Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott - Playing the kids!

[faible]

I think this weekend we need to see "attacking Reiwoldt Brad"

Rumour has it he hip and shouldered every player as they tried to exit the team meeting.

 

[Mercurial89]

On this, look at how easy it was for Voss to change Carlton's culture. Carlton has been worse than Essendon for most of the last 20 years (with, what is it, 5 bottom finishes in that period?). Voss said exactly what he was going to do in his first presser. He was going to play the biggest, nastiest inside players he had, as much as he could, and bash opponents into submission. It wasn't pretty and they were far from efficient but they spent the whole year in the top 8, falling at the last hurdle while losing to Melbourne and Collingwood battling for spots in the top 4 by a collective 6 points. Percentage of 108 with a 35 point loss being as bad as they got (with a few other 5 goal losses). He used his players to set the required standard and foundation for the culture.

It's as basic as the belief or even the knowledge that Carlton can beat up any team inside. The players need something tangible to believe in the culture. Even just look at culture of nations and ethic groups, for example, and look at how that is based on or reflected in tangible things such as unique language, food, clothing, etc.

What do we think Essendon players are telling each other to motivate or when things get tough? What tangible things does Essendon point to as a sign of its culture (and I'm not looking for satirical responses).

Brad Scott is trying to graft a culture onto a players who are not compatible. He has not used player selection in any real way to shape the culture, though I give him Durham in the middle. He has not used his power to influence list management to shape the culture, at all. But it's worse than that, he is chasing results by devising and implementing strategies for the flawed 'best 22' to be as successful as possible. This is part of the reason we play Goldstein, for example. He drives so much of the success in the centre with his ruck work (for which he gets no credit). It's why we defend at half back instead of defending the ground, because there are few players who play 2-way footy. It's why we 'fade out' of season - these are not really fade outs as much as they are corrections by the rest of the competition.

And the best part of it is that they have re-signed basically everyone. So I don't think we should give Brad Scott the 'out' of the players being the problem. He doesn't think they are the problem. There is virtually nothing he has done pre-Adelaide loss that should lead anyone to think that he thinks the players are the problem. It's why he wont be able to change the culture and it's also why he shouldn't be given the chance. Voss would not have been able to do his 'about face' half way through last season if he had not set the foundation of 2022, if he didn't have that fallback of the culture he had established. Re-sets half way through have no realistic prospect of success. You can't spend all of your time with a group of people building them up based on 1 thing, change your mind and revoke it and then try to build them back up with something else. This is why I have been saying from very early on that Scott has been going about coaching Essendon in the completely wrong way. He has squandered the opportunity he had to come in and be the bad guy everyone expected.

This is part of what I meant when I was telling ant555 that he was projecting a positive plan onto Essendon. Ant thinks the players are a problem, and he's not getting any real argument from me there at least in a general sense, but Brad Scott didn't until 2 or 3 weeks ago. It's too late for Brad now.

I'm far from his biggest supporter, I don't agree with decisions such as where he's playing certain players, I don't think he maximises the talent we do have. I have issues with how the club views things philosophically.

But I do think he can get (or could have got) a baseline level of training standards for the club.
It's easy for me to say "tank the ladder position and cull the list" because I don't have a job riding on it.
I think the cull is needed, the players are not talented enough, our top line will be the weakest of anyone in the top 8 if we ever made finals. That goes for this year, last year, next year, we just don't have the top end talent to even contemplate winning a flag, let alone the baseline competency across the list in basic fundamentals of football.
Going back to Dan's fantastic post, we don't have any weapon or elite strength as a club, no identity, so I gather you agree on that part.

But I don't think, to your post, that the actions needed to accomplish this are entirely realistic with all real world aspects taken into account.

I agree with your overall point that you have made that you cannot change what a player is in some areas.
McGrath as an example, he as a person is never going to be what we as a club need. May be a fine footballer that plays 200 games, does an ok job locking down a man some weeks and never causes an off field issue, but you could drop him, rant and rave and coach him as hard as you want he is never going to be a mongrel, crawl over the next guy for success type that I believe you need in this team and in leadership position.
He is the ultimate, this is my job type, I'd like a few more- this is my life types (to dumb the descriptor down as much as possible in a written medium).
He should be moved on.
But he's a VC, number 1 pick, the return you would get would be poor and it would be signalling where the club is going (full burn it down rebuild). I don't think that was ever on the cards because I don't think the club would have ever hired the person to do it.

