Sack mcgregor

[getsmarty]

Of course it is far more beneficial to have a great coach than not. My point was that you CAN actually win a comp without one. The roster is everything. You need an excellent roster to win a comp, as all the coaches mentioned did have.
Look at Brown, a quality coach according to his record OS but without the team he is getting wooden spoons. Give him a top quality roster and he'd no doubt be in the mix to win a comp.

I'd Take Brown over Mary everyday of the week and if Brown was coaching us we would have played finals footy this year.

 

[Crush]

I'd Take Brown over Mary everyday of the week and if Brown was coaching us we would have played finals footy this year.

Speculation

 

[Saints Forever]

I'd Take Brown over Mary everyday of the week and if Brown was coaching us we would have played finals footy this year.

Browny would transition our top juniors in to first grade. The best of Dufty/Field/Lomax and co would find themselves in the mix for FG selection if he believed they were good enough.

Cannot imagine any other NRL club appointing Mary as head coach. Every one of the coaches listed by other forum members are better coaches than Mary.

I suspect Mary was appointed as Millward's hand puppet, and unfortunately for both Millward and our club frankenstein believes he really can coach. In short a lunatic is in charge of the asylum.

Appointing a bucket load of assistants and advisors cannot assist where the "assistants" are novices and the advisors have no serious input for the head coach.

Agree with Goggles, if the side does well it will be despite Mary's input.

The squad still has some gaping holes in it. the The three quarter line is ordinary.

Am praying one or two of the juniors prove to be superstars, otherwise we will struggle in 2018 to make the 8.

Ben Hunt may well be Mary's saviour. He will make our attack more balanced and unpredictable. Whether his influence is enough, only time will tell.

 

[TheOnlyTeam]

Maybe Santa has sack we can use for Mary.

 

[Overseas dragon]

Comparing McAnchor to Brownie is like comparing Pauline Hanson to miss universe .

 

[jak]

so going on the comments here if saints play badly next year its marys fault if they play well it must be by divine intervention after all they are saints.

 

[Crush]

So if we win the comp next year everyone will agree that it is possible to win a comp without a great coach?
Or will everyone praise the coach and say they were wrong about McGregor? Which one is it just so I can be clear?

 

[DaSuperHero2]

So if we win the comp next year everyone will agree that it is possible to win a comp without a great coach?
Or will everyone praise the coach and say they were wrong about McGregor? Which one is it just so I can be clear?

If i shoot fish in a barrell, does that make me a good shooter?

 

[jak]

So if we win the comp next year everyone will agree that it is possible to win a comp without a great coach?
Or will everyone praise the coach and say they were wrong about McGregor? Which one is it just so I can be clear?

thank you, thank you, thank you

 

[Crush]

If i shoot fish in a barrell, does that make me a good shooter?

No it does not but people on this forum are saying that only a good shooter can shoot fish in a barrell.......

 

[goggles]

So if we win the comp next year everyone will agree that it is possible to win a comp without a great coach?
Or will everyone praise the coach and say they were wrong about McGregor? Which one is it just so I can be clear?

If we win the comp next year, Mary will not be coaching us. C'mon Crush, he can't even manage a bench.

 

[Crush]

If we win the comp next year, Mary will not be coaching us. C'mon Crush, he can't even manage a bench.

Just trying to understand peoples thoughts on the importance of the coach more than McGregor and the dragons. As I have stated, I think we can still be a massive threat to the comp even with a rubbish coach. I think people place too much significance on the coach because of the 2010 bennett factor.
Other than McGregor in your eyes who else is a shit coach?

 

[goggles]

Just trying to understand peoples thoughts on the importance of the coach more than McGregor and the dragons... Other than McGregor in your eyes who else is a shit coach?

There aren't to many down there on Mary's level, but Stephen Kearney would be the most obvious.
Honestly Crush, you can't downplay the importance of a quality coaching set-up. To use a few analogies: a successful business needs a brilliant management team; a high performing school needs a highly skilled principal and deputy principal; and an award-winning restaurant needs a bloody good chef and head waiter.
If our assistants were competent (and had a significant input into selections, structures and strategies), we may well get away with having a below par head coach, but at this point we don't appear to have those. And yes, I am a fan of JD and wish we still had him...
P.s. If coaches aren't so important, why do you think the most successful organisations are willing to pay so much for the cream of the crop?

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

So if we win the comp next year everyone will agree that it is possible to win a comp without a great coach?
Or will everyone praise the coach and say they were wrong about McGregor? Which one is it just so I can be clear?

Why not look at it another way.
We have outlaid nearly $10m to put together a quality roster with potential.
Why are we skimping on the quality and credentials of the coach to lead them?
McGregor has had 2 whole seasons to show us what he can do and he has failed miserably.
An improved squad will not suddenly make McGregor a better coach.
It is a compromise and always has been.
A top line roster is not enough to win a premiership.
The fact remains that we had numerous opportunities to appoint coaches that were streets ahead of McGregor and we didn't.
It's called negligence.

