Rumour Future of the club (Bevo, board, assistant coaches, football department)

[Anja_Nees]

There's no delusion like self delusion. We had it in the club exec ranks in 2011 also.

There are a lot of what ifs from this era.

In 2019 I thought we had it all before us to have a really good crack. Being fair, making a GF is having a crack but otherwise we were underwhelming.

I think we targeted the wrong players from other clubs to help us get there and neglected our age profile and developing our midfield. Now we’re left with the fallout.

In 2011, it was totally obvious we were cooked for a while. Trying to prop ourselves up by recruiting Sherman, Vezspremi and Djerrkurra (aside from the fact none of them were actually good) was futile.

 

[Unorth]

Trading away your first round pick, publicly stating there’s a belief we have a top 4 list, then stinking it up and scrambling to talking about ‘evolution’ is hilarious.

We’re either massively under delivering or have hugely overestimated. Neither reflect well but the talk occurring is basically gaslighting supporters into thinking this is all part of a larger plan we just can’t see.

It quite obviously wasn’t because our pick is likely going to be a juicy one. Having access to that would sure help an evolution!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Are you saying Bains comments were to appease fans and was driven by fans demands?

To an extent, yes.

 

[Bald]

Trading away your first round pick, publicly stating there’s a belief we have a top 4 list, then stinking it up and scrambling to talking about ‘evolution’ is hilarious.

It's not like we traded our first round pick for a player though, we didn't go get a 25-26 year old that is going to bring us immediate success, we essentially traded it into last year and used it to pick up a player who will be a huge part of our future. Which is what using the draft pick this year would do anyway.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Would love to have been a fly on the wall as the coaches sat down Charlie Clarke to explain to him what his role would be on the weekend. Feel like he spent more time on the defensive 50 and wing then in the forward line.

 

[Yesterday Dog]

Thanks. I worked at a high profile elite Australian sporting organisation for a number of years, and endured a few examples of what we are now going through. I'm not saying that I know better than anyone else here, but it has given me perspective.

1. Well run organisations work through the current situation we are currently experiencing. How we manage it proactively sets the stage of what comes next - whether that is under Bevo, or the next coach. While it looks like a train wreck for us - the margins are quite small and it's never as good, or bad, as it looks on the outside. Our rise from 2014 crapness to 2016 champs is a good example, as well as the troubles experienced this year by Collingwood, Brisbane and to a lesser degree Adelaide.
2. As others have rightly pointed out, Gordon was fully supportive of McCartney, until he wasn't. I think they probably always knew McCartney wasn't working out (they would have had enough player feedback from senior players in Murphy, Boyd, Minson) and that Griffen wanted out, well before that happened. I can't subscribe to the view that the Tom Boyd trade was opportunistic only.
3. What happens inside the walls is often starkly different to what the external public sees. Ultimately, there are only so many people with a limited number of hours in the day to get through what they need to, whether that be player conditioning, player recuperation & review (Sunday/Monday), gameday preparation (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday) and a day off (Wednesday).
4. I do know that Sam Power and Ameet Bains are both incredibly smart, savvy operators. Both trained at top tier law firms, both worked in industry before joining us. KWW is an experienced executive that has dealt with far bigger crises. There will be an existing plan, with different contingencies, targets and triggers, that they will be working towards. I think that's obvious within what KWW said today. It would have been proposed by Bains and agreed on at Board level following the Jackson review. It would have also had guidelines on public comms, and almost certainly involving not having any public comms early in the year on "rebuilding" to ensure we didn't have a drop in revenue or sponsorship interest in the early stage of the season.
5. In that regard, the Buckley resignation/tap on Queen's Bday weekend should be a guide for Dogs supporters of how Boards consider things. In that instance, it was announced on 9 June, about halfway through the season. For the Pies, they had won only 3 games at that halfway point. If we are also 3 wins in by then, I imagine there will be a similar mood for us as the triggers in the current strategy will be more likely or not being reached with the actual data on W/L ratio. In the alternative, we should also review McCartney being fired post-season as another alternative view.
6. The Board's strategy will absolutely be responsive to alternative solutions to Bevo. Right now, there isn't anything obvious. They will be loathed to dump a lot of development on a new, unproven coach (unless it's Cameron or Buckley) - we are better off having Bevo cop heat while blooding young players (like he is), rather than suffer what happened to someone like Rhyce Shaw.
7. Adam Simpson now, Hardwick 2016 and others are also a relevant factors weighing in favour of a responsible board retaining Bevo. Countering this are Richardson at the Pies post Buckley.
8. I hope the Board is providing proper pastoral care to Bevo. The current scrutiny will be taking a huge personal toll on him, I'm sure he isn't sleeping and is second guessing himself in all aspects. He will be a shadow of his true self until there is a bit more stability. We need to minimise this, as it will flow on to all around him. The same goes for our core, senior players. Libba being bashed up like he is couldn't be worse timing as he's a culture warrior for our club.

