I've stated before that we were deplorable at turning our list over in recent years. We kept mediocre players in Godfrey, Ward, Nicholson, Smith, Armstrong, Ferguson, etc, etc, for too long. There are current players in Bell, Jamar, Bartram to name a few who either can't kick, make the right decisions, or just aren't good enough.

I've also lamented CAC's lack of draft picks over the years. And when he had them they were invariably average selections. This from a recent The Age article on the Hawthorn model from 2004; "The appointment of Clarkson in 2004 was fundamental to the embrace of the youth route and the preparedness for short-term pain. He encouraged the recruitment of his former Port Adelaide colleague Chris Pelchen to manage an aggressive list strategy.

"We firmly believed that if we attacked the draft but also the trade period aggressively — not be reactive, be proactive in both the draft and the trade periods — then we could hopefully build a team from the ground up," Pelchen said."

Now I accept that having played Finals in 04, 05, 06 that we didn't have plumb draft picks and that we thought our window was still open, but what a terrible evaluation of a list. And from that erroneous stand point we were basically completely passive. We sat back and did nothing. And it's not all hindsight.

Some facts: from 2003 to 2006 which encapsulated 4 National drafts we took 14 players. By comparison, from 2004 to 2006 - 3 drafts - Hawthorn took 17 players. That's right, they took 3 more players from one less draft. But let's look at the quality of the picks. Of Hawthorn's 17 picks 15 were inside the top 40. They had 12 picks inside the top 26. We had 4. Obviously they had better early picks due to their position on the ladder, but they made a decision to be aggressive and proactive at the trade table. It's harder this year for the reasons we all know about, but imo this club needs to get its hands dirty and improve our draft position.

I know there will be excuses made by apologists for our ghastly list management, and yes, the past is the past, but we must do all that we can to get another pick in the top 25. And we need to keep culling dead wood. We need to be creative next week. It won't be easy, but it has to happen.

"We firmly believed that if we attacked the draft but also the trade period aggressively — not be reactive, be proactive in both the draft and the trade periods — then we could hopefully build a team from the ground up," Pelchen said."

Hannabal, the Hawks were able to obtain picks in the top 26 by trading youngish key position players, (Hay, Thompson, Rawlings, Croad, McFarlane), and we know that clubs will offer a decent pick for a kpp with potential. But it did leave them bereft of kpp's, with Jacobs playing full back and Williams playing full forward. Was it luck or good management that Croad got homesick at Freo, and Richmond and the Bulldogs passed on Franklin?

As for our bartering position, if clubs are loathe to trade away their early draft picks, would you be happy to trade for players, in order to immediately address our needs?

Personally, one of the mistakes we've made in the past is copying another team's model, both with player personnel and game plan. We tried to emulate the Bombers 2000 side by drafting midfielders with fat arses, and then we tried to emulate the Eagles run and carry game plan. We have always been reactive. Let's be proactive, and devise our own strategy for success.

Hannabal, the Hawks were able to obtain picks in the top 26 by trading youngish key position players, (Hay, Thompson, Rawlings, Croad, McFarlane), and we know that clubs will offer a decent pick for a kpp with potential. But it did leave them bereft of kpp's, with Jacobs playing full back and Williams playing full forward. Was it luck or good management that Croad got homesick at Freo, and Richmond and the Bulldogs passed on Franklin?

As for our bartering position, if clubs are loathe to trade away their early draft picks, would you be happy to trade for players, in order to immediately address our needs?

Personally, one of the mistakes we've made in the past is copying another team's model, both with player personnel and game plan. We tried to emulate the Bombers 2000 side by drafting midfielders with fat arses, and then we tried to emulate the Eagles run and carry game plan. We have always been reactive. Let's be proactive, and devise our own strategy for success.

What about Sydney's defensive style we tried to adopt after they won the premiership? That was Daniher's down fall. Cut his own throat there! Boring and no run.

but we must do all that we can to get another pick in the top 25. And we need to keep culling dead wood. We need to be creative next week. It won't be easy, but it has to happen.

