2021 - Squad, Signings, Re-signings

[Banjo2014]

I think Williame and Fuimaono have shown some promise?
They've been inconsistent for sure but I'd like to see a little more before I put the red line through them.

Agree with waiting to put the red line through them but Fuimaono is not playing well at all

 

[Old Timer]

Agree with waiting to put the red line through them but Fuimaono is not playing well at all

If he was playing well he wouldn't be in our roster simple as that.

 

[Banjo2014]

If he was playing well he wouldn't be in our roster simple as that.

How funny but you are exactly right

 

[ALSGI]

Just a mention to OT and TrueBeliever, great posts, good points by both and good clean debate.

Good reading.

 

[True_Believer]

We all know Mary is the major issue and if not there things potentially change.

So in this thread like many other threads ideas are offered up as to how things might change for the better on the basis of Mary staying or for that matter going and what might / should happen under the new coach.

No argument there then. However I have pointed out in a separate post that we won't get the right players on the field until the coach is replaced. What should happen seems logical, but that doesn't apply in this case and to me it seems silly discussing 'principle' while the current coach remains in place.

I offered lots of names of those blocked and I see that you honed in on Host well it's not just about Host it is about the majority of young players and if you don't like Host and wouldn't pick / keep him that's ok but lets not lose sight of the principal.

Now in talking about Host you sight he has "played" 47 games well that is drawing a long bow as he might have been named in 47 games but on some occasions he didn't take the field and on other occasions he got SFA game time and on most occasions he has been ignored by the dominant halves / hooker as they favour certain players.

Now while TF has played 10 games for us he has in fact been selected 36 times in 1st grade amongst the three clubs he has played for so it is not as if he is not known and thus the reason why I question his signing and continued selection as I am yet to see anything that says he has something that Host doesn't. By the way I am not easily swayed on the basis of players making a "big tackle" every now and then.

Honing in on Host? Far from it. As I mentioned in my post, it was an example I chose because:

1. Comparably the closest to TF in age, games played, injuries, game time, position etc.
2. Your obvious interest in having him in first grade and knowledge of his time at the club
3. Your request to show highlights of TF in the Red V - easily a like for like comparison given there are none for Host either

I also stated many times (and even in this thread) that we can't call any player a dud at the club given the coach - and that includes Host. So no, it's not about liking or not liking a player at all. You hadn't named any players in this discussion so I chose him for these reasons.

So in your opinion, even though Host offers nothing more than TF you would prefer Host fill that spot and block other players? And just because he was a junior in our system?

I did acknowledge Williame had not played many games and is out injured but given the nature of our coach Williame is typically the type of player he will pick before he would even consider the likes of a young up and coming player as was evidenced in Lafai & Aitken's continued selection despite providing SFA for 2 or more seasons.

Again, not the players fault. That's all on the coach. If BW was there or not, it would be some other way to avoid putting a junior in.

If Williame is not selected in 1st grade he will just sit in CC and there he will block some younger player and when that younger players name is thrown up people will say "he hasn't played against men" well they never will while you have the likes of Williame, Maranta, Nicholls, Runciman etc running around filling spots and making debuts for our club when they cant make the roster at any other club.

Again, the coaches fault. And this is where I don't understand your logic or your "principle". We need players like this in our squad. Say for example Aitken gets injured and is out for 5 weeks. We promote one of the twins. He either proves that he's not ready for first grade or gets injured first game. Who do we put in then? Another player who hasn't even had game time in CC? You're just throwing in players because they are part of our junior ranks irrespective of ability - from what I understand that's the only qualification they need as part of your principle. Players like TF and BW are brought in because they either have experience or they are young enough to challenge for spots in the team because we just don't have the stocks to cover all positions. You need those players to provide the backup in CC or in first grade when the juniors either just aren't ready or have proven they aren't ready or if they do step up.

I also don't understand your logic around being OK if we bought quality players in those positions. You're OK blocking them if the player is potentially better? You are still blocking their pathway - and potentially forcing them to another club. My personal opinion on the strategy is that the juniors coming through are seen as our future. We buy players like TF and BW to fill a gap while we are meant to develop those players and bring them through to FG. Unless they perform out of their skin, players like BW are not going to be long term first graders - they fill gaps in FG and CC in positions we are short in and they challenge the youngsters to perform better. TF is young enough and has shown enough potential elsewhere to challenge for a spot - it's better for the club and the players to have that competition for spots. Every club does this to varying degrees.

