Rodney Eade the right man to coach the Bulldogs

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

At the end of the season is still the right time to see if Eade should be given a contract for another 2 years or not and nothing much has changed except that I do believe he is in a vastly better position than he was 6 weeks back.

The challenges for the club is to learn from the mistakes of others and not make a Port Power type reappointment only to see a subsequent failure shortly after and for the club to assess the playing list to see if a grand final is still a realistic possibility within the next 2 seasons.

The concerning part is that we still have a lot of our better players in the twilight of their careers and I'm not sure if a quick rebuild might be the best course for the club to follow.
If that is the case, then the question around if a coach going beyond 7 years in charge of the players without a premiership or even a grand final berth to fall back on is the right man to start another rebuild.
I don't question Eade's credentials in the slightest but the stone cold facts are that not many coaches would be given another opportunity to rebuild the playing group.

I am not sure that 7 years is all that relevant. Malthouse was 10 years at Collingwood before winning a flag and Thompson was almost tipped out at Geelong after several years before winning two flags. I think it is more the case that in Rocket's time we simply didn't have the extra class to make up the difference, in particular in key positions where apart from Lake at full back we were deficient in many key areas.
Injuries to Lake, Cooney, Wood,Hall, Higgins and Hargrave this year has been costly plus the loss of Harbrow who was one of our better players last year.
The turnaround in form in the past month should now see us play finals and if so I would suggest that Eade would be retained. At the end of the day it is talent that wins the day and compared with the depth of Collingwood and Geelong we still have a fair way to go.
I felt our win against Carlton was the best for a couple of years and on the day it was hard to fault Eade's coaching.

[GVGjr]

I am not sure that 7 years is all that relevant. Malthouse was 10 years at Collingwood before winning a flag and Thompson was almost tipped out at Geelong after several years before winning two flags.

The concerning part is that we still have a lot of our better players in the twilight of their careers and I'm not sure if a quick rebuild might be the best course for the club to follow.
If that is the case, then the question around if a coach going beyond 7 years in charge of the players without a premiership or even a grand final berth to fall back on is the right man to start another rebuild.
I don't question Eade's credentials in the slightest but the stone cold facts are that not many coaches would be given another opportunity to rebuild the playing group.

I've highlighted the point I believe is relevant.
Coaches who have a flag or have taken a club to a GF are typically given a bit more latitude and it's the problem that Port Power faced.
Malthouse, for example, was given a longer period at the Pies because he was regarded as a premiership coach and it's the same reason why Williams was given another go at Port.
The problem for Port was they had a premiership coach with a bottom 4 list.
The Malthouse reappointment worked but the Williams one didn't and it was a disaster for a financially strapped club.
This is what we need to be mindful of.

Assessing the quality of our playing list is a vital component when the club considers the merits of reappointing Eade.

He's a quality coach but if the club doesn't believe the list is good enough to have us back into the top 4 sides next season then they must also consider if he is the right man to start a rebuild.

[LostDoggy]

I've highlighted the point I believe is relevant.
Coaches who have a flag or have taken a club to a GF are typically given a bit more latitude and it's the problem that Port Power faced.
Malthouse, for example, was given a longer period at the Pies because he was regarded as a premiership coach and it's the same reason why Williams was given another go at Port.
The problem for Port was they had a premiership coach with a bottom 4 list.
The Malthouse reappointment worked but the Williams one didn't and it was a disaster for a financially strapped club.
This is what we need to be mindful of.

Assessing the quality of our playing list is a vital component when the club considers the merits of reappointing Eade.

He's a quality coach but if the club doesn't believe the list is good enough to have us back into the top 4 sides next season then they must also consider if he is the right man to start a rebuild.

You've been very considered in your views on this, Gary, and I have acknowledged previously the Williams parallel as a very good one to factor in.

However, Mark Williams WAS a loose cannon and an erratic personality in a way that Rocket never will be -- Eade is far more measured (and I believe simply more conventional personality-wise) than Williams; Williams' problems went beyond simply losing the playing group to problems with the fans and his board. Rocket has excellent relationships with most of the club's stakeholders, the playing group and the media, and has a very developed and good public profile which adds positively to the perception of the club (unlike Williams).

I would like one of these days to have a really good coach stay at our club for a long, long time a la Sheedy. Rocket may or may not be in Sheed's class, but there's no doubt he's a very, very good coach and ambassador for the club, and I think he is of a calibre that we can really build a culture and identity around and isn't just a good, temporary, run-of-the-mill coach (I would posit that he may very close to being the best coach we've ever had). I would also be very surprised if we're not up challenging at the top end of the table again very soon and give it a really, really good shake if he stays on for the next 5 or so years.

[GVGjr]

You've been very considered in your views on this, Gary, and I have acknowledged previously the Williams parallel as a very good one to factor in.

However, Mark Williams WAS a loose cannon and an erratic personality in a way that Rocket never will be -- Eade is far more measured (and I believe simply more conventional personality-wise) than Williams; Williams' problems went beyond simply losing the playing group to problems with the fans and his board. Rocket has excellent relationships with most of the club's stakeholders, the playing group and the media, and has a very developed and good public profile which adds positively to the perception of the club (unlike Williams).

