Broncos - 2015 Discussion

[Sproj]

Is it $200k after the long-serving player concession? As good as he has been going, I do think we have more than enough to cover losing him and I believe Glenn should be a higher priority, unless we plan to play Oates in Glenn's spot.

8. McGuire
9. McCullough
10. Blair (Would prefer Thaiday over Blair but he is here on a three year deal I think)
11. Glenn
12. Gillett
13. Parker

14. Kik/Parcell
15. Molo/Ofa/Wallace
16. Dodds/Gavet
17. Oates

Still plenty of depth there even if we lose one of Thaiday/Glenn.

My only point on that though is I still think Oates should be a winger/centre moving forward anyway, at least for another season or two.

 

[Unbreakable]

Walters confirmed on NRL 360 that Stephen Kearney is 100% in charge of our defence and has made some changes from last season which have really helped the defensive structure.

Props also have to go to Alex Corvo and whoever else is in charge of our health and fitness, because it appears our entire roster is way stronger and way fitter than last season.

 

[ningnangnong]

Maybe people will give Kearney some credit now, after bagging the shit out of him last season even though no one had any idea what his role was.

 

[Porthoz]

Maybe people will give Kearney some credit now, after bagging the shit out of him last season even though no one had any idea what his role was.

What was his role, and why was our defense so shit?

We're sliding and defending our line really well, but I'm still less than impressed with our line speed and the ease with which the opposition gets to our 20...

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

What was his role, and why was our defense so shit?

We're sliding and defending our line really well, but I'm still less than impressed with our line speed and the ease with which the opposition gets to our 20...

When will you get it that our slow line speed is intentional and creating a wall?? It's working! Get line speed or of your head because metres matter nothing if a team can't cross the strip

 

[Porthoz]

When will you get it that our slow line speed is intentional and creating a wall?? It's working! Get line speed or of your head because metres matter nothing if a team can't cross the strip

There's no need for you to repeat my own line to me. I said that weeks and weeks ago!
It's possibly still a work in progress, as it is better to have a slow unified line, than a staggered quick one, with more holes than Swiss cheese, but it must improve.

Now for the bold bit...

We were heroic and can only play what is put in front of us, and full credit to the boys against the Storm, but let's not kid ourselves... Melbourne's creativity in attack was average at best, and their halfback was pretty much AWOL for the whole game.

A team with a half of the calibre of Thurston, Cronk, Johnson or DCE will cross the strip no matter how good your goal line defense is, as will a team like the Roosters if you keep allowing them to have a go. That is most likely the type of teams we will be playing against in the finals, and we will need to keep them as far as possible from our 20.

 

[theshed]

While I love the style of defence we are playing and was completely amazed at the effort put in, there were still holes appearing at times and had Cronk been there to capitalise, the result may have been very different. Especially if billy was running his line on the inside of Cronk.

The fill in halves never seemed to play what was in front of them when a chance appeared but instead fully committed to their set plays. Smith's try assist was a great example and almost seemed to be done out of frustration.

If we don't improve on those gaps other teams will exploit them now that they've seen our defensive style pushed to its maximum.

This isn't an argument for line speed though, it just means we still have some room for improvement in plugging those gaps if we are going to rely on an unbroken defensive line so strongly.

 

[broncos4life]

I really can't stand this 'if Cronk was there then this' because no one is saying 'if Parker was there this' or 'if hodgo was there this'.

People are acting like we were full strength and Melbourne had a bunch of numpties playing

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

I actually read it on here. . Melbourne should probably have in the end tried for two field goals though haha

Even a high ball. . Hindsight says going for just repeat sets underestimated our defense but also overstated their ability to score points easy. It was cocky in a way

 

[theshed]

I really can't stand this 'if Cronk was there then this' because no one is saying 'if Parker was there this' or 'if hodgo was there this'.

People are acting like we were full strength and Melbourne had a bunch of numpties playing

Because it was irrelevant to my point. Cronk is a half and billy slater is one of the all time best support players. I'm saying that with the team we had on the night playing exactly the way we did, although putting in a huge effort and being very close to defensively perfect, there were holes to exploit that a more creative spine MAY have exploited.

They only really exploited it twice near our line and one time they scored and the other Parcell made a tackle that no one could've expected him to pull off so amazingly. He was on his own to tackle a very powerful running forward with unmarked players either side of him. It was a remarkable individual effort that prevented it, not our structure at that point.

I'm just analysing our game for areas we can still improve. It was almost perfect in my eyes though and I'm very happy with it.

 

[1910]

It’s vintage Wayne, good technique, stay square and keep your line, communicate, stay on the same page, work from the inside Same as everything he does very basic but has to be done well.

Kearney is more hands on this year and more in charge.

Bennett didn’t even come to training a few weeks ago and Kearney took the session. The whole defence structure emphasis has changes from last year. That's why it was wrong when people bagged Kearney.

 

[rnabokov]

Slow line speed against quality halves and hooker like Roosters and Dragons will prove fatal. Their forwards will not only make metres and set up camp in our end, they will have time and space to create plays on edges and give dangerous runners like RTS and Dugan too much room to do what they do best: run

Quality line speed does not mean a broken line.

