Mortimer holds Kearney's faith

[Eels Dude]

Maitua easily would become our lock IMO if he's in form. Ben Smith was outstanding in 2010 and offered pretty much what Lewis offered - maybe with less ball-playing ability. But certainly Ben's defense was just as good if not better, and his running game improved outta sight.

Horo can do everything Lewis can IMO. He has great ball skills.

OK, maybe I used bad examples. But the real point behind it was that just because someone starts for another club, it doesn't necessarily mean they would walk right up into our club and start. I doubt Hindy would be a walk-up starter for any other club, but to us he's integral. Someone like Hannant may not make our starting prop rotation because we already have Mannah, Poore and Fui (and Webb, although tbh I see him more as a back-rower), but he is still a top player.

I see your point regarding Mortimer - he probably wouldn't play halfback for any other club, and would probably only make it at 5/8 at a small handful. But that's irrelevant, really - he's our 5/8. He's one of only two viable options.

Take your Blue and Gold glasses off. I respect the fact you regard our players so highly but please be realistic.

Maitua... he's been out of the game 2 years and was playing poorly in his last year at the Dogs. He's a talent, but a myth at the same time.

Ben Smith was great in defence, but offered little in attack, something Lewis offers both in playmaking ability and second phase play, AND can keep up the worldload in defence.

Horo, well he had a great debut year, but let's leave it at that. He played 35 minutes off the bench every week, made some solid metres, a reasonable tackle count for the time he was on the field, but really you're delusional if you're saying he's better than a current international in Luke Lewis.

 

[Schiltzenberger]

Maitua easily would become our lock IMO if he's in form. Ben Smith was outstanding in 2010 and offered pretty much what Lewis offered - maybe with less ball-playing ability. But certainly Ben's defense was just as good if not better, and his running game improved outta sight.

Horo can do everything Lewis can IMO. He has great ball skills.

OK, maybe I used bad examples. But the real point behind it was that just because someone starts for another club, it doesn't necessarily mean they would walk right up into our club and start. I doubt Hindy would be a walk-up starter for any other club, but to us he's integral. Someone like Hannant may not make our starting prop rotation because we already have Mannah, Poore and Fui (and Webb, although tbh I see him more as a back-rower), but he is still a top player.

I see your point regarding Mortimer - he probably wouldn't play halfback for any other club, and would probably only make it at 5/8 at a small handful. But that's irrelevant, really - he's our 5/8. He's one of only two viable options.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I think it's a good way to judge players, even though it is slightly flawed. Which I'll show later*.

With our props and Hannant, I'm not sure. Mainly because as you say we have a good prop rotation. Moi Moi, Poore and Mannah would get into most teams' prop rotation, and probably start on lots of teams. So it would be hard far any prop to turn up to Parra and take a starting spot.
But again, that is a good way to see that our props are good, thinking how they'd fit into other teams.

I disagree with Hindy though, I think he'd start in every team in the comp. He's a player coaches love and I reckon all coaches would love to have him.

I agree we don't have many options in the halves, so Morts will most likely get given first chance at 6. It really sucks to have some of the most key positions in the game as our weakest.


*The flaw in this little comparison thing is young inexperienced players and our own personal opinion obviously, for example Humble. I've said that Morts would struggle to make most starting lineups while also saying I'd rather have Humble at 6. Obviously Humble wouldn't make many, or any, starting lineups either, he may be lucky to even get onto some benches.
This though is down to having played very little NRL and everyone not knowing his potential in the NRL. IMO though in his short amount of game time I've seen more potential in Humble than Morts, and Morts has had plenty of time to show us what his got, which isn't much.
So it really works better with players that have been around for a little while and shown what they can do.

So the difference is, we know what Morts can do, Humble is still a question mark. I'd still be willing to throw Humble in there to see what he can do, as IMO it can't be worse than having Morts out there.
I also see Morts as a spark plug off the bench at most, so while ever he is our starting 6 we should be looking for a better option.

