Maybe the Hawks wont do so great!!

[moistie]

What I would like to know, is when Hawthorn's Youth Policy will end? Personally, I dont think they will do much for a few years, which isnt a bad thing if it turns around and they start competeing for the flag, But if they keep getting youngies for a few more years, well how do you get a real balance of players with Experience (games wise and success wise)?

Given that we've got Crawf, Spida, Croad, Vandenberg and Smith (who have all been in teams that have gone deep into the finals) and in two years time Hodge, Mitchell, Bateman, Clarke and the like will be nearing 100 games, I don't see it as a problem.

 

[kangaroo19]

Roughead, Franklin, Lewis, Hodge, Mitchell, Brown, Miller and Thurgood. I think everyone knows who has the better future.

Also, maybe you're getting defensive because you're ********ed off you don't have a draft pick until 28 and have recruited hacks like Hay, Rawlings and Powell (?). Maybe your future doesn't look so bright because you'll have to be replacing Archer, Rocca, Rawlings, Simpson, etc.

Powell was traded for pick 61, after 28 mate that trade had no bearing on the fact we have no pick until 28.

 

[DynamoUltra]

Powell was traded for pick 61, after 28 mate that trade had no bearing on the fact we have no pick until 28.

That was irrelevant to the fact you don't have a pick until 28. The point was you're getting hacks who have/would struggle getting games in other teams for picks which could be used to help ensure a successful future. This draft is a waste to North who may be lucky to pluck a 50 gamer out after pick 28. What implications does this have? For starters, every year there is a minimum 3 player turnover. Now I believe you've already lost Motlop, but you have to find at least anoth two to delist - which shouldn't be hard. However, the players you have recruited today are not long term replacements for those delisted. In 2, 3 or 4 years you'll have problems with some of your prime players retiring, and even those you've recruited today, forcing you to make changes. Now if you don't have anyone coming through to replace the duds you are going to delist next year and the year after, you're going to be in a tricky where stars will be retiring and you'll be forced to hang onto your duds because you will have no one to replace them. Not having a pick before 28 is ludacris, just look at Hawthorn in the 2003 draft (earliest pick = 25). You don't have to be a genius to see where that got us.

 

[Unity-28]

That was irrelevant to the fact you don't have a pick until 28. The point was you're getting hacks who have/would struggle getting games in other teams for picks which could be used to help ensure a successful future. This draft is a waste to North who may be lucky to pluck a 50 gamer out after pick 28. What implications does this have? For starters, every year there is a minimum 3 player turnover. Now I believe you've already lost Motlop, but you have to find at least anoth two to delist - which shouldn't be hard. However, the players you have recruited today are not long term replacements for those delisted. In 2, 3 or 4 years you'll have problems with some of your prime players retiring, and even those you've recruited today, forcing you to make changes. Now if you don't have anyone coming through to replace the duds you are going to delist next year and the year after, you're going to be in a tricky where stars will be retiring and you'll be forced to hang onto your duds because you will have no one to replace them. Not having a pick before 28 is ludacris, just look at Hawthorn in the 2003 draft (earliest pick = 25). You don't have to be a genius to see where that got us.

Mate we have delisted 3 already Kris shore, Shane Harvey and Ashley Watson, and along with Motlop, thats 4 down.....We have Brought in a hell of a lot of young kids in the past 3 years, and we had a real bad run with injuries this year, for he youngies that would otherwise had a few games under their belts (perry, Urch, grima, mcIntosh and so on) Todays pick ups you will find are going to be there to Keep things going while young guys learn with a few experienced players around them. I suppose we will see in a few years! Dont forget your clubs "youth" policy almost lost you your two best players in the trade time Crawf and Spida, and although they havent gone, it will be interesting to see how they perform next year.

 

[DynamoUltra]

Point of order, the Crawford trade was rumour, as it has been for the last 4 years. We're used to that. Spider, on the other hand, is quite disappointing, but I guess you need to weed out all those players who don't want to be there and get players that do.

