McEvoy and Stanley.

[Drake Huggins]

Good points, Spinner. I wasn't lamenting the decisions to trade. Risk is part of that. While we haven't done all that well out of those trades, they're hardly a disaster . My beef is that clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong, without the bonanza of draft picks we've had in the past six years, seem to be light years ahead in recruiting and development. They regularly find hidden gems in the draft and seem to effectively recycle other club's GOP's and turn them into decent contributors.

[Selhurst Saint]

Something that dawned on me watching Geelong play on Monday was that every year they seem to add a mature aged rookie to their list. These guys are taken with low draft picks and are essentially ready to play immediately. Outstanding recruiting and/or development.

Tim Kelly, Tom Stewart, Sam Menagola, Mark Blicavs, and Podsiadly immediately come to mind.

[hayes66]

Lynch is another one who looked a complete dud at the Saints. In fact I could barely find one redeeming feature of him when he was at the Saints. He looked slow, thought slow and was a shallow kick. I've read at other times people saying he had potential. I saw none of that and in actual fact thought at the time that he looked one of the worst 1st round picks I'd ever seen. Coupled with all this was rumours that he was ahead of himself and wasn't putting the work in on the track.

Now we find a player at the Crows who is probably the best 3rd tall in the comp. He works hard up and down the ground. Is a beautiful kick, has a smart brain and is a crucial player for the Crows. How can two players become that good after being so average (esp Lynch) really begs a question of our development program over the years.

I might need to have a, “Good hard look at myself.”
I thought Lynch showed a bit. Admittedly I watched him play at Sandy a bit. I think he won the ABC man of the match one game. From memory I thought he played a good game against North Melb in the AFL and one pre season series he was very good against Freo, I think.
Do admit he always looked a touch under paced but the reason I thought he’d make it was because of his footy brain. Quick thinker but you might be right as a lot of supporters thought he was hopeless including the coach.
Definitely agree re development and the other thing I would add is patience. Maybe we were too swift in making a decision on Lynch.
Another aspect to think about re McEvoy is I have seen him develop from the kick behind the play ruckman to now pushing forward.
I don’t know this but I wondering whether one of the things that seperates Clarko from a lot of the other coaches is, he looks at a player and sees how he can best utilise their strengths. Rather than a Lyon approach which seemed to be, here’s the game plan now you fit into it.

[sunsaint]

I am a little surprised some still knock McEvoys worth
The ONLY year that that Ben was bettered in the Hawks ruck stats was his first year when they had Hale & Ceglar (so he was third in line before walking in the door) Since 2015 he has not been bettered. Hawthorn ( and most likely coming from Clarkson ) realise that the modern ruck is a tall mobile on-baller as well. So as to whether or not the trade was good value - the two GF medallions round Bens' neck would suggest the Hawks were tickled pink in getting exactly the player they wanted.

But could someone set my memory straight - didnt the trade come as a complete shock to McEvoy getting a phone call while on holidays to be told he was traded?

[stonecold]

I am a little surprised some still knock McEvoys worth
The ONLY year that that Ben was bettered in the Hawks ruck stats was his first year when they had Hale & Ceglar (so he was third in line before walking in the door) Since 2015 he has not been bettered. Hawthorn ( and most likely coming from Clarkson ) realise that the modern ruck is a tall mobile on-baller as well. So as to whether or not the trade was good value - the two GF medallions round Bens' neck would suggest the Hawks were tickled pink in getting exactly the player they wanted.

But could someone set my memory straight - didnt the trade come as a complete shock to McEvoy getting a phone call while on holidays to be told he was traded?

Yes, that's how it went down!!!!!

[Joffa Burns]

Something that dawned on me watching Geelong play on Monday was that every year they seem to add a mature aged rookie to their list. These guys are taken with low draft picks and are essentially ready to play immediately. Outstanding recruiting and/or development.

Tim Kelly, Tom Stewart, Sam Menagola, Mark Blicavs, and Podsiadly immediately come to mind.

Very good observation, Blicsavs & Menagola are good footballers and Tim Kelly has shown a bit already.

[Joffa Burns]

I rate McEvoy but have no issue with the trade. We effectively landed Dunstan, Acres and Savage for McEvoy and Hartung.

Not sure anybody would be arguing of the above was correct.

My understanding is we traded McEvoy for #18 (which may have become #19) but regardless was used on Dunstan & Savage was the steak knives.
How does Acres find his way into the equation? Did we give something back that they used on Hartung?

