Boyd can fire for Broncos at wing or centre: Hodges

[rnabokov]

Isaako has copped major flack for his defence but he was often a victim of his inside defender's poor reads a lot. I am definitely not saying he is without blame, he did make poor decisions too.

However Turpin constantly jammed in, as did staggs and this left isaako alone, often marking 2 or 3 blokes. If he stuck on his wing when out numbered, the try would just be scored by a centre and an easier kick at goal.

The right side (and isaako's) defence was a lot better when dearden was out there who read the attack better than turpin and stuck on his man, allowing isaako to stay on his wing.

I think isaako will come good, yes it was a poor year for him but he trains hard and he will improve. If he practices catching highballs and reading plays with the same dedication he does with his kicking, I think he could develop into a good fullback, he may not have the best ball skills at the moment but he is agile, quicker than he appears and supporting our big forwards, he could do some real damage.

Maybe I am naive. If I was Isaako I would have a few words to Turps and Staggs. One would think that players ought to talk to each other and learn from mistakes as they happen.

Equally naive is the view that the Broncos captain would discuss the shortcomings behind the sticks as the conversion is taken and say fix this shit NOW.

One might also ask what the **** the coach is doing and why the bleeding obvious as seen from the coach's box isn't communicated onfield soon after an obvious **** up.

 

[Viti]

Isaako has copped major flack for his defence but he was often a victim of his inside defender's poor reads a lot. I am definitely not saying he is without blame, he did make poor decisions too.

However Turpin constantly jammed in, as did staggs and this left isaako alone, often marking 2 or 3 blokes. If he stuck on his wing when out numbered, the try would just be scored by a centre and an easier kick at goal.

The right side (and isaako's) defence was a lot better when dearden was out there who read the attack better than turpin and stuck on his man, allowing isaako to stay on his wing.

I think isaako will come good, yes it was a poor year for him but he trains hard and he will improve. If he practices catching highballs and reading plays with the same dedication he does with his kicking, I think he could develop into a good fullback, he may not have the best ball skills at the moment but he is agile, quicker than he appears and supporting our big forwards, he could do some real damage.

Exactly right, as good as Turps was last year one thing we know for sure is he is not an edge defender. When he wasn’t jamming in on guys he was failing to release from the inside which caused overlaps for Staggs and Isaako to cover.

I can’t quite remember but I think TPJ may have been Turpin’s second rower? If so, that definitely exacerbated the problem and was always going to be a recipe for disaster.

 

[Kooly87]

Exactly right, as good as Turps was last year one thing we know for sure is he is not an edge defender. When he wasn’t jamming in on guys he was failing to release from the inside which caused overlaps for Staggs and Isaako to cover.

I can’t quite remember but I think TPJ may have been Turpin’s second rower? If so, that definitely exacerbated the problem and was always going to be a recipe for disaster.

To be fair, he's likely never defended on an edge before in his life, and he had to learn how to do it in the NRL.

Seriously, we talk so often about specialist middle defenders, and we're certainly talking about specialist edge ball runners a lot more now, but for some reason, specialist edge defenders seem to be drastically underrated by the majority of fans. Defending on an edge as a Backrower deserves way more credit than it gets, especially with your decision making needing to be so precise as well as your technique being good enough to often cover for your Halves and Centres who can vary wildly in how well they defend themselves.

 

[Bigbucky]

Geez he would be a pretty expensive winger. He must be pretty good

 

[NSW stables]

To be fair, he's likely never defended on an edge before in his life, and he had to learn how to do it in the NRL.

Seriously, we talk so often about specialist middle defenders, and we're certainly talking about specialist edge ball runners a lot more now, but for some reason, specialist edge defenders seem to be drastically underrated by the majority of fans. Defending on an edge as a Backrower deserves way more credit than it gets, especially with your decision making needing to be so precise as well as your technique being good enough to often cover for your Halves and Centres who can vary wildly in how well they defend themselves.

Agreed. I loved turpin's defence in the centre. He had solid contact, didnt incur a whole bunch of PCMs. However, unfortunately middle and edge defence is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Viti]

To be fair, he's likely never defended on an edge before in his life, and he had to learn how to do it in the NRL.

Seriously, we talk so often about specialist middle defenders, and we're certainly talking about specialist edge ball runners a lot more now, but for some reason, specialist edge defenders seem to be drastically underrated by the majority of fans. Defending on an edge as a Backrower deserves way more credit than it gets, especially with your decision making needing to be so precise as well as your technique being good enough to often cover for your Halves and Centres who can vary wildly in how well they defend themselves.

100% agree with you. That’s why I put so much value in what Glenn does for us.

 

[Old Mate]

Just watched the game against the dogs from a couple of years ago where we had Bird at halfback, loved how Boyd won it for us at the end there milking that penalty. I do like that side of him when it works out.

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

Maybe I am naive. If I was Isaako I would have a few words to Turps and Staggs. One would think that players ought to talk to each other and learn from mistakes as they happen.

Equally naive is the view that the Broncos captain would discuss the shortcomings behind the sticks as the conversion is taken and say fix this shit NOW.

