Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers

[RichLeMonde]

Again, that is a complete logical fallacy that demonstrates a lack of understanding of statistics if it requires 2 fixed points at the start and the end to be true.

For example, 3 in exactly 17 years (start and end) has never happened so must be more difficult than a 3 in 5 (or even 4 in 5 which has happened more than once).

Richmond's 3 flags from 1980-2019 is the only example in history of 3 flags being won in exactly 30 seasons so is better than Brisbane's 3 peat (which has happened numerous times).

It’s funny you say that, because I predicted and pre-empted this silly argument earlier in the thread. Obviously those examples are meaningless, because there is no continuity in the playing group.

However, in an important sense, any decision about what counts as the ‘same’ playing group is somewhat arbitrary. No team has had an identical playing list in the last year of their 3 flags to the first year. From memory, Hawthorn 08 had about 8 players who played in 13. Why is that too few to count as per of the same era, but Geelong having 15 of the same (or whatever the actual number is) from 07 to 11 is considered enough to make them the ‘same’ team?

but the makeup of a team does matter. If a team won a flag, then was in a plane crash and all died, and then an entirely different pl list was recruited and won the next 2 flags to produce a 3-peat for the club, would that be considered a dynasty, just because of the consecutive nature of the flags? Obviously not.

So there is some number of overlapping players that we would probably need to agree upon, whether in a 3-peat team or a 3-in-5 team. I don’t know what that number is, but that is actually the defining point.

 

[MinerBoy]

but key point is longevity of winning in years 1 and 5.

But no... it's not the key point.

The Q is of Dynasty.... and in Cats v Hawks case we've settled on 2007-11 v 2011-15.... 5 year stretches.

We've established they both had longevity over the 5 years but the Hawks had the slightly greater achievements throughout the course of the full 5 years.

The Hawks less successful /non-flag years (2011, 2012) were on the basis of actual results better than the Cats years of 2008, 2010. Far closer to winning 2012 than Cats in 2008 (we nearly 4peated) and closer to making a 5th GF appearance in 2011 than Cats in 2010.

And this is all without even factoring the difficulty in of going back to back....to back.

Cats were a dominant H&A side and I realise more aesthetically pleasing for many, but in terms of how the final results of 5 seasons played out the Hawks (and Lions) 3peat teams simply have to stand above.

 

[Fadge]

The answer is because Geelong did it.

The same reason why winning bulk home and away games is more indicative of greatness than finals performance. Because Geelong did it.

The same reason beating routine top 4 finishing finals record opponents like St Kilda 09 and Collingwood 11 elevates a dynasty team. Because Geelong did it.

This is why we get all these convoluted and contrived pro-Geelong arguments made by a St Kilda supporter in order to justify the Saints seat at the greatness table, despite the fact they won one single final ever against a better than average top four team as measured by home and away performance. This one, where the Saints fell in to win a non-knockout final in a pretty even game played in front of 63607 bored shitless fans plus PJays :

View attachment 1254852

Margins.

Scoring shots.

Scoring accuracy.

One day you might learn there is more to football...

 

[BuddyHawk]

Why? Bailey Smith is 20. Clayton Oliver is 24. Shai Bolton is 22. Dom Sheed was 23 in 2018. De Goey was 22 in 2018. Historically it’s absolutely the case that to be a premiership contender, already good teams need to add quality young talent - often, in a game of inches, that one good young player is the difference between a flag or losing a prelim. Hawthorn won a couple of prelims I believe by less than a kick. If teams who were on the rise between 2010 and 2013 had have been able to add talent through the draft as in normal years, that absolutely could have cost Hawthorn flags.

My key point, though, is the extent to which Hawthorn improved its list in the compromised draft era. The club didn’t sit on its hands and stick with the side that won 12.5 games in 2010 (and 9 the year before) - it proactively set about improving its list through aggressive trading and smart drafting, despite not having access to high picks. And let’s not forget Hawthorn was also impacted by the concessions to Gold Coast and GWS - for example, it’s first pick in 2010 was 19; in a non-compromised draft, this would have been pick 10.

The players acquired during this period had a transformative effect on the side. How many players drafted from 2010-12 had as much impact on the competition between 13-15 as Lake, Gunston, Bruest or I Smith? I’d venture to say not many.

Anyway, each to their own. Your argument appears to be that the compromised drafts helped Hawthorn because they had a super list already set in stone. I’m merely demonstrating this wasn’t the case - a lot of key personnel from the 08 side had retired, left, or lost their way due to injuries or poor form (or both). We had to do a lot of smart recruiting to get back up there.

