McInnes and Madge having breakfast together

[TruSaint]

Hunt in 2024 will be 34. He is no Cam Smith, has never played a full season at 9, and doubt he can make 50 plus tackles a game. McInnes by then will be 30.

Hunt needs to earn his spot at 7 for the coming season. Beyond that, too many variables.

 

[Maddragon99]

At this stage in their career neither Sullivan or Amone are in a position to ask for a big money contract. So it would be safe to sign them to a long term low coin contract and then upgrade them as their worth becomes better known and as our salary cap capacity will allow.

If we could off-load Hunt and keep McInnes that would be my preference however, it seems that there is no demand for Hunt from other clubs but there is a demand for McInnes. So I like the idea of having Hunt at 9 and letting Clune, Sullivan, Amone and even Bird, fight it out for the halves positions.

It’s been said a thousand times you can’t keep them all. Signing McInnes means committing to Hunt at 7 until 2024. No way Amone hangs around that long to play first grade. If we thought Hunt could lead us to a premiership then that would be fine but this year we didn’t win a single game with him at 7. Hardly encouraging.

 

[Maddragon99]

Hunt in 2024 will be 34. He is no Cam Smith, has never played a full season at 9, and doubt he can make 50 plus tackles a game. McInnes by then will be 30.

Hunt needs to earn his spot at 7 for the coming season. Beyond that, too many variables.

McGuber & Millward have stiffed us with the worst player contract in history. Hunt just doesn’t fit so everything becomes a compromise.

 

[Old Timer]

McGuber & Millward have stiffed us with the worst player contract in history. Hunt just doesn’t fit so everything becomes a compromise.

The Hunt signing was in context made for all the right reasons namely because we hadn't had a quality half since Head.

The 2 issues were

1. No one new that Hunt wouldn't produce the goods expected of a marquis player.
2. That the contract was for so long that it provided no way out for the club if point 1 in fact eventuated.

Your point re us making compromises is valid and we should just face the facts, select him at half, he either makes a fist of that or off to CC and we just have to cop it on the chin.

All this dicking around trying to save face for a bad signing or as they say "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" just magnifies the problem and consigns the team to the bottom half of the comp.

 

[TruSaint]

McGuber & Millward have stiffed us with the worst player contract in history. Hunt just doesn’t fit so everything becomes a compromise.

Cant argue with that.

Agree with @Old Timer that we needed an established half, and I know many respected posted disagree with me, but we should never sign such lengthy deals.

Three year deals, with options to extend keep players on notice, with the catalyst to perform.

Im not saying he is is a dud, but I have not seen him take a game in the balance and steer our team home.

I am willing to acknowledge though that all of his time with us has been under our most regressive coach, thus I want to see what he can do in 21' and beyond.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Interesting comparisons between McInnes and Hunt careers especially around the hooking role.

McInnes has started 107 times as hooker, scored 15 tries but a win ratio of around 43%. From the bench he's played 14 games scored 2 tries and win ratio of 57%.

Hunt has started (officially) 14 times at hooker scored 1 try with win ratio of 57%. As a half, he's started 154 times scoring 53 tries and win ratio of 53%. Amazingly he's started from the bench 74 times (mainly at hooker) scored 7 tries with a win ratio of 58%.
Further on Hunt, as an International rep he's played 7 games all from the bench, scored 2 tries with a win ratio of 71%.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

 

[TruSaint]

Interesting comparisons between McInnes and Hunt careers especially around the hooking role.

McInnes has started 107 times as hooker, scored 15 tries but a win ratio of around 43%. From the bench he's played 14 games scored 2 tries and win ratio of 57%.

Hunt has started (officially) 14 times at hooker scored 1 try with win ratio of 57%. As a half, he's started 154 times scoring 53 tries and win ratio of 53%. Amazingly he's started from the bench 74 times (mainly at hooker) scored 7 tries with a win ratio of 58%.
Further on Hunt, as an International rep he's played 7 games all from the bench, scored 2 tries with a win ratio of 71%.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Edit:-

Had to re-read your post. Makes sense.

Thx

 

[BLM01]

The Hunt signing was in context made for all the right reasons namely because we hadn't had a quality half since Head.

The 2 issues were

1. No one new that Hunt wouldn't produce the goods expected of a marquis player.
2. That the contract was for so long that it provided no way out for the club if point 1 in fact eventuated.

Your point re us making compromises is valid and we should just face the facts, select him at half, he either makes a fist of that or off to CC and we just have to cop it on the chin.

All this dicking around trying to save face for a bad signing or as they say "trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" just magnifies the problem and consigns the team to the bottom half of the comp.

The reason we went all out for Hunt is that he knocked us back with a decent contract offered.in 2015 when they knew Benji? was not the answer.
He had been targeted by MARY for some time not by Millward.
Millward eventually had to get the deal the coach wanted the most next time round when his contract was up. They made sure of it.
But I am with you @Old Timer pick him at half, he can play there with the right game plan and players around him. He proved that 5 years ago, long time I know.
The only IF..the mental scars of that GF wont heal properly with the media pressure of his current contract etc
Maybe Bennett saw that between 2016 & 2017 hence he was thrown more in as hooker / bench player to be eventually dropped. That did not help either. Then BINGO money tree falls out of the sky.

 

[Old Timer]

Interesting comparisons between McInnes and Hunt careers especially around the hooking role.

McInnes has started 107 times as hooker, scored 15 tries but a win ratio of around 43%. From the bench he's played 14 games scored 2 tries and win ratio of 57%.

Hunt has started (officially) 14 times at hooker scored 1 try with win ratio of 57%. As a half, he's started 154 times scoring 53 tries and win ratio of 53%. Amazingly he's started from the bench 74 times (mainly at hooker) scored 7 tries with a win ratio of 58%.
Further on Hunt, as an International rep he's played 7 games all from the bench, scored 2 tries with a win ratio of 71%.

