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

[Wojcinski]

literally every single one of those players will be a year older next season

I don't even know how to respond to this, but thanks for sharing anyway

 

[4THAWN]

Geelong was clearly the second best team in 2019, pushing the Tigers in the prelim missing 5 best 22 players and eventually going down by 19 points.

hahahahah, mate you lost to the tiges, pies, lions, freo, hawks, bulldogs and port adelaide in your last 13 games.

pushing the tigers in the prelim? You got smashed by 40 points in the second half.

 

[4THAWN]

I don't even know how to respond to this, but thanks for sharing anyway

so what is your argument? That you don't rely heavily on these fossils because they're half a year younger now than they will be during next season?

 

[hk89]

My point is that the list isn't getting better because it is already old. We both know older players can drop off very quickly and my opinion is that Hawthorn relies on too many of the older guys.

And my point is age is just a number, beating 3 of the 4 prelim finalists in recent games is reality.

The older guys have been underrepresented in our B&F for the last few years. Our four oldest this year were Burgoyne, Roughy, Poppy and Birchall. At most, one of those will be in the top 10 of our B&F, and I'm not even sure Burgoyne will poll that highly. 3 of your four oldest were in the top 10 in your B&F. We are not a team that is overly reliant on our old blokes. That's your mob. Geelong only had 3 players in the top 10 at the B&F under 27, and one of those is leaving, so that's two who'll be playing there next year. We haven't had ours yet, but last year we had 0 players over 30 in our top 10, and 5 under 27. They are a year older now, and a few have nudged into 30+, but if we had the same players in our top 10 again, we'd still have 4 under 27. Our top performers are spring chickens compared to Geelong.

You and some of the other Hawthorn posters have to realise that the question raised in this topic is "Will the Hawks succeed without drafting talented players" which I don't think they will. You obviously do, you don't need to continually make excuses as to why they haven't done so yet,

Excuses? The entire thread is about WILL they. Nobody thinks they have yet, so obviously there needs to be some discussion about where they are at and where they are hoping to go. My posts are not excuses, they are outlining the argument as to why they can succeed, and beating WC, Geelong, GWS, Pies in recent games without our best player is a pretty solid argument IMO.

clearly not everyone shares the same opinions as you so you make it impossible for there to even be a discussion instead.

Impossible? I thought we were having a discussion? You've posted a bunch of what I consider rubbish, but none-the-less your opinion, I've countered with my own opinion. I'd call that a discussion. The problem with your side of the discussion is that you trot out stuff like we've missed the mark with all but one trade, and include players that helped us win a flag that we got for zero picks in your list of trades that missed the mark. When you do that, you're going to have trouble getting your opinion respected. If you went with a less hyperbole ridden argument , the back and forth might feel more like a discussion for you.

In terms of the thread title, I'd actually wonder what most people would deem 'success'? If I was being kind, I think you could say Geelong have succeeded in their strategy to to stay competitive with what has largely been trades and later picks. They'd obviously have liked to have at least made a GF over that period , but they've been better than most teams since 2011 , without actually making it to the final game of the year.

Does Hawthorn have to win a flag for them to have succeeded with the current strategy? Would making a GF be enough to say they've succeeded if they don't win one? Would making a prelim be enough to say the strategy had been an overall success? It is pretty hard to win a flag, it seems harsh to label a strategy a failure if you make the final 4 in a season. I can see the argument for labelling the season a failure, but would you blame the strategy in that situation? I think it depends on how far off the pace you were, if you were close but things didn't bounce your way I think you could argue the strategy was sound. Personally I think a strategy that gets you into to a prelim is probably pretty sound, but it depends on the context. I think Geelong would be questioning their approach now, given the inability to get past the prelim, and the fact that the recent prelim losses have not really been close. Was 2013 the last time they got within 3 goals of their prelim opponent?

 

[Wojcinski]

hahahahah, mate you lost to the tiges, pies, lions, freo, hawks, bulldogs and port adelaide in your last 13 games.

pushing the tigers in the prelim? You got smashed by 40 points in the second half.

I didn't lose anything but the Cats lost by 19, not 40. As I said, they pushes the eventual premiers in the PF and were clearly the second best team in 2019. Still has no bearing on teams outside the finals like Hawthorn so no idea why you keep bringing it up?

so what is your argument? That you don't rely heavily on these fossils because they're half a year younger now than they will be during next season?

so are you trying to say the old blokes on Hawthorns list won't be a year older next year? What point are you even trying to make?

