Opinion Where it has all gone wrong for Essendon

[ghostdog]

Well we are still at it with keeping talls.at all costs and drafting new ones with our best picks. Even if we had 9 guess where it was headed apparently?

Dude, I've stepped off the carousel.

 

[ant555]

I think there are a few things along the way that have lead us to where we ended up.

1- Failure to listen to Noel Judkins in the late 90's and change how we looked at recruiting including not having the coach dominate the conversation and
over ruling draft picks.

2- Unforeseen changes in the salary cap that pretty much cut short the run of our 1999 - 2001 team.

3- Peter Jackson. Good guy and had the club in good shape financially but for a while the clubs was about being $1,000,000 in the black and less about what could help us keep winning on the ground. There was a complacency around that it would just keep happening.

4- Sheedy stayed three years too long. Loved the man and he lifted us from an average club from the 70's to a feared outfit for 20 years. I had a number of lunches with him and he just loved footy Essendon and life but he had run his race with us in 2003. Both he and the club needed something new. He could still coach but he was below his best with us at that stage.

5- When we finally moved on Sheedy we hired a rookie coach who had a great plan for the whole club but gave him limited support staff wise with only 1 senior assistant and limited football department spend.

6- The obvious saga stuff up.

7- Injuries. Now for whatever reason , poor staff or just plain bad luck injury has hurt us in various forms since before 2000. This has ranged from Hird and Lucas being injured in 99 to the likes of Gumbleton passing all testing only to develop severe back related hamstring issues and Myers missing just as many games as he played and never living up to the promise he showed as a junior.

8- The non ability to nail a draft that could have set us up for 10 years. Every club has it flops as far as drafts go and we have not had more flops compared to other top sides but we have still fallen short in our good drafts. There are a number of years where we pick 1 or 2 great players but failed to get that 3r or 4th good player through. 2005 to 2009 could have been that period as we drafted some really good players and pre saga we had 9 AA players on our list but we still could have been 4 or 5 players better.

 

[ghostdog]

I think there are a few things along the way that have lead us to where we ended up.

1- Failure to listen to Noel Judkins in the late 90's and change how we looked at recruiting including not having the coach dominate the conversation and
over ruling draft picks.

2- Unforeseen changes in the salary cap that pretty much cut short the run of our 1999 - 2001 team.

3- Peter Jackson. Good guy and had the club in good shape financially but for a while the clubs was about being $1,000,000 in the black and less about what could help us keep winning on the ground. There was a complacency around that it would just keep happening.

4- Sheedy stayed three years too long. Loved the man and he lifted us from an average club from the 70's to a feared outfit for 20 years. I had a number of lunches with him and he just loved footy Essendon and life but he had run his race with us in 2003. Both he and the club needed something new. He could still coach but he was below his best with us at that stage.

5- When we finally moved on Sheedy we hired a rookie coach who had a great plan for the whole club but gave him limited support staff wise with only 1 senior assistant and limited football department spend.

6- The obvious saga stuff up.

7- Injuries. Now for whatever reason , poor staff or just plain bad luck injury has hurt us in various forms since before 2000. This has ranged from Hird and Lucas being injured in 99 to the likes of Gumbleton passing all testing only to develop severe back related hamstring issues and Myers missing just as many games as he played and never living up to the promise he showed as a junior.

8- The non ability to nail a draft that could have set us up for 10 years. Every club has it flops as far as drafts go and we have not had more flops compared to other top sides but we have still fallen short in our good drafts. There are a number of years where we pick 1 or 2 great players but failed to get that 3r or 4th good player through. 2005 to 2009 could have been that period as we drafted some really good players and pre saga we had 9 AA players on our list but we still could have been 4 or 5 players better.

I have regret for Matthew Knights. I thought the way we attacked the game back then looked fantastic, even if it was heart-in-mouth stuff. It's a pity the supporting staff were held off until Hird came along. Knighter could have been great.

 

[ant555]

I have regret for Matthew Knights. I thought the way we attacked the game back then looked fantastic, even if it was heart-in-mouth stuff. It's a pity the supporting staff were held off until Hird came along. Knighter could have been great.

Always liked Knights. I used to see a bit of training and had a number of chats with him and his whole club plan was great but I also remember telling a few friends his work will build the platform but he is not getting enough support. Our only senior assistant was GOD , also a good bloke but never a great assistant over the journey and more suited to a department role than a coaching role. After him they where all a bunch of rookies in the box.

 

[ghostdog]

Always liked Knights. I used to see a bit of training and had a number of chats with him and his whole club plan was great but I also remember telling a few friends his work will build the platform but he is not getting enough support. Our only senior assistant was GOD , also a good bloke but never a great assistant over the journey and more suited to a department role than a coaching role. After him they where all a bunch of rookies in the box.

