Round 8 v Canberra

[Crashtest]

No not that.

Rumour is he was dropped for Bathurst for missing sessions. Then did the same in NSW Cup here we are with him not named for the 3rd week in NSW Cup. Hopefully it is him being a dick and not sick family or something like that as to where he is.

Thanks for clarifying that. Given all the shit that went on in the offseason, I was expecting a lot worse, so that's actually not too bad.

Hopefully he is back soon and pulls his head in, on an doff the field.

 

[martielang]

Him and Ellis I don't get the wraps on. Burns and Martin look better prospects

Big, mobile, aggressive. Can play middle or edge. If he got an extended run, I think he’d he secure a spot. I genuinely believe you need an ‘enforcer’ or two in the 17, at the moment we have zip. Obviously if his application isn’t there, what can you do?

I always though Martin would be too small but looks like I was wrong, great start to his career. Burns probably still has some growing to do but looks a player.

 

[Pomoz]

Our two best ever teams had a good splash of outside talent. I’m not suggesting we go in the complete opposite direction and ignore juniors. Im suggesting we do both.

You said yourself, Gould was only looking for outside talent to fill gaps. That’s the wrong way to go about it. If we have a good player in a certain position, but can get a better player on the open market, we should do it. Not just settle for good.

Also don’t understand what you mean by we don’t have the money? Everyone operates within the same cap, and last I looked we have had several third party deals.

It’s not a matter of attracting the best outside talent, it’s a matter of attracting *better* talent that we have, even if that means dispensing with a good player.

Gould did this in his early years here, but his aim was to move away from that. Makes no sense. In that regard I’m glad he’s gone.

"Filling the gaps" is doing what you suggest. If you haven't got the right level of talent in a position you recruit. But we must put our resources into development so that we can supply 80% of the talent ourselves, or as close to it as possible. The Broncos haven't brought their premierships over the years, they have developed a massive number of rep players. They then add the odd superstar like Tallis or Lazarus. We can do that, but first we need enough quality juniors to form the basis of a decent team. I think we are getting there now. We should be doing everything we can to make our development pathways the best in the NRL. With the resources we have we can do that. But we can't compete in the market for quality signings like the Roosters and Broncos et al.

The salary cap is nothing to do with having the money, because if it did clubs like the Titans and Canberra would sign more superstars. Consider this, I can sign for the Panthers for $500k or the Roosters for $400k. What do you do? Hello Uncle Nick, where is the locker room. The salary cap is only part of having the money. Be a desirable club to go too, a history of winning, a great coach, and a healthy supply of third party agreements (registered or not. If you believe players report all their agreements, I have a harbour bridge to sell you) and you get more for the same pool of money. Simple. That's why we can't afford to do what you suggest, we simply don't have the money to pay the "overs" we will have to pay to get the same players as a team like the Broncos.

 

[herbert henry1908]

"Filling the gaps" is doing what you suggest. If you haven't got the right level of talent in a position you recruit. But we must put our resources into development so that we can supply 80% of the talent ourselves, or as close to it as possible. The Broncos haven't brought their premierships over the years, they have developed a massive number of rep players. They then add the odd superstar like Tallis or Lazarus. We can do that, but first we need enough quality juniors to form the basis of a decent team. I think we are getting there now. We should be doing everything we can to make our development pathways the best in the NRL. With the resources we have we can do that. But we can't compete in the market for quality signings like the Roosters and Broncos et al.

Filling the gaps isn’t what I suggested at all.

My plan would be actively recruiting *better* players, not just recruiting in positions we’re weak.

Ie. We could have a good player on our books, but if there’s someone out there that’s 10% better we go after him. That’s not really a gap. That’s just constant improvement.

Filling a gap makes it sound like recruiting only when we’re weak or thin in a position.

Re your point about the Broncos.

They had the whole of south east Queensland to themselves for years, the panthers on the other hand are in a competitive market. There’s no comparison to be made here. I know this is what Gus was basing his plans off but it’s short sighted.

