Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[TheGreatBarryB]

Scott’s the best coach we’ve had since Sheeds…without a doubt.

As for Knights we made the right decision to sack ..too obsessed with being entertaining and we had no defensive structure ..hence why Fletch had a words with him.

More significant is he’s never been offered another senior job, maybe in part because he hasn’t wanted to put hi hat in the ring again but if clubs really thought he was senior material they would’ve reached out to his manager to apply etc

 

[Old Campaigner]

So don't give them contracts.

There’s been plenty of players less deserving of contracts. 2 years is fine, anyone delisted needs to be replaced from a finite talent pool so the opportunity cost of contracting them is minimal.

The issue is not that they’re completely incapable at AFL level, it’s that you expect (and need) far more impact from top 10 picks than what they have shown so far.

 

[BrunoV]

There’s been plenty of players less deserving of contracts. 2 years is fine, anyone delisted needs to be replaced from a finite talent pool so the opportunity cost of contracting them is minimal.

The issue is not that they’re completely incapable at AFL level, it’s that you expect (and need) far more impact from top 10 picks than what they have shown so far.

These are dogmatic views I do not care for because they're all clearly reasons to maintain an utterly ineffective status quo.

If we keep a few players out of contract we have scope to trade.

As you said, it is not that the players can't play, it is that they don't work together. The fix is simple but the mentality is usual for AFL clubs. They don't want to be seen to lose a trade/ look stupid by getting first round picks wrong but they are happy to look stupid with a percentage of 94 at the end of year 4 of a rebuild.

 

[Kong]

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

I'd imagine any coach would be at a club run as dysfunctionally as Essendon.

 

[Kong]

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.

I don't know that to be true, so I'll have to take your word for it.

 

[CBombers17]

The biggest failing behind the Knights appointment wasn't chosing him over Dimma - It was the lack of a broad recruitment process after failing to parachute Bomba in.

This acceptance of a lack of professional processes has continued to curse the club across many departments. Personally I've lost the interest to know if it's changed or not in the last 18 months.

 

[chambo00]

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.

I don't buy into that - For me year 1 was 2023 because the off field was blown up and I am not passing on past failures to Scott.

Scott absolutely gets to assess the list, particularly if he wants to implement a game plan and we don't have the cattle for it. I have always firmly believed you implement a game plan and draft and recruit for that game plan.

Goodwin had Gawn, Petracca, Viney, Lever, May etc

 

[yodellinhank]

FULL BORE

 

[BrunoV]

I don't buy into that - For me year 1 was 2023 because the off field was blown up and I am not passing on past failures to Scott.

Scott absolutely gets to assess the list, particularly if he wants to implement a game plan and we don't have the cattle for it. I have always firmly believed you implement a game plan and draft and recruit for that game plan.

Goodwin had Gawn, Petracca, Viney, Lever, May etc

What you're not buying into is reality. The rebuild coach doesn't survive, if isn't not a matter simply of his incompetence, because the team at the start of the rebuild, if that is when the coach takes over, is too young to be competitive and also too young to implement a complete game plan. The starting point for any rebuild is when the talent on which you intend to rely is drafted. That talent was drafted 4 years ago. Rutten was the rebuild coach that didn't survive.

Scott has assessed the list and allowed the club to commit to it and now everyone wants to give him time to undo that mistake. It's nonsensical. He makes this team work, he does it next year or he'd better not let the door hit him on the way out because that door is going to be spinning with real intensity in 12 months if we're still dishing up this sub-100 percentage rubbish.

Goodwin did not have May in 2018. Petracca didn't start to become what he is today until 2020. Gawn was still plagued by inconsistency, too. If you're going to be accurate about this you'd mention Brayshaw and Hogan.

I am trying to understand whether people really thought that Merrett, Parish, McGrath, Redman, Draper, Langford, Martin, Ridley, McKay, Duursma, Caldwell, Durham, Stringer and Wright were good players 10 weeks ago or whether they've were all getting carried away against their better instincts.

Honestly, it's fine for fans to get carried away - that's what fans do. It's not okay for the coach to do it even if he isn't a 'resultist'.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

What you're not buying into is reality. The rebuild coach doesn't survive, if isn't not a matter simply of his incompetence, because the team at the start of the rebuild, if that is when the coach takes over, is too young to be competitive and also too young to implement a complete game plan. The starting point for any rebuild is when the talent on which you intend to rely is drafted. That talent was drafted 4 years ago. Rutten was the rebuild coach that didn't survive.