 

[Wojcinski]

And my point is age is just a number, beating 3 of the 4 prelim finalists in recent games is reality.

The older guys have been underrepresented in our B&F for the last few years. Our four oldest this year were Burgoyne, Roughy, Poppy and Birchall. At most, one of those will be in the top 10 of our B&F, and I'm not even sure Burgoyne will poll that highly. 3 of your four oldest were in the top 10 in your B&F. We are not a team that is overly reliant on our old blokes. That's your mob. Geelong only had 3 players in the top 10 at the B&F under 27, and one of those is leaving, so that's two who'll be playing there next year. We haven't had ours yet, but last year we had 0 players over 30 in our top 10, and 5 under 27. They are a year older now, and a few have nudged into 30+, but if we had the same players in our top 10 again, we'd still have 4 under 27. Our top performers are spring chickens compared to Geelong.



Excuses? The entire thread is about WILL they. Nobody thinks they have yet, so obviously there needs to be some discussion about where they are at and where they are hoping to go. My posts are not excuses, they are outlining the argument as to why they can succeed, and beating WC, Geelong, GWS, Pies in recent games without our best player is a pretty solid argument IMO.



Impossible? I thought we were having a discussion? You've posted a bunch of what I consider rubbish, but none-the-less your opinion, I've countered with my own opinion. I'd call that a discussion. The problem with your side of the discussion is that you trot out stuff like we've missed the mark with all but one trade, and include players that helped us win a flag that we got for zero picks in your list of trades that missed the mark. When you do that, you're going to have trouble getting your opinion respected. If you went with a less hyperbole ridden argument , the back and forth might feel more like a discussion for you.

In terms of the thread title, I'd actually wonder what most people would deem 'success'? If I was being kind, I think you could say Geelong have succeeded in their strategy to to stay competitive with what has largely been trades and later picks. They'd obviously have liked to have at least made a GF over that period , but they've been better than most teams since 2011 , without actually making it to the final game of the year.

Does Hawthorn have to win a flag for them to have succeeded with the current strategy? Would making a GF be enough to say they've succeeded if they don't win one? Would making a prelim be enough to say the strategy had been an overall success? It is pretty hard to win a flag, it seems harsh to label a strategy a failure if you make the final 4 in a season. I can see the argument for labelling the season a failure, but would you blame the strategy in that situation? I think it depends on how far off the pace you were, if you were close but things didn't bounce your way I think you could argue the strategy was sound. Personally I think a strategy that gets you into to a prelim is probably pretty sound, but it depends on the context. I think Geelong would be questioning their approach now, given the inability to get past the prelim, and the fact that the recent prelim losses have not really been close. Was 2013 the last time they got within 3 goals of their prelim opponent?

Pretty good post actually and I see some of your points, maybe I was generalising when I referred to you making it impossible to have a discussion because you're one of the only posters with a bit of substance rather than "lolol 3peat hawks & geelong sux lolol" types in here.

Regarding whether the season is a failure or not would be largely dependent on where the team is at. Brisbane went out in straight sets this year but they would see 2019 as a huge success after a number of poor years, similar to Melbourne in 2018. Conversely I think Geelong would see 2019 as a fail mostly hinging on the QF result. How do you think Hawthorn would see 2019?

2013 was 5 points, 16 & 17 were smashings and 2019 was 19 points

 

[AeneasX]

The name on the list that matters is Alistair Clarkson, as long as the Hawks have him success is on the cards. A flag in the near future, with their current list is big ask though unless clarko can channel some Norm Smith/McHale type energy.

 

[KermitJagger]

Pretty good post actually and I see some of your points, maybe I was generalising when I referred to you making it impossible to have a discussion because you're one of the only posters with a bit of substance rather than "lolol 3peat hawks & geelong sux lolol" types in here.

Regarding whether the season is a failure or not would be largely dependent on where the team is at. Brisbane went out in straight sets this year but they would see 2019 as a huge success after a number of poor years, similar to Melbourne in 2018. Conversely I think Geelong would see 2019 as a fail mostly hinging on the QF result. How do you think Hawthorn would see 2019?

2013 was 5 points, 16 & 17 were smashings and 2019 was 19 points

Hawthorn would probably see 2019 as an overall success. It expedited a lot of the transition for our older players in the end, and we performed well against the better teams without our best player. It probably exposed a bit of an over reliance which we'll now be able to better manage next year.

