Prediction Brad's contract.. ..has been extended to the end of 2018

[TooUglyForFugly]

Average list age is a way for s**t teams to make themselves feel better about their shitness.

And media to maintain their boners and stiff nipples when talking about Collingwood.

 

[royalblue92]

I can see what angle he is taking with this, but the fact that north has shown they can win games without the likes of boomer, dal and wells throughout stages of the last few seasons shows that scott has a game plan that holds up without an over reliance on the older stars

 

[muttley45]

Why do the COLA's get a list of 46, when everyone else has 44 ??

 

[War Machine]

Give me a break. With free agency, it's how you run a list (worked wonders for Hawks). Chucking kids in the deep end isn't a sure fire way to win a premiership.

As it's already been said...we haven't traded picks for players (did for Jed but we got a similar pick in return and more in the process).

Average list age is a way for s**t teams to make themselves feel better about their shitness.

Exactly. It's big footy logic. The younger your team is the better you are.

 

[La Flama Blanca]

The problem isn't when a side has too many old players, it's when the young players who follow them end up being rubbish. The two are not related.

 

[Infamy]

So ... why are we talking to a Tigers supporter and comparing apples to kumquats?

What's wrong with an outside opinion? I'm not on here saying that Scott is a hack and needs to be replaced and that you'll never win a flag with so many old players. I'm just saying that your window is open right now and you may want to hold off on extending his contract until you make sure you don't go backwards next year first. I think the same of Collingwood and Richmond, so is that so unreasonable?

The problem isn't when a side has too many old players, it's when the young players who follow them end up being rubbish. The two are not related.

This is true, however while all those older players keep getting games, you aren't getting those young players the experience they need to replace the older players when they need to retire. Likewise you also aren't finding out if they are good enough for AFL level as they aren't getting enough exposure.
Just look at Geelong who are already managing the exits of their veteran players who are still capable of playing on, Hawthorn are doing the same thing so they can start getting games into players like O'Rourke and Hartung, turning over the list, yet still pushing for a flag.

 

[Gasometer]

Everyone meh Scotts. ..even 'where's Trent' fans.

meh meh meh...all you need is meh Scotts.

 

[Event Horizon]

This is true, however while all those older players keep getting games, you aren't getting those young players the experience they need to replace the older players when they need to retire.

You don't want to be gifting games to young players who haven't earned them. We've done some of that in Scott's early years and it has arguably slowed us down as the players' mindset was affected.

If a young player is good enough to replace the likes of Firrito and Gibson this year, that's what will happen. But if Waite was better than Black in 2015, then it's quite right that he was picked ahead of him.

 

[Tas]

Genuine questions here, hope you will accept a post from an opposition supporter on this matter and not think I'm trying to cause trouble. I see that our clubs are in a similar position coach wise so that's why I'm asking.

I don't mind having conversations with opposition supporters as long as they are not trolling.

There are a lot of comparisons between Hardwick & Scott given they started at the same time and I am wondering why some think that Scott has earned a renewal already, just like I think (and am fairly certain it won't happen) Hardwick shouldn't be getting an extension yet.

I guess it is because the board feels he is the best candidate for the job and they are happy with the direction we are heading.

People don't take into consideration the injuries we have had over the last two years, this year was the first time in 3 years that Port had any midfield injuries of note and they bombed out of the top 8 after being nominated a premiership contender by the media.

I get that Scott has got North into 2 prelims in a row, but you also have the oldest list in the AFL and the most experienced list by a fair amount and you finished 8th after the H&A this year. After loading up on free agents you have massively topped up for a push to the flag so what happens if some of your senior players fall off a cliff in 2016 and you need to start a mini-rebuild. Do you really want to be stuck treading water with Scott, wouldn't it be better just to wait until later in the year to make sure things are still going to plan?

