Mitch Hahn

[smiddaz123]

this makes no sense at all. All spots on the list, whether rookie or senior, are important.

Someone we might be looking at as a rookie, we can take in the ND especially now the rules around playing rookie in the seniors are so easily manipulated.

I'd prefer we draft a 22 year old with excellent VFL form than a 29 year old Mitch Hahn if we want a bit more experience than just kids.

I'd be happy for this to happen as well. There are no guarantees that it will be available for us though.

There is ALWAYS youth that is rated left available.

If that's the case then I'm happy for the club to draft the kid, as I've said. My stance isn't that we should overlook a player we rate for Mitch Hahn, and it never will be.

Hahn can fill a role at AFL level though, and if the club sees him as a better option than a remaining kid that they don't think we can get in the rookie draft, then I'm happy for us to take him for free. He isn't useless.

We're going to have to draft a couple of kids in the Rookie Draft, and Mitch Hahn would have to go before that, so if there's literally no one we rate by our final pick in the ND then it doesn't auger well for the Rookie Draft.

The fact is, taking kids with picks late in the draft is always going to be somewhat of a crapshoot - We need to maximise our chances by using the picks on kids, rather than throw one of those chances away on a virtually useless player that we could cover with any one of a number of scenarios.

Your position also presupposes a complete lack of faith in our youth, which is dumb, shortsighted, and guaranteed to be a position that isn't going to be shared by the football department.

It's not a complete lack in our youth If a Scott Reed or a Tom Hunter is showing the form to warrant selection ahead of an older player then they should be selected every time. There are no guarantees that it will be the case though.

Goldsack, McCarthy, Reed, Young and Hunter would all rightly be preferred to Mitch Hahn - You're part of a tiny majority that wants to abandon the youth focus that we've had for the ENTIRETY of Malthouse's tenure at Collingwood.

In that tenure last year Malthouse and co overlooked all remaining young players to take Leigh Brown, was was probably more heavily critcised than Hahn right now. It isn't a lack of confidence in youth or a wanting to abandon a youth focus.

Mitch Hahn, mid draft pick (37), little natural talent, almost no versatility (IMO, can only play as a 3rd-4th forward), has very little physical presence, especially in big games.

Hahn doesn't fill a need, we need KPP backup, not undersized, under skilled non physical medium forwards.

Very little physical presence? Non physical? I don't rate Mitch Hahn all that highly, but that is without a doubt the most inaccurate and ridiculous thing said in this thread, and has me convinced you've never actually watched him play. It's perfectly reasonable not to rate him, but it's pretty much like saying you don't rate Presti because he's poor defensively. Plenty of criticisms in his game, and you chose what is probably his biggest strength somehow.

Also, just putting it out there, your thoughts on recruiting Luke Ball before we actually did....

He looks like Mick McGuane did at 25 years old, should be a law made to place a "do not touch" sign on Luke Ball.

And what happens for the 20 dry games we play for the year?

Luke Ball showed during the finals he can play in the wet/slippery conditions, but nothing else.

Not worth picking up, he has major injury problems and will be finished by the time he is 27-28.

We shouldnt be blowing draft picks (through trade) on mids anyway, we need KPP's more.

What would Luke Ball cost? Let's say our second round pick and a player, as I can't see StKilda trading him for less then that.

I'd take Drum instead, will only cost a 3rd round draft pick, has no injury worries like Ball, and he has the upside of being a Fremantle reject, and plenty of them have improved at other clubs, including ours.

.....why waste a draft pick and a player on an injury prone mid who only plays well in the wet.

But all of this is besides the point, WE NEED KEY POSITION PLAYERS AND A RUCKMAN.

Now Hahn will obviously not be as valuable as Ball, nowhere near it. Still shows how quick some can be to write players off. Hahn can contribute at AFL level if his body is right. Many people did it with Leroy too, as mentioned.

 

[KissStephanie]

Would happily take him for free in the PSD.

