Broncos positivity thread

[Nashy]

I'm positive we still suck.

 

[Huge]

It wasn't that bad, especially when compared to Milford who was woeful. Milf missed more tackles than Croft despite Brodie having to make 185 more tackles.

Milford 112 tackles and missed 35
Brodie 297 tackles and missed 28
Dearden 239 tackles and missed 25

Milford has already missed 12 tackles this season and made 24, Croft missed only 3 and made 47.

Not looking good for Milford

Season missed tackles

Milford 23.8%
Dearden 10.4%
Croft 9.4%

Perception and reality crashing head on. Any halfback, no matter how limited in attacking ability would be happy making 9 out of every 10 tackles. I am just trusting those stats given here but I'd wager they were close enough to be accepted.

 

[Huge]

I’m not sure of the stats, but he definitely wasn’t passing the eye test. Very meek attempts. He has vastly improved so far this year and I’m happy to blame Seibold and the rest of the teams performance.

Now you've seen the stats and Croft's tackle efficiency seems pretty good. What do you think? Not being smart, just asking if you think you might have been harsh?

 

[Finbar]

I am just trusting those stats given here but I'd wager they were close enough to be accepted.

I got them from broncos.com.au which gets it from nrl.com, so they should be close enough if I haven't made a mistake reading it and copying it over.

 

[Huge]

It wasn't that bad, especially when compared to Milford who was woeful. Milf missed more tackles than Croft despite Brodie having to make 185 more tackles.

Milford 112 tackles and missed 35
Brodie 297 tackles and missed 28
Dearden 239 tackles and missed 25

Milford has already missed 12 tackles this season and made 24, Croft missed only 3 and made 47.

Not looking good for ol' Milf.

I just assumed here that we add the two together to get the total or is the first stat the total of successful and unsuccessful tackles? If it is then Milford should hang his head in shame!

 

[Huge]

I got them from broncos.com.au which gets it from nrl.com, so they should be close enough if I haven't made a mistake reading it and copying it over.

I just made a post about how to read them...I might have fucked up with my percentages.

 

[Finbar]

I just assumed here that we add the two together to get the total or is the first stat the total of successful and unsuccessful tackles?

My assumption is the same as yours. "Tackles made" is the official name of the stat so I assume it doesn't include unsuccessful tackles.

 

[theshed]

Season missed tackles

Milford 23.8%
Dearden 10.4%
Croft 9.4%

Perception and reality crashing head on. Any halfback, no matter how limited in attacking ability would be happy making 9 out of every 10 tackles. I am just trusting those stats given here but I'd wager they were close enough to be accepted.

Some of those misses were really poor efforts though, which was more my point.

 

[Huge]

Some of those misses were really poor efforts though, which was more my point.

Okay, fair enough. Truthfully, any miss is poor but I see your point. That said he made a huge amount of great/effective tackles and a broad unqualified statement like you made painted him in a bad light. No matter, I think you'd have to agree that on balance and with the consideration that he played in the wooden spoon team his tackling last season certainly could not be considered terrible.

Happy if you disagree and still think he was poorMilford though

 

[theshed]

Okay, fair enough. Truthfully, any miss is poor but I see your point. That said he made a huge amount of great/effective tackles and a broad unqualified statement like you made painted him in a bad light. No matter, I think you'd have to agree that on balance and with the consideration that he played in the wooden spoon team his tackling last season certainly could not be considered terrible.

Happy if you disagree and still think he was poorMilford though

I feel like you’re falling into a bit of a false dichotomy argument here. Milford is and was terrible, worse than Croft. Are you basing his huge amount of great tackles on stats? How can you tell the quality of tackle on that?

He had many piss weak attempts last season and was rightfully dropped. I think his defence is better than his performance suggested, and we’ve seen glimpses of that this season, and if I were to being Dearden in, it would definitely be at Milford’s expense. Something I thought the opposite of only a week ago. Milford’s good kicking ability does not feel worth his bad defence and decision making.

Stats aside, Croft was making drop worthy poor defensive efforts last season.

 

[Huge]

I feel like you’re falling into a bit of a false dichotomy argument here. Milford is and was terrible, worse than Croft. Are you basing his huge amount of great tackles on stats? How can you tell the quality of tackle on that?

