Hot Topic The Rebuild, est. 2023 and/or 2025

[jdstorm]

‘Really nervous’: Fears of Dons trade raid; ‘wildcard’ emerges in epic finals statements — AFL Talking Points

‘Really nervous’: Fears of Dons trade raid; ‘wildcard’ emerges in epic flag shake-up — Talking Pts

www.foxsports.com.au

View attachment 2379689
View attachment 2379690

Journos can be dumb.

Contracted players require trading a decent package for. If Essendon could turn 10 disgruntled names into 3-4 really good players along with 4-6 decent draft picks (two academy players + 4 picks)

You’ve turned over 1/3rd-1/2 of the starters in one offseason with 20% of them being good younger established players

 

[windyhill]

We have stars ?

 

[Yoda_]

We have stars ?

any player who has played AFL is considered a star by those who haven't played in the media

 

[bomberlegend2007]

‘Really nervous’: Fears of Dons trade raid; ‘wildcard’ emerges in epic finals statements — AFL Talking Points

‘Really nervous’: Fears of Dons trade raid; ‘wildcard’ emerges in epic flag shake-up — Talking Pts

www.foxsports.com.au

View attachment 2379843
View attachment 2379690

Really, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

 

[Old Campaigner]

‘Really nervous’: Fears of Dons trade raid; ‘wildcard’ emerges in epic finals statements — AFL Talking Points

‘Really nervous’: Fears of Dons trade raid; ‘wildcard’ emerges in epic flag shake-up — Talking Pts

www.foxsports.com.au

View attachment 2379843
View attachment 2379690

 

[Keystone agony]

sad in 2020, Swans had better % than us, and hit draft ahead of us, and ended up with 3 better players than us (2 from academy), with only 1 draft pick ahead of us pre draft, but 2 selections at the draft (we had 3 first rounds). We did beat swans by 6 points that year. But look at our % and we really were a bit of a outlier and should have finished closer to 3rd last, with meaningless wins


View attachment 2379511

Crazy Adelaide and North change in fortunes as well since then.

Here in lies the huge inequities that we take the worst of atm

 

[Lore]

If a bloke that’s been here for 8-10 years has one bad season of injuries and decides to leave then I don’t think that’s the kind of player you’d call a senior leader anyway.

 

[BrunoV]

The article seems to be trying to say a number of things without really saying them.

The idea of the rebuild being delayed by injury doens't make sense to me. Injury has exposed kids in a way that would not otherwise have happened and other than Hayse, the really young cohort has been fit.

I think the sentiment in the article is being driven by a player manager or 2 who are going to try to get the likes of Ridley (who has been limited to 19 games in 2 seasons) and Langford out of Essendon. I'd be surprised if Redman doesn't form part of the talk as he has also struggled with injury.

After all of this time they're exhausting their prime years at a club that is rebuilding 3 to 4 years late and which is managing player fitness so badly that the head of the department was signed in mid-July. It would be the diplomatic way of trying to force a move.

They've broken me after all this time, I'm barely intested enough to watch, why would the players who have lived this shit for 10 year feel any different? This is the problem with rebuilding 2 years after the latest restart/change in coach, etc. I'm trying to cling to the idea that it makes sense to stick with Scott. But now I wonder whether the viability of his tenure comes down to moving on the senior core. The same voice can't just start deleving differnet and contradictory messages - players tend to notice things like that.

 

[BomberManU]

'Rip the heart out of the rebuild'???? I'd say it has brought it forward, not set it back. Merrett would be a huge loss, which isn't going to happen anyway, the rest - see you later.

 

[MiguelM]

The article seems to be trying to say a number of things without really saying them.

The idea of the rebuild being delayed by injury doens't make sense to me. Injury has exposed kids in a way that would not otherwise have happened and other than Hayse, the really young cohort has been fit.

I think the sentiment in the article is being driven by a player manager or 2 who are going to try to get the likes of Ridley (who has been limited to 19 games in 2 seasons) and Langford out of Essendon. I'd be surprised if Redman doesn't form part of the talk as he has also struggled with injury.

After all of this time they're exhausting their prime years at a club that is rebuilding 3 to 4 years late and which is managing player fitness so badly that the head of the department was signed in mid-July. It would be the diplomatic way of trying to force a move.

