Rumoured and Confirmed Signings - XXV

[Poupou Escobar]

Kearney never said he was out of his depth, he said he bit off more than he could chew, specifically in reference to the problems at our club. Bennett made similar comments.

 

[Twizzle]

where does he say that ??

 

[Bigfella]

Bennett has to coach against these guys, as if he wants someone good to be in charge of another club.

His dream world would be if Kearney got appointed to coach all other 15 clubs simultaneously

 

[Poupou Escobar]

where does he say that ??

Out of his mouth, on telly, at the time.

Do you also require a source for the alleged 'out of his depth' comment?

Edit: here you go

But even if I couldn't find a link, he still said it. And Bennett's comments about finding a better club, and Sticky's actions in leaving, both vindicate Kearney's lack of success at Parra. It's an insanely difficult club to coach at, which is why we never get any good ones. Let's hope Arthur's doesn't leave for greener pastures if they're presented to him. We're able to pay him a lot of money but so are a couple of more stable clubs.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Kearney never said he was out of his depth, he said he bit off more than he could chew, specifically in reference to the problems at our club. Bennett made similar comments.

What if he was out of his depth, and bit off more than he could chew? Wouldn't be pretty.

 

[oldmancraigy]

To bite off more than one can chew:
To try and do more than you are able to do

To be out of ones depth
In a situation beyond ones capabilities

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com

There is a very large degree of overlap in meaning between the 2 expressions.

Also, to take the quote from Kearney himself:

I tried my best, but it just didn’t work out

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-stephen-kearney/story-e6frexnr-1226430730454

10/10 for effort.
1/10 for results.

And to use the Pou-o-meter: Kearney has no head coaching job, therefore he was rubbish.

 

[oldmancraigy]

His dream world would be if Kearney got appointed to coach all other 15 clubs simultaneously

It's what he's angling for - as long as he didn't come back here, I could handle him 'coaching' the other 14. Then we'd play Bennett's mob in the grand final every year. Unfortunately he never loses them - but every year that he beat us the odds would stack further against him....

 

[Poupou Escobar]

To bite off more than one can chew:
To try and do more than you are able to do

To be out of ones depth
In a situation beyond ones capabilities

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com

There is a very large degree of overlap in meaning between the 2 expressions.

Also, to take the quote from Kearney himself:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-stephen-kearney/story-e6frexnr-1226430730454

10/10 for effort.
1/10 for results.

And to use the Pou-o-meter: Kearney has no head coaching job, therefore he was rubbish.

So by that logic he was good when he did have a job? You should name that meter after yourself.

When clubs can't sign established coaches with good reputations (e.g. Bennett, Hasler) they are usually better off hiring a non-established coach with a good reputation (e.g. Arthur 2014, Robinson 2013, Kearney 2011, Stuart 2002, Hagan 2001). The alternative is a coach with a poor reputation, whether over hundreds of games (e.g. Hagan, Anderson) or over less than fifty (e.g. Kearney).

But as Jason Taylor has shown, if you're young and persistent, and you can get an assistant coaching job at a pro setup, you can rebuild your reputation to the point that another desperate club will throw you a bone. Coaching pedigree is a massive selling point, and Kiwi and Broncos players still talk Kearney up.

But like Bennett said, he should avoid unstable clubs. He should stick with the Broncos until gout gets the better of Uncle Wayne. Meanwhile I think we might've won the lotto with Brad Arthur.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Or maybe I'm just hoping. ;-)

 

[84 Baby]

Well he at least appears to have a better mindset than Kearney.
Angry red merkin rather than big face dopey merkin

 

[Joshuatheeel]

The turmoil continues at Penrith, with players fronting management and saying they want controversial centre Jamal Idris out of the club.
Team-mates aren't happy with Idris' attitude or application to training and have decided he is excess baggage for 2016.
The Panthers management agrees - they have already told Idris he is free to leave despite being on a good wage and under contract for next season.
Idris is at the crossroads. He barely played this season due to injury and the Panthers are his third club in four years after mixed stints at the Bulldogs and Titans.
He has admitted to off field problems with depression and alcohol abuse stalling his career.
He needs to get his act together quickly - or no club will want to go near him.
At only 25, he should be at the height of his powers but instead finds himself having to re-establish himself after a couple of years in the wilderness.
Parramatta is one club that may throw Idris a lifeline but they would impose strict conditions on any potential deal.

http://www.sportal.com.au/league/nr...igers-jason-taylor/1n5190d7v43jr1k2pustscioq6

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Well he at least appears to have a better mindset than Kearney.
Angry red merkin rather than big face dopey merkin

Arthur actually had experience taking charge of a team. He got the NRL coaching job the hard way working himself up the ladder with results starting at 22 as a captain coach in country footy. You don't get to where Arthur has without ever playing NRL footy if you can't coach.

Most NRL players that getting a NRL coaching job get it the easy way as opposed to Arthur's way.

Look at Arthurs record, what ever side he has coach has had success.

