Hawthorn 2017 season preview

[Ricky Vaughn]

Sorry, I just can't see how our depth could be deemed to be amongst the worst in the league simply because they've failed to force their way into a side that's been at the top for so long.

Call it unproven, but to simply define it as "the worst" because they haven't been able to push aside guys like Hodge, Burgoyne, Mitchell, Lake and whoever else over the last 4 years is hyperbole.

It's the nature of being at the top.
You don't get the top draft picks, you can't gift games to players, talented depth players leave for more opportunity etc.

In the end, it leads to the side having really poor depth outside their top 30. Honestly, most sides depth outside of 30 players is pretty poor. For 2017, Hawthorn sit right towards the bottom of that pile.

I don't see how Hawthorn could be ranked anywhere but in the bottom few. You said they are "unproven" and unproven players taken with late and rookie picks shouldn't be rated any higher just because they have superstars who play ahead of them.

 

[Saint]

Sorry, I just can't see how our depth could be deemed to be amongst the worst in the league simply because they've failed to force their way into a side that's been at the top for so long.

Call it unproven, but to simply define it as "the worst" because they haven't been able to push aside guys like Hodge, Burgoyne, Mitchell, Lake and whoever else over the last 4 years is hyperbole.

Your contention is that because they haven't had a game they are still good. But last year Hawthorn really needed their depth to step up and they got basically nothing out of any of them with players in and out of the side all season. Some of them have been in the system for quite a while. Not one of them has been able to cement a spot in the team despite plenty of chances for all of them. Sicily was the one and then he got dropped for the final.

There's no doubt now about Schoenmakers ability, he's been in and out of the team for years and was pushed out by Sicily, Brand and others at various times. He's simply not up to it. Whitecross was Box Hill's best player last year in the matches I watched and he's been serviceable in the AFL at best. O'Rourke was hopeless in the VFL all season.

It will be interesting to see what they can come up with next year if they do finish outside the 8 with no high draft picks this year or next. Things are going to get worse for the Hawks before they get better.

 

[HolyWars]

It's also the reason that Gunston struggled to be more effective in the forward line this past season as the no.1 defender was always heading his way.

Still did well considering imo.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Still did well considering imo.

Honestly, it's the difference between winning the 4th flag in a row and not.

If we had Rough we'd have done it, there's no question in my mind. For our team structure it's disastrous to lose a player like him. Everything gets put out of whack without him there.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Your contention is that because they haven't had a game they are still good. But last year Hawthorn really needed their depth to step up and they got basically nothing out of any of them with players in and out of the side all season. Some of them have been in the system for quite a while. Not one of them has been able to cement a spot in the team despite plenty of chances for all of them. Sicily was the one and then he got dropped for the final.

There's no doubt now about Schoenmakers ability, he's been in and out of the team for years and was pushed out by Sicily, Brand and others at various times. He's simply not up to it. Whitecross was Box Hill's best player last year in the matches I watched and he's been serviceable in the AFL at best. O'Rourke was hopeless in the VFL all season.

It will be interesting to see what they can come up with next year if they do finish outside the 8 with no high draft picks this year or next. Things are going to get worse for the Hawks before they get better.

I would like to know what u are basing the first bolded line from? We got plenty out of them. Sicily actually was important in two of our sensational wins for the year against the bulldogs and north.

Schoey was injured most of the year wasn't pushed out. He came straight back in after having 10+ weeks out with just two weeks at box hill. Played in the loss against Geelong probably pushed sicily out of the side.

Burton who missed most of the year because of surgery came into the side of the back of 3 games in VFL. Not bad for a 19 year old coming off a 18 month layoff due to injury.

We had lovell and hardwick debut as well as 19 year olds along with others the fact they didn't stay in the side was due to the other more seasoned players with experience coming back from injury or long layoffs

Box hill lost 6 or so games by under a kick and a couple more leading at 3 qtr time. Could have been a very different season for the so called also rans in our Box Hill side. A slice of luck and more experience in the side they could have almost finished top 4

We were 4 and 1 should have been 5 -0 (umpiring error where a point was given instead of a goal against Weribbe) at the start of the year before injury took its toll.

 

[Saint]

I would like to know what u are basing the first bolded line from? We got plenty out of them. Sicily actually was important in two of our sensational wins for the year against the bulldogs and north.