One might also ask what the **** the coach is doing and why the bleeding obvious as seen from the coach's box isn't communicated onfield soon after an obvious **** up.

Why we now have a genuine 7 and not a hooker playing out of position

 

[rnabokov]

Why we now have a genuine 7 and not a hooker playing out of position

That's not really the issue. And in hindsight I will cut Isaako some slack here as others have pointed out. The issue is the abysmal defensive structure, or utter lack of it, out wide, particularly on the right edge. The SF v Eels is a classic case among many. There was no cohesive, sliding line with each attacker marked by a defender. What line there was was broken and staggered leaving space for the attack to exploit. Too often attackers outnumbered defenders. We stood flat footed and moved sideways and not up in defence to pressure the ball runner ... WTF?

Then there were 2 defenders on 1 ball carrier leaving a free corridor for an unmarked support. What a fucking disgrace, and the Eels just smashed us as any side would have. On one occasion Isaako had 3 runners to mark. Bloody hell (even though his positioning was crap - OUT of the line either too forward or too far back.)

THIS is what Seibold has to address this preseason and in hindsight I am disappointed he failed to deal with our defensive dog's breakfast out wide this year. especially on the right side.

Boyd on the wing or centre? Irrelevant given the above. Croft? Great! However fix the defence or Croft's presence will be irrelevant.

 

[BroncsFan]

That's not really the issue. And in hindsight I will cut Isaako some slack here as others have pointed out. The issue is the abysmal defensive structure, or utter lack of it, out wide, particularly on the right edge. The SF v Eels is a classic case among many. There was no cohesive, sliding line with each attacker marked by a defender. What line there was was broken and staggered leaving space for the attack to exploit. Too often attackers outnumbered defenders. We stood flat footed and moved sideways and not up in defence to pressure the ball runner ... WTF?

Then there were 2 defenders on 1 ball carrier leaving a free corridor for an unmarked support. What a fucking disgrace, and the Eels just smashed us as any side would have. On one occasion Isaako had 3 runners to mark. Bloody hell (even though his positioning was crap - OUT of the line either too forward or too far back.)

THIS is what Seibold has to address this preseason and in hindsight I am disappointed he failed to deal with our defensive dog's breakfast out wide this year. especially on the right side.

Boyd on the wing or centre? Irrelevant given the above. Croft? Great! However fix the defence or Croft's presence will be irrelevant.

I feel like Seibold turned up last year ready to implement an attacking philosophy only to realise that none of these guys actually knew how to play in a style he was expecting (wrestling defense, winning the ruck, quick play the balls, etc.)

So rather than being able to focus on our disjointed attack he had to pivot and teach these guys how to actually play the game... and as bad as our defence was this year just remember that we actually conceded more points in 2018 than 2019.

From that point it was basically rip the band aid off, keep the young guys who are willing and able to adapt and start implementing the philosophies that is known to work in the current league environment.

I am willing to see it out because what Seibold and the board are trying to implement is known to be successful because it's what the storm and roosters do and they have been the most successful clubs of the last decade.

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether Seibold, and Parker for that matter, are able to get the defense playing like modern football.

The attacking talent is there but defense wins championships

 

[Kyall]

I feel like Seibold turned up last year ready to implement an attacking philosophy only to realise that none of these guys actually knew how to play in a style he was expecting (wrestling defense, winning the ruck, quick play the balls, etc.)

So rather than being able to focus on our disjointed attack he had to pivot and teach these guys how to actually play the game... and as bad as our defence was this year just remember that we actually conceded more points in 2018 than 2019.

From that point it was basically rip the band aid off, keep the young guys who are willing and able to adapt and start implementing the philosophies that is known to work in the current league environment.

I am willing to see it out because what Seibold and the board are trying to implement is known to be successful because it's what the storm and roosters do and they have been the most successful clubs of the last decade.

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether Seibold, and Parker for that matter, are able to get the defense playing like modern football.

The attacking talent is there but defense wins championships

Siebold also had the fastest hooker in the game and Alex Johnson at fullback who could push for top 5 fastest in the NRL.
Seibold had nothing to work with, he had Macca probably the slowest hooker in the NRL and busted slow Boyd.

 

[Gaz]

Thing is Boyd is contracted and we have to pay him not play him and if he proves to be a liability in 2020 we shouldn't.

 

[rnabokov]

I feel like Seibold turned up last year ready to implement an attacking philosophy only to realise that none of these guys actually knew how to play in a style he was expecting (wrestling defense, winning the ruck, quick play the balls, etc.)

So rather than being able to focus on our disjointed attack he had to pivot and teach these guys how to actually play the game... and as bad as our defence was this year just remember that we actually conceded more points in 2018 than 2019.

From that point it was basically rip the band aid off, keep the young guys who are willing and able to adapt and start implementing the philosophies that is known to work in the current league environment.

I am willing to see it out because what Seibold and the board are trying to implement is known to be successful because it's what the storm and roosters do and they have been the most successful clubs of the last decade.

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether Seibold, and Parker for that matter, are able to get the defense playing like modern football.

