Peter Wallace Injury
- Thread starter Kimlo
- Start date
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
- Thread starter
- #129
haha, sure did.guppy said:
I just love the headline "Broncos in chaos over Lockyer injury" when there's nothing to it and" Darren Lockyer hamstring injury comes on top of Peter Wallace's broken ankle for Broncos" when he said he's sweet and there was no indication of him being injured. Nice way to pull a story out of thin air.
[icon_lol1.
Yeah, I read the article and immediately thought someone on BHQ will think the sky is falling.
I had the finger on the trigger and pulled at the first sign of movement.
You never know though. Did Locky tombstone the esky after the team song this week and injure his hammy? Stranger things have happened.
I had the finger on the trigger and pulled at the first sign of movement.
You never know though. Did Locky tombstone the esky after the team song this week and injure his hammy? Stranger things have happened.
Well broncospwn was one of the Chicken Littles freaking out about Hodges last week, when there was never any doubt he would play. So it's understandable to confuse his sarcasm for gullibility :P
I don't see what's so bad about shifting one of the back rowers to cover number 7. I'm not that worried about Locky then being the focal point for attack, all it means is McCullough, K. Hunt and Hodges will then need to take on a bit more playmaking responsibility, which they are capable of.
In any case, the Broncos aren't going to blow the Storm off the park with attack. We're going to beat them by hurting them. 7 forwards bashing the shit out of Cronk, Slater, Inglis, Smith and Finch will go a long way to shutting down the Storm's attack. If it's a trench battle up front, the Storm have no chance.
Even with Wallace if we tried to match them with an open, free flowing attacking game, we'd fall to bits. As good as our defence has been there's no doubt on the fringes we struggle against guys with fast footwork. And as much as I hate to say it, Slater would carve us to shit.
I don't see what's so bad about shifting one of the back rowers to cover number 7. I'm not that worried about Locky then being the focal point for attack, all it means is McCullough, K. Hunt and Hodges will then need to take on a bit more playmaking responsibility, which they are capable of.
In any case, the Broncos aren't going to blow the Storm off the park with attack. We're going to beat them by hurting them. 7 forwards bashing the shit out of Cronk, Slater, Inglis, Smith and Finch will go a long way to shutting down the Storm's attack. If it's a trench battle up front, the Storm have no chance.
Even with Wallace if we tried to match them with an open, free flowing attacking game, we'd fall to bits. As good as our defence has been there's no doubt on the fringes we struggle against guys with fast footwork. And as much as I hate to say it, Slater would carve us to shit.
forward_pass
QCup Player
- Mar 12, 2008
- 506
- 1
Dave Taylor to half???
forward_pass
QCup Player
- Mar 12, 2008
- 506
- 1
Decission made... :)
Captain Staros
BRL Player
- Sep 2, 2009
- 54
- 0
The Australian is reporting they might move Chinny Carroll to half.
Black Philip
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,600
- 1,305
What?forward_pass said:
Assassin said:
Heard on the radio this morning that the likely option will be moving Locky to 7 and Carroll to 6. Absolutely retarded. I hate moving players out of position just because they can. Ben Hunt should be 7, minimal disruption and he is a far more competent halfback than Carroll is a 5/8. I don't like our chances with Carroll at 6.
Mister Wright
NRL Captain
- Jun 8, 2009
- 4,944
- 3,304
That's such a WB move. Wish Henjack would do his own thing. It's worked well the last few weeks.
Unread
-
The one thing Michael Maguire won’t do after dominant Broncos win- Latest: Mick_Hancock
-
-
-
-