I agree. Collingwood's best team in 2011 has the potential to be better than in 2010 with Andrew Krakouer, Chris Tarrant and Brad Dick pushing for selection, but the depth has definitely been weakened. We have lost Shane O'Bree, Tarkyn Lockyer, John Anthony, Paul Medhurst, Simon Prestigiacomo, and Josh Fraser. That is a lot of experience and depth to lose all at one time.

Sean Rusling has retired as well, so he is lost forward depth as well, so Collingwood can definitely afford to take a chance on two recycled players that can play forward. The club should seriously look at Mitch Hahn and Ryan Gamble because both players would help with the ready made depth that has been lost since the premiership. The players in the team need to be under some pressure to perform, and there will be injuries at times.

Question to those "Hahn-believers", do you think we would win the 2011 Grand Final if Mitch Hahn was playing in our side?

Of course, but it depends on which player he was replacing. His performances in 2010 were not that bad that he would cost Collingwood a premiership. That said, he is definitely not in Collingwood's best team, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be useful as depth at times, and then it would be up to him to force his way in to the team if he is good enough.

 

[Lockyer24]

Gamble gets a yes from me. Take a gamble on Gamble?

 

[joxstrap]

I understand the logic of picking up an experienced player when your window of opportunity is open, but I really think he's too slow and old for the modern game. In the circumstances where it was him or a speculative youngster, I'd go young even though that player would have less impact on the team in 2011. Who knows, that player could be a Swan, Wellingham, O'Brien, Maxwell etc in a few years completely offsetting the minimal reduction list strength in 2011.

 

[Old Spice]

Gamble on gamble, very catchy. Personally, I'd like to take a niggle at Neagle, a torpedo at Thorpedo, or, shall I say a dowler at...rahhh!

 

[itwdandy]

Do we have a pick in the preseason draft? or do we have to fore-go one of our national picks to get a preseason pick?

 

[shawthing09]

IMO Smiddaz has it spot on. I certainly wouldn't be for taking Hahn above a player we genuinely rate but I can see the benifits in taking him if we where in that situation. The fact is there is a high chance any kid we rate with our last draft pick will be avalible in the rookie draft anyway.

Hahn is certainly not ideal and wouldn't be in our best 22 but he would come cheap and be a good insurance policy. It's easy to list names of guys who could fill gaps in the foward line but it won't always work like that. A guy like Hahn has the ability to play a role similar to what Maccaffer has for us this year and Maccaffer's form and importance to the structure has been very under-rated for us. Loses of form and injury can really test out a sides depths and whilst it's nice to list players who could at a pinch play the role most of them are not genuine fowards even at VFL level so it's a stretch to say they will step up to the level required at AFL level.

On Matty's "we can't win a flag with player X" is the dumbest line in football. People trotted it out about Toov's all the while Geelong was winning flags with Shannon Brynes. Mooney won a flag for North in a game he got donuts in. Of course we can win a flag with Hahn in the side. FFS swap Goldsack for Hahn this year and we still would have won the flag.

Oh also on the younger options Gamble is one I would certainly be open to looking at. Dowler not so much I am not sure what his issue is but he didn't even play a game in the box hill seniors this year. Thorp I was keen on last year, I rate him as a talent but am totally unsure as too what his form like has been this year, you'd imagine if he has done enough to be recruitable he will go before we get the option and if he hasn't been outstanding then I can't see us changing our stance. I would take Hahn before Neagle, despite being younger Neagle has all the same flaws as Hahn but Hahn has shown that he will do the hard work to overcome his flaws Neagle has not.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Hahn is certainly not ideal and wouldn't be in our best 22 but he would come cheap and be a good insurance policy. It's easy to list names of guys who could fill gaps in the foward line but it won't always work like that.

This is what I don't get - Insurance against what? Macaffer, Goldsack and McCarthy all getting hurt, and Reed, Hunter, Young and anyone else on our list capable of filling that role all failing to find any kind of form that would see them easily provide a better option than an old, rickety, useless Mitch Hahn?

I had no idea we had insure against such ridiculous, unlikely scenarios.

A guy like Hahn has the ability to play a role similar to what Maccaffer has for us this year and Maccaffer's form and importance to the structure has been very under-rated for us.

No - A guy like Mitch Hahn HAD the ability to play a role similar to what Macaffer did for us this year... In the past... When he wasn't finished.

