Home Grown v Buying the Comp

[boardlumps62]

Call me butthead if you want but a lot of sensible discussion confuses me. Agree development a must have to bring the young guys thru encourage them give them an opportunity.
Look what happens to Bird goes well just needs to curb his angry (is that the right word) attitude. Hastings performance last game or two show his maturity and ability for such young bloke. These guys had the confidence of the coach. But where did they play their junior footy with the Dragons and who coached them or was it just the talent they had not needing to be coached.
I agree though that thats where the juniors learn their trade from coaches starts in schoolboy footy progress onwards so that is all important talented coaches.
For me i want a competitive team each game we play we expect or have a chance to win. I havent the answer but like this, develop young players bring them thru, buy a couple of established players but dont buy a team to win premiership doesnt work and that does not fit our budget.
We lost a game or two by a couple of points then won a few then we got a touchup then we win by a point or two thats the game. And if the referee didnt give us a bad deal we would have won a couple more just had to throw that in there.
We have a good side they showed that against the dogs just need a couple of players with the x factor.

players bring them through or buy a team

 

[Puff2010]

Silly thread. You need a combination of both to succeed. But the club has been let down by not getting the balance right. They went too far with signing juniors despite their ability or lengevity (playing/paying certain players a year too long) and then they went too far down the recruitment road (wont bring juniors through, making large, impulse purchases) and now we have a f**ked up caps. We have an awesome junior base - one of the best - but we are missing a lot of ingredients required to BUILD a team of juniors:

Player Development - not just throwing kids in the deep end, but ACTUAL development of our talented juniors. I mean, we've had some incredibly talented kids come through yet very few have kicked on! Garvey was one of the best hookers in his age group. Runciman played junior kangaroos. Crook was rated above Luke 'next Andrew Johns' Brooks in all junior rep teams. But who is actual coaching these kids to take the next steps up? Who is taking their talents to the next level? Its starting to get fixed now, but for years it has been an issue.

Junior coaching - I know Deano and Hornbag may make good coaches in time, but not having decent junior coaches, (including NSW Cup, Logan is a plank) is related to player development and assists the kids coming through. Roosters bring through a whole heap of very talented juniors all at once on the back of the highly rated Paul Green looking after their juniors. Its a huge help. Likewise, several of our players have had their development haulted at NSW Cup level this year on the bag of a moron coaching Cutters. Fix the coaching setup goes a long way to building a good junior base.

Path to NRL - this has been a monstrous issue since Brown left. It's the reason we lost guys like Whare. Sure, they have highly rated players in front of them, but if they can see a development plan and pathway for them to get to first grade, they will hang around. For example, Luke Keary was initially stuck behind Sutton and Reynolds, but he stayed with Souths because he knew they had a plan for him. Munster will likely stay at Storm because he knows they have a plan to bring him through. Why aren't we planning to bring our decent juniors through? Why hasn't Hutch been played off the bench more often this year? Why wasn't Bird told there was a plan to bring him into the fold? Why are we buying backup halves instead of letting Crook have a taste? We should be getting these guys ready to take over form the older guys.

Planning - we do need to buy players to fill gaps. We need experienced players in key possitions who fit the mould of what the coach wants to do. But instead we make impulse buys and hope they work out. Due to lack of planning, we end up with a fullback (brilliant as he is) who doesnt have the skillset to executre the coaches plan, 2 running 5/8s and noone to direct the team around the park, a hooker who cant pass straight and reserve grade quality players on first grade money. And while I supprot the purchase of Farrell, it also comes off as an impulse buy. This is what Mulholland was on the way to fixing. He needs to be held onto in order to make that happen. That's long term planning and its essential to build a dynasty.

A good assessment and agree with most of the comments.
It's about nurturing our future talent and brining in experience when necessary. Attempting to "buy " a premiership does not work.

 

[The Nick]

This thread = too much reading.

 

[coast_dragons]

Lets see people thought the club relied on to many local juniors and wanted to buy outside of the club.

