Opinion Chris Scott's coaching - Part II [NEW POLL ADDED]

[PhatBoy]

Lost more finals games than he's won

- debuted more players than any other coach this season.

Keep firing those big bullets though.

 

[bph25]

Geelong nearly won the flag in 2013 while rebuilding. We are again blooding youth and just about as good a chance as anyone of winning the flag this year.
With only a couple departures at years end and a team filled with players who will only improve next year as well as a couple handy trades at years end I would give Scott an A plus for what he has done with a side that peaked 6 years ago.
It's actually quite unbelievable.
He has probably experimented and done more with our game plan then most other sides as well.
All this sulking when we happen to drop a game here and there and blaming no plan B is honestly embarrassing. It's called being a sore loser. Nothing to do with Scott.
The system is designed for us to slip down yet we are defying it. The master of coaches Clarkson has tried to emulate what we have done post premierships and I can't see them catching us for many many years.
Look at all the favours GWS have had. It's corrupt. Yet we go up there with three first gamers picks in the 60s and 70s and probably should have won.
All you sulking miserable ungrateful pathetic supporters just sit back and let it all play out. Your missing the ride by trying to fit 6 lemons in your mouth and chew.

 

[Lana]

And

- Best winning record of any current coach
- Best winning record of any coach EVER over 100 games
- Taken the team to finals in 6 out of 7 seasons and top 4 in 5 out of 7 seasons he has coached - probably unparalleled by any other coach ever
- Managed to do all of the above taking a team at the end of its premiership cycle, with premiership stars on a steady stream out the door, with no good draft picks available to him; in other words, he has managed to find a way to beat the system

Doesn't matter hasn't won a premiership

 

[PhatBoy]

Doesn't matter hasn't won a premiership

Winner.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

For all the people who believe "Chris Scott chooses who we draft" should listen to his answer about recruiting players and what attributes on ask the coach. Think his answer clearly reads between the lines of "we let the recruiters do the work" and touch base and have generalist talks and what we are looking for. There was no mention of anything stringent that would suggest the coaches get involved much at all. Which is common sense to anyone who understands the modern game

 

[JumpyHolden]

For all the people who believe "Chris Scott chooses who we draft" should listen to his answer about recruiting players and what attributes on ask the coach. Think his answer clearly reads between the lines of "we let the recruiters do the work" and touch base and have generalist talks and what we are looking for. There was no mention of anything stringent that would suggest the coaches get involved much at all. Which is common sense to anyone who understands the modern game

Bullshit, you even said yourself the coaches tell them what they are looking for. I'm sure if Scott said to Wells I want a ruckman it would all of a sudden change the direction and thought process of Wells, bit like pick 21 for Stanley, if Wells had his own way he would have gone for young talent with that sort of lowish pick but Scott would of said I want a ruckman so all of a sudden the emphasis is on a ruckman so Wells scours the country for a suitable ruckman, he may have a list of 4-5 candidates which gets discussed at a meeting with all the coaches and they finally settle on Stanley.
I buy it it's Wells who knows the inns and outs of all the young talent throughout the country but Scott has input on the final choice and it would be negligent of the club if he didn't. Maybe it's you who doesn't understand the modern game or you're just talking crap to swing the point in your favour.

 

[PhatBoy]

Bullshit, you even said yourself the coaches tell them what they are looking for. I'm sure if Scott said to Wells I want a ruckman it would all of a sudden change the direction and thought process of Wells, bit like pick 21 for Stanley, if Wells had his own way he would have gone for young talent with that sort of lowish pick but Scott would of said I want a ruckman so all of a sudden the emphasis is on a ruckman so Wells scours the country for a suitable ruckman, he may have a list of 4-5 candidates which gets discussed at a meeting with all the coaches and they finally settle on Stanley.
I buy it it's Wells who knows the inns and outs of all the young talent throughout the country but Scott has input on the final choice and it would be negligent of the club if he didn't. Maybe it's you who doesn't understand the modern game or you're just talking crap to swing the point in your favour.

