Coach Adam Simpson Megathread est. 2017 - Staying for 2024, Lyon’s Cryin’

[VicBased]

Simmo got here in 2014. This lack of flexibility still plagues the list. Footy IQ...I'll leave that to others to determine.

I'm sure I could search back to at least 2017 where I railed against the inability of our small or utility forwards and backs to rotate through the middle and attribute lack of chop out contributing to soft tissue injuries to our front liners. I'm not sure we have really done much to address these shortcoming Simpson apparently identified as soon as he walked in the door.

Perhaps resistance to change, on many levels at the club, has ultimately brought us to this sad scenario.

The way you are portraying it we were in real trouble when we won the GF.

 

[RookiePick]

The way you are portraying it we were in real trouble when we won the GF.

2017. We dominated games early and then got ran down repeatedly. I have no idea why I would have been considering reasons as to why we seemed to dominate games with fresh legs and somehow run out games abominably.

 

[Rowan18]

Simmo got here in 2014. This lack of flexibility still plagues the list. Footy IQ...I'll leave that to others to determine.

I'm sure I could search back to at least 2017 where I railed against the inability of our small or utility forwards and backs to rotate through the middle and attribute lack of chop out contributing to soft tissue injuries to our front liners. I'm not sure we have really done much to address these shortcoming Simpson apparently identified as soon as he walked in the door.

Perhaps resistance to change, on many levels at the club, has ultimately brought us to this sad scenario.

Yeah, he went on about it and then completely failed to implement it. Might have been a result of learning the list and maximising the talents the players had.

 

[Priddis Is Done]

A

I don't think we've had the players to develop though.

So think about Duggan, Rotham, Foley etc. I just don't think these players are that good to begin with AND...

90% of AFL players are soldiers. Throw Rivers into a raging flag side with good systems and gun players everywhere and it's easy to play well. I bet if Rivers was playing at North he'd be playing like a busted ass. Duggan was fire when he started. But that was in a top 4 side that won a flag.

B

Let me show you where the talent in the draft is:

View attachment 1676573

This is 12 years of the draft. 2008 - 2019. Yellow = top end players, green = really good players, pink = pretty good players. No color could be a dud, a 40 game player, a 100 game player who wasn't in his club's best 12 or 13.

Not surprising the talent is at the top. More squares are highlighted, all the yellows mostly sit near the top, the green flows down lower, and the pink flows down lower again.

So here's where we had our picks:

View attachment 1676605

The top right is basically Nic, Sheppard, and Gaff.

So I see 2 things:

1. We're not drafting in zone where the talent is

• We were top of the ladder for a long time
• We traded picks for Kelly (they weren't top 10 picks anyway)
• We traded out 2nds for Cripps, Yeo, Redden

2. Even with the picks we had, without going into deep analysis, our outcomes would be below average.

-----------------

I'm not seeing massive problems here. We didn't have a top 10 pick for 10 years, we traded out some R2-ish picks for Cripps, Yeo, redden which produced a flag, and we traded for Kelly when we were in the flag window.

You can't just trade in players and develop them into superstars. 90% can be developed into role players. The ones who do turn out to be guns - they just have it within them. There's a fair element of luck.

#7 - #14 = Lucky
#3 - #6 = Luckier
#1 - #2 = Luckiest.

No disrespect meant as I give you stick about the bulls and all that.

But this I can understand and resonates greatly with me.

So thank you.

 

[Mudguts12]

A

I don't think we've had the players to develop though.

So think about Duggan, Rotham, Foley etc. I just don't think these players are that good to begin with AND...

90% of AFL players are soldiers. Throw Rivers into a raging flag side with good systems and gun players everywhere and it's easy to play well. I bet if Rivers was playing at North he'd be playing like a busted ass. Duggan was fire when he started. But that was in a top 4 side that won a flag.

B

Let me show you where the talent in the draft is:

View attachment 1676573

This is 12 years of the draft. 2008 - 2019. Yellow = top end players, green = really good players, pink = pretty good players. No color could be a dud, a 40 game player, a 100 game player who wasn't in his club's best 12 or 13.

Not surprising the talent is at the top. More squares are highlighted, all the yellows mostly sit near the top, the green flows down lower, and the pink flows down lower again.

So here's where we had our picks:

View attachment 1676605

The top right is basically Nic, Sheppard, and Gaff.

So I see 2 things:

1. We're not drafting in zone where the talent is

• We were top of the ladder for a long time
• We traded picks for Kelly (they weren't top 10 picks anyway)
• We traded out 2nds for Cripps, Yeo, Redden

2. Even with the picks we had, without going into deep analysis, our outcomes would be below average.

-----------------

I'm not seeing massive problems here. We didn't have a top 10 pick for 10 years, we traded out some R2-ish picks for Cripps, Yeo, redden which produced a flag, and we traded for Kelly when we were in the flag window.

You can't just trade in players and develop them into superstars. 90% can be developed into role players. The ones who do turn out to be guns - they just have it within them. There's a fair element of luck.