They've broken me after all this time, I'm barely intested enough to watch, why would the players who have lived this shit for 10 year feel any different? This is the problem with rebuilding 2 years after the latest restart/change in coach, etc. I'm trying to cling to the idea that it makes sense to stick with Scott. But now I wonder whether the viability of his tenure comes down to moving on the senior core. The same voice can't just start deleving differnet and contradictory messages - players tend to notice things like that.

Some blame for our issues is the players fault too.

Too much tail wagging dog in this. Time to go hard at the players and be tough.

 

[Lore]

The article seems to be trying to say a number of things without really saying them.

The idea of the rebuild being delayed by injury doens't make sense to me. Injury has exposed kids in a way that would not otherwise have happened and other than Hayse, the really young cohort has been fit.

I think the sentiment in the article is being driven by a player manager or 2 who are going to try to get the likes of Ridley (who has been limited to 19 games in 2 seasons) and Langford out of Essendon. I'd be surprised if Redman doesn't form part of the talk as he has also struggled with injury.

After all of this time they're exhausting their prime years at a club that is rebuilding 3 to 4 years late and which is managing player fitness so badly that the head of the department was signed in mid-July. It would be the diplomatic way of trying to force a move.

They've broken me after all this time, I'm barely intested enough to watch, why would the players who have lived this shit for 10 year feel any different? This is the problem with rebuilding 2 years after the latest restart/change in coach, etc. I'm trying to cling to the idea that it makes sense to stick with Scott. But now I wonder whether the viability of his tenure comes down to moving on the senior core. The same voice can't just start deleving differnet and contradictory messages - players tend to notice things like that.

It's just a 'hot take' segment from AFL360 that the intern wrote up for the website. There isn't a lot of depth to it so reading between the lines is inherently pointless, but I agree with the rest of your sentiments.

 

[Call Me Cake]

BrunoV

The article is trying to allude to the idea that players not playing somehow sets a rebuild back 5 years, not realizing that a chunk of the players injured are players that we as supporters wouldn't consider as a crucial part of said rebuild/has opened the door for more youth (therefore furthering it). Ergo, the doom and gloom article is in a disconnect with us who know better about our list. The whole point of me posting it was to have a laugh at the absurdity of it.

This is the problem with rebuilding 2 years after the latest restart/change in coach, etc.

Except this isn't true, we've let go of a lot of similar experience from the list since 2023 and have been rebuilding since then. Even before the injuries/start of the season we were already one of if not the youngest best 23 selected teams in the league.

Also if you read quotes from Scott back in 2023 you'd know he was talking like a coach who took the job on the premise of a long-term vision and used language like "building a team over time", today taking swipes at those before him for trying to get quick fixes and the likes of Vozzo/leaks confirming that a build since 2023 has always been the case.

And before you predictably bring up McKay and Gresh, they were seen as filling needs for no cost in draft picks and even today any player brought in who's "no older than 28" would still fit our long term vision (refer to Vozzo's interview in the "burger with the lot" article).

 

[Lore]

BrunoV

The article is trying to allude to the idea that players not playing somehow sets a rebuild back 5 years, not realizing that a chunk of the players injured are players that we as supporters wouldn't consider as a crucial part of said rebuild/has opened the door for more youth (therefore furthering it). Ergo, the doom and gloom article is in a disconnect with us who know better about our list. The whole point of me posting it was to have a laugh at the absurdity of it.



Except this isn't true, we've let go of a lot of similar experience from the list since 2023 and have been rebuilding since then. Even before the injuries/start of the season we were already one of if not the youngest best 23 selected teams in the league.

Also if you read quotes from Scott back in 2023 you'd know he was talking like a coach who took the job on the premise of a long-term vision and used language like "building a team over time", today taking swipes at those before him for trying to get quick fixes and the likes of Vozzo/leaks confirming that a build since 2023 has always been the case.

And before you predictably bring up McKay and Gresh, they were seen as filling needs for no cost in draft picks and even today any player brought in who's "no older than 28" would still fit our long term vision (refer to Vozzo's interview in the "burger with the lot" article).