I think you are a bit too singular on targetting the coach, when the players are a serious issue as well as the club pressuring the football program with what they will accept.
I don't think he in any universe could get them to change, no matter how many selection standards he maintained.
The only way through this is to cut it out of the club in my opinion, full rebuild.
The fact he thinks he could do it without changing the existing crew too much is a black mark against him, even though realistically due to the limits of this competition and what the club powers would allow the heavy duty change I'd like and expect we need would probably be unrealistic.

 

[dank420_]

History does not show that.

But it does. Most premiership coaches are given enough time to win a premiership. I don’t know how else you can win one to be honest. If we are talking about coaches with terrible starts, then yeah sure. But the three examples you’ve been given are not only flag winners, but they’re dynasty coaches.

What I’m trying to say in simple terms is that firing coaches every 2 years won’t get us anywhere.

 

[Mercurial89]

Well yes obviously there’s going to be far less successful coaches than failures given that only 1 team can win it every year. So then how are you identifying those that do become successful? 2 year limit? I don’t think so.

Depends how you determine success too.

Take Brad's brother, inherited an incredible list, a football program that runs itself.
So take away some of the credit for that first flag

He has barely had them out of the finals even really the top 4.

Now If they don't snag that flag in 22.
How do we view his career?
I'd still say it's excellent.

I think there are a lot of coaches who history and fans say are failures, but I think sometimes what we view as successful in this industry is flawed

 

[faible]

Depends how you determine success too.

Take Brad's brother, inherited an incredible list, a football program that runs itself.
So take away some of the credit for that first flag

He has barely had them out of the finals even really the top 4.

Now If they don't snag that flag in 22.
How do we view his career?
I'd still say it's excellent.

I think there are a lot of coaches who history and fans say are failures, but I think sometimes what we view as successful in this industry is flawed

The US has a much better understanding of things like 'winning seasons' even if you don't win the Superbowl etc.

Things like making conference finals, making a superbowl etc etc are all part of it.

I'd say whether you win a Premiership or not, if you're sustaining a position inside the Top-4 for multiple seasons you've been successful. For example Brisbane since first making finals in 2019 (after finishing 15th in 2018) have gone; 2019 (2nd), 2020 (2nd), 2021 (4th), 2022 (6th), 2023 (2nd, GF), 2024 (2nd*).

That's a 'successful' period of time as a club, even if it didn't result in a Premiership. Making Top-4 year-on-year isn't down to luck, that's a big enough sample size to say you're a good team / good coach. Actually winning on the day requires a bit more luck, you need a healthy list, sometimes you need a bounce that goes your way and so on.

 

[yodellinhank]

But it does. Most premiership coaches are given enough time to win a premiership. I don’t know how else you can win one to be honest. If we are talking about coaches with terrible starts, then yeah sure. But the three examples you’ve been given are not only flag winners, but they’re dynasty coaches.

How long is enough time? McRae, Scott, Simpson, Beveridge, Longmire... They all got flags early

Goodwin, Clarkson 4 years and Goodwin nearly didn't last.

What I’m trying to say in simple terms is that firing coaches every 2 years won’t get us anywhere.

Then we'll just have to start winning games and finals, because when you don't the coach gets sacked.

 

[dank420_]

Depends how you determine success too.

Take Brad's brother, inherited an incredible list, a football program that runs itself.
So take away some of the credit for that first flag

He has barely had them out of the finals even really the top 4.

Now If they don't snag that flag in 22.
How do we view his career?
I'd still say it's excellent.

I think there are a lot of coaches who history and fans say are failures, but I think sometimes what we view as successful in this industry is flawed

You can certainly be a good coach having never won a flag.

But yeah, I wish we were a premiership list already! Then I probably couldn’t give a stuff who coached us!

 

[dank420_]

How long is enough time? McRae, Scott, Simpson, Beveridge, Longmire... They all got flags early

Goodwin, Clarkson 4 years and Goodwin nearly didn't last.


Then we'll just have to start winning games and finals, because when you don't the coach gets sacked.

