BHQ Poll Results - Broncos

[Anonymous person]

Please can you tell us if any of the "get rid of barba hes useless" people voted for Five-Eighth? lol

 

[Ari Gold]

Voting was anonymous (much like you!) so I can't tell who is being consistent and who is not. But I think it's pretty telling that only 2 people voted to release him and we now have more saying how he's not even a fullback anymore.

What I don't get is that some people seem obliged to defend Bennett on every matter because they support him. I support Milford, but if he comes out and says he thinks his best position is five eight, I'm still going to disagree with him and still support him. It's almost as if there's no option any more to dislike WB but agree with something he does or like WB but disagree with something he does.

 

[Unbreakable]

I probably voted for Barba at Five-Eighth considering how long ago this survey took place, at which time Boyd was still at the Knights and there wasn't even an inkling that Bennett wanted to sign him (Survey was well before Bennett's first press-conference with the Broncos)

Queue Anonymous Person response: "Some of us knew the second we signed Bennett that we had signed Boyd as well, lol"

 

[Anonymous person]

and there wasn't even an inkling that Bennett wanted to sign him

really? are you still going to stick by that?

 

[Big Pete]

I voted for Milford at five eighth, Barba at fullback.

But that was consistent with my opinion that I didn't want Boyd at the club unless it was at a discount. In truth, if Boyd was coming, he was playing fullback.

Won't go into why, already have like 3-4 threads dedicated to it. Don't really need a 5th but these are some really interesting results never the less.

 

[Unbreakable]

really? are you still going to stick by that?

Stick by what? I had absolutely no idea if Boyd was going to come or not, considering the roster we had at the time of Bennett's signing it didn't even really make sense to sign Boyd unless he was going to play on the wing.

If anyone is to blame for the necessity of the Boyd signing, it's Barba. He had a good 10 weeks to prove himself as a valuable asset to Bennett, I can guarantee Bennett watched every Broncos game and kept an eye on Barba to see if he had what it took to be a premiership winning Five-Eighth, and let's be honest, he was an abysmal Fullback for the Broncos and a mediocre Five-Eighth on his best night.

If Barba played the house down and won several MoM's in that 10 week period, I honestly believe we'd be in a completely different situation (Maybe a similar roster, with Hoffman and co. gone, but Boyd would either be at another club or playing here in the Centres / Wing)

You can say whatever you want about Bennett having a soft spot for Boyd, he does, but Barba certainly made the decision much easier with his disgusting season.

 

[Ari Gold]

I probably voted for Barba at Five-Eighth considering how long ago this survey took place, at which time Boyd was still at the Knights and there wasn't even an inkling that Bennett wanted to sign him (Survey was well before Bennett's first press-conference with the Broncos)

Queue Anonymous Person response: "Some of us knew the second we signed Bennett that we had signed Boyd as well, lol"

In regards to Milford and Barba's positions I can understand how Boyd is irrelevant, but there was specifically a question about Boyd, and virtually nobody wanted to sign him as a fullback.

 

[Big Pete]

To be fair, why wouldn't anybody want to sign him on a discount if the proviso was that he couldn't play spine?

 

[Ari Gold]

To be fair, why wouldn't anybody want to sign him on a discount if the proviso was that he couldn't play spine?

But it was a fairly tiered level of responses. The option wasn't "if he signs at a discount and not in the spine I want him", it was "only if he signs at a discount and doesn't play in the spine". The implication of "only if" being that were he to play at fullback and/or get his asking price, the people who voted this option would not have wanted him.

There was a clear option that gave people the option of voting for him to play in the spine, and it didn't have any clauses as to whether or not he signed for a discount. It was an option there for people who believed that Boyd was a good signing as a fullback and only 3 chose it. Given the 2nd option was that we could pay him his asking price but not play in the spine, I think every option was covered. The people who are claiming how needed Boyd is as a fullback had a clear and unmistakably appropriate option available to reflect their feelings.

 

[GCBRONCO]

As a fullback no I agreed we shouldn't have signed him, still do though I still feel he could add something for us on the wing if that was to pan out. Though I prefer Milford at 5/8th if the decision was made to play him at fullback then I'd support that as well because as I said in another thread I believe Milford to be adaptable to either position. I still want Barba at the club and I'll be disappointed if he does move on.