 

[Fadge]

It’s funny you say that, because I predicted and pre-empted this silly argument earlier in the thread. Obviously those examples are meaningless, because there is no continuity in the playing group.

However, in an important sense, any decision about what counts as the ‘same’ playing group is somewhat arbitrary. No team has had an identical playing list in the last year of their 3 flags to the first year. From memory, Hawthorn 08 had about 8 players who played in 13. Why is that too few to count as per of the same era, but Geelong having 15 of the same (or whatever the actual number is) from 07 to 11 is considered enough to make them the ‘same’ team?

but the makeup of a team does matter. If a team won a flag, then was in a plane crash and all died, and then an entirely different pl list was recruited and won the next 2 flags to produce a 3-peat for the club, would that be considered a dynasty, just because of the consecutive nature of the flags? Obviously not.

So there is some number of overlapping players that we would probably need to agree upon, whether in a 3-peat team or a 3-in-5 team. I don’t know what that number is, but that is actually the defining point.

I disagree that there needs to be any overlapping players at all in a team to warrant a Dynasty.

If a team wins 30 flags in a row, as a result of an elite winning culture being instilled in a playing group, and carrying over to new players as they are recruited, who in turn instil success into the next generation of 10 x Premiership players, I'm calling that a 30 year Dynasty.

I'd even call it a Dynasty if they 'only' won 25 flags in that 30 year period (I know there are some in this thread who wouldn't).

 

[Pessimistic]

Beating non Victorian teams at the MCG grand final versus beating perennial grand final losers - not sure which is subjectively the ‘luckiest’

but then again if eagles and cats win their grand finals v the hawks in the AFL era, Their otherwise good AFL premierships total becomes 5 and 6 and the hawks just 2 or 4.
Noted two of eagles flags came against Geelong as well

 

[Pessimistic]

My key point, though, is the extent to which Hawthorn improved its list in the compromised draft era. The club didn’t sit on its hands and stick with the side that won 12.5 games in 2010 (and 9 the year before) - it proactively set about improving its list through aggressive trading and smart drafting, despite not having access to high picks. And let’s not forget Hawthorn was also impacted by the concessions to Gold Coast and GWS - for example, it’s first pick in 2010 was 19; in a non-compromised draft, this would have been pick 10.

The players acquired during this period had a transformative effect on the side. How many players drafted from 2010-12 had as much impact on the competition between 13-15 as Lake, Gunston, Bruest or I Smith? I’d venture to say not many.

Anyway, each to their own. Your argument appears to be that the compromised drafts helped Hawthorn because they had a super list already set in stone. I’m merely demonstrating this wasn’t the case - a lot of key personnel from the 08 side had retired, left, or lost their way due to injuries or poor form (or both) - we had to do a lot of smart recruiting to get back up there.

‘I recall the club publicly acknowledged in around 2010 that because of compromised drafts, they would be changing tack. So the ‘luck’ came from the club anticipating a change in the landscape, and being proactive to address it. More so than some subjective effect on the rest of the ‘competition’

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Margins.

Scoring shots.

Scoring accuracy.

One day you might learn there is more to football...

Fadge dear chap, I read your post table of how many flags teams should have won…..suffice to say one day you might learn there is less to football. Like actual results to start with.

 

[rado]

My key point, though, is the extent to which Hawthorn improved its list in the compromised draft era. The club didn’t sit on its hands and stick with the side that won 12.5 games in 2010 (and 9 the year before) - it proactively set about improving its list through aggressive trading and smart drafting, despite not having access to high picks. And let’s not forget Hawthorn was also impacted by the concessions to Gold Coast and GWS - for example, it’s first pick in 2010 was 19; in a non-compromised draft, this would have been pick 10.

The players acquired during this period had a transformative effect on the side. How many players drafted from 2010-12 had as much impact on the competition between 13-15 as Lake, Gunston, Bruest or I Smith? I’d venture to say not many.

Anyway, each to their own. Your argument appears to be that the compromised drafts helped Hawthorn because they had a super list already set in stone. I’m merely demonstrating this wasn’t the case - a lot of key personnel from the 08 side had retired, left, or lost their way due to injuries or poor form (or both) - we had to do a lot of smart recruiting to get back up there.

One of the benefits of being at the top of the heap during compromised drafts, it curtailed challengers bouncing into contention with compromised first round picks.