I’d be happy to move Scott on after 4 years and we are still in the same position. Am I expecting a flag in that time? God no. But that’s because of other factors and not just the coach.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

How long is enough time? McRae, Scott, Simpson, Beveridge, Longmire... They all got flags early

Goodwin, Clarkson 4 years and Goodwin nearly didn't last.


Then we'll just have to start winning games and finals, because when you don't the coach gets sacked.

All of those coaches bar Beveridge were basically handed the keys to a list in their prime who just needed fresh eyes / better run with injuries so hard to compare.
Beveridge was out of the box though!

 

[P Money]

10 years on, still the same question being asked.

7.4K views · 1.6K reactions | 10yrs ago Bomber Thompson had this to say about the Essendon playing group! Not much has changed? 😫 #markthompson #essendonfc #coach #2014 #bomberthompson #whenwhenwhen #itsgoingtochange #essendonfootballclub #australian

10yrs ago Bomber Thompson had this to say about the Essendon playing group! Not much has changed? 😫 #markthompson #essendonfc #coach #2014 #bomberthompson #whenwhenwhen #itsgoingtochange...

www.facebook.com

But but but "It's the coach!"

 

[ant555]

Maybe it is an AFL conspiracy. Brad coaches us into two preliminary finals in 10 years and the they send Ken in for 10 years to make another 3 but never a GF .Another twenty year of punishment for the saga .

 

[P Money]

Will be a very interesting off-season for Brad. He did pretty much say outright at the end of last year that there will be players who won't stay on the list because they don't have the dedication required. Something about those players who think they're 'missing out' on something by being fully professional athletes. I'll be very interested to see if he follows through with that and what it looks like.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Will be a very interesting off-season for Brad. He did pretty much say outright at the end of last year that there will be players who won't stay on the list because they don't have the dedication required. Something about those players who think they're 'missing out' on something by being fully professional athletes. I'll be very interested to see if he follows through with that and what it looks like.

kind of have hands tied behind back with all the contract extensions/long contracts being given. Wonder how much say Scott has in contract lengths?
I may be going a bit "scorched earth" due to being at the "anger" stage of grief but theres a couple of guys in the 25-30 age bracket that im looking at now and thinking they are just passing on the loser mentality to the next gen that the leaders before passed on to them.
then you look at the contracts for those guys and theres not really much wriggle room to make a statement at trade time.
Some of these guys I love as players but honestly which ones actually stand up on field when chips are down to support Merrett and how much have they really achieved to deserve such long term faith?

• Langford - contracted till 2027
• Redman - 2028
• Ridley - 2029
• Parish - 2029
• Redman -2028
• Mcgrath - 2030

 

[Kong]

Zen Hird.

 

[DERO]

Which Hawthorne premiership side do the blues depose? You think the saints pinch one this year? I'm not buying it.

If we're making up fantasy premierships won by coaches with negative W/L records then sure, why not?

We can bring Jake Long back too. It’ll be wonderful.

 

[Kong]

It begs the question why they continue to be played, or why coaches believe they can change them.

It's getting to the point where scorched earth may be the only antidote to getting it out of the club

Agree, I'm on board for a complete clean slate and actual rebuild.

After the club ruined their careers and arguably lives, I thought looking after them was fair enough. But it's only Heppell left, what's the excuse for everyone else?

It's been 15 years of seeing players played despite not defending, not shepherding, not chasing, and giving up in general. I can recall seeing it under Knights and every coach since, to the point that I'd struggle to put together a "best 22" of players that consistently did these things in that period. They're lazy buggers.

 

[yodellinhank]

We can bring Jake Long back too. It’ll be wonderful.

Captain-Coach. If given enough time...

 

[DERO]

Captain-Coach. If given enough time...

Could have saved Dodoro’s career.

 

[dank420_]

Captain-Coach. If given enough time...

Love you Jake long time

 

[P Money]

kind of have hands tied behind back with all the contract extensions/long contracts being given. Wonder how much say Scott has in contract lengths?
I may be going a bit "scorched earth" due to being at the "anger" stage of grief but theres a couple of guys in the 25-30 age bracket that im looking at now and thinking they are just passing on the loser mentality to the next gen that the leaders before passed on to them.
then you look at the contracts for those guys and theres not really much wriggle room to make a statement at trade time.
Some of these guys I love as players but honestly which ones actually stand up on field when chips are down to support Merrett and how much have they really achieved to deserve such long term faith?