This is some grandiose zero responsibility corporate nonsense

 

[Dog 36]

To an extent, yes.

Hopefully that is not the case

tbh I cannot imagine a CEO making such comments to appease fans to any extent

 

[Next Waiting]

There are a lot of what ifs from this era.

In 2019 I thought we had it all before us to have a really good crack. Being fair, making a GF is having a crack but otherwise we were underwhelming.

I think we targeted the wrong players from other clubs to help us get there and neglected our age profile and developing our midfield. Now we’re left with the fallout.

In 2011, it was totally obvious we were cooked for a while. Trying to prop ourselves up by recruiting Sherman, Vezspremi and Djerrkurra (aside from the fact none of them were actually good) was futile.

Was it Smorgo who said at the start of 2011 that a GF in 2011 is a pass mark? At that very moment the extent of the previously hinted at delusion became public and I, for one, knew us to be screwed.

I don't think Bevo is at all deluded about where we are at I'll diverge from most posters here and say I thought that his latest presser was pretty good. It's just a very realistic appraisal with a hint that he's going to "find out" about a few players over the next little while (some of whom have yet to debut), and leave us with a clear recruitment path and some hope at the point at which he announces his departure. I expect he will choose to do that this year.

 

[Yesterday Dog]

Would love to have been a fly on the wall as the coaches sat down Charlie Clarke to explain to him what his role would be on the weekend. Feel like he spent more time on the defensive 50 and wing then in the forward line.

It's all about versatility of position. Then being judged about poor output as a small forward.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Hopefully that is not the case

tbh I cannot imagine a CEO making such comments to appease fans to any extent

We've sold memberships this year on the basis that we were sold that there were reviews, changes, and the expectation of improvement as a result of last season.

I think purely from a footballing perspective, some of those reviews, changes etc. were a bit over the top and unnecessary, as we were not quite as bad last year as it seems. But the fans demanded them, demanded action, demanded action lead to future success, and fans were glad to see it.

Keep in mind that the OP and reason for starting this thread and the first 50 pages or whatever of this thread itself is evidence of that.

 

[yebach]

It's not like we traded our first round pick for a player though, we didn't go get a 25-26 year old that is going to bring us immediate success, we essentially traded it into last year and used it to pick up a player who will be a huge part of our future. Which is what using the draft pick this year would do anyway.

Not having a crack at you specifically.
But surely having access to 2 good players is better than 1 ?

 

[Bald]

Not having a crack at you specifically.
But surely having access to 2 good players is better than 1 ?

I agree, which is why I'm glad we got Croft and Sanders.

 

[yebach]

I agree, which is why I'm glad we got Croft and Sanders.

We get Croft regardless.

We gave up 2 first rounders for Sanders.

It's too early to tell. But unless Sanders becomes exceptional, it's a bad move.

From memory Richards and Weightman were picks 16 and 15.

Lot's of maybes, but if we finish bottom 6.
We've potentially lost access to a player as good or better than Sanders and a player as good as Richards or Weightman.

 

[Next Waiting]

We get Croft regardless.

We gave up 2 first rounders for Sanders.

It's too early to tell. But unless Sanders becomes exceptional, it's a bad move.

From memory Richards and Weightman were picks 16 and 15.

Lot's of maybes, but if we finish bottom 6.
We've potentially lost access to a player as good or better than Sanders and a player as good as Richards or Weightman.

This is what I'm struggling with. Did we have to take Sanders this year? We could have just settled for Croft and whatever.

Sanders had to be the second coming of Bont to give up last year's and this year's first for him. So what drives the decision to do that? A very poor assessment of talent and the cost of that talent? This is where it's at for me. Sanders is not a 2 x Pick 4 - 5 talent. A very bad decision. The person primarily responsible for that decision should be fired.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

This is what I'm struggling with. Did we have to take Sanders this year? We could have just settled for Croft and whatever.

We were never holding onto the picks in the teens with the risk that a Croft bid would come immediately before them, and knowing that a bid would come, maximising the points value out of those two picks in to get more points.

 

[Bald]

We get Croft regardless.

We gave up 2 first rounders for Sanders.

It's too early to tell. But unless Sanders becomes exceptional, it's a bad move.

From memory Richards and Weightman were picks 16 and 15.

Lot's of maybes, but if we finish bottom 6.
We've potentially lost access to a player as good or better than Sanders and a player as good as Richards or Weightman.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think what we ended up with was the lesser of the two gambles.

If we don't do the trade, I personally believe a club looks at the Dogs with two first round picks and makes us pay maximum tote for Croft by bidding prior to pick 10, so you lose pick 10 by matching, the pick 17 we traded to Gold Coast ended up being pick 23 after all of the academies and father sons were done with, and was used by North to draft Riley Hardeman.

I agree with your sentiment that there are a lot of maybes in this situation, but wholistically it's either Sanders and Croft, or Croft, a player taken in the 20s (which would be nice, don't get me wrong), and where ever we finish this year.

 

[Mofra]

We get Croft regardless.

