Who has the worst...

[M Malice]

Are you saying Brisbane have the 3rd worst u23 talent on the comp? Or have I misunderstood you?
Brisbane would be right up there with the best in terms of u23 talent: Taylor, Mayes, Mcstay, Clarke, Freeman, Andrews, Gardiner, Cutler, Robertson, Jansen, Mcgrath, Paparone, Close, Dawson. And that's not including the 6 highly rated draftees from this year

agree we have very good young talent, most of the AFL community would have no idea of the standard of young talent we have. we are out of sight, out of the media up here and it is worse since we have been struggling the last 10 years. they will start to notice if we move up the ladder over the next few years. most casual observers of other clubs just go by sensationalized media reports to gauge other clubs situation, they probably still think we lose half our young talent each year. since the go home 5 year our young player turnover has been no worse than any club that has been down for a while.

 

[Richo83]

Carlton have Cripps. I'll give them that.
Docherty, I can't really get your excitement about, as he's just a player.
Two players who we could say are proven....unless we follow your bending of your own rules.

Docherty is a fairly poised backman and held up well in a side which was awful all season. Cripps is better than any hawks youngster.

I don't assume your dense at all, I just think you've got it wrong rating Carltons U23 as better than Hawthorn's on the basis that they've had more high picks. Carlton have struggled for years, and have had numerous first rounders who've not come on.

Some of them have been unimpressive, yet most of them have shown an ability to cut it at AFL level and be decent to star players. Guys like Howe, O'Brien are fairly unlikely to become as good as say Murphy, Gibbs, Cripps, Yarran etc.

Also, not every team is consistent in their drafting, so comparing them to years past is unwise.

No, I don't want to add them because they've barely even started at the club, and that's the point.

A lot of the players you've listed have barely played AFL football, they're about as untried as Carlton's new recruits.

You want to say Carlton have the better kids because first rounders are more likely to be better players, but that's not always the case.

It's generally the case.

Richmond fans should recognize that not all first rounders are going to flourish, especially at clubs who are having all sorts of off field issues. Just look at all the first rounders Melbourne have struggled with over the years.

Most of Richmonds stars are high draft picks, so Richmond kinda proves my theory. Plus, even if they didn't, they'd be an outlier. Again, historically, in a general trend, high draft picks are better prospect and end up being better players than lower picks.

You said that most clubs have a young midfielder who can play inside and out, while stating that Hill and Hartung can only play outside. That's why Langford was mentioned.

Whatever, he's too old to be counted in this under 23 year old conversation anyway.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Docherty is a fairly poised backman and held up well in a side which was awful all season. Cripps is better than any hawks youngster.

A lot of the players you've listed have barely played AFL football, they're about as untried as Carlton's new recruits.

So Cripps is better than any Hawk youngster, I get that...I won't bother arguing that we have a better U23 mid, but I really can't see how Hill, Hartung, Howe, Litherland, O'Brien and Sicily who have all played senior games in a side that's won 3 flags in a row and played quite well, can be so easily overlooked, while you're willing to give credit to Carlton players who haven't even run out for their VFL side let alone the senior side, all because they are early picks.


Surely if Hawthorn youngsters are said to be unproven even if they've played senior games and performed well, then Carlton 2015 draftees can't be added to Cripps as a means to saying that the Carlton youngsters are better.


Anyway, agree to disagree.

I'll continue to rate youngsters on how they apply themselves at both VFL and AFL level, and with that in mind I'll never agree that Hawthorn's youngsters are currently worse than Carlton's.

 

[thetradesman]

Defence: Sydney, Age is getting too them eg Richards their most important defender, Grundy is overrated and I expect decent key forwards to get a hold of them next year.

Midfielders: Carlton, Murphy and Gibbs are just a shell of themselves and how they were in there early days. Cripps is a gun but is still young, and apart from that there's nothing really...

Forwards: Carlton, nothing and no one.

Youth: Geelong, they have no one decent in that bracket really, All of them are a bit older so they should be pushing for a flag. But they won't be.

Coach: Buckley

 

[Richo83]

So Cripps is better than any Hawk youngster, I get that...I won't bother arguing that we have a better U23 mid, but I really can't see how Hill, Hartung, Howe, Litherland, O'Brien and Sicily who have all played senior games in a side that's won 3 flags in a row and played quite well , can be so easily overlooked

And how many of those actually contributed to those flags? How much of a role did O'Brien and Sicily have in winning a flag? About zero. By the way, playing well is overstating things. It's also easy to look good playing as the 22nd best side in a good team against scrub sides in a handful of games. In reality it means little.

while you're willing to give credit to Carlton players who haven't even run out for their VFL side let alone the senior side, all because they are early picks.

