Mega Thread The 2017 'Buckley's Chances' Thread

[doppleganger]

Richo is only in, what, his 3rd or 4th year - still got 2 or 3 years to prove himself if he gets 6 years like Bucks. He has also gone in an upward direction and we all know that..Bucks hasn't....and we all know that.

Richo, and Stk, is a good example of the timing of when you take over being important.

Lyon was topping up in 2000s as they were in premiership mode, thankfully for us they missed out.

2011 the signs were there the list was done, an EF exit signalled the era was over. Lyon bailed and went to Freo.

Waters takes over, 2012 he manages to tread water get a 12 win season. But they let guys like Goddard and Dalsanto leave with other stalwarts also slowing down.

2013 they plummet to the bottom. Watters given the flick.

His timing was atrocious, a club at an end of an era...

Richo then came in, did no better in 2014 delivering another spoon. But since then the only way is up, pretty easy to get good marks when expectations are so low...and he has a new bunch of talented kids who are maturing together now.

 

[ThexderX]

They are only in front because they went and recruited Danger, Henderson, S.Selwood, Z.Smith, Thouy...since 2015.

They deliberately brought in a bunch of guys in the 26-27 year age group for immediate impact.

Well that was silly of them, recruiting a group of good quality reliable players to help them win games of footy.

We should try that, oh we did, getting Greenwood, Mayne, Wells, White, Aish, Dunne, Varcoe, Crisp, Hoskin-Elliot, Schade, Howe, Adams and Treloar,

Damn, if only we had thought of that brilliant move to recruit some good and average players to improve our ladder position.....sorry for the condescending tone, but I really don't get the point you're making.

 

[SuperSub17]

So it was the youngest ever?

That's what I said. Try not to re-write history.

Collingwood 2010 are the 21st-youngest premiers in history.

 

[doppleganger]

Maccafer I got in being picked 2010, just could not get my head around Blair getting a finals run.

And on recollection didn't do that much, just ok.
Lockyer or Davis for me every time.

But then we don't have the 'youngest' team.

The other young teams were Essendon in 93, they didn't win another. Adelaide in 98...who also went to wilderness after their surprise wins.

 

[ThexderX]

Richo then came in, did no better in 2014 delivering another spoon. But since then the only way is up, pretty easy to get good marks when expectations are so low...and he has a new bunch of talented kids who are maturing together now.

There's the point, he has taken the team up, nurturing kids who are maturing together....and no, its not pretty easy to do that, just ask Rocket.

You've really just only proven my point about Bucks. He hasn't really done any of that, hence why I believe he should not be re-appointed next year.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Ok found this list, am sure does not include after 2010 but seems we weren't really the youngest team after all;
In fact seems third youngest Collingwood side ever to win flag.

Oh oldest and (likely grumpiest) coach ever too

Rk Year Cb AvAge
----------------
1 1958 Co 22.94
2 1961 Ha 23.04
3 1955 Me 23.22
4 1962 Es 23.30
5 1957 Me 23.31
6 1966 St 23.31
7 1963 Ge 23.43
8 1953 Co 23.46
9 1967 Ri 23.46
10 1969 Ri 23.46
11 1968 Ca 23.46
12 1951 Ge 23.52
13 1954 WB 23.63
14 1956 Me 23.70
15 1952 Ge 23.78
16 1976 Ha 23.82
17 1978 Ha 23.83
18 1909 Sy 24.05
19 1960 Me 24.05
20 1904*Fi 24.12 one player age unknown
21 2010 Co 24.16

 

[Saintly Viewed]

But then we don't have the 'youngest' team.

The other young teams were Essendon in 93, they didn't win another. Adelaide in 98...who also went to wilderness after their surprise wins.

True.
Essendon slightly older than us, but grand pa Timmy Watson wouldn't have helped to Bomber Thompson and Mark Harvey

 

[SuperSub17]

Are we talking during WW2 era or the modern era??

By they way how do we get that decline in performance like the Hawks three peat you showed as an example the other day??

You said in history, they were the goalposts you set. Regardless, the 70s wasn't exactly the WW2 era.

And my tongue was planted firmly in cheek on the Hawthorn example. Naturally teams at the top eventually come down at some point.

 

[CFC2010]

Collingwood 2010 are the 21st-youngest premiers in history.

 

[CFC2010]

You said in history, they were the goalposts you set. Regardless, the 70s wasn't exactly the WW2 era.

And my tongue was planted firmly in cheek on the Hawthorn example. Naturally teams at the top eventually come down at some point.

Refer above.........goal posts were wider back then........plus we were a machine

 

[SuperSub17]

Interestingly enough, looking at the other teams at the bottom there - Essendon 93, Hawthorn 08, Collingwood 90 and Adelaide 98 all missed the finals altogether the following year. West Coast dropped to 6th in 93 and made it on percentage. Going on that having a young team alone doesn't automatically guarantee the future.

