Broncos Roster, Signings and Rumours Discussion 2021

[007]

Depending on Gambles form, he could easily play 6 next year....and do a steady job of it.

 

[Renegade]

Depending on Gambles form, he could easily play 6 next year....and do a steady job of it.

yeah that's my view too. 6. gamble 7. reynolds is steady. keep our powder dry until a 5/8 comes along worth our cash. we're not winning the premiership next year either but if we can continue to build and make ourselves attractive, we'll eventually get who we need. who knows, maybe that combo will work better than we think?

 

[the_next]

2022:
1. Farnworth
6. Gamble/Staggs
7. Reynolds
9. Hodgson
14. Turpin/Hetherington

 

[lynx000]

Risk is all relative. The Warriors gambled on Walsh and we didn't, but they have always struggled to attract Australian players and so their appetite for that risk is greater than ours might well be.

I thought when I read that the Warriors tabled an alleged $1.5 million for Hynes that it was probably a reasonable gamble on their end too, though again, it's probably slightly more than I'd have wanted us to risk.

I'd have been comfortable with $400k, perhaps $450k at an absolute maximum from our end. You can imagine Melbourne thinking that even that amount was too much risk, because for a club like them the appetite for risk is probably far lower than ours.

Add in, that the Warriors had the cash to splash in both instances from the RTS contract as well whereas I think our cap was and may still be precarious.

 

[Cult]

Isaako hasn't been as bad as many people want to believe. still a bit to work on but he's building nicely in his first full season at the back.

so far this season he has:

5 tries
6 try assists
1477 run meters (average of 123m per match)
7 line breaks
5 line break assists
48 tackle breaks

Ooh now do how many times he has kicked out on the full when the team is behind and desperate, missed tackles that led to tries and times he was nowhere to be seen when an offload could have been made?

 

[Cult]

Hynes is a big risk. He has only had a fairly small run of great form and it has been against poor teams. Add to that he comes from a system that we have seen first hand makes average players look great.

may 300-400k it is an acceptable risk, at 600k it’s crazy.

I get the fear of signing Storm players based on history but Hynes doesn't do the system stuff they're known for. He's just a competitor who likes to get his hands on the ball and that's what we needed in this team. In saying that, we definitely did the right thing by not matching Cronulla's offer.

 

[Cult]

2022:
1. Farnworth
6. Gamble/Staggs
7. Reynolds
9. Hodgson
14. Turpin/Hetherington

Turpin off the bench would be a waste and Hetherington is going to be our lock moving forward, hopefully. I'd run with Gamble as our bench utility. He could play centre, five-eight, half, hooker and lock.

 

[Cult]

Yes but he has Holmes and Drinkwater ahead of him for the fb spot, just a bunch we can get him if we want him. They also owe us one for Timmy Dryden.

What's his passing game like? I haven't seen much of it but like others have said with Reynolds and Staggs as our halves our fullback needs to set up tries, not just be quick.

 

[Foordy]

Ooh now do how many times he has kicked out on the full when the team is behind and desperate, missed tackles that led to tries and times he was nowhere to be seen when an offload could have been made?

less than Corey Parker used to

 

[big k]

On Staggs at 6... isn't Milfords biggest strength his now non existent running game? Taking the line on? Something Staggs is 100 times better at. So we'll get someone who will take the line on and be a real handful at 6... what a shame that will be huh.

 

[Kooly87]

I agree we have the benefit of hindsight.

The part of the Walsh situation which really annoyed me was that I can understand arguments that we let him walk without being willing to pay overs due to youth, inexperience etc

But we then turned around and paid similar money to both Riki and Robati. To let a potential superstar in the most important position in the modern game walk just to sign 2 youngsters in a position where solid players are a dime-a-dozen makes this a big error in my mind. I'd much rather we had taken the gamble on Walsh than lock down 2 second rowers who are easily replaced and can have limited impact on the game.

I like the fact that we're willing to stick to our guns and not overpay and play hardball, but throwing money at second rowers (one of whom was barely much older or more experienced than Walsh) at the expense of a spine player seems pretty incongruous and silly.

I'm not aware of what we paid Robati so I'll have to plead ignorance on that one, but in Riki's case it needs to be remembered that he was quite a bit further along in his development than Walsh was.

