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

[Yoda_]

Right there in the bolded

Pretty self explanatory Abasi when it's in the title of the very thread pal

 

[hk89]

Laughing at the competition from 11th spot

What spot do you think we'd be in for the last 3 season if we'd not ignored the draft and poured our picks into that instead of the trades we had done? The puzzle is still a work in progress. We've also been somewhat unlucky with in-game injuries this season, coughing up 26 and 30 point leads after going two rotations down. While we could have easily been 4-1 , I don't think 11th is far off where we are at with our current holes, as I think this was an easier part of our draw, and we'll struggle to crawl higher even with some injury returns, but we'll see.

Our trading strategy has put us within 2-3 players of being a decent contender instead of sitting at the bottom for the past 3 seasons waiting for green shoots to sprout, and accumulating more green shoots while down there , and then even more green shoot horticulture time.

If sitting down at the bottom for a few years was a path to certain success then our current strategy would be silly, but plenty of sides have ****ed up bottom out rebuilds over the years. Geelong would also be hoping non-bottom out rebuilds work too given that's what they've done. Geelong are just a few more years into the process due to their last premiership being 4 years earlier than our last, so are at least a couple of years further along in transitioning the team.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Pretty self explanatory Abasi when it's in the title of the very thread pal

So you’re going to quote an edited post now?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Right there in the bolded

“Last edited 12 minutes ago”. Good one, DH.

 

[its free real estate]

So many of their key older players looked absolutely cooked this finals series. Nearly half the best 22 that played this year will be 28 and older. Their trades are good, but it doesn't change the calculus - they are an old side, AFL seasons are long, and premierships are as much about having your best team fit and available in September as they are having the most talented side.

Stand by this.

 

[Gavin Excell]

What spot do you think we'd be in for the last 3 season if we'd not ignored the draft and poured our picks into that instead of the trades we had done? The puzzle is still a work in progress. We've also been somewhat unlucky with in-game injuries this season, coughing up 26 and 30 point leads after going two rotations down. While we could have easily been 4-1 , I don't think 11th is far off where we are at with our current holes, as I think this was an easier part of our draw, and we'll struggle to crawl higher even with some injury returns, but we'll see.

Our trading strategy has put us within 2-3 players of being a decent contender instead of sitting at the bottom for the past 3 seasons waiting for green shoots to sprout, and accumulating more green shoots while down there , and then even more green shoot horticulture time.

If sitting down at the bottom for a few years was a path to certain success then our current strategy would be silly, but plenty of sides have ****** up bottom out rebuilds over the years. Geelong would also be hoping non-bottom out rebuilds work too given that's what they've done. Geelong are just a few more years into the process due to their last premiership being 4 years earlier than our last, so are at least a couple of years further along in transitioning the team.

We finally stopped squandering first and second round draft picks about 2 years ago and invested in the draft. Since then have got Parfitt, Constable and Jordan Clarke by retaining 1st and 2nd rounders

 

[Black Stripe]

There's a whole Wingard trade thread.

Fwiw Port told Wingard to explore his options and ended up getting picks 15 and 35 plus Burton. That's better than any FA compo they would've got this year.

Why did Hawthorn do it? Not sure but their fans are adamant they're getting Coniglio. Probably easier salary cap wise not to get them both in the one window.

I know what Port told Wingard but Hawthorn were the ones to put Burton on the table along with picks 15 and 35, they didn't have to especially given Burton was contracted and was reportedly devastated when told Hawthorn were trading him as he loved the club.

My point is they could have waited another 12 months to get Wingard as a free agent, his manager even admitted that if Wingard wasn't able to find a club last trade period he'd have left Port at the end of the 2019 season anyway.

Regarding your last point, Hawthorn fans were adamant they were getting Tom Lynch as a free agent last year too.

Hawthorn are only paying 600k a year for Wingard, Port would of matched that in an instant and we would still need to organise a trade

There's been a few instances already since free agency was introduced, where the club was reportedly going to match the offer and force a trade.