If we don't make ground next year you'd imagine that's a fail overall.

How do you see Geelong re-signing Ablett and Taylor?

 

[Wojcinski]

Hawthorn would probably see 2019 as an overall success. It expedited a lot of the transition for our older players in the end, and we performed well against the better teams without our best player. It probably exposed a bit of an over reliance which we'll now be able to better manage next year.

If we don't make ground next year you'd imagine that's a fail overall.

How do you see Geelong re-signing Ablett and Taylor?

I actually would have preferred to see them both retire, I think we have replacements for both of them and I have no confidence that Geelong will compete again in 2020. My hope is that Ablett is permanently in the forward 50 and oft rested so if we make finals again he isn't completely cooked.

Similar story for Harry, who I assume is staying on as a sort of on-field defensive coach. It also spells out to me that Henderson will go.

 

[MinerBoy]

Again trying to attack me about Geelong lmao. You've got nothing

You feel attacked?

[emoji253]


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sonny Hayes]

It’s funny people still hold rebuilding through the Draft as the only method when we are about to once again see the next 3 years of the Draft being once again compromised.

Would hate trying to rebuild with continually compromised drafts.

 

[4THAWN]

I didn't lose anything but the Cats lost by 19, not 40. As I said, they pushes the eventual premiers in the PF and were clearly the second best team in 2019. Still has no bearing on teams outside the finals like Hawthorn so no idea why you keep bringing it up?

so are you trying to say the old blokes on Hawthorns list won't be a year older next year? What point are you even trying to make?

your so adamant that we rely on our older players too much, but apparently you do not even though i've just listed about 6 of your most important players who are going to be 29 or older next year. Some with very important roles on your team, who'd be sorely missed. So please, explain to me why Hawthorn's reliance on it's older players will hurt more than Geelong's?

 

[Marcel Proust]

your so adamant that we rely on our older players too much, but apparently you do not even though i've just listed about 6 of your most important players who are going to be 29 or older next year. Some with very important roles on your team, who'd be sorely missed. So please, explain to me why Hawthorn's reliance on it's older players will hurt more than Geelong's?

It is interesting contrasting the Hawks list with an ageing Collingwood and Geelong

 

[Wojcinski]

your so adamant that we rely on our older players too much, but apparently you do not even though i've just listed about 6 of your most important players who are going to be 29 or older next year. Some with very important roles on your team, who'd be sorely missed. So please, explain to me why Hawthorn's reliance on it's older players will hurt more than Geelong's?

I've explained it in this thread already ffs

 

[hk89]

How do you think Hawthorn would see 2019?

A mixed bag. Its rare for something to be a complete failure or success. I'd say they'd be disappointed it took so long to get the midfield working without Mitchell. Not helped by Wingard's injuries in pre-season and then in-season. I think they'd also be disappointed the forward line was so impotent for most of the year. We had 3 AA in 2018, one broke his leg in the off season and the other two were Breust and Gunston who had down seasons by their standards (very down for Gunston). You'd expect Poppy to go down hill given his age, but Gunston and Breust should have been at their prime. These two points together cost us a finals spot, and I think they'd see that as a failure. Even without Mitchell they'd probably consider it a failure given what we showed in the last 8 rounds, we should have been good enough to play finals. Stratton not really handling the captaincy well would be another concern. A very good 2018 for him became a very poor 2019. Might be age related, but at times you wondered if the captaincy was the only thing keeping him in the best 22.

The stuff they'd be happy with is those wins over several finalists in the latter part of the year, and the factors that led to that, which was a massive jump in Worpel's output, Wingard arriving at a reasonable fitness level , and Lewis starting to seem like he belonged at AFL level. Tim O'Brien finally showing why they'd persisted with him despite very little shown in his first few years would be seen as another positive. They'd also be happy they got Scully on the park so soon, and be looking forward to what he can do with a full pre-season. Henderson having a standout year, and Impey showing he's more than just a bit player would also have pleased them.

Overall I still think not making finals is enough to say it was a failed year, but I don't think they were expecting to go deep into finals this year anyway, and in terms of how the team went late season, I think they'd be more confident than less after this season that they are heading in the right direction, and that its worth staying the course on building a list for the short term rather than scrapping it for a full re-build. At least that's my feeling as a fan after seeing us deal easily with GWS and Eagles and get over the line against Pies and Geelong once things started to click later in the season.