#7 - #14 = Lucky
#3 - #6 = Luckier
#1 - #2 = Luckiest.

Thanks for this response. Point taken - it proves just how much the odds are stacked against you once your past pick 20 for a player that is even going to get a regular game. I didn't realise just how bad these odds were.

Going off this we've only had about 8 picks under 20 in 12 years = impending cliff no matter who the coach is.

 

[Chump Change]

Thanks for this response. Point taken - it proves just how much the odds are stacked against you once your past pick 20 for a player that is even going to get a regular game. I didn't realise just how bad these odds were.

Going off this we've only had about 8 picks under 20 in 12 years = impending cliff no matter who the coach is.

For what it's worth, the recruiting does look slightly under par with the naked eye. But to get an accurate read, you pretty much have to go through every team.

The other thing is the issues I have with Simmo:

1. Didn't realise the game plan was not working and didn't change it
2. S&C

The first one is related to lack of player development. Have a shit game plan, players don't buy in, hard for new players to play good footy.

BUT, I still think the overriding concepts are;

1. Most players are soldiers. Guys you can develop into role players. These players play well in good teams and bad in poor teams.
2. Guns aren't developed, they just have it within. Either bigger, faster, stronger, better skill, or just mentally have the ability to get it done. Or both, or some sort of combo.
3. The absolute elite guys - these are the guys who can win flags. The can influence moments in games, whole games, and can make everyone around them better players. These players are the rarest, the hardest to find, but worth their weight in gold. You have to prioritise trying to find these guys. The rest will generally fall into place organically.
4. The most important ingredient in a flag is the list. When you're rebuilding, prioritise assembling list over who the coach is. There's a couple of years to work out what the best coaching option is.

And some of the biggest myths in footy:

1. #1 is not that good. People see that it rarely ends up being the best player but don't realise every other pick in the whole draft has the same problem. Which means it's a nothing problem.

The other thing is, when we look at all the #1 picks over the last 15 years, they're pretty good players. And you get a better hit rate of getting a gun player over a pick between 6 and 10. Well, actually, better than pick 3 and any pick below.

2. Fringe players are the root of all your team's problem. Unless you're top 4, they don't matter. if you're rebuilding, they almost have 0 consequence. Footy is won and lost at the top end. How good your top players are, matters way more.

 

[Mudguts12]

For what it's worth, the recruiting does look slightly under par with the naked eye. But to get an accurate read, you pretty much have to go through every team.

The other thing is the issues I have with Simmo:

1. Didn't realise the game plan was not working and didn't change it
2. S&C

The first one is related to lack of player development. Have a s**t game plan, players don't buy in, hard for new players to play good footy.

BUT, I still think the overriding concepts are;

1. Most players are soldiers. Guys you can develop into role players. These players play well in good teams and bad in poor teams.
2. Guns aren't developed, they just have it within. Either bigger, faster, stronger, better skill, or just mentally have the ability to get it done. Or both, or some sort of combo.
3. The absolute elite guys - these are the guys who can win flags. The can influence moments in games, whole games, and can make everyone around them better players. These players are the rarest, the hardest to find, but worth their weight in gold. You have to prioritise trying to find these guys. The rest will generally fall into place organically.
4. The most important ingredient in a flag is the list. When you're rebuilding, prioritise assembling list over who the coach is. There's a couple of years to work out what the best coaching option is.

And some of the biggest myths in footy:

1. #1 is not that good. People see that it rarely ends up being the best player but don't realise every other pick in the whole draft has the same problem. Which means it's a nothing problem.

The other thing is, when we look at all the #1 picks over the last 15 years, they're pretty good players. And you get a better hit rate of getting a gun player over a pick between 6 and 10. Well, actually, better than pick 3 and any pick below.

2. Fringe players are the root of all your team's problem. Unless you're top 4, they don't matter. if you're rebuilding, they almost have 0 consequence. Footy is won and lost at the top end. How good your top players are, matters way more.

Will be interesting to see what WC decide to do with #1 if we're fortunate enough to get it, given our needs and the depth of the 2023 crop. Personally I'd be more inclined to split it 2022 style, given the hit rate of elite talent between picks 6 and 10.

 

[Priddis Is Done]

Thanks for this response. Point taken - it proves just how much the odds are stacked against you once your past pick 20 for a player that is even going to get a regular game. I didn't realise just how bad these odds were.

Going off this we've only had about 8 picks under 20 in 12 years = impending cliff no matter who the coach is.

Astonishingly bad strike rate.

Too meany teams and talent spread too thin?

 

[Chump Change]

Astonishingly bad strike rate.

Too many teams and talent spread too thin?

Nah, I don't think so. If you increase the teams or decrease the teams, you're going to roughly have the same percentage of failures. If you reduce the teams then standard of players increases but I think that's a different thing.

I don't watch footy and think "gee, the standard is shit with 18 teams! We need 16 teams". The difference would be negligible. And when we get teams that are really bad (us and North right now), it's not because the talent pool is too wide, it's because those teams are stuck in the vortex and don't have sufficient elite players to build a list around. It's more draft related than "talent pool too wide" related.

