Latrell Mitchell

[Nice Beaver]

Tom T is 106kg.

His size doesn't seem to hurt too much.

Your opinion of course, and you are entitled to it.

 

[RazorRam0n]

he's absolutely butchered my SC so far

 

[Danish]

Tom T is 106kg.

His size doesn't seem to hurt too much.

Your opinion of course, and you are entitled to it.

He's only played there for 1.5 seasons. See how his body is going if he stays back there for the next 6-7 years.

My guess is he'll move into the 5/8 role by the time he is in his mid-20s.

 

[some11]

The comparisons to Inglis also extend to his laziness.

 

[Nice Beaver]

He's only played there for 1.5 seasons. See how his body is going if he stays back there for the next 6-7 years.

My guess is he'll move into the 5/8 role by the time he is in his mid-20s.

Like I said, your opinion.

 

[wibble]

Mitchell and the Roosters have the same dilemma as a number of good, relatively big ball runners, GI included.

Bird, Peachey (though not so big), and Dugan seem to have the same issue.

They are built like powerful centres, and have strong running games. In years past, they would all be centres (well actually forwards, probably lock forward going further back, but all players have gotten bigger since then and in the NRL era 80 kg centres are too small, mostly).

They are all great players, who could earn more from clubs valuing 5/8s and fullbacks more than centres, and they mostly have some football skills, without necessarily having the rounded skill set of an elite 5/8, or the short distance electric pace of the best full backs (though again, Peachey is pretty quick over short distances).

So they are all a bit in limbo in terms of starting position. They are too good to be paid an average centre wage, but not necessarily worth elite full back or 5/8 money (GI excepted, though his full back days are catching up with him).

I wonder if teams will continue to shunt their cap to the spine and try to mould these sorts of players in to spine players. Mitchell might be "bored" like Bird at centre, and maybe the hook was necessary to keep him interested in playing, or maybe it will make him wish to be a full back at another club.

There is no doubt he is an amazing player, but but at what position is he most likely to contribute?
It will be interesting to see what happens with Mitchell in the next few weeks, and long term.

 

[T.S Quint]

Tom T is 106kg.

His size doesn't seem to hurt too much.

Your opinion of course, and you are entitled to it.

Hayne has always been a pretty big guy as well.
It didn't seem to hurt him much.
More about attitude than size, which I guess seems to be Latrell's problem as well.

 

[DOGS AND EELS!!!]

Only seen the highlights, didn't look too bad on that. Pearce was worse, he was letting Thaiday stroll in the useless cutie. Roberts did go past him for that try but Mitchell didn't commit to tackling Roberts because he was already in a 2 on 1 situation. The hit of the ball was silly.

 

[Meapro Ham]

Mitchell does not have the fitness, positioning, or attitude to play fullback. He stopped exactly zero tries while playing back there last year, and he is not the type of bloke I'd want to be commanding the defensive line.

He is also too big for the position. People see Inglis playing back there and think that tossing a 110kg giant in the no.1 must be a good idea, but playing fullback shortened Inglis's career by several years, and it will do the same for any other big man who tries to do it.

Mitchell has so far got by on god given size and talent. The type of stuff that makes you look like an immortal in age restricted comps. Now that he is in 1st grade he is going to have to start learning how to actually play football and put the hard yards if he is going to reach his potential.

Don't see why big fullbacks would be more likely to get injuries than anyone else. Plenty of smaller fullbacks get injuries too (Slater, Stewart, Minichello). What's being big got to do with it?

 

[Danish]

Don't see why big fullbacks would be more likely to get injuries than anyone else. Plenty of smaller fullbacks get injuries too (Slater, Stewart, Minichello). What's being big got to do with it?

Big heavy players invariably put more pressure on their joints when doing what fullbacks are expected to do. The more weight you are having to shift around the more stress you are putting on your ligaments etc.

Its the same reason why fat guys tend to need hip and knee replacements earlier than skinny guys.

There is also the simple matter that even without injury, a big bloke is going to struggle with the fitness levels of the fullback position no matter what they do. Its why Inglis, while devastating when he is on, also goes missing for hulking sections of games as he is just too damned big to maintain that energy all game (Hayne suffers from this too).

 

[Meapro Ham]

Big heavy players invariably put more pressure on their joints when doing what fullbacks are expected to do. The more weight you are having to shift around the more stress you are putting on your ligaments etc.

Its the same reason why fat guys tend to need hip and knee replacements earlier than skinny guys.

There is also the simple matter that even without injury, a big bloke is going to struggle with the fitness levels of the fullback position no matter what they do. Its why Inglis, while devastating when he is on, also goes missing for hulking sections of games as he is just too damned big to maintain that energy all game (Hayne suffers from this too).

