Jake Mullaney

[IFR33K]

If Nightingale is small then I've got no problem with small wingers. Tiny wingers like Burt, on the other hand, belong back in the 90s.

](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)

 

[EelsFan05]

](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)

Just put him on ignore....

 

[Poupou Escobar]

](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)

Mate you've missed the point. Nightingale isn't small. He doesn't get dominated and manhandled like Luke Burt and most of the game's halfbacks. If they're truly the same size then Burt's problem is that he is weak.

My point was you need wingers that contribute to the go-forward game from tackle one. Burt contributes nothing.

Here's their stats for their last three games on the wing (going back to round 15 for Nightingale):

Burt
6 runs for 57m
7 runs for 59m
8 runs for 86m

Nightingale
12 runs for 125m
15 runs for 109m
20 runs for 158m

If they're the same size as you claim, then that's disgraceful from Luke Burt. In a year where Mannah's production has dropped from 122 metres per game to 101m/game, and Fui has declined from 133m/game to 99m/game, we have needed go forward from our outside backs more than ever. Thank f**k Kenny Sio has given us 100+ metres in all but two games this year.

 

[Noise]

Pou is right on this. In the modern game you need outside backs to provide go forward particularly early in the set. Burt has never provided this, whether it's because he's tiny or weak or both doesn't matter.

Hazem was the other winger mentioned with a similar size to Burt who as Pou mentioned was primarily a goal kicker and if irc won the comp 8 years ago, and he is more the exception than the rule.

Wingers these days and prob for the last 5-10 years need to be big fast and strong otherwise ur go forward is arse pie

 

[Parra Pride]

Burt
6 runs for 57m
7 runs for 59m
8 runs for 86m

Nightingale
12 runs for 125m
15 runs for 109m
20 runs for 158m

Using those stats it's Burt's involvement, not his quality that's the issue:

Burt:
6 runs for 57 metres = 9.5 metres per run
7 runs for 59 metres = 8.4 metres per run
8 runs for 86 metres = 10.75 metres per run

Nightingale:
12 runs for 125m = 10.4 metres per run
15 runs for 109m = 7.3 metres per run
20 runs for 158m = 7.9 metres per run

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Using those stats it's Burt's involvement, not his quality that's the issue:

Burt:
6 runs for 57 metres = 9.5 metres per run
7 runs for 59 metres = 8.4 metres per run
8 runs for 86 metres = 10.75 metres per run

Nightingale:
12 runs for 125m = 10.4 metres per run
15 runs for 109m = 7.3 metres per run
20 runs for 158m = 7.9 metres per run

What that means is most of Burt's runs are out wide where there are more open spaces and more metres to be had. Those eight or so extra runs that Nightingale makes every game are the tough ones into the guts of the defence. That brings Nightingale's metres per run down, whereas Burt avoids that by just refusing to get involved.

I've been a nerd a lot longer than you mate. You will never out-stat me.

 

[Parra Pride]

What that means is most of Burt's runs are out wide where there are more open spaces and more metres to be had. Those eight or so extra runs that Nightingale makes every game are the tough ones into the guts of the defence. That brings Nightingale's metres per run down, whereas Burt avoids that by just refusing to get involved.

I've been a nerd a lot longer than you mate. You will never out-stat me.

I wasnt trying to "out-stat" you, I was simply providing average metres per run.

#NoNeedToGetDefensive

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Not getting defensive, I was just trying to have a laugh with you because you're a weird merkin and you need it.

 

[The EELiminator]

#NoNeedToGetDefensive

#ToDoThatHeWouldHaveToNotBeDefensiveAlready

 

[Parra Pride]

Not getting defensive, I was just trying to have a laugh with you because you're a weird merkin and you need it.

If I want to laugh I'll go watch scenes from Nichijou on YouTube, like this one:

[youtube]F9reb5iPwok[/youtube]

#NeverGetsOld

 

[IFR33K]

Mate you've missed the point. Nightingale isn't small. He doesn't get dominated and manhandled like Luke Burt and most of the game's halfbacks. If they're truly the same size then Burt's problem is that he is weak.

My point was you need wingers that contribute to the go-forward game from tackle one. Burt contributes nothing.

Here's their stats for their last three games on the wing (going back to round 15 for Nightingale):

Burt
6 runs for 57m
7 runs for 59m
8 runs for 86m

Nightingale
12 runs for 125m
15 runs for 109m
20 runs for 158m

If they're the same size as you claim, then that's disgraceful from Luke Burt. In a year where Mannah's production has dropped from 122 metres per game to 101m/game, and Fui has declined from 133m/game to 99m/game, we have needed go forward from our outside backs more than ever. Thank f**k Kenny Sio has given us 100+ metres in all but two games this year.

League is a big mans game and I never doubted that. The truth is nightingale and Burt are of similar size and I would consider both of them small.

Burt's problem is he is weak and doesn't like collisions.

I think there is room for the 'smaller' wingers like nightingale and perrett if they are good enough.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If I want to laugh I'll go watch scenes from Nichijou on YouTube, like this one:

*fap* *fap* *fap*

 

[Poupou Escobar]

League is a big mans game and I never doubted that. The truth is nightingale and Burt are of similar size and I would consider both of them small.

Burt's problem is he is weak and doesn't like collisions.

I think there is room for the 'smaller' wingers like nightingale and perrett if they are good enough.

Fair point. But I consider Nightingale and Perrett to both be bigger than Luke Burt. Utai as well. If not in height then in build.

When I talk about small wingers I'm talking about the fast skinny midgets that were so effective before the 2002 rule change that slowed the game down - guys like Burt, Dallas and Whereat. There's no room for them in the modern game, and there won't be again unless we go back to the touch footy ruck rules that were enforced right up until the 2001 grand final kickoff.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Nightingale isn't bigger in build than Burt! The other conclusion is all that we're left with.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Luke Burt 178 cm 88 kg
Sam perret 182 cm 92 kg
Jason nightingale 183cm 91 kg
Matt utai 168cm 96kg

Interesting of the smaller wingers mentioned two are nearly 6ft ( Sam and Jason ) - which aren't small. And the smallest (Matt) is nearly 100kg but 10cm shorter then bur

 

[IFR33K]

Luke Burt 178 cm 88 kg
Sam perret 182 cm 92 kg
Jason nightingale 183cm 91 kg
Matt utai 168cm 96kg

Interesting of the smaller wingers mentioned two are nearly 6ft ( Sam and Jason ) - which aren't small. And the smallest (Matt) is nearly 100kg but 10cm shorter then bur

If Burt is considered a small winger, than so too should JN and SP.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Utai is an overweight midget.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If Burt is considered a small winger, than so too should JN and SP.

Mate Burt looks heaps smaller than those two. Burt is the same size as a few of the small fullbacks going around.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Looks can be deceiving.

As an example, you may not look like a moron in the flesh.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That's very hurtful.