 

[CFC2010]

Interstingly enough, looking at the other teams at the bottom there - West Coast 92, Essendon 93, Hawthorn 08, Collingwood 90 and Adelaide 98 all missed the finals altogether the following year. Going on that having a young team alone doesn't automatically guarantee the future.

Do you agree the 2011 team was special?

I hope I see a team like that in my lifetime again........bar the last game of course.

 

[SuperSub17]

Do you agree the 2011 team was special?

I hope I see a team like that in my lifetime again........bar the last game of course.

Yep, no doubt. Unfortunately we just peaked too early - both previous finals were scratchy, and then of course there was that debacle in round 24. Even round 22 against Brisbane we weren't anywhere near our best.

No question the one that got away.

 

[doppleganger]

Well that was silly of them, recruiting a group of good quality reliable players to help them win games of footy.

We should try that, oh we did, getting Greenwood, Mayne, Wells, White, Aish, Dunne, Varcoe, Crisp, Hoskin-Elliot, Schade, Howe, Adams and Treloar,

Damn, if only we had thought of that brilliant move to recruit some good and average players to improve our ladder position.....sorry for the condescending tone, but I really don't get the point you're making.

Point is Geelong after a sustained period of success between 2007-2011 where they were challenging for flags, did regress under Scott.

In 2012 they lost an EF, in 2014 they were bundled out in straight sets and in 2015 missed the finals altogether.

Geelong and Collingwood travelled pretty similar paths from 2007-2015, Geelong being more successful as they were 3 - 1 record against us in PF or GF in that period.

The cyclical nature of the competition holds true. Scott didn't save Geelong, just like Buckley didn't cause our demise.

Our big trades were all long term focussed, where Geelong have gone short term...that is why they have spiked back up and we are still waiting for our investment in youth to pay off.

No guarantee it will by the way, but it is the path we chose as a club.

It seems plenty of Pie fans think that the cycle doesn't apply to us, that after being up from 07-12 that we should have kept contending for another 5 years or something...it just doesn't happen.

 

[doppleganger]

Yeah the actual list IQR (the line) of the list is slightly on the young side, but nothing dramatic.

The isolated 22 that played in the replay were really young...but that is the point, it was skewed by the bottom 6 players being young.

They were not our important players.

How does the 2011 GF team measure up, the one that Buckley inherited.

 

[ThexderX]

Point is Geelong after a sustained period of success between 2007-2011 where they were challenging for flags, did regress under Scott.

In 2012 they lost an EF, in 2014 they were bundled out in straight sets and in 2015 missed the finals altogether.

Geelong and Collingwood travelled pretty similar paths from 2007-2015, Geelong being more successful as they were 3 - 1 record against us in PF or GF in that period.

The cyclical nature of the competition holds true. Scott didn't save Geelong, just like Buckley didn't cause our demise.

Our big trades were all long term focussed, where Geelong have gone short term...that is why they have spiked back up and we are still waiting for our investment in youth to pay off.

No guarantee it will by the way, but it is the path we chose as a club.

It seems plenty of Pie fans think that the cycle doesn't apply to us, that after being up from 07-12 that we should have kept contending for another 5 years or something...it just doesn't happen.

Points all taken and not necessarily disagreed with.

The discussion isn't really around regression of both clubs, we all agree and accept some form of regression after a period of success.

This discussion is about Buckley's coaching, and more specifically about comparing his coaching to other coaches, in this case comparing him to Chris Scott.

On the one hand you suggest we travelled the same path, but on the other we took very difference recruiting paths, one for short term success and the other for long term success. Which one is it?

We actually recruited very similarly, just got difference results.

Why did we get different results? Part of it could be the players we chose to recruit, some could be that we didn't develop those players, nor the players we recruited through the draft. The answer is probably a combination of both.

Some pundits had Geelong tipped to win the flag last year (and this year) and whilst they didn't and may they won't, they sure were/are in the mix....we are a long long way off that.

You gotta be in it, to win in, Geelong will be in it, we aren't. With how even this year is, I wouldn't be surprised if they win it....we certainly won't be.

 

[doppleganger]

There's the point, he has taken the team up, nurturing kids who are maturing together....and no, its not pretty easy to do that, just ask Rocket.

You've really just only proven my point about Bucks. He hasn't really done any of that, hence why I believe he should not be re-appointed next year.

The point is Buckley is doing the exact same thing.

The teams that Buckley is playing often have more kids in them, ie against Port we had 8 players with less than 50 games, Saints had just 5 against Gold Coast.

Buckley has gone through, and still is going through the same process where he is nurturing kids...but has kept us competitive whilst doing so.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

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.

I think Collingwood v Carlton in grand finals is more true than you (perhaps) realise.

