Eels release Kieran Foran

[hineyrulz]

We do seem to play better with him on the field. It surprises me that his stats aren't great.

Thats why stats aren't always the best way to judge a player.

Plod Gallen is a perfect case it point, stats wise he's the greatest forward who over lived. i think he's a stats padding ball hog who continually stifles the teams attack.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So you do think he has been better for us than scott??? One of your best lol.

Yep. Watmough's attacking contribution was far superior, especially after Scott moved into the middle, where he has offered nothing. In defence Scott has been better, and since that's all he's in the team for it's all you dopes notice. You also aren't pissed off that Scott has had season ending surgery.

But like I said, in a good team everyone looks better than they are, just like everyone looks worse in a shitty team. That's why Scott looked like a plodder last year at the Knights.

 

[phantom eel]

Everything to do with Foran has been a disaster. From the plumbers contract negotiations and release clauses right up to the Foran himself turning out to be an absolute disaster professionally and personally.

You mean Sewards' contract negotiations an rekease clauses? Can't see a $25K part time elected club chairman having much time to be involved in such matters, compared to the well paid full time Footy CEO...

 

[phantom eel]

Yep. Watmough's attacking contribution was far superior, especially after Scott moved into the middle, where he has offered nothing. In defence Scott has been better, and since that's all he's in the team for it's all you dopes notice. You also aren't pissed off that Scott has had season ending surgery.

But like I said, in a good team everyone looks better than they are, just like everyone looks worse in a shitty team. That's why Scott looked like a plodder last year at the Knights.

What are you talking about...?

Scott's made a better overall on field contribution to the team this year than Watmough did last year.

And if Scott has had season ending surgery, why is he listed to play for us this weekend?

 

[Dibs]

do you like talking about penises or just mine?

 

[Happy MEel]

Yep. Watmough's attacking contribution was far superior, especially after Scott moved into the middle, where he has offered nothing. In defence Scott has been better, and since that's all he's in the team for it's all you dopes notice. You also aren't pissed off that Scott has had season ending surgery.

But like I said, in a good team everyone looks better than they are, just like everyone looks worse in a shitty team. That's why Scott looked like a plodder last year at the Knights.

Only in quantity though. Scott makes almost the same metres per run (8m vs 9m) and in 70 less runs has produced an extra try, an extra line break, almost double the offloads and the same number of try assists. This combined with his superior defence makes him the better contributor.

 

[El Diablo]

so i take it that's a yes seeing you can't stop posting about them

 

[Poupou Escobar]

What are you talking about...?

Scott's made a better overall on field contribution to the team this year than Watmough did last year.

He has made a far lesser contribution, and the narrower focus has suited both him and the team better.

Much like how Watmough's contribution suited us better when he just focused on yardage and quick play-the-balls.

And if Scott has had season ending surgery, why is he listed to play for us this weekend?

The point is Scott hasn't had season ending surgery in his first season, so merkins aren't all up in arms about what a waste of money he is, and retroactively deciding he was shit while he was on the field.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Only in quantity though. Scott makes almost the same metres per run (8m vs 9m) and in 70 less runs has produced an extra try, an extra line break, almost double the offloads and the same number of try assists. This combined with his superior defence makes him the better contributor.

That extra metre per run is significant, but as you have said, it is skewed by playing on the edge vs in the middle. It is easier to shine out wide - case in point, both Scott and Moeroa have produced more on the edge than in the middle. Watmough did all his work up the guts where there is less space to make those game changing plays like line breaks and effective offloads.

 

[phantom eel]

He has made a far lesser contribution, and the narrower focus has suited both him and the team better.

Much like how Watmough's contribution suited us better when he just focused on yardage and quick play-the-balls.

When Watmough stopped f**king up theattack by pretending to be a playmaker then yes, he made a better contribution. But this was essentially just as a metre-eating front rower in the middle - something Scott is not, and is an unfair comparison.

Comparing contributions of two different players in different positions - and in different seasons - by selected stats alone is a fraught use of staistical measures to support a pre-conceived agenda or hypothesis. (That is, even Scott's recent move the middle in attack should not be measured by attack stats he produces in isolation, but also in the diference in attack stats that are evident for former middle playersmoved to the edge in attack e.g. Moeroa and maybe Edwards.)

Scott has made the far greater contribution to the team compared to Watmough in his first season, no matter how you try and spin it.

The point is Scott hasn't had season ending surgery in his first season, so merkins aren't all up in arms about what a waste of money he is, and retroactively deciding he was shit while he was on the field.

Again, your post is lead by your own presumption, which you then try to support using circular logic (and selected stats for a sleight of hand).

 

[Happy MEel]

That extra metre per run is significant, but as you have said, it is skewed by playing on the edge vs in the middle. It is easier to shine out wide - case in point, both Scott and Moeroa have produced more on the edge than in the middle. Watmough did all his work up the guts where there is less space to make those game changing plays like line breaks and effective offloads.

True, but Watmough wasn't making those tough metres up the guts on the first and second tackle. Obviously I don't have the stats to back this up, but I'm certain that the majority of his runs were on the third or fourth tackle after a quick play the ball on a retreating defence. So the additional metre stat could be skewed back the other way.