When you look at Geelong's team over the last few years, their older players were the foundation of their club, same as Hawthorn, when those core players don't play well, the team loses. They are all pretty much multiple AAs and the team lives or dies based on their contribution. Our older players are mostly serviceable, hard workers but Harvey is the only old player who is recognised as being elite, the others don't typically make the AA team, go missing when the team is playing good and bad. I don't think they are as critical to the team going forward, at this point in time they are the best option and give us more leadership and maturity, I expect those that are 22-24ish will develop that maturity and leadership over the next 2-3 years as the old guys bomb out. I think talent-wise, our younger players are vastly superior than our older players overall.

Take the selection of Farren Ray as a rookie. If he's a last resort option for depth then fine, but what happens if Dal Santo gets a long term injury next year. Will Ray be the first one to get elevated and take his place, or will the spot in the side go to one of your kids that have barely been able to get any experience due to so many older players in the side.

It depends on who is playing well. I'd prefer a talented kid to play ahead of Ray or Nahas, but if you do not make yourself appear like a better proposition to the coaches than those kind of players then they have no business putting an AFL jumper on.

I know you have been taking a lot of youth in the drafts each year, but a lot of them haven't been able to play. You only have 6 players on your list with between 50-100 games experience who should be the next group coming through, then 20 players under 50 games (37 games experience is the max in that group).

Most kids who have played well enough to deserve a game have been given a game, Dumont is a bit unlucky because of the position he plays. Those who need more development are put back into the VFL, it is a better grade of football to work on your basics, most of our players that have spent a fair bit of time in the VFL have come back better players. I am not sure being gifted games at AFL level does anything for the player.

That's about the same list profile as Hawthorn who are coming off 4 premierships in 6 years, yet they are still younger and less experienced, yet even they just cleared more experience off their list in 2015 than North has to start bringing in more kids such as those they started trading in last year in O'Rourke. Is Ray going to be taking the spot away from one of your kids who needs to gain experience just to ensure that Scott can keep pushing for a flag in the short term, or will some focus go into development of the kids on your list with one eye on the future?

Comparing us to Hawthorn is like comparing apples to oranges. We had three consecutive compromised drafts in the middle of our rebuild, Hawks tanked, got priority picks and didn't have compromised drafts. Their player development and trading was also top notch, but we have only recently started to be competitive in terms of football department spending. I think there have been long-term issues that can't be overcome in the short-term. When Scott came in he knew we lacked the resources that other clubs had, now he says our resources are up there with the better teams.

I think until you see what happens with the way Scott manages team selection in 2016 you will know if he's at least keeping one eye on bringing through the next generation, or if he's just going all out with the older players. I know you guys expect to push for a flag in 2016, but if things fall off a cliff like they can very quickly with older players, are you sure he's the man you want to lead a rebuild with given how long he's had to make this list his? I'm not saying its going to happen, but if it does, is Scott really the one you want to lead a rebuild with for the next 3 years?

I think with what he has had access to he has done a pretty good job overall, I just don't particularly rate him as a match day coach because he doesn't really do much when momentum is swinging against us. There are worse matchday coaching going around though.

He has had a lot less to work with than Hardwick, in terms of player stock when he walked in the door, and has done a lot more imo. We have 24 players that are 24 years or younger on the senior list and 16 who are over 24. Of the 16, the most important are Harvey(37/409), Swallow(28/186), Thomas(27/174), Higgins(27/153), Goldstein(27/149), Tarrant (26/61) and Wright (25/108), the others are serviceable, haven't played regularly in recent years or players I think we will easily replace. They are just better options at this point in time than kids who aren't ready.

At the end of the day he's taken a team who was 7th in 2008 and dropped to 13th in 2009 when he then took over. Given he had you in 9th at the end of his first season, you would think that if he doesn't win you a flag in 2016 or 2017 then that should be the end of his tenure. Its not like he's had to take over a basketcase of a team, a massive chunk of players you still have from when he took over.