You and smiddaz can bleat this rubbish about a broken down player who's so far past his prime that his memories of it are in sepia, but the fact is Collingwood WON'T consider him, WILL place faith in the kids on the list, and WILL draft someone younger than 29 with our last live pick in the draft.

Leigh Brown isn't an apt comparison, because even if you take into account that people were similarly sceptical about him, the scepticism was based on his ability, not his type or his age.

Leigh Brown was only 26 when we drafted him; he was capable of playing true KP both forward and back as well as backing up in the ruck, none of which Mitch Hahn can do; he was delisted by a club that had plenty of options playing a similar role to him, and most importantly of all; he wasn't delisted because his body was broken down, he was old and unable to perform any more.

It's not comparable at all, and regardless, just because we drafted Leigh Brown doesn't mean we're eternally on a crusade to save the most NQR broken down delistees we can find.

 

[Thommo 42]

In that tenure last year Malthouse and co overlooked all remaining young players to take Leigh Brown, was was probably more heavily critcised than Hahn right now. It isn't a lack of confidence in youth or a wanting to abandon a youth focus.

It's also worth noting that after taking Leigh Brown at #73 in the National Draft, we still grabbed Blair with our second rookie pick.

 

[smiddaz123]

This is what I don't get - Insurance against what? Macaffer, Goldsack and McCarthy all getting hurt, and Reed, Hunter, Young and anyone else on our list capable of filling that role all failing to find any kind of form that would see them easily provide a better option than an old, rickety, useless Mitch Hahn?

If Hahn was that useless, I doubt he would've finished the season in the Bulldogs' best 22. I have a feeling it's more to ease salary cap pressure than the Dogs not wanting Hahn. His last game for the Dogs was a reasonable one from memory, he wasn't a liability at all.

You honestly think Reed or Hunter will provide better output at AFL level off the bat than Mitch Hahn would? Happy to eat my words on it, but I'd be surprised.

You and smiddaz can bleat this rubbish about a broken down player who's so far past his prime that his memories of it are in sepia, but the fact is Collingwood WON'T consider him, WILL place faith in the kids on the list, and WILL draft someone younger than 29 with our last live pick in the draft.

Amusing rant, but broken down and so far past it? I'm happy to back him to be a useful player for a couple of years if his body is right.

It's not comparable at all, and regardless, just because we drafted Leigh Brown doesn't mean we're eternally on a crusade to save the most NQR broken down delistees we can find.

Yes, because that's what I'm advocating here, rescuing old players I'm not sure how you made that connection.

As I said, if there's a kid we genuinely rate, I'd prefer we take him. I won't be having a meltdown if Hahn went to us for free though, if his body is right he'd be useful depth if free.

Have I missed something about Hunter and Reed's VFL form, by the way. It's seemed to be promising at times, and occasionally they'd give us a very, very good game, but it didn't seem to be consistently good like Blair's was.

 

[shawthing09]

This is what I don't get - Insurance against what? Macaffer, Goldsack and McCarthy all getting hurt, and Reed, Hunter, Young and anyone else on our list capable of filling that role all failing to find any kind of form that would see them easily provide a better option than an old, rickety, useless Mitch Hahn?

I had no idea we had insure against such ridiculous, unlikely scenarios.


No - A guy like Mitch Hahn HAD the ability to play a role similar to what Macaffer did for us this year... In the past... When he wasn't finished.

You and smiddaz can bleat this rubbish about a broken down player who's so far past his prime that his memories of it are in sepia, but the fact is Collingwood WON'T consider him, WILL place faith in the kids on the list, and WILL draft someone younger than 29 with our last live pick in the draft.

Leigh Brown isn't an apt comparison, because even if you take into account that people were similarly sceptical about him, the scepticism was based on his ability, not his type or his age.

Leigh Brown was only 26 when we drafted him; he was capable of playing true KP both forward and back as well as backing up in the ruck, none of which Mitch Hahn can do; he was delisted by a club that had plenty of options playing a similar role to him, and most importantly of all; he wasn't delisted because his body was broken down, he was old and unable to perform any more.