I can see how people would have an opposite view given our age profile, but as I said, unlike some of the other older teams, our old blokes are not what is holding the team together. Some of them are important , but very few of them are the key players in our wins, and that means we aren't as reliant on old blokes maintaining their form as a team relying on their older age bracket to do the bulk of the work. As mentioned previously, I'd be much more concerned about some other teams in that regard, including your own.

 

[TylerDurden]

Ablett - 36
Blicavs - 29
Dangerfield - 30
Duncan - 29
Hawkins 32
Henderson - 30
Rohan - 29
Selwood - 32
Taylor - 34
Tuohy - 30

That's actually quite damning, and scary.

Looking forward to Easter Monday already.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Comparing the top ranked teams at the end of the year comparing the age spread of their top-10 rated players.

Richmond: Martin, Prestia, Edwards, Lambert, Riewoldt, Cotchin, Caddy, Vlasutin, Nankervis, Grimes
GWS: Coniglio, Kelly, Whitfield, Cameron, Hopper, Himmelberg, Ward, Finlayson, Davis, Taranto
Geelong: Dangerfield, Ablett, Kelly, Hawkins, Selwood, Menegola, Duncan, Stanley, Blicavs, Toohey
Hawthorn: McEvoy, Bruest, Gunston, Sicily, Shiels, Henderson, O'Meara, Wingard, Burgoyne, Worpel

36 - Burgoyne
35 -
34 - Ablett,
33 -
32
31
30 - Edwards, Riewoldt, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson
29 - Cotchin, Tuohy, Dangerfield, Ward, McEvoy
28 - Stanley, Blicavs, Davis, Bruest
27 - Martin, Lambert, Grimes, Duncan, Menegola, Shiels, Gunston
26 - Caddy, Prestia, Cameron,
25 - Vlasutin, Coniglio, Mitchell, Wingard, O'Meara
24 - Nankervis, T.Kelly, Whitfield, J.Kelly, Sicily
23 - Finlayson
22 - Himmelberg, Hopper
21 - Taranto
20 - Worpel

Two obvious outliers, then an even spread with some consistent weighting, Cats oldest, followed by Tigers, Hawks and then Giants significantly younger (and better) than any equivalents.

Not quite as misguided as the Carlton = Young, Hawks = Old comparison of last year but pretty close. Hawthorn match up well on the age profile of their top players with any competitive team other than GWS.

Looking at that list, you'd expect Geelong and Tigers to have biggest drop, with GWS biggest improvement.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Looking at that list, you'd expect Geelong and Tigers to have biggest drop, with GWS biggest improvement.

Average age, H&A season:

26.52 Hawthorn
26.43 Adelaide
26.21 Geelong
26.20 Collingwood
26.12 West Coast
25.80 North Melbourne
25.59 GWS
25.28 Essendon
25.22 Port Adelaide
25.20 Brisbane
25.03 Richmond
24.82 Melbourne
24.80 Fremantle
24.60 Carlton
24.44 Western Bulldogs
24.41 St.Kilda
24.37 Sydney
23.95 Gold Coast

While Richmond's GF team at 26.48 (with Rance to return) isn't young, there is quite a bit of youthful talent waiting for their chance - Stack, Graham, Balta, Higgins, Ross, Naish, Eggmolesse-Smith, Coleman-Jones, Collier-Dawkins, Garthwaite. The trick will be in blending these players into a side that is performing well. Barring another bad run with injury, there will be intense pressure for places in next year's team.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

294 pages of Hawthorn fan posts summarised in one sentence. Impressive lesson in succinctness!

I'll be succinct as I can then:
Fingers, dykes, middle-table

 

[AeneasX]

Comparing the top ranked teams at the end of the year comparing the age spread of their top-10 rated players.

Richmond: Martin, Prestia, Edwards, Lambert, Riewoldt, Cotchin, Caddy, Vlasutin, Nankervis, Grimes
GWS: Coniglio, Kelly, Whitfield, Cameron, Hopper, Himmelberg, Ward, Finlayson, Davis, Taranto
Geelong: Dangerfield, Ablett, Kelly, Hawkins, Selwood, Menegola, Duncan, Stanley, Blicavs, Toohey
Hawthorn: McEvoy, Bruest, Gunston, Sicily, Shiels, Henderson, O'Meara, Wingard, Burgoyne, Worpel