 

[Old Timer]

No argument there then. However I have pointed out in a separate post that we won't get the right players on the field until the coach is replaced. What should happen seems logical, but that doesn't apply in this case and to me it seems silly discussing 'principle' while the current coach remains in place.



Honing in on Host? Far from it. As I mentioned in my post, it was an example I chose because:

1. Comparably the closest to TF in age, games played, injuries, game time, position etc.
2. Your obvious interest in having him in first grade and knowledge of his time at the club
3. Your request to show highlights of TF in the Red V - easily a like for like comparison given there are none for Host either

I also stated many times (and even in this thread) that we can't call any player a dud at the club given the coach - and that includes Host. So no, it's not about liking or not liking a player at all. You hadn't named any players in this discussion so I chose him for these reasons.

So in your opinion, even though Host offers nothing more than TF you would prefer Host fill that spot and block other players? And just because he was a junior in our system?



Again, not the players fault. That's all on the coach. If BW was there or not, it would be some other way to avoid putting a junior in.



Again, the coaches fault. And this is where I don't understand your logic or your "principle". We need players like this in our squad. Say for example Aitken gets injured and is out for 5 weeks. We promote one of the twins. He either proves that he's not ready for first grade or gets injured first game. Who do we put in then? Another player who hasn't even had game time in CC? You're just throwing in players because they are part of our junior ranks irrespective of ability - from what I understand that's the only qualification they need as part of your principle. Players like TF and BW are brought in because they either have experience or they are young enough to challenge for spots in the team because we just don't have the stocks to cover all positions. You need those players to provide the backup in CC or in first grade when the juniors either just aren't ready or have proven they aren't ready or if they do step up.

I also don't understand your logic around being OK if we bought quality players in those positions. You're OK blocking them if the player is potentially better? You are still blocking their pathway - and potentially forcing them to another club. My personal opinion on the strategy is that the juniors coming through are seen as our future. We buy players like TF and BW to fill a gap while we are meant to develop those players and bring them through to FG. Unless they perform out of their skin, players like BW are not going to be long term first graders - they fill gaps in FG and CC in positions we are short in and they challenge the youngsters to perform better. TF is young enough and has shown enough potential elsewhere to challenge for a spot - it's better for the club and the players to have that competition for spots. Every club does this to varying degrees.

TF and BW have shown enough at other reasonable NRL clubs with better coaching staff than us that they were surplus to requirements.

So I would somewhat conclude that they put little to no pressure or created little to no competition for positions because if that was the case they would have been picked up by other clubs.

These types of signings IMO just continue a pattern of having someone to come into 1st grade if required simply on the basis of they have previously played 1st grade because we don't know how to progress anyone from junior ranks into 1st grade. Latimore, Maranta and others have all been part of that ridiculous pattern.

Of course I am willing to purchase better players and block their paths if that is what is required to win a premiership but I am not willing to purchase chaff as a substitute for not investing in youth.

We have lost good quality juniors long before we knew what they truly offered due to the like of Latimore, Maranta, Lafai and others.

Luciano is often mentioned and liked and maligned but IMO he is a perfect example of leaving the roost due to our inability and stupidity in selection and the Tigpies are going to be the beneficiaries as he is now getting the benefit of what w failed to provide and we sit scratching our heads as a result. If Luciano was still here IMO he would miss out to TF who provides no more and probably much less so what was the purpose in losing 1 and signing the other?

 

[True_Believer]

TF and BW have shown enough at other reasonable NRL clubs with better coaching staff than us that they were surplus to requirements.

So I would somewhat conclude that they put little to no pressure or created little to no competition for positions because if that was the case they would have been picked up by other clubs.

These types of signings IMO just continue a pattern of having someone to come into 1st grade if required simply on the basis of they have previously played 1st grade because we don't know how to progress anyone from junior ranks into 1st grade. Latimore, Maranta and others have all been part of that ridiculous pattern.

Of course I am willing to purchase better players and block their paths if that is what is required to win a premiership but I am not willing to purchase chaff as a substitute for not investing in youth.

We have lost good quality juniors long before we knew what they truly offered due to the like of Latimore, Maranta, Lafai and others.

Luciano is often mentioned and liked and maligned but IMO he is a perfect example of leaving the roost due to our inability and stupidity in selection and the Tigpies are going to be the beneficiaries as he is now getting the benefit of what w failed to provide and we sit scratching our heads as a result. If Luciano was still here IMO he would miss out to TF who provides no more and probably much less so what was the purpose in losing 1 and signing the other?

I think you should read my post again. I stated that my belief is that the strategy for recruitment is that the youth are our future and we need to purchase these sorts of players to fill a gap. We aren't purchasing them as a substitute. The only one that sees them as a substitute is the coach.