These picks assist in two ways ……. Trading for established stars and/or picking up the best kids that are ready. The Hawks arnt to blame, nor does it diminish flags won …… but it did stop challengers from being able to tempt clubs to release high grade players and to a lesser extent it did reduce available ready made elite talent.

 

[Fadge]

Fadge dear chap, I read your post table of how many flags teams should have won…..suffice to say one day you might learn there is less to football. Like actual results to start with.

I wish I knew the results of games before they were played to help me predict who the winner will be.

It must be a handy skill to have, old chap.

 

[Connoisseur]

My key point, though, is the extent to which Hawthorn improved its list in the compromised draft era. The club didn’t sit on its hands and stick with the side that won 12.5 games in 2010 (and 9 the year before) - it proactively set about improving its list through aggressive trading and smart drafting, despite not having access to high picks. And let’s not forget Hawthorn was also impacted by the concessions to Gold Coast and GWS - for example, it’s first pick in 2010 was 19; in a non-compromised draft, this would have been pick 10.

The players acquired during this period had a transformative effect on the side. How many players drafted from 2010-12 had as much impact on the competition between 13-15 as Lake, Gunston, Bruest or I Smith? I’d venture to say not many.

Anyway, each to their own. Your argument appears to be that the compromised drafts helped Hawthorn because they had a super list already set in stone. I’m merely demonstrating this wasn’t the case - a lot of key personnel from the 08 side had retired, left, or lost their way due to injuries or poor form (or both) - we had to do a lot of smart recruiting to get back up there.

The club didn’t sit on its hands and stick with the side that won 12.5 games in 2010 (and 9 the year before) - it proactively set about improving its list through aggressive trading and smart drafting,

You're giving Hawthorn far too much credit for that as I am of the opinion that top tier talent (the best 8 to 12 players of a team) matters to a side (especially a contender) far more than so-called depth players, the quality of the bottom 6 or 8 players, because elite footballers carry the team and instill confidence in fringe teammates to play to a higher standard than they normally would.

Besides losing Franklin in 2013, Hawthorn managed to keep most of their elite players from 2005 to 2016 namely Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead, Rioli, etc.. Adding to that elite core in that period the likes of Gunston, Burgoyne, Gibson, Lake etc.. who agreed to come to Hawthorn because they were a relatively young top contending team, otherwise they probably would have opted to go to another side that was in a Premiership window.

It's very doubtful players of that ilk would agree to come to Hawthorn if they were an older contending team on a downwards trajectory as evidenced by the kind of talent (with a few exceptions like Tom Mitchell) that Hawthorn has attracted since 2016, which are usually players who have had injury or off field personality issues (Patton, Scully, Vickery, O'Meara, etc..)

Compromised drafts were far more detrimental to younger upcoming contenders than to Hawthorn, an older (still relatively young though, not quite over the hill which was true of Geelong in 2012 as most of our best players were in their 30s and gradually retiring) contending side that had established itself already, with most of their best players still in their 20s (albeit late 20s) and importantly still very much in contention for flags.

Which is the point a RichLeMonde made earlier in the thread, that compromised drafts hugely benefited an established contending team like Hawthorn (and vitally still had a relative young elite core of players) as it prevented younger emerging contenders from building their list to their full potential to be able to challenge Hawthorn effectively.

Whilst Hawthorn on the other hand could easily pillage reasonably good talent from other clubs (could realistically sell the chance of winning a flag to quality free agents with a good bill of health that weren't headcases), especially since free agency was becoming far more common place.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I wish I knew the results of games before they were played to help me predict who the winner will be.

It must be a handy skill to have, old chap.

It seems to me from your table you can’t even predict the results after the games have been played. So you probably have a fair way to go.

 

[RichLeMonde]

I disagree that there needs to be any overlapping players at all in a team to warrant a Dynasty.

If a team wins 30 flags in a row, as a result of an elite winning culture being instilled in a playing group, and carrying over to new players as they are recruited, who in turn instil success into the next generation of 10 x Premiership players, I'm calling that a 30 year Dynasty.

I'd even call it a Dynasty if they 'only' won 25 flags in that 30 year period (I know there are some in this thread who wouldn't).

So what’s the cutoff then? Why isn’t Hawthorn’s 08 flag counted? I know you’re not one to insist on consecutive flag years, so if it’s not about continuity in the playing group, why look at anything other than total premierships won?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Fadge]

So what’s the cutoff then? Why isn’t Hawthorn’s 08 flag counted? I know you’re not one to insist on consecutive flag years, so if it’s not about continuity in the playing group, why look at anything other than total premierships won?