Scott has assessed the list and allowed the club to commit to it and now everyone wants to give him time to undo that mistake. It's nonsensical. He makes this team work, he does it next year or he'd better not let the door hit him on the way out because that door is going to be spinning with real intensity in 12 months if we're still dishing up this sub-100 percentage rubbish.

Goodwin did not have May in 2018. Petracca didn't start to become what he is today until 2020. Gawn was still plagued by inconsistency, too. If you're going to be accurate about this you'd mention Brayshaw and Hogan.

I am trying to understand whether people really thought that Merrett, Parish, McGrath, Redman, Draper, Langford, Martin, Ridley, McKay, Duursma, Caldwell, Durham, Stringer and Wright were good players 10 weeks ago or whether they've were all getting carried away against their better instincts.

Honestly, it's fine for fans to get carried away - that's what fans do. It's not okay for the coach to do it even if he isn't a 'resultist'.

I dont think most got carried away.
The media isnt representative of knowledgeable fans, we know their schtick now, talk us up after a few wins as a premiership threat and then call us the biggest disappointment of the season when the fall comes, it didnt get much more transparent than Ben Dixon on First Crack trying to keep a straight face whilst saying we were a lock for top 4.

Most fans on here thought we had overachieved in first half of year despite obvious weaknesses in our list and that despite not being anywhere near a top 4 quality team we had somehow managed to go through first 10 rounds of season with only 2 losses. The optimistic's in us thought it was a good launchpad to Bradbury our way to an unexpected top 4-6 finish but many had the nagging doubt in back of head that we would drop off and go back to the mean which was the 8 - 12 mark.

You cant overlook the first half of season results, he did squeeze a lot out of an average list, and its probably the most balanced the midfield have looked for a while (despite still missing a top line explosive/bigger bodied mid), it shows in the stat comparison to last year that we have improved in that part of ground with better differentials for clearances/contested possessions/Inside 50s/tackles.

There have definitely been mistakes made by the coaching team in addition to players just going back to their bad habits the longer the season went on, I dont understand why it took him so long to give up on wright/goldstein, why he persisted with Jake in the middle once we got the midfield soldiers back and why he went with two tall inexperienced wingers in Cox/Jones. But these were rectified and if we were good enough we would have been able to get back to our best like more seasoned teams that had tinkered mid season were able to (think Cats/Dogs/Lions).

I agree that the long contracts are hampering our chance at a proper list shake up but think you are drawing some long bows with your assumptions of how much Scott had to do with it all, the proof will be in the pudding this off season.
Without the albatross of Dodoro involved Scott/Rosa have no excuses, and we know contracts arent worth that much nowadays too, so if they really want change they will make some moves similar to the pies with Grundy/Treloar to make sure we get the right list despite how it will be perceived by outsiders.
If we just tinker around edges again with a few Free agents/low level trade ins then we know its only a matter of time before Scott gets shown the door too.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Does it really matter when the rebuild technically started? Even if the intention was to commence a rebuild in 2020 that draft class is clearly not something you can build a list around.

Similarly it doesn’t seem productive to suggest that after x years it should be done and we start to contend for finals, and failing to reach that benchmark means the coach gets it in the neck. It needs to be based on a sober assessment of the list and if it’s not up to it then the rebuild must go on. Start topping up too early and we’re just doing a rerun of 2017-2019

 

[BrunoV]

Does it really matter when the rebuild technically started? Even if the intention was to commence a rebuild in 2020 that draft class is clearly not something you can build a list around.

Similarly it doesn’t seem productive to suggest that after x years it should be done and we start to contend for finals, and failing to reach that benchmark means the coach gets it in the neck. It needs to be based on a sober assessment of the list and if it’s not up to it then the rebuild must go on. Start topping up too early and we’re just doing a rerun of 2017-2019

Doesn't the sober assessment of the list need to happen before every part of the rebuild is signed up?

 

[BrunoV]

I dont think most got carried away.
The media isnt representative of knowledgeable fans, we know their schtick now, talk us up after a few wins as a premiership threat and then call us the biggest disappointment of the season when the fall comes, it didnt get much more transparent than Ben Dixon on First Crack trying to keep a straight face whilst saying we were a lock for top 4.

