Mega Thread The 2017 'Buckley's Chances' Thread

[ThePheonix]

One thing that's been consistent in these discussions all along is that for most, if not all, of the reasons people put out their in favour of sacking Bucks, there's always several responses (often rooted in truth) about how "criticism X isn't Buck's fault, it's actually excuses 1, 2, and 3 that explain that".

Bucks has been probably the most unluckiest of coaches that I can remember, but all that means is that it's possible to come up with reasons why we shouldn't sack him, rather than the flip side, which is to come up with good coaching merit based reasons for keeping him. All these (perfectly valid) excuses do, is mask his actual coaching ability. After 6 years, we still haven't seen anything that demonstrates that he's a capable coach that deserves reappointment - only reasons that show how unfair it'd be to sack him.

Given our declining results each year, the decision on whether to keep/fire him based on thus far obscured coaching merit, is therefore a massive gamble. It could pay off or fall apart in extreme equal measures. Or it could be more of the same.

Great coaches overcome any disadvantages or misfortunes that arise, it is the reason why they are great. If it was easy and experience no misfortunes then anyone will be able to coach.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

One thing that's been consistent in these discussions all along is that for most, if not all, of the reasons people put out their in favour of sacking Bucks, there's always several responses (often rooted in truth) about how "criticism X isn't Buck's fault, it's actually excuses 1, 2, and 3 that explain that".

Bucks has been probably the most unluckiest of coaches that I can remember, but all that means is that it's possible to come up with reasons why we shouldn't sack him, rather than the flip side, which is to come up with good coaching merit based reasons for keeping him. All these (perfectly valid) excuses do, is mask his actual coaching ability. After 6 years, we still haven't seen anything that demonstrates that he's a capable coach that deserves reappointment - only reasons that show how unfair it'd be to sack him.

Given our declining results each year, the decision on whether to keep/fire him based on thus far obscured coaching merit, is therefore a massive gamble. It could pay off or fall apart in extreme equal measures. Or it could be more of the same.

1,2 and 3 are only excuses when you absolve Buckley of any responsibility for the state of the list and performances. Many of the points here are explanations.

 

[jackcass]

But Maccas a preparer of men, not a head coach. He'd be a ripper to get though.

Yeah I meant for him to assume an assistant type role in the development side of things, good mentor who'd provide honest feedback to players and coaching colleagues alike.

 

[jackcass]

Great coaches overcome any disadvantages or misfortunes that arise, it is the reason why they are great. If it was easy and experience no misfortunes then anyone will be able to coach.

Yeah, like Barassi at Melbourne and Sydney, Hafey at Collingwood, Sydney and Geelong, Sheedy at GWS, Blight at Geelong and StKilda, MM at Carlton...

 

[jackcass]

1,2 and 3 are only excuses when you absolve Buckley of any responsibility for the state of the list and performances. Many of the points here are explanations.

I agree with you, the arguments put are usually valid explanations, not excuses. However I don't see that they absolve Bucks, merely provide mitigation.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

I agree with you, the arguments put are usually valid explanations, not excuses. However I don't see that they absolve Bucks, merely provide mitigation.

Some believe that a poster's motivation for mentioning injuries etc would be to absolve Buckley, hence they call them excuses.
Same for his press conferences when they label his explanations as excuses e.g. Can't wait for the Buckley's excuses after the game.' Granted he has come up with a couple but on the whole, he explains why we lost.

 

[Help My Club]

Some believe that a poster's motivation for mentioning injuries etc would be to absolve Buckley, hence they call them excuses.
Same for his press conferences when they label his explanations as excuses e.g. Can't wait for the Buckley's excuses after the game.' Granted he has come up with a couple but on the whole, he explains why we lost.

"he explains why we lost"

Indeed. And he has that down to a fine art.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

Disagree, think we've had very clear understanding of what we've needed.

The club might have had a clear understanding of what we needed, but we can only judge the results of that and the consensus of most of the list experts is that we have an over abundance of defensive mids and a shortage of KPP's.

 

[jadami1973]

Stated facts are fine but they are only a starting point. To analyse each one would turn this into a typical TLDNR post.
I'll work with a couple.
All teams do have injuries but they will differ in terms of position, experience and how important they are in terms of on ground leadership and effect on other positions. Comparing injury lists is futile because very few will go into detailed analysis of how each team suffers in its own way when it comes to injuries. Many of the commentators /experts won't go into it because it seems like a taboo thing to do and takes too much effort. It's also a time thing because they only have a short time to go into the details of each team.

Some sides have the luxury of replacing one soldier with another, others don't. To throw a blanket over the whole lot and blurt out the line "injury is no excuse", is stuff from another era that even the professionals won't let go of.
Injury depleted sides may win a few games against more fancied opponents but most of the time, that level performance is unsustained. If it ends up being a knock on list management, so be it.

As for your fact that the rebuild was forced and not required, whether it was required is based on opinion so it's not a fact.

Really you think when Buckley took over we needed a rebuild rather that a few minor tweaks to allow for form and retirements ? That is all Chris Scott did with Geelong and won them another flag.
To me a rebuild is re-working your list because it was deemed not good enough. That clearly wasn't the case. It is a fact we only lost 3 games in 2011.

