Mega Thread The 2017 'Buckley's Chances' Thread

[Jonno94]

If you get a chance, listen to Pendles talking about Bucks on SEN this morning
Bucks isn't going anywhere

And neither is this football team.

 

[ThexderX]

Pretty much.
If they get the better players it's amazing how much better they are at handling adversity

MM took a group of pretty average players to two grand finals in 2002/03 when I'm not sure many others would have.

Luke Beverage worked wonders and Chris Scott took over a team many thought had run their race to win premierships.

Good coaches win, average coaches find excuses. Or in our case our supporters are finding excuses to rally behind a favorite son.

If he was Nathan Smith he'd be long gone. Romance has kept him going much longer. Tough but that's the ruthless nature of this game.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

MM took a group of pretty average players to two grand finals in 2002/03 when I'm not sure many others would have.

Luke Beverage worked wonders and Chris Scott took over a team many thought had run their race to win premierships.

Good coaches win, average coaches find excuses. Or in our case our supporters are finding excuses to rally behind a favorite son.

If he was Nathan Smith he'd be long gone. Romance has kept him going much longer. Tough but that's the ruthless nature of this game.

You make valid debating points.
However, your debating position loses a few points for:

using Chris Scott who still had a terrific group in his first year and won a flag, good luck to him but the players were very very good. He certainly was in right place right time, that would be undeniable for most observers.
But he did it, and deserves it.

You used plural as in premierships for Scott when was only one. Which is nice ofcourse.

I'm taking points off for the old chestnut that Buckkey is favoured just because he's a favourite son. That might be done people's view, but not mine.
I've said many times, I could not care if he was a club playing great, it's totally irrelevant.
I think he's there longer than some because of the way he carries himself, the way he conducts himself the way he has incredible authority and looks like he's the boss.
As opposed to Tony Shaw, also a Club playing great, who looked like was trying way too hard, looked to he like a terrific assistant coach.
That's why Buckley is still in control because he has control.
He has fine character for want of a better expression.

Now whether people agree or disagree that's my take. Nathan us different to other coaches that didn't have initial success and died on the vine.

People can make their judgments accordingly but leadership and looking, sounding, acting like a leader also plays a role. Some gave it, some don't.

And Nathan has it in spades. Might not be enough for some but too me that's more vital than the playing resume.

(To use the political analogy, of how some prime ministers look like leaders and some that don't. and I will use both sides of politics as it's not about the side of politics but the issue of leadership.

Looked like a leader looked like a Prime Minister:
Menzies, Curtain, for the old timers. Hawke, Keating, Howard for these days.
Looked like way out of their depth and looked non leaders: Gillard and Abbott.

Some have it, some don't.)

 

[Saintly Viewed]

And neither is this football team.

The only way is up.

All 18 teams are trying for the holy grail, doesn't just arrive because we wish every piece falls into place.
Have to work and work and work some more.

For all that we've only had two flags in 50 years almost 60 years.

That's how hard it is. So why should it be different today than it's always been?

Just saying, it's not a simple thing, and likely never will be.

Build an elite list I bet it becomes easier though, and that is so difficult.

 

[ThexderX]

You make valid debating points.
However, your debating position loses a few points for:

using Chris Scott who still had a terrific group in his first year and won a flag, good luck to him but the players were very very good. He certainly was in right place right time, that would be undeniable for most observers.
But he did it, and deserves it.

You used plural as in premierships for Scott when was only one. Which is nice ofcourse.

I'm taking points off for the old chestnut that Buckkey is favoured just because he's a favourite son. That might be done people's view, but not mine.
I've said many times, I could not care if he was a club playing great, it's totally irrelevant.
I think he's there longer than some because of the way he carries himself, the way he conducts himself the way he has incredible authority and looks like he's the boss.
As opposed to Tony Shaw, also a Club playing great, who looked like was trying way too hard, looked to he like a terrific assistant coach.
That's why Buckley is still in control because he has control.
He has fine character for want of a better expression.

Now whether people agree or disagree that's my take. Nathan us different to other coaches that didn't have initial success and died on the vine.

