Play Nice Bye Bye Brad #3 [Locked: BS signs 2-year ext. Aug-2017, tied to NM until end 2020]

[Wild Bill]

for what its worth i think Brad can coach but i dont think he's ever really had the cattle, i think you were most probably 2 or 3 really good players away from it, hyperthetical i know

Agree - 1 top ten draft pick in 7 years - McDonald at 8 as a F&S pick.

 

[Gasometer]

So we're admitting the plan of taking Free agents while hanging on to our draft picks was a failure?
Brad Scott 2015 "We continue to build through the draft. We think we are building for the short, medium and long term all at the same time. I don't think it's one or the other these days".

He's a failed coach by his own admission..but we're meant to be happy with the progress!

Wanna buy some snake oil? It does all matter of wonderful stuff. I'll give you a discount for being a NMFC member, just send me your credit card details via PM.

I don't think you even read what I wrote.

Play on.

 

[Mav]

I don't think you even read what I wrote.

Play on.

Correct...not reading ...off on a rant.

 

[Phillyroo]

My thoughts are, do nothing at all. We hitch our wagon on recruiting the s**t out of Kelly and Martin and try to get s high pick in. Then if at round 15 next year we are well placed with our list, on field, and future planning we extend him. If not, then we let him see out his contract and move on without having to pay anyone out.

 

[czero]

Why does this require translation?

Wouldn't that be obvious?

How do you arrive at a circumstance where a contract is not honored by a party but stilled payed out to that party?

Because contracts can have outs for both parties (and as described only just recently by Ross Lyon on how he left the saints prior to contract end), and I think (the translation) he is suggesting that there is no out clause that isn't up to north. Brad was somewhat suggesting otherwise in his media appearance a while back

 

[ferball]

Fropm the autopsy thread.

Nah mate. He has too many faults as coach. Sure he ain't horrendous at the caper. Recently I've liked how he has become more flexible with his positioning of some players. Loved Waite's move to the wing. Moving Thomas out of the forward line was well overdue but Kudos to him for doing so. Even liked the move of Wagner in defence. Hey some of his moves haven't worked like Swallow on the outside / Half forward and Jack down back but at least he has been more willing to mix it up.

But. Yep the But. I'm appalled at the fitness of the side. In particular our 2 way running and spread. The continued selection of out of form senior types shits me. The defensive structures around stoppages and from kick outs are ordinary. Our ball delivery into the forward line can be bloody terrible. Our disposal in general and ability to move the ball continues to be inconsistent. The inability to coach and win the contest in tight encounters throughout his tenure is a trend and can't be ignored. The inability to inspire/coach a come back from greater than 12 points at 3/4 time also tells us something about his ability to get the side up. He also talks a lot of s**t. His "Easy Fixes" line is laughable. Also going off half cocked on bagging the umpires over Thomas was costly and idiotic.

Anyways as you well know mate I'm not an imbecile. The coach is only a part of our problem. A rather large part but not completely to blame. Our Assistants including our fitness staff need to have a good hard look at themselves. The players also need to take responsibility for their efforts and performances.

On a side note Joyces is another Turkey who I find baffling. His idea that Andersons was worth "in part" a first rounder was madness. He was told that Andersons had flaws and he didn't listen. Also thank **** he didn't get his way in recruiting Mayne. What the hell was he thinking there? But then we snare Williams with pick 169. :stern look

Anyways as you well know the buck stops with the coach. We have had some success but in my eyes that ain't good enough. We should aspire to get in a coach that is better than Scotts. Do we want to improve? After 8 years it is time to move him on. Sure I may come across as somewhat grating on the subject but his flaws are hitting us like a Turkey Slap in the eyes. So yeah I will bang on about it until he either improves or gets the flick. :stern look

At least you are noticing things he has done ok and giving him the scope for improvement. Which is not as blinkered an attitude as perhaps I'd thought it was.

The buts are the thing that matter tho so...

Fitness, 2 way running and spread:

Hmmm... I see your point but is it down to fitness or simply a lack of leg speed in the side? On the weekend i ended up watching the game from the very top of level 3 on the wing. Freo ripped us apart on their fast breaks but to me that is cos we have no real leg speed in the middle not because of anything else. It was bad at the start. We can move the ball quickly but the players can't move their legs quickly and we get shown up. It wasn't helped by the zoning or defensive structure that gives players on the opposition room to move.

But on the other side of that later in the game the defensive structures were very good and stopped Freo's movement from defense cold. Despite our lack of speed. This has been something I've noticed consistantly over the last 3 seasons. (Opposition teams move the ball quickly to a point then stop cos they have no downfield options.) Its not the same as reacting to those fast break turnovers but they are hard to stop even with a side of sprinting geniuses. So i don't think its a failure as such. Sometimes I thing its a very effective method of coping with a major weakness (lack of leg speed.)

