Mega Thread The Western Bulldogs - The Sack Macca saga

[Proffessor]

The fact that this was written indicates that you have no grasp of what the plan is at the Dogs.

1. Build the midfield depth with quality players as this is the heartbeat of the game
2. Shore up the defence, ie build a back 6 that can play together and function well
3. Formulate a forward line that consistently kicks goals and puts on pressure.

This plan takes 7 years to implement and work. We are 3 years in. Too many people have unrealistic expectations on our list. Our older players are good players but not stars. To have success with the list we have now (ie to play finals with kids and older players only not many top end mid age players) your list needs to be full of Ablett's, Sellwood's etc ie really top end talent. This is the only reason Geelong are still successful - their top end talent are stars and this puts less pressure on the kids to carry the workload. We don't have this luxury as our top end aren't as good. Our kids are our best players but they're not ready to perform week in week out. So, we are 4 years away from being a great side, when the older guys are all gone and the kids are 24 you are going to see a very good side. Some good recruiting of mid age players between now and 2018 will be required along with good drafting, but we have the core of an amazing side. Anyone who says otherwise literally has no idea what is going on. And I can't help people like that.

I think you have summarised the pro-McCartney argument well, and in doing so helped illustrate some of the major holes in it.

Firstly comes the usual attempts at insulting your opponents at both the start and the finish of your post by suggesting those who disagree with you have 'no idea'.
Anyone who can't see the Emperor's new clothes is an idiot eh?

Next the summation of the magnificent plan. 1. get a midfield, 2. get a defence and 3. get a forward line.
Phew, what a relief to hear that we have such an awesomely sophisticated, fool proof blue print for success.
Gee, I hope the other AFL clubs don't hear about it and copy us.

Then comes the real kicker, it will all take 7 years to put into place. Not 7 weeks or 7 months, but 7 whole years.
You do realise this is approximately twice the length of the average AFL playing career don't you? 7 years was also the length of Rodney Eade's tenure at the Dogs.

Of course there is nothing to back up the reasoning behind such a timeline, just the usual line about people being unrealistic if they expect something better than we are currently delivering at the 3 year mark.

Then comes the pre-requisite damning assessment of our older players, despite the fact that many have received All Australian honours, played in finals teams, and continue to dominate our best player lists. Inevitably followed by the fantastical over estimate of the current performance by our kids, and the seductive assumptions that everything will magically fall into place over the next few years as we become an 'amazing' side.

If only it were that easy!

 

[Dav1d]

Then comes the real kicker, it will all take 7 years to put into place. Not 7 weeks or 7 months, but 7 whole years.
You do realise this is approximately twice the length of the average AFL playing career don't you? 7 years was also the length of Rodney Eade's tenure at the Dogs.

Why do you keep bringing up Rodney Eade for? He isn't coming back
You just have to suck it up and realize that Macca won't be going anywhere anytime soon and
bringing up the past isn't going to accomplish anything positive

You seem like a smart person, but it seems like you're wasting your time thinking why we should get rid of our coach
and repeating yourself an awful lot to hammer your opinions home

 

[TempleKelvington]

I think it is sad to be a bulldog supporter right now and to not be able to see what is evolving
Your missing the best part - the journey
Your a sleep on the train and the views are getting spectacular.

There are 3 kinds of people
Those that make things happen - players, coaches...
Those the watch things happen - supporters
Those that say "what happened?"

Yeah....this is so true. The whole thing about supporting the dogs is the journey. Is for me anyway.....indeed once we achieve the ultimate success I fear for me that the journey will be over (the holy grail found) and I may even be satisfied enough to walk away. Until then....I revel in the struggle and enjoy the journey. Had a few journeys that have fallen short, this one is building quite well.

 

[King Harold]

For the professor , you summed it up in one line.
"If only it were that easy! "

Not sure either how good the coach is either ( so fence sitting ) but this is the problem with the anti Macca brigade , its so simplistic , sack him and all will be well again. Really is simplistic rubbish.
I go back to the Roos situation , regarded as a fantastic coach , but gee how well are they going ? Even a Macca coached side can beat them - twice !
Some nobody takes over at Hawthorn and hasn't lost a game and is now a genius. Some of the media are looking for a coaching spot somewhere else next year for him.
Some of these people I'm sure failed plasticine at school !

