David Stagg

[Black Philip]

Even when we didn't have injuries he wasn't being played in his preferred position. That said, at the time I definitely preferred Carroll at lock.

 

[Jeba]

Are you passionate about the debate, or just about AP?

I've been a long time defender of Stagg on this forum. He is another that gets the harsh treatment. Watch the 2006 Grand Final again - he was our second best player.

 

[Nashy]

Good on him. Scott Minto had a good game one day in Melbourne too. Doesn't make him a good player does it?

Compared to how he's playing now, Stagg was deadset hopeless in Brisbane.

 

[Kimlo]

Even when we didn't have injuries he wasn't being played in his preferred position. That said, at the time I definitely preferred Carroll at lock.

I still prefer Parker at lock as well. Stagg was always "average" bar 2006 finals where defensively anyway he was fantastic. Good for him that his form is now great but he definitely didn't show even a glimpse of his current form.

 

[Coxy]

Are you passionate about the debate, or just about AP?

The latter. I'm getting closer.

 

[Jeba]

Exactly Rock. I am not going to deny that his form for the Bulldogs is better than his form at the Broncos, but anyone who suggests he was hopeless is just another who expects State Of Origin standard from ALL of our players.

 

[Nashy]

Good on him. Scott Minto had a good game one day in Melbourne too. Doesn't make him a good player does it?

Compared to how he's playing now, Stagg was deadset hopeless in Brisbane.

What? Stagg was "hopeless" at Brisbane? How so?

He wasn't hopeless - He went out there, put 100% effort in and did was he does best. Tackle hard, defend well and play 80 minutes of footy without errors. That's the sort of player he was at Brisbane. To suggest he was hopeless is absolutely ridiculous.

I didn't outright call him hopeless. Read what I said. Compared to how he is playing now, he was hopeless. He's on fire at the Bulldogs, no one can deny that.

 

[Nashy]

Absolutely. Because you're right Rocky. You're never wrong actually?

Does that make your dick hard?

Out.

 

[Jeba]

Same old result here. Rocky uses logic in his argument and Nashy resorts to inappropriate comments because he has nothing. Rocky wins again!

 

[Nashy]

Not unlike you and AP really is it Jeb?

Anyway, I'm sick of arguing with him. I could use all the logic in the world, but he would never lay down and admit he's wrong. Because whatever he says is right.

Anyway. Moving along.

 

[Coxy]

[quote="The Rock":374lmuh6]

Good on him. Scott Minto had a good game one day in Melbourne too. Doesn't make him a good player does it?

Compared to how he's playing now, Stagg was deadset hopeless in Brisbane.

What? Stagg was "hopeless" at Brisbane? How so?

He wasn't hopeless - He went out there, put 100% effort in and did was he does best. Tackle hard, defend well and play 80 minutes of footy without errors. That's the sort of player he was at Brisbane. To suggest he was hopeless is absolutely ridiculous.

I didn't outright call him hopeless. Read what I said. Compared to how he is playing now, he was hopeless. He's on fire at the Bulldogs, no one can deny that.

He's added another dimension to his game at the Bulldogs and has become a "better" attacking player. The difference in form from the Broncos and Bulldogs isn't that much. If you think that the gap in form between the Broncos and Bulldogs is THAT much for you to justify calling his form at the Broncos hopeless, then a big LOLZ that's all I can say.[/quote:374lmuh6]

Yes and no. I think defensively he's on par with his form at the Broncos, but as you say, his attacking flair has shown up at the Bulldogs.

That is everything to do with the coach. Bennett saw Stagg's defence and wanted to use that so basically forbid him from having any role in attack other than support play and taking the odd run. Moore has given him more freedom.

So yes, I agree with Rock that Stagg wasn't hopeless at the Broncos, but Bennett's use of him greatly underused his value.

 

[Nashy]

What? I didn't say I was right or that you were wrong. I was just stating my opinion. I basically said that if you think the gap in form is that large then a big LOL to you. I respect that you have an opinion I'm just laughing at your opinion.

Yeah, your opinion, like Jeb's. Is always right. You don't debate Rock, you argue.

It wouldn't for you obviously going by your recent erectile problems.

I wasn't aware I had them actually. Thanks for informing me, I'll look out for it next time and report back for your easy cure.

Why would I admit I'm wrong???? [icon_shru This is a discussion about David Stagg, it's all opinion based. What exactly am I wrong about? [icon_shru [icon_lol1.

As above.

 

[Coxy]

And there's a point where you have to realise that you won't surrender your point, he won't surrender his, you both know where eachother stands so let it the **** go.

It's boring.

Just like Jeb vs AP/Queenslander/Gymp (not so much these days).
Me vs Huge

Just fucking grow up.

 

[Coxy]

No, I'm not saying surrender your points FFS. I'm saying "agree to disagree" and spare the rest of the forum a pointless 10-20 post back and forth saying "you're wrong" "no you're wrong" blah blah blah.

It's worse than Cher.

 

[Coxy]

:roll: Yes because that's how it would go.

I repeat. Make your point (eg Stagg was shit for the Broncos), add your support (look how well he's going for the Bulldogs etc).

Someone else can then counter (eg Stagg did the job he was asked to do at the Broncos very well), add your support (he was instructed to defend and not be involved in the attack etc).

Initial person can reply "I can see your point, but I disagree, he had opportunities to show his attack and he failed to do so".

It shouldn't then be "No he didn't" etc etc etc.

FFS, you and Nashy just ALWAYS butt heads.
Same way Jeb will take any opportunity to pick on AP's posts and vice versa.

It's BORING. I don't give a **** how big your e-penis is compared to Nashy's!

 

[mrslong]

I think Bennett did have some insight into his attacking ability, he had him at 5/8 when Lockyer was out with his knee injury. I think that Staggy's attack really improved during that stint but once Locky was back, and we still had Carroll as our main back row attacker and so we didn't need Stagg to do anything except defend. Which he was excellent at, and I for another one was gutted when we let him go.

For Once, I agree with Rock.

 

[Coxy]

No, it's not entertaining. You guys aren't even offering any more points. It's e-peen waving. Nothing more. And I basically agreed with your point of view on Stagg, Rock.

Doesn't mean everyone has to.
And doesn't mean you have to argue repeatedly with people who disagree until they surrender.

 

[Black Philip]

I think Bennett did have some insight into his attacking ability, he had him at 5/8 when Lockyer was out with his knee injury. I think that Staggy's attack really improved during that stint but once Locky was back, and we still had Carroll as our main back row attacker and so we didn't need Stagg to do anything except defend. Which he was excellent at, and I for another one was gutted when we let him go.

For Once, I agree with Rock.

I thought Bennett played Stagg at 5/8 while Lockyer was injured as kind of a stop-gap? I didn't personally think it had anything to do with Bennett thinking Stagg could be a capable attacking player.