Do you recall hearing criticism internally of the powers that be at the time? It seems like Knights was set up for failure. When you consider that that was his first senior coaching gig, and that he has only been an assistant since, it seems really unfair that he wasn't given the same level of support as Hird. It would be great to see him get another crack at a senior coach role.

 

[ant555]

Do you recall hearing criticism internally of the powers that be at the time? It seems like Knights was set up for failure. When you consider that that was his first senior coaching gig, and that he has only been an assistant since, it seems really unfair that he wasn't given the same level of support as Hird. It would be great to see him get another crack at a senior coach role.

It was just how we where at the time. Club was more about having dollars in the bank rather than dollars in the football department.

 

[Ambrosia]

He credits a B grade midfielder selected at pick 8 as one of his greatest successes?

Say what you want about Heppell's leadership, etc, but the reality is that he ploddy midfield accumulator with poor disposal.

I'm not sure an opposition coach has ever sent anyone to mind him.

That's the one consistent theme that is perhaps the key reason we've been irrelevant for 15 years. We massively overrate our players.

I feel like calling Heppell a B-grade midfielder is both harsh and not harsh enough. I'd say the player Heppell is when he's playing through injury ala the second half of last year is someone we are winning in spite of when you compare him to the average starting AFL midfielder. This would put him below B grade status.

I have some hope a fully fit Heppell can return to somewhere near his AA year where he was very good death by 1000 cuts style midfielder.

 

[BrunoV]

I feel like calling Heppell a B-grade midfielder is both harsh and not harsh enough. I'd say the player Heppell is when he's playing through injury ala the second half of last year is someone we are winning in spite of when you compare him to the average starting AFL midfielder. This would put him below B grade status.

I have some hope a fully fit Heppell can return to somewhere near his AA year where he was very good death by 1000 cuts style midfielder.

It's only harsh because his reputation is inflated.

He can be a great leader, terrific person, play well or admirably under injury but none of that is particularly relevant.

I couldn't explain why he's a more effective player in his role than Stanton or Misiti and JJ (as previously discussed).

My beef isn't with him. It's with the people who have been trying to build a team around him.

One of his supposed games of his AA year was against WCE I think- it's the 19 possession second half.

He literally does not hit a target with 90-100% of touches.

Dynamic players like Danger, Judd and Swan can carry bodgy disposal because they bust games apart.

 

[NAB777]

I think there are a few things along the way that have lead us to where we ended up.

1- Failure to listen to Noel Judkins in the late 90's and change how we looked at recruiting including not having the coach dominate the conversation and
over ruling draft picks.

2- Unforeseen changes in the salary cap that pretty much cut short the run of our 1999 - 2001 team.

3- Peter Jackson. Good guy and had the club in good shape financially but for a while the clubs was about being $1,000,000 in the black and less about what could help us keep winning on the ground. There was a complacency around that it would just keep happening.

4- Sheedy stayed three years too long. Loved the man and he lifted us from an average club from the 70's to a feared outfit for 20 years. I had a number of lunches with him and he just loved footy Essendon and life but he had run his race with us in 2003. Both he and the club needed something new. He could still coach but he was below his best with us at that stage.

5- When we finally moved on Sheedy we hired a rookie coach who had a great plan for the whole club but gave him limited support staff wise with only 1 senior assistant and limited football department spend.

6- The obvious saga stuff up.

7- Injuries. Now for whatever reason , poor staff or just plain bad luck injury has hurt us in various forms since before 2000. This has ranged from Hird and Lucas being injured in 99 to the likes of Gumbleton passing all testing only to develop severe back related hamstring issues and Myers missing just as many games as he played and never living up to the promise he showed as a junior.

8- The non ability to nail a draft that could have set us up for 10 years. Every club has it flops as far as drafts go and we have not had more flops compared to other top sides but we have still fallen short in our good drafts. There are a number of years where we pick 1 or 2 great players but failed to get that 3r or 4th good player through. 2005 to 2009 could have been that period as we drafted some really good players and pre saga we had 9 AA players on our list but we still could have been 4 or 5 players better.

Really hard to argue with these points.

Sheeds started to believe his publicity after a while & sometimes descended too far into eccentricity. Had he kept going, Jobe might have ended up elsewhere.

The injuries point is a big one. We haven't really nailed high performance in terms of fitness or injury prevention/recovery for a long time.

 

[owen87]

It's only harsh because his reputation is inflated.

He can be a great leader, terrific person, play well or admirably under injury but none of that is particularly relevant.

I couldn't explain why he's a more effective player in his role than Stanton or Misiti and JJ (as previously discussed).

My beef isn't with him. It's with the people who have been trying to build a team around him.

One of his supposed games of his AA year was against WCE I think- it's the 19 possession second half.

He literally does not hit a target with 90-100% of touches.

Dynamic players like Danger, Judd and Swan can carry bodgy disposal because they bust games apart.