36 - Burgoyne
35 -
34 - Ablett,
33 -
32
31
30 - Edwards, Riewoldt, Selwood, Hawkins, Henderson
29 - Cotchin, Tuohy, Dangerfield, Ward, McEvoy
28 - Stanley, Blicavs, Davis, Bruest
27 - Martin, Lambert, Grimes, Duncan, Menegola, Shiels, Gunston
26 - Caddy, Prestia, Cameron,
25 - Vlasutin, Coniglio, Mitchell, Wingard, O'Meara
24 - Nankervis, T.Kelly, Whitfield, J.Kelly, Sicily
23 - Finlayson
22 - Himmelberg, Hopper
21 - Taranto
20 - Worpel

Two obvious outliers, then an even spread with some consistent weighting, Cats oldest, followed by Tigers, Hawks and then Giants significantly younger (and better) than any equivalents.

Not quite as misguided as the Carlton = Young, Hawks = Old comparison of last year but pretty close. Hawthorn match up well on the age profile of their top players with any competitive team other than GWS.

Looking at that list, you'd expect Geelong and Tigers to have biggest drop, with GWS biggest improvement.

How are you getting these top 10 players ratings? Zach Tuohy > Tom Stewart makes no sense and there are a couple of names from all 4 teams that could be switched.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

How are you getting these top 10 players ratings? Zach Tuohy > Tom Stewart makes no sense and there are a couple of names from all 4 teams that could be switched.

B&F's aren't done yet, so I just used the Player Ratings.

It's not perfect by any means, and underrates defenders/stoppers, but it's handy as a ready reckoner between clubs.

Ron The Bear, using the raw average doesn't factor in the effectiveness of the contributions - not every player add the same value. Using a ranking system (with all it's faults) provides a better indication. If we could find a way to integrate VORP into rating scale it would be very enlightening.

This is always the challenge for "era" sides - Hawks had a 'missing generation' of talented youth during 12-16 hence the trading out of picks to bring talented players and leaders into the 23-25 grouping (Mitchell, O'Meara, Wingard, Scully). This has reduced the expected drop as they replaced their legends (Hodge, Mitchell, Burgoyne*, Lewis, Rioli, Roughead) over the last three seasons (and transitioned the rest to periphery roles). Geelong went the other way - targeted players to round out their support roles for success now with their current group of veterans, but they didn't have the gap behind their best 22 that Hawthorn did. Hawthorn were probably 3rd or 4th best performed side at the end of the season, but the early season struggles with injuries (losing MVP/Brownlow Medallist Mitchell from an already paper-thin midfield, then 3 games with 2-game ending injuries) made the climb almost impossible. Had they made 8th, they would quite possibly have made the PF, or even GF. (Richmond still had us covered IMO, the rest we could at least match or beat comfortably).

There hasn't been a team as stable or as dominant as Hawthorn was through that period 12-16 in the modern era, the Hawks the first team to really try to 'cash in' on an exceptional core group through 2009-2013 acquisitions. Richmond 17-21 could well be entering another super era already with their current group. Geelong through the 7-11 period would be close, but their senior addition top-ups didn't really start until near the end to extend their successful period, whilst Richmond appears to be more closely following the Hawthorn model (building before/during peak years). This could well be salary cap driven, as Hawthorn (infamously?) carried their cap forward through contract renegotiations from Clarkson's early year destructions right through the premiership era. It's a concept that doesn't appear to be working in the current FA/trade market, where acquisition requires a player to be paid above "Hawthorn market" wages.

Which way will Richmond go do you think? Do they have enough talent in the 21-23 to let maturity replace their oldest players organically? Will they chase older talent ala Geelong to try and succeed whilst Edwards/Cotchin/Jack/Rance are still around and Martin at his peak? Or will they look to beef up that lower-middle age group like Hawthorn had to 15-18 and try to be top-4 competitive.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Which way will Richmond go do you think? Do they have enough talent in the 21-23 to let maturity replace their oldest players organically? Will they chase older talent ala Geelong to try and succeed whilst Edwards/Cotchin/Jack/Rance are still around and Martin at his peak? Or will they look to beef up that lower-middle age group like Hawthorn had to 15-18 and try to be top-4 competitive.

Not sure. I would hope at this stage that any players from other clubs are mid-20's or younger rather than veterans. The club has already flagged that it won't be a major player in this year's trade period.

Stack has as much potential as any first-year player I've seen, just needs to stay grounded. He's the standout. Coleman-Jones is shaping very well and Balta has enormous potential without having found a position.

