From all reports he played well in the trials, from all reports he also played crap in Round 1 of Q Cup (I will judge his form for myself tomorrow). What it boils down to is this for the Broncos - it's Smith or Hunt and as I have said many times before my personal preference is for Hunt.
Player Movements & Rumours 2010
- Thread starter BroncoMatt
- Start date
- Status
- Mar 14, 2008
- 9,321
- 12,007
geez you can understand why we're a bit gunshy in letting quality halves go, this is like the first year in what, a decade perhaps? that we've had decent coverage in the halves.
and people are commenting smith > hunt based on what we've seen them do in the NRL.
There's a lot more faith and hope pinned on Hunt becoming something big than there is on Smith resurrecting what he was doing 2-3 seasons ago.
and people are commenting smith > hunt based on what we've seen them do in the NRL.
There's a lot more faith and hope pinned on Hunt becoming something big than there is on Smith resurrecting what he was doing 2-3 seasons ago.
I hate letting quality halves go as well. I would love to keep them both, but the fact is they are not both going to stay. Smith is already looking to move on. If the Broncos start to give Smith first dibs on opportunities and basically give him a longer term contract, then Hunt will look to move on.
I prefer that we keep Hunt because I have seen what Smith can do at NRL level - he had one really amazing season and then went missing. I am excited to see what Hunt could become given the right NRL opportunities. I could be wrong and he could fail, but I prefer he fail at the Broncos than succeed at another club without us giving him a real chance.
I prefer that we keep Hunt because I have seen what Smith can do at NRL level - he had one really amazing season and then went missing. I am excited to see what Hunt could become given the right NRL opportunities. I could be wrong and he could fail, but I prefer he fail at the Broncos than succeed at another club without us giving him a real chance.
- Mar 14, 2008
- 9,321
- 12,007
To be honest, the only thing I care about is making sure the best one stays. I guess how you decide that is the tough part.
But for me, the whole Ben Hunt has been here since he was 13 and he was a superstar in NYC etc, means nothing.
Whichever player is going to best serve Brisbane long term should stay, whether that be Smith, or Hunt, or a dark horse that isn't being talked about at the moment. Nothing else matters.
But for me, the whole Ben Hunt has been here since he was 13 and he was a superstar in NYC etc, means nothing.
Whichever player is going to best serve Brisbane long term should stay, whether that be Smith, or Hunt, or a dark horse that isn't being talked about at the moment. Nothing else matters.
I don't see that losing Hunt would benefit the Broncos, in fact I see keeping Hunt would benefit the Broncos more than keeping Smith. (And if I was looking at it from a purely personal perspective I would prefer we keep Smith in the system as it benefits Easts who I support in the Q Cup). But we will lose one of them (actually both if we're not careful).
People like to refer to football as a business, and these days it is. So let me put it to you another way.
Ben Hunt has been in the Broncos system for 8 years. They would've spent upwards of $750K, probably over a $1 million on his scholarships, contracts, development time, travel, coaching etc etc.
Tim Smith has been in the Broncos system 6 months. They would've spent $50K on him, maybe, in terms of all the training, coaching, travel etc.
Losing Tim Smith means the Broncos lose bugger all investment. Losing Ben Hunt, they lose 8 years and a shit load of money invested in his development for some other club to benefit from.
Ben Hunt has been in the Broncos system for 8 years. They would've spent upwards of $750K, probably over a $1 million on his scholarships, contracts, development time, travel, coaching etc etc.
Tim Smith has been in the Broncos system 6 months. They would've spent $50K on him, maybe, in terms of all the training, coaching, travel etc.
Losing Tim Smith means the Broncos lose bugger all investment. Losing Ben Hunt, they lose 8 years and a shit load of money invested in his development for some other club to benefit from.
- Mar 14, 2008
- 9,321
- 12,007
Coxy said:
I can understand that. But what happens if we blood Hunt and he becomes nothing more than an average first grader? We've still lost all that time and money and we're STILL worse off.
Yes, it's a risk you take with any player, but the way some people present Ben Hunt on this forum is as if he's already won a premiership, played for Aus and has 100+ NRL games next to him.
He's done NOTHING. NOTHING. This isn't necessarily his fault as he hasn't been given a huge chance, but it still doesn't take away the fact people are going way overboard on the fact that, potentially, he MIGHT, be a good player.
I didn't realize I had stumbled across the Parramatta forums by accident (every single youth player they have has the midas touch and shits white gold according to them).
Renegade said:
Conversely what happens if we keep Smith - a player who has in the past been found wanting at NRL level - and he fails again? In the meantime Hunt goes on to become one of the world's best players, winning premierships for another club?
We don't know what will happen but at some point the club is going to have to make a choice on (and on this I agree with you 100%) what they believe is going to be the best for the club?
I lament that the Broncos aren't using the same attitude they did in the mid-90s when they blooded a blond headed kid from south west Queensland who had been at the club less than a year.
He's played 300-odd first grade games now.
But that first couple of years Locky spent in and out of the team off the bench, occasionally starting, and that was a godsend for his development.
These days teams just don't want a half/utility on the bench, and that shits me, because it means young halves only get an opportunity if the regular starters are away on rep duty or injured. And that's not the ideal scenario to come in. You want them playing WITH those experienced guys as much as possible.
He's played 300-odd first grade games now.
But that first couple of years Locky spent in and out of the team off the bench, occasionally starting, and that was a godsend for his development.
These days teams just don't want a half/utility on the bench, and that shits me, because it means young halves only get an opportunity if the regular starters are away on rep duty or injured. And that's not the ideal scenario to come in. You want them playing WITH those experienced guys as much as possible.
- Mar 14, 2008
- 9,321
- 12,007
I don't really see how Smith was found wanting at NRL level. He was basically the reason Parra made the prelim in 2007. he went off the rails in 08, and that was that.
In any case I (paraphrasing) don't think the fans really mind which one it is that is kept, provided they succeed. I just don't like the fact we paint hunt as a wunderkid when he's done even less than Smith has.
In any case I (paraphrasing) don't think the fans really mind which one it is that is kept, provided they succeed. I just don't like the fact we paint hunt as a wunderkid when he's done even less than Smith has.
- Mar 14, 2008
- 9,321
- 12,007
So then we both agree it was stupid to suggest he was found wanting after 3 games in 2008.
And we both agree Tim Smith is a good player, has done it before, and has the skills to do it again.
And we agree that Hunt could be a good player, but has done nil thus far to justify the hype.
This has been a fruitful discussion.
And we both agree Tim Smith is a good player, has done it before, and has the skills to do it again.
And we agree that Hunt could be a good player, but has done nil thus far to justify the hype.
This has been a fruitful discussion.
- Status
Unread
-
The one thing Michael Maguire won’t do after dominant Broncos win- Latest: Mick_Hancock
-
-
-
-
