Maybe the Hawks wont do so great!!

[Crow-mosone]

Some of the ponits make on this thread have been worth noting, but there's one very obvious point yet to be made - the attitude of the coaching staff at the club(s) to which these 2000 and 2002 top 30 players were drafted.

It's been made crystal clear by Clarkson & Co that they're emphasising youth and blooding almost all of their draftees from the get-go. If I were an U18 player taken in the top 30, I'd be happy to go to Hawthorn because it's the club where I have the most realistic chance of getting senior games early. Now, granted, I probably won't be playing in a finals side in the first two years, but neither would most of the top selections who go to the really strong clubs, as it's harder to get a senior game.

In my opinion, a lot of those players listed in the top 30 of 2000 and 2002 went to clubs who already had established their senior core, and they may've got a game or two in the first couple of years, but not many more. Hawthorn played Roughead, Franklin, Lewis all year, and played Young, Thurgood, Miller, Little, Boyle and Brennan selectively.

Chances are that the top 3 players drafted to hawthorn this coming draft will get good exposure, and if they cut it, then they will be rated far above their peers even after one season simply because they were given an opportunity (in a lower ranked side) to show what they were capable of, and to develop quickly.

You may be surprised at how some young players can prosper in the right environment if given a chance.

you could be right, increased exposure might help some - but in the past it has certainly hurt others. Depends on the individual.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Who knows who we would have picked-up with the picks (presumably we wouldn't have followed the set order) and how the players would have come on in that environment.

well if you look at the whole draft list it's pretty clear that juggling the order a bit would not have made the slightest difference, you'd need hindsight to navigate that pool of donkeys.

What you guys have to accept that some of these donkeys were just as highly rated in their day, guys were falling over Des Headland, Josh Fraser had been tracked in the national press since he was about 15; Fiora was a can't miss prospect, Goddard was obviously a champion in the making etc etc. Not forgetting the great Murray Vance

the names change, and so does the quality (!!), but every year the hype stays the same or if possible gets bigger.

 

[cs61]

yeah you're right you have to be in to win it. But if you look at the classes above, it is plain that their isn't enough good players in every year. The fact of the matter is, that in average years, there is a real shortage of meaningful players.

If you refer to the 02 class above, really you are being kind to a couple of them. Goddard and Brennan have been major disappointments, wells has talent but is a cameo guy, Salopek - pfft, schammer is a nice player.
so that's really 2 guys in the first 13 picks!!!!

2002 is not applicable to this draft. It does not mean the same things are going to happen again. Drafting is becoming more and more accurate, and recruiters and becoming better each year of nailing who they want.

There might be no Deledio's or Franklin's in this draft, but I know there will be good players, its our job the select the right ones.

You are making out that Hawthorn are expecting to get 5 superstars from this draft..... we are most certainly not. We have a good list of young players already, we are looking to add to that list, by getting another good player or two.

We aren't banking our entire future on this one draft, but we did put ourselves into a position where we can receive the best talent we possibly can. We already have a good list of youngsters developing, adding to that is our goal, not starting from scratch, it looks like we are in a situation where we can do just that.

3,6,14,18,22 Travis Tuck (father/son)... There are no guarantees ever in drafting, however I would think it would be more likely that Hawtorn get 2 players who are of good standard , perhaps one of really good standard, than the chances of all of those picks turning out to be duds.

 

[Crow-mosone]

2002 is not applicable to this draft. It does not mean the same things are going to happen again. Drafting is becoming more and more accurate, and recruiters and becoming better each year of nailing who they want.

rubbish. drafting is not getting better and better, it's been a similar standard for a number of years now. And yes, 2002 does matter, and so do all the other similarly rated years. Why? this is the bit you guys don't want to hear, a weak draft crop yields less good players. fact. 2005 is a similarly rated year to 2002, and thus makes a fair proxy before the event.
The reason you don't like it being used, is because you want to beleive something else.

The point of this thread is essentially not all drafts and draft picks are created equal, and until the last few days I have never heard anyone question this.

If you want to be generous and compare this draft to 2000, a notoriously even draft - you can see there that top 10 picks are still not all you want them to be. there is talent there, but higher picks have not necessarily helped.

 

[Crow-mosone]

There might be no Deledio's or Franklin's in this draft, but I know there will be good players, its our job the select the right ones.

yeah, and if you paying attention you'd acknowledge that this task is infinitely more difficult, and in turn less likely in poor years.