Look what’s happened to the broncos model in more recent time, when they’ve been up against a better run Gold Coast outfit & the Melbourne Storm that heavily recruit in south east Queensland. Broncos haven’t won a premiership in 13 years, they’ve won one premiership in 18 years.

We may not be able to compete at the top tier for recruitment, but I’ve shown you names that we were able to recruit. Good players that made us better. This idea of 80% of the talent coming from our system is fanciful

The salary cap is nothing to do with having the money, because if it did clubs like the Titans and Canberra would sign more superstars. Consider this, I can sign for the Panthers for $500k or the Roosters for $400k. What do you do? Hello Uncle Nick, where is the locker room. The salary cap is only part of having the money. Be a desirable club to go too, a history of winning, a great coach, and a healthy supply of third party agreements (registered or not. If you believe players report all their agreements, I have a harbour bridge to sell you) and you get more for the same pool of money. Simple. That's why we can't afford to do what you suggest, we simply don't have the money to pay the "overs" we will have to pay to get the same players as a team like the Broncos.

This is for the top tier of recruitment, that’s a narrow focus. We can recruit good players that aren’t superstars, we’ve done it before, even won a premiership of off it.

I’m talking 10% improvement on a current player, that’s good enough to be out there in the market. That’s moneyball.

We’re easily in the market for good $400-500k players, you’re totally underselling the club. I’ve listed several players in that category that Gus was able to recruit. He even pulled off bringing the current NSW 5/8 to the club.

We do have the money to pay the overs, hell we’ve given overs to retain players. See Nathan Cleary.

 

[Pomoz]

Filling the gaps isn’t what I suggested at all.

My plan would be actively recruiting *better* players, not just recruiting in positions we’re weak.

Ie. We could have a good player on our books, but if there’s someone out there that’s 10% better we go after him. That’s not really a gap. That’s just constant improvement.

Filling a gap makes it sound like recruiting only when we’re weak or thin in a position.

Re your point about the Broncos.

They had the whole of south east Queensland to themselves for years, the panthers on the other hand are in a competitive market. There’s no comparison to be made here. I know this is what Gus was basing his plans off but it’s short sighted.

Look what’s happened to the broncos model in more recent time, when they’ve been up against a better run Gold Coast outfit & the Melbourne Storm that heavily recruit in south east Queensland. Broncos haven’t won a premiership in 13 years, they’ve won one premiership in 18 years.

We may not be able to compete at the top tier for recruitment, but I’ve shown you names that we were able to recruit. Good players that made us better. This idea of 80% of the talent coming from our system is fanciful




This is for the top tier of recruitment, that’s a narrow focus. We can recruit good players that aren’t superstars, we’ve done it before, even won a premiership of off it.

I’m talking 10% improvement on a current player, that’s good enough to be out there in the market. That’s moneyball.

We’re easily in the market for good $400-500k players, you’re totally underselling the club. I’ve listed several players in that category that Gus was able to recruit. He even pulled off bringing the current NSW 5/8 to the club.

We do have the money to pay the overs, hell we’ve given overs to retain players. See Nathan Cleary.

Filling the gaps is recruiting better players, hence the word "gaps". Why recruit if we aren't weak in a position? Remembering of course that it costs a lot more to replace a junior who generally play for less money to stay at their junior club.

We can still get healthy player turnover. The way we are generating quality juniors at the moment, we should be able to add new players regularly as we bring through juniors. Out with Edwards, in with Aekins and that sort of thing. We may have occasions where we only generate 70% of the players we need through juniors, but that doesn't matter, the policy must be flexible, who knows we could have more than 80% sometimes.

The whole premise of this only works if the clubs development pathways are good enough. For that to happen it needs to be strategically managed and invested in. We haven't always done that. The other mistake we have made is in equating junior success with producing NRL players. We had so many juniors not make the grade because we didn't have the right pathways to ensure they progress (out sourcing the reserve grade team for example). That appears to be working now and we have seen a number of debutants over the last three years and they hit the ground running, not fail and disappear without trace (Sjeika for example).

