halves for next year?

[yy_cheng]

While I have a open mind about moving Hayne to 5/8, one of the benefits is Burt could play fullback. The benefit with Burt at fullback is we gain another play maker and general kicker. He has a good kicking and passing game. This would give us two experienced players in Burt and Hayne in play making roles. We could structure some plays around both not just hayne

I agree with your assessment on Burt's skills.

I reckon he should come in and do the same even as a winger.

The only issue I have with Burt is that he doesn't want to take bombs. Even on the wing. He prefers to let it bounce and then deal with it rather than stand his ground.

I can understand though. He is late in his career and doesn't want a bad injury that could affect him for the rest of his life. Especially after that leg injury he suffered.

That's why I suggested Chris Walker if he has played FB before.

 

[True EEL]

Everyone who reads my post knows that I am for Hayne at 6. I can see that he will be a 6 and then 13 in the future.

I just can't see where we can go without Hayne at 6.

didn't re-post all of it, but you said a lot of good things, and i agree

hell, i was preeching about this halfway though the year.....just to be ridiculed

i just added in the new thread about the Morts/Robson looking like they wikll get the nod again next year (at this stage) and said it looks likely.....cause it does, but i would love to see hayne installed as our 5/8 and main playmaker, i think it would take the team to a new level

just don't think Kearney wants to move Hayne, so i don't think it will happen......unless he's foxing? ;-)

 

[yy_cheng]

1. Reddy
2. Burt
3. Walker - I am not sure if he has played FB otherwise I would slot him there
4. Tahu
5. Grothe
6. Hayne
7. Humble
8. Poore - I reckon his agression would be good for Fui
9. Mitchell
10. Fui
11. Hindy
12. Horo
13. Smith

14. Mortz
15. Mannah
16. Webb
17. Shack

However, now we are not after Orford, I have read somewhere that Berrigan was looking to return home.


I would go after him. He would fit more than nicely in a 9 or 7 jersey.

I am not sure about McGuire. If he is doing well in preseason or in wenty. Out goes mortz. McGuire to 9 and Mitchell to 14.

 

[Wise Old Eel]

The two players who chose to retire, the three who were still under contract with their current clubs, and the one who plays a difference code? Are those the halves you're referring to?

Yes. It reeks of desperation. That is not what you want in a front office at an NRL club.

Other clubs seemed to have managed some decent buys without resorting to such amateurism. It's not much to ask really.

WOE

 

[boxhead]

I think most of you are forgetting what Kearney said about Jarryd Hayne. He said Hayne would be fullback, and the speculation I believe in the papers was that under Brad Arthur's tutelage Kearney wants to turn Jarryd Hayne into a Billy Slater-style fullback. Kearney essentially wants Hayne to play a more supportive role and also work heavily on his defensive issues as a fullback.

At this stage, it seems incredibly unlikely Kearney will change his opinion on the matter.

 

[lingard]

Hi Lingard. Just quietly, I enjoy our little stoushes!

Isn't not being up to scratch just a different way of saying f**ked coach? :sarcasm:

I remember it differently. The way I remember it, it was Osborne lauding Mortimer as the future of Parramatta, not Anderson. The contract theory doesn't make any sense to any rational clear thinking individual but we are talking about Osborne here. It seemed he was so desperate to be in the limelight & impress his employers that he went off far too early. Purely because this kid's surname was Mortimer, he saw an opportunity to turn this into a "coup" of sorts (signing him before Canterbury did). You say putting a clause in a contract stipulating this young player of limited experience was guaranteed a first grade spot in the halves was unlikely. Hey, I wouldn't do it. But I also wouldn't come out and publically sprout he is "the future of Parramatta" either. The whole thing was a circus & despite my aversion to having Mortimer in the side, I really do feel for the guy. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. I do, however, hope with all my heart he proves me wrong & has a great 2011.

Love your take on the Hayne at 6 scenario. I never thought about it that way before. Hayne definitely was a better player after that stint at 5/8.

