Round 21 vs. the SCUM

[dannyt]

Should've signed Folau when you had the chance.

LOL. Glad they didn't, but the truth is the only reason he wasn't signed was because the NRL boycotted it.

 

[R&WTILLIDIE]

“Hook isn’t so bad because we should have won 3 comps under Bennett” has to be the shittest take of all time.

That sounds like something a current board member would say

 

[SBD82]

That sounds like something a current board member would say

There’s some folk in here who would fit right in with our board.

 

[Dragonssupporter]

From what ive seen here recently, I agree that the game has changed, but i think us as members expected to see changes at the Dragons after McGregor left, and to me not much has changed. Were still making the same mistakes, the same tired old players get picked week in, week out, and our style of outdated football remains. The game has changed but we havent. I dont know what it will take to get us past this, but I think it requires a coach who's prepared to blood new players and take 1-2 season hit to get them up to speed. At the moment i just see us repeating the same failed style that has been with us since Wayne left. Sacking junior coaches wont fix the problem-it always starts at the top. Weve got the juniors why dont we use them-literally every NRL team has at least 2 Dragons juniors in it (except maybe the Warriors).
On a slightly different note, Im hopeful Sims wont play for us again. Im just so sick of us having guys in the Bin and being slow learners. So very hard to win with 12 players anymore, and we just keep getting them put out for stupid tackles. Maybe the coach needs to tell them its not the 70's anymore. We can barely play as it is without losing a forward every match

 

[Old Timer]

Question: was the attack better in 2010?

The individual brilliance was much better but the block plays were as boring as bat shit.
Bennett was lucky that the side had great natural speed to compensate for the boring attacking raids and speed is something we certainly don’t have now.

 

[Old Timer]

Should've signed Folau when you had the chance.

You’ve had a few too many peptides best you go to rehab

 

[dannyt]

Going back to my original point, our team/club has not done much in the way of improvement for at least a decade, if not two.

Whomever is pulling the reigns as head coach whether it remain Hook for the foreseeable future or whether someone else takes over, will continue to have a huge job on their hands. All the whinging and impatient supporters in the world won't change this cold hard fact.

Griffin fitted the mould of the coach most were crying out for during Mary's tenure, IE must come from outside the system, be experienced.

Surprising to some, the team's performance hasn't drastically improved over the past two seasons with our new coach. So now it seems everyone is quick to turn on him, I'd still love to know how he managed to get Brisbane and Penrith playing consistent finals in his time with both, especially when so many are convinced he is a yobbo from QLD who can't coach to save his life.

That's really insightful as well that Griffin was sacked in his past head coaching roles, I'm sure you won't find that with the majority of coaches out there would you?

Also I don't know where I said I think Griffin is doing a good job, could you point that out for me?

Just so you know where I stand to help you from making other wild assumptions, it's from a place of wanting the experienced coach from outside the system that we find ourselves with to be able to improve the fortunes of the team.

I hate to break it to you but there are no quick fixes in the position we find ourselves in.

Decades of short sighted and poor decision making from the powers at be won't be fixed overnight.

Some good points. I certainly had no problems with Griffin signing at the time. As you say, he fitted the bill for what was required of our next head coach.

Regarding his past record, why was Griffin sacked from the riff by Gould near the end of the regular season when they were running fourth? Now, there are plenty of rumours circulating as to why this happened. Some that often crop up are an assistant coach's revolt, a negative game plan, and a tendency to curb player's natural abilities. Is it true? I don't know, but it would explain Gould's actions. Is it evident in our play? Certainly not the assistant coach's revolt (perhaps he learned from past mistakes?), but you don't have to look too hard to find evidence of the latter two points.

I concede that you haven't explicitly stated that Griffin is doing a good job, but you do state:
I'd still love to know how he managed to get Brisbane and Penrith playing consistent finals in his time with both, especially when so many are convinced he is a yobbo from QLD who can't coach to save his life. Certainly not a ringing endorsement of his coaching credentials, but closer to an endorsement than a condemnation. So I'll ask directly- do you think Griffin has done a good job and does he deserve to continue as coach?

I suppose it all boils down to this last question. Sure, he is an experienced coach from outside the system, but that doesn't mean he is the best person for the job.

