Team 2025

[HarVeeGee]

oh and the answer is 3.

3 years Pearce played with the Knights before they went after a young playmaker in Clifford. No doubt after the realization Pearce was well past his best.

So after they signed a 28 year old Mitchell Pearce to play in the halves with a 23 year old Connor Watson, they should have predicted that Pearce would leave the NRL in his early 30’s rather than play on till he was about 35 like the majority of players of his stature, and also told some flash 18 year old halfback “hey, come to the Knights, you might get a run at 7 before you turn 25”.

Obviously the issue there is that Connor Watson isn’t a five-eighth, and also Pearce always played better with a more halfback-y 6 who can help steer the team around, but 1. the popular opinion at the time was that 6 *was* Connor’s position (he’d played quite well there with the Roosters) and 2. The main reason we managed to sign Pearce over Manly & Cronulla is that he wanted to prove himself as that top tier organising 7 after the Roosters rissoled him.

Tell me with a straight face that you would have found it easy to tell the origin halfback in his prime who you just signed because his previous club replaced him that a key thing you wanted to do was groom his replacement, who’d be taking over in four years time.

Again: You don’t like the outcomes, and you disagree with the decisions - with the benefit of hindsight. But there WAS a process involved. You can be really uncharitable to the point of dinging the club for not having the ability to predict the future when you talk about this stuff lol.

 

[HarVeeGee]

We also did have the exact kind of prospect you’re talking about when Pearce arrived, an Australian schoolboys rep roughly the same age as Nathan Cleary, who used to get picked over Nathan for rep teams. Signing Pearce resulted in us losing him as he searched for more opportunities - you know, because waiting around for a 28 year old to retire is usually a bad bet.

You may know who I mean. He went to the Bulldogs. Fella by the name of Jack Cogger.

 

[Dr Dr Gimedanews]

So after they signed a 28 year old Mitchell Pearce to play in the halves with a 23 year old Connor Watson, they should have predicted that Pearce would leave the NRL in his early 30’s rather than play on till he was about 35 like the majority of players of his stature, and also told some flash 18 year old halfback “hey, come to the Knights, you might get a run at 7 before you turn 35”.

Obviously the issue there is that Connor Watson isn’t a five-eighth, and also Pearce always played better with a more halfback-y 6 who can help steer the team around, but 1. the popular opinion at the time was that 6 *was* Connor’s position (he’d played quite well there with the Roosters) and 2. The main reason we managed to sign Pearce over Manly & Cronulla is that he wanted to prove himself as that top tier organising 7 after the Roosters rissoled him.

Tell me with a straight face that you would have found it easy to tell the origin halfback in his prime who you just signed because his previous club replaced him that a key thing you wanted to do was groom his replacement, who’d be taking over in four years time.

Again: You don’t like the outcomes, and you disagree with the decisions - with the benefit of hindsight. But there WAS a process involved. You can be really uncharitable to the point of dinging the club for not having the ability to predict the future when you talk about this stuff lol.

No coincidence the successful clubs are the best at mitigating and future proofing. It's a million dollar business not a chook raffle.

Pearce was 29 in April the year he joined the Knights, and at no point in 4 years did he have a good/ above average / great halves partner to play alongside. (a Clifford hail marry in his last year, a guy that couldnt crack first grade at the cowboys doesnt count) Pearce was well done the year before.

The above is beside the point and you're obfuscating - The point being I would have gone after a gun young halves player to play alongside Pearce, 1) to ease pressure on him and offer a point of difference. 2) to future proof the spine with a succession plan in the halves.

The above is common sense and no hindsight required whatsoever, all successful organizations the world over operate in such a way. Anticipation is a key element when working in a upward, dynamic, and successful professional environment.

If you cannot anticipate and have contingency inbuilt then you don't have a plan.........and are average.

 

[Dr Dr Gimedanews]

We also did have the exact kind of prospect you’re talking about when Pearce arrived, an Australian schoolboys rep roughly the same age as Nathan Cleary, who used to get picked over Nathan for rep teams. Signing Pearce resulted in us losing him as he searched for more opportunities - you know, because waiting around for a 28 year old to retire is usually a bad bet.

You may know who I mean. He went to the Bulldogs. Fella by the name of Jack Cogger.

Certainly turned out the gun hey.

 

[macavity]

No coincidence the successful clubs are the best at mitigating and future proofing. It's a million dollar business not a chook raffle.

Pearce was 29 in April the year he joined the Knights, and at no point in 4 years did he have a good/ above average / great halves partner to play alongside. (a Clifford hail marry in his last year, a guy that couldnt crack first grade at the cowboys doesnt count) Pearce was well done the year before.

The above is beside the point and you're obfuscating - The point being I would have gone after a gun young halves player to play alongside Pearce, 1) to ease pressure on him and offer a point of difference. 2) to future proof the spine with a succession plan in the halves.

The above is common sense and no hindsight required whatsoever, all successful organizations the world over operate in such a way. Anticipation is a key element when working in a upward, dynamic, and successful professional environment.