You are making out that Hawthorn are expecting to get 5 superstars from this draft.....

really? given the way you lot are carrying on I contend you most certainly are behaving as if you expect just that.

we are most certainly not. We have a good list of young players already, we are looking to add to that list, by getting another good player or two.

We aren't banking our entire future on this one draft, but we did put ourselves into a position where we can receive the best talent we possibly can. We already have a good list of youngsters developing, adding to that is our goal, not starting from scratch, it looks like we are in a situation where we can do just that.

that's probably fair, but maybe you are on the wrong thread then? the point of this thread, not started by me, is that you're right you might get a good player or two; and you're probably going to need all those picks to find them.

What i would question, and I still question my clubs view on this, is that if the strike out rate is higher this year, and it is certainly expected to be that - what is the cost to the club of finding those 1 or 2 meaningful players in this class? it's not just picks, it's a batch of guys, being paid a little more than they're worth because of their draft positions, a few egos for same reason, and a lot of wasted coaching effort and disruption. There are added pressures from the media, supporters to the coaching staff why so so and isn't playing when he was a top 5 pick etc.

It's like any market, why go long when it looks like your are going to have to work harder to unearth the gold?

3,6,14,18,22 Travis Tuck (father/son)... There are no guarantees ever in drafting, however I would think it would be more likely that Hawtorn get 2 players who are of good standard , perhaps one of really good standard, than the chances of all of those picks turning out to be duds.

again I agree, but i see 6 roster spots taken, and as I said a lot of costs involved in finding them. I made the point on my boards, that the best decision my club made in 2002 was to trade out of the draft. Now, in a similar situation we have taken our strongest ever draft position in what is being called potentially the worst club in memory - maybe it will work out, but I don't like the odds or the environment to be suddenly doubling down. Which is what Hawthorn is doing as well.

in a weaker draft, you have much higher risks of going bust, and you have to work harder to find the gems if they are they there at all.

 

[Philhawk]

really? given the way you lot are carrying on I contend you most certainly are behaving as if you expect just that.

noone has been going on about that , people have accused Hawks supporters of doing that just when we are merely excited at the prospect of recruiting 5 good youngsters ...

 

[DynamoUltra]

I rather hold onto the fact we have picks 3, 6, 14, 18, 22 and will most likely draft Travis Tuck than hold onto players like Beaumont, Holland, Scott, Greene, Nixon, Ball, Ries etc who can't kick, don't get a game and have no future. At least these draft picks have a future.

 

[OneEyedHawk]

I rather hold onto the fact we have picks 3, 6, 14, 18, 22 and will most likely draft Travis Tuck than hold onto players like Beaumont, Holland, Scott, Greene, Nixon, Ball, Ries etc who can't kick, don't get a game and have no future. At least these draft picks have a future.

Exactly.
And it's not as though we have sold our soul to get these picks. We got 2 for Johnny Hay, a bloke who hasn't had a kick since 2001 and wanted to go. The rest we received as a result of where we placed on the ladder.

 

[Crow-mosone]

noone has been going on about that , people have accused Hawks supporters of doing that just when we are merely excited at the prospect of recruiting 5 good youngsters ...

Fair enough

 

[cs61]

If you want to be generous and compare this draft to 2000, a notoriously even draft - you can see there that top 10 picks are still not all you want them to be. there is talent there, but higher picks have not necessarily helped.

Goddard, Wells, Jared Brennan, Salopek, Laycock, Schammer, Selwood, Rivers

Those are picks in the top 26 of 2002...... if hawthorn got Wells, Schammer, Selwood and Rivers.... you'd say that is a great result.. i'd take that every time, we're not after Judd, Pavlich, Dal Santo type combinations... Identifying the players is a tough one. But we are in a strong position to take the best available, and not on a needs basis.


In response to saying 'taking up 6 valuable spots on the list".... from who? Beaumont? Holland? Greene? Ball?..... we haven't got any depth, we are trying to add some quality. High draft picks give you a good chance to do that in any draft. You don't get the superstars like Ball, Judd, Riewoldt, etc. but that doesn't mean you can have a good crack at getting some good players to your list.

 

[Riffmeister]

Dear Crow mosone,
if you think the ability to identify talent has not improved since 2002 ,you are seriously deluded. Jordan Lewis was not a highly rated player last year, yet we took him with pick 7. We got laughed at when we took Roughie ahead of Tambling. The odds of getting players with the requisite talent for our club is a lot higher with 5 picks in the first 22. Having watched a few of the more highly rated players in this years draft ( The East Fremantle boys mainly) , there is definately the talent around, at the top end of the draft, to make an impact. There are also many talented 19-21 year old players in both the WAFL and SANFL. Clubs take their player scouting very seriously and it becomes more professional every year , you just have to look at the draft camp testing and state screenings for evidence of this. I'm sure if your beloved team was in our position you would be crowing about it.