Earlier in the season we were dying in the last quarter but lately we've been stronger at the death than early in the game. To me that points more to the way we build fitness - that it peaks toward the back half of the year. The 14 and 15 seasons confirm that for me, and if anything so does 16. I remember there was comment about the club specifically trying to start that season better than 14/15 and things fell apart at the end.

None the less what you mention is a concern. Its made worse by the way we finished 2016.

The kick outs - OK Mullet is a really limited footballer. At least on the backline. He doesn't belong there.

His decision making under last line of defense pressure is average at best and seems to improve the closer we get to our goals. I'd much rather a backline with Hooter and EVW in it than Mullet. I'd rather Thomas back there than Mullet as well.

The whole kick out set up needs work. But we have been let down by Goldstein's contested marking imo. In the past he was a better option. The Freo game was actually his best contested marking for ages. Waite, Wood and even Maj could be used as options there. (If we could rely on Maj to run at the contest from the wing then jump and crash thru or over packs.)

More to come.

 

[Gasometer]

Correct...not reading ...off on a rant.

 

[Mav]

 

[Tas]

Agree - 1 top ten draft pick in 7 years - McDonald at 8 as a F&S pick.

2016: 12 Simpkin (flanker)
2015: 21 McKay (KPF)
2014: 16 Durdin (KPF/D)
2013: 8 McDonald (mid)
2012: 15 Garner (flanker)
2011: 18 McKenzie (flanker)
2010: 17 Atley (flanker)
2009: 5 Cunnington (inside mid)
2008: 9 Ziebell (inside mid)
2007: 15 Tarrant (KPF)

2006: 3 Hansen (KPF/D)
2005: Traded for Hay (#18) lol (KPD)
2004: Traded for N. Thompson (#10) (KPF)
2003: 9 Trotter (flanker)
2002: 2 Wells (from Carey Trade) & 9 McIntosh (Mid & Ruck/KPF)
2001: 7 Hale (Ruck/KPF)
2000: 6 D. Smith, 8 D. Motlop & 14 Harris (mid/flanker/inside mid)

Was wondering why you said 7 years instead of 10... oh, so it is 3 top 10 picks in 10 years and Jy was #12 with two GWS academy players brought forward due to the bidding system so effectively a top 10 pick of available talent.

It is not a super amount of talent, especially towards the pointy end of the draft but a bigger problem is the impact that our first round picks have had over the years & the type of players they are. We gave a lot of stick to our previous recruiter for some of his decisions, which is fair enough), but we haven't had a massive on-field influence from our first round picks.

Tarrant and Cunnington are the best of the litter over the last 10 years and we haven't really taken an outside midfielder since Wells in 2002. Our problem today is we have too many flankers that can't play a midfield role, which is why most of them slid, we took too many inside midfielders which compounded the issues we had with the likes of Greenwood, Swallow, etc.

McDonald is one of the few all-round mids we drafted and he was played as a flanker until this year, we have struggled to get much output from our tsunami of flankers and we have too many inside mids fighting for the same ball who do not complement eachother, Cunnington hit his peak when both Swallow and Ziebell missed a lot of football with injuries.

Our structure is just not ideal, getting a good prospect like Kelly is only half the struggle, the other half is to fix the structural problem, we are still going to have issues if we try to play Swallow, Cunnington and Ziebell in the same midfield.

We have wasted a lot of premium picks on flankers imo, nothing against them individually, but we have had the delusion that we can turn flankers into outside midfielders.

 

[Deadeyeroo]

My thoughts are, do nothing at all. We hitch our wagon on recruiting the s**t out of Kelly and Martin and try to get s high pick in. Then if at round 15 next year we are well placed with our list, on field, and future planning we extend him. If not, then we let him see out his contract and move on without having to pay anyone out.

Thats a quick change. Last week you were saying you couldn't wait until the club re-signed him to see the boil over on this board. Seriously some of you guys change your thoughts from week to week.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[RobZombie]

Anyone that thinks that Collingwood would not have done due diligence on all potential coaching candidates out there and came up with Brad Scott being the best, then miraculously thinking that the left over assistant coaching talent will be the saviour to north is an idiot.

If Stuart Dew is the best up and comer he would surely take the Pies role over the north role.

Collingwood have 2 kinds of coaches: favourite sons and high profile imports. There's nothing magical about their ability to do due diligence; I'd suggest the opposite.

