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

[Marcel Proust]

After 2002-2006 at the bottom, hawks went the ‘accepted knowledge’ rebuild and spent 2011-2016 at the top.

They nailed that bette than any other team, except mayb the lions who went from last to first between 1998 and 2001

Now the hawks chose to do it differently, but can see geelong or swans who spent time at the top but hadnt been near the bottom for a good while. Theyre are precedents, but the hawks approach is subtly different

if anyone can win four flags and stay at the top, itd be clarko, That said im skeptical about the master-plan

4th, but take out Burgoyne (24.2) and we'd be 15th. It's a complete fallacy.

AFL Club Lists for 2020 - Draftguru

www.draftguru.com.au

Burgoyne is a good player. If you 'take him out' hawthorn is a lesser team. Like Carlton without Simpson.

the problem is not average age but number of key players over 30, Lions and GWS have very few between them, Birchill and Jacobs just added

- hawks fans are saying they are fringe players but they still played a very high % of games last season.

 

[Gavin Excell]

The thing is bottoming out is also a gamble. The drafts a Lottery, luck needs to be on your side to land Franklins, Mitchells and Riolis instead of Dowlers, Thorps and Mustons.

The reason this thread is going ang going is because not one hawthorn supporter is upset that hawks have done things differently. We applaud the club for attempting to be innovate and not being reactivate.

After a 3 peat the club has earned the right to.

If it works it will change the game.

Imo we are at the half way mark.

It ain't that innovative

Geelong been doing same since 2015

 

[Gavin Excell]

After 2002-2006 at the bottom, hawks went the ‘accepted knowledge’ rebuild and spent 2011-2016 at the top.

They nailed that bette than any other team, except mayb the lions who went from last to first between 1998 and 2001

Now the hawks chose to do it differently, but can see geelong or swans who spent time at the top but hadnt been near the bottom for a good while. Theyre are precedents, but the hawks approach is subtly different

How is it different?

 

[hawkman]

How is it different?

Not greatly although Hawthorn have probably targeted players a couple of years younger than Geelong did

 

[sr36]

WCE tagged him r23. North tagged him also. Be interesting if its he or Mitchell copping it next year.

Did he cope alright with the tag?

 

[sr36]

How is it different?

Hawthorn have gone for a full rebuild by trading in a heap of blokes of the same age. Its similar to the bottom out and hit the draft theory, in that that theory is designed to put together a core of blokes the same age to take you to glory.

Geelong have just continually topped up.

 

[matey]

Enjoy reading Brad Johnson’s articles on fox footy where he revisits previous drafts.

The 2011 draft he has Tom Mitchell at 5 and Wingard at 7. During that draft Hawks first pick wasn’t until 33 but today these guys are running around in the brown and gold.

The 2013 draft he saids, “Hawthorn’s intercept king, James Sicily, is pretty hard to overlook in the No. 4 slot. And what makes him such exceptional value is not just his ability to play at both ends of the field, but that he was drafted at Pick 56. What a bargain”. That year our first pick wasn’t until 24!

Diamond’s in the rough Brad makes mention of youngsters Hardwick (pick 44) and Worpel (pick 45). These guys will be around for the next 10 years.

To come out of a three peat, fast forward 4 years you can understand why 99% of Hawk fans are supportive and optimistic in the direction the club is taking to realistically challenge again soon.

 

[theBigB]

Enjoy reading Brad Johnson’s articles on fox footy where he revisits previous drafts.

The 2011 draft he has Tom Mitchell at 5 and Wingard at 7. During that draft Hawks first pick wasn’t until 33 but today these guys are running around in the brown and gold.

The 2013 draft he saids, “Hawthorn’s intercept king, James Sicily, is pretty hard to overlook in the No. 4 slot. And what makes him such exceptional value is not just his ability to play at both ends of the field, but that he was drafted at Pick 56. What a bargain”. That year our first pick wasn’t until 24!

Diamond’s in the rough Brad makes mention of youngsters Hardwick (pick 44) and Worpel (pick 45). These guys will be around for the next 10 years.

