List Mgmt. That sobering moment when...

[Seedsfan]

I don't think they don't play for him. I think they do. It's just a crap game plan that has fallen down year after year.

If the players are lazy and don't work hard defensively why is that? Because they don't play for the coach. Working hard both ways doesn't take talent it takes effort and commitment.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Treloar as a young player is already a star and we also have Hoskin-Elliott, Aish and Broomhead as high draft picks with potential. Whether they turn out to be stars is unknown, but it's too early to write them off.

Treloar is good but butchers the ball. WHE looks ok/good but he's played two consecutive games & that's in a row! Let's hope his body holds up. Aish is ordinary, he may've plateaued at junior level. Broomhead has tricks, how often he can he pull them out of the bag though?

 

[mike123]

I agree with the OP.We've gone down the Richmond path by topping up with mediocre players from other clubs,rather than building the list from the bottom up.It didn't work for them and it won't work for us.And Hine's squandering of three top ten draft picks hasn't helped the rebuild either.

That's why I don't have a problem with Wells, because at least he is genuine gun.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Its hard to build a list when the AFL gives start up teams so many concessions.

Can't use that as an excuse as every club was effected.

 

[mike123]

Its hard to build a list when the AFL gives start up teams so many concessions.

Maybe we should have just kept our Premiership list together.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Maybe we should have just kept our Premiership list together.

Signing a 32 yr old Wells with major concerns over his fitness and for 3 yrs.. didn't realise the 10 yr stalwards we retired before 30 yrs of age were in their death beds.

Stinks to high heaven to me.

What a tragedy.

 

[El cane]

That sobering moment when...

you accidentally recall the glory years under Tony Shaw's reign as coach

 

[frizzle]

The sobering moment for me is reading posters that until recently backed the current regime now seeking change.

The list is fine, IMO, and despite needing some tweaking the recruiting team is fine, but aside from that I can't identify a single area we're at a decent AFL standard.

respectfully disagree with the bolded bit.

 

[Scodog10]

respectfully disagree with the bolded bit.

That's fair enough. What areas involving the football department would you consider are at an acceptable standard?

 

[Lord Randy]

Think he would take it

What's so good about Roos. Coached won flag and took Melbourne from terrible to below average. Whoopdy Doo

 

[jdpie]

If the players are lazy and don't work hard defensively why is that? Because they don't play for the coach. Working hard both ways doesn't take talent it takes effort and commitment.

I reckon there is a misconception that players play for a coach. In my experience players play for each other first and foremost. I was lucky enough recently to listen to a conversation held amongst St.Bedes Mentone people who were with Bevo in his 3 flags there and the consensus was he enabled a team harmony that was beyond the norm. I have thought that there has been something just not right from within (extraneous to the coach) the group for the last few years. There is a lack of care that keeps rearing its ugly head where individuals behave in a manner that puts themselves first and this is cancerous in a team environment. It is reasonable to suggest that this is a dynamic that falls under the auspice of the head coach but i also think there is responsibility in senior levels of management to see this behaviour and find ways to improve culture both from within and externally.
Is it naive to think that there is just not enough "love" for each other within the group ? Maybe the greatest strength of the Rat Pack was engendering a mateship that enabled true success. Maybe Mick's greatest coaching feat at Pieland (managerial feat) was understanding this player bond existed and rode it all the way to a flag ?

 

[frizzle]

That's fair enough. What areas involving the football department would you consider are at an acceptable standard?

See my post in the Is the fish rotting at the head thread.

 

[Seedsfan]

What's so good about Roos. Coached won flag and took Melbourne from terrible to below average. Whoopdy Doo

Melbourne are ready to launch because of the work of Roos. They were a basket case when Roos walked in

 

[jdpie]

That's fair enough. What areas involving the football department would you consider are at an acceptable standard?

Sco maybe you could provide a couple of benchmark Clubs for areas within the footy department that we can assess ourselves against ? Clearly we are well below standard with the Ouija Board and Tarot Cards. The individual responsible for our "luck" department needs to have a good hard look at themselves. Seriously though it is reasonable based on our, now sustained, period of mediocrity that you make your comment. I would just like to know what ethereal peak we are striving for.