Most recent example being that Gold Coast were going to match Richmond's offer for Tom Lynch but elected to take the compensation pick.

 

[Burtman]

We finally stopped squandering first and second round draft picks about 2 years ago and invested in the draft. Since then have got Parfitt, Constable and Jordan Clarke by retaining 1st and 2nd rounders

So in that time you got those 3 in we’ve got O’Meara, Mitchell, worpel, wingard, Scully and scrimshaw. I’m pretty happy with how we’ve done

 

[btdg]

Interesting to look at how things could have been different had they gone a different route since 2016. We often forget that part of this strategy was moving on Hodge, Mitchell and Lewis, but that freed up the cap space and opportunities to pursue the path they have. Reversing this course of action, what could have been the other way?

Ignoring late round swaps and players picked up as FA or for later pick trades (where they probably could have got the same players anyway):

Since 2016, they have traded in:
- Tom Mitchell, Jaeger O'Meara, Jarman Impey, Tom Scully***, Chad Wingard,
*** late picks traded - could have got him anyway

Picks they have traded out and possible choices (the player picked and the next 2 players available):
2016 first round (14): Todd Marshall, Sam Powell-Pepper, Jarrod Berry
2016 second round (23): Ben Long, Brandon Parfitt, Zac Fisher
2017 first round (7): Hunter Clark, Nick Coffield, Aaron Naughton,
2017 second round (25): Liam Ryan, Brent Daniels, Sam Taylor
2017 second round received from GWS (34): Oscar Clavarino, Charlie Constable, Harrison Petty
2018 first round (15): Xavier Duursma, Liam Stocker, Riley Collier-Dawkins
2018 second round (34): Tom Joyce, Jack Bytel, Jack Ross

Players they let traded / let go who are still playing:
- Jordan Lewis (for pick 48 - on-traded as part of O'Meara deal)
- Matt Suckling (free agent - received nothing)
- Luke Hodge
- Ryan Burton

Net Effect:
Out: Mitchell, O'Meara, Wingard, Impey
In (player taken with their pick): Marshall, Long, Clark, Ryan, Clavarino, Duursma, Joyce, Hodge, Lewis, Burton
In (taking the first available midfielders/flankers to replace the types of players they traded the picks for): Powell-Pepper, Parfitt, Clark, Ryan, Constable, Duursma, Joyce

The team playing this week would likely be out: O'Meara, Wingard, Impey, and say, Howe, Scrimshaw, Morrison and Cousins and in: Burton, Hodge, Lewis, Powell-Pepper, Parfitt, Constable and Duursma

Team (comparing to the named team for this week):
b: Hardwick, Brand, Hodge
hb: Scully, Stratton, Gunston
c: Smith, Powell-Pepper, Henderson
hf: Puopolo, M. Lewis, Sicily
f: Breust, Roughead, Parfitt
Foll: McEvoy, Constable, Worpel
Bench: Burton, Shiels, Duursma, J. Lewis

Would the team be much better/worse that who is playing as a result? Hmmm. I think they've done well, particularly if O'Meara continues his rehab and Mitchell gets back to his best. They nabbed a finals berth last year that they might have missed. But I'm tempted to say that the draft picks team looks better than the team suiting up this round...

 

[hk89]

So many of their key older players looked absolutely cooked this finals series. Nearly half the best 22 that played this year will be 28 and older. Their trades are good, but it doesn't change the calculus - they are an old side, AFL seasons are long, and premierships are as much about having your best team fit and available in September as they are having the most talented side.

Stand by this.

