Sloane, Dangerfield, Parker, Merrett, Fyfe. Not every great player gets picked at very top of draft. And again, recruiters don’t solely choose players on what they have achieved so far, it’s as much to do with what they believe the players could achieve in AFL footy.
Of course, I understand all that, I've been following the drafts closely for over 20 years, but for every one of those you mentioned there are probably 3 or 5 or 20 Josh Saunders, who we wondered how we could get so lucky to have landed in the 40's after seeing his highlights vids, where he was slicing teams up with his run and hitting up targets.
Only to get him and realise, oh, OK, this is why he he didn't go earlier, because he's scrappy as all hell.
Or thinking how lucky we were to have gotten Acres who was being described by some as an "elite kick" prior to his draft. Only to find that he was a fair way from it.
There has to something missing with Hunter or he would simply be in the same mix with all the others who play a similar role and who played at a similarly very high level. Clubs spend thousands of man hours on this stuff, they don't just miss these things.
The way it works is that the ones who go highest are the ones with the least holes or who are seen to have the highest upside, so with Hunter there has to be a hole.
It doesn't mean he won't or can't be the next Sloane or Lenny, it just means he's seen as less certain to be than the other 5, because there is something in or missing in his game that makes him less certain in their expert eyes.
Something that some who have become so caught up in him that they seem to believe he's perfect and has no flaws are unwilling or unable to acknowledge. That's the only issue I have.
It doesn't mean that I don't like him or want him, but I'm just not buying this "he's perfect in every way" thing, because if he was he'd be in the mix for pick 1 in this draft that's not the best.