It's not comparable at all, and regardless, just because we drafted Leigh Brown doesn't mean we're eternally on a crusade to save the most NQR broken down delistees we can find.

Maccaffer's got the role but injuries and loss of form happens.

Goldsack is a poor foward option, I'd take Hahn right now over Goldsack if it where to play the role Maccaffer currently plays. That's before considering the fact that Goldsack will more then likely have a role in our backline already.

Then you go into McCarthy, Reed, Hunter and Young. McCarthy plays much smaller then all the guys above, sure he could fill in for a short period of time but if (heaven forbid) Maccaffer did a long term injury I'd be wanting, at least the option of a replacement who plays a similar role. Reed, Hunter and Yound are all very speculative suggestions at best. I am all for giving them a go but I am certainly not confident that any of them would offer more then Hahn. I am under no illusions that Hahn will be a world beater but I think given the right role and structure he still has enough to offer to, if required be a handy role player.

In no way am I all for taking other clubs rejects, in fact I am more often then not against it but I am certainly not confident in our foward depth medium or kpp for that matter. For a late draft pick, in which we could probably still get the same kid in the rookie draft I am all for having a ridiculous secruity option for the here and now to ensure we have options should they be required. It seems logical that NQR insurance policies for the now would take preference over scatter gun recruiting of speculative rookies who are more then likely going to be ready to make an impact as our window of oppertunity closes.

 

[vjknight]

2 further points in the YES argument.

that window wont be open for ever. 2-3 years by my reckoning.

average players can become very good players when surrounded by very good players. good kids dont grow on trees, and arent always ripe when you want.

IF HAHN IS FIT, no injuries & prepared to fight for a spot, he does seem a logical choice during this window.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I'd prefer Jarryd Blair as a KPF tbh.

 

[Mental Magpie]

For a club that kept Corrie on its list for a few years, I can't see it hurt from a depth perspective and for the VFL side.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Hahn and Gamble - sounds good

Who doesnt love a beer and a punt!!!!!

 

[KissStephanie]

Gamble on gamble, very catchy. Personally, I'd like to take a niggle at Neagle, a torpedo at Thorpedo, or, shall I say a dowler at...rahhh!

Maybe Neagle will be looked at, but that depends on his attitude to play footy at all, his desire to play for a different club, his physical condition and fitness level. I think Gamble and Thorp are definite options to replace some of the lost depth, but I do also see the value of Hahn as a depth selection. Maybe the club are thinking of two recycled players this year because there is definitely the room on the list now, and they won't cost too much either.

If Hahn was that useless, I doubt he would've finished the season in the Bulldogs' best 22. I have a feeling it's more to ease salary cap pressure than the Dogs not wanting Hahn. His last game for the Dogs was a reasonable one from memory, he wasn't a liability at all.

He played very well in his last match for the Western Bulldogs, and it was a final.

 

[shawthing09]

He played very well in his last match for the Western Bulldogs, and it was a final.

Considering he is "so far past his prime that his memories of it are in sepia" I'd say that is a fair effort. Fact is people can belt on about how bad he is but for him to be able to as Smiddaz said be in the best 22 of a team playing in a prelim, and play well up foward in that game shows that he is at least capable of playing a role.

MDC on the window it is not so much a bigfooty truism as it is a simple matter of looking at past history, that's not to say their won't be expections to the rules but so far the truth of the matter is sides who win premierships tend to drop away within 5 years of winning them. Their are probably a number of reasons behind this. I am not at all advocating resigning to this fact completely and forgetting about youth, I am certainly saying that the idea of drafting for what is at best an uncertain future as opposed to trying to be as strong as possible right now is flawed.