• Langford - contracted till 2027
• Redman - 2028
• Ridley - 2029
• Parish - 2029
• Redman -2028
• Mcgrath - 2030

You'd think the coach has a massive say in contract lengths. There's no way the list management team are signing up players to long term contracts without the blessing of the coach.

While I defend Scott and think calling for his head at this point is laughable, I do have big question marks over a few of these contracts. 6 year deals for Parish and particularly McGrath just doesn't sit well with me. I agree he is tying his own hands behind his back.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

You'd think the coach has a massive say in contract lengths. There's no way the list management team are signing up players to long term contracts without the blessing of the coach.

While I defend Scott and think calling for his head at this point is laughable, I do have big question marks over a few of these contracts. 6 year deals for Parish and particularly McGrath just doesn't sit well with me. I agree he is tying his own hands behind his back.

Yeah I defended the lengths at time because I knew it related to salary cap management, but when you look at them all it does seem like a bit of overkill when we are supposedly in the early stages of a rebuild.

 

[84859300]

2007: It's the coach. Sheedy sacked.
2010: It's the coach. Knights sacked.
2015: It's the coach. Hird. So many things.
2020: It's the coach. Worsfold sacked.
2022: It's the coach. Rutten sacked.
2024?: It's the coach.

Add in a season of Thompson. That's a lot of 'it's the coach'.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but for all of the bolded coach selections, I'm sure each time the playing group advised they were welcoming of some hard coaching, analysis and home truths to come out.

Brad Scott played a hard game, so I'm not expecting that his coaching would be any different behind closed doors.

Is potentailly over 50% of our list soft menatlly. Can't take harsh feedback and have no desire to correct their issues?

 

[BrunoV]

Before they finished 4th they missed finals 3 years prior which encompassed his initial coaching career.

Of course he did. That's what happens you rebuild a list. There is no doubt that it takes time when you build up from the bottom but this is not a reflection of the time it takes coaches to implement ideas - it is almost always the time it takes a young core of players to become 'adult' footballers.

The precedent is finals wins within 3 to 4 years (or 15 games a season and then doing it for 3 years in a row). Melbourne is the exception but there are 2 critical bases on which it can be distinguished, there was a coaching change and they retained very little from the pre-Roos list.

This is the misconception about Scott's position. He did not take over a list at rock bottom. He is now in year 4 of the rebuild that started at the end of 2020 when the club took 3 top 10 picks and brought in a top pick who was a second year player (i.e. Caldwell). Contrast with this Roos / Goodwin. Other than ant555, is anyone looking at this situation thinking that we will have anything like the list turnover Melbourne had between 2015 and 2020 between now and the point at which we are in contention? People will say yes, and I will point to:

• 4 players contracted until 2027: Duursma, Langford, Martin, Merrett, Wright
• 2 players contracted until 2028: Durham, Redman
• 3 players contracted until 2029: McKay, Parish, Ridley
• 1 player contracted until 2030: McGrath

That's us locked into 10 players until a minimum of year 5 of Scott's tenure. Caldwell will almost certainly be added to this group.

We have a pick 8 (Cox), pick 9 (Perkins), pick 10 (Reid), pick 11 (Hobbs), pick 25 (Hayes), pick 5 (Tsatas) and pick 8 (Caddy) on the list. Other than Hobbs and Reid, they are contracted until 2026 (along with Gresham)

Does anyone have any expectation that the 17 players I've named above will not be on the list by the end of 2027? It's not even an exhaustive list because it doesn't include Draper, Bryan, Lual, Roberts, the Daveys and EL Hawli.

This is nothing like what Roos, Bomber and Hardwick faced at the end of year 2. He has a much more mature list which, based on how we are managing the list, is largely in the shape it will be when we are expecting to be good under Brad Scott (which would be year 6 to 7 of the rebuild).

If he thought the list was the problem, he should have done something about it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Some of the facets of intent and effort are fairly easy to measure. The proof is in the pudding. The numbers don’t lie.

