Brodie Croft Discussion

[Waynesaurus]

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.

Damn it Huge! Stop making sense, how could we possibly agree on something?

 

[rnabokov]

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

Dearden, Paix, Gamble, SOS for starters. How does Croft's experience and record show we needed him?

So, Dearden's performance since assuming the 7 mantle show he is not what we need?

Ok then, let's replace Dearden with Croft

 

[Midean]

I like Crofty, with a bit of fine tuning and some more gametime, he could go alright.
He is not the solution to our problems however.

 

[Huge]

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.

Huh? You don't buy a player because you already have one?!?!? That's as silly as saying you don't buy a book because you've already got one!

I have a good reliable electric drill at home in my shed but I spied the exact same drill at a garage sale but it wasn't $149 (new) like the one I had at home. I'd bought it two years previously. It still functioned perfectly. The one at the garage sale also functioned well and unlike mine didn't have a single mark on it, in fact it barely looked like it had been used. It was $15. Should I say, no I've already got one or spend the lousy $15 and have a tremendous back up?

See my point? Croft was a garage sale pickup so why carry on about it? He was never a marquee signing. Just depth.

Best thing about him aside from his cheap price is he's just turned 23, still young and with improvement possible with encouragement and quality coaching and advice.

 

[Huge]

Dearden, Paix, Gamble, SOS for starters. How does Croft's experience and record show we needed him?

So, Dearden's performance since assuming the 7 mantle show he is not what we need?

Ok then, let's replace Dearden with Croft

Silly silly argument. Last sentence just ridiculous. You keep making assertions as if I'm making them. Stop for ***** sake. I'm more than capable of expressing my own thoughts and I certainly don't need you to editorialize them.

You must've not read my previous post. Paix and Gamble had no experience. Dearden had 3 or 4 games under the belt. SOS was long term injured and Milford was hopeless. That was then, at the time of purchase. We actually had **** all AT THE TIME. Dearden was great when he finally got his chance but at the time it wasn't known how well he would go. Signing Croft wasn't the massive mistake you keep trying to make it out to be.

The Broncos two biggest signing mistakes were signing Milford to a long term deal and the same with Bird. Milford because he wasn't worth half that and Bird through bad luck. We could have done something better with the cash. In fact it's only hindsight that makes the Bird deal bad. Signing Milford was just a straight out clusterfuck. Clocked off as soon as the ink was dry.

 

[McHunt]

 

[mrslong]

View attachment 9464

YESSSSSSSS A bad out of form Milford is still better than Croft on his best day. Milford is better than Croft in every facet of the game, even out of form, except possibly hair. Croft’s hair game is on point.

 

[rnabokov]

Silly silly argument. Last sentence just ridiculous. You keep making assertions as if I'm making them. Stop for ***** sake. I'm more than capable of expressing my own thoughts and I certainly don't need you to editorialize them.

You must've not read my previous post. Paix and Gamble had no experience. Dearden had 3 or 4 games under the belt. SOS was long term injured and Milford was hopeless. That was then, at the time of purchase. We actually had **** all AT THE TIME. Dearden was great when he finally got his chance but at the time it wasn't known how well he would go. Signing Croft wasn't the massive mistake you keep trying to make it out to be.

The Broncos two biggest signing mistakes were signing Milford to a long term deal and the same with Bird. Milford because he wasn't worth half that and Bird through bad luck. We could have done something better with the cash. In fact it's only hindsight that makes the Bird deal bad. Signing Milford was just a straight out clusterfuck. Clocked off as soon as the ink was dry.

Opportunism is what has fucked us. From Seibold to Croft, in fact the absence of any planning from 2018 onwards largely explains why we are where we are. That is the clusterfuck.

As for your arguments, dragging out elements of your personal agendas like Milford, to justify Croft's signing is what is silly.

 

[Midean]

YESSSSSSSS A bad out of form Milford is still better than Croft on his best day. Milford is better than Croft in every facet of the game, even out of form, except possibly hair. Croft’s hair game is on point.

This is a dud being replaced with a higher paid dud in my opinion.
I would have stuck with Croft, as i reckon he has a longer future with the club than Milf.

 

[Sproj]

YESSSSSSSS A bad out of form Milford is still better than Croft on his best day. Milford is better than Croft in every facet of the game, even out of form, except possibly hair. Croft’s hair game is on point.

It is an impressive harido isn't it and it doesn't matter if it is the 1st or 80th minute, it just doesn't change. Brodie Bravo.

 

[mrslong]

This is a dud being replaced with a higher paid dud in my opinion.
I would have stuck with Croft, as i reckon he has a longer future with the club than Milf.

eek god no He sucks. His defence is worse, his attack is worse, his kicking game is worse. I can't see it improving. Milf is absolutely on overs and needs to moved along, but while he's on our books and we choose between the 2 it's a no brainer, Milford all day, every day. We need to move Croft on or he is depth only. I actually think 400K for Croft is 200K too much.

 

[Midean]

eek god no He sucks. His defence is worse, his attack is worse, his kicking game is worse. I can't see it improving. Milf is absolutely on overs and needs to moved along, but while he's on our books and we choose between the 2 it's a no brainer, Milford all day, every day. We need to move Croft on or he is depth only. I actually think 400K for Croft is 200K too much.

I agree and disagree.

I think Milf is gone soon as his contract is up. Croft is young, and has potential.
If i had to pick between Milf on a million and croft on 400k, i know which one i would keep.

 

[Footy Fanatic]

I agree and disagree.

I think Milf is gone soon as his contract is up. Croft is young, and has potential.
If i had to pick between Milf on a million and croft on 400k, i know which one i would keep.

I agree that Milford is on far to much considering his output, but I can't see any real upside or potential in Croft that warrants keeping him around and playing him ahead of Milford.

 

[007]

What happened to the days of good coaching and development to bring a player on over a few years...

 

[pagey]

I agree and disagree.

I think Milf is gone soon as his contract is up. Croft is young, and has potential.
If i had to pick between Milf on a million and croft on 400k, i know which one i would keep.

Not if he keeps his trajectory up he hasn't, like most say potential is a dirty word.
I also think over the past few weeks that milf on a mil and Croft on 400k is not that far off, considering what you get .

 

[Midean]

What happened to the days of good coaching and development to bring a player on over a few years...

This is another part of the reason i would keep croft over milf. Croft has time on his side, and a far lighter impact on the cap.
Milford has been appalling for us this year in particular . Never forget, 7 runs for 40 meters.
He has gone missing in 9 out of 10 games, Croft can do that, just much cheaper.
Milfs one good game in a blue moon doesn't cut it.

 

[pagey]

What happened to the days of good coaching and development to bring a player on over a few years...

That went out the window with our youth strategy, much like penrith. Although I think we went with an even less experienced team , and this is why I believe we are seeing so much inconsistency. Throw in our injuries and a green coach (or possibly shit coach) and then boom , our tragic season.

 

[Slippin Jimmy]

Opportunism is what has fucked us. From Seibold to Croft, in fact the absence of any planning from 2018 onwards largely explains why we are where we are. That is the clusterfuck.

As for your arguments, dragging out elements of your personal agendas like Milford, to justify Croft's signing is what is silly.

How has signing Croft fucked us though? We have no depth in the halves and if Croft is indeed relatively cheap, it's not exactly a disaster that he's on the books. It's just that everything looks like a disaster because the culture within the club is rotten and the coach seems to be a dud.