 

[boxhead]

I'm a massive Luke Lewis and Petero Civoniceva fan myself (but I love my Eels ) and I think if we had those two at the club, Lewis would definitely be a starting second-rower or five-eighth, and Petero would definitely be starting prop.

 

[Eelementary]

Take your Blue and Gold glasses off. I respect the fact you regard our players so highly but please be realistic.

Maitua... he's been out of the game 2 years and was playing poorly in his last year at the Dogs. He's a talent, but a myth at the same time.

Ben Smith was great in defence, but offered little in attack, something Lewis offers both in playmaking ability and second phase play, AND can keep up the worldload in defence.

Horo, well he had a great debut year, but let's leave it at that. He played 35 minutes off the bench every week, made some solid metres, a reasonable tackle count for the time he was on the field, but really you're delusional if you're saying he's better than a current international in Luke Lewis.

THAT is a myth. He was making metres and causing all sorts of havoc on the right fringe before he succumbed to injury.

Who's saying anything about bloke X being better than bloke Y? Perhaps you need to actually read what is being discussed: this is all about players being right for the team. Just because bloke X is an international doesn't necessarily mean he'd be a right fit for a certain team.

I already admitted I used the first examples that came off the top of my head. So here's a better example - would Ben Creagh walk right up to start in our squad? Premiership-winning back-rower and an Origin player. TBH I don't think he'd necessarily walk right into our starting line-up because he wouldn't necessarily fit our squad as well as he does at St. George. THAT was my point.

It's like saying Hayne is a sh*t fullback because he wouldn't play fullback for Manly, Melbourne or the Gold Coast. He's not - he just wouldn't be the right fit for them necessarily.

 

[Eelementary]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I think it's a good way to judge players, even though it is slightly flawed. Which I'll show later*.

With our props and Hannant, I'm not sure. Mainly because as you say we have a good prop rotation. Moi Moi, Poore and Mannah would get into most teams' prop rotation, and probably start on lots of teams. So it would be hard far any prop to turn up to Parra and take a starting spot.
But again, that is a good way to see that our props are good, thinking how they'd fit into other teams.

I disagree with Hindy though, I think he'd start in every team in the comp. He's a player coaches love and I reckon all coaches would love to have him.

I agree we don't have many options in the halves, so Morts will most likely get given first chance at 6. It really sucks to have some of the most key positions in the game as our weakest.


*The flaw in this little comparison thing is young inexperienced players and our own personal opinion obviously, for example Humble. I've said that Morts would struggle to make most starting lineups while also saying I'd rather have Humble at 6. Obviously Humble wouldn't make many, or any, starting lineups either, he may be lucky to even get onto some benches.
This though is down to having played very little NRL and everyone not knowing his potential in the NRL. IMO though in his short amount of game time I've seen more potential in Humble than Morts, and Morts has had plenty of time to show us what his got, which isn't much.
So it really works better with players that have been around for a little while and shown what they can do.

So the difference is, we know what Morts can do, Humble is still a question mark. I'd still be willing to throw Humble in there to see what he can do, as IMO it can't be worse than having Morts out there.
I also see Morts as a spark plug off the bench at most, so while ever he is our starting 6 we should be looking for a better option.

Fair enough points.

I like Mortimer for his attitude, but I see his skills are...Well, "under-polished". But what concerns me is from what I saw of Humble, in my opinion, he didn't seem to do much better.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am hoping against hope that this Murray kid develops quicker than expected.

 

[mrpwnd]

It's like saying Hayne is a sh*t fullback because he wouldn't play fullback for Manly, Melbourne or the Gold Coast. He's not - he just wouldn't be the right fit for them necessarily.

That sentiment shall change come 2011 when Hayne rises above all.

 

[Eelementary]

That sentiment shall change come 2011 when Hayne rises above all.

As far as I'm concerned he's one of only two blokes who gets automatic selection in our side (the other being Hindy).

 

[Maroubra Eel]

As far as I'm concerned he's one of only two blokes who gets automatic selection in our side (the other being Hindy).

And Morts.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

http://www.parramattasun.com.au/new...ue/mortimer-holds-kearneys-faith/2007879.aspx

Good to see Kearney backing morts.