Are Essendon actually in a funk, or did we all just fall for the hype?

They monstered the Lions and beat GWS just. Oh,and the Crows. Their bunnies were the Roos and Hawks. But,yeah,who have they beaten for their 11 wins?

Tigers,Cats and Eagles all to have a say about that. Maybe even the Pies or Dogs

Confused might be able to ask Tom on GF day.

Essendon missing 12 not 3 or 4. missing half the team of first starters not 3 to 5 . huge impact

Clarke was a replacement for Leuey, who would have been handy right now. They did have Luke Lavender on the rookie list as well but he retired in Feb due to injury. Counting him, there were four rucks at the club and three of them are now unavailable. They also missed out on the ruckman they were after in the mid-season draft because Sydney picked him first. It's not so much a case of not having enough rucks, since you can't really plan for three ruckmen to go down. It's more that they only had one senior listed ruckman, with two untried rookies and one mature-aged backup.

I dont buy the injury excuse. Joey has been missing for two years. Devon Smith, Hurley and Saad are good players and I guess Bellchambers is structurally useful, but only Hurley is a gun - most teams have a few of their best 22 out. Richmond, GWS and Saints are great examples of still performing relatively well despite missing 3 or 4 of their very best 4 or 5 players.

I havent rated Essendon for a long time and still struggle to comprehend how they're sitting inside the 8. They still havent learnt team defense and have a very unbalanced squad in terms of down-hill skiers versus warriors. They must have had an easy fixture - because they're easy to beat.

Agree you can't blame Zac Clark cause he always has been a Plan C ruck even for Freo. Why has Essendon need to play him for 8 games as it can't be a surprise that Bellchambers is injured. Why don't they have other ruck options. I bet they wish they took Hickey and I'm sure he would have preferred to stay in Melbourne.

yo-yos maybe...

Maxine – Let’s keep in mind this was all based off one quickly written line but lets just work through a couple of things; 1) If you were to reference Sheedy’s coaching record spanning from 2013 through to 2005 (a time in which he won 24 games from 110 starts) would it be accurate to describe that period as “most of a decade”? 2) If we accept you argument that it is unfair to count the years he didn’t coach is it wildly inaccurate to state that 5 years (2 at GWS and 3 at Essendon) of a terrible winning record (19%) is “most of a decade”? 3) If in a 10 year period a coach makes finals and wins a premiership for the first 5 and then wins just 19% in his second 5 do you think it is fair to say that by the end of his career the game had passed him by and that he wouldn’t be a good coach 7 years later? 4) “Kevin Sheedy’s last 10 years as coach,5 finals appearances including 1 premiership. I’ll say it again,this record is not terrible without manipulation.” Once again you are trying to interpret “most” as “all”. You are also trying to interpret “the last decade” as “his last 10 years as coach”. If we work within the parameters of what I said, not what you heard, the stats show my statement is accurate. Even if we go with your interpretation of “his last 10 years as coach” the statement is defensible because we are working off most and the record is 5 good 5 terrible.

I disagree here, coming from a Tigers man. Heppell, Merrett, Stringer, Shiel, Zaharakis, Parish are all very good. Devon Smith also a gun. They just can't put it together, thats the problem. There is no cohesion there.

Injuries have hurt, but they were never as good as they were hyped up to be by many. They were always going to be an 8-12 placed side. Poor game plan/strategy, a weak midfield and a lot of one way runners (admittedly this may have more to do with the poor game plan than the players themselves).

Hahaha that harsh hahaha

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Maybe if you weren't so quick to show your distaste for Essendon/Sheedy,you would have just manipulated the statistics to say his last 5 years rather than 10? Or maybe you wouldn't have included the 5 years in which he didn't coach at all to manipulate your statistical analysis? Kevin Sheedy's last 10 years as coach,5 finals appearances including 1 premiership. I'll say it again,this record is not terrible without manipulation. And yes,the game can pass the greatest of the greats by,but not for 10 years.

Then the blues have never one a wooden spoon because they are outliers. It is possible to be an all time great coach and have the game pass you by at the end of you career.

Sheedy's GWS seasons are clearly outliers that should be ignored. The man is an all time great coach, anyone using stats to paint a different picture is manipulating them to their will.

Like the yo-yo, footy cards, Levi’s corduroy jeans, video cassettes, & Fosters Lager, Essendon will be back! Mark my words!

I doubt that you, much like anyone that admittedly doesn't watch much footy, could provide any supporting evidence for such a statement.

Daniel Kerr rates the current team as the best in eagles history. Hard to beat the 92-94 teams for mine but I do think the current team has lots of depth and youth - it seems set for sustained contention. I’m not sure if Kerr was referring to the 22 or the whole squad. Kerr is actually quite astute, he’s on the Coast to Coast podcast.

It is not for you to decide which stats we use, I made the statement about a decade, you don’t get to determine a decade is 20 years. You also don’t get to determine most means all. Using your “stats” the very best you can say is the 50% of Sheedy’s last decade of coaching was terrible ie 50% he didn’t make finals and n that 5 years his winning percentage was 19%. If that invalidates my assertion because it falls short of a majority (the original point was most of a decade) by the barest of margins, so be it.