Barba vs Boyd

[lynx000]

Port, I have been meaning to ask, who is the young lady in your avatar?

 

[Renegade]

It's also the guy with most try saves. He may drop a few bombs, but at least he doesn't run away from them...

I don't think it's applicable, as Barba has always had an issue with the high ball, whereas only last year did Boyd supposedly run away from bombs (by the way, if we are going to try and compare the two, are you able to find stats of this, it appears to me this is a couple of instances that are being blown way out of proportion).

 

[jarro65]

Barba did have an issue with the high ball while at the Dogs, then went away in the offseason and worked on it and came back and was fine with it.

It's all about confidence with these guys, and i'm sure if we don't get Boyd then Barba will be our fullback and Wayne will have him catching bombs with his eyes closed.

 

[Renegade]

If you have someone that has issues catching bombs for the majority of their career, and yet has one year that is an improvement, it is more likely to be a statistical anomaly than an indication of consistent improvement, especially considering the year of improvement was not the most contemporary.

In any case, I'm not sure Bennett will improve Barba tenfold under the high ball. We've always had players that have been suss under the high ball even in Bennetts time, Hodges and Tupou to name but two, and they never necessarily improved to the point where you'd always be confident of them taking it.

Maybe vidot and barba can just bomb each other all summer and we'll see marked improvement next year!

 

[Porthoz]

Port, I have been meaning to ask, who is the young lady in your avatar?

She's the new Victoria's Secret face for next year. Her name is Sara Sampaio, and she happens to be a supporter of my Portuguese soccer club (she's wearing their jersey in the avatar).

I don't think it's applicable, as Barba has always had an issue with the high ball, whereas only last year did Boyd supposedly run away from bombs (by the way, if we are going to try and compare the two, are you able to find stats of this, it appears to me this a couple of instances are being blown way out of proportion).

Haha, I don't think thet keep those stats. It's like not missing a tackle because you weren't there to even attempt it.

It's a matter of opinion of course, but other than bomb catching, Barba positions himself better and saves more tries than Boyd, which in my opinion are the most important defensive characteristics of a fullback.
Unless your name is Inglis or Hayne, you won't be a big guy as a fullback, and there is a fair chance you'll be trampled by a rampaging forward. Throwing yourself under he guy to prevent him to ground the ball is something Barba seems to be very good at.

 

[Renegade]

I will admit barba is quite good at getting himself between player and ground when in goal, I think that is a fair claim to make. Part of me thinks that is more attitude than skill though, having that internal desire to do the 1%'s to help your side.

Perhaps if Boyd has his head screwed on we'll see if he's capable of making the same last ditch efforts - I can't recall whether I've ever seen Boyd pull off a miraculous try saving tackle if I'm honest.

 

[Kimlo]

AFAIK Porthoz, that only applies in a case like ours where Barba was transferred to us. Boyd isn't being transferred, the club agrees to release him, so essentially he can go sip on cocktails for 6 months then decide to return to the NRL, would he still be forced to be registered at 600k or whatever it is that he earns at the Knights?

Obviously, the Broncos will push the case for the Knights to pay a portion of his "wage" but that's purely so we can pay him more without actually paying him more. If the Knights refuse to cover the difference, and Boyd agrees to play on a lesser amount which is still reasonable in the eyes of the salary cap auditor, then why does his old contract have any relevance?

 

[Renegade]

AFAIK Porthoz, that only applies in a case like ours where Barba was transferred to us. Boyd isn't being transferred, the club agrees to release him, so essentially he can go sip on cocktails for 6 months then decide to return to the NRL, would he still be forced to be registered at 600k or whatever it is that he earns at the Knights?

I would assume no, because his market value would've dropped from not playing for a year and from having suffered an illness which would take his focus away from football and therefore potentially diminish his onfield value.

You couldn't register his contract for 100k but I think there'd be some degree of leeway on the value of the contract - he signed the Knights one when he was riding high and coming off the best couple of years of his career (up until and since that point), it would be disingenuous to suggest he deserves the same amount of money, the rise in the salary cap may blow out the proportions a bit though.

 

[Porthoz]

AFAIK Porthoz, that only applies in a case like ours where Barba was transferred to us. Boyd isn't being transferred, the club agrees to release him, so essentially he can go sip on cocktails for 6 months then decide to return to the NRL, would he still be forced to be registered at 600k or whatever it is that he earns at the Knights?