The attacking talent is there but defense wins championships

I am unsure of the point you are trying to make in reply to my post.

My point is that our defence out wide, particularly on the right side, was rubbish, and that the job of a coach is to sort it out once the problems become apparent, and that is in any one match. That is, if the defence is crap in any particular game, you deal with it at the next, and subsequent coaching sessions until it is sorted. On this score, Seibold failed, and the players in question failed him.

A basic sliding defence is not rocket science. It's irrelevant that say Turps was a hooker playing out of position. It is schoolboy footballing nous to know how to slide and how to be part of a sliding defensive structure, and, it is the coach's job to make sure highly paid professionals earn their money in such simple matters as an effective sliding defence that ought to have been part and parcel of a footballer's basic skills development since school boy days.

I just don't buy the argument that ... "oh, he was playing out of position" to explain fundamental, simple, schoolboy level defensive deficiencies.

Yes, defence wins matches and we lost so many games because our defence was crap, separate to our shitty attack. For me, it is also less important to look at points conceded than to look at how many times our defence was breached because of poor structures and individual performances.

It was and is up to the coach to fix this ASAP.

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

I am unsure of the point you are trying to make in reply to my post.

My point is that our defence out wide, particularly on the right side, was rubbish, and that the job of a coach is to sort it out once the problems become apparent, and that is in any one match. That is, if the defence is crap in any particular game, you deal with it at the next, and subsequent coaching sessions until it is sorted. On this score, Seibold failed, and the players in question failed him.

A basic sliding defence is not rocket science. It's irrelevant that say Turps was a hooker playing out of position. It is schoolboy footballing nous to know how to slide and how to be part of a sliding defensive structure, and, it is the coach's job to make sure highly paid professionals earn their money in such simple matters as an effective sliding defence that ought to have been part and parcel of a footballer's basic skills development since school boy days.

I just don't buy the argument that ... "oh, he was playing out of position" to explain fundamental, simple, schoolboy level defensive deficiencies.

Yes, defence wins matches and we lost so many games because our defence was crap, separate to our shitty attack. For me, it is also less important to look at points conceded than to look at how many times our defence was breached because of poor structures and individual performances.

It was and is up to the coach to fix this ASAP.

He's a hooker playing at 7 so his reads, experience and timing are off.

You say it is school boy nous, but this isn't school boy is it.. it's the NRL.

Players have specialised skill speed and power.

You can't be expected to win or even be competitive if they're unseasoned

 

[rnabokov]

He's a hooker playing at 7 so his reads, experience and timing are off.

You say it is school boy nous, but this isn't school boy is it.. it's the NRL.

Players have specialised skill speed and power.

You can't be expected to win or even be competitive if they're unseasoned

Can't agree. You seem to be complicating something deceptively simple. Slide defence at its most basic: you stand in a line with your co-defenders; you mark up on an opposite; you move as one in the line; you move up as you side. Who cares if you are a hooker or a halfback. This is basic rugby league 101, whether school boy or NRL

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

Can't agree. You seem to be complicating something deceptively simple. Slide defence at its most basic: you stand in a line with your co-defenders; you mark up on an opposite; you move as one in the line; you move up as you side. Who cares if you are a hooker or a halfback. This is basic rugby league 101, whether school boy or NRL

If it was that easy, no team would ever score a try.

"Over complicating" the NRL. cause it's that simple to play the game anyone could be the next immortal

 

[rnabokov]

If it was that easy, no team would ever score a try.

"Over complicating" the NRL. cause it's that simple to play the game anyone could be the next immortal

It is that easy - to be part of, and keep a basic defensive formation, which is where we failed out wide.

Individual differences in both attack and defence need to be factored in. Defending Tedesco is of course something that is really hard, and there is no shame in being beaten by his amazing footwork and speed.

There is shame in not keeping a basic formation which will in most cases cut down attacking opportunities, like making it harder for say Teddy to show his skills.

As I see it, keeping to the structure, maintaining the defensive line, is integral to reducing the space and time for the attack. Our failure to do this created gaps which let the attack have ample time to set a play which simply let the ball carrier stroll through the hole(s) and in doing so, pressured defenders to mark up on more than one support runner. Just watch some of the tries the Eels scored out wide on our right edge ... ugh!

 

[Viti]

It is that easy - to be part of, and keep a basic defensive formation, which is where we failed out wide.

Individual differences in both attack and defence need to be factored in. Defending Tedesco is of course something that is really hard, and there is no shame in being beaten by his amazing footwork and speed.

There is shame in not keeping a basic formation which will in most cases cut down attacking opportunities, like making it harder for say Teddy to show his skills.

As I see it, keeping to the structure, maintaining the defensive line, is integral to reducing the space and time for the attack. Our failure to do this created gaps which let the attack have ample time to set a play which simply let the ball carrier stroll through the hole(s) and in doing so, pressured defenders to mark up on more than one support runner. Just watch some of the tries the Eels scored out wide on our right edge ... ugh!

You can have the correct formations and structures in place but at the end of the day defending on an edge hinges on your decision making.