Since 2022 (so post COVID)

Contested possessions
Are you getting your hands dirty and winning it?

2022: 126.5 per game (17th)
2023: 130.4 (16th)
2024: 129.6 (13th)

Clearances
Can you take a 50/50 situation and get the ball going your way?

2022: 33.8 (16th)
2023: 33.7 (18th)
2024: 36.4 (10th)

Tackles
Are you chasing and throwing your body in to stop the opposition?

2022: 50.1 (17th)
2023: 57 (16th)
2024: 60.9 (7th)

We were notably soft the past two years. There’s no getting away from that.

We are definitely improved this year in some of these areas. The big tell will be where these numbers finish in a month’s time. If they fall right off and we finish up where were last year, then it’ll have been a wasted year. But otherwise, we will have improved.

On the whole however, I would caution something: turning teams around from prolonged failure and changing habits typically takes longer than people think. And it’s not linear.

I’ll be looking at these numbers at the end of the year as some sort of view of progress. But right now we are in a huge funk and need to turn it around quickly. That’s up to Scott.

If the next four games are like the last three, huge concerns. If it was a prolonged blip, not so much.

 

[BrunoV]

I'm far from his biggest supporter, I don't agree with decisions such as where he's playing certain players, I don't think he maximises the talent we do have. I have issues with how the club views things philosophically.

But I do think he can get (or could have got) a baseline level of training standards for the club.
It's easy for me to say "tank the ladder position and cull the list" because I don't have a job riding on it.
I think the cull is needed, the players are not talented enough, our top line will be the weakest of anyone in the top 8 if we ever made finals. That goes for this year, last year, next year, we just don't have the top end talent to even contemplate winning a flag, let alone the baseline competency across the list in basic fundamentals of football.
Going back to Dan's fantastic post, we don't have any weapon or elite strength as a club, no identity, so I gather you agree on that part.

But I don't think, to your post, that the actions needed to accomplish this are entirely realistic with all real world aspects taken into account.

I agree with your overall point that you have made that you cannot change what a player is in some areas.
McGrath as an example, he as a person is never going to be what we as a club need. May be a fine footballer that plays 200 games, does an ok job locking down a man some weeks and never causes an off field issue, but you could drop him, rant and rave and coach him as hard as you want he is never going to be a mongrel, crawl over the next guy for success type that I believe you need in this team and in leadership position.
He is the ultimate, this is my job type, I'd like a few more- this is my life types (to dumb the descriptor down as much as possible in a written medium).
He should be moved on.
But he's a VC, number 1 pick, the return you would get would be poor and it would be signalling where the club is going (full burn it down rebuild). I don't think that was ever on the cards because I don't think the club would have ever hired the person to do it.

I think you are a bit too singular on targetting the coach, when the players are a serious issue as well as the club pressuring the football program with what they will accept.
I don't think he in any universe could get them to change, no matter how many selection standards he maintained.
The only way through this is to cut it out of the club in my opinion, full rebuild.
The fact he thinks he could do it without changing the existing crew too much is a black mark against him, even though realistically due to the limits of this competition and what the club powers would allow the heavy duty change I'd like and expect we need would probably be unrealistic.

I am singular targeting this coach because he has so very clearly not done what he should have done.

His job wasn't riding on immediate success, which we can infer from his 4 year contract. He had Merrett, his captain, publicly asking for a firm guiding hand which, as I believe is public record, was a sentiment shared by most of the players in the end of year review. They wanted to be spoon fed and he didn't do it. He had a blank canvass but he has chased results at the expense of building culture.

Sure, we can talk about conventional football operation, the way contract lengths have expanded being an example. The problem with that is that we are not a conventional football team. We have and systemic cultural problem and a problem with the list but we can't change the list (because of conventional football operation).

At some point, someone at Essendon needs to think about squaring all of these circles. Because the actual reason we have had this many coaching changes is because the coaches have not been able to get the players to listen. If you can't get the players to listen you need to get rid of the players or find a coach who can make them listen. You don't give coaches time to do that which they refuse to do or which they have been unable to do. That's just madness.

What is the worst thing that could happen at this point, we lose a few players like Perkins and Cox and look stupid for it? We've looked stupid for 20 years. What difference will it make?