Cheers.

 

[Flukey!]

You don't get the superstars like Ball, Judd, Riewoldt, etc. but that doesn't mean you can have a good crack at getting some good players to your list.

This is a very good point. What we need is just some good, solid, ordinary footballers to further compliment some of the very good young talent we have. The earlier our picks, the better our chances.

We need the next Collins, Jenke, Graham, Morrissey, Dear, Pritchard etc who were never No 1 draft picks but all had great careers at the HFC.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Dear Crow mosone,
if you think the ability to identify talent has not improved since 2002 ,you are seriously deluded. Jordan Lewis was not a highly rated player last year, yet we took him with pick 7. We got laughed at when we took Roughie ahead of Tambling. The odds of getting players with the requisite talent for our club is a lot higher with 5 picks in the first 22. Having watched a few of the more highly rated players in this years draft ( The East Fremantle boys mainly) , there is definately the talent around, at the top end of the draft, to make an impact. There are also many talented 19-21 year old players in both the WAFL and SANFL. Clubs take their player scouting very seriously and it becomes more professional every year , you just have to look at the draft camp testing and state screenings for evidence of this. I'm sure if your beloved team was in our position you would be crowing about it.

Cheers.

Sorry mate, but you are a fool, and one who is likely still in school? no?
It is beyound ludicrous to suggest that drafting has come on in leaps and bounds since 2002. what everyone suddenly got smarter over TWO DRAFTS??? 2003 and 2004? please.

geez look at the NFL they still have no.1 pick QB busts, and their draft combines are a lot more rigorous than our draft camp. but hey we've learnt all the answers in 2 years.

As for Jordan Lewis if he was so unrated you wouldn't have needed to pick him with no.7 you could have taken your time and strolled around to get him with pick 60 or something. oh wait, hang on a minute, maybe he was rated pretty highly - could that be it?

Oddly enough, you don't seem to want to tackle the idea that some of the great draft busts of recent times were as highly rated as this years lot. From what I can work out in your post you think the draft camp has eliminated this, except that it is not the athleticism of these guys that let them down. What do you think has changed that would have identified Goddard as not no.1 worthy?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Goddard, Wells, Jared Brennan, Salopek, Laycock, Schammer, Selwood, Rivers

Those are picks in the top 26 of 2002......

Sure, and frankly that is 8 guys, and a few of them are seriously disappointing. if this what you have out of 26? thanks for arguing my point.

if hawthorn got Wells, Schammer, Selwood and Rivers.... you'd say that is a great result.. i'd take that every time, we're not after Judd, Pavlich, Dal Santo type combinations... Identifying the players is a tough one. But we are in a strong position to take the best available, and not on a needs basis.

if in hindsight, that is the best you got, again pretty poor. being able to choose after the event only gets you that, what do you expect in a live environment?

In response to saying 'taking up 6 valuable spots on the list".... from who? Beaumont? Holland? Greene? Ball?..... we haven't got any depth, we are trying to add some quality. High draft picks give you a good chance to do that in any draft. You don't get the superstars like Ball, Judd, Riewoldt, etc. but that doesn't mean you can have a good crack at getting some good players to your list.

High draft picks increase your odds, and the quality of the draft pool has as much if not more to do with your odds. It has been clearly shown that a top 10 pick in an average draft is not good odds. I expect you'll get 1 or 2 decent guys, and that probably 3 of your first 5 picks will flame.
they're the odds in comparable classes, guessing and hoping, crossing your fingers, won't change that. Maybe it will turn out to be a much better class than advertised, maybe...

 

[Riffmeister]

Crowmo,
I can't see where I have stated that things have come on in leaps and bounds but obviously if you say so it must be true.
Next you are going to tell me that the game hasn't changed either. Those two circles in the middle have always been there haven't they!!!.Midfield rotation, been around for centuries!!!. This requires a different kind of draft strategy. The interview and character assessments done by the clubs have become more thorough as they seek to eliminate the risk of recruiting guys who are maybe not mentally tough enough ie. Goddard 3 years ago. 3 years believe it or not is a long time in footy. Obviously progress and change are concepts that may be foreign to you. On Lewis, he was rated to go at around pick 20, so our recruiting guys saw something they liked and went for him at 7. Wonder if it was an improvement in talent identification?
Just for interests sake. How many of the players available for this years draft have you seen play a game of football , besides the under 18 championships?

