Hawthorn Firesale

[Guest hangon007]

I have faith in the FD , they'll talk to whoever they feel worth the effort. They chased Hale and talked to West. Am sure there are others they'll have a coffee with

I too share the same faith as you do. I was happy to chase Hale, saddened by the fact we could not nail him down to "stick fat with us" but better finding that out prior to trading him than after, glad we were linked with West.

However, I think Peterson, is the perfect foil for Aussie releasing him to more game time in the middle. However, should add "perfect" for complimentary reasons, not because the are alike in stature. However, I should add assuming his head is right to play AFL football in Victoria.

Edited October 20, 2010 by hangon007

[jayceebee31 761]

It maybe very interesting to know that Alistair Clarkson has borded a flight to Los Angeles on United that left at near midday today- maybe he is looking for other American recruits similar to the Collingwood rookie- Seamus McNamara to bolster his ruck list..

[GOLF 13]

If we do look at Skipper, please remember we are not looking at him to play a single senior game UNLESS Jamar gets injured. Our rucks next year, barring injury, should be Jamar plus one out of Spencer, Gawn or Fitzpatrick in every game.

If Spencer, Gawn or Fitzpatrick get injured, there are the other two to keeo it going. But if Jamar is injured? We could well miss the 8. So we need at least one mature bodied ruckman who can step up to lead the youngsters if Jamar goes down. By 2013 the young should be ready to stand on their own. By 2012 they may be showing signs of getting there. But in 2011 we need the insurance.

Currently we have PJ to fill this role. If we see something better that PJ, lets get him. We could delist PJ, giving us the use of a third draft pick, if that would do it. We could also look at the rookie draft. If we want someone to fill in for the injured Jamar, then a rookie is fine as he can be nominated for senior selection to replace the injured Jamar.

So is the right choice Skipper? Maybe. Is it someone else? Whoever it is, we hope they won't play a single senior game for us, but will just be hanging around in case Jamar goes down.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

Unless the player we recruit is a Callum Sinclair type who can play the role we had earmarked for Hale and who still has his best years well and truly in front of him.

[Roost It 1,434]

I'd roll the dice with Peterson. His only trouble is he's trouble. Roll him up with Davey, Wonaeamirri and Liam and give him a year to get his stuff right. Worth a rookie in my opinion.

[IWAP 170]

I think it would be helpful for the people poo-pooing the idea of recruiting someone like Skipper, to nominate their preferred ruck combination for next year.

Skipper is a stop-gap solution, but so is Paul Johnson. The only difference is Skipper is better than Johnson, and we could potentially have him on the rookie list, and free up a spot on the senior list by delisting Johnson.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Good thing about this kid is we know he can play, so we know there is gold to be found.

Player that can "play" but dont have the attitude are a dime a dozen.

Caveat Emptor for fools gold.

And if there is "gold" to be found and the Hawks have cut him as part of a bigger offload it should raise serious questions.

I'd roll the dice with Peterson. His only trouble is he's trouble.

Thats Ok then.

[sylvinator 96]

And if there is "gold" to be found and the Hawks have cut him as part of a bigger offload it should raise serious questions.

Plenty of good players have been delisted and found renewed form at the new club. not uncommon.

Some players just thrive in certain environments, and not in others.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Plenty of good players have been delisted and found renewed form at the new club. not uncommon.

Some players just thrive in certain environments, and not in others.

And plenty dont. Caveat emptor.

The Hawks have recently won a flag and are a successful club on and off the field and.... yeah its probably the wrong environment for him.

[Guest hangon007]

Player that can "play" but dont have the attitude are a dime a dozen.

Caveat Emptor for fools gold.

And if there is "gold" to be found and the Hawks have cut him as part of a bigger offload it should raise serious questions.

"Caveat Emptor" ... No doubt about it. However, watch you dont just "scratch the surface" and jump to assumptions.

Big question is ... Who should you be asking the serious questions about. Patience & understanding is a virtue few AFL football clubs truly understand.

Mentorship & leadership is a skill that goes deeper than just a title.

[e25 5]

He's failed at Richmond... He's failed at Hawthorn...

How many chances is enough?

I get the feeling the environment is not the issue. The issue is his desire to play AFL.

