PRE-GAME Round 3 - Broncos vs Cowboys

[Porthoz]

Stats never tell the full story.

It wouldn't have mattered if we had Mat Scott and the Burgess boys out there - if you turn over the ball as much as we have, give away as many cheap penalties or fail to earn repeat sets it's not going to reflect well in the numbers.

I know stats never tell the full picture, and the turn overs we had against souffs didn't help, but that bold statement is just silly BP.

Having Matt Scott or one of the Burgess twins instead of Blair, would definitely already have a major impact on the stats, imagine having the three of them!

Besides, what was the excuse against the Sharks? They made as many mistakes as we did, yet managed to make 30 more hit-ups for 280 mtrs more than us. All the while, the rest of the runs stats between the teams were pretty equal.

 

[Ari Gold]

Maybe Pete meant Luke Burgess? That guy is clearly the runt of the litter.

 

[Big Pete]

They made 28 more runs because they had six more sets than we did by virtue of a healthy penalty count (11-6) and more goal-line drop-outs. Of course with more ball, you're going to make more ground...Again, it wouldn't have mattered if you had those players I listed, they'd still lose out if they didn't get enough ball.

Even so, the Sharks got caught up in rucking the ball up, not enough in converting territory into points. I'd be happy to let them make as many metres as they want as long as we don't let them get within a metre of our try line.

 

[winslow_wong]

need to keep reminding ourselves that this current team is a work in progress. there's what, 6 years of henjak/griffinball to coach out of some players? but damn souths and roosters look slick with their structures.

 

[Porthoz]

They made 28 more runs because they had six more sets than we did by virtue of a healthy penalty count (11-6) and more goal-line drop-outs. Of course with more ball, you're going to make more ground...Again, it wouldn't have mattered if you had those players I listed, they'd still lose out if they didn't get enough ball.

Even so, the Sharks got caught up in rucking the ball up, not enough in converting territory into points. I'd be happy to let them make as many metres as they want as long as we don't let them get within a metre of our try line.

Just because the Sharks weren't capable of capitalising their forward dominance, doesn't mean it's ok to let them make as many meters as they want. Besides, your premise was that the Broncos don't have any trouble getting up field, and that is simply not true!

The Sharks also made more errors than us, and had a very similar completion rate (70% vs. 68%), which in the end resulted in 15 more PTB's than us, which means that we still easily came up 15 hit-ups short.

Blair made ONE hit-up, how many do you think Matt Scott or George/Thomas Burgess would've made?

 

[Broncoman]

Stats tell a very different story so far this season.
Both Souffs and Cronulla beat us comfortably in that aspect, and although their form is pretty patchy, the Cows pack on song, is second to none, as they showed against the bunnies last year.

Their pack is top notch but they are capable of making a lot more meters than what they are but they picked up a bit more last night compared to their game against the Roosters.

Meters gained by the Cowboys starting forwards against the Roosters

Scott - 150
Kostjasyn - 26
Hannant - 97
Cooper - 92
Lowe - 126
Taumololo - 122

Meters gained by the Cowboys starting forwards against the Knights

Scott - 119
Kostjasyn - 44
Hannant - 119
Cooper - 97
Lowe - 140
Taumololo - 115

I rate Taumololo as their most damaging forward btw

 

[Ari Gold]

Just because the Sharks weren't capable of capitalising their forward dominance, doesn't mean it's ok to let them make as many meters as they want. Besides, your premise was that the Broncos don't have any trouble getting up field, and that is simply not true!

The Sharks also made more errors than us, and had a very similar completion rate (70% vs. 68%), which in the end resulted in 15 more PTB's than us, which means that we still easily came up 15 hit-ups short.

Blair made ONE hit-up, how many do you think Matt Scott or George/Thomas Burgess would've made?

Agreed.

I mean, we still had to rely on great defence from Kahu and Hunt to stop a Robson/Barba/Gordon led Sharks attack. Without that exception effort we lose and that's before you even consider how we fare against proper attacks like Keary/Reynolds/Inglis.

Also, part of the reason repeat sets are earned is because your forwards get you in positions to put in kicks that force drop outs. Something the Sharks pack did a lot better. And these cheap penalties we give away are the kind of cheap penalties an advantage forward like George Burgess helps you earn. The kind you can only earn when you make more than 1 hit up!

 

[Big Pete]

The Broncos didn't have any trouble getting into position. In fact they've had several opportunities inside the opposition's danger zone but struggled to convert those opportunities for the reasons I provided.