So as not to cover old ground, if your were to review my assessment in the original (and best) thread, I personally included Hawthorn's '08 flag.

My above example, albeit unrealistic, does highlight that a Dynasty does not necessarily need to have a minimum number of common players, or the same coach, or President, or boot studder, or Cheer Squad leader.

Imagine if Collingwood had won every flag since 2010, but we couldn't call it a dynasty because Joffa had to flee the country?!?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So as not to cover old ground, if your were to review my assessment in the original (and best) thread, I personally included Hawthorn's '08 flag.

My above example, albeit unrealistic, does highlight that a Dynasty does not necessarily need to have a minimum number of common players, or the same coach, or President, or boot studder, or Cheer Squad leader.

Imagine if Collingwood had won every flag since 2010, but we couldn't call it a dynasty because Joffa had to flee the country?!?

So do we have this right Fadge, you thought Geelong’s 3 flag effort was better than the Hawks 4 flag effort?

If so,

 

[Fadge]

So do we have this right Fadge, you thought Geelong’s 3 flag effort was better than the Hawks 4 flag effort?

If so,

My rationale was clearly explained in the original (and best) Dynasty thread.

 

[PhatBoy]

It’s funny you say that, because I predicted and pre-empted this silly argument earlier in the thread. Obviously those examples are meaningless, because there is no continuity in the playing group.

However, in an important sense, any decision about what counts as the ‘same’ playing group is somewhat arbitrary. No team has had an identical playing list in the last year of their 3 flags to the first year. From memory, Hawthorn 08 had about 8 players who played in 13. Why is that too few to count as per of the same era, but Geelong having 15 of the same (or whatever the actual number is) from 07 to 11 is considered enough to make them the ‘same’ team?

but the makeup of a team does matter. If a team won a flag, then was in a plane crash and all died, and then an entirely different pl list was recruited and won the next 2 flags to produce a 3-peat for the club, would that be considered a dynasty, just because of the consecutive nature of the flags? Obviously not.

So there is some number of overlapping players that we would probably need to agree upon, whether in a 3-peat team or a 3-in-5 team. I don’t know what that number is, but that is actually the defining point.

We had 15 of the same from 07/11 but 18 that played in season 2011. They just weren’t good enough.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

My rationale was clearly explained in the original (and best) Dynasty thread.

It must have been some sh!t hot rationale because I don’t think too many clubs who win 4 flags would strive to improve their standing by giving one back.

 

[RichLeMonde]

We had 15 of the same from 07/11 but 18 that played in season 2011. They just weren’t good enough.

I don't have a strong opinion on it. I think Geelong having 15 of the same players does mean that they were close enough of the same team in 07 and 11 to be considered a single, continuous great team.

I think Hawthorn having 8 players in 11 who played in 08 does mean something though - they must have been incredible players to win a flag with 14 teammates, then with a totally different set of 14 teammates 5 years later. I don't know what word to call that achievement, because it's a bit different to what's mainly been discussed in all these threads. It's not a single great 'team' but it's bloody impressive, and rarer I'm sure than most outcomes a club could achieve.

 

[RichLeMonde]

So as not to cover old ground, if your were to review my assessment in the original (and best) thread, I personally included Hawthorn's '08 flag.

My above example, albeit unrealistic, does highlight that a Dynasty does not necessarily need to have a minimum number of common players, or the same coach, or President, or boot studder, or Cheer Squad leader.

Imagine if Collingwood had won every flag since 2010, but we couldn't call it a dynasty because Joffa had to flee the country?!?

I like how we are all referring to how good the OG thread was, because we are so chuffed with the fine work we put in there

That OG thread is clearly the dynasty of threads about dyansties. This one is a pale, watered down pretender.

 

[Fadge]

I like how we are all referring to how good the OG thread was, because we are so chuffed with the fine work we put in there

That OG thread is clearly the dynasty of threads about dyansties. This one is a pale, watered down pretender.

Original Dynasty Thread = Speed (with Keanu)
This Dynasty Thread = Speed 2 (without Keanu)

 

[LionsMaw]

I haven’t changed my view since the other thread, other than to relegate the Tigers to 4th behind the Cats given the Tigers haven’t featured prominently in a 5th season….yet. Note, I give nothing for consecutive flags above non-consecutive flags, 1 flag = 1 flag, to say otherwise to me is nonsense. Nevertheless, I still have the two triple consecutive teams on top:

1. Hawks - 3 flags and 8 players and a Coach in a 4th flag forms a link that legitimately beats all other contenders. Into the bargain in their flag years they beat probably the best array of finals performing teams. Undeniably top spot for mine. Also revolutionised the game.