If you cannot anticipate and have contingency inbuilt then you don't have a plan.........and are average.

We thought we had gone for a gun young half - Watson.

 

[HarVeeGee]

No coincidence the successful clubs are the best at mitigating and future proofing. It's a million dollar business not a chook raffle.

Pearce was 29 in April the year he joined the Knights, and at no point in 4 years did he have a good/ above average / great halves partner to play alongside. (a Clifford hail marry in his last year, a guy that couldnt crack first grade at the cowboys doesnt count) Pearce was well done the year before.

The above is beside the point and you're obfuscating - The point being I would have gone after a gun young halves player to play alongside Pearce, 1) to ease pressure on him and offer a point of difference. 2) to future proof the spine with a succession plan in the halves.

The above is common sense and no hindsight required whatsoever, all successful organizations the world over operate in such a way. Anticipation is a key element when working in a upward, dynamic, and successful professional environment.

If you cannot anticipate and have contingency inbuilt then you don't have a plan.........and are average.

So what you’re saying is, we should have been more like Melbourne, and had the foresight to replace our halfback with a gun young #7 prospect the way they did with Brodie Croft.

A good club would never, in a desperation move, replace their #7 with a guy who couldn’t even crack first grade at the Titans, and moreover one who was actually a fullback, the way the Storm did with Jahrome Hughes. On the suggestion of Adam O’Brien.

 

[Woody90]

yes as my post suggests, I'm fully aware of that, a sideways investment. A young player with potential for the future is where I would have spent that money.

That’s not what we were looking for with Cogger though. We wanted a bloke with FG experience already that jump in straight away and cover for a game here and there if Hastings/Gamble when down. We didn’t want a young half that might be able to do that in a year or 2, we wanted someone ready to go. He was direct replacement for Clune who was also experienced. You’re comparing 2 completely different types of purchases.

 

[Old dog]

Yes see Cogger as replacement for Clune but his length of contract indicates that no local junior was expected to be a ready for that period and now the Hastings situation has changed all that we need to sign Brown to improve our team and if not go to next likely, possibly Sexton, and also develop our best junior over next few seasons to replace Cogger. This needs to start happening now and be in place for 2026

 

[Yosh]

Someone going to make a 2025 predictions thread??

 

[ryan.a87]

I predict we will be dreadful for the first half of the season and be calling for the coaches head…..string some wins together, scrape into the 8 and get knocked out first week

what odds is that paying?

 

[The Axe of Druss]

f**k we really aren't suggesting Sexton as a target are we? Who's next after that, Flanno Jnr?

I honestly think a 7.Gamble 6.Sharpe is probably our best bet for 2025 based on the 1st trial (yes, I'm aware it's only a trial etc etc). The comp is painfully short on good young halves and even less so on good systems to bring them through in.

 

[Mr_Knightside]

Anyone know what’s happening with Tom Weaver? He’s a good young half but is stuck at the Gold Coast who are even worse than us at developing halves (pretty sure they’re talking about Campbell/Brimson in the halves and Foran to 14) so I wonder if he’s one that would be open to a change of club.

 

[Apey]

 

[Frederick]

So guess that's us at full strength. Don't hate it. At least AOB can see we're chock full of average halves so is doing anything he can to keep them out of first grade

 

[perverse]

As expected, a bit light up front this year with no DSaf and no-one brought in to replace him. Otherwise, the top team looks good outside of the halves. We need more from our bench middles this year. Holding the fort isn't good enough. Jones and Croker should be the last couple of names in your top 30, not in the top 17.

Yep. We have problems that we just didn't solve this off season. Need at least one half and another middle to replace DSaf.

 

[Burwood]

Like the first 14. Hoping Brailey can play 30 minutes in the middle of the match and focus on his running game a bit more. Feel a bit meh about 15-17.

 

[mozza91]

Good side. Glad he’s gone with Gamble at half. Only Elliot missing now, With either him or Friz at 13 and the other back to the bench the 17 immediately looks better balanced.

Our best 17 can definitely be a knocking on the Top 4 calibre side. Depth in the middle and outside back looks an issue though.

 

[Yosh]

Are Frizell and/or Elliot able to play front row? Maybe not start there but be part of the rotation? They do seem a bit on the smaller side...

 

[Woody90]

I probably would have switched Brailey and Crossland + KPP/Lucas but other than that it’s a great side. Absolutely the best we could have picked for what we have.

Tbh at this point I don’t even care we don’t have a halfback out there as Cogger’s “defence” was making me way more nervous. Seems AOB sees it the same way.

 

[Woody90]

As expected, a bit light up front this year with no DSaf and no-one brought in to replace him. Otherwise, the top team looks good outside of the halves. We need more from our bench middles this year. Holding the fort isn't good enough. Jones and Croker should be the last couple of names in your top 30, not in the top 17.

Yep. We have problems that we just didn't solve this off season. Need at least one half and another middle to replace DSaf.

I reckon being light up front is why we’re giving Tyrone Thompson + Hopwood another run even though McEwan is probably closer to FG.