WOE

No, not at all. I shouldn`t have used the phrase 'f**ked coach'. I`m sorry, I didn`t mean that. I take it back. It was a poor choice of words. He`s definitely not (a f**ked coach). But he`s not the messiah, either. Not based on his Parramatta performance. One thing that really sticks in my mind is when he was asked how Parramatta turned it all around and won nine straight at the tail end of 2009. His answer was: "I don`t know."
Now, obviously, he might have just been saying that. But it did look as though it was based purely on motivation and on instilling a killer attitude into the boys.........and not much else. I think he`s got his limitations as a coach. Correct me if I`m wrong, because I might be, but I seem to recall the Warriors having little structure (although they had a great half-back in Stacey Jones) and just threw the ball around like a hot potato to reach the Grand Final in whatever year that was. He did a fantastic job with them, that`s for sure. But structure and tactics? I`m not sure. Anderson did a great job in turning around Parramatta`s attitude, too, after the previous year under Hagan. He gave the forwards real grunt and attitude, and turned them into a real force. But he did some other strange things. He refused to have a wrestling coach. His communication with the lower great coaches was reportedly non-existent. (Is that why Humble and Mitchell didn`t get a look in?) He seems to have got at least some people off-side - players and coaches. Maybe CEO`s and Boards too? I don`t know. I still think his report card at Parra will say "room for improvement".
Yeah, I like having a sensible conversation for a change, without the other person saying: "you`ve got no f**king idea" or: "you`re an idiot."

And by the way, if it can be shown that Osborne really did sign Mortimer to a contract guaranteeing him first grade selection, I`ll change my tune pretty quickly. But at the moment - with no clear evidence one way or the other - I would think it was unlikely. Only because it`s a more ridiculous option than the other. As Sherlock Holmes said: 'when you eliminate all the most unlikely scenarios, what you are left with is the most likely one - and that`s the one that you should go with'. Or words to that effect.
Cheers.

 

[Eelementary]

The only real tactic that I saw from DA was the Last game against Saints and the week after in 2009.

I agree.

 

[bartman]

But it was a great tactic!

And effectively resulted in us finishing 2nd (only behind the cheats) instead of 8th...

 

[spiderdan]

One thing that really sticks in my mind is when he was asked how Parramatta turned it all around and won nine straight at the tail end of 2009. His answer was: "I don`t know."
Now, obviously, he might have just been saying that.

around the same time a few players (i'm pretty sure that included hindy), said that the behind the scenes crap was a real distraction for them. it's very possible that da was just saying what he did to be diplomatic rather than publicly state the club was in the middle of a sh*t fight and pass the blame onto the people behinf the scenes.

He refused to have a wrestling coach.

when the side started clicking in 09 it wasn't a problem. during the last 1/3 of the season proper i think we averaged about 9 ppg against without a wrestling coach. but i guess you will get more quick plays playing off the back of phase play. given anderson was trying to get more structure and less ad lib offloading i guess in 2010 a wrestling coach would have been useful.

I still think his report card at Parra will say "room for improvement".

agree. i am sure there were things within his control as well as those outside of his control that led to our crap form this year and da leaving. i am a fan of his coaching but like many there were a few things he did that from the outside looking in seemed baffling. i guess he was due for a really crap year.

 

[Springs]

He refused to have a wrestling coach.

He has now become my favourite coach ever.

 

[Eels Dude]

I think most of you are forgetting what Kearney said about Jarryd Hayne. He said Hayne would be fullback, and the speculation I believe in the papers was that under Brad Arthur's tutelage Kearney wants to turn Jarryd Hayne into a Billy Slater-style fullback. Kearney essentially wants Hayne to play a more supportive role and also work heavily on his defensive issues as a fullback.

At this stage, it seems incredibly unlikely Kearney will change his opinion on the matter.

I haven't forgotton anything because I've not read such a thing. Can you please provide a link to the article where Kearney stated what you just said?

