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

 

[ant555]

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.

He deserved some flack for some selections but I do not agree with a few of your selection issues either. Just on playing unhealthy players every club rolls the dice on that one. They played a few at times when they should not have but it was not large scale.

 

[Mercurial89]

I don't think giving Weid a game was much of anything useful. People can say list management decision, I think it looks like bad process tbh.

There is a mountain of evidence that he is not good enough, he had some fine form at VFL, not dominant, just fine.
Was that one game going to change things? If it did, if it was either he plays well and gets rewarded or plays poorly and gets delisted, there's an issue with your talent evaluation and ability to self scout, the evidence was sitting there prior.


Scott's made errors in selection, game plan, personel, and messaging. Which is fine for now, many coaches do.
It's not sackable, but they are red flags against him and the criticism is warranted.
Calls for sacking? No not yet.

 

[Agronomus]

I don't think giving Weid a game was much of anything useful. People can say list management decision, I think it looks like bad process tbh.

There is a mountain of evidence that he is not good enough, he had some fine form at VFL, not dominant, just fine.
Was that one game going to change things? If it did, if it was either he plays well and gets rewarded or plays poorly and gets delisted, there's an issue with your talent evaluation and ability to self scout, the evidence was sitting there prior.


Scott's made errors in selection, game plan, personel, and messaging. Which is fine for now, many coaches do.
It's not sackable, but they are red flags against him and the criticism is warranted.
Calls for sacking? No not yet.

Are they necessarily errors though? At this stage all he's needed to do is get rid of the deadwood, and see who may be part of the future. What would be the point of him trying to build a system without the players he wants?
A rebuild takes time with a normal team let alone us

 

[crackers65]

If you needed to give Weideman games to see if he could play down back, you’re not a very good judge of talent. Nine years he was on AFL lists for people to see how good he was. Maybe we should bring Francis back and give him another go.

 

[ant555]

If you needed to give Weideman games to see if he could play down back, you’re not a very good judge of talent. Nine years he was on AFL lists for people to see how good he was. Maybe we should bring Francis back and give him another go.

Bollocks.
His VFL form in defence was well and truly good enough to give him one last look.
He played 7 1/2 years as a forward where he was crap. Even at VFL level.

 

[crackers65]

Bollocks.
His VFL form in defence was well and truly good enough to give him one last look.
He played 7 1/2 years as a forward where he was crap. Even at VFL level.

Bollocks, he was crap at both ends of the ground.

 

[ant555]

Bollocks, he was crap at both ends of the ground.

Bollocks. He was shit forward and decent in the back half. He got delisted like he should have but Steve Wonder could see his play in defense was 100 times better than it was in the forward half. They mad the right call to have a last look at him.

 

[Don the stash]

Bollocks.
His VFL form in defence was well and truly good enough to give him one last look.
He played 7 1/2 years as a forward where he was crap. Even at VFL level.

If his form playing defence in the VFL was so fine, then why didn't any other AFL clubs take a look at him? He wasn't even picked up by another VFL club. He went on to sign with Vermont.

 

[ant555]

If his form playing defence in the VFL was so fine, then why didn't any other AFL clubs take a look at him? He wasn't even picked up by another VFL club. He went on to sign with Vermont.

He did not want to keep playing VFL. I know a few VFL clubs enquired. Like I said. He got delisted which was the right thing. My point was his VFL form was good enough for us to have one last look. After that I said nothing along the lines he should still be in the AFL.