Your point on the NFL is a good one. They do scrutinise everything to the nth degree and have the odd dud or two. They also are generally one dimensional players who are specialists in one facet of the game, get labelled as superstars , have multi million dollar contracts and a lot of trouble keeping ego's in check. I mean they are American after all.

I know drafting is a risky business , but to come along and say this is a weak draft and shooting down every hawk supporter who shows optimism towards the addition of more young talent is asking for a written tirade of abuse. And comparing 2 completely different sets of players from 3 years apart is meaningless.

 

[Flukey!]

Crowmo,

I know drafting is a risky business , but to come along and say this is a weak draft and shooting down every hawk supporter who shows optimism towards the addition of more young talent is asking for a written tirade of abuse. And comparing 2 completely different sets of players from 3 years apart is meaningless.

Well said.

 

[Riffmeister]

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

The number 2 and number 9 picks in the crap draft of 2002. For those who's arguments are based on this year being a crap draft so the Hawks are doomed theory.

 

[worthy]

no.1 worthy

Thanks, you're too kind.

 

[cs61]

Sure, and frankly that is 8 guys, and a few of them are seriously disappointing. if this what you have out of 26? thanks for arguing my point.

if in hindsight, that is the best you got, again pretty poor. being able to choose after the event only gets you that, what do you expect in a live environment?

High draft picks increase your odds, and the quality of the draft pool has as much if not more to do with your odds. It has been clearly shown that a top 10 pick in an average draft is not good odds. I expect you'll get 1 or 2 decent guys, and that probably 3 of your first 5 picks will flame.
they're the odds in comparable classes, guessing and hoping, crossing your fingers, won't change that. Maybe it will turn out to be a much better class than advertised, maybe...

I am proving my point, not yours.

If Hawthorn got Wells, Schammer, Rivers, I wouldn't say that is pretty poor, I would say that is exactly the type of players we are trying to add to the list, some pace, some skill, some talent... not superstars, but there is every chance with the picks we've got to get players like that, if not better.

Its the depth and quality that we are trying to change. I think we are in a good position to do that. You haven't told me any reason to think otherwise.

You would say you'd expect 3 out of our 5 (its actually 6 when you consider we have Travis Tuck father son) to not make it.... I would think that our picks 3 and 6 are a very good chance to at least make it, and be good players or at least starting 18 players, and at least one of our picks 14, 18, 22, and travis tuck to be players. Perhaps I am looking at it from a slightly optimistic view, but I still think its realistic that could happen, and that its possible we could can do better or worse than that as well.

We are in a position to do what we require to do, and that is all, get some quality to our list. Again, you haven't said anything to make me think otherwise.

 

[chicky17]

Yeah Im jealous i would much prefer to finish on the bottom of the ladder than play finals your so lucky!!

How many points did Port Adelaide flog you by in the elimination final again?
and it was great to see so many North (i mean Kangaroo) supporters at the game!

 

[Crow-mosone]

Crowmo,
I can't see where I have stated that things have come on in leaps and bounds but obviously if you say so it must be true.

let's start with:

Dear Crow mosone,
if you think the ability to identify talent has not improved since 2002 ,you are seriously deluded.

you can't see? maybe you need glasses champ.

Next you are going to tell me that the game hasn't changed either.

since 2002?

Those two circles in the middle have always been there haven't they!!!.Midfield rotation, been around for centuries!!!. This requires a different kind of draft strategy. The interview and character assessments done by the clubs have become more thorough as they seek to eliminate the risk of recruiting guys who are maybe not mentally tough enough ie. Goddard 3 years ago. 3 years believe it or not is a long time in footy.

I thought you started out by saying you hadn't said this?
btw it's 2 years, this year hasn't played out yet.

Obviously progress and change are concepts that may be foreign to you. On Lewis, he was rated to go at around pick 20, so our recruiting guys saw something they liked and went for him at 7.

he was rated at 20 was he?, I saw that he was picked at no.7;
one part of the above is fact, one part is fantasy and speculation. do you know which part?

Your point on the NFL is a good one. They do scrutinise everything to the nth degree and have the odd dud or two. They also are generally one dimensional players who are specialists in one facet of the game, get labelled as superstars , have multi million dollar contracts and a lot of trouble keeping ego's in check. I mean they are American after all.

not sure anything you have said above is correct, you have made it all up.

nor do you seem to see how this might relate to the magical draft camp, or how many of the more feted draft bombs of recent times didn't fail for athletic reasons. So if these athletes have not failed because of incorrect assessments of their athletic abilities, what particular element are you now suggesting has come on in leaps and bounds in the last couple of years? do you think the more advanced NFL would be interested?