I know to some extent it's about money for a spine role vs an Edge Forward, but it's also about paying a fair amount based on your level of experience and development. Riki already had two seasons of Queensland Cup under his belt, had played NRL and had even technically played Rep Footy depending on how you view the All-Stars games.

Comparing that to Walsh who hadn't made even so much as a Queensland Cup debut, it probably starts to make more sense as to why one player was valued one way and another less proven player was valued another.

Obviously it's looking like a masterstroke for the Warriors right now, but based on the very limited actual evidence everyone had at the time, it's hard to argue that it was anything other than a monumental gamble that this time around looks like it will pay off.

 

[HarryAllan7]

I'm not aware of what we paid Robati so I'll have to plead ignorance on that one, but in Riki's case it needs to be remembered that he was quite a bit further along in his development than Walsh was.

I know to some extent it's about money for a spine role vs an Edge Forward, but it's also about paying a fair amount based on your level of experience and development. Riki already had two seasons of Queensland Cup under his belt, had played NRL and had even technically played Rep Footy depending on how you view the All-Stars games.

Comparing that to Walsh who hadn't made even so much as a Queensland Cup debut, it probably starts to make more sense as to why one player was valued one way and another less proven player was valued another.

Obviously it's looking like a masterstroke for the Warriors right now, but based on the very limited actual evidence everyone had at the time, it's hard to argue that it was anything other than a monumental gamble that this time around looks like it will pay off.

That's my mistake anyway, I meant Piakura not Riki. Both of those kids are as unproven as Walsh and have far less upside, but we happily paid them what they wanted which totalled to far less than Walsh desired to stay.

There's kudos to be given for being fiscally conservative and erring on the side of caution and not getting over-awed by these young players, definitely.

But if you're not going to take the gamble on Walsh then realistically who are you going to take the gamble on? He was in our system, we'd seen him up close, first hand and were better placed than any other team to make the call on whether he'd be a success or not. Obviously just my perspective but I think it was a gun-shy, weak move by the Broncos. You can't die wondering, if you're not willing to take risks you'll never achieve anything. We shouldn't have let him go.

 

[broncomax]

I'm not aware of what we paid Robati so I'll have to plead ignorance on that one, but in Riki's case it needs to be remembered that he was quite a bit further along in his development than Walsh was.

I know to some extent it's about money for a spine role vs an Edge Forward, but it's also about paying a fair amount based on your level of experience and development. Riki already had two seasons of Queensland Cup under his belt, had played NRL and had even technically played Rep Footy depending on how you view the All-Stars games.

Comparing that to Walsh who hadn't made even so much as a Queensland Cup debut, it probably starts to make more sense as to why one player was valued one way and another less proven player was valued another.

Obviously it's looking like a masterstroke for the Warriors right now, but based on the very limited actual evidence everyone had at the time, it's hard to argue that it was anything other than a monumental gamble that this time around looks like it will pay off.

I also get the feeling Walsh might want to come back to the Broncos once his contract is up - aren't we able to speak to him again at the end of next season - 2022?

 

[Foordy]

I also get the feeling Walsh might want to come back to the Broncos once his contract is up - aren't we able to speak to him again at the end of next season - 2022?

we can speak to him right now ... regarding the 2025 season and beyond

 

[Kooly87]

There's kudos to be given for being fiscally conservative and erring on the side of caution and not getting over-awed by these young players, definitely.

But if you're not going to take the gamble on Walsh then realistically who are you going to take the gamble on? He was in our system, we'd seen him up close, first hand and were better placed than any other team to make the call on whether he'd be a success or not. Obviously just my perspective but I think it was a gun-shy, weak move by the Broncos. You can't die wondering, if you're not willing to take risks you'll never achieve anything. We shouldn't have let him go.

I know, I get it, but realistically, this is more or less EXACTLY the thing we've been bagging the club for doing over and over again the last couple of years - paying up for potential and not performance - and literally all of those players had far more reliable, proven data at a senior and even NRL level to go on than Walsh did.

Realistically, he's 18 and could still spectacularly shit the bed tomorrow. That's what probably more than half of all 18 year old players do. I know it looks unlikely right now, but we've seen it literally hundreds of times before.

