Mega Thread The 2016 Buckley Coaching Discussion

[Moose1414]

Can I ask what it is that makes you believe that Eddie gets to be president for life not to mention what makes you think he makes decisions unilaterally? I've never seen evidence of that other than Eddie haters who take joy in saying it without any shred of evidence.

I'm not saying he gets to be President for life I'm asking whether or not thats the case? He's been President since the late 90's so thats about 2 decades which seems a long time. Is there a succession plan for a post Ed Collingwood? How does that happen, a vote by members?

I respect what he's done for the club. There's no denying his leadership improved the clubs brand, bottom line, memberships. And also, delivered a Premiership. He's a wildly successful President but it does seem he has made football department decisions which are more or less unilateral.

I have no problem with accepting that in 2009 the way he saw it Mick needed to be transitioned out of he senior job and that Bucks was the dream replacement from a marketing pov who other clubs were circling. But its nothing other than objective to say that if Ed though Mick was no longer up to the job he was proved wrong. And if he thought Bucks could seamlessly take over a team that finished 1st in 2011 and build on that success he has been proved wrong again. No need to hate on Mick or Bucks or Ed because all have been great servants of the club and whats history is history, but clearly the club in this moment is not where it wants to be so its not unreasonable to wonder how that came to be and look for accountability.

In 2009 a decision was made, and I can see that that decision in Eds eyes would of been what he thought was the best decision to make. History shows your President probably underestimated the ability of Mick to continue coaching at the elite level and probably overestimated the ability of Buckley to coach to the same level, and that that had an impact on the clubs performance post 2011. I'm not saying Eddies useless sack him, I was just saying its a bit unfair he's on TV is round 3 saying he wouldn't hesitate to sack the coach [even if it was taken out of context] when no-one is asking what would be an equally legitimate question: who made him coach?

 

[sr36]

Yep. Helplessly is probably a better word!

Lots of appropriate adverbs:

Helplessly, hopelessly, angrily, inanely, abusively, stupidly, etc.. But I think I'll make one up and go with swearingly.

 

[PieNSauce]

I'm not saying he gets to be President for life I'm asking whether or not thats the case? He's been President since the late 90's so thats about 2 decades which seems a long time. Is there a succession plan for a post Ed Collingwood? How does that happen, a vote by members?

I respect what he's done for the club. There's no denying his leadership improved the clubs brand, bottom line, memberships. And also, delivered a Premiership. He's a wildly successful President but it does seem he has made football department decisions which are more or less unilateral.

I have no problem with accepting that in 2009 the way he saw it Mick needed to be transitioned out of he senior job and that Bucks was the dream replacement from a marketing pov who other clubs were circling. But its nothing other than objective to say that if Ed though Mick was no longer up to the job he was proved wrong. And if he thought Bucks could seamlessly take over a team that finished 1st in 2011 and build on that success he has been proved wrong again. No need to hate on Mick or Bucks or Ed because all have been great servants of the club and whats history is history, but clearly the club in this moment is not where it wants to be so its not unreasonable to wonder how that came to be and look for accountability.

In 2009 a decision was made, and I can see that that decision in Eds eyes would of been what he thought was the best decision to make. History shows your President probably underestimated the ability of Mick to continue coaching at the elite level and probably overestimated the ability of Buckley to coach to the same level, and that that had an impact on the clubs performance post 2011. I'm not saying Eddies useless sack him, I was just saying its a bit unfair he's on TV is round 3 saying he wouldn't hesitate to sack the coach [even if it was taken out of context] when no-one is asking what would be an equally legitimate question: who made him coach?

Too much for me to read it all but you still seem to be saying that Eddie makes footy department decisions unilaterally. I'm sorry, other than the spruiking of those who have an agenda, I have never seen any evidence of that. If you think that Eddie unilaterally put in place the succession plan or chose Bucks purely out of some whim I reckon you're pissing in the wind.

 

[Moose1414]

I am a fan of what MM has achieved at Collingwood, not what he has done after that nor 100% convinced of his legacy. Any discussion on what might have been regarding the succession plans, I use MM post Collingwood credentials. Those are not flattering.

