POST GAME Round 4 - Warriors vs Broncos

broncos4life said:
I disagree with nearly everything you say, but I'm not going there again.

I just need to clear something up, no one calls you stupid like you claim.

How dare you say people call you stupid etc. when not even 10 posts earlier you lead with 'Stupidity is in abundance'.

Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

Might wanna go back and reread the post I quoted in that post champ. If he wasn't aiming that post at me then I'm Santa claus
 
Last edited:
QUEENSLANDER said:
I appreciate the discussion as opposed to the others that just say I'm stupid etc. I do hate Bennett, but my Milford related posts are not Bennett related. If he came to us and played 6 under griffin I would feel the same. Bennetts love for Boyd means there is basically no chance of milf moving to fb, but in general, when I post about Milford at 6 it is not with Bennett hating on my mind. justwant to clear that up

my reference to Hoffman was not to suggest he is a better 6 etc, but to highlight that even Hoffman put ppl in gaps sometimes. Milford putting Glenn through last week doesn't prove he is a 6, nor does it prove he's getting better. Hell, did u guys see the cutout kasiano through to Rona on the weekend? Dream ball, but he's not a 6. So what I'm saying is, any player can put a player through a gap, it doesn't mean the move to 6 is successful.

Also, Hoffman is nowhere near as talented as Milford, so for people comparing how we want with Hoffman at 6 to how we go with Milford at 6 is just silly. It was always, always going to be an improvement, but again, that doesn't mean the positional change is a success. It just means we got a better player!

Again, let me reiterate, I'm not calling Milford a failure, And I think he will go on to be a decent half BUT he won't ever be the player he was going to be had he played fullback for another 5 or so years before moving to the halves. It's clear his vision, passing and kicking game is still in its infancy. He could use a few more years developing that (like Lockyer did) before he moves to the halves. His real strength is his running game which we are not seeing at 6.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I understand your view point, and in all likelihood, you are probably correct that he would be more dangerous with a bit more room to move from the back. But he was bought with the intention of being a 5/8, he knew that. I also don't believe that it is going to stifle his career in having an early move to the halves.

In relation to Lockyer, Lockyer was always a half coming through the juniors. He was moved by Bennett to full-back to cover for a vacancy we had there after getting rid of Julian O'Neill (we had Willie Carne as a stop gap fullback for one year). At that time he had Langer and Walters in front of him therefore it was apparent Bennett knew he was not going to get a run on role in the halves.

When we needed a half, he converted back over again.
 
QUEENSLANDER said:
You guys are so desperate for Milford to succeed at 6 that if he does anything slightly decent, it's a big story. His pass to Glenn last week was good, but Hoffman occasionally put people in gaps like that too, it wasn't exactly out of this world brilliance. One decent pass in 4 weeks is all he's really done. Hodges has outplayed him in regards to play making so far. Milford is a shadow of himself and not looking that much better than in round 1, only difference is we are winning so "it must be working". He isn't doing anything at 6 that Hoffman, hodges or anyone else could be for that matter.

Manufacturing halves rarely works, I just feel bad for Milford because in most failed attempts (inglis, hayne etc) their coaches realised it wasn't working so moved them back. That's not going to happen at the Broncos, so will he just continue on this mediocrity until he leaves, or we get a new coach? Sure, he will get better, he's a class player, but he's not going to ever have the impact or influence on a game he could in his rightful position. How long u til you guys will see this too? U call me biased and on an agenda, but a lot of you are too. U bring up his 1 line break assist like it was the best thing ever. Get over it. If that's all he has from a month of footy where we are 3 from 4 then that's a MASSIVE worry and a huge back wards step for his career
Click to expand...

Milford was under massive pressure on that kick. It was excellent work by the Warriors to cut down his angle. If he kicks that on an angle that doesn't go out, it's a chargedown. Says that he needs to work on his timing better, or the team do.

As for that pass, Maranta needed to he deeper so he could take it at top speed. As it was, most other wingers would still have backed themselves and gone for it. It's odd that he's now showing aggression and tenacity in his kick returns and forward-releiving hit-ups, but still so timid when near the opposition line.

Can't fault him for the foot being dead on that almost-try. He was coming through at speed and who'd have thought the ball would just be sitting there saying "force me"? Granted... It was Vatuvei.
 
Morkel said:
Milford was under massive pressure on that kick. It was excellent work by the Warriors to cut down his angle. If he kicks that on an angle that doesn't go out, it's a chargedown. Says that he needs to work on his timing better, or the team do.

As for that pass, Maranta needed to he deeper so he could take it at top speed. As it was, most other wingers would still have backed themselves and gone for it. It's odd that he's now showing aggression and tenacity in his kick returns and forward-releiving hit-ups, but still so timid when near the opposition line.

Can't fault him for the foot being dead on that almost-try. He was coming through at speed and who'd have thought the ball would just be sitting there saying "force me"? Granted... It was Vatuvei.
Click to expand...