Our average age last weekend was 25 years 5 months which was 7 months younger than Geelong. While we do have 3 best
22 30+ players out in Burgoyne, Frawley, and Stratton (with Mitchell probably being the only other in, given it is hard to say Birchall is a legitimate out now given how long it is since he's played). Burgoyne is probably the only one of those 3 a chance to retire at seasons end, so we are not about to lose Frawley/Stratton for next season. Our 30+ players had a very poor showing in our B&F. We just don't rely on them as much as we used to with players like the following making up a large portion of our core group of best players:

Mitchell 25
O'Meara 25
Gunston 27
Breust 28
Wingard 25
Scully 27
McEvoy 29
Sicily 24
Hardwick 22
Worpel 20

Our 30+ players who are clear best 22:
Burgoyne 36
Roughy 32
Smith 30
Puopolo 31
Henderson 30
Frawley 30
Stratton 30

Of those, only Henderson has been a massive contributor this year, although Frawley is super important for structure (more than Roughy at the other end)

The rest of our best 22 is arguable, but is probably something like:

Impey 23
Cousins 21
Shiels 27
Scrimshaw 20
Brand 25
(Maybe Ceglar at 28 replaces someone if we want the extra tall/ruck).

In other words our core contributors are largely under 29 (only two of them over 27). That gives us a few seasons to put the missing pieces together. The most pressing seems to be a quality tall forward to replace Roughy. Our defence is decent, and not our current problem IMO (when fit). Our midfield depth with a full team in isn't as dire as it looks with Shiels and Mitchell out. O'Meara, Mitchell, Shiels, Worpel on the inside with Scully, Smith, Henderson on the outside isn't the best going around, but more than serviceable.

Basically people's perceptions of us being an ageing list is based on the false premise that premiership stars like Burgoyne, Roughy, Smith, Stratton are still carrying the team, and that really isn't the case anymore. They still have roles to play but the load is spread across a range of sub 29 years olds now.
Age isn't our main problem (most successful teams are older than average), it is depth to cover injuries that is letting us down. Our best 22 is probably a finals team right now, but it is unrealistic to expect an above average age team to go injury free for the season, and our depth means that we nearly have to do that in order to be competitive right now.

One (ideally two) more decent recruits next year, a decent run with injury, some extra depth from developing box hill players, and some luck and we could easily go deep into finals in 2020. Of course the top 10-12 teams can probably all say the same, so we are nothing special in that department.

 

[its free real estate]

Our average age last weekend was 25 years 5 months which was 7 months younger than Geelong. While we do have 3 best
22 30+ players out in Burgoyne, Frawley, and Stratton (with Mitchell probably being the only other in, given it is hard to say Birchall is a legitimate out now given how long it is since he's played). Burgoyne is probably the only one of those 3 a chance to retire at seasons end, so we are not about to lose Frawley/Stratton for next season. Our 30+ players had a very poor showing in our B&F. We just don't rely on them as much as we used to with players like the following making up a large portion of our core group of best players:

Mitchell 25
O'Meara 25
Gunston 27
Breust 28
Wingard 25
Scully 27
McEvoy 29
Sicily 24
Hardwick 22
Worpel 20

Our 30+ players who are clear best 22:
Burgoyne 36
Roughy 32
Smith 30
Puopolo 31
Henderson 30
Frawley 30
Stratton 30

Of those, only Henderson has been a massive contributor this year, although Frawley is super important for structure (more than Roughy at the other end)

The rest of our best 22 is arguable, but is probably something like:

Impey 23
Cousins 21
Shiels 27
Scrimshaw 20
Brand 25
(Maybe Ceglar at 28 replaces someone if we want the extra tall/ruck).

In other words our core contributors are largely under 29 (only two of them over 27). That gives us a few seasons to put the missing pieces together. The most pressing seems to be a quality tall forward to replace Roughy. Our defence is decent, and not our current problem IMO (when fit). Our midfield depth with a full team in isn't as dire as it looks with Shiels and Mitchell out. O'Meara, Mitchell, Shiels, Worpel on the inside with Scully, Smith, Henderson on the outside isn't the best going around, but more than serviceable.