The same year we traded #25 and #41 for Billy.

The interesting questions for me are:
Would we have got Savage from Hawthorn for #41?
Would we have got Dunstan in the draft @ #25?

Could we have kept McEvoy (and not traded for Billy) and still landed Dunstan and Savage if we really wanted them?

IMO
#21 for Stanley - Geelong paid was overs, the fact we drafted a player who is struggling is our issue.
#19 & Savage was unders for Mc Evoy as he was a future leader, a very solid citizen and a capable ruckman coming into his prime.
He might not have been worth more but Hawks were desperate for a ruck.

In regard to Tom Lynch I believe from a good source that the Saints were more focused on what Tom wasn't doing which was not putting his head over the ball, he was ducking and a little soft as opposed to what he could do. The crows has focused on his strengths and he has turned out to be a very good AFL player.

[perfectionist]

Tom Lynch proved his worth to the Crows in the GF - one behind.

[Moods]

Something that dawned on me watching Geelong play on Monday was that every year they seem to add a mature aged rookie to their list. These guys are taken with low draft picks and are essentially ready to play immediately. Outstanding recruiting and/or development.

Tim Kelly, Tom Stewart, Sam Menagola, Mark Blicavs, and Podsiadly immediately come to mind.

Yep. Excellent observation. And we wonder why these clubs never seem to bottom out.

[skeptic]

Tom Lynch proved his worth to the Crows in the GF - one behind.

Boy you really are one to point the finger at individuals at you

In a wet match where they’re mids we’re smashed... Lynch was the problem... even worse than Tex

And Steven is the problem at St.Kilda... you really don’t by into the champion team concept I guess

[Moods]

Tom Lynch proved his worth to the Crows in the GF - one behind.

Boy you really are one to point the finger at individuals at you

In a wet match where they’re mids we’re smashed... Lynch was the problem... even worse than Tex

And Steven is the problem at St.Kilda... you really don’t by into the champion team concept I guess

Was it wet? I think they were just all poor on the day. The fwds did have limited supply. Either way a bad day on GF day is hardly the only barometer to a players worth. If he was always poor in big games and had been poor in the finals then perfectionist may have a point. But that's not the case.

[outside66]

As if Friday wasn't bad enough, we then had to watch two of our former players show us a thing or two on Easter Monday. Apart from the standard of the match, which was so far ahead of ours it was in the next century, McEvoy showed us why a club like Hawthorn wanted him in the first place. Rhys, although not as successful as McEvoy has been, still played well enough to show us he would be ideal in a role we have no serious candidates for. That is the mobile second ruckman, who can play forward and kick goals.

McEvoy has won two flags and was runner up in their B and F last year. I hate it when people on here say he isn't that good. He was being touted as a future captain when he was at our club. He is far superior to any of the ruckmen on our list in every way. He has vice like hands, is a beautiful kick for goal and gets his share of the ball around the ground. The knocks on his ruck work must stem from ignorance or envy, or both. Let's face it, by letting him go we screwed up again.

Rhys has always been the teaser. From winning the GF sprint to a number of promising games, I couldn't wait for him to mature and realise his potential. That he didn't at our club is a shame. Apparently a lack of worth ethic was the problem. Even Roo couldn't inspire him, apparently. What an indictment on our club that we lost two players of this calibre. While I admit Rhys is no world beater, he has slotted in nicely at Geelong as a more than useful swingman, filling in as a forward when not providing a chop out to Smith. How we could use him now.

Before anyone starts howling me down, who would you rather have on the list right now, McEvoy and Stanley, or Billy and Tom, who boast 7 possessions and 2 senior games between them this year? I'm sick of seeing our players go to other clubs and do well. It's been happening since the Stewart/Barrott fiasco. I'd drag out all the premiership players and greats we've handed to others, but I think at this time it might push me over the edge. Save it for another post, or would someone take the responsibility and list them in this thread for me? Cheers in advance.

McEvoy: I'd rather have Savage and Dunstan - not to mention the exchange of picks that allowed us to get Acres.
Stanley: I'd rather Goddard. Whilst he's been unlucky with injury, I reckon he has far more upside than Stanley - Stanley hasn't changed at all and I reckon if he stayed on our list then we wouldn't be better off in the slightest.

Our rucks are a different story; who knows what's going on with Hickey but for Longer to get the nod (even though he's clearly carrying an injury/came into the round 1 underdone) speaks volumes of where Hickey is at. I think a fully fit Longer has the capacity to be a quality player. He was pretty good last year - he towelled up Gawny remember - so once fit, I think he could be a really solid player for us.

