BHQ's best ever Broncos team

[Anonymous person]

i think youd have to have Cronk there for his lethal combination with smith, slater and inglis. also, kimmorley-led teams dont have much flexibility, their one style of play either works or fails miserably. cronks game isnt like that.

scott hill would definitely be five-eigth, he was always a vastly underrated player. im glad that he didnt play more origin for QLDs sake, but feel bad for him because he was a top notch player. robbie ross would def be on the bench too - imagine him and slater on the field at the same time, both running the gaps! one of the best support players of all time IMO.

one thing on the broncos team - its interesting that theres only 1 player on there who debuted after the year 2000.

we were the benchmark of the 90s, no doubt about it. but the 'noughties'? dont think so. that would be the bulldogs and storm.

 

[Coxy]

How the **** are the Bulldogs the benchmark of the noughties? One premiership. Same as Wests Tigers, Sydney Roosters, Penrith Panthers, Manly Sea Eagles, Newcastle Knights.

Roosters made 4 Grand Finals in the decade and won one. They'd have more claims to being the 2nd benchmark behind Melbourne than the Bulldogs.

Broncos with 2 premierships are the only other multiple premiership winners of the decade, and made the finals every year. They'd have a claim to being the 2nd benchmark.

Storm undoubtedly THE benchmark however...4 straight GFs, 2 premierships, and only missed the semis in 2001 and 2002.

 

[Anonymous person]

ahh roosters too, my mistake. i remembered graham murray being the 'supercoach' for a while there, just for some reason thought he was at the bulldogs lol.

got to remember though, the bulldogs wouldve probably at least made the GF in 02 if they didnt lose those 37 competition points though, they got to the GF qualifier the next year, then won the year after. then in 2006 they again fell short in the grand final qualifier. also they wouldve been minor premiers last year had it not been for losing 2 points because of an interchange bungle. they were one of the top 3 teams of the decade IMO.

 

[Coxy]

Yes, they had their golden run on what's proven to have been systematic, in depth, blatant cheating...their 2004 premiership is tainted for that reason...they didn't really lose anyone from the 2002 side that was being overpaid.

 

[Anonymous person]

agreed - but the results still stand.

 

[Coxy]

I am biased, but I'd still put the Broncos in the top 3, simply because no other team has made the finals every year and won two premierships.

IMO, team rankings 2000-2009:

1. Melbourne
2. Broncos
3. Roosters
4. Bulldogs
5. Newcastle
6. Manly
7. Parramatta
8. Penrith
9. St George-Illawarra
10. Wests Tigers

Yes, I put premiership-less Parra and Dragons ahead of the Tigers, simply because they've been threats for the title more often than the Wests Tigers flukey 2005 season.

 

[Anonymous person]

i would probably put the roosters ahead of the Broncos, and then the bulldogs and Broncos in 3rd. the Broncos got the 2 premierships to 1, but the Bulldogs in their cheating days seemed to always be there when it counted.

agreed about the tigers too. i still dont know how they won their premiership lol. same with penrith.

 

[Coxy]

Only reason I put the Broncos ahead of the Roosters was that apart from their 4 GFs in 5 years to start the decade, they only made the finals in 2008 and were bundled out easily.

 

[GCBRONCO]

agreed - but the results still stand.

Yeap, tainted but they still stand, I prefer my premierships earnt

 

[Coxy]

Yeah and I think it's ironic that I still rate the Bulldogs and Roosters as high as I do. Afterall, the Bulldogs won 2 wooden spoons (one assisted by the fully deserved 37-point loss in 2002), and the Roosters 1 in the decade.

How you could put a team that finished last ahead of a team that finished in the top 8 10 times in 10 years, and the top 4 in 5 of those seasons is beyond me.

Broncos
2000: 1st
2001: 5th
2002: 3rd
2003: 8th
2004: 3rd
2005: 3rd
2006: 3rd
2007: 8th
2008: 5th
2009: 6th

 

[Anonymous person]

look at the bulldogs though:

2000: 11th - Broncos win
2001: 2nd - Bulldogs win
2002: Wooden Spoon, but in reality was 1st - realistically, the Bulldogs win as they were the better team all year by a country mile.
2003: 3rd - Bulldogs win
2004: 2nd - Bulldogs win
2005: 12th - Broncos win
2006: 2nd - Bulldogs win
2007: 6th - Bulldogs win
2008: 16th - Broncos win
2009: 2nd - Bulldogs win

so thats a 6-4 win to the Bulldogs if you give 2002 to the Broncos, or 7-3 if you give 2002 to the Bulldogs (which I would).

 

[Coxy]

And if you do it purely on consistency, therefore giving teams a 1 for a season they finish 1st on the ladder, and 16 if they finish last, and add them up, then the scores are interesting:

1. Brisbane 45
2. Melbourne 48
3. Dragons 67
4. Roosters 68
5. Eels 68
6. Bulldogs 71
7. Knights 75

If you were to give each team say a 5 point bonus for winning the premiership, and 3 points for making a GF, the figures change:

1. Melbourne 32
2. Brisbane 35
3. Roosters 54
4. Eels 62
5. Bulldogs 66
6. Dragons 67
7. Knights 70
8. Manly 72

 

[gUt]

The Tigers win is not that amazing when you consider

9. Farah
7. Prince
6. Marshall
1. Hodgson