My example of recruitment applies to every player. Whether you are just a good player or a superstar, generally you will choose Panthers over the Roosters and the like, only if the money is better. $400k and $500k players are a perfect example. We pay $500k, the Storm pay $350k because "we are the Storm and you get to win things, live in Melbourne and work under the greatest coach of the modern era". Recruit four players like that and it starts to add up. The good teams can have one extra $500k player because they don'y pay overs.

I agree we should recruit where necessary, but I think you underestimate how difficult it is. The players you listed were at the back end of their careers, Soward in his prime wouldn't have Penrith the time of day, neither would Merrin. We are a development club. We need to be a development club. But I never said we shouldn't recruit externally. We want the same thing: success. We are arguing about the degree of recruitment needed. Good discussion though.

Re the Broncos, I'm not sure their model is broken as much as they have made poor choices for the coaches to replace Bennett. They still have plenty of star juniors, they just haven't been managed well. Just watching them get their arses handed to them by South's. As the papers have put it, the old fashioned coach versus the new breed of degree qualified, analytical sports science master. University of life 1, University of Sports Science 0.

 

[franklin2323]

Big, mobile, aggressive. Can play middle or edge. If he got an extended run, I think he’d he secure a spot. I genuinely believe you need an ‘enforcer’ or two in the 17, at the moment we have zip. Obviously if his application isn’t there, what can you do?

I always though Martin would be too small but looks like I was wrong, great start to his career. Burns probably still has some growing to do but looks a player.

Ivan likes them small not too many coaches would of played Docker. Martin's technique is the one gets under the ribs and cuts them in half. Just without the carry on of Hetherington

Burns leg speed and line running are it for me. A decent try scorer too for a forward like Waddell just needs a start and won't look back

 

[franklin2323]

Filling the gaps is recruiting better players, hence the word "gaps". Why recruit if we aren't weak in a position? Remembering of course that it costs a lot more to replace a junior who generally play for less money to stay at their junior club.

We can still get healthy player turnover. The way we are generating quality juniors at the moment, we should be able to add new players regularly as we bring through juniors. Out with Edwards, in with Aekins and that sort of thing. We may have occasions where we only generate 70% of the players we need through juniors, but that doesn't matter, the policy must be flexible, who knows we could have more than 80% sometimes.

The whole premise of this only works if the clubs development pathways are good enough. For that to happen it needs to be strategically managed and invested in. We haven't always done that. The other mistake we have made is in equating junior success with producing NRL players. We had so many juniors not make the grade because we didn't have the right pathways to ensure they progress (out sourcing the reserve grade team for example). That appears to be working now and we have seen a number of debutants over the last three years and they hit the ground running, not fail and disappear without trace (Sjeika for example).

My example of recruitment applies to every player. Whether you are just a good player or a superstar, generally you will choose Panthers over the Roosters and the like, only if the money is better. $400k and $500k players are a perfect example. We pay $500k, the Storm pay $350k because "we are the Storm and you get to win things, live in Melbourne and work under the greatest coach of the modern era". Recruit four players like that and it starts to add up. The good teams can have one extra $500k player because they don'y pay overs.

I agree we should recruit where necessary, but I think you underestimate how difficult it is. The players you listed were at the back end of their careers, Soward in his prime wouldn't have Penrith the time of day, neither would Merrin. We are a development club. We need to be a development club. But I never said we shouldn't recruit externally. We want the same thing: success. We are arguing about the degree of recruitment needed. Good discussion though.

Re the Broncos, I'm not sure their model is broken as much as they have made poor choices for the coaches to replace Bennett. They still have plenty of star juniors, they just haven't been managed well. Just watching them get their arses handed to them by South's. As the papers have put it, the old fashioned coach versus the new breed of degree qualified, analytical sports science master. University of life 1, University of Sports Science 0.

Broncos are perfect example of what not too do. Recruited and paid overs for Milford and Bird. Left with forwards who are barely old enough to drink. Need a good mix out there and developing guys is slow so at times need to recruit to fill holes

 

[Panther_Daz]

Iirc Gould actually said it was his aim to have a team of either all juniors or guys who debut for us, that’s crazy.

