2005 NRL ladder predictions

[Raiders Plight]

The raiders will win most of their home games, they always do, every season. It's one of lifes certainties. Our home record since our inception is something like 76%. Only Brisbane at ANZ is better.

 

[Mayor_Quimby]

1. Sea Eagles
2. Tigers
3. Warriors
4. Sharks
5. Raiders
6. Knights
7. Cowboys
8. Dragons

9. Panthers
10. Storm
11. Roosters
12. Bulldogs
13. Broncos
14. Eels
15. Rabbitohs :lol:

 

[Kiwi]

1. Sea Eagles
2. Tigers
3. Warriors
4. Sharks
5. Raiders
6. Knights
7. Cowboys
8. Dragons

9. Panthers
10. Storm
11. Roosters
12. Bulldogs
13. Broncos
14. Eels
15. Rabbitohs :lol:

If your gonna smoke something good enough to produce this table, pass it around

 

[RifRaf]

The raiders will win most of their home games, they always do, every season. It's one of lifes certainties. Our home record since our inception is something like 76%. Only Brisbane at ANZ is better.

I don't think even that cold horrible weather will save you next year... But I complement your optomisism "lifes certainties".........

 

[Mayor_Quimby]

1. Sea Eagles
2. Tigers
3. Warriors
4. Sharks
5. Raiders
6. Knights
7. Cowboys
8. Dragons

9. Panthers
10. Storm
11. Roosters
12. Bulldogs
13. Broncos
14. Eels
15. Rabbitohs :lol:

If your gonna smoke something good enough to produce this table, pass it around

:lol: :lol: :lol:

i might put a lazy $100 on this happening! it is close to a certainty!

 

[Kiwi]

1. Sea Eagles
2. Tigers
3. Warriors
4. Sharks
5. Raiders
6. Knights
7. Cowboys
8. Dragons

9. Panthers
10. Storm
11. Roosters
12. Bulldogs
13. Broncos
14. Eels
15. Rabbitohs :lol:

If your gonna smoke something good enough to produce this table, pass it around

:lol: :lol: :lol:

i might put a lazy $100 on this happening! it is close to a certainty!

Swap Souths with the Knights, and you can pretty much bet $100, that if this table happened in 2005, hell would have penguins.

 

[Mr Angry]

I'll give you 500-1 on the Manly part and gladly take the 100 of you.
I'll give you 1-500 on the Souths part and still be reluctant.

 

[Greenblooded]

Yeah, agreed , however, with the overall talent in the squad for the Raiders obviously a lot weaker in 05, your really relying on a brand new halves combo, and for some of your younger blokes to stand up consistently. Honestly guys, i think the first half of the season's gonna be a real struggle for you guys, not saying thats 100% certain to happen but i'd would be the opinion of the nuetral league fans, the second half of the season things should pick up, the younger ones will start coming on stronger and 2006 should see the raiders back where they were at the beginning of 2004.

I don't see a brand new halves combination as a negative, this year we had no halves combination at all. :lol:

 

[Kiwi]

The Raiders team of 2005 is relying on an inexperienced youngster in a key position and two over 30 players that are good, but were nothing short of injury prone when last in the NRL.

Depth is also an issue for the Raiders, a few injuries here and there and it spells trouble. If Smith gets hurt the raiders chances take a serious nosedive. There is a serious lack of front row depth, O'hara and Weyman is about it in terms of half decent talent up front. Hooker is about the only position the Raiders have well covered.

 

[Raider_69]

Acually Kiwi we are well served in most possys, front row and the halfves are very lean thou...

Fullback: Schifcofske, Chalk, Graham, Mogg
Winger: Chalk, N.Smith, Robertson, Frawley, Graham, Gafa
Centre: Mogg, Frawley, Graham, Ale, Gafa
Half: Carney, J.Smith, Withers
5/8th: J. Smith, Carney, Campese
Lock: Croker, T.Smith, J.Smith, N.Smith, Campese, Tongue
2nd Row: Hodgeson, Adamson, Hindmarsh, Rothery, Kahler, J.Smith , Weyman, Tongue, Croker, Martin and ive probably missed some
Hooker: Woolford, Withers, Lawrence, Tongue
Prop: O'Hara, Weymen, Cross, Adamson, Thompson

bolded are the trouble areas

 

[Kiwi]

Alot of the names get mentioned a fair few times in each position, and alot have little or no experience in first grade. Shifting guys like Smith around to cover injuries in 3 other positions is hardly what I'd call depth.

 

[Raider_69]

Alot of the names get mentioned a fair few times in each position, and alot have little or no experience in first grade. Shifting guys like Smith around to cover injuries in 3 other positions is hardly what I'd call depth.

but just showing that there are plenty of blokes that can cover plenty of positions
Front row and halves thou, if we cop an injury or 2 there we are proper f**ked

 

[Kiwi]

Alot of the names get mentioned a fair few times in each position, and alot have little or no experience in first grade. Shifting guys like Smith around to cover injuries in 3 other positions is hardly what I'd call depth.

but just showing that there are plenty of blokes that can cover plenty of positions
Front row and halves thou, if we cop an injury or 2 there we are proper f***ed

It's still not depth, and seriously how well is Weyman gonna cover second row, Smith Halfback?

Most of the players you listed have little or no experience. Chalk, gafa, ale, N Smith, Robertson, Carney, Campese, Rothery, Kahler, Lawrence, Thopson and Weyman to some degree have done nothing in first grade, surely you can't bet on that much young inexperienced talent and expect people not to write the Raiders off.

 

[Raider_69]

Weymen can play 2nd row and prop, Smith can play half if needed

 

[Kiwi]

Weymen can play 2nd row and prop, Smith can play half if needed

Maybe, but that still doesn't take away from my other point, the inexperienced players. I know all teams have their inexperienced players, but that is alot. And a bunch of inexperienced players does not = depth.

 

[Kris_man]

i fully understand why people are writing us off for 2005. IMO, the Raiders have a massive task ahead of them. at the same time, though, i think we're up to it. the Green Machine will be back in force from 2005.

 

[TIGERPies]

it would be nice if you would put the crap players in italics

then ur weaknessess will b exposed

 

[DJ1]

1-Bulldogs
2-Broncos
3-Cowboys
4-Panthers
5-Dragons
6-Storm
7-Roosters
8-Knights
9-Warriors
10-Sharks
11-Eels
12-Tigers
13-Raiders
14-Eagles
15-Rabbitohs

 

[miccle]

1. Bulldogs
2. Cowboys
3. Panthers
4. Roosters
5. Dragons
6. Broncos
7. Eels
8. Storm
9. Knights
10. Warriors
11. Tigers
12. Raiders
13. Sharks
14. Sea Eagles
15. Rabbitohs

 

[paulquinn49]

1. Roosters
2. Broncos
3. Bulldogs
4. Storm
5. St George
6. Cowboys
7. Parra
8. Panthers
9. Sharks
10. Knights
11. Raiders
12. Tigers
13. Manly
14. Souths
15. NZ