Rumour Bucks to be given a two year extension by Rd 1

[ClaytonM]

Question for Scodog10, as I respect your opinion.

Do you think Port would've improved that much under Primus? Yes or no?

Again you are looking at the short term. You could have made the same statement about Sando at Adelaide the year before and look where they ended up in 2013. You also had major changes behind the scenes at Port which may have also been a major factor.

Yes Buckley may not be our next premiership coach but give him time to make the changes that were necessary when he took over from MM. We were never going to win a flag with the team and game plan MM handed over. MM acknowledged that the 2010 premiership took years to build. Buckley should be given time as well. Otherwise we go back even further this another new coach.

 

[the distributer]

Again you are looking at the short term. You could have made the same statement about Sando at Adelaide the year before and look where they ended up in 2013. You also had major changes behind the scenes at Port which may have also been a major factor.

Yes Buckley may not be our next premiership coach but give him time to make the changes that were necessary when he took over from MM. We were never going to win a flag with the team and game plan MM handed over. MM acknowledged that the 2010 premiership took years to build. Buckley should be given time as well. Otherwise we go back even further this another new coach.

It's like you think lists like ours come along every 10 years or so, they don't, make hey why the sun shines.

 

[Bard]

Fair enough mate, good response, I just don't see why he deserves a pre extension with a year to run on his contract, you know my feelings about year 3 and a coaches ability to implement his game plan within that time frame.

What if he fails to implement his game plan within 3 years and decides to change it, do we back him again? That's my question I suppose.

I disagree with quite a few of your points on this thread, but at the end of the day I don't think any coach deserves an extension to their contract before the beginning of the season that their contract expires, UNLESS they're just won a Premiership the previous season.

 

[the distributer]

Our game plan is flawed, bucks is trying to get the best of both worlds, fact is our I50s amount to s**t because we rush the ball, this in turn ensures our opponents fwd 50 is as open as a $2 whore allowing them to pick us off, our back 4 are horribly exposed and they get much easier access to the big sticks.

 

[the distributer]

I disagree with quite a few of your points on this thread, but at the end of the day I don't think any coach deserves an extension to their contract before the beginning of the season that their contract expires, UNLESS they're just won a Premiership the previous season.

I just think we've underachieved mate, IMO our list is top notch.

 

[Scodog10]

Question for Scodog10, as I respect your opinion.

Do you think Port would've improved that much under Primus? Yes or no?

It's a tough one to answer.

I had my doubts due to his personality, he never had that I'm the man persona, which IMO a coach must have and more importantly he never had the full support of the board which is so underrated (Watters and Neeld were in the same boat). Conversely he put together a pretty damn good squad that (like Adelaide) is set to go bang just like I believe we are in 2015 if we stick to the plan.

To answer you though. No I don't believe they would have been pushing for a Prelim under Primus, 8-10 would have been my guess.

 

[ClaytonM]

I just think we've underachieved mate, IMO our list is top notch.

I think that is the difference between you and me. I think the list will be top notch but in a few years when Grundy, scharenberg, Thomas, Elliott etc mature a bit more. The two main risks to us really pushing for the flag in the next few years is injuries and internal disruptions. Signing Buckley up removes one of those.

 

[Bay Pie]

And as for 2ICs, Buckley was never even rated amongst them, he was clearly out coached by a first year coach with a vastly inferior list twice last year, one being final on our home track, that doesn't smell of "extension" to me.

Most AFL coaches want time mate, there's currently 17 of them, we don't have time.

Interesting comment here.

What was your take on Bucks clearly outcoaching Mick Malthouse in round 2, when Jolly went down in the 1st quarter and QBall had to ruck the remainder of the game? Who would have thought a veteran coach would be outcoached by a guy entering his 2nd year

 

[MarkT2]

Bearing what you've posted in mind who would you be replacing him with in 2015 should things go pear shaped?

IF things went pear shaped then the replacement is the secondary decision. The wrong goes first and then you find the best man for the job. That is how you should, always appraoch it. Very hypothetical at this point.

The club would have looked at all the angles at board level

No they wouldn't have. I will bet anything no option other than Buckley was considered. I would hope adn presume they considered whetehr or not to extend the contratc but it would have been a very quick decison strongly lead by Eddie. I'm confident the likes of Alisa Camplin had as much meaningful input as Sally Cap would have.

Where does that leave Buckley if we miss the 8?

Where it leavs him and where it should leave him (IMO) are not the same thing. Circumstances are relevent and injuries matter now more than in recent years guven the list culling. If we miss the 8 with a near full list IMO Bucklley isn't a good enough coach given our midfield and spine. However there is no way in hell Buckley will be sacked short or only winning a handful of games and even then I doubt it. IMO come hell or high water Buckley will coach Collingwood in 2015. Hopefully we finish top 4 this year with half a dozen emerging top end players becasue that is the only result that will justify the strategy AND confirm the coach's ability (2 seperate issues).