People can make their judgments accordingly but leadership and looking, sounding, acting like a leader also plays a role. Some gave it, some don't.

And Nathan has it in spades. Might not be enough for some but too me that's more vital than the playing resume.

(To use the political analogy, of how some prime ministers look like leaders and some that don't. and I will use both sides of politics as it's not about the side of politics but the issue of leadership.

Looked like a leader looked like a Prime Minister:
Menzies, Curtain, for the old timers. Hawke, Keating, Howard for these days.
Looked like way out of their depth and looked non leaders: Gillard and Abbott.

Some have it, some don't.)

You took me on a different tangent there talking about politics but point made.

Plural was reference to both coaches winning one each, being a total of two.

My personal opinion is Bucks has enjoyed a long and ultimately unsuccessful tenure due to great media skills, a personal friendship of the president and supporter loyalty.

His coaching results just don't stack up. Which is a shame as no one wanted him to succeed more than me.

 

[ThexderX]

You make valid debating points.
However, your debating position loses a few points for:

using Chris Scott who still had a terrific group in his first year and won a flag, good luck to him but the players were very very good. He certainly was in right place right time, that would be undeniable for most observers.
But he did it, and deserves it.

You used plural as in premierships for Scott when was only one. Which is nice ofcourse.

I'm taking points off for the old chestnut that Buckkey is favoured just because he's a favourite son. That might be done people's view, but not mine.
I've said many times, I could not care if he was a club playing great, it's totally irrelevant.
I think he's there longer than some because of the way he carries himself, the way he conducts himself the way he has incredible authority and looks like he's the boss.
As opposed to Tony Shaw, also a Club playing great, who looked like was trying way too hard, looked to he like a terrific assistant coach.
That's why Buckley is still in control because he has control.
He has fine character for want of a better expression.

Now whether people agree or disagree that's my take. Nathan us different to other coaches that didn't have initial success and died on the vine.

People can make their judgments accordingly but leadership and looking, sounding, acting like a leader also plays a role. Some gave it, some don't.

And Nathan has it in spades. Might not be enough for some but too me that's more vital than the playing resume.

(To use the political analogy, of how some prime ministers look like leaders and some that don't. and I will use both sides of politics as it's not about the side of politics but the issue of leadership.

Looked like a leader looked like a Prime Minister:
Menzies, Curtain, for the old timers. Hawke, Keating, Howard for these days.
Looked like way out of their depth and looked non leaders: Gillard and Abbott.

Some have it, some don't.)

Also SV, Bucks inherited a premiership team....unlike Scott, he couldn't win it and has gone backward ever since...Scott hasn't. So do I win a few points back?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

You took me on a different tangent there talking about politics but point made.

Plural was reference to both coaches winning one each, being a total of two.

My personal opinion is Bucks has enjoyed a long and ultimately unsuccessful tenure due to great media skills, a personal friendship of the president and supporter loyalty.

His coaching results just don't stack up. Which is a shame as no one wanted him to succeed more than me.

Fair points raised.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Also SV, Bucks inherited a premiership team....unlike Scott, he couldn't win it and has gone backward ever since...Scott hasn't. So do I win a few points back?

Actually he inherited a runner up team, Scott inherited a finals team.

Whilst potatoe potato, I'd suggest geelong had better talent all round.
Our difference maker in 2010 Jolly, was all but done.
And the bluff (cliff) was there for a few others.
The team just pinching the prelim v Hawks 2011 was the best indicator it was all coming to and end for that group.

I was there prelim and GF and that was our last hurrah for that group, I thought it then, and alas it was true

 

[ant22]

You took me on a different tangent there talking about politics but point made.

Plural was reference to both coaches winning one each, being a total of two.

My personal opinion is Bucks has enjoyed a long and ultimately unsuccessful tenure due to great media skills, a personal friendship of the president and supporter loyalty.

His coaching results just don't stack up. Which is a shame as no one wanted him to succeed more than me.

Agree, To date bucks has been the Ricky Dyson of coaching. Ricky would tease and frustrate Essendon supporters. When he was good he looked like a really nice player but his performances where not great often enough. Just when you thought he was gone he string together a few good performances which was enough to convince his club to persist with him.

