Deepest list

[Donkey Chop]

No,they are deep in average players,and old players at that,in a year or 2 they will be back to square 1

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Nope. All the old fogies are playing, Norths depth are kids.

 

[HairyO]

Hawks have a great 1st team but for the 1st time in their premiership years are susceptible to injuries.

In 2014 who knew that Spangher, Langford, and Duryea would step up? Throw in McEvoy who had hardly played in weeks before the GF.

I'd say these lists are fairly meaningless because until you see the players actually play.

Who cares if a team has 35 guys who have played at least 22 games, if half of them wouldnt get a run at a top 10 team? I'd much rather unknowns. Its why GWS is so interesting. They have 20 guys who may turn out to be absolute elites.

 

[WCE_phil]

This is always an interesting discussion as whether you look at the entire list, lines on the field, different areas, positions etc. etc.

West could i feel would easily have the best key position depth in the league. Great coverage for small - medium defenders as well yet our midfield depth is very much unproven or very shallow at this stage. If we lose 2-3 of our mid tier mids we are in trouble yet as seen last year we lost our FB and CHB as well as having injuries to their replacements as well at times and still covered them very well.

Overall of players ready to come in and play at a decent standard right now collingwood would definitely be close over the entirety of their list.

 

[pacman]

crap

you lose Hodge and Mitchell finals time you lose

Hawks been very fortunate its best players available business end

You had all your players available in 08 and we lost two players by half time.
Pretty sure Mitchell did nothing that game, maybe the dew didn't help.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

In 2014 who knew that Spangher, Langford, and Duryea would step up? Throw in McEvoy who had hardly played in weeks before the GF.

I'd say these lists are fairly meaningless because until you see the players actually play.

Who cares if a team has 35 guys who have played at least 22 games, if half of them wouldnt get a run at a top 10 team? I'd much rather unknowns. Its why GWS is so interesting. They have 20 guys who may turn out to be absolute elites.

Sure.

But in your premiership years you had proven depth.

Now you have unknowns... Who may be ok, but may not.

Hawks I expect will still be top 4 but wouldn't want an injury run like 2 years ago.

 

[HairyO]

Sure.

But in your premiership years you had proven depth.

Now you have unknowns... Who may be ok, but may not.

Hawks I expect will still be top 4 but wouldn't want an injury run like 2 years ago.

All of this could be said of all clubs. We have no idea who comes out of the pre-season the fittest and with the best skills improvements.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

All of this could be said of all clubs. We have no idea who comes out of the pre-season the fittest and with the best skills improvements.

No it can't!

There is more proven depth in most other teams compared to the hawks.

The analysis above confirms this.

 

[HairyO]

No it can't!

There is more proven depth in most other teams compared to the hawks.

The analysis above confirms this.

Right-o then. Sorry, I should just go with what BigFooty says.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Right-o then. Sorry, I should just go with what BigFooty says.

It's not bigfooty, it's a fact about your squad that you lack experienced depth.

Get over it... As you will still make the finals as you have a classy 1st 22.

 

[Hawkboy62]

crap

you lose Hodge and Mitchell finals time you lose

Hawks been very fortunate its best players available business end

Disagree. Both have been important but the team is well coached and versatile. In the 2013 GF Mitchell was tagged by Crowley and had 8 kicks, 4 handballs, less than 1/2 his normal output but we still won reasonably comfortably. Also in the first semi final we played Sydney ( reigning premiers) without Franklin & Rioli but still won by 9 goals.
More important than the top 10 is the performance of the bottom 6 of each team. Hawthorn has an experienced even team where success comes from everyone "playing their role"
There is luck involved in having key players fit and healthy for the GF. In 2008 we gambled on Croad being fit and only got 1/2 a match out of him. In 2012 our key players were just about cooked after a sensational finish to the season, particularly Roughy who was sharing the ruck with Hale; losing Whitecross & Guerra before the GF also cut our options. In 2014 we gambled on Rioli being fit, in 2015 Gunston. Both worked out well. I think that Hawthorn has the best coached team & that our depth players are used to the team system and are less likely to suffer stage fright than the less experienced members of the opposition, which has shown up in the last 3 grannies.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It's not bigfooty, it's a fact about your squad that you lack experienced depth.

Get over it... As you will still make the finals as you have a classy 1st 22.

Abasi dislikes this.

Shock horror. The notion that their youth is unproven and inexperienced. Now I wonder who else has raised that point with Echols...

 

[Cynic]

Never really believed much in depth. Most teams have borderline AFL level key position players (but either not quite good enough or too immature ideally) and young internally rated midfielders.

 

[HairyO]

Abasi dislikes this.

Shock horror. The notion that their youth is unproven and inexperienced. Now I wonder who else has raised that point with Echols...

Who was our depth in 2013/14/15?

How well known were they outside of Hawthorn?

How many teams have premiership players unable to get a game? We have 2.

 

[HeHateMe]

Who was our depth in 2013/14/15?

How well known were they outside of Hawthorn?