They've got to settle and work on their fundamentals before we draw any conclusions about the pack.

 

[broncos4life]

Yeah, it's better imo, even if they lost Tariq Sims.

You have to be kidding

 

[broncos4life]

Just because the Sharks weren't capable of capitalising their forward dominance, doesn't mean it's ok to let them make as many meters as they want. Besides, your premise was that the Broncos don't have any trouble getting up field, and that is simply not true!

The Sharks also made more errors than us, and had a very similar completion rate (70% vs. 68%),which in the end resulted in 15 more PTB's than us, which means that we still easily came up 15 hit-ups short.

Blair made ONE hit-up, how many do you think Matt Scott or George/Thomas Burgess would've made?

I call shenanigans.

 

[Sproj]

So Hannant averaging 100m a game so far for the Cows while we have Blair tearing it up for us with his amazing 7m last start. So glad we ditched Ben for Adam.

 

[Anonymous person]

Lets be honest though - who really didn't see blairs efforts coming well in advance? The guy sucks. He has sucked for 3 years. Hes not a hard worker, and is most definitely not a prop. For some reason Bennett bought him to play prop. He now is the worst prop in the game. I don't think I have ever, in 25 years of watching football, seen a starting prop play 40+ minutes and only make 1 hitup.

I think this game could be close, don't really rate the cowboys as a premiership threat for some reason this year. Not sure why, just have had this feeling since the off season that they're no chance.

 

[broncos4life]

So Hannant averaging 100m a game so far for the Cows while we have Blair tearing it up for us with his amazing 7m last start. So glad we ditched Ben for Adam.

And hannant has been doing heaps of ball playing before the line too...

 

[Splinter]

You have to put things into perspective. If Blair had not been in the middle the Sharks pack may have run for another 500 metres

 

[subsbligh]

Lets be honest though - who really didn't see blairs efforts coming well in advance? The guy sucks. He has sucked for 3 years. Hes not a hard worker, and is most definitely not a prop. For some reason Bennett bought him to play prop. He now is the worst prop in the game. I don't think I have ever, in 25 years of watching football, seen a starting prop play 40+ minutes and only make 1 hitup.

I think this game could be close, don't really rate the cowboys as a premiership threat for some reason this year. Not sure why, just have had this feeling since the off season that they're no chance.

Pre-season, I wrote off Blair for this very reason. Said the same things about Bennett.

Game 1 versus Souths, he was immense. He played with some heart and obviously wanted to impress.

I didn't notice him not taking hit ups against the Sharks. With Wallace's contribution off the bench and Parker and Thaiday taking it through the middle, it's not as if there was a glaring hole in our go forward.

His best work is not done one off the ruck, ploughing into 3 tacklers. The opportunity for him to get wide and bump and offload isn't happening but he's also passing a lot before the line. Whatever, no need to hit the panic button yet on Blair.

That, and he made 30+ tackles and has a bit of intimidation factor.

I think Bennett hasn't figured out what he's got on his hands yet or how to best utilise our bench (which is frustrating).

 

[subsbligh]

The Cowboys might do to us what they threatened to do against the Knights when they were up 14-0 and put a 40-... score against us.

There's no way 0-3 is good enough for a roster as good as the Cowboys. This is a must win for them against the Broncos.

I am genuinely intimidated how our pack can stop Taomololo, Hannant, Tamou and Scott, let alone that beast that was out there in the 15 on Saturday night. All backed up by the ferociously competitive Thurston - he's everywhere for the Cowboys.

 

[Splinter]

The Cowboys might do to us what they threatened to do against the Knights when they were up 14-0 and put a 40-... score against us.

There's no way 0-3 is good enough for a roster as good as the Cowboys. This is a must win for them against the Broncos.

I am genuinely intimidated how our pack can stop Taomololo, Hannant, Tamou and Scott, let alone that beast that was out there in the 15 on Saturday night. All backed up by the ferociously competitive Thurston - he's everywhere for the Cowboys.

I agree on Taomololo and Scott but seriously Hannant and Tamou have been average for a fair while

 

[Brent81]

For all of the Hannant supporters on here, the game isn't just about attack, it involves defence as well.

Who was the bloke watching on and not moving when the Knights scored their final try...you guessed it, Ben Hannant!

He only had to move 5 yards and he didn't even try and his lack of effort cost his team the game.

Not upset we lost him