That is not how well run clubs decide if someone is the right man for the job or not. Geelong could have sacked Bomber Thompson for not getting any results before the team came good, and they almost did. At the end of the day it wasn't his coaching that was holding them back from success. There shouldn't necessarily be a time limit on a coach, it just comes down to if the club thinks the coach is the best person for the job and if they still believe the direction they are heading in is the right one or not.

I'm not saying Scott isn't the guy and he won't win you a flag, but what's the rush to extend his contract now?

There isn't a rush, I think the media and opposition supporters think we are topping up and making a tilt for a flag when in reality we are just trying to play to a high a standard as possible while we look to develop good quality young kids. If we manage to win a flag in the short-term then great, however, our development focus is still long-term, we are drafting the kind of players who should be better long-term players than the ones we have. If you are happy with the direction you are heading, why not secure the coach?

That is the judgement call the board has obviously made. Do I agree with it? I think we need some significant match-day tweaks, we don't score enough and concede too much and there are underlying issues which contribute, I think if the team can play in the manner we played during the finals over an entire season then I think we will be in a relatively good position.

 

[Orange Peanut]

What's wrong with an outside opinion? I'm not on here saying that Scott is a hack and needs to be replaced and that you'll never win a flag with so many old players. I'm just saying that your window is open right now and you may want to hold off on extending his contract until you make sure you don't go backwards next year first. I think the same of Collingwood and Richmond, so is that so unreasonable?


This is true, however while all those older players keep getting games, you aren't getting those young players the experience they need to replace the older players when they need to retire. Likewise you also aren't finding out if they are good enough for AFL level as they aren't getting enough exposure.
Just look at Geelong who are already managing the exits of their veteran players who are still capable of playing on, Hawthorn are doing the same thing so they can start getting games into players like O'Rourke and Hartung, turning over the list, yet still pushing for a flag.

I know it's probably not cool to quote Axl, but "I don't understand why the * you even care" is repeating itself in a loop in my head as i read this fred.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

I know it's probably not cool to quote Axl, but "I don't understand why the **** you even care" is repeating itself in a loop in my head as i read this fred.

Needs something to do besides looking for Cotchin.

 

[Wild Bill]

These ages are for the start of the 2016 season, not as of today
View attachment 196504

So all the best teams have the highest age. That's cool.

 

[Infamy]

I don't mind having conversations with opposition supporters as long as they are not trolling.

I guess it is because the board feels he is the best candidate for the job and they are happy with the direction we are heading.

People don't take into consideration the injuries we have had over the last two years, this year was the first time in 3 years that Port had any midfield injuries of note and they bombed out of the top 8 after being nominated a premiership contender by the media.

When you look at Geelong's team over the last few years, their older players were the foundation of their club, same as Hawthorn, when those core players don't play well, the team loses. They are all pretty much multiple AAs and the team lives or dies based on their contribution. Our older players are mostly serviceable, hard workers but Harvey is the only old player who is recognised as being elite, the others don't typically make the AA team, go missing when the team is playing good and bad. I don't think they are as critical to the team going forward, at this point in time they are the best option and give us more leadership and maturity, I expect those that are 22-24ish will develop that maturity and leadership over the next 2-3 years as the old guys bomb out. I think talent-wise, our younger players are vastly superior than our older players overall.

It depends on who is playing well. I'd prefer a talented kid to play ahead of Ray or Nahas, but if you do not make yourself appear like a better proposition to the coaches than those kind of players then they have no business putting an AFL jumper on.

Most kids who have played well enough to deserve a game have been given a game, Dumont is a bit unlucky because of the position he plays. Those who need more development are put back into the VFL, it is a better grade of football to work on your basics, most of our players that have spent a fair bit of time in the VFL have come back better players. I am not sure being gifted games at AFL level does anything for the player.

Comparing us to Hawthorn is like comparing apples to oranges. We had three consecutive compromised drafts in the middle of our rebuild, Hawks tanked, got priority picks and didn't have compromised drafts. Their player development and trading was also top notch, but we have only recently started to be competitive in terms of football department spending. I think there have been long-term issues that can't be overcome in the short-term. When Scott came in he knew we lacked the resources that other clubs had, now he says our resources are up there with the better teams

I think with what he has had access to he has done a pretty good job overall, I just don't particularly rate him as a match day coach because he doesn't really do much when momentum is swinging against us. There are worse matchday coaching going around though.