Garbage.

Scott would be saying 'these are our priorities and this is the order they sit in.'
It's then up to the recruiters to weigh up what those priorities mean in relation to what's available. Ie. if we are absolutely desperate for a ruckman, kind of need a key defender, it is up to the recruiters to decide what's going to be a better selection - work a trade for an established but average ruckman who has a limited ceiling, or a young key defender who has proven absolutely nothing but could become elite. Then, they need to establish if there is anyone who fits either bill. If there's not, their priority shifts to whatever was next on the list - a forward perhaps. 'Ok, we can't get the ruck or defender we needed, so we will target the forward.' They get the forward, THEN they can look at an alternative to the ruck and defender problems.

Seriously, is there any other f***in role in the GFC structure that Scott is going to be put in charge of by his critics? If there's a turnstile at Simonds that isn't working properly, is someone going to spring from the woodwork and proclaim 'it's the ground manager's job but really Scott has the final say over which bar code scanner we use'?

 

[ATSAM]

Garbage.

Scott would be saying 'these are our priorities and this is the order they sit in.'
It's then up to the recruiters to weigh up what those priorities mean in relation to what's available. Ie. if we are absolutely desperate for a ruckman, kind of need a key defender, it is up to the recruiters to decide what's going to be a better selection - work a trade for an established but average ruckman who has a limited ceiling, or a young key defender who has proven absolutely nothing but could become elite. Then, they need to establish if there is anyone who fits either bill. If there's not, their priority shifts to whatever was next on the list - a forward perhaps. 'Ok, we can't get the ruck or defender we needed, so we will target the forward.' They get the forward, THEN they can look at an alternative to the ruck and defender problems.

Seriously, is there any other f***in role in the GFC structure that Scott is going to be put in charge of by his critics? If there's a turnstile at Simonds that isn't working properly, is someone going to spring from the woodwork and proclaim 'it's the ground manager's job but really Scott has the final say over which bar code scanner we use'?

Then if Scot as the Senior Coach and arguably the most important football person at the club doesn't have assay in who is selected ad what skills the team wants then that would explain why we haven't won silver since 2011.
I bet Brian Cook has a say in who the club appoints in admin roles, I bet most of the bosses of people here have say in appointments in their workplaces.
It is not random. The recruiters identify people and then they would be matched against Scotts requirements. Sometimes they get them right, sometimes wrong. That is what happens in any workplace. The issue when you get it wrong is to move them on.,

 

[JumpyHolden]

Scott would be saying 'these are our priorities and this is the order they sit in.'

By specifying those priorities it sets Wells on Scotts path so Scott has input, is that too much for your brain to take in?

 

[PhatBoy]

By specifying those priorities it sets Wells on Scotts path so Scott has input, is that too much for your brain to take in?

You've said yourself that you think Scott has final say.

I'm saying different. Shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

 

[PhatBoy]

Then if Scot as the Senior Coach and arguably the most important football person at the club doesn't have assay in who is selected ad what skills the team wants then that would explain why we haven't won silver since 2011.
I bet Brian Cook has a say in who the club appoints in admin roles, I bet most of the bosses of people here have say in appointments in their workplaces.
It is not random. The recruiters identify people and then they would be matched against Scotts requirements. Sometimes they get them right, sometimes wrong. That is what happens in any workplace. The issue when you get it wrong is to move them on.,

You have literally quoted a post in which I've explained explicitly that I think Scott has a say in who we pick up.

So where did you get the idea that I said he doesn't get a say?

Scott: this is what we need.
Recruiters: this is what's available
Recruiters: let's work out what we can get.
Scott: can they do what we need?
Recruiters: yes/no

 

[JumpyHolden]

You've said yourself that you think Scott has final say.

I'm saying different. Shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

Are you just an argumentative xxxx or plain bonkers?

He did have the final say, he got what he specified.

 

[JumpyHolden]

So where did you get the idea that I said he doesn't get a say?

