Post Sheedy, Inside or Outside

[hulld]

i don't think sheeds will leave at the end of the year.

but if he did i think we should go with o'donnell.
- he was one of best captains in the history of the club.
- he played under one of the best coaches ever.
-he was an assistant to the greatest ever captain and coach in the history of the game. 3 time premiership assistant coach.
-we don't want to have a one year trial period as it looks like st.kilda are going to have. gary can come in and we won't waste much time implementing new game plans and so on.

 

[Dan26]

I'd go for Nathan Buckley. He will make a terrific coach when he inevitably becomes one. You can just tell by the way he talks, the way he breaths football. Have him be an assistant for one or two years then pounce.

 

[hulld]

I'd go for Nathan Buckley. He will make a terrific coach when he inevitably becomes one. You can just tell by the way he talks, the way he breaths football. Have him be an assistant for one or two years then pounce.

you have to be kidding
- no way we can have collingwood scum coaching us
- he is so bloody boring

it doesn't matter anyway because eddie will sign him up for life one way or another

 

[Dan26]

you have to be kidding
- no way we can have collingwood scum coaching us
- he is so bloody boring

it doesn't matter anyway because eddie will sign him up for life one way or another

I don't care if he is collingwood scum. What I want is the best person (him or, whoever the best perosn happens to be) coaching us.

I do NOT want us restricting our choices to the 1 out of 16 candidates who are at Essendon when we could choose from all 16 clubs, meaning we get a better coach in all likelihood because we are choosing from a bigger talent pool.

Why restrict your options, because of petty "Child" hates for great oppositon players? How immature is that? If we go for an Essendon person we could end up doing a Collingwood and getting a "Tony Shaw." That didn't work out very well for them did it. They should have widened their options instead of looking from within. After rectifying their mistake, they eventually went for the enemy (Malthouse played for the hated Tigers) and obviously that was a better pick than Tony Shaw,

Leigh Matthews went to Collingwood after over 300 games at Hawthorn. Should the Pies have rejected him because he was an "enemy"? Of course not.

We should be prepared to go for the best people.

 

[Barts]

Outside.

I wouldnt mind Paul Roos.



But we wont get him.

 

[hulld]

I don't care if he is collingwood scum. What I want is the best person (him or, whoever the best perosn happens to be) coaching us.

I do NOT want us restricting our choices to the 1 out of 16 candidates who are at Essendon when we could choose from all 16 clubs, meaning we get a better coach in all likelihood because we are choosing from a bigger talent pool.

Why restrict your options, because of petty "Child" hates for great oppositon players? How immature is that? If we go for an Essendon person we could end up doing a Collingwood and getting a "Tony Shaw." That didn't work out very well for them did it. They should have widened their options instead of looking from within. After rectifying their mistake, they eventually went for the enemy (Malthouse played for the hated Tigers) and obviously that was a better pick than Tony Shaw,

Leigh Matthews went to Collingwood after over 300 games at Hawthorn. Should the Pies have rejected him because he was an "enemy"? Of course not.

We should be prepared to go for the best people.

How is buckley more qualified than o'donnell, harvey, voss and longmire

I wasn't bagging buckely so much as I was bagging the pies. i respect bucks as a champion of the game. i'm not doubting his footballing ability. I just wouldn't want him to introduce the arrogant culture that he would bring from collingwood to windy hill.

i also think that our new batch of kids need someone who is going to be upbeat and enthusiastic. imo buckley would be a good coach of a experiened group of players. i'm not sure that he would be able to cope with building a new team up. he is just too low key.

 

[Longy413]

I just wouldn't want him to introduce the arrogant culture that he would bring from collingwood to windy hill.

I'm not advocating Buckley, but we were at our best when we were arrogant.

 

[hulld]

we weren't as bad as collingwood were we???

 

[DaSawx]

we weren't as bad as collingwood were we???

maybe we need to be, we were pretty arrogant in 2000

 

[Merv]

I understand what you guys are saying about arrogance, but this is the thing that can also lead to your demise.

To be arrogant is to have a better opinion of yourself than the actual reality and this is when you can, and usually do, get ahead of yourself and don't work as hard as what the rest of the competition does.

It's very difficult to judge, as our AFL system is set up to drag down the top teams, but i feel arrogance is the first step to your downfall.

 

[Longy413]

There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance.

In 2000 we had a great combination of both and IMO you need that to succeed.

 

[Merv]

There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance.

In 2000 we had a great combination of both and IMO you need that to succeed.

I think you need a combination of confidence and agression.

The arrogance is what leads to your downfall imo.

 

[Longy413]

I think you need a combination of confidence and agression.

The arrogance is what leads to your downfall imo.

Arrogance is the kind of thing that leads your full-forward to say to his opponent at the opening bounce - "I can't believe you're playing on me in a Grand Final."

Controlled arrogance is vital.

 

[Merv]

Arrogance is the kind of thing that leads your full-forward to say to his opponent at the opening bounce - "I can't believe you're playing on me in a Grand Final."

Controlled arrogance is vital.

That is only arrogance if he actually believes it.

 

[gillyrulz]

i am still a bit undecided but would be good if harvey comes back