[Drake Huggins]

So how's Goddard doing in his fourth year? I know he's had injury problems, but on the available evidence Stanley and Geelong are way ahead in that deal at the moment. I hope that changes over the next few years. Dunstan is out of favour with the coaches it seems, playing at Sandringham, although I've always rated him. I like the way he said he improved late last year by listening to the psych. and not the coaches! Rather have Dunstan and Savage than McEvoy. Interesting. One is a dual premiership player and runner up in the club B & F, while Dunstan is not in the seniors and Savage is a GOP at best, who's struggled to become a regular senior. Ask any Hawthorn supporter what the club's opinion of McEvoy is. A crucial part of successful premiership teams who is improving all the time.

Savage was jettisoned because he wasn't seen as a part of the Hawks future success. Looks like they were right. Anyway, you've missed my point. This was wasn't meant to be a thread on the merits of our drafting and training. It was meant to be an example of our ongoing record of poor player development. My contention is that those deals left us with the situation we're in now. Longer as our number one ruckman. Hickey? Who knows how that's going to end. Pierce? Demoted to the rookie list and playing at Frankston! Marshall our best hope but needs more time. Should make it, but with our record, who knows?

[outside66]

So how's Goddard doing in his fourth year? I know he's had injury problems, but on the available evidence Stanley and Geelong are way ahead in that deal at the moment. I hope that changes over the next few years. Dunstan is out of favour with the coaches it seems, playing at Sandringham, although I've always rated him. I like the way he said he improved late last year by listening to the psych. and not the coaches! Rather have Dunstan and Savage than McEvoy. Interesting. One is a dual premiership player and runner up in the club B & F, while Dunstan is not in the seniors and Savage is a GOP at best, who's struggled to become a regular senior. Ask any Hawthorn supporter what the club's opinion of McEvoy is. A crucial part of successful premiership teams who is improving all the time.

Savage was jettisoned because he wasn't seen as a part of the Hawks future success. Looks like they were right. Anyway, you've missed my point. This was wasn't meant to be a thread on the merits of our drafting and training. It was meant to be an example of our ongoing record of poor player development. My contention is that those deals left us with the situation we're in now. Longer as our number one ruckman. Hickey? Who knows how that's going to end. Pierce? Demoted to the rookie list and playing at Frankston! Marshall our best hope but needs more time. Should make it, but with our record, who knows?

Ask any Geelong supporter, they cannot stand Stanley and I can see why - he's inconsistent and only got a game on Monday because of injuries. Right at this stage, I would think we are the winners in that one purely from a salary cap perspective - Goddard would have costed us nothing compared to keeping Stanley.

McEvoy was/is a good player, not doubting that, but Hawthorn were rubbish last year and McEvoy was one of their few consistent players. Him being a premiership player has nothing to do with player development IMO - we were rebuilding and Hawthorn were being Hawthorn. McEvoy was a proven mature-aged player whilst Dunstan & Acres are still young. It was a risky trade but I don't think there were any losers from this deal.

Dunstan will come good and I'm backing the coaches in on this one - Dunstan (as did Savage) was dropped last year and then came back to play career-best footy. Savage is a solid player who I think makes us a better team with his run and kicking skills. He was obviously a sweetener thrown in by Hawthorn but I think we've come out of that deal alright.

Billy could wind up being better than McEvoy as he is still young and does have potential where I think Hickey is better than Stanley.

[Joffa Burns]

McEvoy: I'd rather have Savage and Dunstan - not to mention the exchange of picks that allowed us to get Acres.

I'm lost, you are the 2nd poster who has mentioned Acres as part of the McEvoy deal.
Can you explain?

From memory we got the pick used for Dunstan and Savage.
I also looked this up online and that is all it showed.
How was the Acres pick involved?

[Selhurst Saint]

McEvoy: I'd rather have Savage and Dunstan - not to mention the exchange of picks that allowed us to get Acres.

I'm lost, you are the 2nd poster who has mentioned Acres as part of the McEvoy deal.
Can you explain?

From memory we got the pick used for Dunstan and Savage.
I also looked this up online and that is all it showed.
How was the Acres pick involved?

I have always believed we received the Acres Pick, the Dunstan Pick and Savage for giving up McEvoy and Pick 24. How else did we get 3 picks inside the top 20?

OK, I just looked it up. It appears to be a two transaction deal.
- We traded McEvoy for pick 18 and Savage.
- We then traded pick 24 and 59 to Hawthorn for pick 19.