So because Mick went to Carlton for 3 years and took them from 10th to 8th to 13th it proves it was a fluke he won 2 premierships at West Coast and played finals every year for a decade then took Collingwood from cellar dwellers to 2 Grand Finals against the greatest team in history then rebuilt again and won a Permiership and handed over a club that finished 1st in his last year?

The only thing that his time at Carlton proved is that shit football clubs [Mug clubs I think Ed calls them] care more about being seen to be doing something, like sacking coaches, than understanding what it actually takes to win a Premiership. Micks problem was that he was old, grumpy, and people loved to hate him. He's also one of the few people in the game who can deliver the ultimate success, but no matter what people say football is about more than winning and the politics of the game passed him.

 

[PieBeast]

I am a fan of what MM has achieved at Collingwood, not what he has done after that nor 100% convinced of his legacy. Any discussion on what might have been regarding the succession plans, I use MM post Collingwood credentials. Those are not flattering.

The lengths we'll go to make ourselves feel better about the disaster succession plan turned out to be......

 

[Moose1414]

Too much for me to read it all but you still seem to be saying that Eddie makes footy department decisions unilaterally. I'm sorry, other than the spruiking of those who have an agenda, I have never seen any evidence of that. If you think that Eddie unilaterally put in place the succession plan or chose Bucks purely out of some whim I reckon you're pissing in the wind.

And thats where I think I'll take my cue, overstaying my welcome. The old not going to read your post because its obvious you've got an agenda. Good luck with the rest of the season to you all. I'm stoked you've elevated Cox off the rookie list and look forward to seeing him play Nic Nat in round 6. Peace out.

 

[76woodenspooners]

It is a delicate balancing act between having ambitions and grim reality.
An intra club with 5000 fans watching is as good as an indication you can get. And that without Treloar or Howe.
We all have been putting expectations on this season which might well be a gross underestimate of our competitors.

Sure, the fans do have expectations ...

... But even the most irrational fan would be able to separate their own self generated expectations, with Pert saying "we're gunna win a Premiership within three years".

Maxy started the trend of setting expectations - pronouncing "He're here to win Premierships" shortly after he was made captain at the end of 2008.

But to Maxy's credit, he put his testies on the line and he delivered. A year late, but I don't see anybody quibbling.

We are played our part in setting those expectations. And now we all have to play our part to get us back on track.

#picaboo4President

Good to see some leadership!!!

 

[JB1975]

There's never a good time to sack a coach but losses to Melbourne and Essendon and the Tuesday after Anzac Day sounds about right.

But when it's not working the sooner something is done the better. Can't keep writing off season after season while some of our better players are getting older and you come full circle with another rebuild again without making finals.

The good clubs never fall out of finals contention for more than 1 to 2 years and based on what we've seen it will be 3 years and not close to making the 8.

I don't think that it would be useful to bring in a caretaker coach during the season, but there's another question which needs to be answered: what will it take for us to consider that Bucks has 'turned it around'?

I get the impression that a lot of people have entirely written him off, and some have even suggested that it'd be best for the slump to continue so that the urge to sack the coach becomes irresistible. And yet it isn't inconceivable that we can get to the mid-point of the season at 6-5. Would the knives still be out for him?

It goes without saying that we won't win another game if we keep playing last week's footy, but it also seems clear to me that we're not playing anywhere near our best football at the moment. Freo know exactly what this feels like, and they could similarly expect some sort of return to form over the next few weeks. If we do return to something resembling our best football, and we start winning some games of football, at what point would people accept that there has been a turnaround in form and that the first three rounds have been a despicable anomaly? What can save him at this point?

 

[sr36]

It is a delicate balancing act between having ambitions and grim reality.
An intra club with 5000 fans watching is as good as an indication you can get. And that without Treloar or Howe.
We all have been putting expectations on this season which might well be a gross underestimate of our competitors.
The club was ambitious, so were the supporters and even the players joined in. We are played our part in setting those expectations. And now we all have to play our part to get us back on track.

Nah, we don't have to do anything. If we needed to lower our expectations, the team have done a magnificent job of getting our expectations back on track.

 

[PieNSauce]

I don't think that it would be useful to bring in a caretaker coach during the season, but there's another question which needs to be answered: what will it take for us to consider that Bucks has 'turned it around'?