 

[lingard]

There`s been a lot of talk and a lot of rumour in this thread. I`m pretty much over it. Kearney apparently saying that Mortimer is a definite starter. But then Osborne saying that they won`t be playing favourites with anyone. People saying that Tom Humble won`t be with us ...... or will be with us ....... but won`t play as big a part as Mortimer? Wait for the big announcement ..... the one that never comes. Well, I think it`s all rubbish, fueled by us fans who just can`t wait for the season to begin next year. Too much idle time on our hands (in a rugby league sense, anyway). I think it`s wide open. And I reckon, no matter who Kearney starts with in round one, sooner or later our halves pairing will be Humble at 6 (because he`s the best five-eight in the club) and Robson at 7 (because he`s tough enough and steady enough to give Humble an armchair ride into first grade - just as he did for Mortimer in 2009). Eventually, I would expect that Robson will make way for a new signing or for Murray. The only way I can see Mortimer cementing a first grade spot is if Kearney is able to get a whole lot more out of him than Daniel Anderson did. He might get more out of Robson, too. People talking about Hayne playing five-eight? The idea certainly has merit, but I think if we had a really good five-eight, Hayne should stay at full back. Besides, Humble has played a bit of full-back, so the two could probably swap around a bit during the course of a game, once Humble gets established in the top grade. I think that would be a very good tactic. God, I wish I was the first grade coach! Ah Ha Ha! :lol::lol:

 

[boxhead]

I haven't forgotton anything because I've not read such a thing. Can you please provide a link to the article where Kearney stated what you just said?

Let's see, I don't have the links because he said it on radio. He specifically said Jarryd would not play five-eighth.

Plus, the speculation was that Arthur was going to do a big job on turning Jarryd into a Billy Slater-style fullback.

 

[boxhead]

There`s been a lot of talk and a lot of rumour in this thread. I`m pretty much over it. Kearney apparently saying that Mortimer is a definite starter. But then Osborne saying that they won`t be playing favourites with anyone. People saying that Tom Humble won`t be with us ...... or will be with us ....... but won`t play as big a part as Mortimer? Wait for the big announcement ..... the one that never comes. Well, I think it`s all rubbish, fueled by us fans who just can`t wait for the season to begin next year. Too much idle time on our hands (in a rugby league sense, anyway). I think it`s wide open. And I reckon, no matter who Kearney starts with in round one, sooner or later our halves pairing will be Humble at 6 (because he`s the best five-eight in the club) and Robson at 7 (because he`s tough enough and steady enough to give Humble an armchair ride into first grade - just as he did for Mortimer in 2009). Eventually, I would expect that Robson will make way for a new signing or for Murray. The only way I can see Mortimer cementing a first grade spot is if Kearney is able to get a whole lot more out of him than Daniel Anderson did. He might get more out of Robson, too. People talking about Hayne playing five-eight? The idea certainly has merit, but I think if we had a really good five-eight, Hayne should stay at full back. Besides, Humble has played a bit of full-back, so the two could probably swap around a bit during the course of a game, once Humble gets established in the top grade. I think that would be a very good tactic. God, I wish I was the first grade coach! Ah Ha Ha! :lol::lol:

That's still all in your opinion. You say that sooner or later Humble will be 6 as if it is definite, when that is just speculation you yourself are saying shouldn't be posted. Qua? You have to remember mate that saying stuff like "Humble is the best 6 at the club" is still your opinion and not fact.

I agree with you though that under Kearney our halves at the club could all go to another level, as well as with Brad Arthur being the backs coach. You only have to look at Melbourne's success to think that *hopefully* )) our halves improve, whoever are the starting halves.

I say, it's open to everyone, lets see who impresses!

 

[Eels Dude]

Let's see, I don't have the links because he said it on radio. He specifically said Jarryd would not play five-eighth.

Plus, the speculation was that Arthur was going to do a big job on turning Jarryd into a Billy Slater-style fullback.

Fair enough. I hope that speculation is wrong though. Slater has his strengths, but Hayne has his very different strengths and I don't see you would even attempt to turn him into a player he is not. Either way I don't think we should be getting too carried away with what Stephen Kearney's plans are. It's early days and once he gets to the players strengths and weaknesses, and our sides strengths and weaknesses, then a good coach determines what playing style best suits them.

