Coach Men's Senior Coach: Brad Scott

[Old Campaigner]

Heppell is/was much better then Weid and dropping him for Weid made no sense.

He deserved to get dropped when Ridley returned mostly because they played the same role. But he started the season well and is a much better player than Weid. Not to mention playing Weid + McKay pushes Lav into a 3rd tall role and just gives us no players capable of moving the ball. With Kelly back there as well.

Young players not getting opportunities and having to have an extended run of form is pretty normal for Scott

I’m convinced that Scott was coaching to not get fired and expose systemic problems rather than win games. Because if he was trying to win he’s an idiot

Comparing Heppell and Weid is daft, they're completely different players. We were struggling somewhat in defense because McKay isn't especially well suited to taking the big forwards, it made some sense to bring Weid in ahead of Hayes and his form certainly warranted it. Slow/poor ball movement is a consequence of poor list management over a long period of time, playing Heppell or Hayes ahead of Weid doesn't fix it.

We've already been over the myth about young players not getting any opportunity. Hayes was the only one who could have been considered unlucky but I believe he had specific tasks to work on in the VFL, and he signed a contract extension during the season so it's not like he's on the outer. It's not uncommon for talls to wait a long time to debut in order to build the required strength.

Requiring players to demonstrate an extended period of good form is the sort of standard setting we should be celebrating, not complaining about.

"Coaching to not get fired rather than win games" WTF are you on about? The best way to not get fired is to win games. Finals were still in play and he'd be mad to not play the best possible side.

I think that's a bit harsh - there wasn't a huge gap in their form, if any. I'd actually say Hayes had better long-term VFL form than Weideman did. McKay was still in the AFL side too, so Hayes really would have been a better fit than Weideman, who'd been playing FB in the VFL.

No it's not. Weid had shown good form and demonstrated an ability to compete phyically with the big key forwards that Hayes has yet to develop.

 

[jdstorm]

Comparing Heppell and Weid is daft, they're completely different players. We were struggling somewhat in defense because McKay isn't especially well suited to taking the big forwards, it made some sense to bring Weid in ahead of Hayes and his form certainly warranted it. Slow/poor ball movement is a consequence of poor list management over a long period of time, playing Heppell or Hayes ahead of Weid doesn't fix it.

We've already been over the myth about young players not getting any opportunity. Hayes was the only one who could have been considered unlucky but I believe he had specific tasks to work on in the VFL, and he signed a contract extension during the season so it's not like he's on the outer. It's not uncommon for talls to wait a long time to debut in order to build the required strength.

Requiring players to demonstrate an extended period of good form is the sort of standard setting we should be celebrating, not complaining about.

"Coaching to not get fired rather than win games" WTF are you on about? The best way to not get fired is to win games. Finals were still in play and he'd be mad to not play the best possible side.

No it's not. Weid had shown good form and demonstrated an ability to compete phyically with the big key forwards that Hayes has yet to develop.

At Essington papering over the cracks and winning games gets you expectations which gets you fired when players decide not to apply the level of effort and commitment needed to win.

Scott unquestionably chose to play underdone/injured players. Despite publicly saying health and effort were his primary selection criteria.

I’m not talking about playing young players but rather optimising the list for success and playing as many of the good players as possible.

 

[ant555]

Seems that he is not getting 100% of selection right for some supporters so it is a problem. Yes they had some selection errors. A few really average ones in some games but what club outside the top two does not ? even the fans from sides that are winning more often than not have selections that their fans do not agree with. You only have to do a quick read of the opposition boards or listen to SEN for 10 minutes after 12pm to see it.

My view. Yes made a few selection blunders but overall he was solid. And had no issue with giving Weideman one last crack as he had very good VFL form all season. They had to know 100% how that VFL defense form translated to AFL level. It would have been a mistake not to.

 

[yodellinhank]

After Weideman's body of work they still needed that game to get a look. And now we can reset the 8 year plan, it's a shame it didn't all work out.

 

[Old Campaigner]

At Essington papering over the cracks and winning games gets you expectations which gets you fired when players decide not to apply the level of effort and commitment needed to win.

Scott unquestionably chose to play underdone/injured players. Despite publicly saying health and effort were his primary selection criteria.

I’m not talking about playing young players but rather optimising the list for success and playing as many of the good players as possible.

You're all over the shop here. Winning games gets you fired? So he's supposed to try not to win?

I'm sure he'd love to only play 100% fit players but there's form and team balance considerations too. Caldwell played injured a bit but it’s not like we had oodles of midfielders to pick a replacement for.

Who do you think was played ahead of good players (I think that’s what you’re claiming happened)?

It seems like you've decided you don't like the coach and are just making up a bunch of shit to justify it.

 

[jdstorm]

You're all over the shop here. Winning games gets you fired? So he's supposed to try not to win?

I'm sure he'd love to only play 100% fit players but there's form and team balance considerations too. Caldwell played injured a bit but it’s not like we had oodles of midfielders to pick a replacement for.

Who do you think was played ahead of good players (I think that’s what you’re claiming happened)?

It seems like you've decided you don't like the coach and are just making up a bunch of shit to justify it.

Winning games got truck fired when the list couldn’t back it up the next season. Essendon coaches not making it past season 2 recently has been a thing.

He did what kept him employeed. Ran Sheedy/Dodoros favourites into the ground while repeating that the list wasn’t good enough. Now that pair is at Port Melbourne:

Re midfielders: Towards the end of the season we had Setterfield, Tsatas and either Hobbs or Sheil onball in the VFL and were ripping through the comp. Any of those three could have played in place of an injured Caldwell. It was the one place we did have depth.

Midfield was one of the few places we did have depth/balance.

Re form: at the start of last season Scott specifically said effort and health were his primary selection criteria. If your injured your not in form your underdone and a risk to further hurt yourself you shouldn’t be picked. Then didn’t stick to it.

it’s not like the unhealthy players were winning us games.

In general I like Scott and the stability he has bought the club. However I believe in flack where flack is due.

 

[Keystone agony]

There is also the fact that we wanted a final look at Weidmean at AFL level defense to see we wernt about to rid something that was actually there and very capable as shown by his VFL. It was one final look with an eye to list management imo

The only thing next year ill be abit annoyed about is if we turn to Shiel Setterfield, Laverde, Gresham or still have them in the side round 6 if were 3-3

For me you keep Stringer, dont push Laverde, Kelly, Hind types out, come out and say were focusing draft and give us a 3 year time frame if your not about developing in 2025