 

[Bard]

I just think we've underachieved mate, IMO our list is top notch.

I think we've underachieved to an extent but our list definitely isn't top notch anymore. There are a lot of gaping holes. The gulf between our top six or seven players and the rest of the pack is absolutely enormous, and closing that gap is what 2013 and 2014 will all be about.

 

[the mighty T]

If we're asking players to stick around and to buy into the direction the club is heading in, we've got to have consistency at the top. Regardless of how this season plays out, i have no doubt that Bucks will be given another two years to make his mark.

Yes the list is talented, but its also the most inexperienced its been in years.
Yes, we have a lot of premiership players still in the side, but we're adapting to a new style of play which will take time.
Yes, we probably have the best midfield in the league and a KPF who is the envy of all, but we have a few holes in key areas that expose us.

Expect an inconsistent year, but i expect us to improve.

 

[Scodog10]

IF things went pear shaped then the replacement is the secondary decision. The wrong goes first and then you find the best man for the job. That is how you should, always appraoch it. Very hypothetical at this point.

No they wouldn't have. I will bet anything no option other than Buckley considered. I would hope adn presume they considered whetehr or not to extend the contratc but it would have been a very quick decison strongly lead by Eddie. I'm confident the likes of Alisa Camplin had as much meaningful input as Sally Cap would have.

Where it leavs him and where it should leave him (IMO) are not the same thing. Circumstances are relevent and injuries matter now more than in recent years guven the list culling. If we miss the 8 with a near full list IMO Bucklley isn't a good enough coach given our midfield and spine. However there is no way in hell Buckley will be sacked short or only winning a handful of games and even then I doubt it. IMO come hell or high water Buckley will coach Collingwood in 2015. Hopefully we finish top 4 this year with half a dozen emerging top end players becasue that is the only result that will justify the strategy AND confirm the coach's ability (2 seperate issues).

Of course it's hypothetical. In practice things operate very differently.

Just to clarify on the bolded you're saying that a board comprising some of the brightest people in the country that has overseen our emergence as the number one sporting brand in Australia hasn't potentially considered alternatives?

If true the board should be sacked immediately. Due diligence is always done.

Mark perhaps you should go through the entirety of my posts on the topic because I'm very fluid with Buckley. The only thing I'm staunch on is that if the arse end falls out we go with experience even if it means waiting the extra year.

 

[MarkT2]

Just to clarify on the bolded you're saying that a board comprising some of the brightest people in the country that has overseen our emergence as the number one sporting brand in Australia hasn't potentially considered alternatives?

If true the board should be sacked immediately. Due diligence is always done.

Mark perhaps you should go through the entirety of my posts on the topic because I'm very fluid with Buckley. The only thing I'm staunch on is that if the arse end falls out we go with experience even if it means waiting the extra year.

For the sake of clarity the Collingwood board does not have some of the brightest people in country. Few of those people would serve on an honarary footbal club borard for starters but ours is by no means standout. What is standout is our presidents ability to Schmooze and deal, the massive and passionate supporter base and the huge anti Collingwood population that allows his talents to serve us well in a lot of aspects. That aside, on the Buckley contract on particular, I am of the cast iron beliefe that the board, lead very overtly by the president, is absolutely wedded to Buickley as coach and would not have entertained any alternative. I am also convinced the extension was a clear and deliberate message aims chiefly at the playing list.

I suspect you over estimate the rigour around board decisions in general let alone at football clubs where boards are part time honarary and often highly emotionally invested.

Is all this specifically a bad thing? That depends on the results. The results are what I keep coming back to. We have set about a path I disagree with and plaved ourselves in a position we need not have been left in but if we win a flag or two in the next few years then that path is clearly the corect one. I just happen to think we have sacrifed good premiership chances for hope in the future and that this was nessesitated by our own self fulfilling pursuit of culture change that wasn't nessessary or well handled. Now we have to back Buckley to see it through. We didn't chase Roos or anyone else like we didn't review Malthouses position in our supposedly all emcpassing review post 2005.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

You talk a good game Mark

 

[Scodog10]

For the sake of clarity the Collingwood board does not have some of the brightest people in country. Few of those people would serve on an honarary footbal club borard for starters but ours is by no means standout. What is standout is our presidents ability to Schmooze and deal, the massive and passionate supporter base and the huge anti Collingwood population that allows his talents to serve us well in a lot of aspects. That aside, on the Buckley contract on particular, I am of the cast iron beliefe that the board, lead very overtly by the president, is absolutely wedded to Buickley as coach and would not have entertained any alternative. I am also convinced the extension was a clear and deliberate message aims chiefly at the playing list.

I suspect you over estimate the rigour around board decisions in general let alone at football clubs where boards are part time honarary and often highly emotionally invested.