 

[Ugene41]

Hard to phase out the battlers when our next generation are battlers ! Crocker Wills Sier Ramsay Brown Aish Phillips Crisp Smith Maynard..

We will just be phasing battlers out with other battlers because our recruiting and list management has been s**t for years now

Ramsay, Aish, Crisp and Maynard will be fine. They all have talent. Just need the consistency and experience. Naming Brown is just stupid... The others are pick 50+ and rookies. They are always going to be speculative and have deficiencies in their game. It's why we should focus on pumping games into players who have talent rather than investing in the battlers.

Ideally I'd like to see a best 22 going forward of:
FB: Howe, Dunn, Varcoe,
HB: Scharenberg, Schade, Aish
C: WHE, Adams, Wells
HF: De Goey, Reid, Sidebottom
FF: Fasolo, Moore, Elliott
RR: Grundy, Pendlebury, Treloar
Bench: Ramsay, Crisp, Maynard, Broomhead
Emergency: White, Mayne, Greenwood, Goldsack

Basically a team who were all drafted with picks lower than 30. 16 first round or former first round picks and 9 top 10 picks. How much better would we look backing these guys in and investing games into them vs the temporary band-aids like the Smiths, Greenwoods, Blairs etc. Obviously some of them are injured at the moment so we have the depth options like White, Goldsack, Mayne etc. But players like Blair are completely replaceable and playing him every game regardless of his lack of output is just mind boggling. At least Goldsack is capable of putting in a good game like he did last night.

 

[Scodog10]

Sco maybe you could provide a couple of benchmark Clubs for areas within the footy department that we can assess ourselves against ? Clearly we are well below standard with the Ouija Board and Tarot Cards. The individual responsible for our "luck" department needs to have a good hard look at themselves. Seriously though it is reasonable based on our, now sustained, period of mediocrity that you make your comment. I would just like to know what ethereal peak we are striving for.

Development - Bulldogs
High Performance - Adelaide
Coaching - Hawthorn
Drafting - Bulldogs
Recruiting- GWS
Welfare - Sydney

We were once the pinnacle of development now look at how our players "come on" they just don't progress like they used to. The next area likely plays a role in the previous one because our high performance group just isn't up to scratch and our young ones don't get the continuity they need to develop (look no further than Sier's hamstring).

Coaching speaks for itself. Drafting is an area I think we just need to increase the eyes on the ground with. Overall I think we're doing well enough identifying the talent they just don't come on due to various weaknesses within the FD.

Recruiting is an area we just can't get right last off-season we brought in Dunn, Wells, Mayne and WHE with only WHE looking to have improved us (Wells might if he ever gets fit). We appear to be a club always trying to fix our problems externally rather than looking at how we can get the best out of what we already have. We therefore overlook the value of team chemistry and boast that we had the largest list turnover of any club from 2010-2016.

I heard a bad story re a recruit that should never happen in a professional environment and I think our welfare department since got a shake up. Were I in charge the first thing I'd do is route the damn high performance group and settle on one modus operandi moving forward because we have no identity and therefore can't build chemistry. Look at the decision to go with three talls and then scrapped it immediately. It was the wrong call initially, but you can hardly say we gave it a crack to allow the group to gel.

We're like an old man pottering around his garden trying to do ten tasks at once, but not really getting anything done!

 

[Scodog10]

See my post in the Is the fish rotting at the head thread.

Nah I beg to differ. The list is acceptable you yourself noted as much when you said a change will have an impact and our drafting is still acceptable. All else I would consider black marks, but I'm comfortable with the list and how we've built through the draft.

 

[jdpie]

Development - Bulldogs
High Performance - Adelaide
Coaching - Hawthorn
Drafting - Bulldogs
Recruiting- GWS
Welfare - Sydney

We were once the pinnacle of development now look at how our players "come on" they just don't progress like they used to. The next area likely plays a role in the previous one because our high performance group just isn't up to scratch and our young ones don't get the continuity they need to develop (look no further than Sier's hamstring).