Hannabal, the Hawks were able to obtain picks in the top 26 by trading youngish key position players

Personally, one of the mistakes we've made in the past is copying another team's model, both with player personnel and game plan. We tried to emulate the Bombers 2000 side by drafting midfielders with fat arses, and then we tried to emulate the Eagles run and carry game plan. We have always been reactive. Let's be proactive, and devise our own strategy for success.

It's a different playing field this year, we know that, but we have to be as creative as we can to improve our position in the draft. We have to look at all scenarios including being the third party to some trades if there are benefits.

As for copying another model ? Some of us have lamented our static list management for years. Some have lamented our lack of draft picks for years. As I said, I'm not speaking with the benefit of hindsight. It made sense then and does now.

Jamar is still on the list, Carroll has a contract for next year, Meesen was signed for 3 years. I could go on and on. Supporters have their favourites, but unfortunately most are wedded to mediocre players. Even if they can't see it themselves.

As for trading players for immediate success ? If there was a really highly rated under 23 then we'll look at it, but in the main I want picks, picks, and more picks.

Draft, draft, draft... well, maybe there is room for 1 trade. But I believe a trade should be done only if it involves obtaining a top 25 pick. This draft runs deep, - deeper than previous national drafts. We must keep 1,17 and 19 IMO.

The recruiter at Geelong believes all clubs will hold onto their first round picks, and that you may see more player for player trades during trade week. Because of the the 3 year concessions coming up with GC17 and WS18.

I've stated before that we were deplorable at turning our list over in recent years. We kept mediocre players in Godfrey, Ward, Nicholson, Smith, Armstrong, Ferguson, etc, etc, for too long. There are current players in Bell, Jamar, Bartram to name a few who either can't kick, make the right decisions, or just aren't good enough.

I've also lamented CAC's lack of draft picks over the years. And when he had them they were invariably average selections. This from a recent The Age article on the Hawthorn model from 2004; "The appointment of Clarkson in 2004 was fundamental to the embrace of the youth route and the preparedness for short-term pain. He encouraged the recruitment of his former Port Adelaide colleague Chris Pelchen to manage an aggressive list strategy.

"We firmly believed that if we attacked the draft but also the trade period aggressively — not be reactive, be proactive in both the draft and the trade periods — then we could hopefully build a team from the ground up," Pelchen said."

Now I accept that having played Finals in 04, 05, 06 that we didn't have plumb draft picks and that we thought our window was still open, but what a terrible evaluation of a list. And from that erroneous stand point we were basically completely passive. We sat back and did nothing. And it's not all hindsight.

Some facts: from 2003 to 2006 which encapsulated 4 National drafts we took 14 players. By comparison, from 2004 to 2006 - 3 drafts - Hawthorn took 17 players. That's right, they took 3 more players from one less draft. But let's look at the quality of the picks. Of Hawthorn's 17 picks 15 were inside the top 40. They had 12 picks inside the top 26. We had 4. Obviously they had better early picks due to their position on the ladder, but they made a decision to be aggressive and proactive at the trade table. It's harder this year for the reasons we all know about, but imo this club needs to get its hands dirty and improve our draft position.

I know there will be excuses made by apologists for our ghastly list management, and yes, the past is the past, but we must do all that we can to get another pick in the top 25. And we need to keep culling dead wood. We need to be creative next week. It won't be easy, but it has to happen.

Good post Hannabal.

It's a different playing field this year, we know that, but we have to be as creative as we can to improve our position in the draft. We have to look at all scenarios including being the third party to some trades if there are benefits.

Yes. I believe this may turn out to be the strategy next week in order to obtain a top 25 pick. By coming in on a third party-like trade. Unless we trade one of our 'high profile' players if a good offer comes along.(ie Green) - But it looks as though he will be signed according to reports.

Staggering to see the Hawks draft 12 picks inside the top 26, compared to our 4. But as you say alot of it was due to their position on the ladder.

Our Footy department do need to get their hands dirty. With 1,17,19,35 being the best picks, we do need another inside the first 25 IMO. 51 and 67 should be used as sweetners in order to achieve this.

but we must do all that we can to get another pick in the top 25. And we need to keep culling dead wood. We need to be creative next week. It won't be easy, but it has to happen.

Couldn't agree with Hannabal more

Somehow we need to trade pick 18 down to a top 10 pick and pick 50 down to a top 40 pick.