 

[Anonymous person]

Stick by what? I had absolutely no idea if Boyd was going to come or not, considering the roster we had at the time of Bennett's signing it didn't even really make sense to sign Boyd unless he was going to play on the wing.

If anyone is to blame for the necessity of the Boyd signing, it's Barba. He had a good 10 weeks to prove himself as a valuable asset to Bennett, I can guarantee Bennett watched every Broncos game and kept an eye on Barba to see if he had what it took to be a premiership winning Five-Eighth, and let's be honest, he was an abysmal Fullback for the Broncos and a mediocre Five-Eighth on his best night.

If Barba played the house down and won several MoM's in that 10 week period, I honestly believe we'd be in a completely different situation (Maybe a similar roster, with Hoffman and co. gone, but Boyd would either be at another club or playing here in the Centres / Wing)

You can say whatever you want about Bennett having a soft spot for Boyd, he does, but Barba certainly made the decision much easier with his disgusting season.

Stick by the fact that you think that there was even a possibility that Bennett wasn't always going to bring Boyd along. He was always bringing him. He had already done it to 2 clubs in a row, and Boyd had already exercised his right to leave Newcastle from about the day after Bennett announced he was leaving iirc.

The only people who didn't think he was coming with Bennett were the Bennett faithful on this forum. Every news site said it straight away, Boyd himself said he was finished with Newcastle, and no other teams even spoke to him.

Barba was never going to get to be the Broncos fullback in 2015. Never. Neither was Milford, or Hodges, or Eden, or kahu, or anyone else from the second that Bennett signed to be our coach.

The fact that you still argue that barba was responsible for losing the fullback spot is beyond pathetic, and a joke. Boyd is bennetts fullback wherever he goes. In 3 years Boyd will retire with Bennett.

 

[Big Pete]

If it was fair, there would have been an option that was purely 'only if he signs at a discount'.

By limiting the pro-fullback to one choice out of five, of course your response was going to be mostly negative.

 

[Ari Gold]

If it was fair, there would have been an option that was purely 'only if he signs at a discount'.

By limiting the pro-fullback to one choice out of five, of course your response was going to be mostly negative.

In theory you are right, but practically speaking, if you believe Barba shouldn't be part of the starting team and that we need Boyd as a fullback, like some people are claiming now, you don't need Boyd to sign at a discount to want him at fullback.

 

[Anonymous person]

The options were very clear, and people unanimously voted no to having him at fullback. Now I dare say a few certain posters have about faced.

Its fan-fucking-tastic to see it right there in graph form lol.

 

[Big Pete]

In theory you are right, but practically speaking, if you believe Barba shouldn't be part of the starting team and that we need Boyd as a fullback, like some people are claiming now, you don't need Boyd to sign at a discount to want him at fullback.

It just makes the other options more appealing though because if you were able to sign Boyd on a discount it would mean less disruptions to the roster in general.

Of course you'd want to sign him on a discount regardless of position.

 

[ningnangnong]

Queue Anonymous Person response: "Some of us knew the second we signed Bennett that we had signed Boyd as well, lol"

I like how you even got the lol in at the end! Haha.

 

[Ari Gold]

It just makes the other options more appealing though because if you were able to sign Boyd on a discount it would mean less disruptions to the roster in general.

Of course you'd want to sign him on a discount regardless of position.

In the context of whether this poll is fairly worded for the benefit of all constituents, then you are 100% right. But in the context of people claiming that we have to sign Boyd, this poll is actually more representative. Barba was no worse a fullback option at the time this poll ran, and Milford was no worse a five eight option when this poll ran. So if you truly believed we needed to sign Boyd, to the degree some posters do, then they should have voted for the fullback option, because it accurately reflects their feelings. The absence of a fullback with a discount option in this particular instance actually avoids dilution of the responses and draws a very clear line in the sand that better represents this discussion.

 

[Big Pete]

I'd say there would be a fair few who were on the fence, but since one option was more desirable than the other, they chose it. At least, I know that's what I did.

I'd 3 is pretty fair reflection of those who are adamant of Boyd replacing Barba. It just so happens those 3 are quite vocal about the situation.