I will say it again, all of your comments revolve around the coach and is not the recruitment strategy or the players. It's the coach only. The only one preventing their progression is the coach. How can you not see that?

You are talking about 'forcing' selection which in my opinion creates a bigger mess than what we have now. You only have to look back to the Brown Newcastle days to see what can happen in that instance.

 

[Old Timer]

I think you should read my post again. I stated that my belief is that the strategy for recruitment is that the youth are our future and we need to purchase these sorts of players to fill a gap. We aren't purchasing them as a substitute. The only one that sees them as a substitute is the coach.

I will say it again, all of your comments revolve around the coach and is not the recruitment strategy or the players. It's the coach only. The only one preventing their progression is the coach. How can you not see that?

You are talking about 'forcing' selection which in my opinion creates a bigger mess than what we have now. You only have to look back to the Brown Newcastle days to see what can happen in that instance.

What we are arguing is difficult because it so dominated by "the coach" or lack thereof so it is all somewhat hypothetical.

Simply put IMO if you don't have chaff then you could end up with some pain like Newcastle and that is true but you do get the benefit of finding out if you have a Cleary, Mitchell, Paas, Crichton, Ponga or the like.

Newcastle endured their pain and are coming out of it due new stronger foundations being built under their club which makes them an attractive proposition.

My pet hate is that we have built no new foundations under the club, we have continued on in the same manner which has seen us become less that attractive and we have pissed up our potential against the wall whilst providing journeymen, planks, well past their bests and never had it's with steady incomes and our planks etc have never fired a bullet fired in anger.

I actually include James Graham output on the paddock in that as well and my reasoning for such is well and truly on the record.

 

[True_Believer]

What we are arguing is difficult because it so dominated by "the coach" or lack thereof so it is all somewhat hypothetical.

Simply put IMO if you don't have chaff then you could end up with some pain like Newcastle and that is true but you do get the benefit of finding out if you have a Cleary, Mitchell, Paas, Crichton, Ponga or the like.

Newcastle endured their pain and are coming out of it due new stronger foundations being built under their club which makes them an attractive proposition.

My pet hate is that we have built no new foundations under the club, we have continued on in the same manner which has seen us become less that attractive and we have pissed up our potential against the wall whilst providing journeymen, planks, well past their bests and never had it's with steady incomes and our planks etc have never fired a bullet fired in anger.

I actually include James Graham output on the paddock in that as well and my reasoning for such is well and truly on the record.

Newcastle are coming out of it only because they've bought alot of players and continue to do so. How many of those young players they brought through are still playing? Not many. They've had to buy in to get ahead - starting with Ponga.

Look at it this way, if youth is our future, then our recruitment is correct. We get these players in who are meant to be stop gaps. We have done such a good job of retaining alot of our promising young players that to me this seems like what we are aiming to do.

If youth isn't our future, then we are going about it completely wrong. We should be in the market looking for the best of the best in those positions that we do have potential to fill from the youth. We should be blocking them because we don't care if they make it or not.

The reason the first one isn't working is not because of the players we are buying, but because of the coach. If the coach was willing to promote the promising youth, we wouldn't have your so called 'planks' in first grade. It's a balance of youth and experience but we aren't getting the right solely because the coach is unwilling to take a gamble on trialling youth in some positions.

Edit* I've just realised, you are essentially agreeing that they aren't blockers because they weren't at other clubs. It should be no different here. So what's the difference?

 

[Old Timer]

Newcastle are coming out of it only because they've bought alot of players and continue to do so. How many of those young players they brought through are still playing? Not many. They've had to buy in to get ahead - starting with Ponga.

Look at it this way, if youth is our future, then our recruitment is correct. We get these players in who are meant to be stop gaps. We have done such a good job of retaining alot of our promising young players that to me this seems like what we are aiming to do.

If youth isn't our future, then we are going about it completely wrong. We should be in the market looking for the best of the best in those positions that we do have potential to fill from the youth. We should be blocking them because we don't care if they make it or not.

The reason the first one isn't working is not because of the players we are buying, but because of the coach. If the coach was willing to promote the promising youth, we wouldn't have your so called 'planks' in first grade. It's a balance of youth and experience but we aren't getting the right solely because the coach is unwilling to take a gamble on trialling youth in some positions.

Edit* I've just realised, you are essentially agreeing that they aren't blockers because they weren't at other clubs. It should be no different here. So what's the difference?

To be honest I don't think we are that far from each other on this issue.