Coaching speaks for itself. Drafting is an area I think we just need to increase the eyes on the ground with. Overall I think we're doing well enough identifying the talent they just don't come on due to various weaknesses within the FD.

Recruiting is an area we just can't get right last off-season we brought in Dunn, Wells, Mayne and WHE with only WHE looking to have improved us (Wells might if he ever gets fit). We appear to be a club always trying to fix our problems externally rather than looking at how we can get the best out of what we already have. We therefore overlook the value of team chemistry and boast that we had the largest list turnover of any club from 2010-2016.

I heard a bad story re a recruit that should never happen in a professional environment and I think our welfare department since got a shake up. Were I in charge the first thing I'd do is route the damn high performance group and settle on one modus operandi moving forward because we have no identity and therefore can't build chemistry. Look at the decision to go with three talls and then scrapped it immediately. It was the wrong call initially, but you can hardly say we gave it a crack to allow the group to gel.

We're like an old man pottering around his garden trying to do ten tasks at once, but not really getting anything done!

Good analogy the last bit but i was going to say we are like the garden that has an old man pottering around doing ten tasks and not doing any of them well ?? If you get my drift.
How did we arrive here when for a brief period we were up in the stratosphere ? If we seriously answer that question we can move forward. My concern is those asking the questions are the same responsible for the descent.
As an aside i would say give Mayne a few weeks. He has a defensive awareness ( i am not talking about the tackle or individual harassing) and football IQ that leaves a lot of our players for dead. He does not turn himself into a "tennis net" and in a couple of instance had a significant impact on the speed of Richmonds ball movement when it was 1 v 3 simply by positioning himself correctly. I have not seen this in a Pies player since Maxy departed and i am not certain we have had a forward capable of having that influence. Maybe Fasolo and a couple of others can follow his lead ??

 

[frizzle]

Nah I beg to differ. The list is acceptable you yourself noted as much when you said a change will have an impact and our drafting is still acceptable. All else I would consider black marks, but I'm comfortable with the list and how we've built through the draft.

The list is a "wait & see proposition from me"
Players can come on in leaps & bounds when not perhaps over coached, but it's far from elite in my opinion.
It needs to be judged with a game plan that does not encourage congestion, because ours encourages it more than any other clubs.
I feel a new coach & game plan can invigorate the team & release the shackles. Only then will we find out how good or not, some of those players are.
Other than that there is no part of the football or medical department that I would consider has a pass mark in the last 3 or 4 years.

 

[frizzle]

That's fair enough. What areas involving the football department would you consider are at an acceptable standard?

Sorry mate - I misread your post initially.
Thought I read you thought they were all acceptable levels not aren't acceptable.
Sorry for the confusion

 

[jdpie]

Development - Bulldogs
High Performance - Adelaide
Coaching - Hawthorn
Drafting - Bulldogs
Recruiting- GWS
Welfare - Sydney

We were once the pinnacle of development now look at how our players "come on" they just don't progress like they used to. The next area likely plays a role in the previous one because our high performance group just isn't up to scratch and our young ones don't get the continuity they need to develop (look no further than Sier's hamstring).

Coaching speaks for itself. Drafting is an area I think we just need to increase the eyes on the ground with. Overall I think we're doing well enough identifying the talent they just don't come on due to various weaknesses within the FD.

Recruiting is an area we just can't get right last off-season we brought in Dunn, Wells, Mayne and WHE with only WHE looking to have improved us (Wells might if he ever gets fit). We appear to be a club always trying to fix our problems externally rather than looking at how we can get the best out of what we already have. We therefore overlook the value of team chemistry and boast that we had the largest list turnover of any club from 2010-2016.

I heard a bad story re a recruit that should never happen in a professional environment and I think our welfare department since got a shake up. Were I in charge the first thing I'd do is route the damn high performance group and settle on one modus operandi moving forward because we have no identity and therefore can't build chemistry. Look at the decision to go with three talls and then scrapped it immediately. It was the wrong call initially, but you can hardly say we gave it a crack to allow the group to gel.