Because history is on my side?

Surely if Hawthorn youngsters are said to be unproven even if they've played senior games and performed well, then Carlton 2015 draftees can't be added to Cripps as a means to saying that the Carlton youngsters are better.

They're unproven, but one group is more talented and likely to be better than the other group.

I'll continue to rate youngsters on how they apply themselves at both VFL and AFL level, and with that in mind I'll never agree that Hawthorn's youngsters are currently worse than Carlton's.

"Hi, my name is Abasi and I'm a massive homer"

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

"Hi, my name is Abasi and I'm a massive homer"

What does this even mean?

 

[Kickin_Goals]

What does this even mean?

Someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Homer

I think that might be it.

 

[Proper Gander]

What does this even mean?

I think it means you're this fat cartoon guy on the Simpsons? I don't really know.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I think it means you're this fat cartoon guy on the Simpsons? I don't really know.

You and me both.

 

[Crankyhawk]

And how many of those actually contributed to those flags? How much of a role did O'Brien and Sicily have in winning a flag? About zero. By the way, playing well is overstating things. It's also easy to look good playing as the 22nd best side in a good team against scrub sides in a handful of games. In reality it means little.



Because history is on my side?



They're unproven, but one group is more talented and likely to be better than the other group.



"Hi, my name is Abasi and I'm a massive homer"

The only factor you have missed is carltons demonstrated failure to develop youth. Murphy and Gibbs are underwhelming compared to other number 1 picks, Cripps is good but how many other first and second round picks have failed?

 

[Defacto]

DEFENDERS: Dogs, Brisbane
MIDFIELDERS: Essendon
FORWARDS: Carlton, Fremantle

 

[aussierulesrules]

DEFENDERS: Dogs

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

2 All Australian defenders

 

[thetradesman]

DEFENDERS: Dogs, Brisbane
MIDFIELDERS: Essendon
FORWARDS: Carlton, Fremantle

I wouldn't say Essendons midfield is the worst, it's not great but it's okay.

Watson, Zaharakis, Stanton, Heppell with the inclusions of Parish is a handy midfield.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

With Watson, Hepp and Stanton in the mid, how can the Bombers be the worst?

 

[go you pups]

Essendons midfield is far more potent than Carltons

Dogs have the worst defense. LOL

I get that our KPPs are young and inexperienced, but you don't make finals if you can't defend (we had the 6th best defence this year IIRC). Our small/medium defenders have been crucial in helping out the young big guys, hence why Easton Wood was AA this year and Murph/Boyd reinvigorated themselves.

 

[Halftimehero]

A lot of unknowns there so if you compare that list to Brown, Turner, Garner, Wood, Dumont, McDonald, Anderson and then our recent draftees who are yet to play a senior game like Durdin, Neilson, Clark, Hibberd and McKay then I think we stack up pretty well and nowhere near as bad as you think. In fact I think our batch is better but I will leave that for others to discuss.

If you add Brown then I will add Heppell and therefore blow you right out of the water!!

 

[Defacto]

2 All Australian defenders

Who struggled to stop a final side from scoring. One way football. Exciting as anything. But it wont win you a final

 

[go you pups]

Who struggled to stop a final side from scoring. One way football. Exciting as anything. But it wont win you a final

Midfield are as much to blame than what the defence is dude.

Our Etihad defensive record was dominant (only lost twice conceding 101 and 94, while two other wins we conceded 86 and 87, the other 9 wins there were under 75 points conceded), while we also stopped Sydney at the SCG.

It needs to translate to the bigger grounds in time, but I ain't worried because it's a work in progress still and we still have one of the youngest lists in the comp.

 

[The_Flying_Egg]

Who struggled to stop a final side from scoring. One way football. Exciting as anything. But it wont win you a final

The Dogs conceded the 7th least points playing this one way football. How can that be the worst in the league?

The Dogs rucks are maybe the worst in the comp

 

[Richo83]

The only factor you have missed is carltons demonstrated failure to develop youth. Murphy and Gibbs are underwhelming compared to other number 1 picks, Cripps is good but how many other first and second round picks have failed?

They've been underwhelming, but they'll probably have better careers than most if not all of Hawthorn's young players. An underwhelming number one pick is still often better than a late draft pick who most likely does nothing.