Basically people's perceptions of us being an ageing list is based on the false premise that premiership stars like Burgoyne, Roughy, Smith, Stratton are still carrying the team, and that really isn't the case anymore. They still have roles to play but the load is spread across a range of sub 29 years olds now.
Age isn't our main problem (most successful teams are older than average), it is depth to cover injuries that is letting us down. Our best 22 is probably a finals team right now, but it is unrealistic to expect an above average age team to go injury free for the season, and our depth means that we nearly have to do that in order to be competitive right now.

One (ideally two) more decent recruits next year, a decent run with injury, some extra depth from developing box hill players, and some luck and we could easily go deep into finals in 2020. Of course the top 10-12 teams can probably all say the same, so we are nothing special in that department.

Don’t care; you’re cooked.

 

[hk89]

We finally stopped squandering first and second round draft picks about 2 years ago and invested in the draft. Since then have got Parfitt, Constable and Jordan Clarke by retaining 1st and 2nd rounders

Yup, and they all look good, but Hawthorn has also brought in Wingard, O'Meara, Scully, Mitchell, Scrimshaw and Impey over the same period you've brought in those 3 while at the same time drafting Worpel, Lewis, and Morrison. Parfitt, Constable and Clarke are more impressive as a group than the three draft picks I've mentioned (as they should be given relative pick numbers), but our trades have overall been better quality than yours IMO (despite Rohan tearing us a new one on Monday), so offset that. Like I said, you've had 4 extra years post-last flag to get things right. Yes you squandered some picks, which probably means you are not a full 4 years ahead, I'd say more like 2 years ahead right now.

The main difference we're seeing at the moment is that you've developed more depth than we have. We didn't have good ins to replace both Frawley and Stratton on the weekend for example, so had to play the "rob Peter to pay Paul" move of Gunston to defence. O'Meara's impact is also being diminished by having to do too much heavy lifting with Mitchell and Shiels out. He's doing ok given the attention he's getting but is having trouble getting effective disposals compared to when Mitchell was in the team. The development Worpel and Cousins are getting will help our midfield depth next year, but right now our midfield depth is having to play firsts.

Judge our rebuild attempts when we get Mitchell back in the side and Scully and Wingard have both had time to gel with their new side and get match fitness and touch. Getting within 4 goals of Geelong with Mitchell, Stratton, Frawley, Shiels and Burgoyne all unavailable was IMO a sign we are not that far off. I'm sure you guys had best 22 players missing or underdone too, but you are also sitting top, so the current benchmark.

 

[hk89]

Team (comparing to the named team for this week):
b: Hardwick, Brand, Hodge
hb: Scully, Stratton, Gunston
c: Smith, Powell-Pepper, Henderson
hf: Puopolo, M. Lewis, Sicily
f: Breust, Roughead, Parfitt
Foll: McEvoy, Constable, Worpel
Bench: Burton, Shiels, Duursma, J. Lewis

Would the team be much better/worse that who is playing as a result? Hmmm. I think they've done well, particularly if O'Meara continues his rehab and Mitchell gets back to his best. They nabbed a finals berth last year that they might have missed. But I'm tempted to say that the draft picks team looks better than the team suiting up this round...

That's a pretty decent team, but it is a bit unrealistic to do a hindsight pick prediction that allows us to choose any player in a window of 3 from the pick we would have had, and assuming that we'd have got the best of the 3 using hindsight. We could have easily not chosen the likes of Constable, Powell-Pepper, Parfitt and Duursma and picked up duds instead. In fact our drafting history in the past has many such missteps. People like talking about Hodge/Lewis/Roughy/Franklin and forget about Ellis at 3, Dowler at 6 and Thorp at 6. The chances are that team you you've listed is close to a best expected case. That is part of the point of giving up picks for players, you are removing the uncertainty in getting an outcome as good as the one you've presented by getting known quantities. The fact that we are even close to that best case outcome says the trading strategy was very effective. Any trading strategy that gets even remotely close to a 'choose any one of 3 available players using hindsight' constructed team is a good one IMO.

