Hot Topic The Rebuild, est. 2023 and/or 2025

[Howard Moon]

Scorched earth rebuilds don’t work either.

As much as we suck, why we are doing right now is correct. Parish will be moved out when Sharp is ready. Langford will be gone when Robey is ripping the game apart.

Melbourne and North are examples that scorched earth does more harm than good.

More to the point, instead of pointing out scorched earth rebuilds that haven't worked, try to name one (in the current AFL era) that has.

Your regular clubs are the top of the ladder are there not from scorched earth, but due to some form of continuous top ups via inequity. Brisbane GC can just keep dipping at the top draft free of charge, Sydney GWS likewise, Geelong have their surf coast rort.

Freo might get there but they didn't go scorched earth, Adelaide who went closest to ground zero and stuck the course but again I don't think they get there either.

Hawthorn combined a youth flush with top ups. It takes a unique circumstance to be a rebuild club that has enough going for it to tempt the right top ups to arrive to speed it all up.

 

[Old Campaigner]

More to the point, instead of pointing out scorched earth rebuilds that haven't worked, try to name one (in the current AFL era) that has.

Your regular clubs are the top of the ladder are there not from scorched earth, but due to some form of continuous top ups via inequity. Brisbane GC can just keep dipping at the top draft free of charge, Sydney GWS likewise, Geelong have their surf coast rort.

Freo might get there but they didn't go scorched earth, Adelaide who went closest to ground zero and stuck the course but again I don't think they get there either.

Hawthorn combined a youth flush with top ups. It takes a unique circumstance to be a rebuild club that has enough going for it to tempt the right top ups to arrive to speed it all up.

Melbourne and Richmond worked out eventually, Norf seems to be pulling themselves out of the hole finally.

 

[Howard Moon]

Melbourne and Richmond worked out eventually, Norf seems to be pulling themselves out of the hole finally.

I don't think North are pulling out of anything, they scraped past us- they were/are just less shit than us which is low bar

 

[Phone]

I agree but I'd go one further,

i can't help but notice that you appear to say we should compete for the finals in 2027

 

[Vindicater]

History suggests that no matter how promising draftees look in their first few years a lot don't make it. I'd consider it reasonably successful if we get on average two long term prospects (regardless of whether they're stars or role players) a year. You want to turn over the best 23? Probably 10 years of hitting the draft hard, less if we get lucky in a draft or two.

The most important step imo is to get a core group of young leaders in, Caddy, Roberts and Sharp might be the first part of that but more are needed. They then need time to establish themselves at the club and get to the point where they command the respect and attention of the rest of the group, and start setting standards that the rest will follow. You're probably looking at 4-5 years for that alone.

When the rebuilds start isn't important, in fact you probably only really know when it's done and we're making finals, and can look back and see when the core group started getting drafted.

Agree on the leaders part. Just reckon that group I listed is probably the most impressive we have had in the last twenty years (which is also damning)

Caddy Kako, Roberts, Clarke and Sharp all look vocal leaders. Hopefully they drive the standards from now on.

 

[Yoda_]

I've wanted the scorched earth rebuild for years, maybe 5? But we haven't done it, and now we are getting scorched earth rebuild results for zero benefits. Sad.

to be fair, we have taken 5 first round picks in 3 years. As much as it sucks, how much further can one go "scorched earth"?

 

[Yoda_]

i can't help but notice that you appear to say we should compete for the finals in 2027

ive said this but then re evaluated and said we should be making some strides by the end of 2027. Absolutely we should be

 

[Milanista28]

to be fair, we have taken 5 first round picks in 3 years. As much as it sucks, how much further can one go "scorched earth"?

Merrett, Ridley, Parish, Setterfield and Langford out doesn't change the 1st 3 weeks results, they remain the same, we also have another 6/7 picks to develop/use.

You get a decent enough return on Zach and Ridley, the others value is in their list spot.

They aren't providing on field value, I'm confident they aren't showing off field value.