It's pretty straightforward, Heppell shouldn't be your #1 Midfielder, he should be your fourth or fifth at most.

Merrett, Shiel, Smith, Parish, McGrath are all better players on the move, not winning first possession.

Heppell has the size but not the explosiveness to break through congestion himself, and doesn't have the ability by hand that Watson did to release your outside players in to space.

Misiti & JJ were both solid players, but they had Hird and Mercuri beside them - not to mention kicking to Lloyd and Lucas is a hell of a lot easier than kicking to McKernan and Browns.

Heppell doesn't have that level of class, and we haven't (yet) got that game-breaking midfielder.

 

[owen87]

The Dogs really should be contenders.

Their midfield is, they just lacked the KPPs and crazy Bevo making Bont and Dunkley play forward doesn't help.

 

[eth-dog]

Their midfield is, they just lacked the KPPs and crazy Bevo making Bont and Dunkley play forward doesn't help.

They need a ruckman. English looks Josh Fraser like right now. Should chase Sean Darcy from Freo

 

[owen87]

They need a ruckman. English looks Josh Fraser like right now. Should chase Sean Darcy from Freo

They struggled for KPP's all over the field; Bruce is a strong pick-up for them, giving Naughton and Schache a lot more support, and English is getting more mature.

 

[eth-dog]

They struggled for KPP's all over the field; Bruce is a strong pick-up for them, giving Naughton and Schache a lot more support, and English is getting more mature.

There's absolutely no reason a key defensive trio of Trengove, Keath and Young shouldn't work alongside Wood, Williams, Crozier and Daniel. Same with a forward grouping of Naughton, Bruce and Gardner (who should play second fiddle) with smalls like Lloyd, Cavarra and Lipinski.

English could be good but Beveridge's bizarre dismissal of the importance ruckmen, given his VAFA background where having a good ruck is vital, is counter-productive to say the least.

 

[owen87]

There's absolutely no reason a key defensive trio of Trengove, Keath and Young shouldn't work alongside Wood, Williams, Crozier and Daniel. Same with a forward grouping of Naughton, Bruce and Gardner (who should play second fiddle) with smalls like Lloyd, Cavarra and Lipinski.

English could be good but Beveridge's bizarre dismissal of the importance ruckmen, given his VAFA background where having a good ruck is vital, is counter-productive to say the least.

Forgot about Keath; he and Bruce are strong additions for them imo.

Bevo does some bizarre things, sometimes he seems a genius, others like he just makes things complex for the sake of it.

 

[fairbump_playon]

They need a ruckman. English looks Josh Fraser like right now. Should chase Sean Darcy from Freo

English will hit his straps over the next 18 months I reckon.

 

[BrunoV]

It's pretty straightforward, Heppell shouldn't be your #1 Midfielder, he should be your fourth or fifth at most.

Merrett, Shiel, Smith, Parish, McGrath are all better players on the move, not winning first possession.

Heppell has the size but not the explosiveness to break through congestion himself, and doesn't have the ability by hand that Watson did to release your outside players in to space.

Misiti & JJ were both solid players, but they had Hird and Mercuri beside them - not to mention kicking to Lloyd and Lucas is a hell of a lot easier than kicking to McKernan and Browns.

Heppell doesn't have that level of class, and we haven't (yet) got that game-breaking midfielder.

I'm just posting because I don't want the context to be lost. This wasn't about shitting on Heppell. It was about shitting on Dodoro for classifying Heppell's selection at pick 8 as some sort of master stroke/favourite selection.

He's kidding himself if he'd settle for Heppell in the first round of a draft. Fast forward 5 years and we're looking at the same with Parish at pick 5 - a midfielder of the calibre you can get in the 3 round of most drafts.

It's no surprise we have the midfield we do.

 

[citizen-erased]

I'm just posting because I don't want the context to be lost. This wasn't about shitting on Heppell. It was about shitting on Dodoro for classifying Heppell's selection at pick 8 as some sort of master stroke/favourite selection.

He's kidding himself if he'd settle for Heppell in the first round of a draft. Fast forward 5 years and we're looking at the same with Parish at pick 5 - a midfielder of the calibre you can get in the 3 round of most drafts.

It's no surprise we have the midfield we do.

Whilst true, there is no one else i take in that 1st rd outside Tom Lynch. And given we had a gimme coming through in Daniher and not a lot else to work with as a forward pairing at the time, perhaps that was poor decision making to not grab a FF to pair up with a CHF coming in and re-establish what we had with Lucas and Lloyd.
Can say much the same for 2015 and Parish. We got outplayed for Oliver. That didn't help (or maybe we didn't and we weren't going to take him either way).

Kinda feel its more the Morgan, Steinberg, redrafting of Eades, etc sort of picks that hurt us.
And we're probably feeling the pinch everyone predicted from the 2013/14 sanctions. Had already blown 2011 and 2012 saw us killed more than most with F/S bidding introduced.