I agree, re: maranta. I think anyone suggesting he should've scored that try are being harsh. There was no way to know vatuvei would screw that up so badly.
 
A genuine question for anyone interested. I'm hearing a lot of "give milf more time before we judge" and I totally understand that point of view.

but how long and what attributes will you judge him on? Broncos winning isn't necessarily a fair indication, as we have won 75% of our games without much from him so far. Hoffman wasn't given many games before he was deemed a failure, so I'd like to know under what conditions will it be admitted the move to 6 was probably not a great move for Milford.

Adversely, I will say for me to admit the move is a success I want to see Milfords kicking game actually be useful, and on par with other 6s in the game. Obviously he won't match Maloney, thurston and the likes but I would like to think he could at least match the likes of Norman, j reynolds and Widdop, hardly high standards so I think that's realistic to judge on. I would also like to see him actually stamp his authority on some games and get that running game back into his arsenal. I'd like to see him know when to run and when to pass, and I'd like to see him actually set someone up, not just put a ball in front of someone running a great line.

So for those that are saying milfords move to 6 is not stifling him etc, under what conditions would you consider it a failure, or a backwards step for him at least. Surely u can't wait 3 years, coz that's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
QUEENSLANDER said:
...
Adversely, I will say for me to admit the move is a success I want to see Milfords kicking game actually be useful, and on par with other 6s in the game. Obviously he won't match Maloney, thurston and the likes but I would like to think he could at least match the likes of Norman, j reynolds and Widdop, hardly high standards so I think that's realistic to judge on. I would also like to see him actually stamp his authority on some games and get that running game back into his arsenal. I'd like to see him know when to run and when to pass, and I'd like to see him actually set someone up, not just put a ball in front of someone running a great line.

So for those that are saying milfords move to 6 is not stifling him etc, under what conditions would you consider it a failure, or a backwards step for him at least. Surely u can't wait 3 years, coz that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Re Hoffman, he was given sufficient time. It became patently obvious that for whatever reasons, whether it be something inherent within the player, poor coaching or a combination of both of these he was incapable of performing in the role and was incapable of improving.

RE the criteria, I don't necessarily disagree with what you have identified, that seems reasonably fair.

Re how long, I think he should be given at least this season. If I was coaching him I would want to do that and then as part of the end of season review do a thorough review of his development in that position.
 
QUEENSLANDER said:
A genuine question for anyone interested. I'm hearing a lot of "give milf more time before we judge" and I totally understand that point of view.

but how long and what attributes will you judge him on? Broncos winning isn't necessarily a fair indication, as we have won 75% of our games without much from him so far. Hoffman wasn't given many games before he was deemed a failure, so I'd like to know under what conditions will it be admitted the move to 6 was probably not a great move for Milford.

Adversely, I will say for me to admit the move is a success I want to see Milfords kicking game actually be useful, and on par with other 6s in the game. Obviously he won't match Maloney, thurston and the likes but I would like to think he could at least match the likes of Norman, j reynolds and Widdop, hardly high standards so I think that's realistic to judge on. I would also like to see him actually stamp his authority on some games and get that running game back into his arsenal. I'd like to see him know when to run and when to pass, and I'd like to see him actually set someone up, not just put a ball in front of someone running a great line.

So for those that are saying milfords move to 6 is not stifling him etc, under what conditions would you consider it a failure, or a backwards step for him at least. Surely u can't wait 3 years, coz that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Well I decided before a ball was kicked that I would hold off on an analysis of Milfords success at 5/8 until at least midway through the season. So far he seems to be learning quite quickly, keeping it reasonably simple.
Conversely...
 
QUEENSLANDER said:
A genuine question for anyone interested. I'm hearing a lot of "give milf more time before we judge" and I totally understand that point of view.

but how long and what attributes will you judge him on? Broncos winning isn't necessarily a fair indication, as we have won 75% of our games without much from him so far. Hoffman wasn't given many games before he was deemed a failure, so I'd like to know under what conditions will it be admitted the move to 6 was probably not a great move for Milford.

Adversely, I will say for me to admit the move is a success I want to see Milfords kicking game actually be useful, and on par with other 6s in the game. Obviously he won't match Maloney, thurston and the likes but I would like to think he could at least match the likes of Norman, j reynolds and Widdop, hardly high standards so I think that's realistic to judge on. I would also like to see him actually stamp his authority on some games and get that running game back into his arsenal. I'd like to see him know when to run and when to pass, and I'd like to see him actually set someone up, not just put a ball in front of someone running a great line.

So for those that are saying milfords move to 6 is not stifling him etc, under what conditions would you consider it a failure, or a backwards step for him at least. Surely u can't wait 3 years, coz that's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think you have to let him see out the year in the 6 TBH.