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

If you get a chance, listen to Pendles talking about Bucks on SEN this morning
Bucks isn't going anywhere

Listen here

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2017/06/28/im-keen-for-bucks-to-stay-pendles/

 

[ThexderX]

Actually he inherited a runner up team, Scott inherited a finals team.

Whilst potatoe potato, I'd suggest geelong had better talent all round.
Our difference maker in 2010 Jolly, was all but done.
And the bluff (cliff) was there for a few others.
The team just pinching the prelim v Hawks 2011 was the best indicator it was all coming to and end for that group.

I was there prelim and GF and that was our last hurrah for that group, I thought it then, and alas it was true

All strong arguments, but what has happened in the following 6 years cannot be argued.

Scott has taken Geelong to the finals each year rebuilding his team as much as Buckley has rebuilt his (I don't have the stats of player turnover etc, but would be happy to proven wrong as to the list turnover of both clubs since 2010/11).

So the question needs to be asked, is it the coach or something else that leads the team to success or failure? If its not the coach, why have one? Ultimately all the success and failure falls on the coach, who is the head of the football department. Again, harsh but this is the reality...and they are remunerated accordingly.

When I look at the Geelong situation, and even the Bulldogs situation, people say "they inherited great legacy's" but that is only part of the story. Mark Thompson himself even admitted he wasn't the right man and the group was responding accordingly. Every one thought they were cooked. Chris Scott came in, reinvigorated the players, change the game plan and reaped the rewards. Great coaching? Absolutely.

Agree or disagree, Bucks came in, changed things, but ultimately it hasn't worked for him. I actually don't regret any of the player movements under Buck's tenure, only Shaw and Beams have really gone on to play good footy, but one was disruptive and the other wanted to leave for other reasons (or was it the coach? Only he would know).

To steal a cliche, we are in a results industry and Buck's just hasn't got the results....if he goes, I hope the new coach comes in a turns us into a premiership team. No doubt everyone will then say "it was Buck's legacy". Otherwise is Buck's stays on, I hope he wins 10 premierships in a row and proves me wrong...no one would be happier to be proven wrong.

 

[jackcass]

Actually he inherited a runner up team, Scott inherited a finals team.

Whilst potatoe potato, I'd suggest geelong had better talent all round.
Our difference maker in 2010 Jolly, was all but done.
And the bluff (cliff) was there for a few others.
The team just pinching the prelim v Hawks 2011 was the best indicator it was all coming to and end for that group.

I was there prelim and GF and that was our last hurrah for that group, I thought it then, and alas it was true

I always find it interesting that posters invariably use the Geelong and Hawthorn examples while completely ignoring the all too common St Kilda type example. Teams that have a sustained period of success more often than not follow that with a period of rebuilding. Hawthorn and North are now into their rebuilding phase. Cats and Swans could quite easily be next. Teams that try to cheat the ferryman end up like Richmond, never quite good enough.

Our issue is that we didn't maximise our chances while we were up. Sadly, we hit our rebuilding phase during a period of highly compromised drafts and recent changes have undermined one of our key strengths under MM, the capacity to outspend other clubs on our FD.

 

[CFC2010]

I always find it interesting that posters invariably use the Geelong and Hawthorn examples while completely ignoring the all too common St Kilda type example. Teams that have a sustained period of success more often than not follow that with a period of rebuilding. Hawthorn and North are now into their rebuilding phase. Cats and Swans could quite easily be next. Teams that try to cheat the ferryman end up like Richmond, never quite good enough.

Our issue is that we didn't maximise our chances while we were up. Sadly, we hit our rebuilding phase during a period of highly compromised drafts and recent changes have undermined one of our key strengths under MM, the capacity to outspend other clubs on our FD.

Jackcass could it be because Lyon left behind a team of geriatrics and Malthouse left behind the youngest Premiership team in HISTORY?

 

[swoop42]

Your confusing two separate things.