 

[look at him goooo!]

ah dear here we go

getting a player who will add nothing to the team just for depth's sake is ridiculous. how are some people suggesting him as backup for reid and brown? there is no chance in hell he can play KPD. hes 188cm. you cant hide that shit against key forwards. plus hes slow, his mobility is gone. we've got tarrant anyway. and if for some reason 2 of taz/brown/reid are unavailable i'd prefer o'brien over hahn to take the second forward.

as for a leigh brown replacement, its just not gonna happen. leigh brown is extremely mobile and deceptively quick for someone of his size. if brown is injured i'd rather dawes or cloke to relieve jolly for 20% of the game and go in with the extra small.

as for the forward line if cloke or dawes are unavailable we have tarrant who can play there as well as leigh brown. if for some reason 2 of dawes/taz/cloke are unavailable i'd still prefer going in with the one key forward with leigh brown resting there over putting hahn in the team.

Malthouse is very astute. he was the first coach in the game to stress the importance of being able to play in multiple positions, as well as introducing the mobile second ruckman. we have a very flexible team, our players are able to cover player loses exceptionally well. the only way i can see hahn getting a game next year is if 4 of taz/nate/brown/reid/cloke/dawes are unavailable. he wont/shouldnt get a game if even 3 of the 6 are out. we dont have a need for hahn as he wont improve us at all next year.

ps. dont compare macaffer to hahn....just dont

 

[smiddaz123]

how are some people suggesting him as backup for reid and brown?

Who are has said this?

 

[mattys123]

Here's the full list of delisted players who have nominated for the National Draft.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/bruce-aims-for-pre-season-draft/story-e6frf9jf-1225952813299

Joe Anderson (Carlton), Jarrod Atkinson (Essendon), Jaxson Barham (Collingwood), Jarrad Blight (Collingwood), Jarrad Boumann (Western Bulldogs), Steven Browne (Carlton), Ben Bucovaz (Fremantle), Ryan Cook (Collingwood), Anthony Corrie (Collingwood), Steven Dodd (Fremantle), Beau Dowler (Hawthorn), Robert Eddy (St Kilda), Brad Fisher (Carlton), Ryan Gamble (Geelong Cats), Chris Hall (Fremantle), Chris Johnson (Carlton), Paul Johnson (Melbourne), Travis Johnstone (Brisbane Lions), Tom McNamara (Melbourne), Luke Miles (St Kilda), Ryan Murphy (Fremantle), Jay Nash (Port Adelaide), Jay Neagle (Essendon), Brock O'Brien (Fremantle), Matthew O'Dwyer (Sydney Swans), Rhys O'Keefe (Carlton), Dean Polo (Richmond), Tim Ruffles (Fremantle), Tyson Slattery (Essendon), Josh Smith (North Melbourne), Matt Spangher (West Coast), Michael Still (Essendon), Kristin Thornton (Sydney Swans), Stephen Tiller (Western Bulldogs), Travis Tuck (Hawthorn), Beau Wilkes (West Coast).

One word sums that group up, EWW.(If that's even a word)

 

[haydenboii]

No thanks hes too old

 

[well left]

I think I'd actually prefer Brad Fisher to Mitch Hahn. Would play a similar role but Fisher has more ability to kick goals. Both have similar levels of inconsistency. I'm actually quite surprised that Carlton let him go to be honest.

On previous posts if you had to take a recycled player and working on the list above Josh Smith would be my selection. Has played at both ends but is KP size as opposed to Fisher and Hahn. He's not best 22 material but no delisted player is at this stage.

 

[look at him goooo!]

Who are has said this?

the OP, his name is Ta-something and half back flank.

i assume that you agree with my post?

 

[KissStephanie]

Here's the full list of delisted players who have nominated for the National Draft. One word sums that group up, EWW.(If that's even a word)

Collingwood is not in a position to try to strengthen their best team because Andrew Krakouer and Chris Tarrant were recruited to do that. There are a couple of players there that would be good depth though.

 

[look at him goooo!]

I think I'd actually prefer Brad Fisher to Mitch Hahn. Would play a similar role but Fisher has more ability to kick goals. Both have similar levels of inconsistency. I'm actually quite surprised that Carlton let him go to be honest.

On previous posts if you had to take a recycled player and working on the list above Josh Smith would be my selection. Has played at both ends but is KP size as opposed to Fisher and Hahn. He's not best 22 material but no delisted player is at this stage.

i'd probably be the same if i had to choose. from a poor group IF I HAD to pick one it would be either smith, o'dywer or spangher