David Swallow would be more beneficial on this list ahead of Parish in 2026.

We haven't cut into the list hard enough for me.

 

[BomberManU]

Caddy Kako, Roberts, Clarke and Sharp all look vocal leaders. Hopefully they drive the standards from now on.

one of my biggest concerns - and there are many - is these guys leaving in the near future.

 

[Yoda_]

Merrett, Ridley, Parish, Setterfield and Langford out doesn't change the 1st 3 weeks results, they remain the same, we also have another 6/7 picks to develop/use.

You get a decent enough return on Zach and Ridley, the others value is in their list spot.

They aren't providing on field value, I'm confident they aren't showing off field value.

David Swallow would be more beneficial on this list ahead of Parish in 2026.

We haven't cut into the list hard enough for me.

I think we've cut the list deep enough for the first time in ages. Sure, we could be looking to move on a Ridley, Merret and take a first round pick instead of a pick in the 40s,

Im more concerned about the extension to El~Hawli, the contract length to Jones etc. Those are my gripes

 

[Vindicater]

I think we've cut the list deep enough for the first time in ages. Sure, we could be looking to move on a Ridley, Merret and take a first round pick instead of a pick in the 40s,

Im more concerned about the extension to El~Hawli, the contract length to Jones etc. Those are my gripes

The El-Hawli one for me was okay. Has some attributes we don't have and is only a single year.

The Jones deal is the real head scratcher. Has no real position. Had a very bad injury and we had already signed Edwards who went past him.

Jones will play VFL for two years.

 

[jdstorm]

The El-Hawli one for me was okay. Has some attributes we don't have and is only a single year.

The Jones deal is the real head scratcher. Has no real position. Had a very bad injury and we had already signed Edwards who went past him.

Jones will play VFL for two years.

Thought jones looked a decent winger. Have no idea why they aren’t developing that side of him in the VFL

 

[Lore]

Merrett, Ridley, Parish, Setterfield and Langford out doesn't change the 1st 3 weeks results, they remain the same, we also have another 6/7 picks to develop/use.

You get a decent enough return on Zach and Ridley, the others value is in their list spot.

They aren't providing on field value, I'm confident they aren't showing off field value.

David Swallow would be more beneficial on this list ahead of Parish in 2026.

We haven't cut into the list hard enough for me.

Setterfield was delisted and his spot was used in the draft. The spot he occupies at the minute is as an injury replacement rookie, which dissolves at the end of the season When Martin comes off the injury list.

Langford is in the leadership group so presumably the playing group and the coaches see some value in him both on and off field.

The others could be cashed in under appropriate circumstances, but I’d prefer for the club to initiate it and not get blindsided in September when they’ve already made plans and been executing them for months and years in relation to this and following drafts and trade periods, and to manage the salary cap as well lest you end up overpaying every kid that isn’t on a fixed draft salary just to make the cap floor (and look at their effort drop off when they have a guaranteed fat paycheck for the next few years).

You can’t do everything at once if the players you’re delisting or trading don’t get you a pick above 60 in the national draft either. A pick in the 100+ range just clogs up the list with kids that don’t have the skills or the nous to play at the level while compounding the salary cap issue.

 

[Call Me Cake]

one of my biggest concerns - and there are many - is these guys leaving in the near future.

View attachment 1000062064.mp4

 

[Schnitzengruben]

View attachment 2567213

Agree with this type of stuff.

Whoever will be the players (and coach) to break Essendon out of our 25 year mediocrity loop will go down as modern legends. Same goes for Carlton if they ever figure it out.

Yeah they might also waste their careers, but it's a risk many would be willing to take.

 

[andleanback]

According to jye we aren’t in a rebuild. We are just shit

 

[Bunk Moreland]

More to the point, instead of pointing out scorched earth rebuilds that haven't worked, try to name one (in the current AFL era) that has.