I believe the plan was to have 80% of the NRL squad developed through the Panthers system by 2020.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I believe the plan was to have 80% of the NRL squad developed through the Panthers system by 2020.

Still nuts.

For this alone I’m glad Gould is gone. The game operates as an open market now, players shift easily. If we put blinkers on to what’s out there we’ll never compete.

 

[franklin2323]

Still nuts.

For this alone I’m glad Gould is gone. The game operates as an open market now, players shift easily. If we put blinkers on to what’s out there we’ll never compete.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6103481/goulds-penrith-legacy-lives-on-in-cameron/?cs=14326

Reading Matt Cameron's comments today is much better.

More importantly, together with new pathways in their own backyard, it means the Panthers no longer spends money looking elsewhere for talent.

It's a production line that also means the club doesn't have to make a serious push into the free agency market each year.

As it should be if the squad needs it then should be doing it

 

[BxTom]

Still nuts.

For this alone I’m glad Gould is gone. The game operates as an open market now, players shift easily. If we put blinkers on to what’s out there we’ll never compete.

It would only be nuts if there wasn't a salary cap (or we has the rorters sombrero). A mix of locally produced players (being the majority) with a few big signings is how Broncos have successfully worked for several years. The proof is in the pudding. As to those saying we don't have some imports - Tamou, Maloney, Kikau, Winterstein etc etc.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Filling the gaps is recruiting better players, hence the word "gaps". Why recruit if we aren't weak in a position? Remembering of course that it costs a lot more to replace a junior who generally play for less money to stay at their junior club.

If you have an 80% aim on the board you may only fill the gaps that are the worst. The aim shouldn’t have a number, it should simply be to develop the best juniors we can, and to recruit the best players we can.

We can still get healthy player turnover. The way we are generating quality juniors at the moment, we should be able to add new players regularly as we bring through juniors. Out with Edwards, in with Aekins and that sort of thing. We may have occasions where we only generate 70% of the players we need through juniors, but that doesn't matter, the policy must be flexible, who knows we could have more than 80% sometimes.

Are we really producing quality juniors?

Look at the side right now, only four outside recruits, we’re mostly juniors and we’re struggling to compete.

I’ve felt for a long time the club and it’s fans overestimate the juniors. We produce some good players to be sure, but how many actually go on to be genuine stars?

The whole premise of this only works if the clubs development pathways are good enough. For that to happen it needs to be strategically managed and invested in. We haven't always done that. The other mistake we have made is in equating junior success with producing NRL players. We had so many juniors not make the grade because we didn't have the right pathways to ensure they progress (out sourcing the reserve grade team for example). That appears to be working now and we have seen a number of debutants over the last three years and they hit the ground running, not fail and disappear without trace (Sjeika for example).

As mentioned above, as we’ve moved to more juniors, the team has actually gotten worse. Now that could be just a short term aberration, but it’s notable that the best team under Gould’s watch was heavy with recruits.

My example of recruitment applies to every player. Whether you are just a good player or a superstar, generally you will choose Panthers over the Roosters and the like, only if the money is better. $400k and $500k players are a perfect example. We pay $500k, the Storm pay $350k because "we are the Storm and you get to win things, live in Melbourne and work under the greatest coach of the modern era". Recruit four players like that and it starts to add up. The good teams can have one extra $500k player because they don'y pay overs.

It depends on how many players are on the open market and how many roster spots those teams have. They aren’t always competing for the same talent.

I agree we should recruit where necessary, but I think you underestimate how difficult it is. The players you listed were at the back end of their careers, Soward in his prime wouldn't have Penrith the time of day, neither would Merrin. We are a development club. We need to be a development club. But I never said we shouldn't recruit externally. We want the same thing: success. We are arguing about the degree of recruitment needed. Good discussion though.

Merrin was in his prime. Gould also got others before they were about to hit their prime. (See Peachey, Whare)

Plus we don’t need everyone to be in their prime anyway.

