Jack Reed

[Financeguy]

Reed is fine, is he going to win us a game single handedly, probably not but he won't lose us one either. There are not many centres in the comp who can imo, Lyon, Hodges, maybe Jennings on his best day, Ferguson at a pinch but the latter 2 names can also lose a game. Jack Reed is a good solid first grade centre, much like Michael DeVere was and much like Chris Johns was, and we managed to win a few premierships with those guys plugging a hole in the centres.

There are many positions i would worry about before the number 3 on the back of Reeds jersey.

 

[Financeguy]

Manifesto - to put things into perspective I play "supercoach" every year and Reed started the year at about the $250,000 mark and ended at $170,000 - supercoach is based on all aspects of the game - attack and how many meters gained with points awarded if they run for over 8 meters in atttack and points for tackles and minus points for missed tackles etc - if you play well each week your value goes up - if you under perform you value goes down - his value went down33% during the season - why - he underperformed and to win a premiership you have to have very good players across the team - they are slowly plugging the holes but the left centre - Reed is a problem and the stats dont lie

FMD, shitting on a player because of his fantasy league points, that will do me.

Corey Parker would be ruler of the world if that was the criteria...

 

[Fighting Irish]

UPtHEGUTS - you have ht the nail on the head - we have maybe 3 or 4 payers in the team who perform at the top level each week but on the whole all we hear are excuses coming from Hook - we missed by that much and we will just have to improve next week etc - unfortunately for too long now we have accepted mediocrity and it has become the norm and it seems to me that broncosforlife is another Hook - either won't admit there is a problem with the quality of player we have or simply is blinded by the Broncos past

 

[Socnorb]

UPtHEGUTS - you have ht the nail on the head - we have maybe 3 or 4 payers in the team who perform at the top level each week but on the whole all we hear are excuses coming from Hook - we missed by that much and we will just have to improve next week etc - unfortunately for too long now we have accepted mediocrity and it has become the norm and it seems to me that broncosforlife is another Hook - either won't admit there is a problem with the quality of player we have or simply is blinded by the Broncos past

Blinded by the broncos past! I though he was blinded by science.

 

[Big Pete]

The problem I have with Reed isn't so much we signed him on 250K, it's the fact that we signed him until 2017.

He's a solid player and I have no problem with having him in the squad, but that's an awfully long commitment to a player who doesn't have much, if any improvement in him.

 

[Broncoman]

The problem I have with Reed isn't so much we signed him on 250K, it's the fact that we signed him until 2017.

He's a solid player and I have no problem with having him in the squad, but that's an awfully long commitment to a player who doesn't have much, if any improvement in him.

Maybe but it does guarantee a long standing centre combo with Hodges for most of the deal, (I doubt Hodgo will play on till 2017). A Hodges/Reed centre pairing is a pretty good one.

 

[Financeguy]

The problem I have with Reed isn't so much we signed him on 250K, it's the fact that we signed him until 2017.

He's a solid player and I have no problem with having him in the squad, but that's an awfully long commitment to a player who doesn't have much, if any improvement in him.

He will be the senior centre in a season or 2 and you have already pointed out the obvious, at 250k a year we don't lose much even if he is shunted to the bench or out of the 17 before in the 2016/17 seasons.

Could have been one of those negotiations where Reed was interested in longer term security at a lower rate than a smaller term contract at a higher rate.

 

[broncos4life]

Manifesto - to put things into perspective I play "supercoach" every year and Reed started the year at about the $250,000 mark and ended at $170,000 - supercoach is based on all aspects of the game - attack and how many meters gained with points awarded if they run for over 8 meters in atttack and points for tackles and minus points for missed tackles etc - if you play well each week your value goes up - if you under perform you value goes down - his value went down33% during the season - why - he underperformed and to win a premiership you have to have very good players across the team - they are slowly plugging the holes but the left centre - Reed is a problem and the stats dont lie

Supercoach, really? Supercoach is based on ppm (points per minute) and is dependent on how the team uses that player, not necessarily how good the player is. For inglis is a great supercoach player not only cos he's a great player, but souths whole attack is based around and depends on him. Brent Tate is terribly average in super coach, so I guess we won that premiership and origins in spite of him. Wow shows how great qld is that they can carry poor old tatey

 

[Big Pete]

He will be the senior centre in a season or 2 and you have already pointed out the obvious, at 250k a year we don't lose much even if he is shunted to the bench or out of the 17 before in the 2016/17 seasons.

Could have been one of those negotiations where Reed was interested in longer term security at a lower rate than a smaller term contract at a higher rate.

250K isn't pocket change though, that's still a decent contract for any player so if he's relegated to the bench or even declines, it's just a waste of funds and isn't worth the investment.

 

[Financeguy]

250K isn't pocket change though, that's still a decent contract for any player so if he's relegated to the bench or even declines, it's just a waste of funds and isn't worth the investment.

Meh, most contracts seem to be for 3 years, we are talking 1 extra year in Reeds case. At 250k i really don't think its a big deal but if you fishing for negatives i guess its something to hold on to.

250k is a pretty average contract for a starting player.

