Brodie Croft Discussion

[broncsgoat]

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because he was considered a talented kid in his younger days or maybe it's because he played at a high level in the NRL prior to joining the Broncos.

It may even be that the games finest coach publicly backed him AFTER he left that club and stated unequivocally that he still thinks he's a good player. It might be that Croft continues to play carrying a weakened shoulder in a team desperately out of form and that has resulted in some unhappy games.

It might also be because he's only 22 ffs. I don't write kids off. I've also seen very young men take time to grow up and become the final product by 28-35. NO, I didn't just say we should wait 6 to 13 years and if anyone suggests that, they're a fucking idiot. Maturity happens at different stages.

What I'm saying is 'it's too fucking soon, years too soon to write off a 22 year old kid'. Clear enough?

I've been really critical of Croft but I haven't really considered that he's being coached by a potato this year which is obviously not doing him any favours.

I just don't see where he fits, he's not as good as either Milf or Dearden so not sure if he'll be happy playing reggies next year.

 

[pagey]

Err, he is ALREADY NRL standard. The games finest coach considered him NRL standard 39 times and knows him personally. He's also seen him up close in training and in general. I suppose you might be in a better position to judge and I guess you might be a better judge than Craig Bellamy but you'll understand I'm sure that I doubt your credentials.

So why did Bellamy drop him for a fullback??

 

[ostin86]

So why did Bellamy drop him for a fullback??

Because Bellamy could see he was not playing consistently at first grade standard. He should have been playing reserve grade and developing his game to make more of an impact at NRL level.

I think the reason he had high praise for him when he left the club is because Bellamy is genuinely trying to do the right thing by the kid. He is not exactly going to say he is currently not up to it, he is not that much of a prick.

Milf is not our guy either, he lacks drive and competitiveness, which rubs off on other players imo. We desperately need a 6.

 

[Skathen]

I think the reason he had high praise for him when he left the club is because Bellamy is genuinely trying to do the right thing by the kid. He is not exactly going to say he is currently not up to it, he is not that much of a prick.

Are you sure we're talking about the same Bellamy? The guy who will paint faces with spit while he is reading the riot act to them? Same guy who benched and dropped a Chambers for playing like crap.

Is there no influence of needing to find Paps the number 1 jersey and believing that hughes simply brought more than croft? I'm not going to defend croft, but he was hardly garbage at the storm. He didn't light the world on fire either.

I think he's come to the Broncos and gone backwards a long way. When the team's management and coach are crap - how could that not negatively influence all of the players?

But one thing I will say against Croft, they bled tries down his edge while he was on the field, it was one of the reasons he may have been dropped from the team and his defence was pretty terrible at times this year too. Something he simply must improve on. Some of the standouts before people argue this point would be the tigers and canberra games, absolutely woeful positioning and tackle efforts for a first grader.

Not dropped, just ‘rested’: Mystery surrounds Storm halfback on eve of finals

Not dropped, just ‘rested’: Mystery surrounds Storm halfback on eve of finals

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Sproj]

Hughes is a fine halfback to add to the Storm's collection.

 

[lynx000]

So why did Bellamy drop him for a fullback??

To get pappy into the side at FB.

 

[pagey]

Because Bellamy could see he was not playing consistently at first grade standard. He should have been playing reserve grade and developing his game to make more of an impact at NRL level.

I think the reason he had high praise for him when he left the club is because Bellamy is genuinely trying to do the right thing by the kid. He is not exactly going to say he is currently not up to it, he is not that much of a prick.

Milf is not our guy either, he lacks drive and competitiveness, which rubs off on other players imo. We desperately need a 6.

Sam Walker?

 

[gUt]

I think Croft has a decent short kicking game and can pass. All year he has been forced to bomb from a long way out because of our inability to get up the field. He plays with heart.

He was brought here on the strength of being coached by Bellamy and the theory that Milford needed an organiser to free up his running game. From memory it seemed to work ok in the first 2 rounds before the six-again rule when our pack of large humans was dominating and the whole team was playing with confidence.