He has had a lot less to work with than Hardwick, in terms of player stock when he walked in the door, and has done a lot more imo. We have 24 players that are 24 years or younger on the senior list and 16 who are over 24. Of the 16, the most important are Harvey(37/409), Swallow(28/186), Thomas(27/174), Higgins(27/153), Goldstein(27/149), Tarrant (26/61) and Wright (25/108), the others are serviceable, haven't played regularly in recent years or players I think we will easily replace. They are just better options at this point in time than kids who aren't ready.

That is not how well run clubs decide if someone is the right man for the job or not. Geelong could have sacked Bomber Thompson for not getting any results before the team came good, and they almost did. At the end of the day it wasn't his coaching that was holding them back from success. There shouldn't necessarily be a time limit on a coach, it just comes down to if the club thinks the coach is the best person for the job and if they still believe the direction they are heading in is the right one or not.

There isn't a rush, I think the media and opposition supporters think we are topping up and making a tilt for a flag when in reality we are just trying to play to a high a standard as possible while we look to develop good quality young kids. If we manage to win a flag in the short-term then great, however, our development focus is still long-term, we are drafting the kind of players who should be better long-term players than the ones we have. If you are happy with the direction you are heading, why not secure the coach?

That is the judgement call the board has obviously made. Do I agree with it? I think we need some significant match-day tweaks, we don't score enough and concede too much and there are underlying issues which contribute, I think if the team can play in the manner we played during the finals over an entire season then I think we will be in a relatively good position.

Good post, I think most of what you say is fair enough. If the board (and what appears to be everyone posting here) thinks he's the best man for the job then that's good enough I guess. Personally I'd still wait until mid-season at the earliest, even Hawthorn have waited until the end of Clarkson's contract before they've renewed it and he would have been very highly in demand.

I do disagree that Scott had less to work with than Hardwick though, there are only 6 players still on our list who were there when Hardwick took over and we've had to rebuild through the same compromised drafts with no priority picks. This is compared to North who have maybe 14 (?) players still on the list from when Scott took over, that's a massive difference. In 2016 the Richmond list is only finally well balanced for the first time since Hardwick has taken over, with a good spread of experience and youth across all positions. I know this wasn't a discussion about comparing lists, but just a response to that comment.

I know it's probably not cool to quote Axl, but "I don't understand why the **** you even care" is repeating itself in a loop in my head as i read this fred.

Because I am a football fan, not just blinkered to my own team. From the outside I don't understand why Scott deserves an extension already, so wanted to hear the justifications from your supporters.

 

[Wild Bill]

Good post, I think most of what you say is fair enough. If the board (and what appears to be everyone posting here) thinks he's the best man for the job then that's good enough I guess. Personally I'd still wait until mid-season at the earliest, even Hawthorn have waited until the end of Clarkson's contract before they've renewed it and he would have been very highly in demand.

I do disagree that Scott had less to work with than Hardwick though, there are only 6 players still on our list who were there when Hardwick took over and we've had to rebuild through the same compromised drafts with no priority picks. This is compared to North who have maybe 14 (?) players still on the list from when Scott took over, that's a massive difference. In 2016 the Richmond list is only finally well balanced for the first time since Hardwick has taken over, with a good spread of experience and youth across all positions. I know this wasn't a discussion about comparing lists, but just a response to that comment.


Because I am a football fan, not just blinkered to my own team. From the outside I don't understand why Scott deserves an extension already, so wanted to hear the justifications from your supporters.

Rubbish - when has Clarkson or any other coach gone into a season with 1 year to run on their contact. Stop speaking s**t.