 

[Butane]

Am I allowed to like McCartney, respect his plan but disagree with it being the best and only way?

 

[Mutt]

Am I allowed to like McCartney, respect his plan but disagree with it being the best and only way?

This thread has degenerated into a "sack McCartney" vs "keep McCartney" farce. If only we could discuss in a rational manner whether McCartney's plan is in fact the best way. Sadly, the trolls make such discussion tedious and not worth the trouble imo. Soon the discussion will once more become about two or three posters and their opinions.

ps: I'm not sure anyone would claim McCartney's plan is the "only" way.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

I think you have summarised the pro-McCartney argument well, and in doing so helped illustrate some of the major holes in it.

Firstly comes the usual attempts at insulting your opponents at both the start and the finish of your post by suggesting those who disagree with you have 'no idea'.
Anyone who can't see the Emperor's new clothes is an idiot eh?

Next the summation of the magnificent plan. 1. get a midfield, 2. get a defence and 3. get a forward line.
Phew, what a relief to hear that we have such an awesomely sophisticated, fool proof blue print for success.
Gee, I hope the other AFL clubs don't hear about it and copy us.

Then comes the real kicker, it will all take 7 years to put into place. Not 7 weeks or 7 months, but 7 whole years.
You do realise this is approximately twice the length of the average AFL playing career don't you? 7 years was also the length of Rodney Eade's tenure at the Dogs.

Of course there is nothing to back up the reasoning behind such a timeline, just the usual line about people being unrealistic if they expect something better than we are currently delivering at the 3 year mark.

Then comes the pre-requisite damning assessment of our older players, despite the fact that many have received All Australian honours, played in finals teams, and continue to dominate our best player lists. Inevitably followed by the fantastical over estimate of the current performance by our kids, and the seductive assumptions that everything will magically fall into place over the next few years as we become an 'amazing' side.

If only it were that easy!

Ok I'm not sure where to start. Firstly, I would consider myself a rational, however reasonably objective, analyser of our situation.

Given the level of base vitriol leveled at people on this forum by those not sharing similar views is downright nonsensical, I would suggest that I was hardly insulting towards the other member.

Your argument after that is well put, I simply don't agree with the fundamental base of it - that we seem to be on a train headed for a cliff. The fact remains that we are following a model that has proven to be successful, led by someone who was intrinsic to its success. Now whether you think he is a good coach or not, is frankly irrelevant, as it is a matter of opinion. I am more impressed with the base structure to the game plan and the associated recruiting model that follows. Whether he is a good match day coach is a matter for others to judge, but IMO his ability to set up the club to move forward has been sound.

The philosophical switch to the Geelong model was chosen because our time was up with Eade. He had done what he could with a strong, mature team but had proven that the gameplan/list/coaching was simply not good enough.

Yes it takes 7 years. When you start literally from scratch, because you believe your top age players won't get you where you need to get to in the time frame, it takes time. I'm not saying they're not good players, that they haven't had good years or that they haven't been great servants of the club, all I'm saying is that they are not in the very top bracket of AFL players. If they were Hodge, Ablett, Franklin etc and you put our developing kids along side them with the mid tier, mid age players we have, we would be higher up the ladder.

It takes time to filter out those you bring in who aren't going to make it. It takes time to teach them how to play. It takes time to build their bodies up. It takes time to graciously exit your older players out. All these these things take time.

Port Adelaide are the team that a lot of the nay sayers compare us to on here. Port Adelaide are 1-4 years ahead in their list development than we are, so that is the time frame I expect it will take before we follow a similar path to them, however it's not linear. Their main "contributors" are mostly in the window of success, in that 50-200 game window. Obviously there are exceptions, but they have a lot of high end draft picks who are now performing due to the time they have taken in development.

The fact that an AFL player's life expectancy is 3 years is also erroneous. Who cares? The ones that don't make it aren't the ones who play in successful premiership sides. There are successes and failures in all team's recruiting. However what is key is making sure that the top end picks you receive are used successfully, and I believe we have done that in recent times.

The basis for the timeline comparison is how long it took Geelong. Bomber took over in 1999 and it took 8 years to win a premiership. Clearly it was on the back of remarkable drafting and development, however the model remains the same. It is now up to those in power to execute it, or a very similar plan, well.