Then when local juinors left ie Jck Bird they had a whinge the club didn't try hard enough to retain them or something along those lines.

I have to ask what do people really want.

 

[Slippery Morris]

The thing with Juniors is the rich clubs like Dogs and Roosters will get the best talents as they will throw money at them to move. It is all about cash. If an 18 y.o is being paid 100k and is then offered 300k to move no matter which club he is at he will move for the 300k. They just double the salary and entice them that way. Why, because the have the poor clubs have salary cap restrictions and they don't. Hastings and Bird left simply because of the dollars as they got offered double of what Saints could offer them. So why bring up a junior when the Dogs or Roosters can just go behind your back and pinch them from you any time?

Dogs were paying Klemmer 350k when he turned 19, Liccha moved for 1mil over 3 years, They tried to sign the Mata Utai brothers at the Knights for a 2 mil package deal or something. Knights then had to come up with the cash and they did. Not many clubs can afford to pay their young fellas 1 mil contracts?

Looking back now if Saints did not bring in Nielsen, Keating and Henry (valued at about $300k) and instead gave the cash to Bird it would have been a better move but how where they to know.

 

[rainman44]

If we get the mix right we will be ok, proven footballers with a few X factor players and with good young talented footballers can be achieved.

 

[BigH]

Maybe the NRL should make teams maintain a mix of juniors and limit the number of imports and reward clubs with juniors playing rep football be granted some form of incentive

 

[AyiosYiorgos]

Maybe the NRL should make teams maintain a mix of juniors and limit the number of imports and reward clubs with juniors playing rep football be granted some form of incentive

Nah the NRL need to get serious with Salary Cap and Third Party dodgy deals, until that is sorted it will never be fixed, they need to get independent people on board not people who have an alliance to clubs or an agenda, so Politis, Greenberg shouldn't be involved for starters.....

 

[Slippery Morris]

If salary cap only applied to players outside the club and not juniors it would solve the issue. The juniors can test the market and get their value, then the club can pay them what they are worth. Team like Dogs and Chooks can offer them the dollars but the clubs can then match there offers and not be held back because they have no TPA.

Cap should be 3mil. This equates to 6 players worth 500k outside the club (or 3 - 1 mil players) and the rest of the squad should be made up of juniors.

 

[Forster Dragon]

Silly thread. You need a combination of both to succeed. But the club has been let down by not getting the balance right. They went too far with signing juniors despite their ability or lengevity (playing/paying certain players a year too long) and then they went too far down the recruitment road (wont bring juniors through, making large, impulse purchases) and now we have a f**ked up caps. We have an awesome junior base - one of the best - but we are missing a lot of ingredients required to BUILD a team of juniors:

Player Development - not just throwing kids in the deep end, but ACTUAL development of our talented juniors. I mean, we've had some incredibly talented kids come through yet very few have kicked on! Garvey was one of the best hookers in his age group. Runciman played junior kangaroos. Crook was rated above Luke 'next Andrew Johns' Brooks in all junior rep teams. But who is actual coaching these kids to take the next steps up? Who is taking their talents to the next level? Its starting to get fixed now, but for years it has been an issue.

Junior coaching - I know Deano and Hornbag may make good coaches in time, but not having decent junior coaches, (including NSW Cup, Logan is a plank) is related to player development and assists the kids coming through. Roosters bring through a whole heap of very talented juniors all at once on the back of the highly rated Paul Green looking after their juniors. Its a huge help. Likewise, several of our players have had their development haulted at NSW Cup level this year on the bag of a moron coaching Cutters. Fix the coaching setup goes a long way to building a good junior base.

Path to NRL - this has been a monstrous issue since Brown left. It's the reason we lost guys like Whare. Sure, they have highly rated players in front of them, but if they can see a development plan and pathway for them to get to first grade, they will hang around. For example, Luke Keary was initially stuck behind Sutton and Reynolds, but he stayed with Souths because he knew they had a plan for him. Munster will likely stay at Storm because he knows they have a plan to bring him through. Why aren't we planning to bring our decent juniors through? Why hasn't Hutch been played off the bench more often this year? Why wasn't Bird told there was a plan to bring him into the fold? Why are we buying backup halves instead of letting Crook have a taste? We should be getting these guys ready to take over form the older guys.

