PRE-GAME Round 3 - Broncos vs Cowboys

[Morkel]

Lol the stats don't tell the whole story. Defending a prop doing 1 hitup in 40+ minutes is a new low.

If Bennett wants his props to be second rowers then hes showing just how bad of a decision it was to get him back.

Again, where am I defending him?!?!??! I'm defending the fact that people think we're not making enough metres.

 

[broncos4life]

Yeah I dunno how Blair is at fault, we have no idea what the game plan or structure is after 2 games, if he's not doing what Wayne wants him to do, he'll get benched like Thaiday, it's pretty simple.

If he doesn't get benched, he's doing what Wayne wants him to.

Nah I looked at the stats again and Blair scored a -34.6 in the 'following game plan' column. Dud.

 

[Foordy]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find another starting prop that touched the ball (either hitups or passing before the line) as little as Blair did against the Sharks.

Hell, you'll probably be hard pressed finding an interchange prop who touched the ball less.

It simply was not good enough, and if Bennett has any sense, he will be drumming that into Blair at training this week.

 

[Porthoz]

Again, where am I defending him?!?!??! I'm defending the fact that people think we're not making enough metres.

Think? Is there any doubt our pack isn't even close to the mark? :laugh:

This is exactly how Blair played at the Tigers (except he mostly played lock there), and the reason most people were bagging him. Now suddenly, it's a Bennett tactic?
I don't even want to involve Bennett into this discussion, much less if we seriously are going to credit him with a tactic where the backline serves as battering rams, so the forwards are fresh enough to defend... :shocked:

Didn't we complain about the lack of go forward from our pack last season, reason why people were happy to see Kennedy and Hannant go, but now we're good with Blair's abysmal display? Hannant passed at the line and still managed to make 10 times more hit-ups.

I'm okay with people saying to give it time, but don't try to defend the indefensible.
And please, WB pushed Kennedy out and sealed the Hannant deal as well, only to bring Blair on... he's not gonna drop him any time soon.

FTR, I gave Blair a deserved wrap last week, and I don't think he's useless at all, but I can't accept such a performance from a front rower. Better put Parker at 10 and Blair at lock, if all he want is someone to shore up the ruck defense and an extra ball player in attack... :rolleyes:

3 of those players were already there and they have added a toiler and a guy that has played one nrl game for about 15 minutes. I don't see how that and the removal of the Sims has made them a better pack

Apologies about the shenanigans accusation in regards to completions... I read that as possession haha

I'd have the "toiler" Hannant easily over Ashton Sims, and while Tariq is a loss, it's well compensated by Lowe's work rate (and not being that injury prone), Taumalolo's growth with Tanginoa as support (who played NRL for the Eels last year btw).

P.S. If Hannant is a toiler, what do we call Blair?

 

[Anonymous person]

A props main job, unquestionably, is to make hitups in the middle of the field to roll the team down field. Anyone denying this does not know rugby league in any way shape or form.

Blair has never done that. Last year he made less than 10 hitups in like 14/24 games iirc. This year he has already smashed the record for least hitups by a starting prop. Blair is not about to be a good prop. He was already not a good second rower.

 

[Cult]

A props main job, unquestionably, is to make hitups in the middle of the field to roll the team down field. Anyone denying this does not know rugby league in any way shape or form.

Blair has never done that. Last year he made less than 10 hitups in like 14/24 games iirc. This year he has already smashed the record for least hitups by a starting prop. Blair is not about to be a good prop. He was already not a good second rower.

Some people would have me believe that making hitups in the middle of the field to roll the team down field would be a wingers job, but I obviously know nothing about rugby league. I know a lot about lawn bowls though. In fact, I coached my local team to 7 national premierships and have coached many of Australias greatest lawn bowlers. I'm a terrible coach though.

 

[rnabokov]

Think? Is there any doubt our pack isn't even close to the mark? :laugh:

This is exactly how Blair played at the Tigers (except he mostly played lock there), and the reason most people were bagging him. Now suddenly, it's a Bennett tactic?
I don't even want to involve Bennett into this discussion, much less if we seriously are going to credit him with a tactic where the backline serves as battering rams, so the forwards are fresh enough to defend... :shocked:

Didn't we complain about the lack of go forward from our pack last season, reason why people were happy to see Kennedy and Hannant go, but now we're good with Blair's abysmal display? Hannant passed at the line and still managed to make 10 times more hit-ups.

I'm okay with people saying to give it time, but don't try to defend the indefensible.
And please, WB pushed Kennedy out and sealed the Hannant deal as well, only to bring Blair on... he's not gonna drop him any time soon.

