Donstuie wrote:
What how anti climatic……. Voss. Oh geez.
Yes, why would you go down the path of a failed coach when there are a number of other choices. He had a worse win/loss record than Teague and set Brisbane back years. No-one knows if he is a better head coach, just gambling.[/quote]
I’m quite sure a panel including (among other things) a 2-time Brownlow medallist and multiple premiership winning coach might know a bit more about what makes a good coach than we do.[/quote]
I'm very happy to look at the coaching CV. It failed. That should tell you enough. So you are gambling that he is better. Panels have screwed up big time before. Think you know that.[/quote]
Orrrrrrr they speak to the guy (now much older and experienced) and from their conversations realise “@#$%&!, this guy has actually grown and learned a lot since last time”. I doubt they’re sitting there pointing to Caro’s arrow from 2012 while he’s trying to speak.[/quote]
Failed coach. Anything else is a gamble. Set Brisbane back years. There are plenty of other options out there that are probably better.
You point to spin, i'll point to the scoreboard. You're just spouting out of hope in case we get him. There is no evidence that he will be alot better so it is a gamble. We can't be making wrong appointments right now.
Clubs don't appoint failed coaches these days, expect us seemingly, but back in the day when they did, failed recycled coaches ended up still failing again. Back then the job wasn't as big either. Good reason for it. I, for one, are not prepared to gamble unnecessarily.