Opinion Laidley v Scott

[ChoppyGun]

Ok so both made a prelim.

Deano is struggling personally but let's keep that entirely out of this thread.

Who was the better coach for the NMFC?

 

[Ahern2Boof]

Laids instilled a 'never say die' attitude that saw many memorable wins over the course of his tenure, usually with a side of not-too-talented but extremely determined players.

Under Brad, far too often did we wave the white flag when it got too tough. It should be noted that the best win of Brad's tenure was coming from six goals down against the Bombers.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

I think both came at the exact right time for the club. When Laids joined, we needed a scrapper and someone that could get the most out of minimal resources. Making those two prelims probably saved the club tbh.

Once we had gotten to that point where we were beginning to be stable in Melbourne, we needed someone who could get his head in the media and promote the club, which Brad did well, even if he overstayed his welcome.

Both important figures in the club's recent history. The polar opposite as coaches too - Laids the master tactician who probably struggled a bit with player relationships, whereas Brad was excellent at that but could be hit and miss tactically.

 

[shinboner magic]

Would of loved to of seen Laids coaching in the 2014-15 era

 

[wazza03]

Laidley was good tactically
Scott had no plan B
Laidley not good with the media stuff
Scott talked the spin
If I had to pick one, it would be Laidley
True shinboner as well
Scott tried to get rid of the shinboner spirit


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SnowyontheTram]

Laidley took us to a top 4 and a top 5 finish after the H and A season.
Scott never finished higher than 6th.
I think Scott had far more talent at his disposal.
Junkyard Dog for me!

 

[Mordecai]

I would say the Laidley teams were more fun to follow because of the playing group. Some absolute battlers.

Scott seems to have had more of a hand in controlling... everything. Went far beyond coaching the group and for a while we were all happy with the professionalism he brought. Unfortunately though controlling everything means that it's very hard to move anyone on as everyone is looking after one another. That bred complacency and has resulted in the violent pendulum swing we're all seeing now. We are ripping out the old root and stem.

I would say neither left the club in a good state but when does a head coach ever leave a club in a good state?

Hair's breadth between them.

 

[Masked Avenger]

Laidley for me. He got a fair bit out of the squad he was handed after Pagan squeezed it pretty dry. Unlike Scott, Laidley never wanted to be mates with the players which I think is wise. Lesson there for Rhyce.

 

[RightWingRoo]

Dean was the better tactical football coach, got the most out of a fairly limited group with by far the worst facilities in the comp.
Brad was superior in selling the club in the media and maintaining relationships with the players. Got the best out of Drew and Wellsy who stalled under Laidley.
Scott had a considerably more talented and better resourced group. That while not quite being good enough to go all the way, did under perform slightly imo.
Both had their strengths and weaknesses, that if you could combine the best elements of the 2 of them together. You'd have the complete coach.
Hard to split them in terms of who had the best overall impact on the club.

 

[Tas]

The power point specialist vs JB's caddy, sounds like an 80s comedy movie.

We lacked resources under Laidley but he inherited a fair few premiership players, we started to dwindle as those players retired. He ran the list into the ground and Scott had to rebuild it, AFL was a lot friendlier to us during Scott's time than the Laidley era.

Overall, both were pretty average, played overly defensive footy, stacking the side with plodders and hope the handful of good players carried the team. We suffered numerous embarrassing exists from finals from both coaches because our system wasn't a good finals type of system.

 

[chairo]

Laidley for me. He was at the helm with the relocation business. He had poorer facilities. We had debt. As dour as his last season was this year was so very much worse.

 

[R00StaR]

Laidley completely fkd our list in over estimating where we were at - and yes i was saying it at the time. It was so obvious. We didnt refresh the list before the heavily compromised drafts of GWS and GC kicked in which made it extremely tough for anyone coming after him.

Scott probably couldve been more aggressive in trading for early picks, but how much control did he really have? He says list rebuild and gets sacked, only to see us rebuild 1 year later. To be fair to Laidley he also may have been under club instruction.