The degree of recruitment shouldn’t be limited is the problem I see. By putting a number on it you automatically aim towards that number, you put blinkers on effectively.

We’ll always have more juniors than other clubs, but this 80% number is fanciful. We just won’t be able to develop enough quality players to compete.

Re the Broncos, I'm not sure their model is broken as much as they have made poor choices for the coaches to replace Bennett. They still have plenty of star juniors, they just haven't been managed well. Just watching them get their arses handed to them by South's. As the papers have put it, the old fashioned coach versus the new breed of degree qualified, analytical sports science master. University of life 1, University of Sports Science 0.

Broncos went from winning 5 premierships in 12 years

To

Winning 1 premiership in 18 years.

Their system is broken, they didn’t adapt to the realities of the new marketplace.

 

[herbert henry1908]

It would only be nuts if there wasn't a salary cap (or we has the rorters sombrero). A mix of locally produced players (being the majority) with a few big signings is how Broncos have successfully worked for several years. The proof is in the pudding. As to those saying we don't have some imports - Tamou, Maloney, Kikau, Winterstein etc etc.

The broncos haven’t successfully worked like this since the 1990’s, though. That’s the point I’ve been making.

And I never said we don’t have some imports.

 

[herbert henry1908]

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6103481/goulds-penrith-legacy-lives-on-in-cameron/?cs=14326

Reading Matt Cameron's comments today is much better.

More importantly, together with new pathways in their own backyard, it means the Panthers no longer spends money looking elsewhere for talent.

It's a production line that also means the club doesn't have to make a serious push into the free agency market each year.

As it should be if the squad needs it then should be doing it

If management have this mindset we just won’t compete to win titles. There’s just not enough talent in the Penrith area to not make a serious push into free agency.

Gould was too old school in this regard, it’s not the 1980’s where guys only play for their local teams. They shift easily, and they shift often. Gould proved it himself with his early recruiting here.

 

[herbert henry1908]

All Cameron has to do is re-sign juniors...

This attitude will lock us into mediocrity. Mark my words.

 

[herbert henry1908]

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6103481/goulds-penrith-legacy-lives-on-in-cameron/?cs=14326

Reading Matt Cameron's comments today is much better.

More importantly, together with new pathways in their own backyard, it means the Panthers no longer spends money looking elsewhere for talent.

It's a production line that also means the club doesn't have to make a serious push into the free agency market each year.

As it should be if the squad needs it then should be doing it

@Pomoz

After reading this piece I’m even more convinced the club is too focused on juniors.

It’s great that Gus improved the junior pathways, but the info in here makes it seem like all we have to do is re-sign youngsters. For me this a recipe for long term mediocrity.

 

[franklin2323]

If management have this mindset we just won’t compete to win titles. There’s just not enough talent in the Penrith area to not make a serious push into free agency.

Gould was too old school in this regard, it’s not the 1980’s where guys only play for their local teams. They shift easily, and they shift often. Gould proved it himself with his early recruiting here.

Gould is stuck in the 90's in many ways.

I took hope that Cameron said not Every year instead of having targets like Gus.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Let’s look at the top 3 panthers teams of the last 20 years

1. 03/04 team - roughly a 55/45 split in favour of juniors

2. 2014 team - roughly a 60/40 split in favour of recruits

3. 2016-2018 team - roughly 65/35 split in favour of juniors (this one is hard to lock down, took a random sample of 5 games)


I don’t know what makes us think an 80% target is realistic, the best teams were closer to the 50/50 mark. I know correlation doesn’t always equal causation, but I don’t see evidence 80% could work.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Gould is stuck in the 90's in many ways.

I took hope that Cameron said not Every year instead of having targets like Gus.

Where does he say that? I’ve read the article three times and can’t see it.

 

[franklin2323]

Where does he say that? I’ve read the article three times and can’t see it.

Towards the bottom.

Hopefully it means we keep the pathways but will go to market if needed. Ivan and Brandy should get who they want in these discussions