Rumoured and Confirmed Signings and General Drivel XIV

[Gronk]

Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage ..

 

[oldmancraigy]

My understanding is that he had never played there at nrl level when he was selected for nsw, but that he was exclusively a hooker in his senior junior career. And he's probably played bugger all since he played for the blues.

So he could potentially still cover hooker but there would be a big question mark.

You'd assume he would always have been mAnly's plan b in all that time, especially in big games, so you'd assume he must have done some training in the role.

But I take your point that it's a far cry from actually playing there in the nrl.

To be fair, we have no idea what Manly's plan B is, since Ballin is so durable, they haven't been forced to show it.
I know he played hooker for a bit in high school and U20s, but it was when he STOPPED playing hooker that he got noticed (in the U20s). He was a nobody as a hooker (and we saw why in Origin!)

I'd just hate to think that we're bringing him in to play minutes at hooker when he wouldn't have done that in his 4 year career....

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Glenn Stewart....fantastic player but now 30 years old and injury-prone.
Would be like us getting Gary Larson in 2000

How is he injury prone? The only year he's played less than 20 games was 2012. He has missed 25 games since 2007; 10 of those in 2012.

Jarryd Hayne has missed 21 games in the past two years. That's injury prone.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

he would add value for sure if we signed him but what the cost/benefit ratio of signing him is would be the question the club needs to ask.

When I say he would add value, I mean relative to his cost. The market will decide what he gets, and some clubs will be very interested in him. The only way he'll be a waste of money will be if he spends most of his time injured.

having him on the books may help with the development of some of the younger players (in terms of play and confidence) but it may also cost us some of the young players we have started to develop that are on the up.

He probably would, but I was thinking more than helping develop young players he would add a level of experience and competitiveness to a club looking to take that next step. Someone like the Panthers or even Souths.

I think we should be going for Watmough. He can play in the middle, meaning he doesn't clog a pathway for a young edge forward. Downside is he is a year older than Stewart, although he never seems to get injured.

 

[Bigfella]

To be fair, we have no idea what Manly's plan B is, since Ballin is so durable, they haven't been forced to show it.
I know he played hooker for a bit in high school and U20s, but it was when he STOPPED playing hooker that he got noticed (in the U20s). He was a nobody as a hooker (and we saw why in Origin!)

I'd just hate to think that we're bringing him in to play minutes at hooker when he wouldn't have done that in his 4 year career....

Mate for all we know we may never have spoken to the bloke.

Maybe he is a specialist reserve hooker for first choice hookers who play 80 minutes and never get injured?

#nichemarket

 

[oldmancraigy]

Maybe that's why we're speaking to him?

IF we buy him, then Peats won't get injured, and we rate Peats highly (etc)

I kind of don't get the Mein Buhrer thing myself, and having seen how well Harrison turned out here, I'm kind of skeptical of pint sized Manly backrowers...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I hear you saying it, but I've never seen it (which means little), and Manly fans reckon he never does?

Can you provide an example? I don't think Matt Ballin has missed a game in 3 years, and has played the full 80... soo?

I'm asking a serious question here - to my knowledge Ricky is the only one who has ever done it (in Origin no less), and it cost us the Origin game - poor Buhrer looked hopeless at dummy half. Not Buhrer's fault, it simply isn't the position he plays...

If Sticky played him at hooker then there's a reason. Clubs with 80 minute hookers don't want to carry a specialist hooker on the bench, meaning if he goes down someone else has to step up. The Kenny Edwards experiment (and the fact that very few clubs carry a spare hooker in their 17) shows that coaches would rather lose capability at dummy half than lose an extra strong defender in the middle.

Jamie Buhrer is as well suited to hooker as any non-hooker. He is quick, defends well, and is not too tall. Also has experience in the halves. Why wouldn't he be the back up hooker?

 

[oldmancraigy]

If Sticky played him at hooker then there's a reason. Clubs with 80 minute hookers don't want to carry a specialist hooker on the bench, meaning if he goes down someone else has to step up. The Kenny Edwards experiment (and the fact that very few clubs carry a spare hooker in their 17) shows that coaches would rather lose capability at dummy half than lose an extra strong defender in the middle.

Jamie Buhrer is as well suited to hooker as any non-hooker. He is quick, defends well, and is not too tall. Also has experience in the halves. Why wouldn't he be the back up hooker?

Well it didn't work out so well the one time it was tried :lol:

I reckon that's a fair enough reason for him not to be!

Otherwise, apart from being argumentative, I totally agree re: the 80 minute hooker side of things.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Can someone help me here.
What where the playing weights of guys like Ray price- Brett Kenny etc. Was wondering the size difference to now days

I remember when Andrew Johns was playing there was discussion about how big he was (at the time he was the biggest halfback running around).

He was 88kg, the same as Ray Price's playing weight.

Obviously these days there are plenty of 90kg halfbacks in the game. I think Johns would have been 90kg+ when he retired.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

My understanding is that he had never played there at nrl level when he was selected for nsw, but that he was exclusively a hooker in his senior junior career. And he's probably played bugger all since he played for the blues.

So he could potentially still cover hooker but there would be a big question mark.

You'd assume he would always have been mAnly's plan b in all that time, especially in big games, so you'd assume he must have done some training in the role.

But I take your point that it's a far cry from actually playing there in the nrl.

Here's the last time Ballin didn't play the full 80 minutes: round 24 last year

Ballin played 74 minutes, meaning some other merkin played hooker for six minutes. There is no other hooker on the bench, however there is Jamie Buhrer. Unlike the other three benchies, Buhrer has half as many touches as minutes played (the other three handled the ball every four or five minutes). Also unlike the other three, only half of Buhrer's touches are runs, whereas Fa'aoso, Gower and Hasson ran the ball every time.