I would like one of these days to have a really good coach stay at our club for a long, long time a la Sheedy. Rocket may or may not be in Sheed's class, but there's no doubt he's a very, very good coach and ambassador for the club, and I think he is of a calibre that we can really build a culture and identity around and isn't just a good, temporary, run-of-the-mill coach (I would posit that he may very close to being the best coach we've ever had). I would also be very surprised if we're not up challenging at the top end of the table again very soon and give it a really, really good shake if he stays on for the next 5 or so years.

The personalities don't come into as far as I am concerned it's more about having the right person to take the playing list forward. The loose cannon as you put it was considered the right man by the Port board because he had the GF credentials they thought they needed but they didn't assess the playing list and it ended up being a disaster.

To be honest I would be happy if Eade was reappointed but not if the club was also going to lower the expectation bar. I think Smorgon made a huge error in putting a GF pass mark on the club and the coach this year but if Eade is reappointed he actually needs to do it again.

[LostDoggy]

The personalities don't come into as far as I am concerned it's more about having the right person to take the playing list forward..

Oh, but surely it must when it comes to a club's profile? As a smaller club, we really need to make every post a winner when it comes to the off-field stuff (the on-field, playing list stuff goes without saying of course), and a stable, media-friendly coach with excellent relationships with all our stakeholders and an ability to connect with the community would surely be preferable to a crazy loose-cannon who burns every bridge he crosses?

Port's current financial predicament and completely shot brand as a club would not have been helped by an inaccessible, erratic personality at the helm.

I'm not saying hire a good guy who can't coach, and I agree that you don't lower the bar, but all things being equal, the off-field stuff is paramount. Some might even say it's as important as anything on-field; we could hire Malthouse, Sheedy, Roos or Matthews and we still may or may not win a premiership as it is a very even and difficult comp, but the right man can help ensure our brand maintains its attractiveness and upward trend (as long as we're still competitive on-field) while the wrong man can easily destroy our brand even while winning a premiership (see: Williams, again). It's a long-run play I'm talking about here... how do we change the landscape and perception of our club from a flakey, small club to a professional, stable, successful one? Port has proven that winning a premiership is not the silver bullet some of us think it is.

[LostDoggy]

I think we still have a number of opportunities to improve things within the club without necessarily needing to spend more money so whilst the investments by some of the bigger clubs might make it more challenging now we are far from being out of contention.

Exactly. My old man has always told me ad nauseum: “It's not how much money you earn that matters, son. It's how much you spend, and what you spend it on.”

The personalities don't come into as far as I am concerned it's more about having the right person to take the playing list forward. The loose cannon as you put it was considered the right man by the Port board because he had the GF credentials they thought they needed but they didn't assess the playing list and it ended up being a disaster.

To be honest I would be happy if Eade was reappointed but not if the club was also going to lower the expectation bar. I think Smorgon made a huge error in putting a GF pass mark on the club and the coach this year but if Eade is reappointed he actually needs to do it again.

A coaching decision shouldn't just be about the playing list. That's not even his job. It should be about how far he can take a player, how far he can develop them, and he has shown for 7 years a gift at getting the most out of guys like Lake, Murphy, etc.

[GVGjr]

Oh, but surely it must when it comes to a club's profile? As a smaller club, we really need to make every post a winner when it comes to the off-field stuff (the on-field, playing list stuff goes without saying of course), and a stable, media-friendly coach with excellent relationships with all our stakeholders and an ability to connect with the community would surely be preferable to a crazy loose-cannon who burns every bridge he crosses?

How many people were against getting guys with mixed on field and off field issues like Akermanis and Hall? What was your take on their recruitment?
I'd bet most supporters couldn't stand them (but respected their ability) when they were with Brisbane and Sydney but them embraced then totally when we recruited them because they were seen as a great chance to get us to a GF.
Now that Akermanis is gone from the club he's back again as being regarded as a knob and yet he's the same old Akermanis he was when we recruited him.

I don't want a loose cannon as a coach (I doubt there one actually out there) but it's marvelous what people will compromise if it's seen as a great chance to fast track some success.

The clubs profile is a consideration but how many loose cannons in the last 5 years actually get a coaching gig? (expect for Sheedy)

[LostDoggy]

Oh, but surely it must when it comes to a club's profile? As a smaller club, we really need to make every post a winner when it comes to the off-field stuff (the on-field, playing list stuff goes without saying of course), and a stable, media-friendly coach with excellent relationships with all our stakeholders and an ability to connect with the community would surely be preferable to a crazy loose-cannon who burns every bridge he crosses?

Port's current financial predicament and completely shot brand as a club would not have been helped by an inaccessible, erratic personality at the helm.