 

[Scotland]

Hawthorn haven't ignored the elite end of the draft. They've just figured out that if they can't access elite players in the top ten picks - because they are just not finishing low enough at the end of the year - then they can get them through aggressive trade, and using their leverage as a successful club to convince top players to join via free agency.

They've certainly done this but you can't do it every year. On the other hand you *can* go to the draft every year even if you turn into Melbourne or Carlton and suck for a decade or more.

If you could trade your first pick every year for say a Mitchell or Wingard (rough trades involving no future picks) then you'd do it unless you had a very early pick and there was a great draft, but that costs you $500k-1m a pop. If the strategy doesn't work you run the risk of ending up like North/St Kilda a few years ago.

 

[WWSD]

They've certainly done this but you can't do it every year. On the other hand you *can* go to the draft every year even if you turn into Melbourne or Carlton and suck for a decade or more.

If you could trade your first pick every year for say a Mitchell or Wingard (rough trades involving no future picks) then you'd do it unless you had a very early pick and there was a great draft, but that costs you $500k-1m a pop. If the strategy doesn't work you run the risk of ending up like North/St Kilda a few years ago.

Going the draft every year is not exactly a bulletproof strategy that might not even work out at all. Look at the Sacramento Kings. 13 years and counting.

 

[fishardansin]

Our average age last weekend was 25 years 5 months which was 7 months younger than Geelong. While we do have 3 best
22 30+ players out in Burgoyne, Frawley, and Stratton (with Mitchell probably being the only other in, given it is hard to say Birchall is a legitimate out now given how long it is since he's played). Burgoyne is probably the only one of those 3 a chance to retire at seasons end, so we are not about to lose Frawley/Stratton for next season. Our 30+ players had a very poor showing in our B&F. We just don't rely on them as much as we used to with players like the following making up a large portion of our core group of best players:

Mitchell 25
O'Meara 25
Gunston 27
Breust 28
Wingard 25
Scully 27
McEvoy 29
Sicily 24
Hardwick 22
Worpel 20

Our 30+ players who are clear best 22:
Burgoyne 36
Roughy 32
Smith 30
Puopolo 31
Henderson 30
Frawley 30
Stratton 30

Of those, only Henderson has been a massive contributor this year, although Frawley is super important for structure (more than Roughy at the other end)

The rest of our best 22 is arguable, but is probably something like:

Impey 23
Cousins 21
Shiels 27
Scrimshaw 20
Brand 25
(Maybe Ceglar at 28 replaces someone if we want the extra tall/ruck).

In other words our core contributors are largely under 29 (only two of them over 27). That gives us a few seasons to put the missing pieces together. The most pressing seems to be a quality tall forward to replace Roughy. Our defence is decent, and not our current problem IMO (when fit). Our midfield depth with a full team in isn't as dire as it looks with Shiels and Mitchell out. O'Meara, Mitchell, Shiels, Worpel on the inside with Scully, Smith, Henderson on the outside isn't the best going around, but more than serviceable.

Basically people's perceptions of us being an ageing list is based on the false premise that premiership stars like Burgoyne, Roughy, Smith, Stratton are still carrying the team, and that really isn't the case anymore. They still have roles to play but the load is spread across a range of sub 29 years olds now.
Age isn't our main problem (most successful teams are older than average), it is depth to cover injuries that is letting us down. Our best 22 is probably a finals team right now, but it is unrealistic to expect an above average age team to go injury free for the season, and our depth means that we nearly have to do that in order to be competitive right now.

One (ideally two) more decent recruits next year, a decent run with injury, some extra depth from developing box hill players, and some luck and we could easily go deep into finals in 2020. Of course the top 10-12 teams can probably all say the same, so we are nothing special in that department.

