Hawthorn FC worst nightmare the 2017 Draft

Remove this Banner Ad

Fetnarr said:
Here's a question for you though. Keeping in mind the state of each of our lists, if Hawthorn were to finish bottom 4, and Sydney were to miss the finals and finish between 9th and 12th which team has had the biggest failure
Click to expand...

Hawthorn. With so much draft capital moved out for the midfield retooling 'success' became binary for Hawthorn. They either succeeded by making finals and remaining competitive or they failed by missing finals and being short on draft picks.

Sydney's offseason moves were looking forward 2-3 years; letting Mitchell go to free up future money for Heeney/Mills, acquiring draft picks rather than trading them out. There is room to underperform this year without the moves being unsuccessful.
 
wo. You can't compare any Melb team wit Sydney and say Sydney are better managed. They had cola and regularly targeted talent from other clubs. They'd still be doing it now if the Cola train came along
Their salary cap is full so they've turned to the academy. Now that's been represented as look at Sydney. They are losing but they are playing kids.

Turns. Out only heeney and mills are any good from those out injured
 
deflated said:
Hawthorn. With so much draft capital moved out for the midfield retooling 'success' became binary for Hawthorn. They either succeeded by making finals and remaining competitive or they failed by missing finals and being short on draft picks.

Sydney's offseason moves were looking forward 2-3 years; letting Mitchell go to free up future money for Heeney/Mills, acquiring draft picks rather than trading them out. There is room to underperform this year without the moves being unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
SA HAWK said:
They obviously overrated where the list was at bringing those 2 into the club.

Henderson dropped this week and i wouldn't play him again unless we have major injury issues.
Click to expand...
vickerey for Spangher? Had an acute big man shortage last year. Rough was not guaranteed
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I dont buy into this there missing so many players rubbish . Out of the missing lot i would say heeney and rampe, but it seems tippett and rohan have been thrown into the conversation where both have been maligned there whole careers to a point where sydney supporters wanted tippett gone last year .and i also dont count mcveigh because a bit like hodge and gibson his impact will be very limited and was slowing down last year. Very interested to see how they go today because if they lose surely they will cop some scrutiny , there so called star studded midfield has barely fired a shot all season
 
hk89 said:
Why ignore the round 5 team?
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with what has already happened.

Hawthorn are 0-4 with a % of 50, on the back of Clarko backing in the senior blokes.

Sydney are 0-4 with a % in the 80s, as a result of being stuck with too many kids in the team.

It is chalk and cheese.

Sydney will now get senior players back in and their performance will improve.
hk89 said:
Historically, teams that have tried to build too quickly by throwing out all their senior players haven't fared well. Melbourne is now only just recovering from exactly that approach.
Click to expand...
Agree with first part, but that applies to teams who were light on for leaders...you guys still have Hodge, Roughy, Burgoyne, Gibson. Melbourne farked up as they didnt have any strong leaders so guys like Watts suffered.

Hawthorn need to introduce kids whilst those champions are still playing, if they are rebuilding.

If they thought they could still compete you would play guys like Vickery and Hendersonto try to fill roles that kids arent ready for.
 
Vickery is back up ruck etc. needs exposure for if McEvoy gets injured

Henderson less so. If we had more senior injuries. We would have played as many youth as Sydney

Ps Tippett and Rohan are underwhelming. I'd be trading those guys out. Aren't going to be winning you s flag anytime.
Vickery would be on pretty much half tippets salary

Hawks rebuilt 10-11 won one from seven start of '10 limped into finals. 11 a bit better but belted by Geelong lost prelim Due to inexperience and aging runners. Bateman. 2012 list grand final due to inexperience again

In 10 played some list cloggers too Peterson etc
 
Last edited:
Fetnarr said:
Here's a question for you though. Keeping in mind the state of each of our lists, if Hawthorn were to finish bottom 4, and Sydney were to miss the finals and finish between 9th and 12th which team has had the biggest failure
Click to expand...
We have all of our draft picks this year and the fourth youngest list, so I'd say we'd be well ahead of Hawthorn
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

doppleganger said:
It has nothing to do with what has already happened.

Hawthorn are 0-4 with a % of 50, on the back of Clarko backing in the senior blokes.

Sydney are 0-4 with a % in the 80s, as a result of being stuck with too many kids in the team.

It is chalk and cheese.

Sydney will now get senior players back in and their performance will improve.
Click to expand...