 

[Wise Old Eel]

No, not at all. I shouldn`t have used the phrase 'f**ked coach'. I`m sorry, I didn`t mean that. I take it back. It was a poor choice of words. He`s definitely not (a f**ked coach). But he`s not the messiah, either. Not based on his Parramatta performance. One thing that really sticks in my mind is when he was asked how Parramatta turned it all around and won nine straight at the tail end of 2009. His answer was: "I don`t know."
Now, obviously, he might have just been saying that. But it did look as though it was based purely on motivation and on instilling a killer attitude into the boys.........and not much else. I think he`s got his limitations as a coach. Correct me if I`m wrong, because I might be, but I seem to recall the Warriors having little structure (although they had a great half-back in Stacey Jones) and just threw the ball around like a hot potato to reach the Grand Final in whatever year that was. He did a fantastic job with them, that`s for sure. But structure and tactics? I`m not sure. Anderson did a great job in turning around Parramatta`s attitude, too, after the previous year under Hagan. He gave the forwards real grunt and attitude, and turned them into a real force. But he did some other strange things. He refused to have a wrestling coach. His communication with the lower great coaches was reportedly non-existent. (Is that why Humble and Mitchell didn`t get a look in?) He seems to have got at least some people off-side - players and coaches. Maybe CEO`s and Boards too? I don`t know. I still think his report card at Parra will say "room for improvement".
Yeah, I like having a sensible conversation for a change, without the other person saying: "you`ve got no f**king idea" or: "you`re an idiot."

And by the way, if it can be shown that Osborne really did sign Mortimer to a contract guaranteeing him first grade selection, I`ll change my tune pretty quickly. But at the moment - with no clear evidence one way or the other - I would think it was unlikely. Only because it`s a more ridiculous option than the other. As Sherlock Holmes said: 'when you eliminate all the most unlikely scenarios, what you are left with is the most likely one - and that`s the one that you should go with'. Or words to that effect.
Cheers.

Actually, the quote is "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Maybe, I am closer to the "truth" than you think? ;-)

Sorry, couldn't resist. You quoted the one person I actually know something about!

WOE

 

[Kornstar]

Brian Smith also stated he didn't know what happened in 2001 for the team to destroy every record there was!!!!! Is he a bad coach?????

DA certainly may have made errors but I don't think his performance at the Eels should judge his overall career, whether people like to admit it or not, there are alot of background influences at the Eels that have us in the position we are in and in certain circumstances the coaches hands have been tied!!

 

[Wise Old Eel]

Brian Smith also stated he didn't know what happened in 2001 for the team to destroy every record there was!!!!! Is he a bad coach?????

DA certainly may have made errors but I don't think his performance at the Eels should judge his overall career, whether people like to admit it or not, there are alot of background influences at the Eels that have us in the position we are in and in certain circumstances the coaches hands have been tied!!

I hear ya, Kornstar - but be careful. You don't want to be seen as a conspiracy-theorist-nutcase like me! :lol:

WOE

 

[Schiltzenberger]

I think most of you are forgetting what Kearney said about Jarryd Hayne. He said Hayne would be fullback, and the speculation I believe in the papers was that under Brad Arthur's tutelage Kearney wants to turn Jarryd Hayne into a Billy Slater-style fullback. Kearney essentially wants Hayne to play a more supportive role and also work heavily on his defensive issues as a fullback.

At this stage, it seems incredibly unlikely Kearney will change his opinion on the matter.

Hayne will be brilliant if he goes back to actually supporting his team mates like a proper fullback. Glad to see Kearney wants to work on his defensive issues as well, although lots of people on here never thought he had any.

I got sick of seeing players get half through the line and look to offload only for no one to be running off them. Our support play was pathetic last season and Hayne should be running off people all day as he is the fullback. Instead he was playing as a 5/8 most of the time, whether that was his own doing or Anderson's I don't know, but he is far better when he is running off people and generally carving up broken play.

 

[Eels Dude]

At the same time Hayne is talented enough as a playmaker that he should be allowed to come in and command the ball when he wants it. His kicks, especially his long kicks and towering bombs are superb. And he can throw cutout passes or even just short draw and pass is by far the best in our club so he should be playing like a second 5'8th because no-one else has the ball playing skills that he does.

If we had a dominant half or hooker than I can see the point in him going back to being simply a support player, but quite simply we have neither so we need to rely on Hayne's playmaking ability if we want to score points.