Your last, subjective, paragraph highlights your difference of opinion with a lot of the other members here, including myself. I don't think I'm being over the top, or "fantastical", is believing that what I see in these kids will be the backbone of a successful side. You may think so, but agin, that's your opinion.

Having played a high level of sport like a few others here, nothing happens by chance, so for you to denigrate all those here who share the opinion we are on an upwards path, is simply insulting. You are welcome to your opinion, and it's far simpler in a forum like this to be negative, because only 1 out of 18 teams win the premiership every year and therefore 17 miss out, but my base argument is that IMO, we are on the right path.

 

[Black Dog]

Am I allowed to like McCartney, respect his plan but disagree with it being the best and only way?

You can do whatever you like!

I'm a bit the same, I really respect McCartney, I think some good changes have happened under his stewardship, such as our VFL side and the list overhaul (which, of course, would/could have happened under any coach). There have been some misses, drafting Lower, Fuller, arguably Goodes and development hasn't all been roses but I don't see how this would have been different under any other coach and I certainly haven't seen a coherent argument from the sack the coach brigade convincing me that we would be any better off with any other coach. I was disappointed at the time when we sacked Rocket, I thought he was fantastic and achieved amazing things with the resources he had at his disposal but I don't think there is much question that he left the playing list in pretty poor shape, not helped by the perfect storm of GC/GWS. I think McCartney is doing a reasonable job, his win/loss ratio will need an upswing pretty quickly if he wants to keep it though.

 

[Black Dog]

This thread has degenerated into a "sack McCartney" vs "keep McCartney" farce. If only we could discuss in a rational manner whether McCartney's plan is in fact the best way. Sadly, the trolls make such discussion tedious and not worth the trouble imo. Soon the discussion will once more become about two or three posters and their opinions.

ps: I'm not sure anyone would claim McCartney's plan is the "only" way.

Including Brendan....

 

[lachy]

We can all talk varying degrees of success, however with the current system in place for a number of years now if you have made the preliminary final you have come close to the prize and if you are not good enough you have to either rebuild or if you have $1mill extra in your salary cap poach from other clubs to challenge again. Looking at the preliminary finalists of the last 5 years for example the years from when a club was up there to challenging again, ie back in preliminary finals is as follows:
Hawthorn 2001 -2008 8 Seasons
Geelong 1994 - 2007 13 Seasons
Collingwood 2003 - 2009 7 seasons
Sydney 2006 - 2012 7 seasons
St Kilda 2004 - 2009 6 seasons
Western Bulldogs 1998 - 2008 11 season
Fremantle 2006 -2013 8 seasons

Clubs such as Essendon, Carlton, Richmond, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Adelaide and Melbourne have all had bigger breaks than 7 years.

So no it is not an opinion it takes at least 7 years to challenge it is an historical fact. All have had periods of being garbage. The system actually dictates this. The draft and Salary cap means unless you have concessions you will go backwards including powerhouses such as Collingwood, how else did they get Pendlebury and Thomas.

So those who are anti Macca, you are entitled to your opinion of his coaching, however when it comes to genuine results the facts are no matter what the team, a coach, any coach will take at least 7 seasons to rebuild to being genuine contenders coming off the last time they were genuine contenders. The state of the list determines how far backwards the team will go during the process unless the team has substantial concessions.

The coach who does it quicker will be a genius.

I have no strong opinion either way, the head coach is only one of a team of people both in and out of the football department, there is no messiah, there never will be.

Very few premiership coaches in the modern era have inherited a team on the downward spiral and have shown they would eventually be premiership coaches. In fact Bomber Thompson and Al Clarkson were both close to the sack at stages through their careers.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

We can all talk varying degrees of success, however with the current system in place for a number of years now if you have made the preliminary final you have come close to the prize and if you are not good enough you have to either rebuild or if you have $1mill extra in your salary cap poach from other clubs to challenge again. Looking at the preliminary finalists of the last 5 years for example the years from when a club was up there to challenging again, ie back in preliminary finals is as follows:
Hawthorn 2001 -2008 8 Seasons
Geelong 1994 - 2007 13 Seasons
Collingwood 2003 - 2009 7 seasons
Sydney 2006 - 2012 7 seasons
St Kilda 2004 - 2009 6 seasons
Western Bulldogs 1998 - 2008 11 season
Fremantle 2006 -2013 8 seasons

Clubs such as Essendon, Carlton, Richmond, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Adelaide and Melbourne have all had bigger breaks than 7 years.