We gave up 2 first rounders for Sanders.

It's too early to tell. But unless Sanders becomes exceptional, it's a bad move.

From memory Richards and Weightman were picks 16 and 15.

Lot's of maybes, but if we finish bottom 6.
We've potentially lost access to a player as good or better than Sanders and a player as good as Richards or Weightman.

We were probably concerned about a Croft bid before our 'natural' first.
I understand moving up in the draft, I do think we paid a hell of a price to do so.

 

[redmania]

This is what I'm struggling with. Did we have to take Sanders this year? We could have just settled for Croft and whatever.

Sanders had to be the second coming of Bont to give up last year's and this year's first for him. So what drives the decision to do that? A very poor assessment of talent and the cost of that talent? This is where it's at for me. Sanders is not a 2 x Pick 4 - 5 talent. A very bad decision. The person primarily responsible for that decision should be fired.

It's a very poor decision by the club.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I understand what you're saying, but I still think what we ended up with was the lesser of the two gambles.

If we don't do the trade, I personally believe a club looks at the Dogs with two first round picks and makes us pay maximum tote for Croft by bidding prior to pick 10, so you lose pick 10 by matching, the pick 17 we traded to Gold Coast ended up being pick 23 after all of the academies and father sons were done with, and was used by North to draft Riley Hardeman.

I agree with your sentiment that there are a lot of maybes in this situation, but wholistically it's either Sanders and Croft, or Croft, a player taken in the 20s (which would be nice, don't get me wrong), and where ever we finish this year.

Sydney did exactly this with an earlier-than-expected bid for Harry Rowston the year earlier.

We probably did overpay for Sanders, over-estimating the value of the top end pick and/or being unrealitstically optomistic about the value of our own pick. It's also only slightly bad, not awfully bad.

In terms of pointless trades it's nowhere near as e.g. Essendon trading a pick 31 for the sake of swapping their pick 11 with Geelong's pick 10. That should come into far more criticism, which has seem to be collectively forgotten by everyone. The chance that pick 10 ends up being the better player than pick 11 is about 53%.

 

[Anja_Nees]

Was it Smorgo who said at the start of 2011 that a GF in 2011 is a pass mark? At that very moment the extent of the previously hinted at delusion became public and I, for one, knew us to be screwed.

Yep, much the same thing as with Bains. It was delusional. Johnson and Eagleton retired, Aker got sacked and Hahn, Gilbee, Hudson and Hargrave were hitting the wall. Needed a reset and it was obvious.

 

[Unnamed1]

This is some grandiose zero responsibility corporate nonsense

Not sure it's zero responsibility, it's just measured. There is responsibility, but it's based on set and agreed metrics and accountability, not death by lynching. We don't know what those metrics are, and we won't, because otherwise you end up in Malcolm Turnbull 30 opinion poll losses territory.

 

[Next Waiting]

We were never holding onto the picks in the teens with the risk that a Croft bid would come immediately before them, and knowing that a bid would come, maximising the points value out of those two picks in to get more points.

Well that's a decision you have to get right.

If we'd let someone bid on Croft and had to use a teens first rounder what's the outcome? We get Croft, a pick in the teens and probably Freijah but not Sanders. And we have a first round pick this year .... probably a top 6 pick. So were valuing Sanders at pick 4-6 this year plus a first rounder last year is probably more accurate (2 first rounders).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Well that's a decision you have to get right.

If we'd let someone bid on Croft and had to use a teens first rounder what's the outcome? We get Croft, a pick in the teens and probably Freijah but not Sanders. And we have a first round pick this year .... probably a top 6 pick. So were valuing Sanders at pick 4-6 this year plus a first rounder last year is probably more accurate (2 first rounders).

We can't handwave away the cost of acquisition of Sanders though. He's a pick 6. The cost of getting him was/is far more than both the pick we had in the teens next year and the expected value of our first rounder this year.

It's not generally incorrect to say that pick 6 is in the rough ballpark of pick 10+15 or whatever.

 

[BrisDog]

Whatever criticisms you have of Sanders, I cannot see him missing a goal from 13 metres out to ice the game like Watson. Man he sh*t the bed. He will be scarred by that I hope.

 

[Next Waiting]

We can't handwave away the cost of acquisition of Sanders though. He's a pick 6. The cost of getting him was/is far more than both the pick we had in the teens next year and the expected value of our first rounder this year.

It's not generally incorrect to say that pick 6 is in the rough ballpark of pick 10+15 or whatever.

Did you not say that we had 2 first rounders last year and packaged them up to get Pick whatever Sanders was?

Are we in agreement? I think we paid well overs for Sanders if the cost was effectively Picks 10 + 15 last year plus Pick 6 ish this year. He is 3 players, the only mitigating factor is we get to use him 1 year before this year's pick.

My view is, the points are not the be all and end all. Don't lose sight of the actual credentials of the player, the opportunity cost of credentialed players next year. The hypothetical value that a points focused approach generates is a trap.