I'd say it was Buhrer covering at hooker for those six minutes. Some merkin had to, and why not the utility? It's better than carrying another hooker on the bench, unless that hooker is James Segeyaro.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I'd just hate to think that we're bringing him in to play minutes at hooker when he wouldn't have done that in his 4 year career....

We have an 80 minute hooker in Nathan Peats. We're not bringing anybody in to play minutes at hooker, just like we're not bringing anybody in to play minutes anywhere else in the spine.

But it's good to have those positions covered by others already in the 17, in case of injury. The only club that wastes a bench spot on a spine utility is the Roosters, and they're the only club that can afford to. It's also possible that Jake Friend can't reliably play 80 minutes.

 

[spiderdan]

We have an 80 minute hooker in Nathan Peats. We're not bringing anybody in to play minutes at hooker, just like we're not bringing anybody in the play minutes anywhere else in the spine.

But it's good to have those positions covered by others already in the 17, in case of injury. The only club that wastes a bench spot on a spine utility is the Roosters, and they're the only club that can afford to. It's also possible that Jake Friend can't reliably play 80 minutes.

agree it is a waste to carry a specialist hooker on the bench. although when we played kingston from there, in our gold run we had mortimer, robson, keating and kingston all on the field at the same time late in games so i guess it depends on the tactics the side employs.

but in general i think it's a waste. most effective thing i think is something like what our side had with marsh and piggy, where piggy would start, have a rest, then play back row.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

agree it is a waste to carry a specialist hooker on the bench. although when we played kingston from there, in our gold run we had mortimer, robson, keating and kingston all on the field at the same time late in games so i guess it depends on the tactics the side employs.

but in general i think it's a waste. most effective thing i think is something like what our side had with marsh and piggy, where piggy would start, have a rest, then play back row.

And there are two reasons that worked:

1. Riddell was effective at both hooker and edge forward (and not just able to make some tackles in the middle at 'lock').

2. Marsh was a better dummy half, meaning we actually gained when he came onto the field, rather than losing capability.

The key there was Mark Riddell. There aren't many hookers that are also NRL quality at another position. There also aren't many bench hookers that don't detract from their team's performance when they come on (e.g. Mortimer).

 

[caylo]

And there are two reasons that worked:

1. He was effective at both Ho oker and edge forward (and not just able to make some tackles in the middle at 'lock').

2. Marsh was a better dummy half, meaning we actually gained when he came onto the field, rather than losing capability.

The key there was Mark Riddell. There aren't many hookers that are also NRL quality at another position. There also aren't many bench hookers that don't detract from their team's performance when they come on (e.g. Mortimer).

I think it could work in the future as well with Lussick but with Peats moving to lock and lussick starting at hooker. I think Buhrer is a bit of a waste on the bench, he is more of a 80 minute player who defends well and has a solid all round reliable game rather then adding any impact in short burst. The only reason he plays NRLis because of his utility value rather then being quality in one position. It becomes the same dilemma, he is only on the bench as a cover for injury and really won't add much else.

 

[Bigfella]

And the best part about us signing buhrer for overs is that manly don't have to lose either of their Australian back rowers.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Well Kenny had a playing weight of 84kgs, and I doubt Ray Price was much higher.

For comparison sake: Luke Burt had a playing weight of 88kgs. (although he was fairly averse to using his weight)

When Kenny finished he was more like 90kgs (and playing lock). He was 83-84kgs in the early 80s.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think it could work in the future as well with Lussick but with Peats moving to lock and lussick starting at hooker.

Only if Lussick turns out a better dummy half than Peats. How likely is that?

I think Buhrer is a bit of a waste on the bench, he is more of a 80 minute player who defends well and has a solid all round reliable game rather then adding any impact in short burst.

Probably why he'd be willing to leave Manly. They don't need him; other clubs do.

The only reason he plays NRLis because of his utility value rather then being quality in one position.

He plays NRL because he is good enough. He has played 126 minutes this year - 42 minutes per game. Hardly a passenger.

It becomes the same dilemma, he is only on the bench as a cover for injury and really won't add much else.

Injury cover is Daniel Mortimer - twice this year (rounds one and three) he only played 11 minutes. The only match in which he got any substantial time was against us after we'd rolled over.

Four times this year Manly have fielded a player who got less than 20 minutes in a match. None of them was Jamie Buhrer.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And the best part about us signing buhrer for overs is that manly don't have to lose either of their Australian back rowers.

Those Australian back rowers are also integral to the unity of the playing group. Manly will lose a lot more by losing either of them than just playing ability.

Also, Stewart wasn't an international until age 24; the same age he played Origin. He wasn't even a regular first grader until age 23.

Buhrer is only 25 at the end of November and has already played 86 NRL games, played Origin and won a premiership. He is a quality first grader.

If Manly are even thinking about letting Stewart go it's because they have Buhrer.

 

[EelsFan05]

Only if Lussick turns out a better dummy half than Peats. How likely is that?



Probably why he'd be willing to leave Manly. They don't need him; other clubs do.



He plays NRL because he is good enough. He has played 126 minutes this year - 42 minutes per game. Hardly a passenger.



Injury cover is Daniel Mortimer - twice this year (rounds one and three) he only played 11 minutes. The only match in which he got any substantial time was against us after we'd rolled over.

Four times this year Manly have fielded a player who got less than 20 minutes in a match. None of them was Jamie Buhrer.

Are you Dave Middleton?...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

www.nrlstats.com

Get informed.