When Collingwood announced the Buckley succession plan, the premise was to mirror the corporate world where you pro-actively risk manage the future operations to ensure proper knowledge transfer and grooming of the chosen successor....unfortunately the incumbent changed their mind and it didn't work as planned.

Geelong had a build under Bomber, they peaked in 07-09 but we're still good enough in 2011 to win another flag, but they then regressed.

Both sides found themselves outside the eight in 2015, 'making up the numbers'.

Geelong then pulled the trigger to relaunch with 26-27 year olds, and it was successful enough to get them back in the PF picture...but it is a new team, they have what six players from the 11 GF team...they came back to the pack after being up from 07-11 just like we did.

Hawthorn up from 11-16, but now battling....yet Collingwood fans think we should have been the exception, that we should have been playing in PFs and GFs for a decade or something!?

Grand finals?

WTF?

Most of us would settle for 8th as the pass mark this season.

Some of us even less and 11 wins.

After 6 years of regression and missing finals for 3 consecutive years that's nothing but fair.

The reality is even if you don't consider Buckleys tenure started until the 2014 season history shows it doesn't take good coaches 4 years to turn a team around, they have them gradually improving year upon year and not the opposite as we've witnessed under Buckley.

I'm sorry but the time for excuses has stopped, honestly I've never seen the like of it and the simple reality is this season is the bonus year for Buckley, one last chance to prove his ability to make us a contender again a chance I dare say that wouldn't have been afforded to anyone else.

People need to decide now if they support the Collingwood Football Club first or Nathan because he's a good bloke, excellent media performer and champion player.

Collingwood before coach.

 

[ThexderX]

I always find it interesting that posters invariably use the Geelong and Hawthorn examples while completely ignoring the all too common St Kilda type example. Teams that have a sustained period of success more often than not follow that with a period of rebuilding. Hawthorn and North are now into their rebuilding phase. Cats and Swans could quite easily be next. Teams that try to cheat the ferryman end up like Richmond, never quite good enough.

Our issue is that we didn't maximise our chances while we were up. Sadly, we hit our rebuilding phase during a period of highly compromised drafts and recent changes have undermined one of our key strengths under MM, the capacity to outspend other clubs on our FD.

Geelong have actually bucked the trend - they won they're 1st premiership in 2007 (10 years ago) and haven't missed the finals since, whilst rebuilding their team and winning a total of three premierships along the way.

St. Kilda supporters could make similar arguments to us about their coach, but they have turned over an extra coach than us, so they are giving him extra time to find success. Richo will feel real pressure next year, like Bucks, if they continue to go backwards.

Hawthorn may beat us this weekend, so does that mean they have already succeeded us in their rebuild?

North supporters are very much like us....asking for blood to be spilled due to a long period of mediocrity.

The difference really is Hawks and Cats won 4 & 3 premierships respectively....we only won 1 and none under our current coach.

 

[westozpie]

Have to confess I don't get to watch too many GC games but I was looking at the coaches award votes and Witts has 6 so far this year. Gaz is currently sitting on 50 so maybe don't bet to much on the big man

Same I tend not to watch to much of other teams just my beloved Collingwood. Bring back Heath was posting that those three could win b & f, couldn't really see it but witts has been pretty good this year. Of those three only really rate witts

 

[ThexderX]

For the record, I've done a 'top bloke' and 'great media performer' coaches ladder....good news is we're the premier:-

1. Collingwood/Buckley
2. Carlscum/Boulton
3. St. Kilda/Richardson
4. Bulldogs/Beverage
5. Melbourne/Goodwin
6. Port/Hinkley
7. Crows/Pyke
8. Giants/Cameron
9. Ninethmond/Hardwick - sorry couldn't resist to have then 9th
10. Eagles/Simpson
11. Suns/Eade
12. Lions/That guy that coaches them
13. Swans/Longmire
14. Essendrug/Worsfold
15. Fremantle/Ross Boredom
16. Hawks/Clarkson
17. Cats/Scott whinger #1
18. Norf/Scott whinger #2


On that basis, we should re-sign Buck's ASAP!