I get the impression that a lot of people have entirely written him off, and some have even suggested that it'd be best for the slump to continue so that the urge to sack the coach becomes irresistible. And yet it isn't inconceivable that we can get to the mid-point of the season at 6-5. Would the knives still be out for him?

It goes without saying that we won't win another game if we keep playing last week's footy, but it also seems clear to me that we're not playing anywhere near our best football at the moment. Freo know exactly what this feels like, and they could similarly expect some sort of return to form over the next few weeks. If we do return to something resembling our best football, and we start winning some games of football, at what point would people accept that there has been a turnaround in form and that the first three rounds have been a despicable anomaly? What can save him at this point?

In the opinion of some around here only 3 premierships in the next 3 weeks will do!

 

[PicaBoo]

The lengths we'll go to make ourselves feel better about the disaster succession plan turned out to be......

The length you go through to convince that the sky is falling down. Seriously.

Until Bucks leaves and the next coach decides we need to go through a rebuild to undo Bucks work, it is far from a disaster. Start is far from perfect and has been well documented. But disaster? ??? Most had Sydney and Richmond above us. Scoreline is not that far off from preseason predictions.
Get a grip.

Furthermore my comment was in context to the scenario of MM staying on. Similar context . Let's say we wish we could have kept Daisy , he was great when he played for us and we ignore what he did afterwards at Carlton.
However ,not many people want him back, despite what he did for us back in 2010/2011. Same with MM. He was great for us, emphasis on was.

 

[JB1975]

In the opinion of some around here only 3 premierships in the next 3 weeks will do!

That would get a big tick from me. I might even settle for just the two...

 

[eddiebankbalance]

Bucks is too ahead of himself. He should be current coach at Hawks or Bulldogs and most likely will win the flag.

 

[PieBeast]

The length you go through to convince that the sky is falling down. Seriously.

Until Bucks leaves and the next coach decides we need to go through a rebuild to undo Bucks work, it is far from a disaster. Start is far from perfect and has been well documented. But disaster? ??? Most had Sydney and Richmond above us. Scoreline is not that far off from preseason predictions.
Get a grip.

Furthermore my comment was in context to the scenario of MM staying on. Similar context . Let's say we wish we could have kept Daisy , he was great when he played for us and we ignore what he did afterwards at Carlton.
However ,not many people want him back, despite what he did for us back in 2010/2011. Same with MM. He was great for us, emphasis on was.

What happened with MM after us isn't an indicator what we could achieve under him had he stayed on.

Just like you can't judge Lethal's credentials on his last 3 years at the Brions.

The succession plan turned out nothing like anyone would have envisaged and given we're now into fifth year of it and performing like we do it's not just a disaster it's a total one.

This is flat out embarrassing and actually unexpected from you, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Unknown Identity]

I don't think that it would be useful to bring in a caretaker coach during the season, but there's another question which needs to be answered: what will it take for us to consider that Bucks has 'turned it around'?

I get the impression that a lot of people have entirely written him off, and some have even suggested that it'd be best for the slump to continue so that the urge to sack the coach becomes irresistible. And yet it isn't inconceivable that we can get to the mid-point of the season at 6-5. Would the knives still be out for him?

It goes without saying that we won't win another game if we keep playing last week's footy, but it also seems clear to me that we're not playing anywhere near our best football at the moment. Freo know exactly what this feels like, and they could similarly expect some sort of return to form over the next few weeks. If we do return to something resembling our best football, and we start winning some games of football, at what point would people accept that there has been a turnaround in form and that the first three rounds have been a despicable anomaly? What can save him at this point?

For me personally.. when i can more often than not walk away from a game and say.. geez we played some attractive football regardless of the result.

We should not be made to look like a bottom 4 team by other bottom 4-6 teams.

If the game style is there and the structures are right. Wins will come but playing this zone and playing with zero dash and flare we will struggle to win 6-8 games this year.

 

[PicaBoo]

What happened with MM after us isn't an indicator what we could achieve under him had he stayed on.

Why not? Just because it doesn't suit your narrative? Everyone has a use by date. Players and coach. MM timed his time at Collingwood close to perfection.

The succession plan turned out nothing like anyone would have envisaged and given we're now into fifth year of it and performing like we do it's not just a disaster it's a total one.

This is flat out embarrassing and actually unexpected from you, I'll leave you to it.