I'm unclear what point you are trying to put forward here. Is it that we still are not playing enough kids, or that we misread what we could achieve at the start of the year and have only just started playing kids? Or simply that compared to Sydney who've been forced to play kids we are not playing kids?

I'd be very surprised if Sydney don't finish above us this year. Once their players return from injury, the kids will be shelved for most of the year. It looks to me like we've been giving the kids a go since the round 1 loss. Perhaps not compared to what Sydney have been forced into, but certainly more than we had last year. I'd guess we really wanted to win round 1, and knew the emotional factor with the Essendon players returning from drug bans would make for an intense battle (which it was). For that reason they seemed to have taken a very conservative approach with picking the round 1 team. This was also partly due to the introduction of 4 new players (new to the club, not AFL) into the mix, which reduced the available slots for untried players. After round 1 we've played a lot of players that have been largely Box Hill players in the past. For round 2 we brought in Stewart, Miles and Burton and left out Shoey, Duryea and Hartung. This was on top of a team that still had 4 players playing their second game for Hawthorn (Vickery, JOM, Mitchell, Henderson). So there were at least 7 guys that had almost never played with their teammates. That is a lot when you have a very role based gameplan like Hawthorn does.

Round 3 saw Miles and Burton hold their spots, and Brand came in to replace Stewart, so we stuck with a similar mix of 3 inexperienced players on top of the 4 Hawthorn newcomers. O'Brien, Sicily, Hardwick (and Hartung) were given a go against Geelong at the expense of Miles, Vickery, Whitecross and JOM (Injury). So that was Burton, Brand, Hardwick, O'Brien (and to a lesser extent Sicily and Hartung) given a go (on top of Mitchell and Henderson who are still learning the game plan).

Ok, so we got completely smashed twice in a row after some ok signs early against Adelaide (notably JOM was missing from the midfield for much of the game against GC and all of the cats game - we'll probably look a good deal better with him back in), but that is partly a reflection of the number of players in the group now who have very little experience with the gameplan. We'd probably have avoided the drubbings by leaving players like Shoey, Duryea, and Whitecross in the team, but at the expense of development , and most likely little difference to where the 4 points went.

Agree with first part, but that applies to teams who were light on for leaders...you guys still have Hodge, Roughy, Burgoyne, Gibson. Melbourne farked up as they didnt have any strong leaders so guys like Watts suffered.
Click to expand...

That is my point. We don't want to 'Watts' our young guys by extracting our leaders from the team. Furthermore we don't want to drop our next rung of leaders because they'll hopefully be the main on field leaders as early as next year once Hodge/Burgyone/Gibson move on. Some of these guys are not in their best form, but players like Shiels, Rioli, Smith, Gunston, Breust etc need to be learning to stand up. Once you rule out removing those players, there are only so many development spots available.

Hawthorn need to introduce kids whilst those champions are still playing, if they are rebuilding.
Click to expand...

Hawthorn are playing kids, we are just avoiding throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are regularly playing 3-4 very inexperienced players every week except week 1. This week we are playing 5 guys with less than a full season's experience. The 'players under 50 games' stat also undersells exactly how inexperienced our sub 50 game players are. We had 4 guys with under 20 games against Geelong. There are a few more guys that will almost certainly be seeing game time later this year, but we've been restricted by injury on including them such as O'Rourke and Lovell for example. O'Rourke was probably close to best on ground for BH last week, but only played 3 quarters in his first game back, so I'd guess he'll play 4 this week, and then be up for selection the week after.



If they thought they could still compete you would play guys like Vickery and Hendersonto try to fill roles that kids arent ready for.
Click to expand...

I still think the club will try to aim for finals, so I'd guess those two will see more game time when inappropriate, even if they were left out this week (Vickery hasn't really shown the form to be included, but if there is some rain predicted we might be deciding to go in a little shorter). Getting at least one final into the young guys and giving them a taste for more finals action would be a bonus, although we need our middle-age players to start hitting some form quickly to achieve that now.

We are not going to rebuild this list in 1 year, and finishing last isn't going to help given we've sold our first rounder, so I suspect we'll carry on with a similar level of youth for the rest of the season, and allow the youth we have to see how players like Hodge and Burgoyne get things done. I think the club needs to have a 5 year view at the moment, which will likely include some early picks in 2018-2019 when we fully bottom out after all of Hodge/Burgoyne/Gibson have departed. We've already added 2 very good players with what we gave up this year, which takes some of the pressure off getting every pick right going forward, and we've got those guys for hopefully the next 8+ years.
 
hk89 said:
I'm unclear what point you are trying to put forward here. Is it that we still are not playing enough kids, or that we misread what we could achieve at the start of the year and have only just started playing kids? Or simply that compared to Sydney who've been forced to play kids we are not playing kids?

