Heamasi Makasini

[Nutz]

Personally, I'd give him a game or 2 in NRL at the end of the year to see how he goes and to give him a taste and some encouragement. He could be the next Fittler, Daley, or Brasher, and star immediately. You don't know unless you have a go.

And on that note (and bearing in mind he'll be on network TV on Thursday) we need to sign him to a 10 year $12 million contract immediately. That way, when a more fancied club steals him off us, we'll get more than $165k in compo.

He's a goodin DOM. It's ironic when you said he could be another Fitler because Makasini is strong through the hips and uses them to swerve left then right and step like Brad did.
I personally can't wait for him to play this year but as you said, it's best to ease him into the NRL at the back end.

 

[TroyJax]

I think he needs to get a run in the NRL to at least see how he does handle it, this year.
Galvin, TDS and a few others were not that much older.
The league's history is littered with young blokes playing at this age.
If you're good enough, you're old enough.

We have a terribly awful history of rushing these blokes into first grade and stuffing them up.
Have we learned nothing from the Galvin debacle? I mean I know it was a fair while ago....

 

[TroyJax]

With all due respect, when Daley and Fittler and co hit the scene,

Why ? He might be a gun. He is an 108 kg centre who looks to have footwork, a fend and speed.

Some players just have it.

Personally I think it's obvious that Doueihi is a weak link in the team and we have to replace him as quickly as possible if we want to win more games.

It doesn’t matter if he is a gun. His body won’t be ready, his head won’t be ready and eventually we will pay for it. Giving him a full pre season is providing him with a far better opportunity to succeed.
One of Galvins complaints was that we didn’t provide adequate development and he sought it elsewhere. Your suggestion is to get a kid even younger and subject him to the same? Second time lucky eh?…except it isn’t is it? It will be about 15th time lucky.

 

[Tiger05]

We have a terribly awful history of rushing these blokes into first grade and stuffing them up.
Have we learned nothing from the Galvin debacle? I mean I know it was a fair while ago....

I don't think this is fair at all. Galvin was rushed into the Dogs side as well. It wasn't playing him too early that was the problem in that he is being picked for first grade. It's the fact that as soon as he played first grade he wanted out.

The Galvin debacle to me is exactly as per the Stef debacle. These guys think they can't make it at our club. It boggles my mind but that appears to be how they feel. We chased them hard to re-sign for us but they didn't want to be here.

My take is that we need to get a better impression of the character of the guys we are developing but that is hard.

 

[Tiger05]

One of Galvins complaints was that we didn’t provide adequate development and he sought it elsewhere. Your suggestion is to get a kid even younger and subject him to the same? Second time lucky eh?…except it isn’t is it? It will be about 15th time lucky.

I just responded to this but this is ridiculous. You are conflating two separate issues.

Issue 1:- developing players and how quickly you bring them into first grade.
Issue 2:- our retention policies.

Stef and Galvin in my opinion are issue 2. I'd argue our development of these guys was top tier. We bought them into first grade and turned them into stars. We did the same thing with Tedesco and Moses and Woods. They also all fall into issue 2.

 

[TroyJax]

I don't think this is fair at all. Galvin was rushed into the Dogs side as well. It wasn't playing him too early that was the problem in that he is being picked for first grade. It's the fact that as soon as he played first grade he wanted out.

The Galvin debacle to me is exactly as per the Stef debacle. These guys think they can't make it at our club. It boggles my mind but that appears to be how they feel. We chased them hard to re-sign for us but they didn't want to be here.

My take is that we need to get a better impression of the character of the guys we are developing but that is hard.

Don’t worry about the Dogs, he has already played the best part of 1.5 seasons including 2 pre seasons before they got him. They’ll tweak as required but that’s not my point.
He wasn’t ready to play first grade last year. He ran our attack and we came 17th.

 

[TroyJax]

I just responded to this but this is ridiculous. You are conflating two separate issues.

Issue 1:- developing players and how quickly you bring them into first grade.
Issue 2:- our retention policies.

Stef and Galvin in my opinion are issue 2. I'd argue our development of these guys was top tier. We bought them into first grade and turned them into stars. We did the same thing with Tedesco and Moses and Woods. They also all fall into issue 2.

If you think our development of those two was top teir, then you have not been paying attention.
They aren’t stars. Stef is barely keeping up down at Melbourne, and Galvin is pup just starting out. Tedesco and Moses took years to reach their potential after leaving here. Roosters had to teach Teddy how to ballplay. Parra were patient with Mitch. Woods peaked here and is the outlier, I’ll give you that…but he was also a stat padding bludger so not a great example of developing a top line player.

 

[Tigerm]

We have a terribly awful history of rushing these blokes into first grade and stuffing them up.
Have we learned nothing from the Galvin debacle? I mean I know it was a fair while ago....

Hasn't Galvin just signed a supposed $750K/year contract with the dogs? We offered him more.
Last season he would have won the Rookie of the year, except for him being sent off. Which wasn't that long ago.
Besides the fact that I never said throw him in full-time, but give him a game (or 2) this season, which is not rushing him into FG and makes sense, imo, to let him understand the difference in standards, which will help his development.

 

[Tigerm]

If you think our development of those two was top teir, then you have not been paying attention.
They aren’t stars. Stef is barely keeping up down at Melbourne, and Galvin is pup just starting out. Tedesco and Moses took years to reach their potential after leaving here. Roosters had to teach Teddy how to ballplay. Parra were patient with Mitch. Woods peaked here and is the outlier, I’ll give you that…but he was also a stat padding bludger so not a great example of developing a top line player.

Teddy was already playing for NSW in SOO with us 2016-17 and played for Australia in his first season with Easts 2018, I think we helped a bit, whether he would kicked on with us, we'll never know.
As for Moses, yes he was a talent, and the club did identify that, he left a contract on the table as he didn't want to be here (sound familiar?), and what we know now, it may have been more about his manager than us, however again, there is no way to know if he wouldn't have developed any worse that what he has done to date.

 

[Tiger05]

He wasn’t ready to play first grade last year. He ran our attack and we came 17th.

This isn't a fair response in multiple ways:-

1. Galvin was the best option we had
2. Galvin wanted to play
3. The overall team and coaching staff played much more of a role than Galvin's on-field performances in our shit house year.

He came through our junior system and we got him a top tier contract with one of the best teams in the comp. We did the same thing with Stef.

It's not their development that is the issue at our club. It's their belief that they had to go elsewhere to improve. I don't understand why they had that perception and maybe there is more to it.

Lastly I think those two are two of the most overrated players I've seen and you could check my posts prior to them leaving. If anything I've been nicer to them once they left probably because I thought they didn't deserve the money we were offering.