So no it is not an opinion it takes at least 7 years to challenge it is an historical fact. All have had periods of being garbage. The system actually dictates this. The draft and Salary cap means unless you have concessions you will go backwards including powerhouses such as Collingwood, how else did they get Pendlebury and Thomas.

So those who are anti Macca, you are entitled to your opinion of his coaching, however when it comes to genuine results the facts are no matter what the team, a coach, any coach will take at least 7 seasons to rebuild to being genuine contenders coming off the last time they were genuine contenders. The state of the list determines how far backwards the team will go during the process unless the team has substantial concessions.

The coach who does it quicker will be a genius.

I have no strong opinion either way, the head coach is only one of a team of people both in and out of the football department, there is no messiah, there never will be.

Very few premiership coaches in the modern era have inherited a team on the downward spiral and have shown they would eventually be premiership coaches. In fact Bomber Thompson and Al Clarkson were both close to the sack at stages through their careers.

Lachy, that's a fine post, but as I have pointed out several times, and Black Dog has as well, for the 7 year cycle to work, we need to start winning more games on a year-by-year basis. And not just an increase of 1-2 wins per year.

Hawthorn 2001-2008 wins: 13, 11, 12, 4, 5, 9, 13, 17
Geelong 1994-2007: 13, 16, 13, 15, 9, 10, 12, 9, 11, 7, 15, 12, 10 18
Collingwood 2003-2010: 15, 8, 5, 14, 13, 12, 15, 17
Sydney 2006-2012: 14, 12, 12, 8, 13, 12, 16
St Kilda 2000-2009: 2, 4, 5, 11, 16, 14, 14, 11, 13, 20
Fremantle 2006-2013: 15, 10, 6, 6, 13, 9, 14, 16

Bulldogs 1998-2008: 15, 15, 12, 10, 9, 3, 5, 11, 13, 9, 15, then 2009-2014: 15, 14, 9, 5, 8, 5

The only clubs there that had similar cycles to our current period (2012-2014) were Hawthorn 2004-2006 who went 4, 5, 9 then jumped to 13, and Saints 2000-2003 who went 2, 4, 5, then up 11. Both continued upward trajectories.

That is historical data, so I would expect next year we will be well into double figures, and in 2016 around the 15 win mark.

If, by round 11 next year, we are 4 wins or less, I am quite happy for the coach to be sacked, regardless of what a great bloke, great developer of talent, or well-respected by players he is.

That is the nature of this industry, and if your 7 year cycle is to be followed, we need to be improving to those incremental levels.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Sorry about the bolding, I was about to change it, but on second thought, have decided to let it stand. It's not like I'm yelling or anything, just speaking forcefully....

 

[lachy]

Sorry about the bolding, I was about to change it, but on second thought, have decided to let it stand. It's not like I'm yelling or anything, just speaking forcefully....

No issue at all Ivan.

The thing is it is not totally linear though. Look at Freo for example or us 2006 to 2007 or Geelong quite a few times. Sometimes the improvement is not recognisable in wins and losses, but I do agree we do need to start winning more I anything less than 10 wins next season would be a massive concern

 

[lachy]

Also note the following clubs wins and losses and it can be seen how hard it can be
Clubs such as Essendon, Carlton, Richmond, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Adelaide and Melbourne

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Also note the following clubs wins and losses and it can be seen how hard it can be
Clubs such as Essendon, Carlton, Richmond, North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Adelaide and Melbourne

Sorry, didn't mean it as a criticism or to take you to task lachy , I actually liked your points, just ran with an extension of my own based on your points to show that (and I note your comments about the non-linear clubs, etc) if the wins don't increment steadily (even with the odd year as an anomaly to the trend), we don't even achieve the 7 year cycle.

Good stuff, thanks.

 

[inyourfacedunk]

I agree with both posts, however I'm not sure about the pass mark on next year so to speak (that Ivan put forward).

I would personally be happy with 10 or 11 wins, providing we don't see full quarter lapses and the team can actually challenge every team for full games and not just be happy to hang in there against the better sides. This would also depend on the fixture. If it's favourable early on, some momentum could help get a few extra wins on confidence and moral alone.