Your regular clubs are the top of the ladder are there not from scorched earth, but due to some form of continuous top ups via inequity. Brisbane GC can just keep dipping at the top draft free of charge, Sydney GWS likewise, Geelong have their surf coast rort.

Freo might get there but they didn't go scorched earth, Adelaide who went closest to ground zero and stuck the course but again I don't think they get there either.

Hawthorn combined a youth flush with top ups. It takes a unique circumstance to be a rebuild club that has enough going for it to tempt the right top ups to arrive to speed it all up.

The continuous top-up method works when you have a really strong culture and leadership so that when the kids come in, they learn the right things the right way and get up to speed quickly.

If you don’t have that, it generally won’t work. Think Melbourne are an example.

I reckon Richmond are a serious wait and see. They cut incredibly hard and I’m not sure the signs are actually there that it’s working - aside from one of them supposedly looking like Dusty. All of the key planks of their success, on and off field, are gone - not one remains.

 

[Mercurial89]

More to the point, instead of pointing out scorched earth rebuilds that haven't worked, try to name one (in the current AFL era) that has.

Your regular clubs are the top of the ladder are there not from scorched earth, but due to some form of continuous top ups via inequity. Brisbane GC can just keep dipping at the top draft free of charge, Sydney GWS likewise, Geelong have their surf coast rort.

Freo might get there but they didn't go scorched earth, Adelaide who went closest to ground zero and stuck the course but again I don't think they get there either.

Hawthorn combined a youth flush with top ups. It takes a unique circumstance to be a rebuild club that has enough going for it to tempt the right top ups to arrive to speed it all up.

I'd point to GWS and the Tassie plan as what we should have done.

Both are the equivalent of scorched earth rebuilds because they are literally starting from nothing.

How Tassie plans is exactly how we should of planned the last 3 years before they arrived.
It's too late now for this style but Milanista28 has been wanting this for years, and years ago was the time to do this style of rebuild.

So far we have made the wrong decision in each of the important phases of how you should do the rebuild.

1.
Collect your top end talent, we have only just started this and even then it's not pick 1/2/3.
* This year should be the crown jewel of draft capital but we have 1 pick, it's just not enough.

2.
Trade out the existing "leaders" because they don't know what leadership or winning is. It's been too long in the system thinking they are trying hard, thinking that's what effort and connection is. The only thing they can lead is the young draftees down the wrong path.
* Trading out players and accumulating draft capital is another part of the plan we have failed.

3.
You then go and get your proper leaders and success stories from other clubs. That's where you spend your salary cap. Tom stewart, luke Parker, Gunston types. Guys that have had success but also bring a certain mindset or IQ to the group.
Ideally 1 in each area of the ground, ie; hard working forward flanker, defender, midfielder or winger.
That's your big salary spending aspect of the plan.
*We did an aspect of this and got Gresham, Mckay types. Another fail.

4.
Another part of it is the mindset and culture part of the group aside from senior successful leaders.

You scour the State leagues for high performing guys who have maintained a good base of footy but also been working to support themselves.
Those guys bring a hardened outlook on the AFL opportunity. It wasn't handed to these guys, they worked for it, that brings something to the group that the top end draft pick form the private school doesn't have. Perspective.
They are normally physically developed because they play top State leagues and are older.
These are the guys you stack the bottom of your roster with.
They drive the young top end draftees through competition for spots, act as meat shields to soak up minutes when the young guys get tired and every now and then you unearth a Nic Martin, Barlow or a Tom Stewart.
*We failed this aspect by resigning your setterfield types. Clinging to the idea of players instead of turning over the list. Another fail.

5.
Finally once you have a glut of young talent and high end draft picks you blow the football department soft cap for a couple of years as a "big" rich club and invest heavily in high end development coaches for the VFL program and he AFL program.
*We won't do that either. We seemingly neglect the vfl side and the caliber of coaches we have are questionable at best.


That's how you rebuild, it's not hard you just have to plan it out. Instead we won't utter the words, we are going to sack the coach and Welsh and his goons will see the 5 steps above and just think.. Hird?

