Broncos Roster, Signings and Rumours Discussion 2021

[theshed]

According to Kent on 360, although Seibold's role at Newcastle was to be the coaches' coach, he is now using that big brain to do one on one sessions with players. That might have been enough for Watson to rush back to Trent.

I noticed Knights recently have gone all in on the Walker Bro’s every kick off is a short kick off philosophy - to pretty good results too.

During the game I thought it myself that this has Seib’s written all over it

 

[Aldo]

According to Kent on 360, although Seibold's role at Newcastle was to be the coaches' coach, he is now using that big brain to do one on one sessions with players. That might have been enough for Watson to rush back to Trent.

"Hey Dave Klemmer, we need you to do this"

 

[HarryAllan7]

I noticed Knights recently have gone all in on the Walker Bro’s every kick off is a short kick off philosophy - to pretty good results too.

During the game I thought it myself that this has Seib’s written all over it

It absolutely astounds me that teams haven't embraced this yet. It's at worst a 50:50 jump ball contest if the team can execute consistently.

On top of that, its a 50% chance you regather on the opponent's 40m line vs a 50% chance they regather on their own 40m line... that 20m advantage means even at 50% win rate, mathematically you should be going short every kickoff since you're winning bigger than you're losing.

In the 6 again era, giving a team the ball on their own 40m line isn't as big of a risk as it once was, considering that one 6 again call from a long kickoff would yield the same result anyway.

Having a designated 'catcher' (like Coates but ... good) who specialised in getting up high and snagging the short kick-off regularly would probably push the odds even more in your favour and make it even more of a no brainer play.

The short goal-line drop out is just as statistically beneficial, and even more so considering that defence on your own line is actually easier than allowing the opposition to gain momentum through the ruck from 30-40m out.

If the Walker brothers pioneered this and understand this, then we should absolutely have them on board in some capacity and we should be pioneering this sort of advancement - we are the Broncos, its about time we were back leading the charge and revolutionising the game and pushing the envelope of tactics.

 

[Huge]

mate good on you, thumbs up to you brother. huge, the defender of the downtrodden. the man that can see the forest from the trees. the last bastion of the underappreciated. i would never block a man of such integrity and grit.

edit: also a man who pays through the nose for cheap tickets. but at least you can have a laugh about it. :)

Mmm, not sure you'll feel too sorry for this old broken down defender of truth and justice soon. There will be a few photos of the new Ponderosa and maybe a 10 second pan around coming. I might be a miserable old **** shouting at clouds but I'll be on the ninth floor, ocean side doing it

 

[HarryAllan7]

Manu is a really good player, he's shown flashes of talent in the spine and if we think he can handle FB full time then I would be chasing him, but I don't think he's a $1m player yet. Given how desperate we are for a fullback, we might have to just close our eyes and hope and take a gamble that he's worth it, but that goes very well (Ponga) much less often than it goes very poorly (Taylor, numerous others). No risk, no reward and all things considered, a player of Manu's calibre in a position of need at $1m isn't unjustifiable... you just better hope you get it right.

Ponga is a different proposition. As others have said, he is a mercenary and will 100% go to the highest bidder. Post-Fifita, you're probably looking at $1.5m ballpark to lure him away from Newcastle on a short term contract, you'll have to re-bid in a few years or he'll walk and he may just pack up and leave next rugby union world cup to play for the All Blacks anyway. I'm not convinced any player is worth that much, especially one who seems so disinterested in developing himself as a footballer. His development the last few years has been pretty stagnant.
His attitude is evident in his disinterest and unwillingness to develop as a goalkicker (this is a learned skill honed by repetition and commitment to practice) and Ponga has chosen to abandon goalkicking rather than work hard to develop it as a part of his game. How many immortals / all time great players were also goal-kickers... do you think that's coincidence? It's not about skill or talent, it's just about commitment and hard work.
Yes, he's had some injuries last few years, but instances where he has actually been CLEARED to play by medical staff and still chosen to sit out is really weak to me and screams of this new age 'its all business / its just footy / always do the best for me and disregard the team' mindset.
He's a brilliant talent, but he won't be worth the risk or the monster contract he'll be seeking in my opinon.