Football fan? Football fool is closer to the mark. Enjoy your 1 final next year with your "well balance list". It's great you have a good spread of youth and experienced - if you could mange some heart transplants for Cotchin, Deledio, Ellis, Maric and Edwards in the off season you maybe ok.

 

[Infamy]

Rubbish - when has Clarkson or any other coach gone into a season with 1 year to run on their contact. Stop speaking s**t.

Football fan? Football fool is closer to the mark. Enjoy your 1 final next year with your "well balance list". It's great you have a good spread of youth and experienced - if you could mange some heart transplants for Cotchin, Deledio, Ellis, Maric and Edwards in the off season you maybe ok.

There was a huge deal about it, think it was when Kennett was still president though, but after their 2009 flag

Plenty of coaches go into their final year without an extension, not every club has to pay out more than a year when they let them go.

 

[Only Forwards]

There was a huge deal about it, think it was when Kennett was still president though, but after their 2009 flag

Plenty of coaches go into their final year without an extension, not every club has to pay out more than a year when they let them go.

If Hardwick coached the Tiggers to two Prelims he'd have a job for life and a statue.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

Rubbish - when has Clarkson or any other coach gone into a season with 1 year to run on their contact. Stop speaking s**t.

Football fan? Football fool is closer to the mark. Enjoy your 1 final next year with your "well balance list". It's great you have a good spread of youth and experienced - if you could mange some heart transplants for Cotchin, Deledio, Ellis, Maric and Edwards in the off season you maybe ok.

And Chaplin.

 

[shniko11]

If Hardwick coached the Tiggers to A Finals Win he'd have a job for life and a statue.

Fixed.

 

[Tas]

Good post, I think most of what you say is fair enough. If the board (and what appears to be everyone posting here) thinks he's the best man for the job then that's good enough I guess. Personally I'd still wait until mid-season at the earliest, even Hawthorn have waited until the end of Clarkson's contract before they've renewed it and he would have been very highly in demand.

Clarkson has won multiple premierships, it is not like he would have to worry about job security, if he left Hawthorn do you think he would struggle to get another gig? If Scott was to be let go would he get another senior coaching position? It wouldn't be a guarantee.

I do disagree that Scott had less to work with than Hardwick though, there are only 6 players still on our list who were there when Hardwick took over and we've had to rebuild through the same compromised drafts with no priority picks. This is compared to North who have maybe 14 (?) players still on the list from when Scott took over, that's a massive difference. In 2016 the Richmond list is only finally well balanced for the first time since Hardwick has taken over, with a good spread of experience and youth across all positions. I know this wasn't a discussion about comparing lists, but just a response to that comment.

The players still on Richmond's list in 2009 included Deledio (2004 pick 1 priority pick), Tambling (2004 pick 4), Oakley-Nicholls (2005 pick 8), Riewoldt (2006 pick 13), Cotchin (2007 pick 2), Rance (2007 pick 18 priority pick), Vickery (2008 pick 8) and Mitch Morton who kicked 41 goals in 2009, Nathan Brown, Matthew Richardson, Jay Schulz, Cousins, Coughlan, Foley, Edwards, Tuck, etc. Most of the experts and even Buckley who both of our clubs interviewed said on exposed form that Richmond had the better list in 2009.

Hardwicked moved guys on that could have gone on, traded away other guys like Schulz who was pick 12 in 2002 and would have been good. He cut too deep too quickly imo and a number of kids got games who got them based on vacancy and potential, not on merit. We had a similar problem but we kept bringing in mature players to compensate for the ones exiting.

Because I am a football fan, not just blinkered to my own team. From the outside I don't understand why Scott deserves an extension already, so wanted to hear the justifications from your supporters.

There is no black and white answer, you could justify reasons to sack most coaches going around, invariably some will go on to be premiership coaches. At the end of the day it comes down to if the club believes the coach is the best person of the coaches available to take the team forward over the next few years or not. We might prefer Simpson right now to Scott, but he is not available. In two years he might be.