We're like an old man pottering around his garden trying to do ten tasks at once, but not really getting anything done!

I back most of your statements regarding opposition High Achievers in FD areas but the GWS is an easy out. Yes they are utilising their legislated position of strength well but i am not certain that there is a huge internal IP deserving of your praise.

 

[Scodog10]

Good analogy the last bit but i was going to say we are like the garden that has an old man pottering around doing ten tasks and not doing any of them well ?? If you get my drift.
How did we arrive here when for a brief period we were up in the stratosphere ? If we seriously answer that question we can move forward. My concern is those asking the questions are the same responsible for the descent.
As an aside i would say give Mayne a few weeks. He has a defensive awareness ( i am not talking about the tackle or individual harassing) and football IQ that leaves a lot of our players for dead. He does not turn himself into a "tennis net" and in a couple of instance had a significant impact on the speed of Richmonds ball movement when it was 1 v 3 simply by positioning himself correctly. I have not seen this in a Pies player since Maxy departed and i am not certain we have had a forward capable of having that influence. Maybe Fasolo and a couple of others can follow his lead ??

The scary element for me is the lack of ownership of the problems in front of us. Aside from one outburst from Ed last year at no point has anyone stated we need to be better except the head coach in a roundabout way which isn't right considering he's not the one to decide on his and the clubs future. There's always an excuse or rationalisation of where we're at which the better clubs don't do.

Take note of Kochie's approach at Port he put the FD on notice we need some decisive comment soon. All it needs to be is an acknowledgement that it now is finals or bust and we can get some clarity, but until then as you said it just feels like the lack of accountability will continue with those asking the questions in charge of the demise.

Sorry mate - I misread your post initially.
Thought I read you thought they were all acceptable levels not aren't acceptable.
Sorry for the confusion

No sweat we're predominantly on the same page!

 

[Scodog10]

I back most of your statements regarding opposition High Achievers in FD areas but the GWS is an easy out. Yes they are utilising their legislated position of strength well but i am not certain that there is a huge internal IP deserving of your praise.

I too felt the same way, but in the midst of Dalrymple having all his hits 4-5 years ago I didn't acknowledge how good he was. It was only once the success came that he got his dues and I feel like the way they're assembling things we're going to look back and dip our lids to whoever is calling the shots. The counter is the currency at their disposal and you still need to use it wisely!

 

[Unnamed1]

Happy to agree to disagree. Had the cornerstones at the club when McCartney took over. He then filled the list gaps during his reign. Their issue was they played like individuals. McCartney instilled that team first defensive ethic in the squad, Beveridge just allowed them to use the individual flair as well, but the team ethos remains.

For your own sake, put a name through McCartney if Bucks isn't the guy to take you forward. McCartney had similar divisive characteristics as Buckley appears to - he had his "favourites", and everyone else were marginalised. McCartney didn't do anything but stymie our progress, we got better because we recruited well (some luck via F/S, others shrewd), our players were naturally skilled self-starters, and we had a core grow together in a winning VFL environment (first affiliated, then standalone).

By the end, McCartney was an aloof, disconnected and underperforming coach, totally bereft of ideas. A player I know told me that in his end of year review in McCartney's final year, McCartney simply stared out the window while the assistant coaches did the review! No wonder Griffen left. You don't want that.

 

[jackcass]

For your own sake, put a name through McCartney if Bucks isn't the guy to take you forward. McCartney had similar divisive characteristics as Buckley appears to - he had his "favourites", and everyone else were marginalised. McCartney didn't do anything but stymie our progress, we got better because we recruited well (some luck via F/S, others shrewd), our players were naturally skilled self-starters, and we had a core grow together in a winning VFL environment (first affiliated, then standalone).

By the end, McCartney was an aloof, disconnected and underperforming coach, totally bereft of ideas. A player I know told me that in his end of year review in McCartney's final year, McCartney simply stared out the window while the assistant coaches did the review! No wonder Griffen left. You don't want that.

Wouldn't even contemplate McCartney for the top job at Collingwood. Would have been very happy to add him to the assistants at the club though when he left the Doggies. That's his natural level.