The reason so called "plodders' do well at clubs like the Storm and the Roosters is because they have 6 or 7 stars, and not 2 or 3 only.
If they lose a star to injury, the plodder that steps in is surrounded by stars who lift to compensate (Mitchell at 6 for the loss of Cronk earlier in the season).
We have 2 or 3 and therefore we simply don't have enough to lift the quality of our plodders.
100%. And one of those players in Nathan Brown is injured again, so we're even less able.
I also think that we have consistently (not just under BA but certainly it's an issue now too) signed the wrong plodders.
It's all well and good to have plodders...but generally the better clubs below Storm/Roosters level success sign safe plodders. We sign guys like Takairangi, Terepo, Smith, and others because they have more skill than say a Mitch Aubusson. But there is a reason they will never be as good a player as him despite being more skilful, and that reason is between their ears and in their attitude.
Every club has plodders. People who criticise us for having plodders need to STFU. The problem is the kind of plodders you choose to put up with and the players you put around them. You can, of course, carry a Taka in the side. But I think we have too many of that kind of average first grader in our squad.
But those are the risks you have to take when your club is still widely regarded as a woeful shambles, too. All these issues come from a similar place IMO.