Cameron Bruce won't be around when we need next challenge for a top 4 spot - but he could add valuable run to a side that expects to challenge in the next 2-3 years. What about Bruce to Collingwood, Didak to Port and Pick 5 to Melbourne?

What about Chris Johnson and pick 34 to West Coast for pick 19? Carroll and pick 50 to Freo for pick 36?

I think Brad Green ought to be captain - but I would certainly consider trading him for a first round pick.

PIcks #1,#17 and #18 are not enough when you bear in mind that the cream of next year's talent will be siphoned off to the Gold Coast

Let's hope Barry Prendegast has the drive and imagination to trade players and late picks for early picks

Ok Hoopla

You are hung up on -prior to Trade Week Pick 34, Pick 34 is Hawthorn's

Pick 50 is Hawthorn's

Pick 36 is West Coast's

Pick 18 is West Coast's, Melbourne has picks 17 and 19.

far out- hawks had 12 picks inside top 26?!?!?!?!?! we should be trying to get very ruthless, we only have 4- ruthless would be perhaps getting 2 or 3 more top 26 picks. and acquiring the services of prismall and a ruckman. then we are set

I think we need to do what Hawthorn did in the 2004 draft too.

We need to try and get as many picks in the top 30 as we can.

I'd be willing to trade away some good quality players to get Port Adelaide's top 4 draft pick!

We need to realise that the we won't be making another Premiership "tilt" for at least about 5 years so getting early draft picks now should be a priority!

With respect to the draft, just listened to SEN regarding the draftees at draft camp (there was this one time, at draft camp;lol), an official based at the camp said that Jack Watts was an absolute standout in so many areas. There was also a test which had something to do with choosing the right option in the forward 50 - don't ask me how they do this test - but he excelled significantly over other draftees. Recording scores of 9/10, 9/10, etc.

This bloke also said that there was another Dan Hannebury, who also did quite well, and thought he might be a bit of a smokey as an early pick.

1,4,17,19,35

do what we can to get pick 4 - if that means trade green and someone else then do it!!

if we can get watts and vickery - look out!!!

(Note- i love brad green and i would prefer to trade bruce but that wont happen)

do what we can to get pick 4 - if that means trade green and someone else then do it!!

if we can get watts and vickery - look out!!!

Goose, give up on pick 4. It won't happen. A Ryan O'Keefe wouldn't get pick 4. And he's the best player bandied around at present. Forget it.

Cameron Bruce won't be around when we need next challenge for a top 4 spot - but he could add valuable run to a side that expects to challenge in the next 2-3 years. What about Bruce to Collingwood, Didak to Port and Pick 5 to Melbourne?

What about Chris Johnson and pick 34 to West Coast for pick 19? Carroll and pick 50 to Freo for pick 36?

Let's hope Barry Prendegast has the drive and imagination to trade players and late picks for early picks

He may have the drive and imagination but unfortunately he needs opposition equivalents to have a nail through the forehead for any of those trades to go through.

Bruce equal to pick 5 (I presume you mean 4) or Didak? :lol: Port and Collingwood would still be laughing. Why wouldn't Collingwood just take the pick for Didak if Port were keen?

Johnson and pick 34 may have a chance of getting 19 but Carroll and pick 50 is worth pick 51 at the most.

Some poor deluded souls have to realise Carroll has zero value. People seem to think the fact he is from WA, that seems to be worth something by iytself.

Those tests are during the first day when they do Psychomotor Tests, which includes testing reaction time, decision making, peripheral awareness.

I also heard something on SEN, it was Ox & Jackson interviewing Watts and he said he got 1st in the reaction test. He said it was about hitting buttons when a light came on or something like that and he got 130 in 60 seconds. All i can say to that is wow, over 2 a second sustained for a minute. Watts was surely the best all-round performer at the draft, 1st in some of the psychomotor tests, 2nd in 20m sprint & agility test, 7th in the repeat 30m sprints as well as a 13.6 beep test which is above average and good for a KP player.

Hannebery didn't hurt his chances at all with a pretty strong DC, but i wouldn't say first round. He's a smoky for early 2nd round and i'd hope he's a taken under real consideration for pick 35.