Surely he meant that if an injury-smashed season leads to an exodus of senior players then the lack of senior players potentially sets you back 3-4-5 years?

Like separately from the reality that the injuries set back many individual players back up to 12 months (e.g Martin’s ACL)? And associated loss of team chemistry building time

 

[Call Me Cake]

‘We’ve got a problem here’: What Brad Scott found at Essendon

Brad Scott bluntly told Essendon president David Barham and his board that if they believed they were close to a turnaround in on-field results, they shouldn’t hire him.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Keystone agony]

‘We’ve got a problem here’: What Brad Scott found at Essendon

Brad Scott bluntly told Essendon president David Barham and his board that if they believed they were close to a turnaround in on-field results, they shouldn’t hire him.

www.theage.com.au

View attachment 2380608

That all about buying time though isnt it

And then proceeded to play elder types over youth in first 2 years, doesnt really stack up

 

[Call Me Cake]

That all about buying time though isnt it

What is it that you think you need the most of when you're aligned on the need to build?

The current administration (Scott, Barham, Vozzo, et al) have been consistent on this since day 1 thereby dispelling the myths from those who suggest we've been chasing short-term success and "flipped" at an arbitrary point on the basis that we haven't reached said success lmao.

The reality is you can't cut 20+ players at once and everything we've been doing since then, including protecting the draft hand at all costs/not selling them for stars, changing the culture and generating stability, etc has been part of a plan leading into this season and beyond. Again people seem to forget that even before the injuries/debutants we were already down at the bottom for age/inexperience per selected 23.

Scott: Bombers keeping ‘strong focus’ on areas within control

Senior Coach taking things day-by-day.

www.essendonfc.com.au

 

[Keystone agony]

What is it that you think you need the most of when you're aligned on the need to build?

The current administration (Scott, Barham, Vozzo) have been consistent on this and co-signed the said messaging since day 1 thereby dispelling the myths from those who suggest we've been chasing short-term success and "flipped" at an arbitrary point on the basis that we haven't reached said success lmao.

The reality is you can't cut 20+ players at once and everything we've been doing since then, including changing the culture/generating stability, has been leading into 2025. Again, even before the injuries/debutants we were already in the bottom 2-3 for age/inexperience.

Scott: Bombers keeping ‘strong focus’ on areas within control

Senior Coach taking things day-by-day.

www.essendonfc.com.au

View attachment 2380648

I think we picked a team to win there and now in year 1 and 2 and not have a focus on the betterment of the future

 

[Call Me Cake]

I think we picked a team to win there and now in year 1 and 2 and not have a focus on the betterment of the future

I think all the messaging and reasons given in said messaging since then to today has been consistent and proves that your thoughts are wrong.

To say otherwise is to border on gaslighting, but agree to disagree.

 

[Keystone agony]

I think all the messaging and reasons given in said messaging since then to today has been consistent and proves that your thoughts are wrong.

To say otherwise is to border on gaslighting, but agree to disagree.

You can say what you want

But actions speak far stronger

 

[ghostdog]

I like the type of players we seem focused on bringing in. Roberts, Lual, Nguyen, Caddy, Kako; all tough and don't squib contact. Helpful that Merrett, Durham, Caldwell and Setterfield enjoy the contact as well. Not all of those young players might survive the rebuild over time, but at least we're recruiting competitors now.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Interesting article

Garbage concept or worth the wait: Does rebuilding an AFL club take longer than ever?

Ross Lyon reckons the answer is obvious, but some clubs make rebuilds look easy, and others don’t even bother with them. So what is the best approach to reviving a struggling AFL team?

www.theage.com.au

 

[ghostdog]

Caddy and Roberts made the AFLPA 22 under 22 squad, so some forecast for stars I guess.
...which is not to say we're bereft of young talent, but we can obviously expect not to keep all of our youngsters, even though it's been exciting to watch them this year.

 

[Lore]

At this point I have no idea why I did this... kinda just got stuck in and it kept growing with more stuff added to it.

Started by mapping our list in 2023-2025, then all of our list management decisions from 2021 onwards (i.e., post-covid), and then projected the currently contracted players through to the end of their contracts.