Is all this specifically a bad thing? That depends on the results. The results are what I keep coming back to. We have set about a path I disagree with and plaved ourselves in a position we need not have been left in but if we win a flag or two in the next few years then that path is clearly the corect one. I just happen to think we have sacrifed good premiership chances for hope in the future and that this was nessesitated by our own self fulfilling pursuit of culture change that wasn't nessessary or well handled. Now we have to back Buckley to see it through. We didn't chase Roos or anyone else like we didn't review Malthouses position in our supposedly all emcpassing review post 2005.

Agree to disagree then because I believe you're undervaluing the boards worth.

I find it difficult to sit back and accept that changing coaches was an incorrect move when looking at the raw figures of win/ loss after the change was set in motion.

 

[the distributer]

Interesting comment here.

What was your take on Bucks clearly outcoaching Mick Malthouse in round 2, when Jolly went down in the 1st quarter and QBall had to ruck the remainder of the game? Who would have thought a veteran coach would be outcoached by a guy entering his 2nd year

In fairness Mick was coaching a new (sub standard) team.

 

[Bay Pie]

In fairness Mick was coaching a new (sub standard) team.

OK. What about MM getting smacked by John Longmire in the SF last year after the Swans lost 2 players for the match in the 2nd quarter? Yep Swans were a better team but to get smacked by a team so limited in it's interchanges says plenty about the guy, and I used to support him no end. MM was no messiah and had plenty of failings. Keeping him on after 2011 would have proven that, but the club held it's nerve and honoured it's contract, struck 2 years earlier.

 

[jonbe54]

OK. What about MM getting smacked by John Longmire in the SF last year after the Swans lost 2 players for the match in the 2nd quarter? Yep Swans were a better team but to get smacked by a team so limited in it's interchanges says plenty about the guy, and I used to support him no end. MM was no messiah and had plenty of failings. Keeping him on after 2011 would have proven that, but the club held it's nerve and honoured it's contract, struck 2 years earlier.

BP having a 'discussion' with an acolyte is like bashing your head against a brick wall (it feels so wonderful when you stop it ) Reason and facts mean nothing to worshippers - its all about devotion

 

[Robroy22]

"Few of those people would serve on an honorary footbal club borard for starters"

huh?

 

[Grapie]

It seems like we are about to make the same mistake with Swam. Why give a two year contract extension to a circa 30 year old when it is not certain he will complete the last year of his existing contract good physically and/or in good form?

 

[jmac70]

It seems like we are about to make the same mistake with Swam. Why give a two year contract extension to a circa 30 year old when it is not certain he will complete the last year of his existing contract good physically and/or in good form?

I assume you are talking about Swan. If so, he has been the most consistently brilliant player on the list. Why wouldn't we extend his contract?

 

[ClaytonM]

It's like you think lists like ours come along every 10 years or so, they don't, make hey why the sun shines.

No I just think that list was only good for that game plan and the game plan was dead by the end of 2011. The list was not good enough to compete against the very best, particularly when we had injuries to a few critical players. I do not believe MM would have performed any better than Buckley has, but I do believe we have recruited better under Buckley. The past two drafts in particular have been really good.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

It seems like we are about to make the same mistake with Swam. Why give a two year contract extension to a circa 30 year old when it is not certain he will complete the last year of his existing contract good physically and/or in good form?

Because he nearly won the Brownlow last year.

 

[the distributer]

No I just think that list was only good for that game plan and the game plan was dead by the end of 2011. The list was not good enough to compete against the very best, particularly when we had injuries to a few critical players. I do not believe MM would have performed any better than Buckley has, but I do believe we have recruited better under Buckley. The past two drafts in particular have been really good.

I don't think the failure of the succession plan is worth debating, I have absolutely no doubt we would have performed better under MM in 2012-2013. We were the best performed HaA team of all time in 2011 coming off a premiership FFS.

Lots of you guys are quick to pass the buck, pass this, we've won 1 final under Bucks, 1. It's all Micks fault though lol

He left us with a % of 170 FFS, culture was shocking.

There's 2 types of cultures, a winning one and a losing one.

 

[sr36]

I don't think the failure of the succession plan is worth debating, I have absolutely no doubt we would have performed better under MM in 2012-2013. We were the best performed HaA team of all time in 2011 coming off a premiership FFS.

Lots of you guys are quick to pass the buck, pass this, we've won 1 final under Bucks, 1. It's all Micks fault though lol

He left us with a % of 170 FFS, culture was shocking.

There's 2 types of cultures, a winning one and a losing one.

I agree. Let's face it, Bucks was a great player and is great in a press conference, but he inherited a very talented list and he's yet to show that he can get them playing consistent high quality footy. What I find most hard to believe is this theory that Buckley is improving our culture. Before he arrived, on match days, we were the most disciplined and committed team who worked selflessly for each other. That has not been the case over the last two years. I suspect that he has brought too much intensity and tension to the role players have become overly worried about making errors and he's had a bit of a Micky Arthur effect.