If they can only get 7 or 8 wins for the season next year then there really will need to be some tough decisions to be made regarding the coach. The only acceptable reasons would be all the stars get injured, leaving the team looking like it did in the second half of the year in Eade's final season. Or they had a shocker of a draw and played all the top sides twice, but still managed to take them all to the edge.

I really like what Macca has done and is doing. I'm a huge supporter of his. The kind of players he leans towards drafting, the way he has developed the talent on the list and the way he handles himself in general. But next season will be the defining year and it will either make his career or break it.

 

[the dog's kennel]

Lachy, that's a fine post, but as I have pointed out several times, and Black Dog has as well, for the 7 year cycle to work, we need to start winning more games on a year-by-year basis. And not just an increase of 1-2 wins per year.

Hawthorn 2001-2008 wins: 13, 11, 12, 4, 5, 9, 13, 17
Geelong 1994-2007: 13, 16, 13, 15, 9, 10, 12, 9, 11, 7, 15, 12, 10 18
Collingwood 2003-2010: 15, 8, 5, 14, 13, 12, 15, 17
Sydney 2006-2012: 14, 12, 12, 8, 13, 12, 16
St Kilda 2000-2009: 2, 4, 5, 11, 16, 14, 14, 11, 13, 20
Fremantle 2006-2013: 15, 10, 6, 6, 13, 9, 14, 16

Bulldogs 1998-2008: 15, 15, 12, 10, 9, 3, 5, 11, 13, 9, 15, then 2009-2014: 15, 14, 9, 5, 8, 5

The only clubs there that had similar cycles to our current period (2012-2014) were Hawthorn 2004-2006 who went 4, 5, 9 then jumped to 13, and Saints 2000-2003 who went 2, 4, 5, then up 11. Both continued upward trajectories.

That is historical data, so I would expect next year we will be well into double figures, and in 2016 around the 15 win mark.

If, by round 11 next year, we are 4 wins or less, I am quite happy for the coach to be sacked, regardless of what a great bloke, great developer of talent, or well-respected by players he is.

That is the nature of this industry, and if your 7 year cycle is to be followed, we need to be improving to those incremental levels.

This is where I'm at. The excuses end next year. I would say 10 wins minimum (and that is in the worst case scenario - injuries, bad draw etc.) And I'd say par is 11 or 12 wins.

I am very sympathetic to the argument that these things take time to build. And I am certain that some development is occurring under Macca's watch. But that doesn't mean he's the only coach who can develop. Or that he's the best at it. And it also doesn't mean that we should sit around twiddling our fingers at the bottom of the table while waiting for everything to magically work out. Four years is more than enough time to start seeing some Ws.

 

[Proffessor]

Ok I'm not sure where to start. Firstly, I would consider myself a rational, however reasonably objective, analyser of our situation.

Given the level of base vitriol leveled at people on this forum by those not sharing similar views is downright nonsensical, I would suggest that I was hardly insulting towards the other member.

Your argument after that is well put, I simply don't agree with the fundamental base of it - that we seem to be on a train headed for a cliff. The fact remains that we are following a model that has proven to be successful, led by someone who was intrinsic to its success. Now whether you think he is a good coach or not, is frankly irrelevant, as it is a matter of opinion. I am more impressed with the base structure to the game plan and the associated recruiting model that follows. Whether he is a good match day coach is a matter for others to judge, but IMO his ability to set up the club to move forward has been sound.

The philosophical switch to the Geelong model was chosen because our time was up with Eade. He had done what he could with a strong, mature team but had proven that the gameplan/list/coaching was simply not good enough.

Yes it takes 7 years. When you start literally from scratch, because you believe your top age players won't get you where you need to get to in the time frame, it takes time. I'm not saying they're not good players, that they haven't had good years or that they haven't been great servants of the club, all I'm saying is that they are not in the very top bracket of AFL players. If they were Hodge, Ablett, Franklin etc and you put our developing kids along side them with the mid tier, mid age players we have, we would be higher up the ladder.

It takes time to filter out those you bring in who aren't going to make it. It takes time to teach them how to play. It takes time to build their bodies up. It takes time to graciously exit your older players out. All these these things take time.