I applaud the Warriors for having the balls to take that gamble, but as I mentioned elsewhere, risk is all relative, and their appetite for it is likely to be a bit greater than ours probably should be.

 

[HarryAllan7]

I know, I get it, but realistically, this is more or less EXACTLY the thing we've been bagging the club for doing over and over again the last couple of years - paying up for potential and not performance - and literally all of those players had far more reliable, proven data at a senior and even NRL level to go on than Walsh did.

Realistically, he's 18 and could still spectacularly shit the bed tomorrow. That's what probably more than half of all 18 year old players do. I know it looks unlikely right now, but we've seen it literally hundreds of times before.

I applaud the Warriors for having the balls to take that gamble, but as I mentioned elsewhere, risk is all relative, and their appetite for it is likely to be a bit greater than ours probably should be.

I think it was the opposite, the club has been guilty of 2 things over the last few years:
- Overpaying for proven mediocrity in unimportant positions
- While simultaneously throwing unproven rookies into the deep end on the field

I don't remember us overpaying for any young talents based on potential (except maybe Flegler) - I remember us paying too much for players who had proven themselves adequate but lacking or declining at first grade level - Boyd, Oates, Milford, Bird, (arguably Lodge)... these weren't young rookies, this was us way overpaying (and overextending) experienced players who didn't warrant those types of contracts - these are the players we should be playing hardball with, not bright young homegrown talents who play a key position.

And yes, I agree, the Walsh experiment could go either way very quickly - hence I prefaced my claim that it appears at the moment to be a mistake.

 

[Gaz]

That's my mistake anyway, I meant Piakura not Riki. Both of those kids are as unproven as Walsh and have far less upside, but we happily paid them what they wanted which totalled to far less than Walsh desired to stay.

There's kudos to be given for being fiscally conservative and erring on the side of caution and not getting over-awed by these young players, definitely.

But if you're not going to take the gamble on Walsh then realistically who are you going to take the gamble on? He was in our system, we'd seen him up close, first hand and were better placed than any other team to make the call on whether he'd be a success or not. Obviously just my perspective but I think it was a gun-shy, weak move by the Broncos. You can't die wondering, if you're not willing to take risks you'll never achieve anything. We shouldn't have let him go.

You are spot on. Warriors were looking into our backyard from afar He was right under our nose, he was the toast of the town after this years Wynnum trial but while we were patting ourselves on the back Gus Gould and Nathan Brown were plotting. Rest is history. Regardless if we like it or not Kevin was caught with his pants down. We have issues with buying our own let alone going to the market. Sad times indeed.

 

[Kooly87]

I think it was the opposite, the club has been guilty of 2 things over the last few years:
- Overpaying for proven mediocrity in unimportant positions
- While simultaneously throwing unproven rookies into the deep end on the field

I don't remember us overpaying for any young talents based on potential (except maybe Flegler) - I remember us paying too much for players who had proven themselves adequate but lacking or declining at first grade level - Boyd, Oates, Milford, Bird, (arguably Lodge)... these weren't young rookies, this was us way overpaying (and overextending) experienced players who didn't warrant those types of contracts - these are the players we should be playing hardball with, not bright young homegrown talents who play a key position.

And yes, I agree, the Walsh experiment could go either way very quickly - hence I prefaced my claim that it appears at the moment to be a mistake.

It does also need to be mentioned that Walsh himself has acknowledged only this week that it was the non guarantee of a way into First Grade this season that heavily impacted his decision, so it is likely to be fair to say that money and an unwillingness to pay up may not have been deciding factor anyway.

I'm hardly the world's biggest Isaako fan but even I could hardly blame Kevvie for being gun-shy in promising a kid who hadn't played Queensland Cup a guaranteed NRL berth at a point where we are literally desperate for every bit of NRL experience we can muster.

What the Warriors have done with RTS is an incredible shift that literally no one would have believed possible prior to Round 1. As I said, that took incredible balls and a huge level of selflessness from RTS and could have spectacularly blown up in their faces. If Walsh knew they were prepared to put that plan into place then it's likely money wouldn't have changed his mind anyway.