"Just so you know where I stand to help you from making other wild assumptions", I know there there are no quick fixes. I just don't think Griffin is the right person for this job. I also think that the board don't think he is either because he was third choice behind Flannagan, but this was vetoed by the NRL, and Fitzgibbon, who stated he would honour a promise to Nick Politis in not seeking a head coach role until season 2022. I suppose the frustration of supporters is further compounded by observing the cows, donkeys, and scum who are having great seasons to date by banking on youth, a coach with an idea, and some astute purchases.

 

[dannyt]

The individual brilliance was much better but the block plays were as boring as bat shit.
Bennett was lucky that the side had great natural speed to compensate for the boring attacking raids and speed is something we certainly don’t have now.

Fair point, but an alternative argument is Bennett's game plan was based on the team's strength of defence.

I had a look at the stats at the end of 2010. We were eighth for points scored, and as you said before, averaged about 4 points more per game that the current team. However, we were first for points conceded and first for points differential. Is it possible that if Bennet focussed more on attack then defence would've slipped? After all, it was defence that got us through the semi finals and grand final in 2010. Not one point was conceded in the second half in any of those three games.

 

[Old Timer]

Fair point, but an alternative argument is Bennett's game plan was based on the team's strength of defence.

I had a look at the stats at the end of 2010. We were eighth for points scored, and as you said before, averaged about 4 points more per game that the current team. However, we were first for points conceded and first for points differential. Is it possible that if Bennet focussed more on attack then defence would've slipped? After all, it was defence that got us through the semi finals and grand final in 2010. Not one point was conceded in the second half in any of those three games.

Indeed what you say about our defence is correct it was sublime, imperious, impregnable and underpinned the premiership campaign so not in question

I read many posts bagging our attack and some referencing back to how great it was under Bennett

I am merely pointing out the reality and stating that IMO the Bennett game plan was unnecessarily boring and not some feast of scoring off magical set plays and beautiful free flowing football.

We were like a Roman Legion highly disciplined and methodical and at times very bloody boring.

I much preferred the scintillating style of attack we played under Waite & Brown.

Bennett had riches other coaches would have killed for and I don’t believe we ever saw the best of that team and IMO it is a sad indictment of Bennett that we didn’t go back to back and there is probably a case to mount back to back to back.

 

[dannyt]

Indeed what you say about our defence is correct it was sublime, imperious, impregnable and underpinned the premiership campaign so not in question

I read many posts bagging our attack and some referencing back to how great it was under Bennett

I am merely pointing out the reality and stating that IMO the Bennett game plan was unnecessarily boring and not some feast of scoring off magical set plays and beautiful free flowing football.

We were like a Roman Legion highly disciplined and methodical and at times very bloody boring.

I much preferred the scintillating style of attack we played under Waite & Brown.

Bennett had riches other coaches would have killed for and I don’t believe we ever saw the best of that team and IMO it is a sad indictment of Bennett that we didn’t go back to back and there is probably a case to mount back to back to back.

You're right that the attack was much more scintillating under under Waite and Brown, and we probably should've bagged a premiership from each coach. However, we didn't, and after waiting since 1979 for a premiership, I really didn't care how we won in 2010.

EDIT: Mind you, I was disappointed with 2011 after a season which started with so much promise. It seemed we couldn't continue to simply shut out teams, and probably should've looked at alternative game plan.

 

[Gourley's Socks]

I don't recall the Bennett years as being especially flashy either - in fact, I remember a lot of criticism at the time.

However, I will note that the average points scored for a top-eight team in 2022 is nearly five points more than in 2010. Regardless of differential, the nature of the game is such that there are clearly many more points being scored now than a decade ago.

And given Dragons had the worst attacking record of teams in the eight in 2010, the way I interpret that is we would need an additional 9 points per game to be the worst attacking side in the top eight today.

 

[dannyt]

I don't recall the Bennett years as being especially flashy either - in fact, I remember a lot of criticism at the time.

However, I will note that the average points scored for a top-eight team in 2022 is nearly five points more than in 2010. Regardless of differential, the nature of the game is such that there are clearly many more points being scored now than a decade ago.

And given Dragons had the worst attacking record of teams in the eight in 2010, the way I interpret that is we would need an additional 9 points per game to be the worst attacking side in the top eight today.

I see what you're saying, but disagree with your method.
-In 2010, we averaged 21.6 points per game and were eighth for points scored.
-This year, sharks are eighth for points scored, and average 22.2 points per game.
-This means the 2010 team would need to score an additional 0.6 points per game to be eighth now for points scored.