I think in grand finals we've only ever beaten them once! 1910 I think.

Just once but we've lost quite a few times torhen in the big dance

 

[ThexderX]

The point is Buckley is doing the exact same thing.

The teams that Buckley is playing often have more kids in them, ie against Port we had 8 players with less than 50 games, Saints had just 5 against Gold Coast.

Buckley has gone through, and still is going through the same process where he is nurturing kids...but has kept us competitive whilst doing so.

That's because Bucks and the selection committee chose to do that...all the players we have that are older are rotting in the reserves....again why? Lack of player development or were they always spuds?

Not all our players we recruited are spuds by the way, but it has been pointed out by other posters many time over that very few players have "developed" or gotten better under Buckley's coaching tenure.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I think Collingwood v Carlton in grand finals is more true than you (perhaps) realise.

I think in grand finals we've only ever beaten them once! 1910 I think.

Just once but we've lost quite a few times torhen in the big dance

Losing to those horrible blues

1915, 1938, 1970 , 1979, 1981

 

[ThexderX]

I think Collingwood v Carlton in grand finals is more true than you (perhaps) realise.

I think in grand finals we've only ever beaten them once! 1910 I think.

Just once but we've lost quite a few times torhen in the big dance

Makes me crook in the guts even thinking about it...and boy how their supporters love to rub our noses in it.

 

[doppleganger]

That's because Bucks and the selection committee chose to do that...all the players we have that are older are rotting in the reserves....again why? Lack of player development or were they always spuds?

Not all our players we recruited are spuds by the way, but it has been pointed out by other posters many time over that very few players have "developed" or gotten better under Buckley's coaching tenure.

The young role players from 2010...Blair, Macaffer, Goldsack etc. we're always limited players. They played minor roles in 2010, but we're never capable of stepping up into lead roles....the were young in 2010 though!!

When we made the call that the list wasn't going to win us a flag, correct call IMO. Our problem is that by now we would have banked on some big returns from the 12-13 drafts.

Grundy, Kennedy and Broomhead all top 20 picks in 2012

Scharenberg and Freeman, top 10 picks in 2013...also adding another top 10 pick in Aish to the list.

Of those six, only Grundy looks a good pick. Kennedy and Freeman have done nothing at Melbourne and Stk either...so leads me to believe poor recruitment instead of any development problem with us.

The expectations be that this group would have chalked up their 50 games and now helping us surge up the ladder...

 

[jackcass]

Ok found this list, am sure does not include after 2010 but seems we weren't really the youngest team after all;
In fact seems third youngest Collingwood side ever to win flag.

Oh oldest and (likely grumpiest) coach ever too

Rk Year Cb AvAge
----------------
1 1958 Co 22.94
2 1961 Ha 23.04
3 1955 Me 23.22
4 1962 Es 23.30
5 1957 Me 23.31
6 1966 St 23.31
7 1963 Ge 23.43
8 1953 Co 23.46
9 1967 Ri 23.46
10 1969 Ri 23.46
11 1968 Ca 23.46
12 1951 Ge 23.52
13 1954 WB 23.63
14 1956 Me 23.70
15 1952 Ge 23.78
16 1976 Ha 23.82
17 1978 Ha 23.83
18 1909 Sy 24.05
19 1960 Me 24.05
20 1904*Fi 24.12 one player age unknown
21 2010 Co 24.16

The line at the time specified that it was the youngest side since the Hawks in the 70's, it's just morphed since then because it's convenient to throw up as the full basis for what should (apparently) have been our dynasty.

 

[ThexderX]

The young role players from 2010...Blair, Macaffer, Goldsack etc. we're always limited players. They played minor roles in 2010, but we're never capable of stepping up into lead roles....the were young in 2010 though!!

When we made the call that the list wasn't going to win us a flag, correct call IMO. Our problem is that by now we would have banked on some big returns from the 12-13 drafts.

Grundy, Kennedy and Broomhead all top 20 picks in 2012

Scharenberg and Freeman, top 10 picks in 2013...also adding another top 10 pick in Aish to the list.

Of those six, only Grundy looks a good pick. Kennedy and Freeman have done nothing at Melbourne and Stk either...so leads me to believe poor recruitment instead of any development problem with us.

The expectations be that this group would have chalked up their 50 games and now helping us surge up the ladder...

Lots and lots of excuses and reasons and what if's....nothing convincing, at least not to me anyway.

Any team can pluck any amount of reasons and excuses for whatever it is they wan't too prove to themselves.

Anyway, peace be with you and I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

 

[ottoman]

Nice big shout out to yourself there. You have a point though Otto. Grundy is not a damaging player for us. No point in getting possessions and then not doing something positive with the footy is there (which in a nutshell is our main issue as a team)... Taylor Adams ring any bells Otto?

Taylor who?