As for coaching results both seem pretty equal to me.

 

[Arden_St_Forever]

Laidley completely fkd our list in over estimating where we were at - and yes i was saying it at the time. It was so obvious. We didnt refresh the list before the heavily compromised drafts of GWS and GC kicked in which made it extremely tough for anyone coming after him.

Scott probably couldve been more aggressive in trading for early picks, but how much control did he really have? He says list rebuild and gets sacked, only to see us rebuild 1 year later. To be fair to Laidley he also may have been under club instruction.

As for coaching results both seem pretty equal to me.

The writing was on the wall at the end of 2016 where a rebuild was required. I think both coaches (and their assistants) overestimated our lists but I respect Dean more in acknowledging that the Club needed somebody else to take the helm - for Scott to spend a couple of more years before realising or dragging his feet to trigger a rebuild and possibly asking for an extension to do so after 10 years is ludicrous. Doubly ludicrous was the Club in offering him an additional 4 years at the end of 2017.

 

[R00StaR]

The writing was on the wall at the end of 2016 where a rebuild was required. I think both coaches (and their assistants) overestimated our lists but I respect Dean more in acknowledging that the Club needed somebody else to take the helm - for Scott to spend a couple of more years before realising or dragging his feet to trigger a rebuild and possibly asking for an extension to do so after 10 years is ludicrous. Doubly ludicrous was the Club in offering him an additional 4 years at the end of 2017.

We dont know the inner workings, but when Scott suggested rebuilding the list he was sacked. Perhaps its the clubs thats being leaning on coaches to not bottom out, we dont know.

 

[ChoppyGun]

Excellent posts and I generally agree with all of them.

Both had clear strengths and weaknesses which have been identified well.

Personally I give the nod to Dean.

I think he got more out of the players and under vastly different circumstances.

 

[Only Forwards]

I think that their weaknesses were almost opposite to each other.

Laids - not great at the future vision or plan type stuff.

Scott - not great at game day and crafting wins from f*** all.

If you combined them together you'd probably have an exceptional coach.

In terms of who's ahead, Laidley.

2007 should be viewed as the equivalent of a flag.

 

[ChoppyGun]

Laidley with Scott's resources would have been interesting.

 

[amaz199]

The list that we had in 2007 would've been impossible for Brad to get anywhere near the finals tbh.

It would've been a 9th position finish. So I will go with Laidley on this one.

 

[amaz199]

Laidley with Scott's resources would have been interesting.

Indeed.

I think the strength and conditioning factor would've been a huge effect. That new facility came a bit late.

 

[Reverend Shinboner]

I think that their weaknesses were almost opposite to each other.

Laids - not great at the future vision or plan type stuff.

Scott - not great at game day and crafting wins from f*** all.

If you combined them together you'd probably have an exceptional coach.

In terms of who's ahead, Laidley.

2007 should be viewed as the equivalent of a flag.

I don't think this can be understated. I genuinely believe that Laidley's 2007 coaching performance saved the club. He got that team to a Prelim, and did so with a B-grade list, an under-funded football dept and the worst facilities in the league.

Laidley's biggest issue was the questionable trading/list management which happened during his tenure. While he likely had a strong say in it, if the footy dept had been properly resourced those decisions would've been made by with his consultation, rather than the other way around. If anyone needed better support around him, it was Laidley. Yet he still managed to squeeze every bit of effort out of that list on game day. I will always remember the Junk Yard Dog fondly. Shinboner.

Brad did a solid job, and I am not in the business of kicking someone who poured their lifeblood into NMFC for 10 years. But he had all the resources Laidley never had (in part because of Laidley's demand to change this - "Thrive not survive" as he said) and we saw the team lose very winnable contests probably too much for my liking.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

We weren't even paying the minimum cap under Laidley, the 95% rule came in 2013 (and I think we struggled with the 92.5% before that).

JYD for mine. He used to give Clarko a touch up in spite of their 47 top 10 draft picks.

