you to name the core players in our side that were made up priorities.

Except for Roughead and Franklin, which was one draft, our side is not reliant on players we received for finishing at the bottom of the ladder, which is what you are hinting at.

Its a cop out to bring something like that up after a loss and try in some way to degrade the win.

 

[Messenger]

I think Hawks have had a pretty good run with the draft.

You had pick 6 in 2002, traded it away for Everitt.
You had pick 6 in 2003, traded it away for Jacobs.
You had priority pick 2 and pick 2 in 2004, got Roughead and Franklin
You had priority pick 3 and pick 3 in 2005, got Dowler and Ellis
You had pick 6 in 2006, got Thorp.

That is access to 7 picks within the top 6 (excluding trading) in 5 years.

We had 1.

Of course that makes it harder for us to compete, that is a fair handicap.

I take back Ellis, a priority.

But there is a point you are overlooking.... WE WERE SHIT. So legitimately bad tanking wasn't necessary. If you'd had to sit through Hawthorn 2003-6, you would understand our frustration at you pointing this out.

Essendon used pick 6 in 2003 on Kepler Bradley, so we got better value.

We also traded pick 10 with Collingwood (who took Chris Egan) for pick 7 (Jordan Lewis) and Bo Nixon (well and truly doing the Pies a favour there).

 

[SunKing]

Sour grapes thread just like the ones that popped up after our win last friday night.

Hawks played exceptional footy in the last qtr and deserved the win fair and square.

Franklin reminds me of Brown in the way he can drag his team back into contention.

 

[byronben]

ha....lucky my butt!

you were the lucky ones Kangas....

if we had of got out of second gear...we should've smashed you by at least 10 goals....

I am so mad! You bludgers always drag us down to that local league level...

if i were a roos supporter, i wouldve been stoked today!

 

[bluespooner]

I would have thought winning whilst playing an average game, is the sign of a pretty good side.

North on the other hand aren't going anywhere with their ugly game plan of flood, hits sides on the counter, and then when you've got a bit of a lead play a bit of tempo football by passing the ball backwards and soaking up time.

Fortune favours the brave and North aren't a brave team.

 

[Z_K]

Flood? ____ me dead.

This thread is proof positive that the vast majority of people should be put down.