To come out of a three peat, fast forward 4 years you can understand why 99% of Hawk fans are supportive and optimistic in the direction the club is taking to realistically challenge again soon.

Because you're the oldest list in the competition and just finished outside the top 8?
Because good selections at later picks aren't quite the same as good selections at early picks? The latter is what you get from a proper rebuild, the former is what you're forced to depend on after splurging out on overrated players like O'Meara.

What now? Will you have another weak crack at the Bont to make you feel better?

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Because you're the oldest list in the competition and just finished outside the top 8?
Because good selections at later picks aren't quite the same as good selections at early picks? The latter is what you get from a proper rebuild, the former is what you're forced to depend on after splurging out on overrated players like O'Meara.

What now? Will you have another weak crack at the Bont to make you feel better?

See you call it a proper rebuild like it is the right way to do it... Lions, Suns, Blues all went down the 'proper' rebuild path and spent the better part of a decade down the bottom. It is one way to rebuild a list but that does not make it the right way, it comes with risks just like the path we are taking does.

 

[theBigB]

See you call it a proper rebuild like it is the right way to do it... Lions, Suns, Blues all went down the 'proper' rebuild path and spent the better part of a decade down the bottom. It is one way to rebuild a list but that does not make it the right way, it comes with risks just like the path we are taking does.

Of course it doesn't always work. If you hire Scott Clayton to be your head recruiter, falling short is a foregone conclusion. That being said, diligent drafting with high picks is still very clearly the most reliable, proven method of building a successful club, something Clarko reaped the benefits of in 2008-2015, yet these days is clearly neglecting in favor of trading in 25-27 year olds.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Of course it doesn't always work. If you hire Scott Clayton to be your head recruiter, falling short is a foregone conclusion. That being said, diligent drafting with high picks is still very clearly the most reliable, proven method of building a successful club, something Clarko reaped the benefits of in 2008-2015, yet these days is clearly neglecting in favor of trading in 25-27 year olds.

Well prior to modern player movement it was really the only way to build a successful club, we haven't really seen clubs fully explore this rebuild model so we don't know if it can work or not.

Also most of the trade ins have been of players under that 25-27 range outside of players we gave up next to nothing for (Scully, Patton.) Wingard is probably the only exception to that.

 

[Baird]

Apparently not.

 

[matey]

Because you're the oldest list in the competition and just finished outside the top 8?
Because good selections at later picks aren't quite the same as good selections at early picks? The latter is what you get from a proper rebuild, the former is what you're forced to depend on after splurging out on overrated players like O'Meara.

What now? Will you have another weak crack at the Bont to make you feel better?

Nah we all know he’s soft but back on to the topic clubs will start conning onto the Hawks drafting strategy once the they add another couple of trophies to the cabinet.

 

[theBigB]

Also, just for the record, as much as everyone likes to think their recruiters are geniuses, drafting is still a guessing game for the most part, particularly in the later end of the draft. This is a point I see commonly made by Hawthorn supporters while defending their trading policy, and it's true, but it begs the question: was landing guys like Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick all part of Clarko's master plan? Did he envision selecting Worpel when endorsing the idea of trading the kitchen sink for O'Meara?

Consider the following: What if instead of Hardwick, they got Aidyn Johnson (who went a pick later to Port)? Instead of Worpel, they got Ben Paton. Instead of Sicily, they got Brady Grey. Chances are, their 2019 season would've finished a lot worse than 9th, and they'd still have the oldest list in the competition.

"But we selected Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick! That shows just how good our recruiters are!"
And how are you so sure much of that didn't come down to luck? Each one of those players could've gone one selection earlier, and had that happened, there's a strong chance we enter a scenario where Clarko/Sheedy comparisons start to gain some serious steam.