How many teams have premiership players unable to get a game? We have 2.

but we had 3 last season.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Who was our depth in 2013/14/15?

How well known were they outside of Hawthorn?

How many teams have premiership players unable to get a game? We have 2.

You had lake, hale & suckling who were regulars. Also, traded out Anderson who was on the fringe but gained Fitzpatrick.

That's halved your experienced depth.

 

[HairyO]

You had lake, hale & suckling who were regulars. Also, traded out Anderson who was on the fringe but gained Fitzpatrick.

That's halved your experienced depth.

I remember the entire trade period was full of comments about Anderson being a hack.

Hale was too old.

Suckling was lazy.

Lake was our only decent player lost.

I guess facts change to suit the argument.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I remember the entire trade period was full of comments about Anderson being a hack.

Hale was too old.

Suckling was lazy.

Lake was our only decent player lost.

I guess facts change to suit the argument.

Those comments never came from me...

Lake & hale in particular have been important players.

 

[HairyO]

Those comments never came from me...

Lake & hale in particular have been important players.

Lake for sure, but if Ceglar hadnt hurt his back mid-season Clarko would have most likely dropped Hale for the finals. Instead he wanted consistency in the team. Which is why Suckling continued to get games despite playing relatively poorly.

 

[andrew coombs]

Impossible to really know how good the depth is at clubs having a period of dominance. It is far easier for a youngster to come in and play well in a top side than a team at the bottom end that don't have the experienced heads to play alongside. Geelong, Hawthorn and Collingwood in recent times have kids come in and make a contribution to the effect that people considered them to be ready made AFL players. It's been shown that this is not always the case.

 

[HeHateMe]

Although im not going to argue my hawks have the best depth in which ive already stated I dont belive earlier in this thread games played isnt the best and only measure of depth talent. One example thats close to home is Tim Obrian and Kurt Heatherly, im certain kurt will have a better carrer then tim even though he has 0 games played and the other has played a few games.
other teams have many similar situations.

But I agree looking at games played is by far the most tangible way of comparing sides depth and a ranking system will have more hits then misses on the most part.
the issus will be the outrideing teams at each end, hawthorn clearly dont have the second worst depth entering the 2016 season. if you belive so put money on them to miss top 4 because you can not make top 4 with non existent depth.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

No it can't!

There is more proven depth in most other teams compared to the hawks.

The analysis above confirms this.

That analysis, by my analysis is bullshit.

Box Hill's results over the past few seasons confirms this.

 

[stew42]

You can say that about every team though. Take out two or their top 5 and they'll struggle, especially in finals.
Showed last year with Sydney losing buddy, Parker, Freo when Fyfe was injured.

Finals are certainly where you need you're very best. Home and away you can get by more.

Hawthorns defensive depth will be tested this year with no lake. Other than that we can cover most injuries I reckon.

Just clarifying, also Kieran Jack, Nick Smith, and Sam Reid. We were absolutely stuffed, and most other teams would be too if they lost 5 of their best players

 

[HairyO]

Although im not going to argue my hawks have the best depth in which ive already stated I dont belive earlier in this thread games played isnt the best and only measure of depth talent. One example thats close to home is Tim Obrian and Kurt Heatherly, im certain kurt will have a better carrer then tim even though he has 0 games played and the other has played a few games.
other teams have many similar situations.

But I agree looking at games played is by far the most tangible way of comparing sides depth and a ranking system will have more hits then misses on the most part.
the issus will be the outrideing teams at each end, hawthorn clearly dont have the second worst depth entering the 2016 season. if you belive so put money on them to miss top 4 because you can not make top 4 with non existent depth.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

The problem with saying games played is by far the most tangible way of comparing sides is that it is essentially rating a 30 game plodder as being more important for the list than the #1 draft pick from the year before or the year before that who hasnt yet played a game in the seniors (but could well play 200+ over the next 10 years).

I would much prefer someone who has had 4 or 5 games in their first season and shown incredible talent over a guy who has had 25 games over 6 or 7 years because he steps in when someone is injured.

Its why we dumped Simpkin and not Howe. Even though Simpkin had even been winning awards in the Magoos.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

That analysis, by my analysis is bullshit.

Box Hill's results over the past few seasons confirms this.

No it doesn't. He said proven depth. Lots of those players at Box Hill (who have seen success) are unproven at AFL level.

 

[HeHateMe]

The problem with saying games played is by far the most tangible way of comparing sides is that it is essentially rating a 30 game plodder as being more important for the list than the #1 draft pick from the year before or the year before that who hasnt yet played a game in the seniors (but could well play 200+ over the next 10 years).

I would much prefer someone who has had 4 or 5 games in their first season and shown incredible talent over a guy who has had 25 games over 6 or 7 years because he steps in when someone is injured.

Its why we dumped Simpkin and not Howe. Even though Simpkin had even been winning awards in the Magoos.

I dont agree with everything you say, games played is a fantastic starting point. Although a ranking system is weighted to the teams in the cluster not the outriders who have other things bareing on their list maintenance.


think box plot.