Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[ghostdog]

Im not a Scott hater but Dimma was definitely my preference. I dont get why we didnt ask the question.
Who cares if he was contracted, we are seeing contracts arent worth the paper they are written on nowadays.

Anyway whats done is done, we didnt have the guts to go behind another teams back re Dimma but GC did (even if they said they asked the q after he resigned from richmond).
Im backing scott for now but this pre-season is the big one for him/Barham/Vozzo. No more sheedy/Dodoro, no more saga players to weigh us down. I want to see an actual change in the list management strategy and some bold/ruthless moves made.

Dimma would have said no on the basis of how we treated Rutten. He loves Rutten and I recall him saying something to the effect of how shitful Barham's treatment of him was. That's part of the reason why Richmond welcomed him back with open arms.

 

[faible]

How is it year 5 under Scott next year?

At Essendon we like to blame the current coach for the failures of the past ones.

 

[boncer34]

How is it year 5 under Scott next year?

He never said it was. But if we didn't start our rebuild under Truck what the **** were we doing?

 

[carloss]

More like we sent Dodoro out to recruit Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

48

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

and he came back with Brad.

 

[BrunoV]

How is it year 5 under Scott next year?

I didn't say it would be year 5 under Scott.

I said it would be year 5 of a rebuild, because it would be. We lost 4 best 22 players and took 3 top 10 picks in addition to trading in Caldwell, an early pick with 2 years in the system at the end of 2020.

If you apply the rebuild coach never gets a chance logic it is because he has to wear the early years while the kids are usually non-entities. Rutten did that heavy lifting.

We've committed to every part of the rebuild, because every one of those players has a contract for at least 2 more years.

Scott does not get to reassess this list because that could only be the result of his error of judgement.

As I've mentioned ad nausem recently. The 7 year precedent includes substantial gains by year 4 of the rebuild. Melbourne won 2 finals at the end of year 5 of starting again (I.e. without Merrerr, Redman, Parish, McGrath, Draper, Langford, Laverde, Stringer, etc) and Goodwin was in year 2.

 

[Phone]

I don't believe that Barham and the current board would make a move on Brad Scott in year 3 when they blew everything up to get him. It also depends on the internal conversations around where they think they're actually at.

If we miss finals, I am certain Scott won't be sacked.

are you new to essendon

 

[Phone]

There is a bit of urban myth surrounding the Hardwicke v Knights .
Knights did not hold back on the list either. He retired a few of the old stars in the next few years. He was just as blunt about where they needed to go.
Take this to the bank.
Knights got the job because he came in with a whole of football department plan including recruiting set up , intended game plan , long term list plan , improvements needed to the VFL program and player development.
Hardwicke came in with list analysis and projected game plan.
You can obviously say they made the wrong choice but it is not 100% clear Hardwicke was ready at that stage either. He stayed at the Hawks and was part of the 2008 flag before he got the Tigers gig.
Knights did not have what it took to be a senior coach in the end but he would have got the spot at any club with the detailed presentation he did.

how many times do you think you'll have to post about Knights before Essendon fans actually grow up and start re-assessing Knights?

If Hardwick got the job, he would have been completely ****ed at the end of 2010 unless he sucked up to Hird, Lloyd, and whoever else he needed to keep the wolves at bay. Any coach would have been screwed. That team in 2010 is filled with absolute babies which is of course is partly why it went so wrong in 2010. It's hard to imagine how much more Knights and co could have cut during his time, beyond Fletcher. But was Knights wrong to do so? Only in the sense that it cost him his the job. Hird stood to benefit massively from Knights doing the hard work, but instead Hird pissed it all away because he found out what peptides were.