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Jackcass could it be because Lyon left behind a team of geriatrics and Malthouse left behind the youngest Premiership team in HISTORY?

Can we stop with the youngest team nonsense.
Jolly was the key, ball was a big difference.
didak was getting near the precipice.

Pendlebury, Thomas, Swan, Cloke beames all terrific.

Lumumba, Dawes, Wellingham, good average players

Etc etc

 

[Saintly Viewed]

For the record, I've done a 'top bloke' and 'great media performer' coaches ladder....good news is we're the premier:-

1. Collingwood/Buckley
2. Carlscum/Boulton
3. St. Kilda/Richardson
4. Bulldogs/Beverage
5. Melbourne/Goodwin
6. Port/Hinkley
7. Crows/Pyke
8. Giants/Cameron
9. Ninethmond/Hardwick - sorry couldn't resist to have then 9th
10. Eagles/Simpson
11. Suns/Eade
12. Lions/That guy that coaches them
13. Swans/Longmire
14. Essendrug/Worsfold
15. Fremantle/Ross Boredom
16. Hawks/Clarkson
17. Cats/Scott whinger #1
18. Norf/Scott whinger #2


On that basis, we should re-sign Buck's ASAP!

Bolton?

Boy Scout bore

Painful voice very over the top chirpy

Sorry Bolton near the bottom for me

 

[Saintly Viewed]

For the record, I've done a 'top bloke' and 'great media performer' coaches ladder....good news is we're the premier:-

1. Collingwood/Buckley
2. Carlscum/Boulton
3. St. Kilda/Richardson
4. Bulldogs/Beverage
5. Melbourne/Goodwin
6. Port/Hinkley
7. Crows/Pyke
8. Giants/Cameron
9. Ninethmond/Hardwick - sorry couldn't resist to have then 9th
10. Eagles/Simpson
11. Suns/Eade
12. Lions/That guy that coaches them
13. Swans/Longmire
14. Essendrug/Worsfold
15. Fremantle/Ross Boredom
16. Hawks/Clarkson
17. Cats/Scott whinger #1
18. Norf/Scott whinger #2


On that basis, we should re-sign Buck's ASAP!

Double points for Hardwick at 9th

Brilliant!

 

[jackcass]

Jackcass could it be because Lyon left behind a team of geriatrics and Malthouse left behind the youngest Premiership team in HISTORY?

For people prepared to accept that the "youngest premiership team in history" myth hid a multitude of sins and totally ignored the list shortfalls then that in and off itself is not really relevant.

 

[Anzacday]

I mentioned recently that I thought Grundy was the most over-rated player at our club for the very same things you mention above. His ruck work is fairly average and although he gets many possessions around the ground he doesn't really do much damage with them. Suffice to say I was very quickly told that I was wrong.
Then again a few years back I mentioned that Cloke was the most over-rated footballer in the league and at that time I was also very quickly told I was wrong.

I will admit Grundy is still quite young in rucking terms so I am still very bullish about his future, I just don't think he is deserving of all the hoo-ha he is getting at the moment.

Can't wait to hear who next pass judgement on

 

[Saintly Viewed]

For people prepared to accept that the "youngest premiership team in history" myth hid a multitude of sins and totally ignored the list shortfalls then that in and off itself is not really relevant.

Agree.

The great red herrings thrown into this discussion.

Youngest team (insert period of time suitable)
6 years of regression business

But anyway onwards and upwards (or downwards)

 

[ThexderX]

Bolton?

Boy Scout bore

Painful voice very over the top chirpy

Sorry Bolton near the bottom for me

I did that as it infers we beat them for the premiership....unfortunately we can't do that for real

Otherwise agree with your sentiment.

 

[CFC2010]

Can we stop with the youngest team nonsense.
Jolly was the key, ball was a big difference.
didak was getting near the precipice.

Pendlebury, Thomas, Swan, Cloke beames all terrific.

Lumumba, Dawes, Wellingham, good average players

Etc etc

You call it nonsense I call it a fact.

Nonsense is you calling Bart Cummings a genius yet AFL Coaches (e.g Bevo, Clarko, Bolto.......) are over rated hacks.