 

[CFC2010]

Really you think when Buckley took over we needed a rebuild rather that a few minor tweaks to allow for form and retirements ? That is all Chris Scott did with Geelong and won them another flag.
To me a rebuild is re-working your list because it was deemed not good enough. That clearly wasn't the case. It is a fact we only lost 3 games in 2011.

Do you think it was Buckley's decision to "tweak" the team or the whole Clubs?

 

[jadami1973]

Do you think it was Buckley's decision to "tweak" the team or the whole Clubs?

tweak no rebuild yes

 

[CFC2010]

tweak no rebuild yes

Judge him on his coaching.........the rebuild as you put it is on our Club as a whole.

Especially our drug crusader.

 

[Schraderbrau]

In: Smith, Varcoe, Reid.

It seems to me we've hit that where there is a conflict of interests between coach's immediate future and the medium/long term future of football club.

 

[jadami1973]

Judge him on his coaching.........the rebuild as you put it is on our Club as a whole.

Especially our drug crusader.

it's simple we need change to happen we are mediocre. We lack direction and have done for several years. Buckley is the head coach so much of the responsibility lies with him.

 

[CFC2010]

it's simple we need change to happen we are mediocre. We lack direction and have done for several years. Buckley is the head coach so much of the responsibility lies with him.

You are right the buck stops with Bucks (pun intended) but IMO I don't think the change you and most people want will happen this year.

Just my two cents

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Really you think when Buckley took over we needed a rebuild rather that a few minor tweaks to allow for form and retirements ? That is all Chris Scott did with Geelong and won them another flag.
To me a rebuild is re-working your list because it was deemed not good enough. That clearly wasn't the case. It is a fact we only lost 3 games in 2011.

Doesn't matter what my particular opinion is but according to club at the end of 2012, the current list wasn't going to win them the next flag so they started making moves. There's two differing opinions, your and theirs. The only fact there is that the club made a decision. How many changes were made to the 2011 list in the off season?
Scott won a flag in his first year so not a lot of opportunity to make massive list changes.
Of those who were 'culled', who needed to stay?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I reckon it would be the pinnacle for an AFL coach....just like a driver, getting the Ferrari gig in F1

Leon Cameron has the gig at gws - sorry got confused he has the mercedes team.

Don't reckon we're the fez though, more like the williams or force india

 

[Carringbush2010]

Pert spouted we would win grand final in a 5 year window

To further back your argument it was 3 years

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-flag-within-three-years-20140314-hviw8.html

 

[Carringbush2010]

Disagree, think we've had very clear understanding of what we've needed.

Understanding yes but planning no, sure the well was dry last year but IMO we would've been better keeping the warchest instead of wells and mayne. Those 2 look like a mistake that the club won't admit

 

[Carringbush2010]

What he said on Footy Classified was that whether he stays or goes is not solely a decision for the club. He said if he felt he wasn't doing the job well and getting the best out of the players, regardless of what the club wanted, he also had a decision to make about whether he would want to continue as coach.

In your opinion is that an admission that he might walk at years end should things stay awry? I watched that episode too and in my opinion it is ultimately the clubs decision to make; he may have an opportunity to "convince" the board 1 way or the other but it should rest with the club and not the coach and I think he'll find that out sooner or later

 

[Carringbush2010]

But Maccas a preparer of men, not a head coach. He'd be a ripper to get though.

Certainly in a development sense

 

[Carringbush2010]

is therefore a massive gamble. It could pay off or fall apart in extreme equal measures. Or it could be more of the same.

That pretty much sums it up!

 

[Carringbush2010]

Yeah, like Barassi at Melbourne and Sydney, Hafey at Collingwood, Sydney and Geelong, Sheedy at GWS, Blight at Geelong and StKilda, MM at Carlton...

Apart from mm you could argue the rest are certainly not worse, Blight at geelong and Hafey with us had better seasons

 

[Jafo]

I'd like Eade back. In his first two years with us, he was the Director of Coaching (before the role was abolished) and mentoring Bucks. Coincidence that we made the finals in those two years? Probably, as I know most attribute that to the lingering influence of MM and the fact that we still had most of our premiership players.

Then Eade joined the merry-go-round of heads of our football department following Walsh's departure.

What position would he take up?

And your opinion of Balme? Was good at Geelong, didn't go too bad last time with us and stellar revival at Richmond so far.

Not sold on return of Rocket based on track record at Swans, Dogs and now Suns. I hear a lot of Dogs supporters having not much confidence in Rocket gelling a playing group together very well. Much like how we are talking about Bucks as our senior coach.

Wouldn't mind Harley either.

 

[F_therest]

Really you think when Buckley took over we needed a rebuild rather that a few minor tweaks to allow for form and retirements ? That is all Chris Scott did with Geelong and won them another flag.
To me a rebuild is re-working your list because it was deemed not good enough. That clearly wasn't the case. It is a fact we only lost 3 games in 2011.

This...not sure how anyone could disagree.

Iirc Collingwood were a very young team at the time and there was talk of a dynasty with prolonged success.

You were successful at a good time with the expansion clubs coming in and FA started a few years later...it's well documented hawthorn took advantage of being successful at this time to stay at the top. Geelong are also doing it they've been in contention for years.

Could have followed their path of just tweaking the list etc instead of a full overhaul.