rpfc

In many ways we have a great number of peope to blame for where we are at, perhaps too many to make blame worthwhile. From trades made long ago, to kids we didn't pick up for sanctions, to missed opportunities in important drafts, to a bad culture formented over generations, to poor list management, to never rectifying our lack of a midfield, to spurning Junior McDonald, to playing to players fears of their own incompetence and lack of experience. Neeld is not to blame for any of that save for the last one and some small things here and there. But he will, as all coaches do, see his destiny defined by what we do on the field. And what we have done on the field can be summed up in many words - none of them pleasant... The confidence that has been shattered since 186 was never repaired and while I don't want Jackson to act on Neeld until he knows what to do with the FD, I knew after the Essendon game that the MFC would move on before 2014. Our players and not great, they are not world beaters, but they can do more and play better than what they have shown. Is this entirely Neeld's fault? No, but he will own it. And that is footy.

I can fully understand the desire to immediately get rid of the coach (my personal view is that Neeld should be nixed when Jackson knows what he wants to do with the FD as a whole), but as AoB says - can you please not tie Neeld's tenure from here on in - be it 2 weeks or 8 weeks - to the survival of the club. That is horrendous horse sh!t if you are trying to scare people into believing your side of the argument. Soon the King will be gone and we will hail a new King. But the Kingdom will remain.

If we are to put our trust into our AFL paratrooper then we have to give him time to make a decision. These losses are hard to watch to say the least. Unfortunately, a caretaker is not going to stem that tide. As long as the admin is not concerned with the spirit in the team and the staff we allow Jackson the time necessary to make a decision on the restructure and the personnel. Prompt action can be satisfying but it won't lead us anywhere different than deliberate and thoughtful action on the entire FD.

lol Does anyone remember when we did that with Jack Viney and they seething masses cheered until we were nearly forced to use Pick 3 to get him at which point the seething masses said it was stupid to telegraph our desire for him by signing him up at 16?

In 2014 Hogan will be our third tall. Howe will have to fit in there as well. I like Watts' talent and I like him as a person but if he can't make it as a HBF - he is going to struggle to make it anywhere on the ground.

lol

These are the 'offending' remarks: We probably discussed this at the time but are we not being a tad sensitive? I would argue that while that message about the 'ads' he was in is more an issue for the commercial side of things at the club, allowing Jack to concentrate on his footy was the main point he was making. He didn't throw him under a bus, over a bridge, or anywhere else. Unfortunately, most of Neelds words in public are poorly worded and haphazard and they get misconstrued constantly. The amount of times he has had to say 'what I meant by that is...' would be numerous. How he treats Watts in-house is not for us to know but he is playing this week and potentially in subsequent weeks. And in these weeks we will see whether Neeld can win back his job, whether Jack Watts wants to stay in the role we envision for him, and whether the club sees him as the answer in that role.

That is specious reasoning. And the 'damage' that people have repeated 'bloody ad nauseum' Pman, are all the reasons why Neeld may not be here beyond this season. But nothing in our performances demands we play more than half the year with a caretaker coach. There are no coherent reasons why we cannot give Neeld until August. Whatever damage there is, it has been done. What a nuclear waste of a season this would be with a caretaker in charge for 4 months.

Prove that. The Richmond game was the best four quarter effort of the season, maybe since the Essendon game last year. Other than specious reports about players leaving - what proof is there that Neeld is damaging the club. He will go if he can't replicate the sort of effort we saw on the weekend but if losing is damaging...well, getting rid of Neeld won't suddenly make us win. What damage and what proof?

You have to be kidding. Tom McDonald has already played more good games than Jack Watts has. Watts is a tlent without a position at the moment. He cannot play back as well as McDonald and Hogan has already moved ahead of him in the forward line - and did so last October when we got him.

When it comes to list management I like to think I am very capable of removing blinkers and seeing things for what they are. Sylvia is to be kept but I think he will leave. As a 'list manager' there is only so much power I have. Frawley is to be told that he can come to the club and ask for better terms if he wishes. Hopefully he is a RFA next year (one of the 10 highest paid players) and we hold the cards. Watts is a tough one as his skills are elite and his physicality near the other end of the spectrum. If a suitable trade was offered then you would listen to it but he is an 'asset' and you don't just give those away. In terms of immediate importance - we need experience and talent but Watts has become 'tradeable' due to our forward line and backline having 6 talls younger than 26 who are all more accomplished than he is (Clark, Dawes, Hogan, Frawley, Garland, and McDonald).

Garland.

I would say yes. What grand 'plus' is there in having a caretaker coach for 4 months? How will it help player retention? How will it help us convince a proven coach to take over? A 'head start' on getting a coach does not mean going through the majority of a season without one. Add that to the fact that we have a CEO three weeks into his job and you have a situation where no decision will be taken promptly lest it be one that is not advised by our AFL-endorsed CEO. Some players may have issues with Neeld and their confidence is still alarmingly low looking at their seeming inability to run for each other and themselves but the effort against the Tigers tells me that the players can get something out of the rest of season even if they can't save their coach. And if they can save the coach then they would have got an enormous amount out of the season. They lose that chance if we remove him now - for the time spent under a caretaker is nothing more than 'biding time' - for players, coaches, and the club in general.

Compensation is still in place. And we can get a trade out of RFAs.

Why 'surely'? I just do not see Jackson making a call on the coach before August.

No.

I thought Toumpas should not have played Rd1 and said as much on here. We have had a culture of easy games for kids and I think it has been a hindrance to their development.

Sylvia has 'earnt' the right to wait and see as an UFA and Frawley has 16 months left on his contract...

We need to keep him but, ultimately, how we perform in 2014 will determine his desires.

Please don't make me read Barrett again but he had it right with his last sentence:

Frankly, I agree that the players have been too defensively focussed. They do not run to space and attempt to get the football. We averaged around 100 touches less than other teams - mainly from uncontested possessions. But learning defesive aspects is an important part of the game nevertheless. I would say that the best place for Tynan and Taggert and Toumpas and Kent and Blease to learn how to work defensively and then run to find space in attack would be at Casey. I don't like the idea of having to many players learning at AFL level - unless they are bringing something to the table ie. speed, clearance winning ability, goal sense, etc.

Bugger the PC stuff at the risk of being labelled Andrew Bolt I'll say it: Your thoughts are inane.

What are you talking about? What blind faith? Am I a supporter if I would give him until August before I removed him? Just because a number of posters do not want the immediate removal of the coach does not mean that they are happy with the status quo or that they would not endorse a new coach for 2014. And, you and all the others who demand immediate removal, are just not giving any solid reason for Jackson to - 21 days into his job - make a decision like that while still trying to restrucutre the FD. Are we not trying to be more professionally run? Do we not want Jackson to make his recommendations and have his will - AFL endorsed - to be implemented?

As I have said - that is not simple. You want to get blokes in to replace those with questionable skill. Great. That is a simple sentence. It's a simple idea. But getting it done without having more pain, or without failure, is not simple at all.

This sounds a lot like you want to gift a kid a few games... Defensive efforts are not just for forwards - I don't know where you are getting that from. Perhpas he doesn't track back from the midfield, perhaps he gets beaten to contests by his opposite number, etc. There are plenty of good traits that should be shown at Casey before they are given games in the AFL - and a great number of them would be related to what you do when you don't have the footy.