 

[Richo83]

What does this even mean?

It means you're completely biased and unwilling to reasonably engage in a discussion about your own team.

 

[Crankyhawk]

They've been underwhelming, but they'll probably have better careers than most if not all of Hawthorn's young players. An underwhelming number one pick is still often better than a late draft pick who most likely does nothing.

2008 Carlton pick Yarran (6), Robinson (40), O'keefe (not Ryan) and Tiller - I don't think either played a game. Oh and traded for Warnock (did nothing)
2008 Hawthorn pick Schoenmakers (16), Shiels (34), Lisle (50) - spud, Lowden (63) - spud sold to Adelaide for chips, Savage (75) - now at St Kilda

There wasn't much between Robinson and Savage (both bottom 6 players at their respective clubs) although Mitch has improved since leaving Carlton
Yes, yarran the most talented of the lot but frustrated carlton supporters because output never seemed to improve, too inconsistent.

2009 - difficult as hawthorn traded most of its picks for Burgoyne and Gibson.
Carlton pick Kane Lucas (12) - delisted end 2014, 18 games over 5 years, Marcus Davies (43), rohan Kerr (59), Jacobs (promoted rookie) - who left and now stars for Adelaide, also promoted Aaron Joseph
Hawthorn Grimley (39) - delisted, never showed anything, Stratton (46), Jordan Williams and Rhan Hooper (57 and 58) - both not much to see, Duryea (69) - consistent best 22, Suckling (70 - promoted rookie) - 2 flags, consistent/ bottom 6 player for 4 of the last 5 years at hawthorn - exception being when he did his knee.

So Duryea and Suckling clearly better than Lucas despite being a lower pick

2010 - Carlton Watson (18), Patrick McCarthy (34), Luke Mitchell (42), McInnes (67), Duigan (70) - career shortened by injury (drafted age 26 also), Jeff Garlett (promoted rookie) - now at Melbourne, David Ellard (promoted rookie) - 63 games total, retired in 2015
Hawthorn - Issac Smith (19) consistent best 22, Hallahan (38) - now at GC, struggling, Litherland (55) - VFL player (25 - 30 on list), Puopolo (66) - consistent best 22,
Similar ish draft picks, carlton's best was Garlett and they couldn't keep him.

2011 - Carlton bootsma (22) - 14 games, Rowe (44) - 51 games, injury interrupted (cancer) - now best 22, Buckley (62 F/S) - seems to be best 22 now 18 games this year
Hawthorn - Brad Hill (33) - bottom 6 of best 22 (worst on in 2015 GF but was good in 2014), Jordan Kelly (38), Woodward (53) - injuries, Bruest (rookie promotion)

Hill and Bruest > Rowe and Buckley

Probably too early to call careers on draftees from 2012 onward - Cripps clearly a gun though - but Hawks supporters were saying the same about Will Langford (rookie elevation in 2013 seemed awesome in 2014) then went backwards this year.

The point being that its not the draft picks as far as Carlton is concerned, they will still find a way to spud it up based on their history - I'd want to see some evidence of change before I could confidently rate their players on the potential of their draft picks.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

It means you're completely biased and unwilling to reasonably engage in a discussion about your own team.

It's completely reasonable to hold the opinion that Hawthorn, a club who have a proven development program with debutants coming in and playing their role, and who also have u23's winning flags at both VFL and AFL level have better than "the worst bunch of u23's in the entire league".

Your argument is that Carlton's youth is better because they have 1 elite junior and the rest are high draft picks who 'should' be better, which is a very simplistic argument to make.

Apart from Cripps(and supposedly Docherty), the majority of Carlton's group of U23's who you're backing in as being better are either yet to even play a scratch match in a training singlet or have played a handful of senior games.

So, while your argument is based on the assumption that Carlton's youngsters will be better(that's fine), I've watched Litherland towel up Betts, I've watched Hartung push for a spot in a premiership side, I've watched Hill play in 3 consecutive flags and I've seen numerous others(Howe, Sicily, Woodward before injury, Heatherley)either knocking the door down at VFL level, or play a handful of senior games and play their role.

You say it's 'bias', I call it a pretty simple observation based on available evidence.

 

[BlueJet]

The only factor you have missed is carltons demonstrated failure to develop youth. Murphy and Gibbs are underwhelming compared to other number 1 picks, Cripps is good but how many other first and second round picks have failed?

You're struggling for credibility...
Murphy has outperformed pretty much all number 1 picks not names Riewoldt or Hodge.