Most fans on here thought we had overachieved in first half of year despite obvious weaknesses in our list and that despite not being anywhere near a top 4 quality team we had somehow managed to go through first 10 rounds of season with only 2 losses. The optimistic's in us thought it was a good launchpad to Bradbury our way to an unexpected top 4-6 finish but many had the nagging doubt in back of head that we would drop off and go back to the mean which was the 8 - 12 mark.

You cant overlook the first half of season results, he did squeeze a lot out of an average list, and its probably the most balanced the midfield have looked for a while (despite still missing a top line explosive/bigger bodied mid), it shows in the stat comparison to last year that we have improved in that part of ground with better differentials for clearances/contested possessions/Inside 50s/tackles.

There have definitely been mistakes made by the coaching team in addition to players just going back to their bad habits the longer the season went on, I dont understand why it took him so long to give up on wright/goldstein, why he persisted with Jake in the middle once we got the midfield soldiers back and why he went with two tall inexperienced wingers in Cox/Jones. But these were rectified and if we were good enough we would have been able to get back to our best like more seasoned teams that had tinkered mid season were able to (think Cats/Dogs/Lions).

I agree that the long contracts are hampering our chance at a proper list shake up but think you are drawing some long bows with your assumptions of how much Scott had to do with it all, the proof will be in the pudding this off season.
Without the albatross of Dodoro involved Scott/Rosa have no excuses, and we know contracts arent worth that much nowadays too, so if they really want change they will make some moves similar to the pies with Grundy/Treloar to make sure we get the right list despite how it will be perceived by outsiders.
If we just tinker around edges again with a few Free agents/low level trade ins then we know its only a matter of time before Scott gets shown the door too.

Maybe there are people with more up-to-date knowledge and more inside knowledge generally who can confirm but I understand the following to be true:

1. Dodoro has not had a power to unilaterally decide on who to sign / contract and the length of any deal for years, if he ever had it and that is a big 'if';

2. at all material times (i.e. at least since the start of Scott's tenure), all contracts are put to what I will call a 'football department committee' (which Scott is part of);

3. Scott was given final say over contracts at this level;

4. contracts of 5 years or more require board sign off (which requires committee sign-off);

5. we have not re-contracted or signed any player without Scott's approval, the result being that he chose not to exercise his veto.

There is no problem with the power I am attributing to Scott. He is a very experienced operator who, North Melbourne fans will tell you, would essentially be in the same role as part-GM of footy that he had at North. And as every likes to say, he has been charged with changing the culture of the club. How is he supposed to do that if he is not ultimately in control of the list? Contracts are a significant tool both in terms of setting standards but also creating flexibility to change a list.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Maybe there are people with more up-to-date knowledge and more inside knowledge generally who can confirm but I understand the following to be true:

1. Dodoro has not had a power to unilaterally decide on who to sign / contract and the length of any deal for years, if he ever had it and that is a big 'if';

2. at all material times (i.e. at least since the start of Scott's tenure), all contracts are put to what I will call a 'football department committee' (which Scott is part of);

3. Scott was given final say over contracts at this level;

4. contracts of 5 years or more require board sign off (which requires committee sign-off);

5. we have not re-contracted or signed any player without Scott's approval, the result being that he chose not to exercise his veto.

There is no problem with the power I am attributing to Scott. He is a very experienced operator who, North Melbourne fans will tell you, would essentially be in the same role as part-GM of footy that he had at North. And as every likes to say, he has been charged with changing the culture of the club. How is he supposed to do that if he is not ultimately in control of the list? Contracts are a significant tool both in terms of setting standards but also creating flexibility to change a list.

Fair enough, I wasnt across that additional info. That is a bit disheartening to read if true.

 

[Foxx]

The list being regarded as good or otherwise is irrelevant to a large degree on Scott's future existence as coach.
The biggest problem is his approach to what he currently has. His decisions have been horrendous.

He's handicapped the team.
The only 2 positive moves he's made were most likely out of necessity through injuries. Durham and Caldwell in the middle. And perhaps the recruitment of McKay.

I've expressed my views already several times over his selections, team structure and gameplan. So I'm not going to keep on about that.
But if that continues next year with similar results, I don't see how the Essendon hierarchy can continue with him coaching.

 

[Tazdog]

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?

Ive been speaking to a labourer at work who was actually playing for us during the Knights era. He said that it was between Knights and Hardwick, Hardwick said he needed 5 years to make us a competitive team again, Knights said he could take us straight into finals. The rest is history

On a side note, he said that James Hird was treated and viewed as a god within our 4 walls. He had an insane amount of influence and people were starstruck by his presence.