Another fail.

 

[BomberManU]

Someone might want to tell the players...

'Dons star insists club is ‘definitely not rebuilding’'​

 

[ant555]

I'd point to GWS and the Tassie plan as what we should have done.

Both are the equivalent of scorched earth rebuilds because they are literally starting from nothing.

How Tassie plans is exactly how we should of planned the last 3 years before they arrived.
It's too late now for this style but Milanista28 has been wanting this for years, and years ago was the time to do this style of rebuild.

So far we have made the wrong decision in each of the important phases of how you should do the rebuild.

1.
Collect your top end talent, we have only just started this and even then it's not pick 1/2/3.
* This year should be the crown jewel of draft capital but we have 1 pick, it's just not enough.

2.
Trade out the existing "leaders" because they don't know what leadership or winning is. It's been too long in the system thinking they are trying hard, thinking that's what effort and connection is. The only thing they can lead is the young draftees down the wrong path.
* Trading out players and accumulating draft capital is another part of the plan we have failed.

3.
You then go and get your proper leaders and success stories from other clubs. That's where you spend your salary cap. Tom stewart, luke Parker, Gunston types. Guys that have had success but also bring a certain mindset or IQ to the group.
Ideally 1 in each area of the ground, ie; hard working forward flanker, defender, midfielder or winger.
That's your big salary spending aspect of the plan.
*We did an aspect of this and got Gresham, Mckay types. Another fail.

4.
Another part of it is the mindset and culture part of the group aside from senior successful leaders.

You scour the State leagues for high performing guys who have maintained a good base of footy but also been working to support themselves.
Those guys bring a hardened outlook on the AFL opportunity. It wasn't handed to these guys, they worked for it, that brings something to the group that the top end draft pick form the private school doesn't have. Perspective.
They are normally physically developed because they play top State leagues and are older.
These are the guys you stack the bottom of your roster with.
They drive the young top end draftees through competition for spots, act as meat shields to soak up minutes when the young guys get tired and every now and then you unearth a Nic Martin, Barlow or a Tom Stewart.
*We failed this aspect by resigning your setterfield types. Clinging to the idea of players instead of turning over the list. Another fail.

5.
Finally once you have a glut of young talent and high end draft picks you blow the football department soft cap for a couple of years as a "big" rich club and invest heavily in high end development coaches for the VFL program and he AFL program.
*We won't do that either. We seemingly neglect the vfl side and the caliber of coaches we have are questionable at best.


That's how you rebuild, it's not hard you just have to plan it out. Instead we won't utter the words, we are going to sack the coach and Welsh and his goons will see the 5 steps above and just think.. Hird?

Another fail.

I think the Melbourne path would be the most similar for us to follow and it is close to what you have mentioned.
We cannot replicate it exactly because a few things do not line up but they came off a long period of up and down results. They had a failed rebuild where they burned a lot of top 20 picks, 12 from 2007 to 2012 and only got 7 players who played more than 100 games in that period. They then change their recruiting team followed by the coach.
In the 2013 to 2015 period, they went back to the draft using 5 top 10 picks and went looking for competitors first. They had misses which happens, but their drafting improved overall. Thy traded for players, some had little impact, others were decent. A couple of the trades had question marks, like the 2013 trade where they traded pick 2 to the GWS fir Dom Tyson, pick 9 and pick 57. GWS got Kelly. Melbourne got Salem and Hunt with the two picks. They traded in a number of guys who played 30 to 60 odd games, but it was about turning the list over where they could. Finally, via the draft from 2013 to 2017 plus trades and FA they had the list to be top 4 and win a flag.

I think we are at your stage 1 as you mentioned. I think they have planned it out. Despite Scott looking at building the list from the start they have taken a bit of a pivot and decided to go a bit deeper into the list. Now we get to see if the board holds or it again folds under the Essendon pressure.