 

[Huge]

Newcastle and Seibold should take Kennar off how hands for next year, maybe Kennedy too. Their level of below mediocrity should no longer fit into what the Broncos should be. We need depth but our depth can be better.

No. Kennar yes.

 

[1910]

It absolutely astounds me that teams haven't embraced this yet. It's at worst a 50:50 jump ball contest if the team can execute consistently.

On top of that, its a 50% chance you regather on the opponent's 40m line vs a 50% chance they regather on their own 40m line... that 20m advantage means even at 50% win rate, mathematically you should be going short every kickoff since you're winning bigger than you're losing.

In the 6 again era, giving a team the ball on their own 40m line isn't as big of a risk as it once was, considering that one 6 again call from a long kickoff would yield the same result anyway.

Having a designated 'catcher' (like Coates but ... good) who specialised in getting up high and snagging the short kick-off regularly would probably push the odds even more in your favour and make it even more of a no brainer play.

The short goal-line drop out is just as statistically beneficial, and even more so considering that defence on your own line is actually easier than allowing the opposition to gain momentum through the ruck from 30-40m out.

If the Walker brothers pioneered this and understand this, then we should absolutely have them on board in some capacity and we should be pioneering this sort of advancement - we are the Broncos, its about time we were back leading the charge and revolutionising the game and pushing the envelope of tactics.

Capewell is a master at it too, he took a lot of the Jets short kick offs in 2015.

 

[Aldo]

I'd definitely be offering a more than fair price for Ponga when the time comes, but not a mill. He'll probably laugh at it but as people have said, he could make a fuckton of money from third party arrangements.

 

[Huge]

It absolutely astounds me that teams haven't embraced this yet. It's at worst a 50:50 jump ball contest if the team can execute consistently.

On top of that, its a 50% chance you regather on the opponent's 40m line vs a 50% chance they regather on their own 40m line... that 20m advantage means even at 50% win rate, mathematically you should be going short every kickoff since you're winning bigger than you're losing.

In the 6 again era, giving a team the ball on their own 40m line isn't as big of a risk as it once was, considering that one 6 again call from a long kickoff would yield the same result anyway.

Having a designated 'catcher' (like Coates but ... good) who specialised in getting up high and snagging the short kick-off regularly would probably push the odds even more in your favour and make it even more of a no brainer play.

The short goal-line drop out is just as statistically beneficial, and even more so considering that defence on your own line is actually easier than allowing the opposition to gain momentum through the ruck from 30-40m out.

If the Walker brothers pioneered this and understand this, then we should absolutely have them on board in some capacity and we should be pioneering this sort of advancement - we are the Broncos, its about time we were back leading the charge and revolutionising the game and pushing the envelope of tactics.

You mention the six again era and that caught my eye. I have suggested that with 6 agains we can and have had 12+ tackle sets and asked the question, what's the big deal if a team concedes a 7 tackle set?

If I was coaching a team I'd tell them to kick for the ingoal even and especially when still in our own half. If it goes dead, no big deal. Against the elite teams it would be a nullifying device.

If you can picture this. Melbourne defending, us attacking and still behind our own 40 metre line, 5th tackle. Deliberate slow ptb to ensure our long punter is ready and correctly placed, ball passed straight back, (grid iron style if we wanted but I know, unnecessary) our boy kicks long, low and hard looking for the dead ball line.

If you can picture such a scenario you might also see a few positives. In this scenario against Melbourne I think it might be useful for these reasons.

Melbourne have to be onside for a restart so the entire team has to get back down field.
We must make the 30, them the 20.
We are set and uniform, no gaps.
We take away their backfield yardage gains.
We gain a short breather.

It costs just one extra tackle. Thoughts?

 

[Sproj]

It absolutely astounds me that teams haven't embraced this yet. It's at worst a 50:50 jump ball contest if the team can execute consistently.

On top of that, its a 50% chance you regather on the opponent's 40m line vs a 50% chance they regather on their own 40m line... that 20m advantage means even at 50% win rate, mathematically you should be going short every kickoff since you're winning bigger than you're losing.

In the 6 again era, giving a team the ball on their own 40m line isn't as big of a risk as it once was, considering that one 6 again call from a long kickoff would yield the same result anyway.