 

[Wild Bill]

Thats a quick change. Last week you were saying you couldn't wait until the club re-signed him to see the boil over on this board. Seriously some of you guys change your thoughts from week to week.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

There is no way he is as bad a coach as some are making out in this thread. Its why he is being touted as an immediate replacement for the biggest club in the country as well as one of the AFL new expansion teams. If he was no good he would have been written off like Bucks.

Its not that hard to look at our list over the last 5 years, the picks we have had and the results we have been able to have under him. 2 prelims with SFA top end talent is a great effort.

We now get the chance to bring in a couple of Superstars to help take the next step when we challenge next - if we miss Kelly and get Raynor this year and Rankine or Lukosious next its a fair start.

 

[Phillyroo]

Thats a quick change. Last week you were saying you couldn't wait until the club re-signed him to see the boil over on this board. Seriously some of you guys change your thoughts from week to week.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I still believe he will be re-signed, because I believe we will recruit well, and perform well next year. I now believe that we will not extend his contract until mid next season, so that has changed, is that ok?

 

[RobZombie]

We have wasted a lot of premium picks on flankers imo, nothing against them individually, but we have had the delusion that we can turn flankers into outside midfielders.

My lunch hour is about over so I can't spend the time poring over the Wikipedia draft pages. If you have the time, can you let me know which mids taken after Garner, McKenzie, Simpkin and Atley would make us better? Ideally within the top 30 to weed out the unforeseeable smokies like Dahlhaus.

 

[Deadeyeroo]

There is no way he is as bad a coach as some are making out in this thread. Its why he is being touted as an immediate replacement for the biggest club in the country as well as one of the AFL new expansion teams. If he was no good he would have been written off like Bucks.

Its not that hard to look at our list over the last 5 years, the picks we have had and the results we have been able to have under him. 2 prelims with SFA top end talent is a great effort.

We now get the chance to bring in a couple of Superstars to help take the next step when we challenge next - if we miss Kelly and get Raynor this year and Rankine or Lukosious next its a fair start.

Didnt you say last week it might be time?

I still believe he will be re-signed, because I believe we will recruit well, and perform well next year. I now believe that we will not extend his contract until mid next season, so that has changed, is that ok?

Yippee we're going to ship off this clone. Stick a fork in him.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Phillyroo]

[QUOTE="Deadeyeroo, post: 51281979, member: 79911]

Yippee we're going to ship off this clone. Stick a fork in him.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Bit early to be blind drunk isn't it mate?

 

[Gasometer]

Just to be clear...McKenzie is Bread?

 

[Wild Bill]

Didnt you say last week it might be time?



Yippee we're going to ship off this clone. Stick a fork in him.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yep - I think he can coach but a fresh voice and ideas to start a re-build might be more beneficial.

I would be fine if they extend and fine if they go with someone new. We need a couple of bottom 4 finishes IMO.

Getting a new coach will not guarantee better results however.

 

[shintemaster]

Our structure is just not ideal, getting a good prospect like Kelly is only half the struggle, the other half is to fix the structural problem, we are still going to have issues if we try to play Swallow, Cunnington and Ziebell in the same midfield.

We have wasted a lot of premium picks on flankers imo, nothing against them individually, but we have had the delusion that we can turn flankers into outside midfielders.

All solid stuff in your post however on the last line. I'm not sure if it's a delusion or simply what we had to work with. The reality is that pure inside / outside running midfielders with good skills aren't dime a dozen and we haven't been in a position to pick up that many good ones. I don't think it's that we're deluded into thinking we can turn them into outside midfielders, more that we saw that gamble as better than picking up untalented outside mids.

I still agree with you that we needed to take more risk on these types even if they were technically lower rated by us as footballers, just not convinced we were under real delusions as such. We have to work with what we have available to draft.

 

[RobZombie]

My lunch hour is about over so I can't spend the time poring over the Wikipedia draft pages. If you have the time, can you let me know which mids taken after Garner, McKenzie, Simpkin and Atley would make us better? Ideally within the top 30 to weed out the unforeseeable smokies like Dahlhaus.

I had a moment.

There's a few after McKenzie: Seb Ross, Jack Newnes, Brad Hill, Jordan Murdoch.

The only good ones after Garner were Hrovat and Jacobs

After Atley were Isaac Smith, Cam Guthrie, Luke Parker. Not convinced Smith would have flourished here and the other two were a fair bit later and we took Harps before them too (plus they were late enough to have been a real reach in the 1st round).

Simpkin N/A in his first season, and I reckon he's exactly what we needed anyway.

 

[spurs]

Just to be clear...McKenzie is Bread?

