meltiger said:
This was my main point though, it's highlighted to the kid in a very frank fashion, that he does need to pile on some weight to be competitive with some of the forwards in the League.
My normal view is that young players need to be challenged to improve and playing on difficult opponents teaches them much about the game. That said, he can still play on good opponents in a more peripheral defensive capacity, while he works on getting his weight up to a required level to play effectively at FB on big bodied opponents. Its one thing to set a challenge, but you need to ensure that the player can feasibly meet the challenge.
meltiger said:
Talk of playing Roughead down back is all well and good, and as I said earlier in the week I see this as a positive move for club and player, but looking long term, if he is to return to the forward line, you guys are really going to need these younger backs to come through.
Yes. The Clarkson view is that you have to plan well ahead to ensure adequate team structure and balance, which is perfectly sensible. This takes us back to the old draft the "best player" or draft the "best player for team needs" argument. With key defenders, as is the case for key forwards, you have to get them early in the knowledge that they most likely won't provide strong returns for several years. I think it is easier to get capable key defenders outside of high draft picks than it is to get quality key forwards, but that's another argument.
Hawthorn may decide to draft a key defensive player later in the year, but the chances of a Matthew Scarlett type being available are painfully miniscule. This is why I would be happy enough for Roughead to play back across 2006-07. This allows extra time for Dawson to put on weight and find his feet, and also allows time for alternative options to arise.
Joshua Kennedy will almost certainly arrive f/s at the next draft, and he is a strongly built youngster who has impressed in the TAC playing a multitude of positions: key defense, peripheral defense, inside midfield. If he can grow over the 190cm barrier this year, he may be groomed as the new fullback for 2008. Stephen Gilham may also come on at Box Hill in the interrim.
Alternatively, as we'll almsot certainly finish among the top six picks on offer, if other clubs push hard for midfielders, we could snare talented key forward youngster, Scott Gumbleton and look to advance him as a third tall, keeping Roughead down back.
meltiger said:
I beleive you drafted a young ruckmen in the rookie draft yes?
That was McEntee. There was also big Max Bailey who was taken at 18 in the normal draft.
meltiger said:
Mid to Long term (3-5 years), could the Hawthorn spine look like this? -
FB - Dawson (Don't think he'll ever have enough weight to hold down CHB)
CHB - Roughead
Ruck - The bloke taken in the rookie draft
CHF - Dowler
FF - Williams
With Franklin roaming between playing as a true wingmen, to HHF depending on opposition (I am adamant playing him as KPP will restrict him Richo like and he will never reach his true potential)
Possibly, but I doubt Dawson will make it as a FB (first choice at least) and I doubt Williams will remain FF over the long term. I also feel that the Gumbleton option is a long shot and that the Hawk coaching panel has any other future vision for Roughead than to play him up forward.
Boyle remains a wildcard option. At 193cm/93kg he remains a key defensive alternative and has put in time at FB for Box Hill.
Much will depend on how Dowler and Gilham perform at Box Hill this season, and on young Kennedy's capacity to have a growth spurt.
meltiger said:
I've left Croad out of the equation, because I figure he's getting on now age wise? That's just a guess though based on the fact he's been around for a fair few years now.
Croad is 26. He is very athletic and could well play for another 6-7 years as a consequence. Barring injury, he'll still be very much a part of the plan come 2008.
, I make an effort to get out and support the Dogs when I can, always been my second team 