He had many piss weak attempts last season and was rightfully dropped. I think his defence is better than his performance suggested, and we’ve seen glimpses of that this season, and if I were to being Dearden in, it would definitely be at Milford’s expense. Something I thought the opposite of only a week ago. Milford’s good kicking ability does not feel worth his bad defence and decision making.

Stats aside, Croft was making drop worthy poor defensive efforts last season.

Here's my thought on that. This is what we know. Croft is not a big man. He has big men running at him all game. He made over 90% of his tackles. Therefore SOME percentage of those tackles MUST have been good/great tackles. Even assuming that a mere 5% of those tackles were great tackles that still means he made 15 great tackles in 20 games!!

If you think 5% is generous I think I have to give up this discussion. Generally you're very reasonable but it seems when it comes to Croft you're as sour on him as I am on Milford!!

 

[theshed]

Here's my thought on that. This is what we know. Croft is not a big man. He has big men running at him all game. He made over 90% of his tackles. Therefore SOME percentage of those tackles MUST have been good/great tackles. Even assuming that a mere 5% of those tackles were great tackles that still means he made 15 great tackles in 20 games!!

If you think 5% is generous I think I have to give up this discussion. Generally you're very reasonable but it seems when it comes to Croft you're as sour on him as I am on Milford!!

Haha mate, I’m being pro Croft! I think he’s doing a decent enough job this season. I just think he was rightfully dropped last season due to certain things he did in defence.

 

[Huge]

I feel like you’re falling into a bit of a false dichotomy argument here. Milford is and was terrible, worse than Croft. Are you basing his huge amount of great tackles on stats? How can you tell the quality of tackle on that?

He had many piss weak attempts last season and was rightfully dropped. I think his defence is better than his performance suggested, and we’ve seen glimpses of that this season, and if I were to being Dearden in, it would definitely be at Milford’s expense. Something I thought the opposite of only a week ago. Milford’s good kicking ability does not feel worth his bad defence and decision making.

Stats aside, Croft was making drop worthy poor defensive efforts last season.

Also, just reading my post I didn't say he'd made a huge amount of great tackles, I said he'd made a huge amount of effective/ great tackles. That was probably clumsy but it certainly doesn't mean all or a preponderance of those tackles were great.

I simply meant he made a huge amount of effective tackles and some simply must have been great tackles. Hell, some of them must have been try savers because **** knows teams scored a lot of tries against us. Sheer numbers alone support my contention.

 

[Huge]

Haha mate, I’m being pro Croft! I think he’s doing a decent enough job this season. I just think he was rightfully dropped last season due to certain things he did in defence.

Fair enough. I thought he was dropped because he was a scapegoat and there certainly were a lot of detractors both on here and in the public. To me it looked more like a desperate Seeplod making changes for changes sake.

 

[theshed]

Also, just reading my post I didn't say he'd made a huge amount of great tackles, I said he'd made a huge amount of effective/ great tackles. That was probably clumsy but it certainly doesn't mean all or a preponderance of those tackles were great.

I simply meant he made a huge amount of effective tackles and some simply must have been great tackles. Hell, some of them must have been try savers because **** knows teams scored a lot of tries against us. Sheer numbers alone support my contention.

You never cease to entertain me. This is an amazing argument

 

[Alec]

You generally don't pick halves for their defence. If they are valuable in attack, you do what you can to protect them in defence. If Milford produced wins in attack, you wouldn't even worry about his defence. It was the same with Baloney, Soward (in his prime) and co.

 

[Sproj]

You generally don't pick halves for their defence. If they are valuable in attack, you do what you can to protect them in defence. If Milford produced wins in attack, you wouldn't even worry about his defence. It was the same with Baloney, Soward (in his prime) and co.

Of course but if your half is terrible in defense and not much better than any other half in attack, if at all, why keep playing him?

 

[Alec]

Of course but if your half is terrible in defense and not much better than any other half in attack, if at all, why keep playing him?

You wouldn't, and I agree, Milford has to go.
However I'd only factor in the defence if the attacking skills of two or more halves were identical. Then you'd take the half who can defend better. Otherwise, I'd go attack over defence every time, and put good defensive players next to them.