I'm not saying hire a good guy who can't coach, and I agree that you don't lower the bar, but all things being equal, the off-field stuff is paramount. Some might even say it's as important as anything on-field; we could hire Malthouse, Sheedy, Roos or Matthews and we still may or may not win a premiership as it is a very even and difficult comp, but the right man can help ensure our brand maintains its attractiveness and upward trend (as long as we're still competitive on-field) while the wrong man can easily destroy our brand even while winning a premiership (see: Williams, again). It's a long-run play I'm talking about here... how do we change the landscape and perception of our club from a flakey, small club to a professional, stable, successful one? Port has proven that winning a premiership is not the silver bullet some of us think it is.

Great post. How do we change our perception? By not howling at the moon every year when we don't win a flag, instead working our arses off to rectify, and then continuing to work our arses off no matter what, flag or not. Example? Sydney. One flag in 78 years. Respected club culture.

[GVGjr]

A coaching decision shouldn't just be about the playing list. That's not even his job. It should be about how far he can take a player, how far he can develop them, and he has shown for 7 years a gift at getting the most out of guys like Lake, Murphy, etc.

A coach is measured against the quality of his playing list and boards should consider it when appointing a coach especially when someone has been in charge for a long period of time.

[LostDoggy]

How many people were against getting guys with mixed on field and off field issues like Akermanis and Hall? What was your take on their recruitment?
I'd bet most supporters couldn't stand them (but respected their ability) when they were with Brisbane and Sydney but them embraced them totally when we recruited them because they were seen as a great chance to get us to a GF.
Now that Akermanis is gone from the club he's back again as being regarded as a knob and yet he's the same old Akermanis he was when we recruited him.

I don't want a loose cannon as a coach (I doubt there one actually out there) but it's marvelous what people will compromise if it's seen as a great chance to fast track some success.

The clubs profile is a consideration but how many loose cannons in the last 5 years actually get a coaching gig? (expect for Sheedy)

On Akermanis, you've got me. I respected that he spoke his mind but thought he was a knob before we recruited him, was dead against it. I changed my mind when all was going well. Now I think he's a knob again. So guilty as charged.

I've always admired Barry Hall, as much as I admire Adam Goodes. Every time we played Sydney, it was Hall and Goodes I'd love to watch. So my view on Barry hasn't (and probably won't change).

Flipping your question around from what he COULD bring: What specific issues warrant the cessation of Rocket's contract?

EDIT TO SAVE MULTIPLE POSTS:

A coach is measured against the quality of his playing list and boards should consider it when appointing a coach especially when someone has been in charge for a long period of time.

I didn't quite mean he's not responsible for the playing list, I meant he's not responsible for recruiting the player list, now and in the future.

[LostDoggy]

How many people were against getting guys with mixed on field and off field issues like Akermanis and Hall? What was your take on their recruitment?
I'd bet most supporters couldn't stand them (but respected their ability) when they were with Brisbane and Sydney but them embraced them totally when we recruited them because they were seen as a great chance to get us to a GF.
Now that Akermanis is gone from the club he's back again as being regarded as a knob and yet he's the same old Akermanis he was when we recruited him.

I don't want a loose cannon as a coach (I doubt there one actually out there) but it's marvelous what people will compromise if it's seen as a great chance to fast track some success.

The clubs profile is a consideration but how many loose cannons in the last 5 years actually get a coaching gig? (expect for Sheedy)

Oh I'm not saying that there are any coaching loose cannons around still, just that Williams being such a loose cannon makes his example maybe less relevant to whether we should keep Rocket.

Also I do think there's a slight difference between having a couple of crazies on the field and having a lunatic running the asylum.. if anything, the more crazies you have on the field, the steadier the hand you want in charge to be able to handle the on-field loonies (who are sometimes necessary to win stuff).

[ledge]

I think Aker worked in the opposite, loose cannons or wild ones can be good on the field if they are respected by the rest of the team,
Barry Hall was well respected he was even captain, big difference to compare Aker and Hall.

[GVGjr]

Flipping your question around from what he COULD bring: What specific issues warrant the cessation of Rocket's contract?

I'm not saying he shouldn't have the job because I think he is a very good coach but I don't think I can make my points any clearer than what I have.
My view is that unless we believe we have the playing list to get us to a GF in the next 2 years then we need to consider if he is still the right man to take the club forward.

If we make the eight and win a final I just can't see how he could lose the job. If we miss the eight then we need to consider a lot more. Limping into the eight becomes 50/50.

[GVGjr]

Oh I'm not saying that there are any coaching loose cannons around still, just that Williams being such a loose cannon makes his example maybe less relevant to whether we should keep Rocket.

I think it's very relevant so I'll try to make my points without mentioning Eade or Williams so their respective personalities aren't the issue.

- We are like Port in that we aren't financially strong.
- We had a disaster in the first half on the season like Port did in what was a contract year for the coach.
- Port looked at what their requirements were for a coach considered a premiership/GF experience as paramount.
- Port failed to consider the quality of their group in their search for a coach.
- The following season was another disaster and they had to make the move.

[ledge]

I believe our list is very good, we have great leadership in the board room and our coach isnt a nut, the players are still playing for our coach, we are in no way the financial basket case Port are.
Eade has playing premiership and grand final coaching experience.
Eade also wants to stay.
I think the two clubs are completely different to compare.