I am happy to stick the boot into anyone that deserves it at the right time. You are just making a drama .

Last 3 weeks are not like we played the last 3 years. Gameplan not executed well by players. Could be plan, coach or players or all. If it goes on, drastic changes are necessary. We have used 29 players this season, can't change much more apart from a few untouchables and then it is time for the coach.
Can’t say healthy list with the injuries but if Bucks leaves , there is enough talent to work with and turn fortunes around.

Ask Lions or Bombers how a true disaster looks like under a player turned coach.

 

[JB1975]

For me personally.. when i can more often than not walk away from a game and say.. geez we played some attractive football regardless of the result.

We should not be made to look like a bottom 4 team by other bottom 4-6 teams.

If the game style is there and the structures are right. Wins will come but playing this zone and playing with zero dash and flare we will struggle to win 6-8 games this year.

Fair enough. Just at the minute I don't think the squad has the confidence to play 'attractive footy', so perhaps the wins need to come before the fluency and dash? To put it another way, it's easier to take risks once you feel confident that not every single risk will turn into an opposition score. It's for this reason that I'll happily 'win ugly' for a while, as opposed to losing pretty.

 

[THATSGOLD]

Fair enough. I suggest you watch the Western Bulldogs for the rest of the year and return to the Pies if we change coach.

Why watse the whole year with Buckley if he won't be there next year. Get the new coach in to have a look at them.

 

[Maggie5]

I wish everyone would stop referring to the succession plan.

It isn't a/the succession plan as one person didn't uphold their end of the agreement/contract.

 

[Matt_352]

Think it's not right that Ed is whacked with all of the blame for the succession plan as Mick didn't keep his end of the deal mentoring Nathan.

 

[jmac70]

Why watse the whole year with Buckley if he won't be there next year. Get the new coach in to have a look at them.

The club cannot hire a new coach during the season because whoever it is has an existing contract at another club. There are rules against it.

 

[TheSierBear]

So because Mick went to Carlton for 3 years and took them from 10th to 8th to 13th it proves it was a fluke he won 2 premierships at West Coast and played finals every year for a decade then took Collingwood from cellar dwellers to 2 Grand Finals against the greatest team in history then rebuilt again and won a Permiership and handed over a club that finished 1st in his last year?

The only thing that his time at Carlton proved is that shit football clubs [Mug clubs I think Ed calls them] care more about being seen to be doing something, like sacking coaches, than understanding what it actually takes to win a Premiership. Micks problem was that he was old, grumpy, and people loved to hate him. He's also one of the few people in the game who can deliver the ultimate success, but no matter what people say football is about more than winning and the politics of the game passed him.

Your first paragraph was very good. MM for his time, was a great coach. It's just that, like SHeedy, and mor apt, like Pagan, there came a time where he was past his used by date. And his time at Calton reflected that. $700k PA for Dale Thomas, Cameron Wood, and Jones, Tutt, need I say more. He was brilliant at Collingwood, he was equally deplorable t Carlton. It was Dennis Pagan all over again.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

So because Mick went to Carlton for 3 years and took them from 10th to 8th to 13th it proves it was a fluke he won 2 premierships at West Coast and played finals every year for a decade then took Collingwood from cellar dwellers to 2 Grand Finals against the greatest team in history then rebuilt again and won a Permiership and handed over a club that finished 1st in his last year?

If he got us up to play GFs against another Collingwood team from the late 1920's he's an even bigger genius than he's commonly given credit for. Can't lose on that one!

 

[Quicky]

I wish everyone would stop referring to the succession plan.

It isn't a/the succession plan as one person didn't uphold their end of the agreement/contract.

That and the succession plan netted us two grand final appearances in a row and one premiership. I can't see us winning in 2010 without that decision in 2009. A point in this debate which often seems to get lost.

 

[THATSGOLD]

You know, Buckleys comments about Varcoe and Sidebottom I think have proven to me that he really can't coach. At all.

He spoke about how he planned for having Varcoe and Sidebottom so not having them really hurt.

Which is effectively Buckley telling the world he relies on players, not systems. A good system doesn't need specific players to work. Both the Bulldogs and Hawks prove that week after week.

Massive massive trouble. Malthouse would be better with this group.