Hawthorn took Billy Hartung with pick 24 and elevated John Ceglar from the rookie list with 59.

[bouttime]

The difference between high performing cultures and organisations like Geelong and Hawthorn is that they understand how to unleash the quality in latent talent. They are filled to the brim with high quality people with strong character. The expectation on the kids coming through is that excellence is not negotiable and if the talent/player is prepared to achieve high standards he will be supported.
Other clubs tend to attract less than desirable types and gee guess what, the standards drop, expectations fall and then that benchmark becomes accepted as the norm.
I wouldn't mind betting that if Hawks put in an effort like our boys last week, the emergency review would not have been left with the crap that "we thought we'd just roll on after the Brisbane game" and "we didnt turn up to play". The management at Hawthorn would not accept such dribble. And be sure they would expose and eradicate that BS element.
The display on the field is a direct reflection of the behaviour of the executive.
Time has come to change the loser element.

[Joffa Burns]

McEvoy: I'd rather have Savage and Dunstan - not to mention the exchange of picks that allowed us to get Acres.

I'm lost, you are the 2nd poster who has mentioned Acres as part of the McEvoy deal.
Can you explain?

From memory we got the pick used for Dunstan and Savage.
I also looked this up online and that is all it showed.
How was the Acres pick involved?

I have always believed we received the Acres Pick, the Dunstan Pick and Savage for giving up McEvoy and Pick 24. How else did we get 3 picks inside the top 20?

OK, I just looked it up. It appears to be a two transaction deal.
- We traded McEvoy for pick 18 and Savage.
- We then traded pick 24 and 59 to Hawthorn for pick 19.

Hawthorn took Billy Hartung with pick 24 and elevated John Ceglar from the rookie list with 59.

Thanks Selhurst, would love to know if the two trades were mutually exclusive.
On it's own the McEvoy trade looks a loss but linked with the Acres deal looks a lot better.

[Spinner]

McEvoy: I'd rather have Savage and Dunstan - not to mention the exchange of picks that allowed us to get Acres.

I'm lost, you are the 2nd poster who has mentioned Acres as part of the McEvoy deal.
Can you explain?

From memory we got the pick used for Dunstan and Savage.
I also looked this up online and that is all it showed.
How was the Acres pick involved?

I have always believed we received the Acres Pick, the Dunstan Pick and Savage for giving up McEvoy and Pick 24. How else did we get 3 picks inside the top 20?

OK, I just looked it up. It appears to be a two transaction deal.
- We traded McEvoy for pick 18 and Savage.
- We then traded pick 24 and 59 to Hawthorn for pick 19.

Hawthorn took Billy Hartung with pick 24 and elevated John Ceglar from the rookie list with 59.

Thanks Selhurst, would love to know if the two trades were mutually exclusive.
On it's own the McEvoy trade looks a loss but linked with the Acres deal looks a lot better.

No not mutually exclusive - the later pick swap was the sweetener for the McEvoy deal. The reason it was a two step was that at the time of the initial trade, Hawthorn were yet to receive their 1st round compensation for Lance Franklin leaving. Once that came through from the AFL, the second trade was completed.

[Joffa Burns]

McEvoy: I'd rather have Savage and Dunstan - not to mention the exchange of picks that allowed us to get Acres.

I'm lost, you are the 2nd poster who has mentioned Acres as part of the McEvoy deal.
Can you explain?

From memory we got the pick used for Dunstan and Savage.
I also looked this up online and that is all it showed.
How was the Acres pick involved?

I have always believed we received the Acres Pick, the Dunstan Pick and Savage for giving up McEvoy and Pick 24. How else did we get 3 picks inside the top 20?

OK, I just looked it up. It appears to be a two transaction deal.
- We traded McEvoy for pick 18 and Savage.
- We then traded pick 24 and 59 to Hawthorn for pick 19.

Hawthorn took Billy Hartung with pick 24 and elevated John Ceglar from the rookie list with 59.

Thanks Selhurst, would love to know if the two trades were mutually exclusive.
On it's own the McEvoy trade looks a loss but linked with the Acres deal looks a lot better.

No not mutually exclusive - the later pick swap was the sweetener for the McEvoy deal. The reason it was a two step was that at the time of the initial trade, Hawthorn were yet to receive their 1st round compensation for Lance Franklin leaving. Once that came through from the AFL, the second trade was completed.

Yep, that clears it up for me, thanks.