Granville Discussion

[1910]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

Because NYC and ISC isn't first grade. I know a lot of people like to think it's the same thing, especially those directly involved at that level. But it's a lower grade.

You didn't answer the question just stated the obvious, everyone knows they're lower grades than the NRL.

Why is it so impossible for Granville to do what Gillette and Reed managed to do and plenty others? Gillett took his fake chances to Origin.

 

[Nashy]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

Because he doesn't get game time due to the position he plays being taken. I dunno, is that the right answer?

 

[1910]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

Because he doesn't get game time due to the position he plays being taken. I dunno, is that the right answer?

You're missing the point, his chances are in lower grades just like Gillett and just like Gillett his chances could of been used to get rid of people in front of him and play NRL every week.

This never had a chance rubbish is just that rubbish. You can debate if his form in the lower grades was good enough to get picked but you can't say he hasn't had a chance.

 

[Nashy]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

I think maybe you're missing the point. I was making a point that Macca had years to prove himself while playing rubbish football. Granville could have been there playing NRL and I think given the time Macca had, he would have been the better of the two.

Similar story to your other examples really. Getting better with real NRL experience. Except Reed.

 

[Big Pete]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

Well, Matt Gillett had a much better opportunity of earning a place than Granville given how many backrow spots there are in a side than dummy halves and Brisbane remained very firm on McCullough and had Hunt and Baptiste as back-up.

I don't even think Granville was officially apart of the club until 2013 either, even though he played a big hand in Wynnum's back to back premierships.

 

[1910]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

Well, Matt Gillett had a much better opportunity of earning a place than Granville given how many backrow spots there are in a side than dummy halves and Brisbane remained very firm on McCullough and had Hunt and Baptiste as back-up.

I don't even think Granville was officially apart of the club until 2013 either, even though he played a big hand in Wynnum's back to back premierships.

He played 20's, was at a Broncos feeder club and did off-seasons every year.

 

[Big Pete]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

I'm aware but just pointing out that the Gillett and Granville comparison isn't apt and Granville didn't receive much of an opportunity in the NYC either.

 

[1910]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

I'm aware but just pointing out that the Gillett and Granville comparison isn't apt and Granville didn't receive much of an opportunity in the NYC either.

I see them as nearly identical- both played minimal NYC games, went to Broncos' feeder clubs, won off-season trials and contracts.

You can view Granville's stint under Green particularly in 2011 as positive or negative- I would imagine a portion of NRL coaches don't want to see their hooker playing fullback in defence and hiding a weakness. Or you could see it as a big tick for versatility and great coaching.

 

[Big Pete]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

I can't because they play very different positions and bring different things to the table. When Gillett was signed, he was a very versatile player and with players moving on, there was a spot available which to his credit he took with both hands. The club always viewed McCullough as a future leader of the club and was willing to be as patient as they could be with him and had players like Hunt and Baptiste to fill the role.

Same goes with Reed. Folau left, GI baulked and Hodgo was returning from a ruptured achillies so Reed took his opportunity with both hands.

Granville never had the same opportunity to prove himself whether positively or negatively.

 

[Broncoman]

Re: McCullough vs Granville

Im a fan of Granville I feel he has the potential to be a regular first grade starter and always seems to do something good and provides spark out of dummy half whenever he plays. All things said McCullogh is the better all round player and a good long term prospect but using Granville as a utility can do wonders for us.

 

[Big Pete]

Edited the title of the thread to be more reflective of the OP's original intent.

Apologies to those who were offended but had to come up with a title in a hurry that reflected the topic of conversation.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I reckon his size has held him back for quite a while. Playing fullback in defence wouldn't have helped him pushing for NRL either IMO.

 

[CaptainHook]

In my opinion, Granville is easily more talented than McCullough. Any advantage that Macca has is purely because of having more time in first grade, so obviously his tackling, decision making, confidence etc are all superior.

Give Jake the same amount of time to develop and his defence would tighten up, game time would increase etc. Not saying Macca isn't a top player, but I get the feeling we've back the wrong horse. Time will tell....

 

[ivanhungryjak]

In my opinion, Granville is easily more talented than McCullough. Any advantage that Macca has is purely because of having more time in first grade, so obviously his tackling, decision making, confidence etc are all superior.

Give Jake the same amount of time to develop and his defence would tighten up, game time would increase etc. Not saying Macca isn't a top player, but I get the feeling we've back the wrong horse. Time will tell....

This argument is all based on opinion and hypotheticals of course but let me throw another observation in the ring- there are fifteen other NRL clubs that had an opportunity to sign Granville over the last six years or so and haven't done so. Only when a couple of clubs are desperate because of injury is he fielding a few offers now. Why is that?

 

[CaptainHook]

This argument is all based on opinion and hypotheticals of course but let me throw another observation in the ring- there are fifteen other NRL clubs that had an opportunity to sign Granville over the last six years or so and haven't done so. Only when a couple of clubs are desperate because of injury is he fielding a few offers now. Why is that?

Fair point. Who knows? I don't really follow other clubs that closely. I can only imagine that dummy half wasn't a position they needed to recruit in. Smith, Ballin, Luke, Friend etc all have their position sewn up and most of them have been amazingly injury-free so wouldn't need a replacement.

If the rumours are true about him going to the Cowboys, I don't think it's because of injury. I think the retirement of Aaron Payne hurt them more than they'd thought and they probably rue losing Segeyaro. They need a long-term hooker and Granville can easily play that role.

 

[Foordy]

In my opinion, Granville is easily more talented than McCullough. Any advantage that Macca has is purely because of having more time in first grade, so obviously his tackling, decision making, confidence etc are all superior.

Give Jake the same amount of time to develop and his defence would tighten up, game time would increase etc. Not saying Macca isn't a top player, but I get the feeling we've back the wrong horse. Time will tell....

This argument is all based on opinion and hypotheticals of course but let me throw another observation in the ring- there are fifteen other NRL clubs that had an opportunity to sign Granville over the last six years or so and haven't done so. Only when a couple of clubs are desperate because of injury is he fielding a few offers now. Why is that?

Another observation ... Granville has had 6 years to play well enough to take the spot from Macca, yet he failed to do it ... why? We've had at least 2 different coaches in that time and even when Macca was in poor form he kept his position.

It is the same as with Baptise ... people were calling for him to get a run over Macca at one stage. Yet he isn't even able to nail down a spot in the Raiders team who at one point had Mcrone at hooked FFS.

 

[CaptainHook]

Another observation ... Granville has had 6 years to play well enough to take the spot from Macca, yet he failed to do it ... why? We've had at least 2 different coaches in that time and even when Macca was in poor form he kept his position.

Probably the reason we've had a few lean years, Foordy. Macca, Reed, Hoffman etc could have all earned a stint in ISC over the last few years. I think it says more about the coaches than there being a lack of quality replacements.

 

[rnabokov]

This team is built around Macca and the way he plays and the combinations he has with those around him. For mine, it showed v Sharks where I believe we would have not lost if Macca had played.

Granville played well. Granville won't be here next year. What's the point of this thread?