2. Fitzroy. Won finals in the most consecutive years, and had the best run of finals winning 11 from 12 in one stretch, amazing effort. Won 3 Grand Finals on foreign soil.

3. Cats. Clearly below the above two teams, but the 4th Grand Final puts them above the Tigers. Strong finals winning margins overall. Talk of their era being some sort of super era given Magpies, Saints and Bulldogs were some sort of better opposition does not come close to standing up when you look at those teams’ respective finals performances and compare with the finals performances of what the Hawks for eg beat. Properly analysed, the teams the Cats beat come out weaker than the vanquished teams from the other dynasties.

4. Tigers. Need to find another GF to slip past Cats. I think this is unlikely. Need another flag to go top, even more unlikely. Great finals team, but lack of a 5th strong season at this point has them clearly behind.

All tremendous teams. Any talk of what one team would do to another is total conjecture. There is no reliable way of knowing how the physically stronger teams of the Cats and Lions would cope with the Hawks precision kicking game or the Tigers superior running game, or vice versa. They were certainly all very tough teams. I have little doubt any of these teams would have beaten the teams the others beat in finals, if you normalised for the evolution of the game.

If you can't even get our team name right you can STFU

 

[BuddyHawk]

You're giving Hawthorn far too much credit for that as I am of the opinion that top tier talent (the best 8 to 12 players of a team) matters to a side (especially a contender) far more than so-called depth players, the quality of the bottom 6 or 8 players, because elite footballers carry the team and instill confidence in fringe teammates to play to a higher standard than they normally would.

Besides losing Franklin in 2013, Hawthorn managed to keep most of their elite players from 2005 to 2016 namely Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead, Rioli, etc.. Adding to that elite core in that period the likes of Gunston, Burgoyne, Gibson, Lake etc.. who agreed to come to Hawthorn because they were a relatively young top contending team, otherwise they probably would have opted to go to another side that was in a Premiership window.

It's very doubtful players of that ilk would agree to come to Hawthorn if they were an older contending team on a downwards trajectory as evidenced by the kind of talent (with a few exceptions like Tom Mitchell) that Hawthorn has attracted since 2016, which are usually players who have had injury or off field personality issues (Patton, Scully, Vickery, O'Meara, etc..)

Compromised drafts were far more detrimental to younger upcoming contenders than to Hawthorn, an older (still relatively young though, not quite over the hill which was true of Geelong in 2012 as most of our best players were in their 30s and gradually retiring) contending side that had established itself already, with most of their best players still in their 20s (albeit late 20s) and importantly still very much in contention for flags.

Which is the point a RichLeMonde made earlier in the thread, that compromised drafts hugely benefited an established contending team like Hawthorn (and vitally still had a relative young elite core of players) as it prevented younger emerging contenders from building their list to their full potential to be able to challenge Hawthorn effectively.

Whilst Hawthorn on the other hand could easily pillage reasonably good talent from other clubs (could realistically sell the chance of winning a flag to quality free agents with a good bill of health that weren't headcases), especially since free agency was becoming far more common place.

I think there are two separate - albeit not unrelated - points of discussion here.

Firstly, to what extent did the compromised drafts influence what happened on the field in 2013-15?

I’ve posted previously in this thread - as has Pjays - on how it takes most draftees a while to find their feet at the top level. There’s the occasional player like Judd, Selwood and Oliver who come into the system and make an immediate impact, but they’re few and far between.

Most players - even high draft picks - take maybe two seasons to establish themselves, and 4-5 seasons until they’re having a major impact on games. A footballers’ peak years are generally between, roughly speaking, 23 and 28, although increasingly players are performing at a high level into their 30s.

With this context in mind, I think the compromised drafts of 2010-12 had a bigger impact on the comp in 2016-19, when those elite players who the non- expansion clubs missed out on started hitting their prime years. Maybe 2015-19, given most of the players Gold Coast drafted in 2010 turned 23 in 2015.

Of course, I’m sure there was some on-field impact in 2013-14. Jeremy Cameron, for instance, would have been a handy addition to any side from the get go. But my point is that he and his contemporaries were playing better football at 25 than at 20.

This isn’t intended to diminish the merits of the recent Richmond dynasty, either. If anything, Richmond would have been even better without the compromised drafts, given the early picks they missed out on in 2010 and 2011. But I think it’s also fair to assume that some other teams would have benefitted from having a couple of extra high draft picks coming into their prime years.