History says exclusively relying on later picks for your intake of youth is extremely unreliable and can leave your club with a barren wasteland of talent from ages 18-23. Also, even though Hawthorn have done well with their later picks, their youth still isn't close to the best in the competition. With the older, experienced players they've topped up with, they're basically attempting to win a flag in the same window where teams like Richmond, Brisbane and the Bulldogs are either at their peak, or very soon reaching it. Richmond are clearly a better team than Hawthorn right now, and while both Brisbane & the Bulldogs are only arguably better, they clearly have better youth and scope for improvement.

 

[WWSD]

Apparently not.

Quality post

 

[theBigB]

Nah we all know he’s soft but back on to the topic clubs will start conning onto the Hawks drafting strategy once the they add another couple of trophies to the cabinet.

By all means, keep embarrassing yourself and exposing your lack of football knowledge. Not my problem.

 

[WWSD]

Also, just for the record, as much as everyone likes to think their recruiters are geniuses, drafting is still a guessing game for the most part, particularly in the later end of the draft. This is a point I see commonly made by Hawthorn supporters while defending their trading policy, and it's true, but it begs the question: was landing guys like Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick all part of the master plan?

Consider the following: What if instead of Hardwick, they got Aidyn Johnson (who went a pick later to Port)? Instead of Worpel, they got Ben Paton. Instead of Sicily, they got Brady Grey. Chances are, their 2019 season would've finished quite a bit worse than it did, and they'd still have the oldest list in the competition.

"But we selected Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick! That shows just how good our recruiters are!"
And how are you so sure that it didn't come down to luck? Each one of those players could've gone one selection earlier, and had that happened, there's a strong chance we enter a scenario where Clarko/Sheedy comparisons start to gain some serious steam.

History says exclusively relying on later picks for your intake of youth is extremely unreliable and can leave your club with a barren wasteland of talent from ages 18-23. Also, even though Hawthorn have done well with their later picks, their youth still isn't close to the best in the competition. With the older, experienced players they've topped up with, they're attempting to win a flag in the same window teams like Richmond, Brisbane and the Bulldogs are either at their peak, or very soon reaching it. Richmond are clearly a better team than Hawthorn right now, and while both Brisbane & the Bulldogs are only arguably better, they clearly have better youth and scope for improvement.

Even in the midst of not being at the top anymore, Wingard and Impey had no hesitation in picking Hawthorn over the Bulldogs. lol

The next time the Dogs play the Hawks you’ll have to face Mitchell, Patton, Frost, Impey, pick 11, Maginness and a whole lot of other stuff.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Also, just for the record, as much as everyone likes to think their recruiters are geniuses, drafting is still a guessing game for the most part, particularly in the later end of the draft. This is a point I see commonly made by Hawthorn supporters while defending their trading policy, and it's true, but it begs the question: was landing guys like Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick all part of Clarko's master plan? Did he envision selecting Worpel when endorsing the idea of trading the kitchen sink for O'Meara?

Consider the following: What if instead of Hardwick, they got Aidyn Johnson (who went a pick later to Port)? Instead of Worpel, they got Ben Paton. Instead of Sicily, they got Brady Grey. Chances are, their 2019 season would've finished quite a bit worse than it did, and they'd still have the oldest list in the competition.

"But we selected Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick! That shows just how good our recruiters are!"
And how are you so sure that it didn't come down to luck? Each one of those players could've gone one selection earlier, and had that happened, there's a strong chance we enter a scenario where Clarko/Sheedy comparisons start to gain some serious steam.

History says exclusively relying on later picks for your intake of youth is extremely unreliable and can leave your club with a barren wasteland of talent from ages 18-23. Also, even though Hawthorn have done well with their later picks, their youth still isn't close to the best in the competition. With the older, experienced players they've topped up with, they're attempting to win a flag in the same window teams like Richmond, Brisbane and the Bulldogs are either at their peak, or very soon reaching it. Richmond are clearly a better team than Hawthorn right now, and while both Brisbane & the Bulldogs are only arguably better, they clearly have better youth and scope for improvement.