 

[Wild Bill]

There was a huge deal about it, think it was when Kennett was still president though, but after their 2009 flag

Plenty of coaches go into their final year without an extension, not every club has to pay out more than a year when they let them go.

Plenty of coaches? Name them. Who has 1 year left on their contract going into 2016?

 

[Infamy]

Plenty of coaches? Name them. Who has 1 year left on their contract going into 2016?

Scott, Hardwick & Buckley
TBC who gets renewed before the season starts

Malthouse was in the last year of his contract in 2015
Lyon was in the last year of his contract when he walked to Freo

I can't be bothered looking up every coaching contract over the last 5 year, but its not as rare as you seem to think

 

[Wild Bill]

Scott, Hardwick & Buckley
TBC who gets renewed before the season starts

Malthouse was in the last year of his contract in 2015
Lyon was in the last year of his contract when he walked to Freo

I can't be bothered looking up every coaching contract over the last 5 year, but its not as rare as you seem to think

60 year old Mick? He came back for the record. He wasn't going to be a ten year coach.

Wrong on Lyon - he had another year at the Saints.

None of those 3 will be coaching in round 1 with a 1 year contract. It just doesn't happen. Let alone to a bloke that has won 4 finals in two years.

 

[Deep We11s 1]

I'm not going to quote the whole post here as I do agree with a lot of it. I understand about how these days you can use free agency to fill holes in the list, my concern was more with pickups like Ray and waiting to see if he would get first opportunity over some of your kids. I already posted that I recognise you have still taken draft picks each year, but experience matters, generally a player needs about 50 games experience before they can run out a full game of AFL without needing their TOG managed and this is going to get even harder with the new interchange rules. Without blooding more of your kids next year you are going to be left needing to get 2 full seasons into some of your recent draftees once some of your older guys retire.

As for everyone else, this was never a Richmond vs North thing other than thinking the coaches both needed to improve in 2016 to earn a new contract. It has nothing to do with the elimination final this year or thinking who's list is better. I think the same thing of Scott, Hardwick and Buckley that all of them, despite being in different ladder positions and list states, that they need to prove something before they earn a renewal. Buckley needs to make the 8 to repay their aggressive trading this year, Hardwick needs to progress past the first week of the finals and I believe Scott needs to at least improve North's inconsistency in the H&A season and finish Top 4. At least until mid-season you'd know more, but the only reason I see that a club will move early will be to avoid the media pressure associated with a coach coming out of contract.


Sorry, but your list is still the oldest next year, and most experienced. You may think the stats are meaningless, but they are still correct.
North - 25.2
Freo - 25.0
Hawks - 24.3
Cats - 24.3
Essendon - 24.2
So there is 0.9 years between the oldest and then the Hawks, and 1 year only covers the top 5 which includes the Cats & Dons who are both needing to turn over their list.

That's old thinking. Because of improvements in sports science and largely unrestricted player movements, the smart teams are getting older. I can remember seeing a stat where the teams fielded by all prelim finalists were the oldest they have ever fielded.

Over the next 3 years we'll have 7 or 8 best 22 retirements. Half of those will be replaced by experienced FAs, FSs or trades. The other half from within the existing list. Over this period I reckon we've already got 10+ guys on the list who look like they'll be able step in. It also means you only have to find 2 kids in each draft who will become future best 22 players.

BTW our av age is a little skewed by Harvey, Dal and Petrie. Probably better to compare best 22 median age. This might help people understand why we recruited Farren Ray. The game has never been more complicated and demanding to play so Experience > Youthful Talent. It's why Gibson and Firrito get a game over Wood and McDonald and why kids will need to do their apprenticship before getting a senior game moving forward. A coincidence we recruited a bunch of smart, skillful, hard working runners?

Post back surgery, Scotts seemed to work things out and our game plan, selection policy, confidence and results improved significantly. IMHO he gets a 2 yr extension tomorrow. We could not be in better shape for a tilt.

 

[Only Forwards]

2 years

 

[Roo Beauty]

Nick Bowen confirms extension to 2018.