I would happily move juniors on providing we know if they can or they can't make. If they can make it but the $$$ are too high to keep them then let them go or if it means you can get a better player for similar $$$ then again I would take that option.

The biggest issue for me is letting them go without finding out and all the while keeping planks selected and employed is incongruous.

Today's team selection just reeks of the very thing I am up in arms about.

Norman straight back into the team yet he has provided zilch and yes I know it is because of the coach that it happens but considering we supposedly have 3 selectors now it pisses me off even more unless it is a big ploy to put an albatross around career coaches neck to finally see the end of him.

Re Newcastle they invested in youth, they divested some youth, they stopped buying planks and they purchased wisely and come out smelling a whole lot better.

We keep buying planks, we alienate and terminate youth, we purchase no one of consequence and keep smelling like shit.

 

[True_Believer]

To be honest I don't think we are that far from each other on this issue.

I would happily move juniors on providing we know if they can or they can't make. If they can make it but the $$$ are too high to keep them then let them go or if it means you can get a better player for similar $$$ then again I would take that option.

The biggest issue for me is letting them go without finding out and all the while keeping planks selected and employed is incongruous.

Today's team selection just reeks of the very thing I am up in arms about.

Norman straight back into the team yet he has provided zilch and yes I know it is because of the coach that it happens but considering we supposedly have 3 selectors now it pisses me off even more unless it is a big ploy to put an albatross around career coaches neck to finally see the end of him.

Re Newcastle they invested in youth, they divested some youth, they stopped buying planks and they purchased wisely and come out smelling a whole lot better.

We keep buying planks, we alienate and terminate youth, we purchase no one of consequence and keep smelling like shit.

Actually, I think we've made some good purchases the past few years. You know hindsight is a great thing and I'm sure there are players that we thought would and should play well but haven't ended up serving us the way we had hoped. It happens regularly for us - yet again, I think thats attributable to the coach.

I disagree that TF and BW are 'planks' - or even some of the others you have mentioned. I think they are exactly the players we need in the ranks. As you have pointed out, they haven't blocked anyone anywhere else, so why should they here? This should give the youngsters every opportunity to progress while we have enough in the ranks to maintain multiple teams going forward.

We may not be too far away from each other, but I disagree that recruitment have done the wrong thing in this instance. I think we've done the right thing by not recruiting with intention to block - especially if we see youth as filling many of the positions into the future.

 

[boardlumps62]

Big opportunity out there for a centre position with the Dragons. Anyone applying for the job.

 

[Old Timer]

Actually, I think we've made some good purchases the past few years. You know hindsight is a great thing and I'm sure there are players that we thought would and should play well but haven't ended up serving us the way we had hoped. It happens regularly for us - yet again, I think thats attributable to the coach.

I disagree that TF and BW are 'planks' - or even some of the others you have mentioned. I think they are exactly the players we need in the ranks. As you have pointed out, they haven't blocked anyone anywhere else, so why should they here? This should give the youngsters every opportunity to progress while we have enough in the ranks to maintain multiple teams going forward.

We may not be too far away from each other, but I disagree that recruitment have done the wrong thing in this instance. I think we've done the right thing by not recruiting with intention to block - especially if we see youth as filling many of the positions into the future.

I think all will be revealed “if” & “when” a new coach is appointed and of course not discounting “who”.

I doubt / hope very much that we will ever end up with a situation of the likes of Williame, Aitken, Lafai, Pereira, K Sims, James Graham, Fuimaono, Norman, Merrin, Luke, Brittain, Hunt all being in our squad and used extensively in 1st grade or potentially as the back up for all at the one time and knowingly let the likes of Leilua, Robson, Saab go.

I suppose the big difference between our points of view is that I consider that Norman, Lafai, Latimore & others were not 1st grade material and by being there and having back ups like Maranta, Runciman, Nicholls, T Sims we doubled down on chaff.

 

[TomRedVRiver]

Targets for next year:

Centre - With Aitken and Lafai gone, Williame and Lomax are the only NRL centres in our squad. Unless the Feagais blow us all away, we need a replacement... And a quality one. Perhaps even two centres.
This is our biggest recruitment issue for next year.

Second row - Didn't think i'd be saying this a few months ago, but we are now in desperate need of back-rowers. Sims is cooked, Ford is still raw, and Tyrell and Host are bench players at best (Tyrell is slightly better). Before JDB was a moron, we had the best back-row in the comp... Now we have a different rotation every week.
Need an Origin quality second-rower to replace Tyson.