Brad got Utah, a facility, full cap spend and far less disparity with the other clubs. Brad also got some free agents. Look, my news was we went hard after Eddie Betts who along with LT would have been good for us. No excuses for no top 4 H&A finishes really.

 

[ChoppyGun]

I forget what year, around 2007(?) and massive underdogs against Hawks in a final.

We outcoached and outplayed them despite undermanned on talent, and whilst ugly/defensive win, bloody hell I loved it - tough as win.

I remember having a big night after until I couldn't remember the rest.

 

[Bend_It_Like_Brown]

People are kidding themselves if they think Laidley was better than Scott. His finals record was shocking. In the finals we played under Laidley we were never really a chance.

2005
- smashed by port in the elimination
2007
- smashed by Geelong in the qualifying
- beat an upcoming hawthorn team
- smashed by Port Adelaide in the prelim
2008
- beaten by Sydney (should had a double chance but lost to Port at the MCG)

2015/2016 was our window under Brad. Say what you like but we just needed a bit of luck to go our way against the Eagles after being 20pts up early on and we had one foot into a grand final. That was the one that we blew. Waite kicks that goal in the first to put us up by 28 early on, we win. I was over there, we had them on toast.

2016 10-1. Hawthorn game we fell off the cliff but if Higgins, Waite and Jacobs stay fit who knows.

Brad made us relevant and competitive in the modern competition. Sure he didn’t leave the list in a good shape but which departed coach does. He had a crack and boy we had some unbelievable wins under Brad. Good discussion. Brad for me.

 

[ChoppyGun]

People are kidding themselves if they think Laidley was better than Scott. His finals record was shocking. In the finals we played under Laidley we were never really a chance.

2005
- smashed by port in the elimination
2007
- smashed by Geelong in the qualifying
- beat an upcoming hawthorn team
- smashed by Port Adelaide in the prelim
2008
- beaten by Sydney (should had a double chance but lost to Port at the MCG)

2015/2016 was our window under Brad. Say what you like but we just needed a bit of luck to go our way against the Eagles after being 20pts up early on and we had one foot into a grand final. That was the one that we blew. Waite kicks that goal in the first to put us up by 28 early on, we win. I was over there, we had them on toast.

2016 10-1. Hawthorn game we fell off the cliff but if Higgins, Waite and Jacobs stay fit who knows.

Brad made us relevant and competitive in the modern competition. Sure he didn’t leave the list in a good shape but which departed coach does. He had a crack and boy we had some unbelievable wins under Brad. Good discussion. Brad for me.

I completely disagree but excellent post for discussion mate.

 

[amaz199]

People are kidding themselves if they think Laidley was better than Scott. His finals record was shocking. In the finals we played under Laidley we were never really a chance.

2005
- smashed by port in the elimination
2007
- smashed by Geelong in the qualifying
- beat an upcoming hawthorn team
- smashed by Port Adelaide in the prelim
2008
- beaten by Sydney (should had a double chance but lost to Port at the MCG)

2015/2016 was our window under Brad. Say what you like but we just needed a bit of luck to go our way against the Eagles after being 20pts up early on and we had one foot into a grand final. That was the one that we blew. Waite kicks that goal in the first to put us up by 28 early on, we win. I was over there, we had them on toast.

2016 10-1. Hawthorn game we fell off the cliff but if Higgins, Waite and Jacobs stay fit who knows.

Brad made us relevant and competitive in the modern competition. Sure he didn’t leave the list in a good shape but which departed coach does. He had a crack and boy we had some unbelievable wins under Brad. Good discussion. Brad for me.

Statistics wise I can't deny Brad did extract the absolute most he could from that list. He also beats Laidley in that regard,

The difference is the level of talent.

There's no comparison that Brad's list was far superior talent-wise.

Also, the resources that Laidley had weren't exactly the best for him. I will concede that Laidley era drafting was horrendous. Brad and Joyce's drafting was far better. But then again, resources available were a stark contrast in favour of Brad.

The drafting only really looked good once the club got the resources it could to do so. Around that 2009-10 period, it was just about getting it right.