Schoey was injured most of the year wasn't pushed out. He came straight back in after having 10+ weeks out with just two weeks at box hill. Played in the loss against Geelong probably pushed sicily out of the side.

Burton who most of the year because of surgery came into the side of the back of 3 games in VFL. Not bad for a 19 year old coming off a 18 month layoff due to injury.

We had lovell and hardwick debut as well as 19 year olds along with others the fact they didn't stay in the side was due to the other more seasoned players with experience coming back from injury or long layoffs

Box hill lost 6 or so games by under a kick and a couple more leading at 3 qtr time. Could have been a very different season for the so called also rans in our Box Hill side. A slice of luck and more experience in the side they could have almost finished top 4

We were 4 and 1 should have been 5 -0 (umpiring error where a point was given isntead of a goal against Weribbe) at the start of the year before injury took its toll.

If the same change of luck had happened to the AFL team, they would have been lucky to make finals. So Lovell and Hardwick debuted. Lots of players debut, doesn't make them any good.

Sicily played one good game, but getting dropped for Schoenmakers at the business end says a lot.

Apart from Sicily's 3 votes against North, none of the young hawks got a vote in the Brownlow, none finished top 10 in the Hawks B&F.

There isn't one subjective statistic in which a young Hawthorn player has done anything of note in the AFL in 6 years.

Give me one statistic or example.

Rising Star - nope
Brownlow - nope
Hawks B&F - nope
AFL stats - nope


The best under 30 on the Brownlow list was Rioli with 8 votes.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Your contention is that because they haven't had a game they are still good. But last year Hawthorn really needed their depth to step up and they got basically nothing out of any of them with players in and out of the side all season. Some of them have been in the system for quite a while. Not one of them has been able to cement a spot in the team despite plenty of chances for all of them. Sicily was the one and then he got dropped for the final.

There's no doubt now about Schoenmakers ability, he's been in and out of the team for years and was pushed out by Sicily, Brand and others at various times. He's simply not up to it. Whitecross was Box Hill's best player last year in the matches I watched and he's been serviceable in the AFL at best. O'Rourke was hopeless in the VFL all season.

It will be interesting to see what they can come up with next year if they do finish outside the 8 with no high draft picks this year or next. Things are going to get worse for the Hawks before they get better.

For starters Schoenmakers was injured and missed half the season, so your comments about his season are factually wrong and show no understanding of just where he was coming back from.

O'Rourke also missed games at Box Hill through injury, and struggled for continuity. But again you've written him off on seeing a couple of games.

Why must you continue to talk about a list you clearly know little about?

My contention is not that Hawthorn's kids must be good because they haven't played at all, it's more so that people like yourself who write these kids off as "poor" or "the worst in the league" because they haven't locked in a best 22 spot are too quick to jump to this conclusion becuase you seemingly really want it to be true.

Hawthorn have a heap of youngsters yet to prove themselves. This doesn't make them poor or the worst in the league, it makes them unproven.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Honestly, it's the difference between winning the 4th flag in a row and not.

If we had Rough we'd have done it, there's no question in my mind. For our team structure it's disastrous to lose a player like him. Everything gets put out of whack without him there.

Honestly, that is delusional.

Hawthorn lacked depth in the midfield and were smashed at the clearances. They actually over-achieved due to some very close wins.

They have now effectively swapped the 2 top players from their midfield and expecting to get better.

To improve and contend, they would need significant improvement from the younger players and they just haven't shown they are capable. Only Burton really looked likely.

They have significant players who are past their best. Particularly Hodge and Gibson and Birchall was ordinary. Burgoyne seemed to be going very well but you cannot expect him to drive improvement.

 

[QuietB]

It's the nature of being at the top.
You don't get the top draft picks, you can't gift games to players, talented depth players leave for more opportunity etc.

In the end, it leads to the side having really poor depth outside their top 30. Honestly, most sides depth outside of 30 players is pretty poor. For 2017, Hawthorn sit right towards the bottom of that pile.

I don't see how Hawthorn could be ranked anywhere but in the bottom few. You said they are "unproven" and unproven players taken with late and rookie picks shouldn't be rated any higher just because they have superstars who play ahead of them.

Lets look at it another way.

Who has got good depth?

GWS do. Who else?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I don't see how Hawthorn could be ranked anywhere but in the bottom few. You said they are "unproven" and unproven players taken with late and rookie picks shouldn't be rated any higher just because they have superstars who play ahead of them.

