Rumours and Stuff

[IFR33K]

No doubt but that occasional decent run is what makes him better suited to bench than Woods. Lanes laziness is what makes Woods better suited to starting (or at least more minutes)

Maybe. Maybe woods could start with RCG. Paulo off the bench to ad punch. Lane has been very average tbh. Interesting to see what happens

 

[84 Baby]

Maybe. Maybe woods could start with RCG. Paulo off the bench to ad punch. Lane has been very average tbh. Interesting to see what happens

It isn’t really about who starts. It’s about the minutes they play. In a 10 minute stint would you prefer Woods to plod out maybe 20m and make some non-dominant tackles, or Lane to generate a line break coupled with couple of errors and a missed tackle?

 

[hineyrulz]

The only thing I got out of the page of comments was Onlyfans.

 

[Gronk]

Eels - Aaron Woods

Ex-Test star could play finals for new club

Two teams in running for late-season switch

wwos.nine.com.au

 

[Gronk]

 

[IFR33K]

It isn’t really about who starts. It’s about the minutes they play. In a 10 minute stint would you prefer Woods to plod out maybe 20m and make some non-dominant tackles, or Lane to generate a line break coupled with couple of errors and a missed tackle?

With lane you don’t know what brain fart you’re going to get. If you like living on the edge, lane all day. If u want consistent numbers, woods for the win. BA has a knack of getting the best out of forwards. Maybe woods needs BA more then the other way around.

 

[84 Baby]

With lane you don’t know what brain fart you’re going to get. If you like living on the edge, lane all day. If u want consistent numbers, woods for the win. BA has a knack of getting the best out of forwards. Maybe woods needs BA more then the other way around.

Isn’t one of the criticisms is that we don’t have game breakers in our squad? Lane is much closer to a game breaker (either way) than Woods is.
But I think we can agree that we basically arguing over the better of shit and plop. Lane may lose us a game but Woods isn’t going to win us one either.

 

[IFR33K]

Isn’t one of the criticisms is that we don’t have game breakers in our squad? Lane is much closer to a game breaker (either way) than Woods is.
But I think we can agree that we basically arguing over the better of shit and plop. Lane may lose us a game but Woods isn’t going to win us one either.

I’d call lane many things before I call him a game breaker. Or close to it.

 

[84 Baby]

I’d call lane many things before I call him a game breaker. Or close to it.

It’s just in comparison to Woods

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Isn’t one of the criticisms is that we don’t have game breakers in our squad? Lane is much closer to a game breaker (either way) than Woods is.
But I think we can agree that we basically arguing over the better of shit and plop. Lane may lose us a game but Woods isn’t going to win us one either.

I don’t think we need a “game breaker”in the middle. We need players that don’t make errors under pressure either in defence/attack.

When ever we complete high and limit errors we go close to winning.

For example against the panthers if lane doesn’t drop the ball, we have a try scoring opportunity on the panthers line (or ability to build pressure). If Lane worked harder, Api doesn’t score….2 lane errors 2 potential game changing moments.

On Woods, he also has a pretty decent offload.

Anyhow if Woods happens to come, I doubt he is taking Lanes spot, it’s probably Kaufusi/Cartwright (both generally get limited minutes each week).

 

[IFR33K]

Isn’t one of the criticisms is that we don’t have game breakers in our squad? Lane is much closer to a game breaker (either way) than Woods is.
But I think we can agree that we basically arguing over the better of shit and plop. Lane may lose us a game but Woods isn’t going to win us one either.

BA’s game plan is bash and barge with tight defense. Woods may play that role better than lane

 

[84 Baby]

I don’t think we need a “game breaker”, we need players that don’t make errors under pressure either in defence/attack.

When ever we complete high and limit errors we go close to winning.

For example against the panthers if lane doesn’t drop the ball, we have a try scoring opportunity on the panthers line (or ability to build pressure). If Lane worked harder, Api doesn’t score….2 lane errors 2 potential game changing moments.

On Woods, he also has a pretty decent offload.

Anyhow if Woods happens to come, I doubt he is taking Lanes spot, it’s probably Kaufusi/Cartwright (both generally get limited minutes each week).

I think a player that oppositions at least view as a game breaker is a good thing to have. But when we’re talking bench forwards, especially with who is in our starting pack, our bench IMO should definitely be tailored towards low minutes, high impact players. Do you think Woods fits that? If not, how would you utilise him then?
He’s a good squad player but your squad doesn’t play in a finals game, it’s only 17/18 guys who do.

 

[84 Baby]

BA’s game plan is bash and barge with tight defense. Woods may play that role better than lane

This is true but isn’t your criticism that we should be expanding on that game plan?

 

[Joshuatheeel]

I think a player that oppositions at least view as a game breaker is a good thing to have. But when we’re talking bench forwards, especially with who is in our starting pack, our bench IMO should definitely be tailored towards low minutes, high impact players. Do you think Woods fits that? If not, how would you utilise him then?
He’s a good squad player but your squad doesn’t play in a finals game, it’s only 17/18 guys who do.

Wood improves our top 17, thus giving player makers more opportunities

when our starting middles are on the field we go ok, but we drop a bit when they come off.

Normally RCG/Paulo/Nrown play the first 20 to 30 minutes (Nrown maybe a bit longer), then Marata / Lane / Kaufusi comes on.

Neither of those bench middles are “game breakers”.

Woods replacing one of those bench middles strengthens the side. Meaning we don’t drop off as much when the benches come on. We do have a reputation of starting strong then dropping off.