You can draw your own conclusions from that.

DS
Can you please give us the numbers for games only played in the big red v as IMO they are the only ones that matter.

Hunt's overall stats will be somewhat inflated due to playing with a club that was already well and truly up and winning regularly as were the rep sides he played in.

The point for me is in a good stable even nags sometimes look good.

 

[Dragonslayer]

DS
Can you please give us the numbers for games only played in the big red v as IMO they are the only ones that matter.

Hunt's overall stats will be somewhat inflated due to playing with a club that was already well and truly up and winning regularly as were the rep sides he played in.

The point for me is in a good stable even nags sometimes look good.

As far as I can get on stats:

McInnes has started as hooker for the Dragons 83 times for 38 wins, a win ratio of 46%
Hunt has started as hooker for the Dragons 8 times for 4 wins, a win ratio of 50%

Not much difference really when you factor in the large difference in games played. Inyeresting that Hunt has not scored a try at hooker with the Dragons. McInnes has 11.

At half-back for the Dragons, Hunt has started 51 times for 24 wins, at a win rate of 47%.

Remember these are 'starting' figures, not coming from the bench.

You are 100% right OT, a lot boils down to the quality of the stable. We have a new trainer so maybe both can 'improve' significantly over the 2021 season.

 

[Maddragon99]

Cant argue with that.

Agree with @Old Timer that we needed an established half, and I know many respected posted disagree with me, but we should never sign such lengthy deals.

Three year deals, with options to extend keep players on notice, with the catalyst to perform.

Im not saying he is is a dud, but I have not seen him take a game in the balance and steer our team home.

I am willing to acknowledge though that all of his time with us has been under our most regressive coach, thus I want to see what he can do in 21' and beyond.

The irony is Clune was in the system at the time, why not back our own first? Clune proved last year he’s got what it takes to play first grade.

 

[possm]

The irony is Clune was in the system at the time, why not back our own first? Clune proved last year he’s got what it takes to play first grade.

Clune was not interested in playing fulltime first grade at the time, he was heavily involved in his education studies and so was happy to be a part time player.

 

[dragon thomo]

I believe Clune is at the club as a back up only. As for McInnes if he is looking at shopping himself around I would let him go. I can understand him looking around but we can't have our captain looking at other avenues.
I would go for hunt at hooker and Norman and Sullivan in the halves. We can then use McInnes money .to help bolster our forwards.

 

[possm]

I believe Clune is at the club as a back up only. As for McInnes if he is looking at shopping himself around I would let him go. I can understand him looking around but we can't have our captain looking at other avenues.
I would go for hunt at hooker and Norman and Sullivan in the halves. We can then use McInnes money .to help bolster our forwards.

I have learned over the years that 'leading by example' is only one quality of a leader. The most important quality is following the example, and following the directions of the leader.

 

[BLM01]

I believe Clune is at the club as a back up only. As for McInnes if he is looking at shopping himself around I would let him go. I can understand him looking around but we can't have our captain looking at other avenues.
I would go for hunt at hooker and Norman and Sullivan in the halves. We can then use McInnes money .to help bolster our forwards.

Why is it not OK. It should not mean that we throw our toys out of the cot and just say get rid of him
Blame the club if you want because they have not tried to sign him before
A player and his manager who is coming off contract within the next year is gonna exercise due diligence
It is the norm these days.
I hope he stays and as captain too.
And would it not be good if it was similar money to any Tigers offer. That would speak volumes.

 

[dragon thomo]

Speaking to other clubs is not just the issue. McInnes is a good player, but he is not a elite player. He has deficiencies in his attack, also he rarely kicks from dummy half for which all the top hookers do very well.
So for me I would let him go.

 

[dungay dragon]

Speaking to other clubs is not just the issue. McInnes is a good player, but he is not a elite player. He has deficiencies in his attack, also he rarely kicks from dummy half for which all the top hookers do very well.
So for me I would let him go.

Totally agree
Not a good look if your Skipper is shopping himself about ...
For the past few years we have had the instability in the Club with the on goings of the De Belin case
Nip it in the bud now , one way or another , and move on ...

 

[Old Timer]

I believe Clune is at the club as a back up only. As for McInnes if he is looking at shopping himself around I would let him go. I can understand him looking around but we can't have our captain looking at other avenues.
I would go for hunt at hooker and Norman and Sullivan in the halves. We can then use McInnes money .to help bolster our forwards.

So in effect you are saying immediately punt Mc Innes (our best player for 2 years) put Hunt to hooker after being dropped from the SOO due to a rookie being far better than him and put the highly underachieving Norman into the halves.

Surely you should have typed it in pink text

 

[Forbes Creek Dragons]

Speaking to other clubs is not just the issue. McInnes is a good player, but he is not a elite player. He has deficiencies in his attack, also he rarely kicks from dummy half for which all the top hookers do very well.
So for me I would let him go.

I wouldn’t, we bought Cam as a hooker and Hunt as a 7. We have a squad albeit an incomplete one and no matter what they are worth we select the best person in the best position imo. If Cam isn’t cutting it at 9 we bring in BB if Hunt isn’t cutting it at 7 we bring in Sullivan or Clune. Hunt can go back to CC and work on his game in a lesser comp not shunt a bloke out of position who is doing their job. If Hunt did his job, McInnes wouldn’t need to kick. Nothing stopping Hunt from taking a dart or kick out of dummy half anyway playing 7.

 

[dragon thomo]

I again am not saying McInnes is not a good player, but i do believe he lacks the smarts of other hooker. He is tough and defends really well but i believe his attack is one dimensional.
If he put on extra size I believe he would be a better lock as he runs good lines.