He also said one of the reasons why were still shit is because of our board, and the influence they have. He thinks we need to get rid of everyone who was there from our glory days and its holding us back

Take it with a grain of salt

 

[Zach Package]

Ive been speaking to a labourer at work who was actually playing for us during the Knights era. He said that it was between Knights and Hardwick, Hardwick said he needed 5 years to make us a competitive team again, Knights said he could take us straight into finals. The rest is history

On a side note, he said that James Hird was treated and viewed as a god within our 4 walls. He had an insane amount of influence and people were starstruck by his presence.

He also said one of the reasons why were still shit is because of our board, and the influence they have. He thinks we need to get rid of everyone who was there from our glory days and its holding us back

Take it with a grain of salt

I don’t need to take it with a grain if salt because we basically know it all to be true. It aligns with everything we know. The reverence of Hird even came with it’s own very public crucifixion.

 

[SpeckieMcVeigh]

If Scott is the main person in charge of selecting our best 22, he is frustrating the **** out of me. The season is done, give Hepp his send off and then play a bunch of kids. 1 non-Hepp change is a disgrace.

 

[ant555]

If Scott is the main person in charge of selecting our best 22, he is frustrating the **** out of me. The season is done, give Hepp his send off and then play a bunch of kids. 1 non-Hepp change is a disgrace.

You have been to the VFL and watched the kids closely ?
Hayes is the only one you really can consider but they where hardly going to drop Lav from the farewell game.
Tsatas may have got 40 possessions against Coburg but he was hardly beating a lot and to be really blunt he is still a bit selective as far as which contests he wants to attack.

 

[SpeckieMcVeigh]

You have been to the VFL and watched the kids closely ?
Hayes is the only one you really can consider but they where hardly going to drop Lav from the farewell game.
Tsatas may have got 40 possessions against Coburg but he was hardly beating a lot and to be really blunt he is still a bit selective as far as which contests he wants to attack.

Haven't physically been but have watched every game for the past two months via the AFL app.

If our season was still alive, sure, let's be very picky with who we select. But with the season over and the VFL side also out of finals contention, what harm is there in giving the kids a crack in their natural positions? The only one I can see an argument for holding out is Saad because he's only had a few games back from injury.

 

[ant555]

Haven't physically been but have watched every game for the past two months via the AFL app.

If our season was still alive, sure, let's be very picky with who we select. But with the season over and the VFL side also out of finals contention, what harm is there in giving the kids a crack in their natural positions? The only one I can see an argument for holding out is Saad because he's only had a few games back from injury.

Well I posted the reason in the Tsatas thread. Lets just say despite his ability to win the footy he can still be a bit selective when it comes to attacking the contest. I doubt playing him against Neale and co will help him any on that front. Hobbs gets a game because he attacks every contest. If Tsatas wants to play midfield he has to have another pre season and get stronger and prove that what was a weakness before he was drafted is less prevalent in his game.
I know people can not get to the VFL live but watching on the app does not catch it all. I like to go and watch these guys through the binoculars and not be actually watching the game. He still has times of hesitation during games which he had at under 18 level and it was a reason why I questioned if he was the guy for us. It is the same question mark I have on Cox .

 

[yodellinhank]

Tsatas may have got 40 possessions against Coburg but he was hardly beating a lot and to be really blunt he is still a bit selective as far as which contests he wants to attack.

Are you saying sometimes the will is not there?

 

[Old Campaigner]

Haven't physically been but have watched every game for the past two months via the AFL app.

If our season was still alive, sure, let's be very picky with who we select. But with the season over and the VFL side also out of finals contention, what harm is there in giving the kids a crack in their natural positions? The only one I can see an argument for holding out is Saad because he's only had a few games back from injury.

Make them earn it wherever possible imo

 

[SpeckieMcVeigh]

Make them earn it wherever possible imo

Sure, I agree. But are we really saying guys like Laverde / Kelly / Perkins etc etc have earnt games? It's not like we're a side firing on all cylinders.

 

[DERO]

The biggest failing behind the Knights appointment wasn't chosing him over Dimma - It was the lack of a broad recruitment process after failing to parachute Bomba in.

This acceptance of a lack of professional processes has continued to curse the club across many departments. Personally I've lost the interest to know if it's changed or not in the last 18 months.

We would have sacked Dimma too.