Port Adelaide are the team that a lot of the nay sayers compare us to on here. Port Adelaide are 1-4 years ahead in their list development than we are, so that is the time frame I expect it will take before we follow a similar path to them, however it's not linear. Their main "contributors" are mostly in the window of success, in that 50-200 game window. Obviously there are exceptions, but they have a lot of high end draft picks who are now performing due to the time they have taken in development.

The fact that an AFL player's life expectancy is 3 years is also erroneous. Who cares? The ones that don't make it aren't the ones who play in successful premiership sides. There are successes and failures in all team's recruiting. However what is key is making sure that the top end picks you receive are used successfully, and I believe we have done that in recent times.

The basis for the timeline comparison is how long it took Geelong. Bomber took over in 1999 and it took 8 years to win a premiership. Clearly it was on the back of remarkable drafting and development, however the model remains the same. It is now up to those in power to execute it, or a very similar plan, well.

Your last, subjective, paragraph highlights your difference of opinion with a lot of the other members here, including myself. I don't think I'm being over the top, or "fantastical", is believing that what I see in these kids will be the backbone of a successful side. You may think so, but agin, that's your opinion.

Having played a high level of sport like a few others here, nothing happens by chance, so for you to denigrate all those here who share the opinion we are on an upwards path, is simply insulting. You are welcome to your opinion, and it's far simpler in a forum like this to be negative, because only 1 out of 18 teams win the premiership every year and therefore 17 miss out, but my base argument is that IMO, we are on the right path.

There are so many things that I take issue with here that it is difficult to know where to start, so I'll stick with one point that I think is most relevant to the thread.

Firstly, the so called Geelong model, that we are supposed to be following just because McCartney was from Geelong and keeps refereeing to his assistant coaching experience there.

What is it really and how does it differ from what we were doing before hand?

If I look at what Geelong has done and from a high level view their basic model for football success seems to be as follows:
1. Employ senior coaches with AFL/VFL premiership playing experience, and leave them in no doubt that success is expected (if things drop off a bit initiate a review).
2.Recruit well, trade shrewdly, and hope you get lucky with some father-son opportunities.

We are trying to follow Step 2 but this is basically what everyone tries to do anyway. Of course we need to try to get the best people possible to make the recruiting and trading decisions, which I suppose is the heart of our current debate. We haven't followed Step 1.

The continual references on this forum to McCartney starting from scratch are not only false they are entirely disrespectful to everyone that was involved with the Bulldogs before McCartney arrived.

 

[Mutt]

Lachy, that's a fine post, but as I have pointed out several times, and Black Dog has as well, for the 7 year cycle to work, we need to start winning more games on a year-by-year basis. And not just an increase of 1-2 wins per year.

Hawthorn 2001-2008 wins: 13, 11, 12, 4, 5, 9, 13, 17
Geelong 1994-2007: 13, 16, 13, 15, 9, 10, 12, 9, 11, 7, 15, 12, 10 18
Collingwood 2003-2010: 15, 8, 5, 14, 13, 12, 15, 17
Sydney 2006-2012: 14, 12, 12, 8, 13, 12, 16
St Kilda 2000-2009: 2, 4, 5, 11, 16, 14, 14, 11, 13, 20
Fremantle 2006-2013: 15, 10, 6, 6, 13, 9, 14, 16

Bulldogs 1998-2008: 15, 15, 12, 10, 9, 3, 5, 11, 13, 9, 15, then 2009-2014: 15, 14, 9, 5, 8, 5

The only clubs there that had similar cycles to our current period (2012-2014) were Hawthorn 2004-2006 who went 4, 5, 9 then jumped to 13, and Saints 2000-2003 who went 2, 4, 5, then up 11. Both continued upward trajectories.

That is historical data, so I would expect next year we will be well into double figures, and in 2016 around the 15 win mark.

If, by round 11 next year, we are 4 wins or less, I am quite happy for the coach to be sacked, regardless of what a great bloke, great developer of talent, or well-respected by players he is.

That is the nature of this industry, and if your 7 year cycle is to be followed, we need to be improving to those incremental levels.

In which of the examples you gave was the club undertaking the rebuild denied access to sixty of the best young draftees during their bottoming out years? .....Only us, now. A significant difference and a significant problem for us and McCartney.

 

[Black Dog]

There are so many things that I take issue with here that it is difficult to know where to start, so I'll stick with one point that I think is most relevant to the thread.