From that logic I can argue where did I originally say Scott has all the say

 

[catempire]

Bullshit, you even said yourself the coaches tell them what they are looking for. I'm sure if Scott said to Wells I want a ruckman it would all of a sudden change the direction and thought process of Wells, bit like pick 21 for Stanley, if Wells had his own way he would have gone for young talent with that sort of lowish pick but Scott would of said I want a ruckman so all of a sudden the emphasis is on a ruckman so Wells scours the country for a suitable ruckman, he may have a list of 4-5 candidates which gets discussed at a meeting with all the coaches and they finally settle on Stanley.
I buy it it's Wells who knows the inns and outs of all the young talent throughout the country but Scott has input on the final choice and it would be negligent of the club if he didn't. Maybe it's you who doesn't understand the modern game or you're just talking crap to swing the point in your favour.

Incorrect. Wells loved Stanley and had for a long time. It was his idea to get him.

 

[JumpyHolden]

Incorrect. Wells loved Stanley and had for a long time. It was his idea to get him.

But what's incorrect?
Scott wanted a ruckman and Wells got him Stanley, Scott still had input.

And if Wells loved him so much why didn't he pick him up in the 2008 draft ahead of duds like Mitch Brown and Tom Gillies?

 

[catempire]

But what's incorrect?
Scott wanted a ruckman and Wells got him Stanley, Scott still had input.

And if Wells loved him so much why didn't he pick him up in the 2008 draft ahead of duds like Mitch Brown and Tom Gillies?

"if Wells had his own way he would have gone for young talent with that sort of lowish pick"

= Incorrect.

 

[JumpyHolden]

"if Wells had his own way he would have gone for young talent with that sort of lowish pick"

= Incorrect.

That may well be incorrect but all I'm saying is Scott has input in drafting is that incorrect too?

 

[Cataholic]

- debuted more players than any other coach this season.

Keep firing those big bullets though.

I can't see the full discussion here but a bit of advice?

Walk away.

This will degenerate into the same downward vortex as a couple of other threads.

 

[Spazz Cat]

The consensus is that Chris Scott has kept us competing.
Really though it was getting Danger. I've never seen a player make such a difference. May not have even made the 8 last 2 years without him

 

[catempire]

The consensus is that Chris Scott has kept us competing.
Really though it was getting Danger. I've never seen a player make such a difference. May not have even made the 8 last 2 years without him

Yeah um, we were competing before PFD arrived: 2011-2015.

 

[catempire]

Scott now 12-5 over the "Master Coach" (sic).

 

[allrighty]

The consensus is that Chris Scott has kept us competing.
Really though it was getting Danger. I've never seen a player make such a difference. May not have even made the 8 last 2 years without him

He wasn't here two years ago

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The consensus is that Chris Scott has kept us competing.
Really though it was getting Danger. I've never seen a player make such a difference. May not have even made the 8 last 2 years without him

So missing finals once in his tenure is all down to Danger.
#derp

 

[JumpyHolden]

The consensus is that Chris Scott has kept us competing.
Really though it was getting Danger. I've never seen a player make such a difference. May not have even made the 8 last 2 years without him

Totally agree, in 2015 on this board everyone was in agreement that Selwood needed help as the heavy tagging on him was hurting our performances, then we jag Danger who happened to have a stellar year in 2016 and win a Brownlow and who is right up there this year also but some idiotic supporters want you to believet we would have been just as competitive without him, what a load of croc s**t. Actually if it came down to having to either get rid of Scott or Danger it would easily be bye bye Scott for me.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Totally agree, in 2015 on this board everyone was in agreement that Selwood needed help as the heavy tagging on him was hurting our performances, then we jag Danger who happened to have a stellar year in 2016 and win a Brownlow and who is right up there this year also but some idiotic supporters want you to believe we could of done it we would have been just as competitive without him, what a load of croc s**t. Actually if it came down to having to either get rid of Scott or Danger it would easily be bye bye Scott for me.

Name them.