 

[Crush]

There aren't to many down there on Mary's level, but Stephen Kearney would be the most obvious.
Honestly Crush, you can't downplay the importance of a quality coaching set-up. To use a few analogies: a successful business needs a brilliant management team; a high performing school needs a highly skilled principal and deputy principal; and an award-winning restaurant needs a bloody good chef and head waiter.
If our assistants were competent (and had a significant input into selections, structures and strategies), we may well get away with having a below par head coach, but at this point we don't appear to have those. And yes, I am a fan of JD and wish we still had him...
P.s. If coaches aren't so important, why do you think the most successful organisations are willing to pay so much for the cream of the crop?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it isn't an advantage to have a great coach I am just saying that teams can have success without one. Raiders came 2nd last year with Ricky Stuart.
BTW I know plenty of award winning restaurants that trade off their location. If they had a great head chef and head waiter they may be even better but the fact that their location is so good is enough for them to be a successful restaurant.

 

[Crush]

Why not look at it another way.
We have outlaid nearly $10m to put together a quality roster with potential.
Why are we skimping on the quality and credentials of the coach to lead them?
McGregor has had 2 whole seasons to show us what he can do and he has failed miserably.
An improved squad will not suddenly make McGregor a better coach.
It is a compromise and always has been.
A top line roster is not enough to win a premiership.
The fact remains that we had numerous opportunities to appoint coaches that were streets ahead of McGregor and we didn't.
It's called negligence.

An improved roster will not necessarily make McGregor a better coach but it may make him look like a better coach? Look at the Queensland Origin team. I don't necessarily think that Kevin Walters is a good coach but they sure make him look pretty good. Mal Meninga with the Australian side?
Not sure if Mal is a great coach but he never loses a game so he must be I guess. Or is it just the amazing roster?

 

[goggles]

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that it isn't an advantage to have a great coach I am just saying that teams can have success without one. Raiders came 2nd last year with Ricky Stuart.
BTW I know plenty of award winning restaurants that trade off their location. If they had a great head chef and head waiter they may be even better but the fact that their location is so good is enough for them to be a successful restaurant.

For the record, the Raiders didn't come second last year; The Roosters came 2nd in the regular season and the Cowboys lost the grand final. And when you consider the Cowboys were without Scott and Thurston for the vast majority of the season, it further highlights the importance of the coaching and the great job that Green (and his assistants) did.
Once again, we will have to agree to disagree Crush...

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

An improved roster will not necessarily make McGregor a better coach but it may make him look like a better coach? Look at the Queensland Origin team. I don't necessarily think that Kevin Walters is a good coach but they sure make him look pretty good. Mal Meninga with the Australian side?
Not sure if Mal is a great coach but he never loses a game so he must be I guess. Or is it just the amazing roster?

Come on Crush...
Are you seriously comparing Meninga and Walters to McGregor?
So what about the NSW Origin side - also a top line roster with Laurie Daly as coach.
Does that roster make Daly look like a good coach to you? Failure after failure after failure.
Losing unlosable games. Always bombing out in the crunch/close games.
Sound familiar?
They persevered with Daly for far too long in the hope that things would improve.
That improvement never happened and that's exactly what we are doing with McGregor.
Someone on the board is determined to prove everyone wrong about McGregor and the fans are the ones suffering for it.
The formula for winning comps has many aspects.
Roster is one but only in conjunction with a great motivator and technician as a coach.
Another example is the Warriors.
On paper their roster should make them title contenders.
But they have been unable to lure any of the better coaches over the ditch and results are pitiful.
Rationalizing McGregor as a FG coach is an exercise in futility.
He just doesn't have the experience or the aptitude to be a top line coach.
McGregor as coach = no premierships. Regardless of roster.
Simple.

 

[BennyV]

Only need to look at the Warriors to see the difference a good vs a poor coach is. Those idiots have had a top 4 roster for years but keep employing morons to coach them.

 

[Crush]

For the record, the Raiders didn't come second last year; The Roosters came 2nd in the regular season and the Cowboys lost the grand final. And when you consider the Cowboys were without Scott and Thurston for the vast majority of the season, it further highlights the importance of the coaching and the great job that Green (and his assistants) did.
Once again, we will have to agree to disagree Crush...

No Goggles all that happened this year 2017, last year was 2016 and I think from memory Raiders finished 2nd at the end of 26 rounds.
And I agree that this year Green was the difference that got the cowboys into the grand final, he is an excellent coach as I have said. But my original point and only real point here is that it isn't 100% necessary for there to be a great coach in place to have success if the quality of playing squad is strong enough.
That is all. Have a great day mate.