Edit: Id also like to point out that plenty of lock forwards shine in the middle. The Cowboys' number 13 goes alright, as does Corey Parker.

 

[Happy MEel]

It is easier to shine out wide

Do you have any evidence of this? I only had time to go through the top 6 teams but looking at the lock and edge forward attacking stats, I'd say the locks for the Sharks, Cowboys and Broncos have the better attacking stats than their edge forwards, probably even for the dogs and the edges have the edge (excuse the pun) for the storm and raiders.

I'll also point out that Scott has more offloads and the same number of tries, line breaks and metres per run as Josh Jackson. He also has more offloads, an extra try but one less line break and slightly less metres per run as Wade Graham. Scott's attack is just fine.

 

[strider]

People out wide have more time to polish their boots

Wingers always have the fanciest boots ... fact

 

[Poupou Escobar]

When Watmough stopped f**king up theattack by pretending to be a playmaker then yes, he made a better contribution. But this was essentially just as a metre-eating front rower in the middle - something Scott is not, and is an unfair comparison.

Comparing contributions of two different players in different positions - and in different seasons - by selected stats alone is a fraught use of staistical measures to support a pre-conceived agenda or hypothesis. (That is, even Scott's recent move the middle in attack should not be measured by attack stats he produces in isolation, but also in the diference in attack stats that are evident for former middle playersmoved to the edge in attack e.g. Moeroa and maybe Edwards.)

Scott has made the far greater contribution to the team compared to Watmough in his first season, no matter how you try and spin it.


Again, your post is lead by your own presumption, which you then try to support using circular logic (and selected stats for a sleight of hand).

The stats are the only objective measure. If a forward is making more runs and metres he is making a bigger contribution. There is no way to 'spin' that.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

True, but Watmough wasn't making those tough metres up the guts on the first and second tackle. Obviously I don't have the stats to back this up, but I'm certain that the majority of his runs were on the third or fourth tackle after a quick play the ball on a retreating defence. So the additional metre stat could be skewed back the other way.

Agreed. But it was his role to take that run because he was so good at it. Scott generally doesn't take that run because it would be a waste of a quick play-the-ball.

Edit: Id also like to point out that plenty of lock forwards shine in the middle. The Cowboys' number 13 goes alright, as does Corey Parker.

They would shine out wide even more. The reason they play in the middle is because their one-on-one defence isn't good enough.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Do you have any evidence of this? I only had time to go through the top 6 teams but looking at the lock and edge forward attacking stats, I'd say the locks for the Sharks, Cowboys and Broncos have the better attacking stats than their edge forwards, probably even for the dogs and the edges have the edge (excuse the pun) for the storm and raiders.

I'll also point out that Scott has more offloads and the same number of tries, line breaks and metres per run as Josh Jackson. He also has more offloads, an extra try but one less line break and slightly less metres per run as Wade Graham. Scott's attack is just fine.

You can tell the effectiveness of Scott's attack with one simple and very telling statistic - number of carries. The more important players (besides halves, obviously, whose 'importance' stat is indicated by touches) in a team's structure make more runs than the less important ones. At least when comparing similar positions.

 

[Happy MEel]

They would shine out wide even more. The reason they play in the middle is because their one-on-one defence isn't good enough.

That we can agree on. So Scott has been exceptional defensively in a much more difficult position to defend in, plus has spent time in the middle, with less runs for run metres but higher outputs in other attacking measures and is the lesser contributor overall??

As for higher runs for higher run metres meaning a better contributor, surely qualitative measures plays some part??

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That we can agree on. So Scott has been exceptional defensively in a much more difficult position to defend in, plus has spent time in the middle, with less runs for run metres but higher outputs in other attacking measures and is the lesser contributor overall??

Let's not forget Scott is now defending in the middle as well. But of course his defence isn't in question here. This is about whether his better defence makes up for his inferior attack. IMO it doesn't, at least when comparing him with Watmough.

'Game changers' like tries and linebreaks happen more frequently per-carry out wide because there is more space. You'll see this when you compare Scott's stats between his games in the middle and out wide.

As for higher runs for higher run metres meaning a better contributor, surely qualitative measures plays some part??

No player is more involved in attack than the coach wants him to be. The ones who are get dropped to reserve grade. The inference here is that the coach gives the lion's share of involvement to his best attackers. Why would he do otherwise?

 

[Happy MEel]

You can tell the effectiveness of Scott's attack with one simple and very telling statistic - number of carries. The more important players (besides halves, obviously, whose 'importance' stat is indicated by touches) in a team's structure make more runs than the less important ones. At least when comparing similar positions.

So what if his 'role' is to be more selective in his carries to increase the likelihood of an offload? We have enough metre eaters so if he is carrying out his role then you'd have to say is contribution in attack is what the team needs

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So what if his 'role' is to be more selective in his carries to increase the likelihood of an offload? We have enough metre eaters so if he is carrying out his role then you'd have to say is contribution in attack is what the team needs

That's what I said. The team needs him to be less involved than it needed Watmough to be last year. Because Watmough was a much better attacking player.