I hardly see what a young half at a new club is supposed to do in the current morass. Dearden probably has more upside and Croft is perhaps not the next Cronk but I think he was worth a punt by the club and I don't think our problems have much to do with him.

 

[ostin86]

Sam Walker?

Maybe, he is young but. Our team is full of so many youngsters already. We would really need some experience around him and Dearden or even Paix if we end up trying him at 6. There seems to be fark all options.

 

[rnabokov]

I think Croft has a decent short kicking game and can pass. All year he has been forced to bomb from a long way out because of our inability to get up the field. He plays with heart.

He was brought here on the strength of being coached by Bellamy and the theory that Milford needed an organiser to free up his running game. From memory it seemed to work ok in the first 2 rounds before the six-again rule when our pack of large humans was dominating and the whole team was playing with confidence.

I hardly see what a young half at a new club is supposed to do in the current morass. Dearden probably has more upside and Croft is perhaps not the next Cronk but I think he was worth a punt by the club and I don't think our problems have much to do with him.

I agree with most of what you say. Which to me tells me we should never have signed him. He wasn't what we needed. He isn't a good fit for this side as it was and is and his performances show that. He can't handle the (unfair) pressure on him. The new Rule exposed the lack of effect of our forwards. That has put pressure on everything we try to do. Our forwards struggle to lay any platform. Pressure and more pressure.

We had Dearden. He showed he could work well with Milford last year. He was our future half back. He handles pressure well for one so young. If Seibold was serious about forging a new squad, a new everything, why ignore one of your best assets?

For mine he ought to have been our staring half. His current performances show that. Pity it's too late.

 

[pagey]

I think Croft has a decent short kicking game and can pass. All year he has been forced to bomb from a long way out because of our inability to get up the field. He plays with heart.

He was brought here on the strength of being coached by Bellamy and the theory that Milford needed an organiser to free up his running game. From memory it seemed to work ok in the first 2 rounds before the six-again rule when our pack of large humans was dominating and the whole team was playing with confidence.

I hardly see what a young half at a new club is supposed to do in the current morass. Dearden probably has more upside and Croft is perhaps not the next Cronk but I think he was worth a punt by the club and I don't think our problems have much to do with him.

To blame him for all our problems no , but to say he isn't much to blame for them is incorrect. Most players that are decent on their feet and have a crack are going to go alright in that Melbourne system.
He was brought in to direct the footy team around the park and make the calls, instead he's looked rudderless and is a defensive liability.
I agree he was worth a punt but 2 years max would have been sufficient, now we are stuck with another average footballer .

 

[Huge]

I agree with most of what you say. Which to me tells me we should never have signed him. He wasn't what we needed. He isn't a good fit for this side as it was and is and his performances show that. He can't handle the (unfair) pressure on him. The new Rule exposed the lack of effect of our forwards. That has put pressure on everything we try to do. Our forwards struggle to lay any platform. Pressure and more pressure.

We had Dearden. He showed he could work well with Milford last year. He was our future half back. He handles pressure well for one so young. If Seibold was serious about forging a new squad, a new everything, why ignore one of your best assets?

For mine he ought to have been our staring half. His current performances show that. Pity it's too late.

I think too many of us on here thought we were making a big time signing but truthfully we were only adding to our depth. I'm of the opinion that the growing perception that Milford just will never be a good halfback/five eight meant we were light on in those positions.

Signing Croft was a relatively cheap addition to inventory and to an extent, a future proofing. I don't think upper management ever considered him a saviour as so many on here did. I believe they believe as I do, that Croft is still early in the maturing process.

With SOS injured, Dearden so young and without ISC to get game time, KNik gone and Milford plainly terrible signing a young backup cheaply was a great move. It's our fault for thinking he was bought to be a premium halfback, he wasn't. It was an opportunistic value pick.

In time I think it will be shown to be an excellent decision and in two years time I believe this season will be the adversity that builds his character.