Yeah, that looks pretty ordinary to me. I'm guessing that Hawks are going to be mid-table for a while and then bottom out. They still have the best coach in the game though. So he does turn players who would most likely be average at other clubs into solid contributors.

The Hawks have had an amazing run for over a decade now. Was 2009 the only year out of the finals? The four flags in that time. Most impressive was the 2014 or 2015 flag when they were carrying a lot of injuries yet still won.

However, right now they look like a 55-year-old man with a toupee and facelift trying to pick up chicks. Sure they used to clean up in their 20 and 30s, but it is all over now. They should have had kids and focussed on raising them right.

 

[Scotland]

Going the draft every year is not exactly a bulletproof strategy that might not even work out at all. Look at the Sacramento Kings. 13 years and counting.

No strategy is bulletproof. People overlook good luck too. Carlton have a gun in Walsh through simply being last in 2018. Some drafts you don't see someone that good in the top 5.

 

[hk89]

Yeah, that looks pretty ordinary to me.

With all due respect, you've predicted a top four this year of
1.Melbourne
2. Richmond
3. Adelaide
4. Essendon

At the end of round 6, with more than a quarter of the H&A season done, it is very likely only one of those teams will be top 8, and probably none of them top 4. You predicted Melbourne would lose 3 games for year, they've lost 5 out of 6 so far. I'll take your list judgement with a grain of salt.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I know what Port told Wingard but Hawthorn were the ones to put Burton on the table along with picks 15 and 35, they didn't have to especially given Burton was contracted and was reportedly devastated when told Hawthorn were trading him as he loved the club.

My point is they could have waited another 12 months to get Wingard as a free agent, his manager even admitted that if Wingard wasn't able to find a club last trade period he'd have left Port at the end of the 2019 season anyway.

Regarding your last point, Hawthorn fans were adamant they were getting Tom Lynch as a free agent last year too.

There's been a few instances already since free agency was introduced, where the club was reportedly going to match the offer and force a trade.

Most recent example being that Gold Coast were going to match Richmond's offer for Tom Lynch but elected to take the compensation pick.

Hawthorn didn't put Burton up for trade, that was a Media/Port myth. Burton, the media and Hawthorn were all played (by design or luck) by Port.

Hawthorn could have waited a year for Wingard in 2020, however it is likely Port could have matched and forced a trade anyway. At the time trade week opened, Mitchell and O'Meara were uninjured, Hawks had just finished top-4 in H&A, were deep in discussion with Lynch and would have considered themselves a legitimate Premiership contender. Wingard was likely seen as the 'cream' that could lift the team over the top.

Lynch initially listed a set of terms that only Hawthorn could meet, almost as if concocted for that very purpose. Richmond couldn't meet his original demands. (Graham Wright's reaction to the signing said it all, I genuinely believe he thought they had this deal done).

Shiel didn't really limit which club, just that GWS was fairly compensated. He was even happy to stay if a fair trade couldn't be found. EFC had a better 1st round pick than Hawthorn, and eventually offered 2 x 1sts. Hawthorn couldn't beat that and withdrew. (Carlton celebrated when they heard the news thinking they had their man, but soon after Shiel nominated Essendon). Essendon then backtracked on the 2x1sts (hence the quick Scully and almost Patton deals to get GWS under the cap if they kept Shiel) before being 'encouraged' to honour their original offer.

Wingard wanted out, and Clarkson has always wanted Wingard. Once Port gave him the cold shoulder he became Hawks #1 priority given above. Similar to O'Meara, once the player made the commitment to Hawthorn, Hawthorn pay "what it takes" to get him over - even if it means "losing" on the trade.

#15 and #35 was a fair price for Wingard (especially as soon to be FA). Unders (given Wingard age and finish to 2018), but fair.
Port enquired about Burton, Hawthorn (following standard procedure) said they would need to talk to the player first. (Burton was in USA on Holidays). There was a thought at this point that if Burton wanted to go, Hawthorn could keep #15 and possibly make a play for another player.