As an aside:
-The average for all teams in 2010 were 21.2 points/game, and the top 8 = 22.7
-The average for all teams in 2022 is 21.1 points/game, and the top 8 = 25.2

Looks like the top teams are scoring a lot more points this year compared to 2010, but the average points per game is about the same. This indicates that the gulf between the top and bottom teams is much wider today than what it was in 2010. Granted, some potential skew in the above figures as Melbourne ranked 16th in 2010 due to salary cap breaches, and averaged 20.4 points per game. However, the cows were 15th in 2010 and averaged 17.7 points per game, while the tigpies are 15th in 2022 and average 16.1 points per game.

 

[SBD82]

Fair point, but an alternative argument is Bennett's game plan was based on the team's strength of defence.

I had a look at the stats at the end of 2010. We were eighth for points scored, and as you said before, averaged about 4 points more per game that the current team. However, we were first for points conceded and first for points differential. Is it possible that if Bennet focussed more on attack then defence would've slipped? After all, it was defence that got us through the semi finals and grand final in 2010. Not one point was conceded in the second half in any of those three games.

You’re right that it was based on the team’s strength in defence, but our attack was also founded on the team’s strengths.

On the left side we had a halfback who was not fast or particularly skilled, but was a great decision maker. Outside him he had an edge back rower who could run a great unders line, a centre who could run through an inside shoulder or draw the winger by running an out line and put away his winger, a winger with blistering speed and a fullback who could be there as a dummy option to hold up the defence or play a sweeping receiver to put away the winger. It was in an era where the ruck was slower so points were harder to come by and deconstructing a defensive line was more difficult because you couldn’t rely on attacking a retreating line. That play on the left side was so beautifully suited to the talents of those players, and is now being dismissed as a “block play”. FFS.

On the right side we had a half with blistering speed over 10, a centre who could beat his man when given early ball, a straightforward defensive edge backrower and a slow but strong and instinctive winger. That side played more ad lib but centred on getting early ball to the centre.

Far from inhibiting the natural abilities of the players, Bennett looked at what he had, then played to their strengths. Everyone knew what was coming, but it had so many variables that they couldn’t stop it.

Compare that to our current team where we have two centres who need early ball to create and a halfback who hasn’t been instructed to give them early ball. We have a second rower who can create but again, isn’t given early ball. We have two young fullbacks who can sniff around an offload but the forwards have been instructed not to offload. Our game plan is “give it to Benny”.

It’s just incredible to me that anyone can fail to see how beautifully coached we were in 2009-2011 vs the rabble that we are today.

 

[Dragon David]

You’re right that it was based on the team’s strength in defence, but our attack was also founded on the team’s strengths.

On the left side we had a halfback who was not fast or particularly skilled, but was a great decision maker. Outside him he had an edge back rower who could run a great unders line, a centre who could run through an inside shoulder or draw the winger by running an out line and put away his winger, a winger with blistering speed and a fullback who could be there as a dummy option to hold up the defence or play a sweeping receiver to put away the winger. It was in an era where the ruck was slower so points were harder to come by and deconstructing a defensive line was more difficult because you couldn’t rely on attacking a retreating line. That play on the left side was so beautifully suited to the talents of those players, and is now being dismissed as a “block play”. FFS.

On the right side we had a half with blistering speed over 10, a centre who could beat his man when given early ball, a straightforward defensive edge backrower and a slow but strong and instinctive winger. That side played more ad lib but centred on getting early ball to the centre.

Far from inhibiting the natural abilities of the players, Bennett looked at what he had, then played to their strengths. Everyone knew what was coming, but it had so many variables that they couldn’t stop it.

Compare that to our current team where we have two centres who need early ball to create and a halfback who hasn’t been instructed to give them early ball. We have a second rower who can create but again, isn’t given early ball. We have two young fullbacks who can sniff around an offload but the forwards have been instructed not to offload. Our game plan is “give it to Benny”.

It’s just incredible to me that anyone can fail to see how beautifully coached we were in 2009-2011 vs the rabble that we are today.

NIcely put SBD82.

 

[Old Timer]

You’re right that it was based on the team’s strength in defence, but our attack was also founded on the team’s strengths.