FTR, I gave Blair a deserved wrap last week, and I don't think he's useless at all, but I can't accept such a performance from a front rower. Better put Parker at 10 and Blair at lock, if all he want is someone to shore up the ruck defense and an extra ball player in attack... :rolleyes:


I'd have the "toiler" Hannant easily over Ashton Sims, and while Tariq is a loss, it's well compensated by Lowe's work rate (and not being that injury prone), Taumalolo's growth with Tanginoa as support (who played NRL for the Eels last year btw).

P.S. If Hannant is a toiler, what do we call Blair?

Well P, I have to drag Bennett into this discussion as I'm totally confused now after reading your, and other posts about Blair and props and forward momentum in general. What exactly is Bennett's role as Head Coach?

Earlier, I posted what I read extensively about Bennett, and what I have observed watching his teams play for umpteen seasons - that he is a player manager. He "brings out the music" in players. He focuses on the individual and isn't really interested in other teams structures and tactics and game plans - he leaves that up to his coaching staff.

So, either he told Blair to do what Blair did, which wasn't much, or he told him to go out there and whack the Sharks with vigorous hard hitting hit ups up the middle as AP and a others say.

So, either Blair didn't listen to Wayne and will therefore join Thaiday in the naughty corner next game, or, Bennett has some odd views about the role of a prop.

Or, maybe the coaching staff, who are still to structure this side properly had other views about Blair's role... (and Milford's for that matter, about which Bennett has obviously since had words to his coaching staff, saying somewhere I read that Milford is to attack the line more, stop locking himself in a corner of the field and look for the ball behind the ruck on both sides.)


So, does anyone know how our glorious team is being coached? Who does what ... using Blair's game v the Sharks as a blairing example?

 

[Anonymous person]

Some people would have me believe that making hitups in the middle of the field to roll the team down field would be a wingers job, but I obviously know nothing about rugby league. I know a lot about lawn bowls though. In fact, I coached my local team to 7 national premierships and have coached many of Australias greatest lawn bowlers. I'm a terrible coach though.

Noone said anything about wingers making hitups in the middle of the field. They are supposed to take hitups from the kick return and the ensuing 2-3 plays while the props get back on side and in position. This is how it always has been and noone has said any differently, apart from you right now to try and make, yet again, Blairs efforts not look weak sauce.

 

[CaptainHook]

What an interesting debate. Since when did great defense become an excuse for poor hit-up rates?

We've been blessed with some of the best front-rowers to ever play the game. Webcke, Civoniceva, Gee etc. The last time I checked those players ran hard, tackled hard and were all coached by Bennett, I might add.

 

[GCBRONCO]

I don't think you can excuse a poor hitup rate despite a good defensive effort from a starting prop, I think its realistic to say you wouldn't expect Blair to make the big metres as such but at the same token if his taking the role of the prop position he still needs to make a decent amount, this is definitely an area I want to see from him, he can offer us good defence and good offload, but I think its reasonable to expect an improvement at the very least in decent metres gaining, still I'm not writing him off just yet.

TBH outside of Wallace I wasn't really impressed with the forward display against the Sharks, I think they tended to let the backs make the metres in general, we will need to improve there.

 

[Morkel]

It's not even worth arguing because this has turned in to a farce. Nobody, myself included, has said that Blair's attacking stats are acceptable. At best, it's been suggested that perhaps running the ball is not the primary purpose of his role in the team. Again, that doesn't excuse one fucking run for a starting prop, that's pathetic, and if it continues that way then we do have a serious issue. For the type of player that Blair is though, I'll be satisfied with ~8-10 hitups per game so long as he remains defensively stoic. Some games we might see 5 or 6, others 11 or 12. It'll depend on the opponent and the situations that present themselves. However, I do think we need his defence, if you're not watching the games then seriously, don't bother arguing. There aren't stats for things like "how far a runner pushes back defenders once making contact", and that's one area that defensively the Broncos have really struggled with and Blair is by far the best defender we have to suppress the opposition's momentum in the middle. And to be honest, I want to see where that takes us as a team.

If Blair starts making more runs, but his defence (not just stats, but looking at things like effort, repeat tackles, quality of first contact etc) starts to decline, or he ends up giving away lazy penalties, then I'm all for making sure his running game does not inhibit his defence. Our props' "lack of size" seems to be another bugbear on this forum. Well, we've got a player that is a lot bigger than everyone realised, and is able to use that size to be a brick wall in the defensive line. Unfortunately he is not a gene freak like Burgess or Fifita, so he's not going to be able to make 20 runs and 40 tackles a game, I think people are going to have to suck it up and realise that players of that size & motor aren't easy to come by. Should we try to get one? For sure. Garbutt is the closest thing we have but he's not up to standard yet. But in the meantime, let's work with what we have, accept that with strengths come weaknesses, and judge them on more than one fucking game.

