Rumoured/Confirmed Signings and More Crap XVIII

[Gronk]

LeagueHQ ‏@LeagueHQ1 16m16 minutes ago
NRL appoint former Surf Life Saver of the Year Suzanne Young as new Chief Operating Officer


https://au.linkedin.com/in/suzanneyoung1

 

[TheRam]

I disagree. Plenty of solid first graders play Origin and international footy every year (not so much for Australia).

There aren't enough stars to populate both Origin teams plus the Kiwis and the Poms so the rest of the spots (most IMO) are taken up by solid first graders.

I agree that between them, George and Tom Burgess are the equivalent of a star, but because they only play about half a game front rowers are cheap, and IMO don't count as stars. Plus their role is very simple and straight forward, and even the best front rowers are defensive liabilities. That's why Maguire pairs the Burgess twins with a smaller defensive player (like Dave Tyrell) at the other 'prop' position.

So while they might be 'stars' at their position, there are no front rowers who I consider 'stars', especially for purposes of remuneration. We all remember what Wayne Bennett said about the price of front rowers when we threw the bank at Justin Poore.

if you don't think George Burgess is a star you must be living on the moon.

Not to mention Andrew Fifita, when fit the best front rower in the game and can play 80 mins. Massive motor.

I'm just waiting for one of you idiots to say something like "But Luke Burt used to play 80 minutes. That means you think he was a star!"

You f**king disappoint me, all of you.

Hahaha...you're a goose Pou.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Agreed Fifita's a star. He's up there with Sam Burgess. Certainly superior to the Burgess twins.

 

[Noise]

So there are front rowers who are stars now?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

They're not really front rowers though.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Exactly. What front rower plays 80 minutes FFS?

 

[Twizzle]

Exactly. What front rower plays 80 minutes FFS?

Peats

 

[Bigfella]

Gallen?

 

[lingard]

Do you think the 34+ Origin players in any given year are the clearly best 34? Are they all as good as each other? Are there any players that miss out that are as good as any of the 34+ that play Origin that year?

IMO guys like Te'o and McQueen look better than they are (and therefore get picked in Origin) because they play off the back of Souths' go forward.

I think Manu Ma'u at his best is better than either of Te'o or McQueen. Edwards is a better attacker than both but not as good defensively. Pauli is also a better attacker than any of them. Who knows how long before Moeroa is an all round better edge forward than both McQueen and Te'o. It could be as soon as next year, but however good he appears to be, a lot will come down to how well our middle forwards go. Just like at Souths.

The fringe Origin players (of which there are up to a dozen in either Origin team) could come from a pool of a hundred or more NRL players who would all do an equally good job. But they always get picked from the teams that are going well - look at Mannah. Is he a worse player than he was when he got picked for NSW? Or is his team just not as good?

Rubbish. McQueen was a very good winger and centre before he became a very good second rower. Much better than just a solid first grader. Ben Te'o made his mark as an extremely good player before he came to Souths. Either of those two guys are better than anyone we've got in the forwards except Peats. My point is that, if Souths can have stars like Inglis, Luke, and Burgess - and extremely good players like Te'o, Sutton, Reynolds, McQueen and George Burgess, why would anyone think that having ONE star in our team would preclude us from being able to assemble a premiership threatening side?

 

[lingard]

I disagree. Plenty of solid first graders play Origin and international footy every year (not so much for Australia).

There aren't enough stars to populate both Origin teams plus the Kiwis and the Poms so the rest of the spots (most IMO) are taken up by solid first graders.

I agree that between them, George and Tom Burgess are the equivalent of a star, but because they only play about half a game front rowers are cheap, and IMO don't count as stars. Plus their role is very simple and straight forward, and even the best front rowers are defensive liabilities. That's why Maguire pairs the Burgess twins with a smaller defensive player (like Dave Tyrell) at the other 'prop' position.

So while they might be 'stars' at their position, there are no front rowers who I consider 'stars', especially for purposes of remuneration. We all remember what Wayne Bennett said about the price of front rowers when we threw the bank at Justin Poore.

There are too many stars to populate two Origin teams - that's why there is such a competition for positions. It's also why there are often great arguments over selections.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well like I said lingard, I don't think our players are as bad as you say. Hayne is better than anyone at Souths, and then Burgess, Inglis and Luke are better than anyone remaining at Parra.

But after that we have a handful of players as good as the majority of players at Souths. Where they're better than us is in their relative lack of weaknesses, plus the types of players they have - the mix of players - which covers the weaknesses that they do have.

 

[Noise]

So if a star front rower can play long minutes he is no longer a front rower? Is this correct?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

There are too many stars to populate two Origin teams - that's why there is such a competition for positions. It's also why there are often great arguments over selections.

Your opinion of what is and isn't a star isn't very high. Is Sandow a star because he polled top ten in Dally M voting? Is he not a star because Queensland have so many quality halves to choose from?

IMO Sandow is as good as James Maloney - great attacking players and kickers, but their defence drags them back to being 'solid first graders' IMO. Maloney just plays in a better team.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So if a star front rower can play long minutes he is no longer a front rower? Is this correct?

It means he's worth more than one that can only play half a game, and therefore he costs more. Sam Burgess used to wear jersey 8 or 10 and only played half a game. Then they worked out how to get more value out of him, as did Flanagan with Fifita.

 

[lingard]

Well like I said lingard, I don't think our players are as bad as you say. Hayne is better than anyone at Souths, and then Burgess, Inglis and Luke are better than anyone remaining at Parra.

But after that we have a handful of players as good as the majority of players at Souths. Where they're better than us is in their relative lack of weaknesses, plus the types of players they have - the mix of players - which covers the weaknesses that they do have.

Even if that's true, do you really think that Hayne's salary was so big that we couldn't afford other players of very high quality in key positions that would make us a premiership threat? Or do you think (like me) that it has been more a combination of bad luck and poor recruitment/retention decisions.

 

[Noise]

They're not really front rowers though.

Exactly. What front rower plays 80 minutes FFS?

It means he's worth more than one that can only play half a game, and therefore he costs more. Sam Burgess used to wear jersey 8 or 10 and only played half a game. Then they worked out how to get more value out of him, as did Flanagan with Fifita.

I just don't get why Fifita can't be considered a prop just because he can play long minutes?

 

[lingard]

Your opinion of what is and isn't a star isn't very high. Is Sandow a star because he polled top ten in Dally M voting? Is he not a star because Queensland have so many quality halves to choose from?

IMO Sandow is as good as James Maloney - great attacking players and kickers, but their defence drags them back to being 'solid first graders' IMO. Maloney just plays in a better team.

For the record, I don't think Sandow is a star. I also don't think he's as good as James Maloney. But that is irrelevant.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I just don't get why Fifita can't be considered a prop just because he can play long minutes?

I was kidding. I just thought I'd get in before Pou replied.;-)

 

[lingard]

I just don't get why Fifita can't be considered a prop just because he can play long minutes?

In the sixties, Kevin Ryan was a prop who played long minutes, and Arthur Beetson was a prop who didn't. *They used to refer to him as 'half-a-game-Artie'.) But they were both still props. So I don't think it makes any difference how long you play for - it's what you do when you're on the field. Besides, I thought props no longer existed.

 

[strider]

I just don't get why Fifita can't be considered a prop just because he can play long minutes?

what's this "prop" you speak of?