 

[Dazza 92]

Sam Walker?

here is the opportunity cost of bringing Croft in.....

I sure hope it was worth it Broncos....

 

[Footy Fanatic]

I think too many of us on here thought we were making a big time signing but truthfully we were only adding to our depth. I'm of the opinion that the growing perception that Milford just will never be a good halfback/five eight meant we were light on in those positions.

Signing Croft was a relatively cheap addition to inventory and to an extent, a future proofing. I don't think upper management ever considered him a saviour as so many on here did. I believe they believe as I do, that Croft is still early in the maturing process.

With SOS injured, Dearden so young and without ISC to get game time, KNik gone and Milford plainly terrible signing a young backup cheaply was a great move. It's our fault for thinking he was bought to be a premium halfback, he wasn't. It was an opportunistic value pick.

In time I think it will be shown to be an excellent decision and in two years time I believe this season will be the adversity that builds his character.

If Croft is playing for us in the halves in two years, I think we will be in trouble.

 

[rnabokov]

I think too many of us on here thought we were making a big time signing but truthfully we were only adding to our depth. I'm of the opinion that the growing perception that Milford just will never be a good halfback/five eight meant we were light on in those positions.

Signing Croft was a relatively cheap addition to inventory and to an extent, a future proofing. I don't think upper management ever considered him a saviour as so many on here did. I believe they believe as I do, that Croft is still early in the maturing process.

With SOS injured, Dearden so young and without ISC to get game time, KNik gone and Milford plainly terrible signing a young backup cheaply was a great move. It's our fault for thinking he was bought to be a premium halfback, he wasn't. It was an opportunistic value pick.

In time I think it will be shown to be an excellent decision and in two years time I believe this season will be the adversity that builds his character.

So, given our decent, existing halves depth, we signed Croft a halfback to replace Milford a 5/8, and therefore replaced Dearden a halfback with with Croft a halfback in Round 1 and Paix a halfback (eventually) going to hooker, while Tyson Gamble a 5/8 twiddling his thumbs.

Strategic thinking 101

 

[Huge]

So, given our decent, existing halves depth, we signed Croft a halfback to replace Milford a 5/8, and therefore replaced Dearden a halfback with with Croft a halfback in Round 1 and Paix a halfback (eventually) going to hooker, while Tyson Gamble a 5/8 twiddling his thumbs.

Strategic thinking 101

No, I don't think that's how it went down. I think signing Croft was simply an opportunistic event. He was signed because he was young, had some nrl experience, was cheap and available, and lastly we were thin in that area. He was never signed to be our saviour. He was also signed because Milford had/has been a miserable failure in the halves. Why are you trying to attach a single reason to the signing when it's abundantly clear there were multiple considerations? Is it because a single reason is easier to attack? Croft is an easy target but he's the least of the Broncos problems.

 

[Huge]

So, given our decent, existing halves depth, we signed Croft a halfback to replace Milford a 5/8, and therefore replaced Dearden a halfback with with Croft a halfback in Round 1 and Paix a halfback (eventually) going to hooker, while Tyson Gamble a 5/8 twiddling his thumbs.

Strategic thinking 101

Huh? Decent existing halves? Who? Dearden with 3 or 4 games? The dreadful Milford? The injured SOS? The complete novice Paix?

 

[rnabokov]

No, I don't think that's how it went down. I think signing Croft was simply an opportunistic event. He was signed because he was young, had some nrl experience, was cheap and available, and lastly we were thin in that area. He was never signed to be our saviour. He was also signed because Milford had/has been a miserable failure in the halves. Why are you trying to attach a single reason to the signing when it's abundantly clear there were multiple considerations? Is it because a single reason is easier to attack? Croft is an easy target but he's the least of the Broncos problems.

Yes, agreed. His signing was opportunistic. We didn't need him. There was no logic to his signing. Dearden has proved that. I cannot accept he was signed to replace Milford.