People seem to forget that Blair was lazy on both sides of the football for the Tigers. And had very poor discipline. Having a negative opinion of his time at the Tigers is justified, I won't blame anyone for that. But having a negative opinion of him after one or two games for us, where he has actually shown not only effort but discipline as well, and then picking out one stat from one game to carry on a grudge against Bennett, is a really petty way of pushing an agenda.

 

[jarro65]

Any chance Garbut might get picked for this ?

 

[levikaden]

Just win FFS

 

[Sproj]

As a topic change, I really rate Ethan Lowe, when is he off contract?

 

[Buzz Killington]

If Bennett has told Blair not to run, he is a bigger relic than I thought. Good waste of a spot in your team all that does is put way too much on the shoulders of McGuire and Parker as well as the bench props. Even the "sure-up" defensive props make hitups, Blair is just being lazy. But if Bennett has actually told this log to not run and only get 6 touches in half a game of football then he shouldn't be coaching anymore. He isn't tackling at a higher rate than any of our other guys and is a completely unused resource with the ball. I didn't understand it when he was signed and it is becoming more and more obvious the guy is a complete waste at this level now.

 

[morganmorgan]

Broncos are favourites?

 

[rnabokov]

It's not even worth arguing because this has turned in to a farce. Nobody, myself included, has said that Blair's attacking stats are acceptable. At best, it's been suggested that perhaps running the ball is not the primary purpose of his role in the team. Again, that doesn't excuse one ****ing run for a starting prop, that's pathetic, and if it continues that way then we do have a serious issue. For the type of player that Blair is though, I'll be satisfied with ~8-10 hitups per game so long as he remains defensively stoic. Some games we might see 5 or 6, others 11 or 12. It'll depend on the opponent and the situations that present themselves. However, I do think we need his defence, if you're not watching the games then seriously, don't bother arguing. There aren't stats for things like "how far a runner pushes back defenders once making contact", and that's one area that defensively the Broncos have really struggled with and Blair is by far the best defender we have to suppress the opposition's momentum in the middle. And to be honest, I want to see where that takes us as a team.

If Blair starts making more runs, but his defence (not just stats, but looking at things like effort, repeat tackles, quality of first contact etc) starts to decline, or he ends up giving away lazy penalties, then I'm all for making sure his running game does not inhibit his defence. Our props' "lack of size" seems to be another bugbear on this forum. Well, we've got a player that is a lot bigger than everyone realised, and is able to use that size to be a brick wall in the defensive line. Unfortunately he is not a gene freak like Burgess or Fifita, so he's not going to be able to make 20 runs and 40 tackles a game, I think people are going to have to suck it up and realise that players of that size & motor aren't easy to come by. Should we try to get one? For sure. Garbutt is the closest thing we have but he's not up to standard yet. But in the meantime, let's work with what we have, accept that with strengths come weaknesses, and judge them on more than one ****ing game.

People seem to forget that Blair was lazy on both sides of the football for the Tigers. And had very poor discipline. Having a negative opinion of his time at the Tigers is justified, I won't blame anyone for that. But having a negative opinion of him after one or two games for us, where he has actually shown not only effort but discipline as well, and then picking out one stat from one game to carry on a grudge against Bennett, is a really petty way of pushing an agenda.

For me the only question is what is the role Bennett has asked of Blair ... Blair the prop.

Bennett asked Thaiday "to take a bullet for the team" after 1 game, so I feel my question is legit.

I suppose the first part of the answer to my question will come when this week's team is picked.

 

[subsbligh]

People seem to forget that Blair was lazy on both sides of the football for the Tigers. And had very poor discipline. Having a negative opinion of his time at the Tigers is justified, I won't blame anyone for that. But having a negative opinion of him after one or two games for us, where he has actually shown not only effort but discipline as well, and then picking out one stat from one game to carry on a grudge against Bennett, is a really petty way of pushing an agenda.

I was absolutely against the Blair signing and for exactly that reason - it looked like a poor Bennett recruitment decision, shaking the tree, playing dictator.

I've swung around on it. I've accepted he's not a traditional prop role. But there's nothing lost over last year - Hannant and Kennedy barely did the "meathead" hit ups anyway and offered about 100% less in attacking flair or ruggedness/intimidation in defence and left the bulk of work to McGuire, Parker, Thaiday and Walllace (who you might recall was named on the bench for about 5 starts without getting on the field).

Blair has shown a lot of committment in two weeks of footy. They're doing the right things. Our forward rotation is differnet to other teams - really Blair, McGuire, Parker, Thaiday, Interchange prop 1 and interchange prop 2 (6 players) are rotating through the middle and Glenn and Gillett are playing closer to 80 minutes on the edges.

Bennett has even said he's working out the bench.