Having a designated 'catcher' (like Coates but ... good) who specialised in getting up high and snagging the short kick-off regularly would probably push the odds even more in your favour and make it even more of a no brainer play.

The short goal-line drop out is just as statistically beneficial, and even more so considering that defence on your own line is actually easier than allowing the opposition to gain momentum through the ruck from 30-40m out.

If the Walker brothers pioneered this and understand this, then we should absolutely have them on board in some capacity and we should be pioneering this sort of advancement - we are the Broncos, its about time we were back leading the charge and revolutionising the game and pushing the envelope of tactics.

Not only that but even if you do kick long and pin the opposition in their 20, you can be almost guaranteed the ref will either give a phantom 6-again, penalty or both to help the team out of trouble, especially if they are one of the NRL darlings. Also, it isn't that hard to mix it up even and keep the opposition guessing.

 

[Sproj]

You mention the six again era and that caught my eye. I have suggested that with 6 agains we can and have had 12+ tackle sets and asked the question, what's the big deal if a team concedes a 7 tackle set?

If I was coaching a team I'd tell them to kick for the ingoal even and especially when still in our own half. If it goes dead, no big deal. Against the elite teams it would be a nullifying device.

If you can picture this. Melbourne defending, us attacking and still behind our own 40 metre line, 5th tackle. Deliberate slow ptb to ensure our long punter is ready and correctly placed, ball passed straight back, (grid iron style if we wanted but I know, unnecessary) our boy kicks long, low and hard looking for the dead ball line.

If you can picture such a scenario you might also see a few positives. In this scenario against Melbourne I think it might be useful for these reasons.

Melbourne have to be onside for a restart so the entire team has to get back down field.
We must make the 30, them the 20.
We are set and uniform, no gaps.
We take away their backfield yardage gains.
We gain a short breather.

It costs just one extra tackle. Thoughts?

Yep, it is certainly worth pursuing. You have to try and counter the six again and broken play is conducive to allowing the ref to get trigger happy. Take the ref out of the equation at least for one or two tackles and it also allows you to get your defensive line set.

 

[Cult]

No. Kennar yes.

Nice input, Huge.

I'd happily let both of them go and replace them with QLD Cup players who can do a better job. Kennar for Deloise Hoeter and Kennedy for Thomas Mikaele or Darryn Schonig.

 

[upthebroncs]

According to Kent on 360, although Seibold's role at Newcastle was to be the coaches' coach, he is now using that big brain to do one on one sessions with players. That might have been enough for Watson to rush back to Trent.

Weak narrative formulated by Paul Kent. He knew that Knights fans weren't happy about Watson leaving.. And who better to blame for some click bait?

 

[Big Pete]

Nice input, Huge.

I'd happily let both of them go and replace them with QLD Cup players who can do a better job. Kennar for Deloise Hoeter and Kennedy for Thomas Mikaele or Darryn Schonig.

According to the NRL website, Kennar's currently off-contract so that earlier report I had conniptions over appears to be incorrect.

 

[theshed]

It absolutely astounds me that teams haven't embraced this yet. It's at worst a 50:50 jump ball contest if the team can execute consistently.

On top of that, its a 50% chance you regather on the opponent's 40m line vs a 50% chance they regather on their own 40m line... that 20m advantage means even at 50% win rate, mathematically you should be going short every kickoff since you're winning bigger than you're losing.

In the 6 again era, giving a team the ball on their own 40m line isn't as big of a risk as it once was, considering that one 6 again call from a long kickoff would yield the same result anyway.

Having a designated 'catcher' (like Coates but ... good) who specialised in getting up high and snagging the short kick-off regularly would probably push the odds even more in your favour and make it even more of a no brainer play.

The short goal-line drop out is just as statistically beneficial, and even more so considering that defence on your own line is actually easier than allowing the opposition to gain momentum through the ruck from 30-40m out.

If the Walker brothers pioneered this and understand this, then we should absolutely have them on board in some capacity and we should be pioneering this sort of advancement - we are the Broncos, its about time we were back leading the charge and revolutionising the game and pushing the envelope of tactics.

Yeah absolutely, it was a decent tactic when the Walkers first did it a few years back, like you said 6 again has made it a no brainer - especially with drop outs. I wonder how many weeks of a team using it successfully before Vlandy changes the kick off rules to 20m minimum or something though.