Obviously there is another desire or distraction that overrides that.

The bloke didn't even show up to his exit interview from Hawthorn.

Weak.

[Guest hangon007]

He's failed at Richmond... He's failed at Hawthorn...

Yip, so who should we be asking questions about? Just because Richmond & Hawthorn fail, does that automatically mean we will "fail"?

Talk is cheap, actions always speak louder than words.

How many chances is enough?

I get the feeling the environment is not the issue. The issue is his desire to play AFL.

Obviously there is another desire or distraction that overrides that.

The bloke didn't even show up to his exit interview from Hawthorn.

Weak.

If you do more of the same you cannot expect a different result. However, we are vastly differently to Richmond & Hawthorn, and we have demonstrated that on a number of occasions. We have advantages with this type of player that Richmond & Hawthorn can only ever dream about. We have patience & understanding at the highest level & of the highest calibre.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

I think it would be helpful for the people poo-pooing the idea of recruiting someone like Skipper, to nominate their preferred ruck combination for next year.

Skipper is a stop-gap solution, but so is Paul Johnson. The only difference is Skipper is better than Johnson, and we could potentially have him on the rookie list, and free up a spot on the senior list by delisting Johnson.

Sure. How about Jake Spencer? Whilst Spencer may not yet be as good as Skipper or even PJ, it is a better move to give him game time. Skipper is not much of a player and will be 28yo before next season starts. I just don't understand the urgency in bringing in a recruit to fill the 2nd ruck position. If we lose one or two games next year because we play Spencer, but he improves with the extra game time, I consider this more beneficial than winning a couple of extra games by playing a Skipper (or PJ) and stalling the development of our young rucks by another year or two. At some point, these kids need to be played in just the same way as we did with a young Frawley and are currently doing with Watts.

And before I get jumped on with the "we shouldn't play our rucks too early" argument, Kreuzer and Naitanui have been playing games since the year they were drafted. Mitch Clark was almost AA at 22. Closer to home, Darren Jolly had played about 50 games by the time he was Spencer's age (also off the rookie list) and Jamar played 22 games in 2006 as a 22yo. Spencer is physically ready to go and the best way to develop a young ruck is to give them serious game time. We see it time and again.

But if you absolutely must draft in a more "ready made" type, I'd prefer someone like Callum Sinclair who is not necessarily stop gap but may improve enough to actually play a role in our future.

Apologies for the rant but I'm of the firm view that the quickest way to de-rail your development is to go too early on recycled players. In two years we'll be in serious contention and will know where the holes are on our list so we can trade to fill them then.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

On Carl Peterson, some guys just don't have the head for it, no matter how good the infrastructure a club has in place. Whilst I don't want to understate the impressive dynamic that Davey, Jurrah, Wona etc. have developed, I don't think we should just assume that we can reform every head case out there. No from me.

[e25 5]

Not just that, but not all of them can play at Casey.

You can only have so many ruckmen in a team.

I'm not sure it helps their development to be sitting on the bench or competing against much inferior competition.

[old55 23,576]

Plenty of good players have been delisted and found renewed form at the new club. not uncommon.

Some players just thrive in certain environments, and not in others.

Close to 100 players delisted every year - only a handful make it back.

[rpfc 28,432]

Yip, so who should we be asking questions about? Just because Richmond & Hawthorn fail, does that automatically mean we will "fail"?

Talk is cheap, actions always speak louder than words.

If you do more of the same you cannot expect a different result. However, we are vastly differently to Richmond & Hawthorn, and we have demonstrated that on a number of occasions. We have advantages with this type of player that Richmond & Hawthorn can only ever dream about. We have patience & understanding at the highest level & of the highest calibre.

I would be sending a represenative from Reach to meet with him, rather than the MFC...

Some want to play footy without the pressure of the AFL, some need to play footy without the pressure of AFL footy.

He's not ready upstairs to play footy in the AFL - why push it?

[Guest hangon007]

Close to 100 players delisted every year - only a handful make it back.

Wonder why that is so? Wonder if there is any commonality in the 95 or the 5? (assuming your numbers are correct)

[daisycutter 29,616]

Yip, so who should we be asking questions about? Just because Richmond & Hawthorn fail, does that automatically mean we will "fail"?