I know drafting is a risky business

do you?

but to come along and say this is a weak draft and shooting down every hawk supporter who shows optimism towards the addition of more young talent is asking for a written tirade of abuse.

where? stop making things up. Is reading optional in high school these days?

And comparing 2 completely different sets of players from 3 years apart is meaningless.

as individuals it's meaningless, as a group it is entirely valid.
Google normal distribution and central limit theorum.

 

[Crow-mosone]

I am proving my point, not yours.

what you set out to do, and what you actually do are not always the same thing.

If Hawthorn got Wells, Schammer, Rivers, I wouldn't say that is pretty poor, I would say that is exactly the type of players we are trying to add to the list, some pace, some skill, some talent... not superstars, but there is every chance with the picks we've got to get players like that, if not better.

whoosh, straight over your soft little head. look up in the sky, can you the point? If going back after the event, with the benefit of hindsight, only got you that - then it's poor. If you KNEW exactly how good, or not good every player was - and that's all you got... ( I could point that with pick 3, you couldn't have had wells, but doesn't really change much)
But the fact is, you don't know, you don't get a mullighan after the event, so you have to take your chances on the 22/23 players out of 26 in your example who weren't much chop.

Its the depth and quality that we are trying to change. I think we are in a good position to do that. You haven't told me any reason to think otherwise.

I am pretty sure on that point I have broadly agreed.

you will get some stuff in, and you will probably find 1 or 2 pretty decent players, and 3 or so players who won't be on your list in 5 years. Basic draft odds prove that, in a poor year it underlines that.

You would say you'd expect 3 out of our 5 (its actually 6 when you consider we have Travis Tuck father son) to not make it.... I would think that our picks 3 and 6 are a very good chance to at least make it, and be good players or at least starting 18 players, and at least one of our picks 14, 18, 22, and travis tuck to be players. Perhaps I am looking at it from a slightly optimistic view, but I still think its realistic that could happen, and that its possible we could can do better or worse than that as well.

Bingo, finally you got it. If you can take off the rose coloured glasses you can see looking at historical FACT, that you will need a good deal of luck.
Maybe you will get lucky, and maybe every one else will be unlucky at the same time. It could happen...

We are in a position to do what we require to do, and that is all, get some quality to our list. Again, you haven't said anything to make me think otherwise.

Nor could anyone, you don't want to think otherwise. Regardless of the arguments put in front of you, it's all about what you want to think.

But lastly, I will give you something to chew over. the best draft class of recent times, and there were no guarantees there either

1 Luke Hodge Hawthorn
2 Luke Ball Saint Kilda
3 Chris Judd West Coast
4 Graham Polak Fremantle
5 Xavier Clarke Saint Kilda
6 Ashley Sampi West Coast
7 David Hale Kangaroos
8 James Bartel Geelong
9 Luke Molan Melbourne
10 Sam Power Western Bulldogs
11 Richard Cole Collingwood
12 Brent Reilly Adelaide
13 Nick Dal Santo Saint Kilda
14 Ashley Watson Kangaroos
15 Barry Brooks Port Adelaide
16 Rick Ladson Hawthorn
17 James Kelly Geelong
18 Shane Harvey Essendon
19 James Gram Brisbane
20 Daniel Elstone Hawthorn
21 Matthew Maguire Saint Kilda
22 Mark Seaby West Coast

 

[Flukey!]

Very talented at quoting people Cromo
Its clear your opinion is the correct one....

 

[Riffmeister]

OMG Crowmo.

Firstly There have been 3 years since the 2002 draft. The players have been available to play in the 2003 , 2004 and 2005 seasons. Looks like 3 years to me but you are probably right.
The game changes every year. The new centre circles , rule interpretations , stoppage strategies. Stop me if it these concepts are damaging your synapses.
A brief NFL lesson for you. Each team is comprised of 3 seperate teams . Offense, Defense and Special Teams (kicking/Kick return). Players are drafted for their skill in one position whether it be Quarterback, Running Back, Wide Receiver, Tight End, Offensive Line, Defensive Line, Linebacker, Defensive Back, Punter , Kicker. Hence the one dimensional/one facet comment. NFL is a lot more specialised.
Don't know if I can be bothered anymore because you will turn things around and totally misinterpret them anyway. So have a good life.


PS: Still couldn't see anywhere where I have stated things have come along in leaps and bounds.