No the difference is you bust on a top 10 pick and you wasted an entire year of a rebuild and set it back 12 months. We brought in the elite talent through the trade period and hoped to land some gems with the later picks. Of course it is a risk most Hawk fans are willing to acknowledge that, the risk of banking on highly rated 18 years olds exist to and clearly Hawthorn are experimenting with a rebuild model that minimizes that.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Also, just for the record, as much as everyone likes to think their recruiters are geniuses, drafting is still a guessing game for the most part, particularly in the later end of the draft. This is a point I see commonly made by Hawthorn supporters while defending their trading policy, and it's true, but it begs the question: was landing guys like Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick all part of Clarko's master plan? Did he envision selecting Worpel when endorsing the idea of trading the kitchen sink for O'Meara?

Consider the following: What if instead of Hardwick, they got Aidyn Johnson (who went a pick later to Port)? Instead of Worpel, they got Ben Paton. Instead of Sicily, they got Brady Grey. Chances are, their 2019 season would've finished a lot worse than 9th, and they'd still have the oldest list in the competition.

"But we selected Worpel, Sicily and Hardwick! That shows just how good our recruiters are!"
And how are you so sure much of that didn't come down to luck? Each one of those players could've gone one selection earlier, and had that happened, there's a strong chance we enter a scenario where Clarko/Sheedy comparisons start to gain some serious steam.

History says exclusively relying on later picks for your intake of youth is extremely unreliable and can leave your club with a barren wasteland of talent from ages 18-23. Also, even though Hawthorn have done well with their later picks, their youth still isn't close to the best in the competition. With the older, experienced players they've topped up with, they're basically attempting to win a flag in the same window where teams like Richmond, Brisbane and the Bulldogs are either at their peak, or very soon reaching it. Richmond are clearly a better team than Hawthorn right now, and while both Brisbane & the Bulldogs are only arguably better, they clearly have better youth and scope for improvement.

gws are still ridiculous talented and they younger/mid range guys get another pre season

 

[matey]

By all means, keep embarrassing yourself and exposing your lack of football knowledge. Not my problem.

Who’s the embarrassment! Clarko is thinking and conveying the same vibes that the current direction the Hawks are taking will hopefully put them in a position to challenge again soon. I think I would believe Clarko one of the best coaches ever in the game than a bunch of BF buffoons on here.

 

[theBigB]

Even in the midst of not being at the top anymore, Wingard and Impey had no hesitation in picking Hawthorn over the Bulldogs. lol

The next time the Dogs play the Hawks you’ll have to face Mitchell, Patton, Frost, Impey, pick 11, Maginness and a whole lot of other stuff.

Naturally stupid people like you are not capable of engaging in any form of worthwhile discussion.

 

[WWSD]

I like how Hawthorn supporters on here are getting advice on all things rebuild from Western Bulldogs, St Kilda, Melbourne, Carlton and Essendon fans on all things list management when those 5 Victorian clubs have only won 2 Premierships between them since 2000.

 

[WWSD]

Naturally stupid people like you are not capable of engaging in any form of worthwhile discussion.

Says the school boy hidding behind yet another account. Be a man and use you’re real account.

 

[Pessimistic]

How is it different?

its only subtle. mostly similar.

on difference I can think of is Cats more likely to get youngsters into the side as soon as possible (yet still stay top 4) they seem to stay longer at box hill for the Hawks

but it is 4 years longer since the last flag for the cats

 

[theBigB]

No the difference is you bust on a top 10 pick and you wasted an entire year of a rebuild and set it back 12 months. We brought in the elite talent through the trade period and hoped to land some gems with the later picks. Of course it is a risk most Hawk fans are willing to acknowledge that, the risk of banking on highly rated 18 years olds exist to and clearly Hawthorn are experimenting with a rebuild model that minimizes that.

Meanwhile you trade more than just a first round pick for Wingard, and while he's likely to be a good pick-up, he has maybe 4-5 years of elite footy left and is potentially injury-prone.
Instead of taking a first rounder + 3 second rounders to the 2016 draft, which would've given you the chance to bring 4 potentially very good players to build a foundation on (remember 2001?) you splurge it all on O'Meara, a guy who to this day, is not a great kick, and like Wingard, has injury concerns.