 

[oldmancraigy]

So by that logic he was good when he did have a job? You should name that meter after yourself.

Whaa????

This is what I mean when I say you use circular logic... wasn't it your persistent argument 2/3 years ago that one could judge whether or not someone could coach on whether or not they had a head coaching gig? Because the decision makers know best, and therefore if someone is not hired, then they aren't up to it (or along those lines).

It's very, very far from logical. And certainly not my measure of success. But I thought you used it referring to Taylor? (could be bad memory on my part?)



I'm pretty sure Langmack is just working hard to avoid unstable clubs at the moment. His 14% career record would go a treat - although, as some might say, 35 games was too small a sample size to determine whether or not he was up to it :roll:
SK's 24% is also a tad inflated considering one of the 10 wins he got while here was a week that he wasn't with the club, and the assistants got the job done... mind you, it would only drop him to 22%, so no biggie. I'm quite sure the well established, successful clubs are patiently biding their time and waiting for long face to glance in their direction :sarcasm:


Anyway, to put my ranting aside, hopefully you're right and we hit the jackpot on Arthur. I suppose it's not a bad thing that Manly was trying to poach him back?

 

[Gronk]

Whaa????

This is what I mean when I say you use circular logic... wasn't it your persistent argument 2/3 years ago that one could judge whether or not someone could coach on whether or not they had a head coaching gig? Because the decision makers know best, and therefore if someone is not hired, then they aren't up to it (or along those lines).

It's very, very far from logical. And certainly not my measure of success. But I thought you used it referring to Taylor? (could be bad memory on my part?)



I'm pretty sure Langmack is just working hard to avoid unstable clubs at the moment. His 14% career record would go a treat - although, as some might say, 35 games was too small a sample size to determine whether or not he was up to it :roll:
SK's 24% is also a tad inflated considering one of the 10 wins he got while here was a week that he wasn't with the club, and the assistants got the job done... mind you, it would only drop him to 22%, so no biggie. I'm quite sure the well established, successful clubs are patiently biding their time and waiting for long face to glance in their direction :sarcasm:


Anyway, to put my ranting aside, hopefully you're right and we hit the jackpot on Arthur. I suppose it's not a bad thing that Manly was trying to poach him back?

And Newcastle

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...sion-at-the-eels/story-e6frf3tc-1227509876897

 

[oldmancraigy]

And Newcastle

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...sion-at-the-eels/story-e6frf3tc-1227509876897

Stop being so positive Gronk :sarcasm:

 

[The EELiminator]

no no NO to idris we just got rid of one cancer why would we buy another one?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Whaa????

This is what I mean when I say you use circular logic...

How is it circular logic? You misrepresent my argument and then when I correct you it is somehow circular?

wasn't it your persistent argument 2/3 years ago that one could judge whether or not someone could coach on whether or not they had a head coaching gig? Because the decision makers know best, and therefore if someone is not hired, then they aren't up to it (or along those lines).

It's very, very far from logical. And certainly not my measure of success. But I thought you used it referring to Taylor? (could be bad memory on my part?)

Probably your bad memory, or more likely a good memory of your confirmation bias at the time. You seem convinced that I am both stupid and dishonest. No surprise you see it in every post.

I'm pretty sure Langmack is just working hard to avoid unstable clubs at the moment. His 14% career record would go a treat - although, as some might say, 35 games was too small a sample size to determine whether or not he was up to it :roll:
SK's 24% is also a tad inflated considering one of the 10 wins he got while here was a week that he wasn't with the club, and the assistants got the job done... mind you, it would only drop him to 22%, so no biggie. I'm quite sure the well established, successful clubs are patiently biding their time and waiting for long face to glance in their direction :sarcasm:

Langmack hardly got the opportunity to shine though did he? He took over a shit club at it's lowest point and was made a scapegoat. His subsequent involvement in the NRL probably vindicates Souths' decision though. In politics there's always a need for a scapegoat.

Anyway, to put my ranting aside, hopefully you're right and we hit the jackpot on Arthur. I suppose it's not a bad thing that Manly was trying to poach him back?

It's certainly not a bad sign, but I wouldn't trust Manly's management decisions any more than ours. They were incredibly lucky to keep Hasler as long as they did, after he appeared from nowhere and had relatively instant success. Hopefully Arthur is our Hasler.

 

[hindy111]

Sk big name signings - Lussick- Sandow-Roberts-Hoppa along with re-signing MK

Rickys - Peats-Norman and flicking sandow - MK

Ricky did a lot too put us in the spot we are today. If i had the choice between him and SK? Night and day.

 

[hindy111]

SK put us back 3 yrs with his signings.Ricky atleast moved us forward. DA moved on guys like Mateo and Inu while we all cried.Turned out a very good move.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Those two were 'moved on' at the same time as Anderson, so he doesn't necessarily deserve the credit, especially because there was no replacement for them. The 2011 squad was the weakest we've been since the mid 90s.

Agree Sticky recruited well though. Peats and Norman were great signings. He's recruited well at Canberra too.