Port contacted Burton (through the Family connection) in the early hours of the morning (USA time), telling him Hawthorn put him on the table.
Port told the media that Hawthorn put him on the table. Hawthorn refused to comment (standard procedure). Burton read the media reports, spoke with family and his manager, prior to Hawthorn making contact. Hawthorn contacted Burton in the morning (USA) to see if he would be interested in a trade back to SA. They denied offering Burton, but Burton believed the media/family/manager talk and was "shocked" - requesting to be traded. I don't know about other clubs, but this has been Hawthorn's method ever since the shady Franklin/Pickering/Sydney dealings.

Hawthorn's let Burton go to the club of his choice, accepting (IMO substantial) unders (basically a future 3rd round!)

After the trade was completed, the Port list manager actually admitted on radio it (Hawthorn offering Burton) was an outright lie, that Port had asked about Burton, and that Hawthorn had not said NO, instead saying they would talk to the player to see if he was interested in a move.

Port essentially "won" one of Burton or an extra pick (15 or 35, you choose) by exploiting Hawthorn's standard protocols (refuse to comment on active trade deals publicly, give players opportunity to make their own decision for any proposed offer), their willingness to support their players who wish to move on, and most importantly in this case, the family connection that let them set the "story" in Burton's mind.

Hawthorn have been exceptionally 'easy' to trade with over the best part of a decade. They are organised, open and honest to a fault - they give their players significant autonomy in decision making, and are prepared to accept "losses" to get the players they want in, and their existing players where they want to be (if they want out - Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Hill, Duryea and same offer made to many others that chose to stay). This has worked extraordinarily well in establishing strong club support from the players, and trade rapport with most clubs. It has likely earned similar responses, with Carlton/GWS and Sydney deals going through quickly and easily - but has seen them taken advantage of by clubs that don't follow the same "kumbaya" approach to trading (Essendon, Port, GC under Cochrane).

For a club that doesn't have an inherent advantage over the competition (Hawthorn 2012), the assets they do have (picks, Salary cap) need to be stretched further than ever before, and this may see them unable to continue in this fashion - and either change strategy (being more difficult to deal with, but garnishing better value from completed trades) or struggle to remain near the top of the ladder.

 

[fishardansin]

With all due respect, you've predicted a top four this year of
1.Melbourne
2. Richmond
3. Adelaide
4. Essendon

At the end of round 6, with more than a quarter of the H&A season done, it is very likely only one of those teams will be top 8, and probably none of them top 4. You predicted Melbourne would lose 3 games for year, they've lost 5 out of 6 so far. I'll take your list judgement with a grain of salt.

I will put my hand up and say that I got Melbourne completely wrong. I expected them to be clearance beasts. Richmond has had a disastrous run with injuries and the soul problems at Adelaide look to have continued. Richmond and Essendon look likely top 6 sides. I don't expect St Kilda and Port to be there late in the year.

 

[hk89]

I will put my hand up and say that I got Melbourne completely wrong. I expected them to be clearance beasts.

Melbourne ARE clearance beasts. Third in the competition for average clearances. Also second for contested possession. Their problem seems to be they have a very dysfunctional forward line and perhaps an even more dysfunctional back line and probably not enough outside run. I'd expect they'll make somewhat of a comeback later in the season once May and Lever are both available, and could even make the 8, but top 4 seems out of reach now. I'd say Richmond might be the only one you get right in the top 4, although Essendon still a chance, but suspect their potent running game will be shut down fairly effectively by better teams. Still in the 'too early to tell' basket for mine - given how Melbourne and North are travelling ,you'd like to see Essendon beat one of the teams travelling well before feeling confident on top 8 - although a decent effort against pies yesterday. Brisbane was an ok win at the time, but are starting to look a bit Jekyll and Hyde at the moment. If Essendon can't start winning games against the likes of GWS, Eagles, Cats, Pies and Richmond then they probably don't deserve top 4.