I'd be very surprised if Sydney don't finish above us this year. Once their players return from injury, the kids will be shelved for most of the year. It looks to me like we've been giving the kids a go since the round 1 loss. Perhaps not compared to what Sydney have been forced into, but certainly more than we had last year. I'd guess we really wanted to win round 1, and knew the emotional factor with the Essendon players returning from drug bans would make for an intense battle (which it was). For that reason they seemed to have taken a very conservative approach with picking the round 1 team. This was also partly due to the introduction of 4 new players (new to the club, not AFL) into the mix, which reduced the available slots for untried players. After round 1 we've played a lot of players that have been largely Box Hill players in the past. For round 2 we brought in Stewart, Miles and Burton and left out Shoey, Duryea and Hartung. This was on top of a team that still had 4 players playing their second game for Hawthorn (Vickery, JOM, Mitchell, Henderson). So there were at least 7 guys that had almost never played with their teammates. That is a lot when you have a very role based gameplan like Hawthorn does.

Round 3 saw Miles and Burton hold their spots, and Brand came in to replace Stewart, so we stuck with a similar mix of 3 inexperienced players on top of the 4 Hawthorn newcomers. O'Brien, Sicily, Hardwick (and Hartung) were given a go against Geelong at the expense of Miles, Vickery, Whitecross and JOM (Injury). So that was Burton, Brand, Hardwick, O'Brien (and to a lesser extent Sicily and Hartung) given a go (on top of Mitchell and Henderson who are still learning the game plan).

Ok, so we got completely smashed twice in a row after some ok signs early against Adelaide (notably JOM was missing from the midfield for much of the game against GC and all of the cats game - we'll probably look a good deal better with him back in), but that is partly a reflection of the number of players in the group now who have very little experience with the gameplan. We'd probably have avoided the drubbings by leaving players like Shoey, Duryea, and Whitecross in the team, but at the expense of development , and most likely little difference to where the 4 points went.



That is my point. We don't want to 'Watts' our young guys by extracting our leaders from the team. Furthermore we don't want to drop our next rung of leaders because they'll hopefully be the main on field leaders as early as next year once Hodge/Burgyone/Gibson move on. Some of these guys are not in their best form, but players like Shiels, Rioli, Smith, Gunston, Breust etc need to be learning to stand up. Once you rule out removing those players, there are only so many development spots available.



Hawthorn are playing kids, we are just avoiding throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are regularly playing 3-4 very inexperienced players every week except week 1. This week we are playing 5 guys with less than a full season's experience. The 'players under 50 games' stat also undersells exactly how inexperienced our sub 50 game players are. We had 4 guys with under 20 games against Geelong. There are a few more guys that will almost certainly be seeing game time later this year, but we've been restricted by injury on including them such as O'Rourke and Lovell for example. O'Rourke was probably close to best on ground for BH last week, but only played 3 quarters in his first game back, so I'd guess he'll play 4 this week, and then be up for selection the week after.





I still think the club will try to aim for finals, so I'd guess those two will see more game time when inappropriate, even if they were left out this week (Vickery hasn't really shown the form to be included, but if there is some rain predicted we might be deciding to go in a little shorter). Getting at least one final into the young guys and giving them a taste for more finals action would be a bonus, although we need our middle-age players to start hitting some form quickly to achieve that now.

We are not going to rebuild this list in 1 year, and finishing last isn't going to help given we've sold our first rounder, so I suspect we'll carry on with a similar level of youth for the rest of the season, and allow the youth we have to see how players like Hodge and Burgoyne get things done. I think the club needs to have a 5 year view at the moment, which will likely include some early picks in 2018-2019 when we fully bottom out after all of Hodge/Burgoyne/Gibson have departed. We've already added 2 very good players with what we gave up this year, which takes some of the pressure off getting every pick right going forward, and we've got those guys for hopefully the next 8+ years.
Click to expand...

Too much sense for some people
 
hk89 said:
I'm unclear what point you are trying to put forward here. Is it that we still are not playing enough kids, or that we misread what we could achieve at the start of the year and have only just started playing kids? Or simply that compared to Sydney who've been forced to play kids we are not playing kids?.
Click to expand...
My point is Hawthorns 2016 off-season will prove to be a car crash, as they misread where the list was at. As Dunstall says, if you make decisions based on a wrong reading of where you are at...your fecked.