Looking at 2010, McVeigh and Hille were the two oldest guys to be getting regular games and they were 29. Pick a random game and you've got a bunch of guys 22 and younger who perhaps ideally would not have played like Hooker, Bellchambers, an 18yo Melksham, etc etc but were getting games (because blooding the youth is good except for when you actually do it and you get pumped). I always figured this was the case in the back of my head but for R1 2008, 2009, 2010, we actually get younger each season. We made the finals in 2009 (crawled into them of course) and in the off-season Lloyd and Lucas retired, and McPhee and Lovett left (also Jay Nash left lmao) and the only player with AFL exp we brought in was Mark Williams, as part of the Burgoyne trade which saw us pick up Williams for downgrading pick 16 (from Lovett's trade) to pick 24, where we picked up Jake Carlisle who we're probably looking at if we had kept pick 16 anyway. Like, why the hell did any of us expect to get better going into 2010 lmao. Knights made the finals and contiuned making the team younger and the body of the one older guy we brought into the club basically exploded straight away

I guess Hardwick could have kept Lloyd and Lucas onboard or convinced McPhee and Lovett to stay on. But of course that goes against the grain of the suggestion that Knights got the job because he sucked up to everyone and said how wonderful the list was.

 

[Zach Package]

Bloody hell, Hardwick talk?

He gets sacked 99 times out of 100 at multiple junctions before miraculously keeping his job and then throwing out everything he knows, completely changing his blueprint and running the table.

How do you possibly make anything of that or predict what would happen if he came to us?

 

[Phone]

Tbf, there was Hardwick talk in 2008, 2009, 2010 etc, so I get it. We have always talked about Hardwick. But ant has posted for over a decade now about the troubles Knights had in terms of funding the place, and Knights starting the improvements with the recruiting and development which he had identified and appears to have correctly identified the problems, and it just feels like ant has had no traction on some re-assessment of Knights.

I feel like of the two big decisions, sacking Knights or picking Knights over Hardwick, it's absolutely fair to say that sacking Knights was a worse decision and had a worse impact on Essendon than not picking Hardwick but I'm pretty sure I'm on an island when I say it. But I don't see how I'm wrong. (this a detour to Burno's original post, to be clear)

 

[The Donners]

I’m sticking with Brad Scott.

We still need to turnover at least 33% of the list with footballers that suit a hard running and competitive outfit.

 

[HirdyLannister]

Give Scott a two year extension to stop any speculation of Essendon doing a knee jerk sacking.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

Stand by Brad!

 

[BrunoV]

There is a bit of urban myth surrounding the Hardwicke v Knights .
Knights did not hold back on the list either. He retired a few of the old stars in the next few years. He was just as blunt about where they needed to go.
Take this to the bank.
Knights got the job because he came in with a whole of football department plan including recruiting set up , intended game plan , long term list plan , improvements needed to the VFL program and player development.
Hardwicke came in with list analysis and projected game plan.
You can obviously say they made the wrong choice but it is not 100% clear Hardwicke was ready at that stage either. He stayed at the Hawks and was part of the 2008 flag before he got the Tigers gig.
Knights did not have what it took to be a senior coach in the end but he would have got the spot at any club with the detailed presentation he did.

I didn't say we should have chosen Hardwick over Knights in 2007. Just that Hardwick was more critical of the list, and he was. He was preaching wholesale change.

Knights was working with the kids as the VFL coach. It follows pretty naturally that he would have been more prepared to work with them.

 

[Old Campaigner]

If we sacked Scott next year, it will be year 5 of the rebuild which didn't start as a scorched earth rebuild.

How long does the coach want? We're not waiting for 18 year olds to mature.

He wants this group of player. There is no logical alternative inference to be draw from team selection and list management (in respect he has had the final say). He can either make it work next year or he has no business continuing.

It’s not really the coach’s fault that the rebuild started with what so far looks like one of the biggest draft ****ups in AFL history. He’s not waiting for 18 year olds to mature, he’s frantically polishing a trio of turds into something that justifies the top 10 picks spent on them

 

[Kong]

So who is the right man for the job?

heppell in 2028
hardwick as senior assistant
hird as football operations manager
the fitness boss of a successsful rival

easy.