 

[broncos4life]

Slow line speed against quality halves and hooker like Roosters and Dragons will prove fatal. Their forwards will not only make metres and set up camp in our end, they will have time and space to create plays on edges and give dangerous runners like RTS and Dugan too much room to do what they do best: run

Quality line speed does not mean a broken line.

But you can't increase your line speed until you can keep that unbroken line with a faster line speed. It really isn't as simple as some people are making out.

 

[rnabokov]

But you can't increase your line speed until you can keep that unbroken line with a faster line speed. It really isn't as simple as some people are making out.

You are 100% correct of course.

That has to be the goal Kearney sets for us.

Can an people imagine what it would be like letting a team like the Dogs, Roosters, Cowboys or Dragons make heaps of free metres up the middle, setting up camp in our red zone and setting their halves and FB's free with room to move?

We showed how to do it when we played the Roosters. Superb line speed for most of that game.

And out of interest, and separate to defensive line speed, what do people think was/were the reason(s) the Storm had so much possession and forced us to defend so much and so brilliantly last game?

Also, I am curious to know if people think we would have held out the Dogs, Roosters, Cowboys or Dragons as we did the Storm?

I don't. It worries me. Should I be worried?

 

[Morkel]

Because it was irrelevant to my point. Cronk is a half and billy slater is one of the all time best support players. I'm saying that with the team we had on the night playing exactly the way we did, although putting in a huge effort and being very close to defensively perfect, there were holes to exploit that a more creative spine MAY have exploited.

They only really exploited it twice near our line and one time they scored and the other Parcell made a tackle that no one could've expected him to pull off so amazingly. He was on his own to tackle a very powerful running forward with unmarked players either side of him. It was a remarkable individual effort that prevented it, not our structure at that point.

I'm just analysing our game for areas we can still improve. It was almost perfect in my eyes though and I'm very happy with it.

Actually it is relevant. Because the counter-argument is that it's possible, likely even, that those "holes" you speak of would be forming less often had Parker been there. Not only does he get high tackle counts, but his effective tackle count is way up there too, meaning he doesn't miss much and doesn't give opponents chances.

You are 100% correct of course.

That has to be the goal Kearney sets for us.

Can an people imagine what it would be like letting a team like the Dogs, Roosters, Cowboys or Dragons make heaps of free metres up the middle, setting up camp in our red zone and setting their halves and FB's free with room to move?

We showed how to do it when we played the Roosters. Superb line speed for most of that game.

And out of interest, and separate to defensive line speed, what do people think was/were the reason(s) the Storm had so much possession and forced us to defend so much and so brilliantly last game?

Also, I am curious to know if people think we would have held out the Dogs, Roosters, Cowboys or Dragons as we did the Storm?

I don't. It worries me. Should I be worried?

From memory we've always been quite easy to earn dropouts from. Perhaps it's our sliding defence? We seem to be compressed enough to not concede through the middle, yet fast & fit enough to get across to threats out wide. However, the act of our defence sliding is potentially opening up the gaps which is allowing those short, sharp grubbers at the line to consistently get through? Ie, throw a dummy to spread the ball wide, our defence reacts, gaps appear that aren't big enough for a runner to go through, but are big enough for a kick to go through.

 

[Alec]

You are 100% correct of course.

That has to be the goal Kearney sets for us.

Can an people imagine what it would be like letting a team like the Dogs, Roosters, Cowboys or Dragons make heaps of free metres up the middle, setting up camp in our red zone and setting their halves and FB's free with room to move?

We showed how to do it when we played the Roosters. Superb line speed for most of that game.

And out of interest, and separate to defensive line speed, what do people think was/were the reason(s) the Storm had so much possession and forced us to defend so much and so brilliantly last game?

Also, I am curious to know if people think we would have held out the Dogs, Roosters, Cowboys or Dragons as we did the Storm?

I don't. It worries me. Should I be worried?

I'm worried too. We'll have to see how it goes in the finals.

 

[theshed]

Actually it is relevant. Because the counter-argument is that it's possible, likely even, that those "holes" you speak of would be forming less often had Parker been there. Not only does he get high tackle counts, but his effective tackle count is way up there too, meaning he doesn't miss much and doesn't give opponents chances.



From memory we've always been quite easy to earn dropouts from. Perhaps it's our sliding defence? We seem to be compressed enough to not concede through the middle, yet fast & fit enough to get across to threats out wide. However, the act of our defence sliding is potentially opening up the gaps which is allowing those short, sharp grubbers at the line to consistently get through? Ie, throw a dummy to spread the ball wide, our defence reacts, gaps appear that aren't big enough for a runner to go through, but are big enough for a kick to go through.

I don't disagree that Parker would've made us even harder to crack, I'm just saying based on our performance that night their was opportunities Melbourne could've attempted if they weren't so stuck to their set plays.


As for my opinion on drop outs, I agree we are easy to get drop outs from. I agree it's our defensive structure. Darius defends in the line (during goal line defence) so we have all 13 men in the line. When I kick is stabbed into the in goal he or one of our backs has to turn to collect it instead of most fullbacks being their to pick it up with forward momentum. It comes down to personal opinion whether you think it's a good trade off or not. I think it is, as our game verse storm gives evidence for.

 

[broncos4life]

'What Ifs' - The Gordon Tallis approach to footy analysis. Available now at all good bookstores