Wing - Saab gone, Pereira uninspiring and Rava hot and cold, I still think we need to pick up an elite winger, or at least a quality young up and comer. Ramsey will blow people away and i'm confident in him, but it's a weak area for us right now.

5/8 - We'll see what happens with the Widdop thing, but Norman is single-handedly stifling out attack. Sailor may be out the door come seasons end and to be honest I never thought he was the answer anyway. We need someone to hold the fort for Sullivan when he's ready in a couple of years.

 

[Dragon David]

Targets for next year:

Centre - With Aitken and Lafai gone, Williame and Lomax are the only NRL centres in our squad. Unless the Feagais blow us all away, we need a replacement... And a quality one. Perhaps even two centres.
This is our biggest recruitment issue for next year.

Second row - Didn't think i'd be saying this a few months ago, but we are now in desperate need of back-rowers. Sims is cooked, Ford is still raw, and Tyrell and Host are bench players at best (Tyrell is slightly better). Before JDB was a moron, we had the best back-row in the comp... Now we have a different rotation every week.
Need an Origin quality second-rower to replace Tyson.

Wing - Saab gone, Pereira uninspiring and Rava hot and cold, I still think we need to pick up an elite winger, or at least a quality young up and comer. Ramsey will blow people away and i'm confident in him, but it's a weak area for us right now.

5/8 - We'll see what happens with the Widdop thing, but Norman is single-handedly stifling out attack. Sailor may be out the door come seasons end and to be honest I never thought he was the answer anyway. We need someone to hold the fort for Sullivan when he's ready in a couple of years.

We need hard and tough props to make metres in attack and tackle the stuffing out of the opposition.

 

[St Tangles]

I think next year will be a tough one where we need to build and recover

With a new coach and a plan I'm prepared to renew my membership and head out to games

But some further tough decisions like sacking the coach needs to be made today not next week

 

[True_Believer]

I suppose the big difference between our points of view is that I consider that Norman, Lafai, Latimore & others were not 1st grade material and by being there and having back ups like Maranta, Runciman, Nicholls, T Sims we doubled down on chaff.

I don't think that's the difference at all. I think you want a team and CC team full of youth. I don't think thats a viable option. I will continue to say it, it wouldn't have been the case if the coach saw things differently. I just don't think your 'principle' makes much sense given the current situation.

 

[possm]

I like the idea of putting a squad together each year that gives our team the opportunity to win the competition that year. My general rule would be to pick a 17 that could do just that and then backfill the rest of the 30 with promising young juniors who I believe could make it in frist grade.

To be successful, your 17 each week should be as fit as possible and at least capable of holding their own. I say, do not be afraid to rest a player who is carrying an injury. Put faith in the young gun who is just waiting for his chance to test himself in first-grade and more importantly, show you his appreciation for giving him a chance to shine.

So in your 17 you need 1 or 2 marquee players who a the rest of the team will follow their lead. The remaining 16 or 15 players should all be good regular first-graders who when working as a team, can compete each and every week of the season. They must have the will to win and win for each other.

Right now, at the Dragons, we have nothing like this. Our 'marquee' players have gone into a slump and the rest of our team have no-one to follow. In fact, I think the team as a whole are tired and disinterested; they need a fresh start. Let's hope that after our new coach is announced, key players like Vaughan, T Sims, Hunt and Norman can follow the lead of McInnes, Lomax, and Dufty and finish the rest of the season with pride in themselves and pride in the big red V.

 

[possm]

We need hard and tough props to make metres in attack and tackle the stuffing out of the opposition.

Pangai Jr is available now. If we can sign him then we may be able to keep Vaughan.

 

[jay mac]

With Aitken going, I was curious to see if I could "balance out" the recruitment gains and losses over the past four seasons. Below is the best 13 that i could come up with of gains VS losses since the end of 2016 season to end of 2020. Excludes retirements

Gains
1. Nene
2. Pereira
3. Maranta
4. Williame
5. Rava
6. Norman
7. Hunt
13. Merrin
12. Fuimaono
11. Tariq
10. Vaughan
9. McInnes
8. Kerr

Losses
1. Mann
2. Herbert
3. Dugan
4. Aitken
5. Garrick
6. Widdop
7. Benji
13. Leilua
12. Thompson
11. Frizell
10. Ah Mau
9. Robson
8. Packer

With the exception of McInnes and Vaughan and, to a much lesser extent Hunt and Tariq, it's obvious to me that recruitment has failed to replace quality lost with anything near the same level of quality. And, preaching to the converted i know, but it's also obvious there's been a chronic under-investment in the outside backs. McGregor and Millward are a cancer on this club.