Talk is cheap, actions always speak louder than words.

If you do more of the same you cannot expect a different result. However, we are vastly differently to Richmond & Hawthorn, and we have demonstrated that on a number of occasions. We have advantages with this type of player that Richmond & Hawthorn can only ever dream about. We have patience & understanding at the highest level & of the highest calibre.

How do you know all this? . . . . or are you just making it up?

Back up the rhetoric with some details/facts, rather than pontificating

[IWAP 170]

I agree with you on Spencer. He has had enough time, and should be given a decent go in the ones. I’m not advocating for Skipper to come in and play 22 games as 2nd ruck. My argument is Skipper > Johnson. If we delist Johnson, and don’t pick up another senior ruckman, we’re left with 1 proven AFL ruckman, and 3 unproven youngsters (1 coming of a knee reco, 1 chronically injured last year), and an un-proven part-timer in Martin. If something happens to Jamar, it would hinder Spencer’s development, if he had to shoulder the majority of the ruck all year .

Skipper, if available, would require a rookie list selection, in a compromised draft. Pretty cheap. Haven’t seen Sinclair, so I can’t comment on him.

[Roost It 1,434]

Thats Ok then.

I know he's trouble. Put in the right environment, including Jim Stynes Reach Program he may well flourish. It wouldn't be the first time a troubled soul made good. I'll bet now that Krakouer has some good people around him he'll make good on his talent.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

I agree with you on Spencer. He has had enough time, and should be given a decent go in the ones. I’m not advocating for Skipper to come in and play 22 games as 2nd ruck. My argument is Skipper > Johnson. If we delist Johnson, and don’t pick up another senior ruckman, we’re left with 1 proven AFL ruckman, and 3 unproven youngsters (1 coming of a knee reco, 1 chronically injured last year), and an un-proven part-timer in Martin. If something happens to Jamar, it would hinder Spencer’s development, if he had to shoulder the majority of the ruck all year .

Skipper, if available, would require a rookie list selection, in a compromised draft. Pretty cheap. Haven’t seen Sinclair, so I can’t comment on him.

As a mature age rookie maybe, but only with the view to it being a last resort if Spencer gets injured and the young kids still aren't ready. Having said that, Taylor might be a better proposition than Skipper in that context. Still, strong preference to follow the youth path for a couple more years.

[Apocalypse XXXI 243]

On the other hand, if it's a player who's capable in the ruck that we're looking for while Spencer, Fitzpatrick and Gawn develop, then why not North Ballarat's Orren Stephenson?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I know he's trouble. Put in the right environment, including Jim Stynes Reach Program he may well flourish. It wouldn't be the first time a troubled soul made good. I'll bet now that Krakouer has some good people around him he'll make good on his talent.

At the end of the day MFC is a football club and the what you are outlining for Petersen is intensive high maintenance oversight of one player to the detriment of others. And there is no certainty he will be anything. And he will have to be very good to justify all the upfront effort. There may be better bets without the off field price tags.

Krakouer is a different case. Hit rock bottom andhas turned his life around including winning a Sandover Medal in WAFL playing seriously good football. To do that you have to show a few traits that may interest AFL talent scouts. But what has Petersen shown to date? Just blown opportunities.....

[Roost It 1,434]

At the end of the day MFC is a football club and the what you are outlining for Petersen is intensive high maintenance oversight of one player to the detriment of others. And there is no certainty he will be anything. And he will have to be very good to justify all the upfront effort. There may be better bets without the off field price tags.

Krakouer is a different case. Hit rock bottom andhas turned his life around including winning a Sandover Medal in WAFL playing seriously good football. To do that you have to show a few traits that may interest AFL talent scouts. But what has Petersen shown to date? Just blown opportunities.....

Clearly you would only take Peterson if there was no one better. Considering we're probably going to have several rookie picks my opinion is the club could do alot worse than Peterson. There's nothing wrong with a club putting extra time into certain players, it would happen all the time. Colin Sylvia anyone! Here's a guy with talent to play AFL who clearly has his troubles. Let's rookie him, send him off to reach and see what we can do for him. Novel approach helping others but in my opinion it's what good clubs should do.