That's quite the emotional reply. An argument framed in the guise of an AM shock jock - all bluster, accusations, but very little substance.
I said 'beware of making blanket statements about a coach's ability.' If in your opinion that's an iron-clad defence, then I don't know how you get through your day with such a poor level of comprehension. There are a tonne of variables when it comes to performances in team sports. Even more so at the lower levels.
Reread the posts: I said I disagreed with your one sentence claim that the team was good, whereas most posts I've read here align more with my thinking that it's not. I provided a detailed breakdown of why I think that's the case. In particular, there is very little forwards depth in the top 30/dev group, and the club plays with no top 30/dev halves (apart from 1 game with Galvin which was an extraordinary event, and another with the injury prone Latu Fainu).
Even Canterbury (your example), regularly had a spine earlier in the season of Taafe, O'Neill, Hutchison, Turpin - and a pack with Morrin, Smith, Todd, & Mau'ui. And the top clubs in the comp are the same. They're stacked with top 30/dev players in reserve grade. Bulldogs have a bunch of no-names this week because their top forwards are either injured/suspended/or in origin camp. Furthermore, I explained in another post that they have implemented a 'development system' through the know-how of Gould and Ciraldo who have done it all before at Penrith. They've practically turned over their entire top 30/dev/pathways rosters in three seasons, and implemented a genuine development system beginning at NRL.
I went through the performance of the WT's grades over the past few seasons which has shown that no matter the coach, it has largely been underwhelming. How you see that as only each of the individual coaches fault, and not the club underperforming as a whole, is surprising. Firstly, it's the club that manages the process of appointing coaches. Secondly, it's the club that recruits players too. Finally, my belief is coaches in development grades shouldn't be dictating the team's system, or even selecting teams without proper oversight from a key figure in the club who manages the development of players. If as you have written, the opposite is what is happening, then why are you negatively choosing to attack coaches rather than positively advocating for an overhaul of the entire operation?
You even brought up a disparaging rumour of coaches in the lower grades. That's extremely poor form. If the club let a Mattys or Ball coach pick teams unfettered, then you have unintentionally proven my point that the development structure in the club was/is broken.
Have a read of
@Jolls deep dive on the topic. Excellent stuff. That was exactly the type of thought-provoking analysis of what is required at the club. But it's all too hard. Let's just abuse all the 'failed' development coaches that come through the joint. It'll be the same narrative every season until the club genuinely invests resources from the top-down.