But to those who don't think he looked to have improved again this game, I think you're missing the subtleties. You can only play what's in front of you, and today not only was he well marked but so were his support runners. What he was doing though was digging in to the defensive line early in the game, hoping defenders would see it, continue to commit to him, and leave space for the support runners. I'm sure they'll do video on it, and realise that if there were good numbers on Milford and those around him, then obviously there will be deficiencies elsewhere. It's how they work on moving the ball to take advantage of that - like set up a runner coming back inside against the grain and pass it back out to the right where the defenders have been drawn from. All those sorts of things take time and often you play each game with a specific task just to test the waters and see what happens. Pre-origin I think Milford would start to get a better idea of the subtleties, then after Origin hopefully the strategies they devise from the info gathered will start to be implemented, executed, and polished.
 
Some good signs today. We are developing nicely.

What I would say is we need a big unit in the forwards coming off the bench to give us more punch.
 
Morkel said:
I think you have to let him see out the year in the 6 TBH.

But to those who don't think he looked to have improved again this game, I think you're missing the subtleties. You can only play what's in front of you, and today not only was he well marked but so were his support runners. What he was doing though was digging in to the defensive line early in the game, hoping defenders would see it, continue to commit to him, and leave space for the support runners. I'm sure they'll do video on it, and realise that if there were good numbers on Milford and those around him, then obviously there will be deficiencies elsewhere. It's how they work on moving the ball to take advantage of that - like set up a runner coming back inside against the grain and pass it back out to the right where the defenders have been drawn from. All those sorts of things take time and often you play each game with a specific task just to test the waters and see what happens. Pre-origin I think Milford would start to get a better idea of the subtleties, then after Origin hopefully the strategies they devise from the info gathered will start to be implemented, executed, and polished.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to give him a year, but I feel like by round 18 - 20 it will be relatively evident of how successful (or not) the move was.

a big part of what I hate about the switch is I used to LOVE watching the raiders. I would sit down and wonder "how is Milford going to tear these suckers apart" some weeks and I was rarely disappointed. his highlight reels are amazing and rival that of a seasoned player much older. I can't imagine those highlight reels will be updated with "that pass to Glenn" anytime soon.

In regards to ur comments, I do see the slight improvements, but they are very gradual. But I feel like his input to our wins so far has been minimal at best, and wonder if the NRL will just lose the excitement machine that is the milf, just so the Broncos have a not-so-shit 6. We are winning without his input ATM, and if that continues, what's the point of having him? By the end of the year, if his input has barely changed, win or lose, are we just wasting a superstar to fill a void?
 
Qlder, Milford used to go missing in a lot of games for the Raiders at fullback as well.
 
Some stats worth mentioning.

- We completed 36/42 sets (86%)
- 3 Line breaks
- 19 missed tackles overall
- 7 errors
- 13 offloads
- 5 penalties each

Compared to the warriors
- 22/38 (58%) completions
- 3 line breaks
- 27 missed tackles
- 21 errors!

On stats alone, we were clearly ahead for this game.

Some individual stats
- Alex Glenn 21 runs for 168m and 23 tackles none missed
- Gillett 45 tackles 2 missed
- Thaiday 13 runs 93m 36 tackles none missed
- Blair 25 minutes 7 runs 60m 9 tackles 2 missed
- McGuire 16 runs 132m 34 tackles
- Parker 17 runs 138m 27 tackles 0 missed 6 offloads
- Milford 12 runs 107m 6 tackles 0 missed

Manu 6 errors, lol.
 
Last edited:
broncospwn said:
Some stats worth mentioning.

- We completed 36/42 sets (86%)
- 3 Line breaks
- 19 missed tackles overall
- 7 errors
- 13 offloads
- 5 penalties each

Compared to the warriors
- 22/38 (58%) completions
- 3 line breaks
- 27 missed tackles
- 21 errors!

On stats alone, we were clearly ahead for this game.

Some individual stats
- Alex Glenn 21 runs for 168m and 23 tackles none missed
- Gillett 45 tackles 2 missed
- Thaiday 13 runs 93m 36 tackles none missed
- Blair 25 minutes 7 runs 60m 9 tackles 2 missed
- McGuire 16 runs 132m 34 tackles
- Parker 17 runs 138m 27 tackles 0 missed 6 offloads
- Milford 12 runs 107m 6 tackles 0 missed

Manu 6 errors, lol.
Click to expand...

Do we know whether the reason for the lack of minutes for Blair was due to the cork injury??
 
lynx000 said:
Do we know whether the reason for the lack of minutes for Blair was due to the cork injury??
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure he suffered a bad cork which is why he didn't come back on the field and explains his low minutes.
 
10 runs for 82 metres.
4 tackle breaks.
21 tackles.
2 missed tackles.
1 offload.
1 line break.
2 errors.
1 penalty.

@Sproj
 
Last edited:
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 672
1:25:04
ARL Round 13, 1996 - Brisbane Broncos vs Parramatta Eels
View full media list »

Active Now

Total: 148 (members: 10, guests: 138)
Robots: 125
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.