 

[HarryAllan7]

You mention the six again era and that caught my eye. I have suggested that with 6 agains we can and have had 12+ tackle sets and asked the question, what's the big deal if a team concedes a 7 tackle set?

If I was coaching a team I'd tell them to kick for the ingoal even and especially when still in our own half. If it goes dead, no big deal. Against the elite teams it would be a nullifying device.

If you can picture this. Melbourne defending, us attacking and still behind our own 40 metre line, 5th tackle. Deliberate slow ptb to ensure our long punter is ready and correctly placed, ball passed straight back, (grid iron style if we wanted but I know, unnecessary) our boy kicks long, low and hard looking for the dead ball line.

If you can picture such a scenario you might also see a few positives. In this scenario against Melbourne I think it might be useful for these reasons.

Melbourne have to be onside for a restart so the entire team has to get back down field.
We must make the 30, them the 20.
We are set and uniform, no gaps.
We take away their backfield yardage gains.
We gain a short breather.

It costs just one extra tackle. Thoughts?

The 7-tackle rule was created to stop teams exploiting the dead ball line, now when the average set is >6 tackles anyway, I think you're right that there could be argument for utilising it strategically since the punishment is nowhere near as serious as it once was. I also agree that a slow play the ball to force the opposition to be onside and stay onside and give the kicker the best opportunity to strike the ball is preferable to a quick PTB where the opposition jump offside EVERY time, rush the kicker, who is put under pressure and executes poorly. All the points you raise about the specific scenario are totally valid and true.

As unpopular as the idea might be to some, I think there is absolutely times where it would pay to exploit the rules and slow the game down.

The one that always gets me is when the opposition kicks long, our winger catches the ball in the corner on our own line... our forwards are ambling back onside while the opposition who already chased the kick hard are already in position to defend. Why on earth would we want a quick PTB so that an outside back or whoever happens to be back onside can take a pitiful hitup and get monstered? Slow the play the ball down to a complete standstill, give time for all our forwards to get back behind the line and ready to take a hit up and suddenly the first 3 tackles of the set aren't wasted by outside backs struggling to make metres.

 

[Huge]

Nice input, Huge.

I'd happily let both of them go and replace them with QLD Cup players who can do a better job. Kennar for Deloise Hoeter and Kennedy for Thomas Mikaele or Darryn Schonig.

Well, despite knowing you are capable of sound reasoning I cannot have a discussion with you about Kennedy. Why? Well, you've already decided you know everything and due to that you simply won't consideranything I write.

When your bias is so overwhelming it let's you think trading a proven bench prop forward with good statistical data and an absolute bargain price for some untested lower grade replacement who costs the same. Probably need to pay him extra if he's got a decent job.

I work with 26 year olds like RK and some are sporty types too but they wouldn't take the paycut to play an unappreciated role in a wooden spoon nrl team. RK will though. He plays for peanuts. In fact he plays for less than half of what we are paying for just one player at another club!! If it was Lodge, RKs playing for a third or quarter of what we are paying the Warriors. No way in hell I'd trade that in.

One last thing, please explain how these untested lower graders offer more.

 

[Foordy]

according to McHunt (Badel) the we are launching a "shock" plan to bring Walsh back home.

Kevvie says:

“We never wanted to lose Reece,” Walters said ahead of Walsh’s maiden showdown with the Broncos at Suncorp.

“We are a Queensland-based club and I had high hopes for Reece to play for the Broncos.

“I wished Reece all the best at the Warriors. He has been playing some good footy for them, which I expected him to do, but he’s only young.

“I’m not sure what will happen down the track, but Reece is always welcome back here, certainly.”


Craig Hodges (Warriors assistant says)

“The Broncos would be mad not to have a crack at Reece and there will always be the family connection to come home to Brisbane,” he said.

“But if he feels valued with what we are doing, there might be no reason for Reece to leave.

“It might not be as simple as Brisbane wanting him back, so they’ll get him back.

“I guess a bit of that will come down to the type of club we are building at the Warriors and whether he feels he wants to be a part of that.

“If we travel on the path I’m expecting us to go on as a club in the coming years, it might be too exciting for Reece to leave.”