 

[Wizz]

I'd like to say that rb does not represent me.

ha ha ha yeah what is he on about seems like he is fighting a losing battle here

 

[Wizz]

Ok captain inverted """""""" maybe you will get one or two players out of it it will take more than that to get you off the bottom of the ladder.

Want young talent how about
Hale, Jones, Wells, Trotter, Harris, Smith, Perry, McIntosh, Firrito

ha ha ha talent come on yeah some of them are good players but they arent going to win you a premiership most of them a fringe players anyway.

 

[Crow-mosone]

funny you should mention your "recruitment expert" buddies , most "experts" as you put it say this is an even draft , FYI hawks have 3,6,14,18,22,36 ( used for Travis Tuck ) - not a bad haul for us this year ....

if you haven't bothered to find anything out about common opinion on this years draft crop, don't be a clown and make stupid comments.

Every man and their dog related to recruitment has stated, publicly, that this years draft crop is looking poor.

 

[arupist]

Every man and their dog related to recruitment has stated, publicly, that this years draft crop is looking poor.

This may be so, but every man and his dog also states that the top 6 or 7 are pretty good and the rest being 'even' till about pick 30.

Carlton, Coll, Hawthorn each have 2 picks in the top 6, virtually cleaning out the cupboard before the rest get a look in.

Hawthorn then have 14, 18, 22 to try to find a star or two amongst the rest.

Even in the 2002 dog-draft, there are 10 players that most clubs would like have on their list. If this year produces only 10, there is a pretty good chance that Hawthorn will get 3 of them.

Puts Hawthorn in a pretty good position, this year, don't you think?

 

[OnlyOneShaneCrawford]

Haha your just jealous you got our 2001 Spine, 5 years later.

 

[CyberKev]

if you haven't bothered to find anything out about common opinion on this years draft crop, don't be a clown and make stupid comments.

That's good advice.

You really should be taking it.

 

[mattyc2422]

if you haven't bothered to find anything out about common opinion on this years draft crop, don't be a clown and make stupid comments.

Every man and their dog related to recruitment has stated, publicly, that this years draft crop is looking poor.

We wouldn't have chased picks if we didn't want to. In other words, those in charge must have some idea of what we want and what we can get in picks 14 and 18 and deemed it worth the risk.

 

[demoniac]

The 2002 draft?

Hmmm there has been all of 3 completed seasons since it was held.

Oh. posted by a Kanga's fan I see, now I understand. Trying to come up with a rational that justifys the trades for Nathan Thompson and Jon Hay.

North are the new Carltoon. Give em 2 years and Laidley'll be gone and they'll be doing a Hawthorn comprehensive rebuild.

 

[Johnson#26]

There were some ok players who went late in the draft. 2002 was weak, this is meant to be very average, but, who knows?

 

[cosby]

there is a difference between 'very average' and 'even'.
like many have said before me, we have more darts to throw and as such have a much higher chance of getting a bullseye. bring on the draft.

 

[arupist]

We wouldn't have chased picks if we didn't want to. In other words, those in charge must have some idea of what we want and what we can get in picks 14 and 18 and deemed it worth the risk.

Matty, there is always the possibility that those in charge said to themselves "We have to get rid of Hay, but we will play it hard on the negotiations and see if we can get 2 first round picks for him because the strength of the draft is not that deep and there is no suitable player up for trade." Had the trade deen completed earlier, the Hawks may have been in a better position to have a tilt at Ferguson or another player.

 

[jackson_rules]

good 15 of those players have made it or shown enough potential to possibly kick on next season

 

[Crow-mosone]

This may be so, but every man and his dog also states that the top 6 or 7 are pretty good and the rest being 'even' till about pick 30.

Carlton, Coll, Hawthorn each have 2 picks in the top 6, virtually cleaning out the cupboard before the rest get a look in.

Hawthorn then have 14, 18, 22 to try to find a star or two amongst the rest.

Even in the 2002 dog-draft, there are 10 players that most clubs would like have on their list. If this year produces only 10, there is a pretty good chance that Hawthorn will get 3 of them.