Correct

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

2016: 12 Simpkin (flanker)
2015: 21 McKay (KPF)
2014: 16 Durdin (KPF/D)
2013: 8 McDonald (mid)
2012: 15 Garner (flanker)
2011: 18 McKenzie (flanker)
2010: 17 Atley (flanker)
2009: 5 Cunnington (inside mid)
2008: 9 Ziebell (inside mid)
2007: 15 Tarrant (KPF)

2006: 3 Hansen (KPF/D)
2005: Traded for Hay (#18) lol (KPD)
2004: Traded for N. Thompson (#10) (KPF)
2003: 9 Trotter (flanker)
2002: 2 Wells (from Carey Trade) & 9 McIntosh (Mid & Ruck/KPF)
2001: 7 Hale (Ruck/KPF)
2000: 6 D. Smith, 8 D. Motlop & 14 Harris (mid/flanker/inside mid)

Was wondering why you said 7 years instead of 10... oh, so it is 3 top 10 picks in 10 years and Jy was #12 with two GWS academy players brought forward due to the bidding system so effectively a top 10 pick of available talent.

It is not a super amount of talent, especially towards the pointy end of the draft but a bigger problem is the impact that our first round picks have had over the years & the type of players they are. We gave a lot of stick to our previous recruiter for some of his decisions, which is fair enough), but we haven't had a massive on-field influence from our first round picks.

Tarrant and Cunnington are the best of the litter over the last 10 years and we haven't really taken an outside midfielder since Wells in 2002. Our problem today is we have too many flankers that can't play a midfield role, which is why most of them slid, we took too many inside midfielders which compounded the issues we had with the likes of Greenwood, Swallow, etc.

McDonald is one of the few all-round mids we drafted and he was played as a flanker until this year, we have struggled to get much output from our tsunami of flankers and we have too many inside mids fighting for the same ball who do not complement eachother, Cunnington hit his peak when both Swallow and Ziebell missed a lot of football with injuries.

Our structure is just not ideal, getting a good prospect like Kelly is only half the struggle, the other half is to fix the structural problem, we are still going to have issues if we try to play Swallow, Cunnington and Ziebell in the same midfield.

We have wasted a lot of premium picks on flankers imo, nothing against them individually, but we have had the delusion that we can turn flankers into outside midfielders.

Excellent summary - one thing that i hadn't thought of before - those two drafts where we wasted 1st rounders (Thompson, Hay - 2004-5) may have cost us the two good players that we needed in our prelim finals years.

That is, we all thought we were 2-3 players short in those prelims - had we recruited 'proper' first rounders in those years those players would have been in their prime right when we made our tilt.

Shows the importance of continually going to the draft - 10 years on you might regret not doing it.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Excellent summary - one thing that i hadn't thought of before - those two drafts where we wasted 1st rounders (Thompson, Hay - 2004-5) may have cost us the two good players that we needed in our prelim finals years.

That is, we all thought we were 2-3 players short in those prelims - has we recruited 'proper' first rounders in those years those players would have been in their prime right when we made our tilt.

Shows the importance of continually going to the draft - 10 years on you might regret not doing it.

Agreed. Bet Hawthorn are sorry they paid so much draft value for Burgoyne. There's a lot of unforseeable luck involved in how any of these choices turns out.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Gasometer]

Agreed. Bet Hawthorn are sorry they paid so much draft value for Burgoyne. There's a lot of unforseeable luck involved in how any of these choices turns out.

A day after Hawks president Jeff Kennett insisted no premiership player would be traded by the club, the Hawks last night agreed to send forward Mark Williams to Essendon in the complex deal that was completed after a phone call to Geelong from the mediation session between the Hawks, Bombers and Port Adelaide last night.

Under the agreement ultimately thrashed out, Hawthorn gains Burgoyne, giving Port Adelaide pick nine and sending Williams to Windy Hill. The Hawks' picks 40 and 56 both finished up with Geelong.

The Power gains two first-round picks - No. 9 and Essendon's No. 16 - as well as out-of-favour Bomber defender Jay Nash, who will return to his home state, losing only its 26-year-old star midfielder.

Essendon receives Williams, pick 24 from Port Adelaide and Geelong's pick 33. This leaves them with four choices in the first two rounds of the draft, and minus Nash, pick 16 - which they had gained from St Kilda for Andrew Lovett - and 42.

The Cats' late involvement - recruiting manager Stephen Wells was called from the mediation meeting after 6pm - saw them switch pick 33, their second-round choice, for selections 40, 42 and 56.

Looking at the draft, Hawthorn still won...Christensen to Cats who ended up at Lions and Carlisle...well ended up at Saints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_AFL_draft#2009_national_draft