Don't think so. There's no reason why bigger players should be getting more wear and tear injuries than smaller players if they're fit and in proportion. That's not the same as overweight people needing hip and knee replacements.

Also the aerobic fitness of guys like Hayne and Inglis would be as good as anyone. Their size is not the reason they go missing in games.

 

[Danish]

You can't honestly believe there is no link between size and aerobic fitness/joint stress? There is a reason why as you increase distance in track events the competitors get smaller and smaller. Having big muscles doesn't help that problem, and in fact it can even add to it as your muscle growth outpaces your ligaments/joints.

A big dude like Inglis constantly stepping at full pace, leaping high in the air to take bombs, it all puts major stress on his joints. He is a shell of the player he was 3 years ago because his body is just broken.

Slater is almost 4 years older than Inglis but the 2 of them will likely retire because of how f**ked Inglis's knees are.

 

[mistertaylor]

Roberts is only a nightmare to nightclub security.

And women with long hair

 

[Meapro Ham]

You can't honestly believe there is no link between size and aerobic fitness/joint stress? There is a reason why as you increase distance in track events the competitors get smaller and smaller. Having big muscles doesn't help that problem, and in fact it can even add to it as your muscle growth outpaces your ligaments/joints.

A big dude like Inglis constantly stepping at full pace, leaping high in the air to take bombs, it all puts major stress on his joints. He is a shell of the player he was 3 years ago because his body is just broken.

Slater is almost 4 years older than Inglis but the 2 of them will likely retire because of how f**ked Inglis's knees are.

Slater and Inglis have both played about the same number of NRL and rep games. Slater a few more but not 4 seasons worth.

Inglis has played over 300 NRL and rep games and isn't necessarily finished yet. That's a lot. So unlikely playing fullback has shortened his career. He would have got those injuries anyway.

 

[POPEYE]

Don't think so. There's no reason why bigger players should be getting more wear and tear injuries than smaller players if they're fit and in proportion. That's not the same as overweight people needing hip and knee replacements.

Also the aerobic fitness of guys like Hayne and Inglis would be as good as anyone. Their size is not the reason they go missing in games.

It's the reason they're not as nimble as a Fullback is required to be

 

[Meapro Ham]

It's the reason they're not as nimble as a Fullback is required to be

Who Hayne and Inglis? Two of the most successful and highly paid fullbacks in the game? Not nimble enough as a fullback is required to be? Lol

 

[betcats]

Don't see why big fullbacks would be more likely to get injuries than anyone else. Plenty of smaller fullbacks get injuries too (Slater, Stewart, Minichello). What's being big got to do with it?

You guys are talking about size like it's all the the same. Inglis is injury prone cause he's been too fat for years, that weight stresses the knees and back. Latrell is carrying too much fat and it hurts his fitness and agility, he's still an amazing athlete. Hayne in his prime was big but he never carried much fat, it was all muscle in his legs, glutes and core which is why he was so fast and explosive at that size. Tom T is 100kgs plus but he is still lean as f**k, hence he can run like the wind and when you can move that fast at that weight you are going to be a powerful runner. Anyway all four of these guys are freak athletes so it's not a huge deal, but carrying dead weight will affect your longevity no doubt.

 

[Bronco18]

Roberts is fast.. but that's where it ends, the great centres are able to link up with their outside men and put them away, I haven't seen him do that yet

In fairness to Roberts, he did a beautiful job setting up Kahu in the first half, only for Kahu to give up on the play, come off his wing and look for the play the ball.

 

[Tommy Smith]

Latrell is a supremely talented 19 year old kid with about 6 FG games at centre under his belt.

Some of his defending the last couple of weeks has been very poor.

But then his match saving try on the 195kg Viliame Kikau vs the Panthers was awesome in terms of strength, technique and commitment.

Consider this a great learning curve for the kid. He hasn't hit the ground running in FG like Tom T but no shame in that. Some players take longer to hit their stride.

In a few years Latrell will be one of the best players in the game IF he has the mental strength and desire; which I've as of yet no reason to doubt.

 

[Danish]

Slater and Inglis have both played about the same number of NRL and rep games. Slater a few more but not 4 seasons worth.

Inglis has played over 300 NRL and rep games and isn't necessarily finished yet. That's a lot. So unlikely playing fullback has shortened his career. He would have got those injuries anyway.

Skater has played about 50-60 more games than Inglis, and more to the point he has played close to 150 more games than him at fullback.

Inglis was relatively injury free till moving to fullback for Souths, then he started falling apart. To his toughness he has managed to not actually miss many games through his injuries, although tbh strapping him together and needling him up has undoubtedly caused even more damage.