I'm not saying they should be rated higher, what I'm saying is why or how can players be rated lower by people who know four fifths of FA about them?

These kids sitting at Box Hill are seemingly being written off as "no good" becuase they haven't played lots of senior football due to who they've competed with for spots.

If we are to assume anything about these kids, it's that the club who knows exactly what a premiership player looks like have seen enough in them to keep them around, rather than the opposing view which seems to be coming quite strongly from opposition fans.

"I haven't seen him play 10 senior games....he must be s**t".

 

[TheFourPillars]

If the same change of luck had happened to the AFL team, they would have been lucky to make finals. So Lovell and Hardwick debuted. Lots of players debut, doesn't make them any good.

Sicily played one good game, but getting dropped for Schoenclangers at the business end says a lot.

Apart from Sicily's 3 votes against North, none of the young hawks got a vote in the Brownlow, none finished top 10 in the Hawks B&F.

There isn't one subjective statistic in which a young Hawthorn player has done anything of note in the AFL in 6 years.

Give me one statistic or example.

Rising Star - nope
Brownlow - nope
Hawks B&F - nope
AFL stats - nope


The best under 30 on the Brownlow list was Rioli with 8 votes.

Ahh yes you neglected the part where I mentioned experience. Luck plays its part yes but its also a matter of experience in the way you handle the pressure in close games. Players need to consistently play the whole year to get into any of those awards. You're looking at this the wrong way. Sicily kicked 30 goals for the year... LOL at one game

 

[Rioli magic]

If the same change of luck had happened to the AFL team, they would have been lucky to make finals. So Lovell and Hardwick debuted. Lots of players debut, doesn't make them any good.

Sicily played one good game, but getting dropped for Schoenclangers at the business end says a lot.

Apart from Sicily's 3 votes against North, none of the young hawks got a vote in the Brownlow, none finished top 10 in the Hawks B&F.

There isn't one subjective statistic in which a young Hawthorn player has done anything of note in the AFL in 6 years.

Give me one statistic or example.

Rising Star - nope
Brownlow - nope
Hawks B&F - nope
AFL stats - nope


The best under 30 on the Brownlow list was Rioli with 8 votes.

Didn't Hawthorn just bring in 2 young gun midfielders or was I dreaming?

 

[Doss]

We can desist with Bay nicknames right away, thank you. For both teams and players.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Lets look at it another way.

Who has got good depth?

GWS do. Who else?

Plenty of sides have good depth outside their best 22, Hawthorn probably isn't one of them. Not so many sides have good depth outside their top 28, Hawthorn certainly isn't one of them.

As I said anyway, depth outside of 30 players is overrated for any individual season.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Sicily played one good game, but getting dropped for Schoenmakers at the business end says a lot.

Played one good game did he?

Yes, getting dropped for Schoenmakers says that Clarkson wanted a bigger body in the finals.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

I'm not saying they should be rated higher, what I'm saying is why or how can players be rated lower by people who know four fifths of FA about them?

These kids sitting at Box Hill are seemingly being written off as "no good" becuase they haven't played lots of senior football due to who they've competed with for spots.

If we are to assume anything about these kids, it's that the club who knows exactly what a premiership player looks like have seen enough in them to keep them around, rather than the opposing view which seems to be coming quite strongly from opposition fans.

"I haven't seen him play 10 senior games....he must be s**t".

I'm only writing off 2 players on hawthorn's list as "no good" (O'Rourke, Fitzpatrick).

Remember this thread is about 2017, so if you expect blokes taken in the rookie draft of 2015 to step up when needed, off the back of 2 or 3 senior games, you will be disappointed.

If I'm going to assume anything about the kids Hawthorn drafted, I'll make the same assumptions I do for any other kids who've played under 10 games, were taken late in the draft and have under 3 years experience at AFL level. If these guys are considered part of your genuine AFL depth, your depth is not good enough

Just to clarify, every single player unproven player on the Hawthorn list might be a future Hall of Famer, they might be a massive dud, I'm not sure. What you can predict with confidence is, if you're relying on these players in 2017, your season is cooked.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

Plenty of sides have good depth outside their best 22, Hawthorn probably isn't one of them. Not so many sides have good depth outside their top 28, Hawthorn certainly isn't one of them.

As I said anyway, depth outside of 30 players is overrated for any individual season.

Luke Beveridge has changed this thinking.

In his 2 years he has only had a total of 3 players not play seniors and contribute.