The issue with too many teams is that there are teams in Melbourne that have systemic financial problems over decades. Their supporter bases aren't big enough and this will never change unless they relocate. Teams like GWS and GC lose money, but they have supporter bases that they can grow into. North and St Kilda don't have that.

 

[Balls In]

What about our little public dummy spit in the hub and how physically under prepared our players were headed into it? How is that not on the coach? Now we have players breaking down because they had poor preseasons three years in a row.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

What about our little public dummy spit in the hub and how physically under prepared our players were headed into it? How is that not on the coach? Now we have players breaking down because they had poor preseasons three years in a row.

Yeah, what about it? You haven’t mentioned it in at least a week.

 

[Chump Change]

What about our little public dummy spit in the hub and how physically under prepared our players were headed into it? How is that not on the coach? Now we have players breaking down because they had poor preseasons three years in a row.

Yep, it's on the coach.

Why do you want to still punish him for it? We've gone into "build list" mode. The coach is not really that important at the moment.

 

[bzparkes]

What about our little public dummy spit in the hub and how physically under prepared our players were headed into it? How is that not on the coach? Now we have players breaking down because they had poor preseasons three years in a row.

Err, what? We had a great preseason. It wasn't until the Freo game that things went pear-shaped.

 

[ziad]

Err, what? We had a great preseason. It wasn't until the Freo game that things went pear-shaped.

Fair point

 

[DanWCE]

Simmo lost a bet to Burgiel and had to pretty much get a buzz cut haircut

 

[Balls In]

Err, what? We had a great preseason. It wasn't until the Freo game that things went pear-shaped.

I was refering to the preseasons post 2018 up until the one we just had (which I agree was a good one). Point being that professional standards have dropped off the table in the past few seasons and that's on the coach. Given how its drifted off the rails is Simpson really the type of coach who can rebuild our culture within the new cohort?

 

[bzparkes]

I was refering to the preseasons post 2018 up until the one we just had (which I agree was a good one). Point being that professional standards have dropped off the table in the past few seasons and that's on the coach. Given how its drifted off the rails is Simpson really the type of coach who can rebuild our culture within the new cohort?

Oh, fair enough.

Culture isn't solely up to one person, although I acknowledge the senior coach is the primary driver of it.

Having good fitness personnel(players have raves about Kilgallon in the off season) will go a long way and I think the effort, bar the Carlton game, this year has proved the players and coaches are invested and the culture is still strong.

 

[DanWCE]

I was refering to the preseasons post 2018 up until the one we just had (which I agree was a good one). Point being that professional standards have dropped off the table in the past few seasons and that's on the coach. Given how its drifted off the rails is Simpson really the type of coach who can rebuild our culture within the new cohort?

Our 2022 preseason was excellent also. Don't confuse mass scratch match injuries and subsequently bringing handfuls of players back under done with a poor preseason. The boys were flying early in 2022, but it didn't translate to the season proper due to unavailability and then poor return-to-play management.

 

[Balls In]

and subsequently bringing handfuls of players back under done with a poor preseason.

I take your point but even if we count 2022 as a proper preseason the end result of it was a whole bunch of bodies breaking down. It's hardly a surprise having allowed players to lose conditioning through the years before.

 

[DanWCE]

I take your point but even if we count 2022 as a proper preseason the end result of it was a whole bunch of bodies breaking down. It's hardly a surprise having allowed players to lose conditioning through the years before.

Maybe, maybe not. But what's the alternative? Never seek to regain peak conditioning or improve in case you get injured?

 

[ziad]

Maybe, maybe not. But what's the alternative? Never seek to regain peak conditioning or improve in case you get injured?

The best risk management is to not train or play.

 

[Balls In]

Maybe, maybe not. But what's the alternative? Never seek to regain peak conditioning or improve in case you get injured?

The answer is to never allow professional standards to slip so low in the first place. To be honest I'm mainly only responding here to those making excuses as though being one of the worst teams in AFL history is predominately down to poor luck and circumstance. A spate of injuries following several years of obvious poor physical conditioning is not coincidence imo

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

And the coach is responsible for poor player conditioning because … ?

 

[Chump Change]

The answer is to never allow professional standards to slip so low in the first place. To be honest I'm mainly only responding here to those making excuses as though being one of the worst teams in AFL history is predominately down to poor luck and circumstance. A spate of injuries following several years of obvious poor physical conditioning is not coincidence imo

For 3 years we had players who wouldn't tackle, didn't want to win the hard ball, were unfit, and in 2021 or 2022, looked like they had been to a pre-season fat camp where you eat all day.

That's on the coach.

But right now, the flag window has closed and the talent sits at the top of the draft pool. We're heading towards a top 2 pick, possibly #1 pick. We need to forget about punishment and consider what is best for the club.

 

[Chump Change]

And the coach is responsible for poor player conditioning because … ?

It's on the coach. If players have skin folds it's up to him to find out why and fix it. He seems to have done that now but there was a time where he was asleep at the wheel.