I had to organise it by jumper number because it got unwieldy trying to line up each list spot, and then I couldn't remember or find why we had particular list spots open in particular SSP and mid-season draft recruiting opportunities.

Fair warning, it's ****ing huge... the paper size is set to A2 (landscape), so you'll either need a giant screen or zoom in a bit to read it... or perhaps really good eyesight. Mostly it's 10pt font but I had to zoom out to get a clear and complete screenshot.



Vertical lines indicate where we are now (end of 2025), and perhaps less obviously, the middle of the transition period in 2024 (which sort of doubles as the '2023 rebuild' starting point if you're so inclined). I checked all of the contract announcements that fall under that transition line, none of them mention either Dodoro or Rosa, with all club-POV quotes attributed to Dan McPherson for the entire year, from February until November. So I guess you just blame the club in general for the list build that year?

I would suggest many of the decisions made in 2024 revolved around managing our salary cap in order to meet the floor, particularly the early extensions for Langford and Ridley.

After 2025 the scale changes as there are no mid-season rookies for those years yet and I needed the space to accomodate the 2030 end date on McGrath's contract.

I'm pretty sure Menzie should've been upgraded to the senior list this year and idk why he wasn't. He was drafted at the 2022 MSD so he's been on the list for 3.5 years now, usually the half year counts as a whole year for the minimum 3 year rule, and I don't think he got a bonus year on the rookie list from covid because he was drafted a fair while after the covid-impacted season in 2020.

 

[Nifft]

At this point I have no idea why I did this... kinda just got stuck in and it kept growing with more stuff added to it.

Started by mapping our list in 2023-2025, then all of our list management decisions from 2021 onwards (i.e., post-covid), and then projected the currently contracted players through to the end of their contracts.

I had to organise it by jumper number because it got unwieldy trying to line up each list spot, and then I couldn't remember or find why we had particular list spots open in particular SSP and mid-season draft recruiting opportunities.

Fair warning, it's ****ing huge... the paper size is set to A2 (landscape), so you'll either need a giant screen or zoom in a bit to read it... or perhaps really good eyesight. Mostly it's 10pt font but I had to zoom out to get a clear and complete screenshot.

View attachment 2407334

Vertical lines indicate where we are now (end of 2025), and perhaps less obviously, the middle of the transition period in 2024 (which sort of doubles as the '2023 rebuild' starting point if you're so inclined). I checked all of the contract announcements that fall under that transition line, none of them mention either Dodoro or Rosa, with all club-POV quotes attributed to Dan McPherson for the entire year, from February until November. So I guess you just blame the club in general for the list build that year?

I would suggest many of the decisions made in 2024 revolved around managing our salary cap in order to meet the floor, particularly the early extensions for Langford and Ridley.

After 2025 the scale changes as there are no mid-season rookies for those years yet and I needed the space to accomodate the 2030 end date on McGrath's contract.

I'm pretty sure Menzie should've been upgraded to the senior list this year and idk why he wasn't. He was drafted at the 2022 MSD so he's been on the list for 3.5 years now, usually the half year counts as a whole year for the minimum 3 year rule, and I don't think he got a bonus year on the rookie list from covid because he was drafted a fair while after the covid-impacted season in 2020.

It's funny looking at the 4 longest contracts on the list and wondering how many games we're going to get out of them. At least McGrath is fairly durable, but the others...

Also it looks like there are only 8 players on the main list that are out of contract this year. If some of them stay (Draper and Lual for example) then they're going to need to trade some players out or pay their last year out (looking at you Gresham!). Interesting to see what happens.

Thanks heaps for doing this Lore.

 

[Zach Package]

Part of the challenge of this is it's not a team rebuild with a settled and functional organisation, it's a whole of organisation rebuild. This isn't Hawthorn retooling with a couple of free agents and trades while the rest of the club is completely settled and they are clear on what they are doing.

The analogy I would use is the classic 3 legged stool where the legs are the coaching, list management and strength and conditioning. If one of those legs is unstable, the stool falls over.

Brad we all acknowledge is no visionary, but is a stable presence, and Rosa is young in the role but has started well, the strength and conditioning is dogshit, so the stool falls over despite the continued best efforts of the other two.