Bulldogs have about 35 players who could play a role in the 22 on any given day and allowed them to win the Grand Final without 5 players who could be argued as best 22 players. They also won the VFL flag comfortably.

If you only have 30 players you require an exceptional injury run.

 

[Jaeger]

Luke Beveridge has changed this thinking.

Clarkson

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'm only writing off 2 players on hawthorn's list as "no good" (O'Rourke, Fitzpatrick).

Remember this thread is about 2017, so if you expect blokes taken in the rookie draft of 2015 to step up when needed, off the back of 2 or 3 senior games, you will be disappointed.

If I'm going to assume anything about the kids Hawthorn drafted, I'll make the same assumptions I do for any other kids who've played under 10 games, were taken late in the draft and have under 3 years experience at AFL level. If these guys are considered part of your genuine AFL depth, your depth is not good enough

Just to clarify, every single player unproven player on the Hawthorn list might be a future Hall of Famer, they might be a massive dud, I'm not sure. What you can predict with confidence is, if you're relying on these players in 2017, your season is cooked.

Hang on, I haven't mentioned anything about rookie list picks from 2015 or anything similar.

You said that anyone outside of our best 28 would be considered amongst the worst in the league.

So, let's say we revisit the team I put up earlier.

Players 22-28 may be as follows.
Langford
Hartung
Howe
Lovell

So, you're saying that these depth players outside of the 28 in Schoenmakers, O'Brien, O'Rourke, Pittonet and Stewart would be amongst the worst players in that bracket in the league?

Not buying it.

 

[Saint]

Lets look at it another way.

Who has got good depth?

GWS do. Who else?

Bulldogs have lots of depth. Sydney, Adelaide and West Coast all had some genuine class missing matches through poor form or simply not being able to break into the side. North Melbourne actually had some pretty good players in and out of the side last year. Losing Harvey, Petrie and Dal probably removes some of that but they've still got a bit of depth.

Geelong lack depth for much the same reasons as Hawthorn (very few early picks recently).

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Luke Beveridge has changed this thinking.

In his 2 years he has only had a total of 3 players not play seniors and contribute.

Bulldogs have about 35 players who could play a role in the 22 on any given day and allowed them to win the Grand Final without 5 players who could be argued as best 22 players. They also won the VFL flag comfortably.

If you only have 30 players you require an exceptional injury run.

It doesn't need to be exceptional, it just needs to be good.
Guys who are poor depth or not ready can still slot into a role for 1 or 2 games per year. Any more than that and you can struggle.

I think at this stage the Bulldogs are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Leeda]

For starters Schoenmakers was injured and missed half the season, so your comments about his season are factually wrong and show no understanding of just where he was coming back from.

O'Rourke also missed games at Box Hill through injury, and struggled for continuity. But again you've written him off on seeing a couple of games.

Why must you continue to talk about a list you clearly know little about?

My contention is not that Hawthorn's kids must be good because they haven't played at all, it's more so that people like yourself who write these kids off as "poor" or "the worst in the league" because they haven't locked in a best 22 spot are too quick to jump to this conclusion becuase you seemingly really want it to be true.

Hawthorn have a heap of youngsters yet to prove themselves. This doesn't make them poor or the worst in the league, it makes them unproven.

and we all know that enthusiasm and willingness to get the most out of themselves are key especially at the Hawks. also just to try a bit of every position
so as to be extremely versatile

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

So, you're saying that these depth players outside of the 28 in Schoenmakers, O'Brien, O'Rourke, Pittonet and Stewart would be amongst the worst players in that bracket in the league?

Not buying it.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

It looks like we won't agree on it though.
Big Footy, differing opinions and all that.

 

[QuietB]

Plenty of sides have good depth outside their best 22, Hawthorn probably isn't one of them. Not so many sides have good depth outside their top 28, Hawthorn certainly isn't one of them.

As I said anyway, depth outside of 30 players is overrated for any individual season.

Who?

 

[simmo97]

Bulldogs have lots of depth. Sydney, Adelaide and West Coast all had some genuine class missing matches through poor form or simply not being able to break into the side. North Melbourne actually had some pretty good players in and out of the side last year. Losing Harvey, Petrie and Dal probably removes some of that but they've still got a bit of depth.

Geelong lack depth for much the same reasons as Hawthorn (very few early picks recently).

only the Bulldogs and Giants have excellent depth.