 

[BrunoV]

It’s not really the coach’s fault that the rebuild started with what so far looks like one of the biggest draft ****ups in AFL history. He’s not waiting for 18 year olds to mature, he’s frantically polishing a trio of turds into something that justifies the top 10 picks spent on them

So don't give them contracts.

 

[Rick Ross]

I think next year will be really important.

The next goal is really important in the context of this game.

 

[Rick Ross]

I feel like Essendon has improved compared to last year, we had less blow out games, have been more competitive for longer and for large patches have supplied more pressure.

Less blow out wins too…

 

[Rick Ross]

I wondered if Dodoro saw it as a point of pride to not let a required player leave on his watch even if it meant giving merely AFL standard players superstar deals. Compared to other clubs where they'd stand firm and collect the draft picks if the player leaves for a better deal than their club was willing to offer.

At least it seems like we're not paying Parish heaps even if it's a longer term deal.

A point of pride … after required players Daniher & Saad left on his watch.

 

[Kong]

So don't give them contracts.

I mean, the guy that drafted them was also the one managing their contracts.

Even if Scott wanted them gone, do you think he would have been allowed?

 

[thepokey]

I think unless there is something absolutely untenable about a coach, you really should be sticking with him 5-6 years. When a coach comes in like Brad has, he hasn't picked the majority of the list, the majority of the coaching staff around him etc. Building a premiership is the whole lot working in unison. Kicking the coach out before they've had time to really shape the football department around them to how they work is a waste of time, because then you're just starting the process all over again.

 

[yodellinhank]

I mean, the guy that drafted them was also the one managing their contracts.

Even if Scott wanted them gone, do you think he would have been allowed?

You think he's been trying to coach with one hand tied behind his back?

 

[ant555]

So don't give them contracts.

It is not just Essendon territory. Watts and co where given contracts at Melbourne near the start of their rebuild . It is often the case that some incumbents last 4 or 5 years before they are moved on.


Not that it should justify what really was a bad decision to hand out 6 year deals .

 

[Call Me Cake]

Knights:

• No extensive experience at any senior level.
• In-house (VFL).

Hird:

• No extensive experience at any senior level.
• In-house (past player). 7 of the last 17 premiership coaches (41%) had played at said club, but all at least had much more senior experience prior to their coaching role.

Worsfold:

• Out of football for an extended period of time.
• Mainly seen as someone who would usher the club out of the saga.

Rutten:

• No extensive experience at any senior level.
• In-house (defensive coach).
• Mentored by someone we deemed not good enough.

Since Sheedy's departure, we had not had a coach who:

• Was extensively experienced at any senior level and,
• Was a completely fresh person outside of the club/no former role in a smaller capacity and,
• Was not tasked with jettisoning the club out of a governing crisis and,
• Was not out of football for an extensive period of time

It was clear that we needed to buck the trend and have something different. We couldn't keep doing the same thing expecting different results. Scott is the first of the last five that actually differed from all of that. He didn't have be a senior coach elsewhere to do it, just being a senior assistant elsewhere for multiple years would've sufficed as different.

This doesn't mean that Scott will be successful, but it's clear that it's the first time in a long time that we've got something significantly different to what we've been doing for so long.

 

[BrunoV]

I mean, the guy that drafted them was also the one managing their contracts.

Even if Scott wanted them gone, do you think he would have been allowed?

Dodoro was essentially acting as a conveyancing agent. He was not deciding who to re-sign and contract length. He was managing negotiations.

Brad Scott had the final say on all of this stuff. If he chose not to exercise any common sense or judgment that is on him.

There are collective sign off requirements for long contracts.

If he was happy to go with the flow / group think his way to agreement then he's just another dud operator who blindly follows dogma, isn't he? Not the sort of persons who is capable of waking Essendon from its slumber.