Obviously, the Broncos will push the case for the Knights to pay a portion of his "wage" but that's purely so we can pay him more without actually paying him more. If the Knights refuse to cover the difference, and Boyd agrees to play on a lesser amount which is still reasonable in the eyes of the salary cap auditor, then why does his old contract have any relevance?

You cannot transfer players in the NRL.

The old contract has to be terminated through both parties agreement, or actioning of a valid clause.
A new contract has to be registered with the new club, and it's value cannot be lower than the value of the old contract. Whether all of it comes from the new club, or whether the old club agrees to carry part of it is not important, as long as the total value is at least equal as the existing previous contract.

I will find the fucking document when I have more time, to put this to bed once and for all, but the above is pretty much the gist of it.

Please don't try to make sense of it. As B4L said, it's the NRL... where common sense is a foreign word.

Out of curiosity, do you think having Boyd instead of Barba is worth say... an extra $400K (surely, as a long term rep, he would command at least that) out of the Broncos cap?

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Really not happy about this move. Barba was NOT bad this year.

 

[Renegade]

Nothing has happened yet so calm the farm lol.

 

[Cult]

Really not happy about this move. Barba was NOT bad this year.

What was he then?

 

[Kimlo]

You cannot transfer players in the NRL.

The old contract has to be terminated through both parties agreement, or actioning of a valid clause.
A new contract has to be registered with the new club, and it's value cannot be lower than the value of the old contract. Whether all of it comes from the new club, or whether the old club agrees to carry part of it is not important, as long as the total value is at least equal as the existing previous contract.

I will find the fucking document when I have more time, to put this to bed once and for all, but the above is pretty much the gist of it.

Please don't try to make sense of it. As B4L said, it's the NRL... where common sense is a foreign word.

Out of curiosity, do you think having Boyd instead of Barba is worth say... an extra $400K (surely, as a long term rep, he would command at least that) out of the Broncos cap?

If we're under the cap next year anyway, sure. If we're not then it's a 50/50 at best, as a straight addition, no he's not worth it but I don't think it's as simple as apples vs apples. Barba is supposedly on not much at all until the third year, by which time we could have dumped a few under performers and shuffled the money around to make it work.

 

[broncos4life]

At the end of the day the salary cap is a very fluid thing and on top of that we have know idea what money Boyd will get if he comes. He is only under contract at Newcastle for 1 more year so even if it does work the way Porthoz says it does, then the 600k is only relevant for the first year of his contract anyway

 

[Alec]

Barba was NOT bad this year.

Okay.

 

[Kimlo]

At the end of the day the salary cap is a very fluid thing and on top of that we have know idea what money Boyd will get if he comes. He is only under contract at Newcastle for 1 more year so even if it does work the way Porthoz says it does, then the 600k is only relevant for the first year of his contract anyway

Well this is one factor, the other thing is, if we can actually afford to sign him for next year then we obviously have money under the cap anyway which was never going to be used for a big signing, so if it's unused cap money we may as well use all of it, in which case the whole "value" thing becomes huge because we're getting a rep player on money we wouldn't have used anyway, then for year's 2-3-4, he'd be on what ever we really sign him for.

 

[Foordy]

Well this is one factor, the other thing is, if we can actually afford to sign him for next year then we obviously have money under the cap anyway which was never going to be used for a big signing, so if it's unused cap money we may as well use all of it, in which case the whole "value" thing becomes huge because we're getting a rep player on money we wouldn't have used anyway, then for year's 2-3-4, he'd be on what ever we really sign him for.

If we have some money spare in the salary cap then we should be using it to secure Hannant ... maybe not on the same money as he was on, but still better than the reported 100k offer we did make him. but we need to use him better than what Griffin did.

IMO we would have been better off starting Hannant for the earlier stages of games, then bring on the more mobile guys.

I would be starting Moose and Hannant to weather the early onslaught,

 

[Cult]

If we have some money spare in the salary cap then we should be using it to secure Hannant ... maybe not on the same money as he was on, but still better than the reported 100k offer we did make him. but we need to use him better than what Griffin did.

IMO we would have been better off starting Hannant for the earlier stages of games, then bring on the more mobile guys.

I would be starting Moose and Hannant to weather the early onslaught,

Talking about being able to catch. Hannant can't catch unless it is passed straight into his hands. Everything else bounces off his chest.