Clarko started the season with the same old veterans, a team primed to again challenge right now...he has too much faith in his warriors.

Trying to compare their situation to Sydney is laughable.

And now claiming they played what 4 young guys against the Cats, did you actually look at the Geelong side!?

Geelong were playing more inexperienced players - parfitt, parsons, stewart and Menogola - had played less than 10.

Cockatoo, Ruggles and Thurlow in the 20-30 game range.

Geelong and Sydney have been playing the kids over the last few years, whilst Hawthorn had been topping up with veterans to fill holes.

It was extremely successful, but the cliff has arrived!
 
If any club/supporter says they'd take/keep a first round pick ahead of 2 known quality and YOUNG players such as T Mitchell and O'Meara............well they're talking shit.

You use first round picks hoping to get players as good as these.....and most of the time you don't. We just got 2 of them who should be about for years.

Four rounds in to a season and their careers at the club and the short sighted brigade are out in force.

Humorous.
 
doppleganger said:
Hawthorn have read it wrong. Clearly not in rebuild mode, so a bottom 4 finish after giving away 1st and 2nd round draft picks is not what they would have planned.
Click to expand...

Agree. The fact that Hawthorn played 0 kids in R1 and lost and then played a few and got belted and are now playing more, illustrates mireading the tea leaves and a plan gone wrong.
 
Fetnarr said:
Here's a question for you though. Keeping in mind the state of each of our lists, if Hawthorn were to finish bottom 4, and Sydney were to miss the finals and finish between 9th and 12th which team has had the biggest failure
Click to expand...
Sydney by a country mile. The Swans current list is in better shape than the Hawks. You're near full strength and getting pummelled, the Swans have been at 2/3 strength and still looked competitive.

If you tank this year you get nothing out of it (no early draft picks), if the Swans do they get another kid high in the draft
 
MinerBoy said:
If any club/supporter says they'd take/keep a first round pick ahead of 2 known quality and YOUNG players such as T Mitchell and O'Meara............well they're talking shit.

You use first round picks hoping to get players as good as these.....and most of the time you don't. We just got 2 of them who should be about for years.

Four rounds in to a season and their careers at the club and the short sighted brigade are out in force.

Humorous.
Click to expand...

If any club/supporter says they'd take/keep a first round pick ahead of 2 known quality and YOUNG players such as T Mitchell and O'Meara............well they're talking shit.
Click to expand...


Talent-wise O'Meara is somewhat of a 'known quantity' based on his couple of years at the Suns, I'll grant you that.

However it is definitely unclear whether his body will hold up to the rigours of professional sport in the following seasons so regardless of how good O'Meara turns out to be it won't matter one bit if he can't get on the park.
 
doppleganger said:
My point is Hawthorns 2016 off-season will prove to be a car crash, as they misread where the list was at. As Dunstall says, if you make decisions based on a wrong reading of where you are at...your fecked.

Clarko started the season with the same old veterans, a team primed to again challenge right now...he has too much faith in his warriors.

Trying to compare their situation to Sydney is laughable.

And now claiming they played what 4 young guys against the Cats, did you actually look at the Geelong side!?

Geelong were playing more inexperienced players - parfitt, parsons, stewart and Menogola - had played less than 10.

Cockatoo, Ruggles and Thurlow in the 20-30 game range.

Geelong and Sydney have been playing the kids over the last few years, whilst Hawthorn had been topping up with veterans to fill holes.

It was extremely successful, but the cliff has arrived!
Click to expand...

Mate it's still just your opinion. Not what will cast iron 100% happen
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hawthorn FC worst nightmare the 2017 Draft

Similar threads

Cleansweep17
  • Poll
Worst AFL ground?
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
3K
BF Tiger
BF Tiger
BigVic
What was the worst AFL Finals series ever?
2
Replies
25
Views
867
BigVic
BigVic
D
The rankings (from best to worst) of the 128 VFL/AFL premiership teams.
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
3K
Meteoric Rise
Meteoric Rise
G
  • Poll
Does Geelong have the worst midfield in the AFL?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
243
Views
8K
Cleansweep17
Cleansweep17
Franko Armani
Richmond FC 2024 mass exodus
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
4K
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
Cleric
How did the draft work in the 1980s?
Replies
6
Views
338
Billy ray
Billy ray
BrodeeKF
Injury Worst/most gruesome injury you've seen
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Robroy22
Robroy22

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top