 

[broncos4life]

UPtHEGUTS - you have ht the nail on the head - we have maybe 3 or 4 payers in the team who perform at the top level each week but on the whole all we hear are excuses coming from Hook - we missed by that much and we will just have to improve next week etc - unfortunately for too long now we have accepted mediocrity and it has become the norm and it seems to me that broncosforlife is another Hook - either won't admit there is a problem with the quality of player we have or simply is blinded by the Broncos past

Are you serious? Firstly your calling me out when numerous other people have the same opinions as me in this thread. Secondly how am I blinded because I disagree with you about one player. I'm not blinded by anything about the broncos, if you read some of my posts about other issues you would realise that. Obviously you thought you would stroll in here, say reed sucks and everyone would go "oh yeah, it's got nothing to do with our halves, game plan or fullback, it's that halfwit reed" and you seem shocked people might disagree with you. So just because I'm not jumping on the get rid of reed campaign I'm blinded?!?

You still haven't answered the issue of who you would replace him with for that money, because ferguson would not for that money

 

[Big Pete]

Meh, most contracts seem to be for 3 years, we are talking 1 extra year in Reeds case. At 250k i really don't think its a big deal but if you fishing for negatives i guess its something to hold on to.

250k is a pretty average contract for a starting player.

It's all about context, a 3 year contract for a player of potential and star player is normal but a commitment to a player like Reed who wasn't possessed with a lot of natural talent and really has to try hard just to be a solid player is very risky, even at 250K, especially if he declines and you're paying that much for a reserve grader.

 

[Alec]

Yeah, kinda agree with Pete. I mean, at the moment, he's clearly worth 250K a year, especially with guys like *coughKennedycough* being on 350K. I don't see him as a long term option though, and 4 more years is looong time.

4 year contracts should only be given to the likes of Lockyer and Thurston.

 

[Financeguy]

It's all about context, a 3 year contract for a player of potential and star player is normal but a commitment to a player like Reed who wasn't possessed with a lot of natural talent and really has to try hard just to be a solid player is very risky, even at 250K, especially if he declines and you're paying that much for a reserve grader.

No, a 3 year contract is normal for any nrl player, regardless if they are a "star" or not. Jack Reed has been a mainstay of the Broncos team since his debut, he is not some in and out of the team nuffie.

In 2014 the cap is around $6.3M, that is before any other allowable cap payments. The average wage of a player in the top 25 is just over 250k, by the end of Reeds contract the average will 280k before any other allowable cap payments.

250k is no longer a decent wage for a NRL player, its an average wage. Even if Reed turns into a depth player by his 4th year, it is not the financial risk that you seem to think it is and their is no gurantee that risk will eventuate.

 

[Big Pete]

Well, the average is actually two years and again I don't think Reed is a normal player. He's somebody who never looked like making it until one off-season everything just fell into place and he had a dream season. Ever since then he's been inconsistent and complacent. This could all end up backfiring next year and then we have 250K sitting on the sidelines for 3 years wasting money that could otherwise been used to top up a few carrots for players that would otherwise improve this club.

 

[broncos4life]

It's all about context, a 3 year contract for a player of potential and star player is normal but a commitment to a player like Reed who wasn't possessed with a lot of natural talent and really has to try hard just to be a solid player is very risky, even at 250K, especially if he declines and you're paying that much for a reserve grader.

Everything's a risk though. We could manage to sign Milford for example and he turns out to be a flop, as in he has peaked and is down hill, or he could do an ACL every pre season. So what do we do, try to convince people to sign minimum wage contracts?

So what do you suggest they did instead Pete?

 

[broncos4life]

Well, the average is actually two years and again I don't think Reed is a normal player. He's somebody who never looked like making it until one off-season everything just fell into place and he had a dream season. Ever since then he's been inconsistent and complacent. This could all end up backfiring next year and then we have 250K sitting on the sidelines for 3 years wasting money that could otherwise been used to top up a few carrots for players that would otherwise improve this club.

Besides injuries I can't really see how he has been inconsistent and complacent is one word I definitely word never equate with reed. But I obviously have a different opinion to everyone else so I will bow out of this discussion. Obviously Pete and fightingirish are right and reed is not what we need... Ha, that rhymes

 

[Big Pete]

But certain risks are worth taking, what do we gain from signing Reed for four years? Without knowing the particulars, it's hard to really suggest an alternative, I think a two year deal would have been optimal but I don't what kind of ramifications such a change would have had.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't the end of the world or anything at that, but it is one of those things that can add up, especially when we're already taking risks on players like Kennedy, Hodges, Yow Yeh (and possibly) Milford.

Besides injuries I can't really see how he has been inconsistent and complacent is one word I definitely word never equate with reed.

Complacent probably fits him best, although there have definitely been times where he's been among our worst on the field. Aside from not being the most talented or athletic centre going, the problem with Reed is that he doesn't pull off the little things that are absolutely vital for him to keep his spot. For instance, his positioning and timing of runs can be dreadful, especially in the opposition 20 and he's become something of a ball hog which he really can't afford to be, especially moving forward.

And that's the key here, moving forward. I've appreciated everything Reed has brought the club and has done a solid job of being more than just a one year wonder, I just don't know how much longer he has to keep it going.