In any case, you've picked Hawthorn to come 15th and Essendon 4th after Hawthorn beat you twice last year, including during your patch of good form when you only lost to 3 teams over 14 games (us, pies and tigers twice). Since then you've added Shiel, and we've added Scully and Wingard, yet you think our list is ordinary and will slip from 5th to 15th while you'll rise from 11 to 4th. I know we've lost Mitchell for most (if not all) of the season, and are not travelling much above 15th right now, but we've been unlucky with in game injuries thus far, so I think it is fair to say your prediction for us is as much about hope as it is about logic.

 

[Benny78]

They could've ignored the draft and traded well. But their trades haven't been strong enough. They need the current players in their midfield to be built around someone like Danger. And need to build their current forwards around someone like Matthew Lloyd

 

[hk89]

They could've ignored the draft and traded well. But their trades haven't been strong enough. They need the current players in their midfield to be built around someone like Danger.

Who was our Danger like midfielder during our 3-peat? Our 3-peat starting midfield was largely Mitchell, Lewis, Shiels. Not a Danger type amongst them. Now it is Mitchell, O'Meara, Shiels. S.Mitchell might have some tricks T.Mitchell doesn't , but I'd rate O'Meara as better than Lewis. The issue is not missing a Danger like midfielder, it is that we've lost some quality on our midfield rotations such as Hodge (in earlier 3-peat years) and Cyril. We've brought in Wingard and Scully who will help with rotation depth, but they are not having a big impact yet (Wingard played his first midfield minutes last game, but will hopefully play some more as the season goes on). Once Worpel and Cousins are our 4th and 5th best inside mids instead of 2nd and 3rd best due to Mitchell and Shiels' absences , our midfield depth isn't even that bad anymore, and our wing depth is probably better than it has been for a while , especially if Henderson, Smith and Scully all hit form at the same time, which hasn't been the case yet.

And need to build their current forwards around someone like Matthew Lloyd

I'd agree a high quality forward to replace Roughead is our immediate greatest need. We can't fix everything at once. Lynch was probably our priority last trade period, but we couldn't get him, and have added Cyril and Hill replacements instead (and hopefully a Birchall replacement via Scrimshaw). I'd assume we'll be going hard at any available quality forwards next trade period (and continue to cross our fingers that one of Nash or Lewis can make the (unlikely IMO) next step up).

 

[ChappyUK]

They could've ignored the draft and traded well. But their trades haven't been strong enough. They need the current players in their midfield to be built around someone like Danger. And need to build their current forwards around someone like Matthew Lloyd

Clarko's system will always keep them in the game but they are on the brink.

Frawley is done as is Birchall and Stratton is on the verge.

At the other end it is Roughy and Puopolo out the door.

In the middle it is bare bones. They might get Coniglio through FA. He is a very good player but not a game breaker and a bit like Shiels. Where are the rest going to come from?

Worpel and Sicily are guns but the rest of the youth are just good ordinary players.

Wingard and Scully add something but not at the moment. They might be underdone but they aren't the saviours.

The Hawks were always reliant on the big guns. Mitchell, Hodge, Lewis, Rough, Lake. Now they have gone have they have not one premiership player that has taken up the mantle and become elite?

The elites.
Mitchell - imported
O'Meara - imported

Smith, Shiel, Gunston have remained 2nd tier. Bruest goes alright but is reliant on delivery and he needs Mitchell

Their system is strong so they wont totally bottom out but I can't see how they can import enough players to cover losses and those spec picks in the 50+ will need to all be guns.

 

[hk89]

Smith, Shiel, Gunston have remained 2nd tier.

Still hurting from Gunston being named AA ahead of Hawkins last year I see. There were numerous hints in your post that this was a troll, but this was probably the most obvious.