Woods is probably best suited to replace the role RCG plays. The first shitty hit up. And woods can offload (can change a game)


our bench does have a game breaker…Cartwright, and he hardly plays….as it’s more about building pressure ….

Additionally, this discussion is based on Woods current form, BA has a reputation of improving forwards by quite a bit, look at Papa / RCG / Nrown even Cartwright. Woods is still pretty young for a prop and has potential for a bit of improvement too.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Also don’t forget playing Woods less minutes/not starting, also has the potential to improve his impact too.

 

[IFR33K]

This is true but isn’t your criticism that we should be expanding on that game plan?

I don’t think BA is going to listen to me on my criticism. If bash and barge is the plan just saying woods would be the better option

 

[84 Baby]

Wood improves our top 17, thus giving player makers more opportunities

when our starting middles are on the field we go ok, but we drop a bit when they come off.

Normally RCG/Paulo/Nrown play the first 20 to 30 minutes (Nrown maybe a bit longer), then Marata / Lane / Kaufusi comes on.

Neither of those bench middles are “game breakers”.

Woods replacing one of those bench middles strengthens the side. Meaning we don’t drop off as much when the benches come on. We do have a reputation of starting strong then dropping off.

Woods is probably best suited to replace the role RCG plays. The first shitty hit up. And woods can offload (can change a game)


our bench does have a game breaker…Cartwright, and he hardly plays….as it’s more about building pressure ….

Additionally, this discussion is based on Woods current form, BA has a reputation of improving forwards by quite a bit, look at Papa / RCG / Nrown even Cartwright. Woods is still pretty young for a prop and has potential for a bit of improvement too.

With some rounding let’s say these are the 3 props, most efficient game minutes:
RCG and Paulo - 55 each
Woods - 50
That’s 160 minutes of prop time from the 180 available.
We do not have anyone capable of efficiently filling that 20 minute gap (except maybe Greig). They need the type of athleticism and skill that means they can condense what Woods provides but in less than half the time. These guys would be superb at shuttle runs but terrible over long distance.
That means someone is being carried on the bench or willingly reducing the efficiency of one of those 3 other props.
The other alternative is that the bench prop plays lock/edge but then we’d also have to look at Nrown and Marata’s peak game time. Nrown could potentially compact his game time.
All I’m saying is I don’t think Woods is the ideal signing. The strength he has over what is already here, experience, is probably overrated given that big match experience is only in looser Origin sides. He doesn’t have much more finals experience than a lot of our players and only won one more than most of them. Although interestingly all bar one of his finals matches was off the bench, but he did play a few of them with Andrew Fifita

 

[84 Baby]

Also don’t forget playing Woods less minutes/not starting, also has the potential to improve his impact too.

But I don’t think he can. He’s a plodder/accumulator. It’s not a bad thing. RCG is too. The game goes for 80 minutes plus, even if you have guys who make 200m in 30 minutes, you’ll lose if you don’t have guys who can perform for the other 50. But we also have Oregon in that role at least.
The only reasons I can see in signing Woods are:
1. Reducing RCG/Paulo’s load in the lead up to finals to keep them fresh - but come finals it makes no sense to continue that if that was the reason to sign Woods in first place I.e. Woods then becomes less effective.
2. Reducing Paulo’s game time with the hope that his output becomes more efficient. It’s possible but I still feel with a final on the line, I want Junior out there more than Woods, even if that means Junior’s game across the 80 is lessened.

This all said, now that I’ve realised NSW Cup is suspended, having NRL level ready players would be a good thing and if Woods is the one available then so be it.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

With some rounding let’s say these are the 3 props, most efficient game minutes:
RCG and Paulo - 55 each
Woods - 50
That’s 160 minutes of prop time from the 180 available.
We do not have anyone capable of efficiently filling that 20 minute gap (except maybe Greig). They need the type of athleticism and skill that means they can condense what Woods provides but in less than half the time. These guys would be superb at shuttle runs but terrible over long distance.
That means someone is being carried on the bench or willingly reducing the efficiency of one of those 3 other props.
The other alternative is that the bench prop plays lock/edge but then we’d also have to look at Nrown and Marata’s peak game time. Nrown could potentially compact his game time.
All I’m saying is I don’t think Woods is the ideal signing. The strength he has over what is already here, experience, is probably overrated given that big match experience is only in looser Origin sides. He doesn’t have much more finals experience than a lot of our players and only won one more than most of them. Although interestingly all bar one of his finals matches was off the bench, but he did play a few of them with Andrew Fifita

you are assuming Woods can’t produce sufficient runs / tackles in “Lane mins” (eg 40 mins) without considering the style Sharks play.

We play a very simple game in our own half basically, winger, 3 middles, edge, then kick. In this style of game Woods wouId produce what Lane does (middles have to run ….)

 

[84 Baby]

you are assuming Woods can’t produce sufficient runs / tackles in “Lane mins” (eg 40 mins) without considering the style Sharks play.

We play a very simple game in our own half basically, winger, 3 middles, edge, then kick. In this style of game Woods wouId produce what Lane does (middles have to run ….)

Yeah but that consideration is based on the type of player Woods is and comparing it to the closest matches we currently have, RCG, Oregon and a lesser extent Lane. If Oregon/Lane don’t produce the numbers in those minutes, why would we expect Woods to be any different? He’s not significantly bigger, faster, more agile, more skilful or aggressive than those 2. Perhaps he’s fitter but that doesn’t mean he can condense that fitness into a shorter period better.
It’s a risk decision. It could be worth the risk for this year because at worst we carry his salary and miss a different signing for the remainder of season who may or may not have been better suited. But every season after that is more likely wasted cap that could’ve been used on a more ideal player.