Puts Hawthorn in a pretty good position, this year, don't you think?

i think the point has been well made that if the crop is as bad as advertised, then the chances are not good. compare them with 2002 and this has been well demonstrated.

 

[Crow-mosone]

That's good advice.

You really should be taking it.

oh I am sorry, what part did you disagree with?

 

[Crow-mosone]

We wouldn't have chased picks if we didn't want to. In other words, those in charge must have some idea of what we want and what we can get in picks 14 and 18 and deemed it worth the risk.

no one said otherwise, but the point has been clearly demonstrated that this might well be a high risk proposition.

 

[Crow-mosone]

there is a difference between 'very average' and 'even'.
like many have said before me, we have more darts to throw and as such have a much higher chance of getting a bullseye. bring on the draft.

yes there is a difference, it's called PR spin before the event, and hindsight analysis after.

 

[Flukey!]

no one said otherwise, but the point has been clearly demonstrated that this might well be a high risk proposition.

And it might pay nicely

Neither you, nor I, nor any other expert on this forum will know the answer to that ? for 3-4 years.
As stated earlier, HFC will not die wondering, and nor should they.

 

[kangaroo19]

That was irrelevant to the fact you don't have a pick until 28. The point was you're getting hacks who have/would struggle getting games in other teams for picks which could be used to help ensure a successful future. This draft is a waste to North who may be lucky to pluck a 50 gamer out after pick 28. What implications does this have? For starters, every year there is a minimum 3 player turnover. Now I believe you've already lost Motlop, but you have to find at least anoth two to delist - which shouldn't be hard. However, the players you have recruited today are not long term replacements for those delisted. In 2, 3 or 4 years you'll have problems with some of your prime players retiring, and even those you've recruited today, forcing you to make changes. Now if you don't have anyone coming through to replace the duds you are going to delist next year and the year after, you're going to be in a tricky where stars will be retiring and you'll be forced to hang onto your duds because you will have no one to replace them. Not having a pick before 28 is ludacris, just look at Hawthorn in the 2003 draft (earliest pick = 25). You don't have to be a genius to see where that got us.

So what if in 3-4 years time we are left with a hole because of the players leaving. That is just the opposite to the Hawks. We see ourselves in a position to play good finals footy in the next 3 years so by then hopefully we have a premiership. Hawks will have no chance for 3-4 years but because they invested now, they will no doubt come good later on when we migh have to rebuild. Then what happens? Hawks will be topping up their list (like we are now), roos will be rebuilding (like hawks are now). It's just a general cycle about how player turnover works.

I hate it when hawks fans bag us for trying to top up when they have been eating ******** at the bottom of the ladder while we have been playing some decent, competitive footy. Too much emphasis is placed on the future, and not enough on the present.

 

[DynamoUltra]

So what if in 3-4 years time we are left with a hole because of the players leaving. That is just the opposite to the Hawks. We see ourselves in a position to play good finals footy in the next 3 years so by then hopefully we have a premiership. Hawks will have no chance for 3-4 years but because they invested now, they will no doubt come good later on when we migh have to rebuild. Then what happens? Hawks will be topping up their list (like we are now), roos will be rebuilding (like hawks are now). It's just a general cycle about how player turnover works.

I hate it when hawks fans bag us for trying to top up when they have been eating ******** at the bottom of the ladder while we have been playing some decent, competitive footy. Too much emphasis is placed on the future, and not enough on the present.

I'll state it right here, North will not win a flag for at least 7 years. You do not have the players to win one in the next 3-4 years, nor do you have the kids to help build a successful team after that.

 

[Ants]

This is clearly EXPECTED to be a weak draft, as shown by the fact that players like Watts, Richards, Cole got high picks traded for them, and that Hay went for TWO first round picks.

That said, Hawthorn have given themselves the best chance to get what talent is there, and what else were they supposed to do? There weren't any big name players to trade for, and getting rid of Hay for 2 top 20 picks, even in a weak draft, was something to jump at.