The upside I see right now is they have now had 3 drafts that have produced the competitive players.
The overall strategy as far as looking holes in the list and drafting a spread of players to fill them has been better.
Despite what people's opinion of the coach is he has changed the football department in the way they approach training and preparation and the overall way it runs.
Recruiting has seen changes with some new eyes coming in to work with the couple that have stayed in place and they are very experienced.
The fitness department got new guys at the top to see if that can make a difference.

The plus side of the above is it is already in place. So, if the sack the coach we will still head into the draft this year with a top 5 pick (more than likely). The proposed rule change will give us another end of first round pick if it comes through which is extremely likely from what I hear. In saying this even if we only have the 1 top 5 pick, we will still have completed a 4-year draft period with a different focus to previously so that step cannot be undone even if they do sack another coach.
It could still go wrong but the foundations of another build have been put in place. What they build on top of it? Who knows?

As you say they have to stay the course.

 

[Mercurial89]

I think the Melbourne path would be the most similar for us to follow and it is close to what you have mentioned.
We cannot replicate it exactly because a few things do not line up but they came off a long period of up and down results. They had a failed rebuild where they burned a lot of top 20 picks, 12 from 2007 to 2012 and only got 7 players who played more than 100 games in that period. They then change their recruiting team followed by the coach.
In the 2013 to 2015 period, they went back to the draft using 5 top 10 picks and went looking for competitors first. They had misses which happens, but their drafting improved overall. Thy traded for players, some had little impact, others were decent. A couple of the trades had question marks, like the 2013 trade where they traded pick 2 to the GWS fir Dom Tyson, pick 9 and pick 57. GWS got Kelly. Melbourne got Salem and Hunt with the two picks. They traded in a number of guys who played 30 to 60 odd games, but it was about turning the list over where they could. Finally, via the draft from 2013 to 2017 plus trades and FA they had the list to be top 4 and win a flag.

I think we are at your stage 1 as you mentioned. I think they have planned it out. Despite Scott looking at building the list from the start they have taken a bit of a pivot and decided to go a bit deeper into the list. Now we get to see if the board holds or it again folds under the Essendon pressure.

The upside I see right now is they have now had 3 drafts that have produced the competitive players.
The overall strategy as far as looking holes in the list and drafting a spread of players to fill them has been better.
Despite what people's opinion of the coach is he has changed the football department in the way they approach training and preparation and the overall way it runs.
Recruiting has seen changes with some new eyes coming in to work with the couple that have stayed in place and they are very experienced.
The fitness department got new guys at the top to see if that can make a difference.

The plus side of the above is it is already in place. So, if the sack the coach we will still head into the draft this year with a top 5 pick (more than likely). The proposed rule change will give us another end of first round pick if it comes through which is extremely likely from what I hear. In saying this even if we only have the 1 top 5 pick, we will still have completed a 4-year draft period with a different focus to previously so that step cannot be undone even if they do sack another coach.
It could still go wrong but the foundations of another build have been put in place. What they build on top of it? Who knows?

As you say they have to stay the course.

The danger is the people who are rumoured to be coming in - your Hird ex essendon types- have just the amount of arrogance to think they could do it better and undo some of that work, or built right next to the foundation laid just to spite it.

I think vozzo loss has been one of the bigger things of this build, we really couldn't afford to lose that figure.

I don't mind Scott appointment, he was the agent of change that we needed so I think that is fine. I liked it at the time, I won't say he has given me a heap of reasons to want him gone asap. I don't like some of the things he has done, but he has done some good things.

I'm in the keep him camp for at least this year possibly for the contract as I'd like him to wear a few of the bullets that are coming for these results (unless him being here is actively harming development of youth).

My wish for this next phase is probably Simpson.
Where I'm torn is how deep to cut the seniors and what you replace them with.
Some of these guys have contracts, so it means you have to make a concerted effort to push them out, will Scott do that? Unsure.
With Tassie starting to circle, some of the older veterans are going to be going there so if we need them to come in we need to be swift and I just don't think they will do it.
So I think we may limbo a bit and we become another statistic of how long rebuilds take, when they don't have to be, if people do them smartly which seemingly no team does.

