Sack Francis Hackson and Hartley

[bojangles17]

Yea but u rated tom lee though claw

[the claw]

Yea but u rated tom lee though claw

i still do bo. give it time injuries do tend to stop players showing a thing would nt you agree. i reckon he will be alright.  id be prepared to do 10 tom lees as rookies and fail  with 7 or 8 of them.  if i found a very good player with two or three.
i dont clain to get em all right but i reckon i get a good percentage more right than jackson has ever done.but hey thats easy to say i think most people would.

oh by the way  the difference is   i wanted to rookie tom lee and see how he turned out.you know use the rookie list for what its meant for imo. its a   big difference to getting conned out of pick 28 for what and still is a very obvious dud wouldnt you say.
every time you bring this up you make me look good. ffs stkilda gave up pick 12 for a bloke i wanted to rookie the yr before.well worth takingh the punt as a rookie.
can you bring this up again in a few weeks so we can do this again, its great to look good.

[big tone]

Yea but u rated tom lee though claw

i still do bo. give it time injuries do tend to stop players showing a thing would nt you agree. i reckon he will be alright.  id be prepared to do 10 tom lees as rookies and fail  with 7 or 8 of them.  if i found a very good player with two or three.
i dont clain to get em all right but i reckon i get a good percentage more right than jackson has ever done.but hey thats easy to say i think most people would.

oh by the way  the difference is   i wanted to rookie tom lee and see how he turned out.you know use the rookie list for what its meant for imo. its a   big difference to getting conned out of pick 28 for what and still is a very obvious dud wouldnt you say.
every time you bring this up you make me look good. ffs stkilda gave up pick 12 for a bloke i wanted to rookie the yr before.well worth takingh the punt as a rookie.
can you bring this up again in a few weeks so we can do this again, its great to look good.

I think you had more idea than St. Kilda. From what I have seen of him when not injured, he isn't a first or second round pick.
St.Kilda are even worse than as us at the draft table. Their list is sh(7 IMO.
A couple of good kids but on the whole they are really average. Some tough times ahead.

[bojangles17]

Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right 

[tony_montana]

yep he is ina bit of strife the kid

[RedanTiger]

list management well i get tired of having to constantly criticise em in this area but until they actually address the list properly and compile it with enough structure, quality, experience, and pright player types im forced to continue to criticise em. WE ARE FOREVER HEDGING OUR BETS WITH TYPES.
I will again say we draft a kid whith pick 20 say whos a flanker and we hope in time we can turn him into a mid. why not just draft the proven mid that is also  available.

Agreed it's a key failure.
Only have to look at last year.
We draft Lennon as a HF and say we want to run him through the midfield in time.
We switch players from forward to back and into the ruck - see Griffith.

Then you look at Hawthorn's recruiting/trades.
Just looking at the trades.
They want a ruckman who can kick goals - Hale - perfect for the job and as described
They want a mid that can add structure and skills off HB so they spend to get Burgoyne - perfect for the job.
They have Roughy and, at the time Franklin, but want a third tall forward - Gunston - perfect and as described.
Same with recruiting. They want an outide mid with run and goal kicking ability - Smith. Perfect.
They want a hard little bugger to play forward so they get Puopolo with a late pick. Perfect.

Meanwhile we go for Maric - big strong ruckman as described and required -perfect.
But then we get Houli as a wingman and have him as a rebounding defender.
We get Grigg as an outside midfielder and now he's an inside midfielder.
We get Chaplin as the strong key defender to play on the monsters and he is what he's always been, a third tall interceptor.

Maybe we don't know what we want.
Maybe our recruiters can't judge what a player does best.

Part of the problem is as you say, we hedge our bets and then have to patch holes, requiring more picks and more of the same.
 

Edit: read the Lennon thread after posting. Bojangles 

[tony_montana]

Maybe our recruiters can't judge what a player does best.

There it is right there RT -


 I think they do know what they want I'll give them that, just don't think the employees skillset matches up to the theory atm

[the claw]

hathorns list contains the following.

1st rounders - birchal, hodge,lewis, roughhead, rioli, schoenmakers, smith. they have had their share of misses here.

2nd rounders - garlett,hallahan, hartung, hill, kelly, obrien, shiels, whitecross.

3rd rounders - grimley, litherland, mitchell, sicily, stratton, woodward.

4th rounders - brand,  lowden, puopolo,

5th rounders - duryea.

rookies - ceglar, langford, sewell, bruest, suckling.

trades - anderson  for gilham 27,63, burgoyne 9, 16. cheney 53, gibson 25, 41. gunston 24, 46, 64. hale 27, 71. lake 21, 43. mcevoy for savage, 18. sphanger 64.

f/a = simpkin.

they certainly have not relied on the first round alone.

their team is made up of players from all areas,
in all rounds of the nd they have had their misses but they have found more than their fair share of decent players. unlike us imo. when one considers where thier picks fall they have done well.

they have just 1 f/a im not sold on him.

they have found a shedload of talent in the rookie draft unlike us.

finally when they have traded its been astute and mainly for good quality. they have been prepared to trade out of the first rnd to get what they need. and they hav

they can afford to have the odd howler, garlett,  here and there because they are effectively utilising all areas available to em. they have had poor drafts as well their 06 was a write of almost. but most yrs if one area fails they have made up for it in another.

 

[Mr Magic]

Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right 

Glad we did our due diligence.

[tigs2011]

Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right 

In fairness they blew a 2nd rounder on him while we blew one on Hampson. We'd be doing cartwheels if Hampson got locked up and taken off our list. 

[bojangles17]

Lol , true 

[the claw]

Dayle garlett could be in for a stint in the big house , in any case more chance of that than playing a senior afl game ....what were the hawks thinking selecting him, I mean they should be sacked right 

In fairness they blew a 2nd rounder on him while we blew one on Hampson. We'd be doing cartwheels if Hampson got locked up and taken off our list. 

lol they took a punt on a bloke with shedloads of talent but was a risk with attitude problems.
we took a bloke with no talent and no attitude problems.
id say they gave themselves the better chance of finding a decent player.

due diligence i doubt it. we have been bitten that many times by players with attitude problems we would not have even looked at garlett.

personally i would have given him a chance i saw the work he did to get a second chance,  alas the turnaround didnt last. second rounder nope hawks were too keen. but we had pick what last yr 50 i would have been okay with useing that knowing the risk. the reward if he could turn the attitude around was enormous.
me i think its a shame when such talented players waste the opportunity but hey some are not cut out for afl.