Firstly, the so called Geelong model, that we are supposed to be following just because McCartney was from Geelong and keeps refereeing to his assistant coaching experience there.

What is it really and how does it differ from what we were doing before hand?

If I look at what Geelong has done and from a high level view their basic model for football success seems to be as follows:
1. Employ senior coaches with AFL/VFL premiership playing experience, and leave them in no doubt that success is expected (if things drop off a bit initiate a review).
2.Recruit well, trade shrewdly, and hope you get lucky with some father-son opportunities.

We are trying to follow Step 2 but this is basically what everyone tries to do anyway. Of course we need to try to get the best people possible to make the recruiting and trading decisions, which I suppose is the heart of our current debate. We haven't followed Step 1.

The continual references on this forum to McCartney starting from scratch are not only false they are entirely disrespectful to everyone that was involved with the Bulldogs before McCartney arrived.

Every other coach on our roster bar Rohan Smith HAS played in AFL premierships and McCartney was assistant coach at Geelong when they were developing the team and winning them (which I would argue is as valuable as playing), Chris Maple has neither AFL nor VFL playing experience but extensive experience with developing young footballers (fargy has expressed his reservations about Maple from personal experiences).

I've only just stepped onto the merry-go-round of pain that is this thread but, fair-dinkum, if this is the best you've got, I'm stepping off. Where are your solutions? Name some alternative coaches who you think might do a better job and then perhaps we could debate that.

 

[immortalmike]

In which of the examples you gave was the club undertaking the rebuild denied access to sixty of the best young draftees during their bottoming out years? .....Only us, now. A significant difference and a significant problem for us and McCartney.

Although let's not forget that Geelong drafted most of their stars fairly late in the draft. So it's quite possible that we can overcome this problem.

 

[Black Dog]

Although let's not forget that Geelong drafted most of their stars fairly late in the draft. So it's quite possible that we can overcome this problem.

We're going to have to... Father/sons and strong development are going to be crucial for us. The VFL side I think is going to prove the most important initiative for us long term, regardless of who ends up being our senior coach in 2016.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

There are so many things that I take issue with here that it is difficult to know where to start, so I'll stick with one point that I think is most relevant to the thread.

Firstly, the so called Geelong model, that we are supposed to be following just because McCartney was from Geelong and keeps refereeing to his assistant coaching experience there.

What is it really and how does it differ from what we were doing before hand?

If I look at what Geelong has done and from a high level view their basic model for football success seems to be as follows:
1. Employ senior coaches with AFL/VFL premiership playing experience, and leave them in no doubt that success is expected (if things drop off a bit initiate a review).
2.Recruit well, trade shrewdly, and hope you get lucky with some father-son opportunities.

We are trying to follow Step 2 but this is basically what everyone tries to do anyway. Of course we need to try to get the best people possible to make the recruiting and trading decisions, which I suppose is the heart of our current debate. We haven't followed Step 1.

The continual references on this forum to McCartney starting from scratch are not only false they are entirely disrespectful to everyone that was involved with the Bulldogs before McCartney arrived.

The "starting from scratch" reference refers to the entire Bulldog management team acknowledging that a new path, different to the very offensive game that Eade employed, was required and the Geelong game plan, like all modern game plans, built upon defence first, was selected as the way to go. This is hardly news to anyone. It's neither false nor disrespectful to those employed during Eade's tenure, it's just an entirely different mindset.

There are people here who still believe we were good enough to win a GF during Eade's reign. Whilst we were close, if you get to a prelim 3 times and fail each and every time, you simply were not good enough.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

In which of the examples you gave was the club undertaking the rebuild denied access to sixty of the best young draftees during their bottoming out years? .....Only us, now. A significant difference and a significant problem for us and McCartney.

Agreed, but Melbourne were also affected.

 

[Mutt]

Although let's not forget that Geelong drafted most of their stars fairly late in the draft. So it's quite possible that we can overcome this problem.

Geelong had massive help from the father/son rule at the time.

It doesn't matter whether Geelong drafted players late in the early 2000's draft years - in the recent drafts, those same players would have already been snapped up as best available in the late first and the second and third rounds. The pre-selection of potential draftees, the compensation picks, priority picks etc. etc have meant that virtually an entire first round of draftees were gone before we got our first, second, third and fourth round picks. Geelong didn't have that problem.