On the left side we had a halfback who was not fast or particularly skilled, but was a great decision maker. Outside him he had an edge back rower who could run a great unders line, a centre who could run through an inside shoulder or draw the winger by running an out line and put away his winger, a winger with blistering speed and a fullback who could be there as a dummy option to hold up the defence or play a sweeping receiver to put away the winger. It was in an era where the ruck was slower so points were harder to come by and deconstructing a defensive line was more difficult because you couldn’t rely on attacking a retreating line. That play on the left side was so beautifully suited to the talents of those players, and is now being dismissed as a “block play”. FFS.

On the right side we had a half with blistering speed over 10, a centre who could beat his man when given early ball, a straightforward defensive edge backrower and a slow but strong and instinctive winger. That side played more ad lib but centred on getting early ball to the centre.

Far from inhibiting the natural abilities of the players, Bennett looked at what he had, then played to their strengths. Everyone knew what was coming, but it had so many variables that they couldn’t stop it.

Compare that to our current team where we have two centres who need early ball to create and a halfback who hasn’t been instructed to give them early ball. We have a second rower who can create but again, isn’t given early ball. We have two young fullbacks who can sniff around an offload but the forwards have been instructed not to offload. Our game plan is “give it to Benny”.

It’s just incredible to me that anyone can fail to see how beautifully coached we were in 2009-2011 vs the rabble that we are today.

With what Bennett had it should have been definitely 2 and most likely 3 premierships so IMO and a lot of other opinions we underachieved. He should have done better.

Indeed today we are a rabble with poor skills and poor game plans and no one is saying otherwise but for many the simple fact is that it wasn't all sunshine and smiles under Bennett and the fact remains he stifled our attack and won 1 premiership in a season where Melbourne were rendered useless.

Obviously some think that winning 1 and squandering 1 if not 2 is totally acceptable and is not underachieving or worth reflecting upon.

Bennett introduced a very restricted and very mechanical style of attack and that is still the case today yes it was successful I know that but FMD I feel dudded having not seen a great side be far more lethal.

 

[SBD82]

With what Bennett had it should have been definitely 2 and most likely 3 premierships so IMO and a lot of other opinions we underachieved. He should have done better.

Indeed today we are a rabble with poor skills and poor game plans and no one is saying otherwise but for many the simple fact is that it wasn't all sunshine and smiles under Bennett and the fact remains he stifled our attack and won 1 premiership in a season where Melbourne were rendered useless.

Obviously some think that winning 1 and squandering 1 if not 2 is totally acceptable and is not underachieving or worth reflecting upon.

Bennett introduced a very restricted and very mechanical style of attack and that is still the case today yes it was successful I know that but FMD I feel dudded having not seen a great side be far more lethal.

How can someone who has followed the game so long have so little understanding of it?

 

[dragon thomo]

I believe your right Old Timer, the reason we got away with it when Bennett coached was that we had quality players across the park.
Possibly Hunt would be the only player that would make that side in 2010.
Then again I was a fan of Hornby.

 

[Old Timer]

How can someone who has followed the game so long have so little understanding of it?

I don't know so best you look in the mirror and ask yourself.

 

[SBD82]

I don't know so best you look in the mirror and ask yourself.

I asked the bloke in the mirror. He said it’s because you’re a stupid stubborn old bugger who overestimates his own intelligence.

But don’t worry OT. I stood up for you. I told him you’re not that old.

You’re welcome.

 

[Old Timer]

I believe your right Old Timer, the reason we got away with it when Bennett coached was that we had quality players across the park.
Possibly Hunt would be the only player that would make that side in 2010.
Then again I was a fan of Hornby.

I too was a big fan of Benny and thought him to be very astute and very capable.

I saw how the Bennett Bronco's carved teams up including us with "stand and applaud" razzle dazzle football.

IMO when Bennett came to us he was worried about his own legacy and became ultra conservative and put the handbrake on a very powerful attacking weapon and made defence the weapon of choice and whilst he strangled sides with it he robbed the patrons of what would have been sublime attacking football.

Despite what others may think I was pleased to win the premiership but not convinced that Bennett was the masterful coach he once was and I firmly believe he influenced us negatively in respect of eyes up attacking football and I also believe that influence is still around today.

Gould once said Bennett came and did what he had to do to win a premiership for the long suffering fans and I believe he did what he did because he was too scared of his own legacy now that he was out of Brisbane in other words IMO he should have let the team play all out attacking footy and again IMO nobody was going to beat us for the premiership 09-11.