 

[King Patty]

Could we fix up Dodoro's contract mistakes by sending some of our experienced players to Tassie and hitting the draft

Tassie - Parish, Langford, Wright, McKay,
could help us pickup our 2027 draftees, free up salary cap, and open best 22 spots for players.

Could we tell the AFL if they allow mid season trading we’ll trade Merrett to Hawthorn.
Should be good for fan engagement.

 

[ant555]

The danger is the people who are rumoured to be coming in - your Hird ex essendon types- have just the amount of arrogance to think they could do it better and undo some of that work, or built right next to the foundation laid just to spite it.

I think vozzo loss has been one of the bigger things of this build, we really couldn't afford to lose that figure.

I don't mind Scott appointment, he was the agent of change that we needed so I think that is fine. I liked it at the time, I won't say he has given me a heap of reasons to want him gone asap. I don't like some of the things he has done, but he has done some good things.

I'm in the keep him camp for at least this year possibly for the contract as I'd like him to wear a few of the bullets that are coming for these results (unless him being here is actively harming development of youth).

My wish for this next phase is probably Simpson.
Where I'm torn is how deep to cut the seniors and what you replace them with.
Some of these guys have contracts, so it means you have to make a concerted effort to push them out, will Scott do that? Unsure.
With Tassie starting to circle, some of the older veterans are going to be going there so if we need them to come in we need to be swift and I just don't think they will do it.
So I think we may limbo a bit and we become another statistic of how long rebuilds take, when they don't have to be, if people do them smartly which seemingly no team does.

I agree. Essendon arrogance could easily blow it up.

Just on Vozzo, he is still actually on the pay role. His role may only be consultant but there was a few on the board that were smart enough to make sure he did not just walk completely. Pretty sure his role is Football and List Management consultant, so no longer involved in any commercial stuff but still has a strong contact with Rosa and the football department.



As for the next coach and Scott. The results this year do not worry me. I thought we could win 8 or 9 games. If we win 3 or 4 then so be it. The issue for me will be effort. They have to bring what they did against North effort wise pretty much every week. There will be some drops offs but if Brad cannot get them to have a real go most weeks, then he really is done. Also has to show that at some stage this year he is ready to move on from a few guys. If he goes at the end of the year, then he goes. I have always said he will not be the premiership coach. He was the guy to try and impliment changes.
This is where the senior players come in. They will not be able to just cut too many at once. It will more than likely be something along the lines of say telling a few of them they are free to look at options. Test the market. Then allow a couple each year to move on.

I have no solid opinion on where we go with the next coach.
Maybe we do what Melbourne did. Find a senior guy who is happy to coach for 3 years while having an unproven coach working with him to take over. I know people say succession plans do not work and we managed to stuff up the Rutten one, but I think it does work if the senior coach is actually happy and that is the role he wants. Continue the rebuild and mentor the next coach.

Can not believe I am actually saying this, but I could probably cop Hird working under someone for 2 or 3 years.

Longmire would be ideal for a short-term role, but I think he may be finished with coaching and happy with what he is doing in Sydney.

Would Simpson be up for it or do we just look at him as the next coach.

It is a tough question. Even more so because we cannot really go with an unproven coach unless we have a really experienced senior guy to either take the reins for a bit or as the senior assistant.

 

[boncer34]

100% been a shift in the age profile since late 2024 when Dodoro departed

Games played follows basically an identical line

It's very hard to explain "starting a rebuild" two years into a coach's tenure and coming off 20 years of shit. But that's precisely what we've done.

We're in for a shit 2026 and 2027, at least. Unless we sack the coach and abandon the rebuild, which is more than possible given we're Essendon.

View attachment 2561399

Holy manipulation Batman.

 

[Old Campaigner]

According to jye we aren’t in a rebuild. We are just shit

Don’t mention the war rebuild