Planning - we do need to buy players to fill gaps. We need experienced players in key possitions who fit the mould of what the coach wants to do. But instead we make impulse buys and hope they work out. Due to lack of planning, we end up with a fullback (brilliant as he is) who doesnt have the skillset to executre the coaches plan, 2 running 5/8s and noone to direct the team around the park, a hooker who cant pass straight and reserve grade quality players on first grade money. And while I supprot the purchase of Farrell, it also comes off as an impulse buy. This is what Mulholland was on the way to fixing. He needs to be held onto in order to make that happen. That's long term planning and its essential to build a dynasty.

 

[AyiosYiorgos]

If salary cap only applied to players outside the club and not juniors it would solve the issue. The juniors can test the market and get their value, then the club can pay them what they are worth. Team like Dogs and Chooks can offer them the dollars but the clubs can then match there offers and not be held back because they have no TPA.

Cap should be 3mil. This equates to 6 players worth 500k outside the club (or 3 - 1 mil players) and the rest of the squad should be made up of juniors.

No, the point of a salary cap is to keep all things equal, Rooster have Politis he can outbid anyone he wants to or get his mates to chip in, Dragons presently don't have the resources to match that, you need a salary Cap and a limit on 3rd party deals, if players don't like it go get a 2nd job...

 

[BennyV]

If salary cap only applied to players outside the club and not juniors it would solve the issue. The juniors can test the market and get their value, then the club can pay them what they are worth. Team like Dogs and Chooks can offer them the dollars but the clubs can then match there offers and not be held back because they have no TPA.

Cap should be 3mil. This equates to 6 players worth 500k outside the club (or 3 - 1 mil players) and the rest of the squad should be made up of juniors.

Then watch Dogs and Roosters buy every semi talented 16 year old in the state...

 

[Da Doctor]

My opinion is you can't stop players earning endorsements outside their clubs. I live on the Gold Coast and we have Sam Thiaday doing NRMA adverts which would from my understanding be outside the cap (if the Broncos did not organise it for him, which is a big if and proving otherwise would be hard). I think any cap, 3rd party restrictions should be accompanied by a points system where players are awarded points based on their representative level, discounts could apply to players if they are juniors of the club for which they play and maybe also the years they have been at one club.

Hence, each club has a maximum amount of points, a salary cap will keep payments under control and 3rd party deals for high quality players will allow them to earn endorsements, but with the points limit no clubs could stack their team by taking advantage of business contacts.

The only issue I see is that the points system will have to have black and white rules. No loopholes as we commonly see with State of Origin.

Your thoughts on this are welcome...

 

[hardbaby]

Juniors will always be something I am proud of but its a sword and shield approach. The key is to identify and hold the good ones eg Bird but be honest about the average ones eg Green. We have spent far too much money holding the wrong type of Junior eg Hunt and not enough to hold our icons eg BMoz. In theory our juniors are a strength but only with the right identification, coaching and remuneration. Loyalty is pretty much dead so keep it real.

 

[fribberjabbit]

I think any cap, 3rd party restrictions should be accompanied by a points system where players are awarded points based on their representative level, discounts could apply to players if they are juniors of the club for which they play and maybe also the years they have been at one club.

Hence, each club has a maximum amount of points, a salary cap will keep payments under control and 3rd party deals for high quality players will allow them to earn endorsements, but with the points limit no clubs could stack their team by taking advantage of business contacts.

The only issue I see is that the points system will have to have black and white rules. No loopholes as we commonly see with State of Origin.

Your thoughts on this are welcome...

Excellent post and ideas. I've been screaming for this for a while now.
This would even up the comp which would be fantastic for all concerned. Done properly the start of every season would see 16 teams with a good chance of winning the comp, as opposed to the current 5 or 6.