 

[BrunoV]

Whilst true, there is no one else i take in that 1st rd outside Tom Lynch. And given we had a gimme coming through in Daniher and not a lot else to work with as a forward pairing at the time, perhaps that was poor decision making to not grab a FF to pair up with a CHF coming in and re-establish what we had with Lucas and Lloyd.
Can say much the same for 2015 and Parish. We got outplayed for Oliver. That didn't help (or maybe we didn't and we weren't going to take him either way).

Kinda feel its more the Morgan, Steinberg, redrafting of Eades, etc sort of picks that hurt us.
And we're probably feeling the pinch everyone predicted from the 2013/14 sanctions. Had already blown 2011 and 2012 saw us killed more than most with F/S bidding introduced.

What was the issue with Dunkley, his disposal? That's irony in the extreme given that Parish hits about 25% of targets by foot.

 

[eth-dog]

What was the issue with Dunkley, his disposal? That's irony in the extreme given that Parish hits about 25% of targets by foot.

That and was a bit hot and cold from memory, had some 25 possession days and some 10 possession days.

Nobody had Dunkley anywhere near 5/6 though, pretty sure the majority of clubs passed on him.

 

[citizen-erased]

What was the issue with Dunkley, his disposal? That's irony in the extreme given that Parish hits about 25% of targets by foot.

I would put Dunkley down to what our prime issue is - development.
Parish looked a sure bet mid when we drafted him. Needed Oliver more, but Parish was a good second choice.
So we take our midfielder and play him as a HFF....all the while a good HFF in Langford is struggling to stay in the side whilst playing as a mid.

We don't develop well and seem to bring the stupid out in coaches when putting players in spots. Feel like its some spell Sheeds has put on us.

 

[eth-dog]

I would put Dunkley down to what our prime issue is - development.
Parish looked a sure bet mid when we drafted him. Needed Oliver more, but Parish was a good second choice.
So we take our midfielder and play him as a HFF....all the while a good HFF in Langford is struggling to stay in the side whilst playing as a mid.

We don't develop well and seem to bring the stupid out in coaches when putting players in spots. Feel like its some spell Sheeds has put on us.

Now that is some high level bullshit there.

Parish has played significant midfield minutes ever since being drafted. Yes, we've rotated him forward as well but guess what? He's becoming a genuine goal kicking midfielder which are worth their weight in gold. I've never understood this obsession that Parish can't spend good minutes forward when he's creative around goals in both kicking them himself and setting them up.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

It was about shitting on Dodoro for classifying Heppell's selection at pick 8 as some sort of master stroke/favourite selection.

He's kidding himself if he'd settle for Heppell in the first round of a draft. Fast forward 5 years and we're looking at the same with Parish at pick 5 - a midfielder of the calibre you can get in the 3 round of most drafts.

It's no surprise we have the midfield we do.

What he actually said was Ramanauskas was his favourite pick, then went on a long ramble about what quality people Heppell and Merrett and various other current players are. The interesting part was the apparent focus on personality over football rather than any specific claims to success of a given pick.

 

[ant555]

It's only harsh because his reputation is inflated.

He can be a great leader, terrific person, play well or admirably under injury but none of that is particularly relevant.

I couldn't explain why he's a more effective player in his role than Stanton or Misiti and JJ (as previously discussed).

My beef isn't with him. It's with the people who have been trying to build a team around him.

One of his supposed games of his AA year was against WCE I think- it's the 19 possession second half.

He literally does not hit a target with 90-100% of touches.

Dynamic players like Danger, Judd and Swan can carry bodgy disposal because they bust games apart.

Love him as a player but I tend to agree. He simply is not a super star. He is not a bloke you can turn to to win a game. He is the bloke who rolls his sleeves up week in and week out and a guy you need in your side but he is not going to tear a game apart.

 

[ant555]

I'm just posting because I don't want the context to be lost. This wasn't about shitting on Heppell. It was about shitting on Dodoro for classifying Heppell's selection at pick 8 as some sort of master stroke/favourite selection.

He's kidding himself if he'd settle for Heppell in the first round of a draft. Fast forward 5 years and we're looking at the same with Parish at pick 5 - a midfielder of the calibre you can get in the 3 round of most drafts.

It's no surprise we have the midfield we do.

In fairness the 2015 draft was not the strongest midfield draft or overall draft. You have Clayton Oliver , Parish and Dunckley as the midfielders you can hang your hat on with Braydon Seir behind them. You can only pick what is there and Oliver went before we had a pick. Of the non academy picks I would say Parish is in the top 4 of that draft and still in the top 8 if you add the few academy picks like Hipwood.
Would not say there are a lot of Parish types in the third round of any draft though. Second probably but even the next draft I still see him rated between pretty high on comparison.