Obviously going to be hard to replace the stars without high picks, but the team is already transforming.

2016 B&F: Martin 1st, Rance 2nd, Cotchin 3rd, Riewoldt 4th
2017 B&F: Martin 1st, Rance 2nd, Cotchin 4th, Riewoldt 7th
2018 B&F: Riewoldt 1st, Martin 3rd, Rance 6th, Cotchin 7th
2019 B&F: Martin 6th, Cotchin 19th, Riewoldt 21st, Rance 34th

 

[Pessimistic]

And my point is age is just a number, beating 3 of the 4 prelim finalists in recent games is reality.

The older guys have been underrepresented in our B&F for the last few years. Our four oldest this year were Burgoyne, Roughy, Poppy and Birchall. At most, one of those will be in the top 10 of our B&F, and I'm not even sure Burgoyne will poll that highly. 3 of your four oldest were in the top 10 in your B&F. We are not a team that is overly reliant on our old blokes. That's your mob. Geelong only had 3 players in the top 10 at the B&F under 27, and one of those is leaving, so that's two who'll be playing there next year. We haven't had ours yet, but last year we had 0 players over 30 in our top 10, and 5 under 27. They are a year older now, and a few have nudged into 30+, but if we had the same players in our top 10 again, we'd still have 4 under 27. Our top performers are spring chickens compared to Geelong.



Excuses? The entire thread is about WILL they. Nobody thinks they have yet, so obviously there needs to be some discussion about where they are at and where they are hoping to go. My posts are not excuses, they are outlining the argument as to why they can succeed, and beating WC, Geelong, GWS, Pies in recent games without our best player is a pretty solid argument IMO.



Impossible? I thought we were having a discussion? You've posted a bunch of what I consider rubbish, but none-the-less your opinion, I've countered with my own opinion. I'd call that a discussion. The problem with your side of the discussion is that you trot out stuff like we've missed the mark with all but one trade, and include players that helped us win a flag that we got for zero picks in your list of trades that missed the mark. When you do that, you're going to have trouble getting your opinion respected. If you went with a less hyperbole ridden argument , the back and forth might feel more like a discussion for you.

In terms of the thread title, I'd actually wonder what most people would deem 'success'? If I was being kind, I think you could say Geelong have succeeded in their strategy to to stay competitive with what has largely been trades and later picks. They'd obviously have liked to have at least made a GF over that period , but they've been better than most teams since 2011 , without actually making it to the final game of the year.

Does Hawthorn have to win a flag for them to have succeeded with the current strategy? Would making a GF be enough to say they've succeeded if they don't win one? Would making a prelim be enough to say the strategy had been an overall success? It is pretty hard to win a flag, it seems harsh to label a strategy a failure if you make the final 4 in a season. I can see the argument for labelling the season a failure, but would you blame the strategy in that situation? I think it depends on how far off the pace you were, if you were close but things didn't bounce your way I think you could argue the strategy was sound. Personally I think a strategy that gets you into to a prelim is probably pretty sound, but it depends on the context. I think Geelong would be questioning their approach now, given the inability to get past the prelim, and the fact that the recent prelim losses have not really been close. Was 2013 the last time they got within 3 goals of their prelim opponent?

And the implied alternative is for the hawks to go for elite draft picks, which suggests either finishing lower on the ladder, or trading out good players with currency
Can being less successful with a ‘hope’ of being better than a ‘mid table’ team in the future be categorised as successful either?

 

[Pessimistic]

Not sure. I would hope at this stage that any players from other clubs are mid-20's or younger rather than veterans. The club has already flagged that it won't be a major player in this year's trade period.

Stack has as much potential as any first-year player I've seen, just needs to stay grounded. He's the standout. Coleman-Jones is shaping very well and Balta has enormous potential without having found a position.

Obviously going to be hard to replace the stars without high picks, but the team is already transforming.

2016 B&F: Martin 1st, Rance 2nd, Cotchin 3rd, Riewoldt 4th
2017 B&F: Martin 1st, Rance 2nd, Cotchin 4th, Riewoldt 7th
2018 B&F: Riewoldt 1st, Martin 3rd, Rance 6th, Cotchin 7th
2019 B&F: Martin 6th, Cotchin 19th, Riewoldt 21st, Rance 34th

And stack recruitment didnt need any elite picks in the draft?

 

[Ron The Bear]

And stack recruitment didnt need any elite picks in the draft?

No, but he's one out of the box. A freak event.