Secondly, if we are to assume the compromised drafts had a major impact in 2013-15 - which I am personally sceptical about - to what extent did Hawthorn benefit?

Let’s go back to 2010, at the dawn of the compromised draft era. If there is/was a causal link between those drafts and teams staying at the top for longer, than why didn’t this happen for all of the six teams who finished above Hawthorn that year?

I’m being a bit disingenuous, of course - Geelong, St Kilda and the Bulldogs all had pretty old lists by 2010, so were due a dip at some point (not that the Cats experienced much of one). Sydney and Freo had similar list profiles to Hawthorn at that time, and duly got better in the following years.

Then there’s Collingwood. And if there was ever a team that should have cashed in on the compromised drafts, it was them. They won the flag in 2010 with a young side and looked set to dominate the comp for years.

That they didn’t appears due to a few factors, which I’m sure a Pies fan can explain better than me. But from afar, it looked to be a combination of: the coaching succession plan happening at a bad time for a list that was in its prime; the usual challenges of staying on top, including keeping players motivated; and improvement from teams below them. The three sides they lost to in finals in Buckley’s first two seasons - 2012-13 - were Hawthorn, Sydney and Port, who all improved a lot during that period. Especially Port.

But anyway, Collingwood’s gradual decline from 2011-14 is, to me, a pretty good counterpoint to the argument that the compromised drafts helped teams stay at the top - at least at that early stage.

As for Hawthorn, there’s no doubt they weren’t disadvantaged by the compromised drafts as much as some teams, as they had some high-end talent in their prime and weren’t needing to do a rebuild. But they still had deficiencies, and their progress from scraping into the 8 in 2010 to premiers in 2013 was due partly to natural improvement from players already on the list, but more importantly, trading for players to fill specific needs.

The net result was Hawthorn got a lot better during the compromised draft era, rather than it being a case of them standing still while everyone tried to catch up. And I’m sure they were, at that time, an attractive option to players because they were contenders - or more accurately in 2010, had clear potential to get back into contention. But they were far from the only club in that category.

This post is way too long already, so it’s time I shut the hell up. And it’s all a matter of opinion, isn’t it? Clearly a number of BigFooty posters think the compromised drafts helped Hawthorn’s threepeat era, and good luck to them. For me, though, it’s an argument that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Pessimistic]

Just a tidbit, but the hawks are much closer to the lions than the previous similar thread/poll

 

[Pessimistic]

You're giving Hawthorn far too much credit for that as I am of the opinion that top tier talent (the best 8 to 12 players of a team) matters to a side (especially a contender) far more than so-called depth players, the quality of the bottom 6 or 8 players, because elite footballers carry the team and instill confidence in fringe teammates to play to a higher standard than they normally would.

Besides losing Franklin in 2013, Hawthorn managed to keep most of their elite players from 2005 to 2016 namely Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead, Rioli, etc.. Adding to that elite core in that period the likes of Gunston, Burgoyne, Gibson, Lake etc.. who agreed to come to Hawthorn because they were a relatively young top contending team, otherwise they probably would have opted to go to another side that was in a Premiership window.

It's very doubtful players of that ilk would agree to come to Hawthorn if they were an older contending team on a downwards trajectory as evidenced by the kind of talent (with a few exceptions like Tom Mitchell) that Hawthorn has attracted since 2016, which are usually players who have had injury or off field personality issues (Patton, Scully, Vickery, O'Meara, etc..)

Compromised drafts were far more detrimental to younger upcoming contenders than to Hawthorn, an older (still relatively young though, not quite over the hill which was true of Geelong in 2012 as most of our best players were in their 30s and gradually retiring) contending side that had established itself already, with most of their best players still in their 20s (albeit late 20s) and importantly still very much in contention for flags.

Which is the point a RichLeMonde made earlier in the thread, that compromised drafts hugely benefited an established contending team like Hawthorn (and vitally still had a relative young elite core of players) as it prevented younger emerging contenders from building their list to their full potential to be able to challenge Hawthorn effectively.

Whilst Hawthorn on the other hand could easily pillage reasonably good talent from other clubs (could realistically sell the chance of winning a flag to quality free agents with a good bill of health that weren't headcases), especially since free agency was becoming far more common place.

Relatively young? There’s any number of posts from hawks fans fearing Hodges best was behind him in 2011-12 due to injury. 2015. Was the oldest premiership team up till then (also the hottest day for the grand final)