Sadly I seriously doubt it will happen.

 

[BennyV]

My opinion is you can't stop players earning endorsements outside their clubs. I live on the Gold Coast and we have Sam Thiaday doing NRMA adverts which would from my understanding be outside the cap (if the Broncos did not organise it for him, which is a big if and proving otherwise would be hard). I think any cap, 3rd party restrictions should be accompanied by a points system where players are awarded points based on their representative level, discounts could apply to players if they are juniors of the club for which they play and maybe also the years they have been at one club.

Hence, each club has a maximum amount of points, a salary cap will keep payments under control and 3rd party deals for high quality players will allow them to earn endorsements, but with the points limit no clubs could stack their team by taking advantage of business contacts.

The only issue I see is that the points system will have to have black and white rules. No loopholes as we commonly see with State of Origin.

Your thoughts on this are welcome...

Wont work. Too hard to decide the points system. The 'value' of each player is also too subjective to apply points to in a blanket rule. That is, certain players are worth more to certain clubs.

 

[Da Doctor]

Wont work. Too hard to decide the points system. The 'value' of each player is also too subjective to apply points to in a blanket rule. That is, certain players are worth more to certain clubs.

BennyV I understand it is hard, but you can't just say it is too hard as the current system is not working to even out the comp. Granted certain players are worth a lot to their team and whether they are rep players or not, a black and white system will prevent either a club stacking rep players around such "high worth players" and hence spread the talent pool better. The "subjective" arguement maybe valid, though that is why I said the rules governing must be black and white. For eg. A junior is worth 2 points, a bought non-rep player 3 points, he plays rep footy (origin) +1, plays for Australia/New Zealand +2, plays at one club for 5 years -1/2, maximum points for top 25 players with revisions made at the end of each season. Of course there would be many other rules regarding points allocation, but they must be black/white or yes/no, not maybes. It may not be a perfect solution, but I think it has merit for at least attenuating the current advantages enjoyed by 4-5 clubs at the moment. Who wants to se you the NRL turn into the Australian Premier League? Not me. I will always support St George, but the league is losing me at the moment. The Broncos are a perfect example, they buy Milford who Canberra put all the work into, they could not do that as easily under a points system, it would force them to shed players to make room for him.

Just my opinion.

 

[Weipa Dragon]

For me, the dragons have often had our blokes come from out of st George Illawarra. It sort of makes us who we are ; this mix. Black lock from tingha. Tallis from Townsville. Brown from Maclean. Even our local blokes like de bellin are from coonabarabran. These are all regional far away places from the st George/ Wollongong areas. Who cares, as long as they play hard in the red and white.

 

[Forster Dragon]

Just hope the NRL eventually wake up and put all clubs on a level playing field,with no loopholes.

 

[getsmarty]

BennyV I understand it is hard, but you can't just say it is too hard as the current system is not working to even out the comp. Granted certain players are worth a lot to their team and whether they are rep players or not, a black and white system will prevent either a club stacking rep players around such "high worth players" and hence spread the talent pool better. The "subjective" arguement maybe valid, though that is why I said the rules governing must be black and white. For eg. A junior is worth 2 points, a bought non-rep player 3 points, he plays rep footy (origin) +1, plays for Australia/New Zealand +2, plays at one club for 5 years -1/2, maximum points for top 25 players with revisions made at the end of each season. Of course there would be many other rules regarding points allocation, but they must be black/white or yes/no, not maybes. It may not be a perfect solution, but I think it has merit for at least attenuating the current advantages enjoyed by 4-5 clubs at the moment. Who wants to se you the NRL turn into the Australian Premier League? Not me. I will always support St George, but the league is losing me at the moment. The Broncos are a perfect example, they buy Milford who Canberra put all the work into, they could not do that as easily under a points system, it would force them to shed players to make room for him.

Just my opinion.

Great idea...Only problem is the clubs that have the most rep players have the most money available and therefore would probably kick up the biggest stink with the NRL. Too many people with vested interests.