OFFICIAL Te Maire Martin Signs Three Year Deal with the Warriors

[bert_lifts]

Yeah there is a severe lack of solid #9's in the NRL. Quite sad billy is far from the worst lol.

 

[pagey]

Not sure why we’re comparing Mozer to Cameron Smith

Smith is the best of all time, Mozer hasn’t even made his first grade debut, talk about putting pressure on the kid

comparing body type, thought that was obvious

 

[pagey]

It's called a salary cap. I reckon he's middle of the road and perfectly serviceable.

There's no way he's the weakest hooker in the comp. This week's #9's:

Sea Eagles - Lachlan Croker
Roosters - Sam Verrills
Storm - Harry Grant
Warriors - Wayde Egan
Panthers - Api Koroisau
Eels - Reed Mahoney
Titans - Aaron Booth
Raiders - Zac Woolford
Sharks - Blayke Brailey
Rabbitohs - Damien Cook
Broncos - Billy Walters
Tigers - Fa'amanu Brown
Knights - Jayden Brailey
Bulldogs - Jeremy Marshall-King
Dragons - Andrew McCullough
Cowboys - Reece Robson

I've underlined those who I think are stronger hookers than Billy. Maybe Verrills and Jayden too, but I would still take Billy over those 2 and probably Blayke as well. Where would you rate Billy in that list? Would you seriously put him at the bottom?

then you consider that he's only on $120k and that makes him even better.

 

[Huge]

This is your MO. If you don't like it happening to you then reflect on that.

Ahhh, there you are. Like a puppy dog trailing along, the follower. Always second one in with the slipper, coming from the soft side. The irresistible allure of the chance to denigrate an old favourite hate.

You're so utterly predictable.

 

[john1420]

I remember you. You're the one who suggested we need to cheat to win. Good grief man you post a lot of dribble.

No, I did not.
I'm the guy who suggested we should risk a penalty to physically protect our Captain and playmaker if he is being illegally targeted and the refs aren't stepping in.
But yeah, we need to cheat to win. It's the same thing.
**** me you're an idiot.

 

[BroncosFever]

Yeah there is a severe lack of solid #9's in the NRL. Quite sad billy is far from the worst lol.

I have a different take, a lot of these 9's that people disregard are only disregarded because they're not channelling their inner Cameron Smith in regards to creativity in and around the ruck.

Defensively, there are a lot of good 9's. Turpin probably one of the better ones in that regard, actually. You can carry a dummy-half that isn't giving you much creativity if you are getting it from somewhere else in your spine.

 

[Big Del]

I have a different take, a lot of these 9's that people disregard are only disregarded because they're not channelling their inner Cameron Smith in regards to creativity in and around the ruck.

Defensively, there are a lot of good 9's. Turpin probably one of the better ones in that regard, actually. You can carry a dummy-half that isn't giving you much creativity if you are getting it from somewhere else in your spine.

Still need a nice quick long pass off the ground to give the halves time and width .
Standing up , taking a step , then passing behind the half`s shoulder is not helpful .

Lookin at you Jakey boy .

 

[BroncosFever]

Still need a nice quick long pass off the ground to give the halves time and width .
Standing up , taking a step , then passing behind the half`s shoulder is not helpful .

Lookin at you Jakey boy .

Decent service should be a non-negotiable, hard to get it right every single time though.

 

[Big Del]

Decent service should be a non-negotiable, hard to get it right every single time though.

Back in the trials Billy had the best pass of the guys who trialled #9 I thought .
And I backed him for the #9 jersey . He seemed to give his runners the most advantage .

Paix was throwing some awkward passes . He has surpassed Billy in recent times though , I think ?

 

[BroncosFever]

Back in the trials Billy had the best pass of the guys who trialled #9 I thought .
And I backed him for the #9 jersey . He seemed to give his runners the most advantage .

Paix was throwing some awkward passes . He has surpassed Billy in recent times though , I think ?

Billy and then Paix off the bench should be the way to go, Billy always provides a bit of flexibility in the halves if someone was to go down injured.

I think Turpin is first grade standard though, in the right team.

 

[Sproj]

Billy and then Paix off the bench should be the way to go, Billy always provides a bit of flexibility in the halves if someone was to go down injured.

I think Turpin is first grade standard though, in the right team.

At The team?

 

[Thelmus]

What i have noticed with dummy halves in general is they all deteriate their the longer they go in a season without a break.
Billys passing and game in general looked weak a couple of weeks ago but i bet he has a blinder tonight.
Ive seen when the screws get put questioning a hookers form and its always around this time of the year.
I saw maccullough play an excellent game for st george coming back from injury too, along with a few others like starling etc.
I even saw it in cook.
I think we underestimate just what the grind of dummyhalf does to players.
I suspect they need a break and because their treated like every other player (despite the obvious workload) they dont get it.
People will argue cameron smith didnt need to rest games, but he often plsyed away from the dummy half grind at half.
It may not seem a huge difference but theres a reason we've always had utility players eg. Plath, craig wing etc.
Its not just game time either but resting for games.
Hookers are a bit like wicket keepers in that they are expected to be "always on" and you dont usually expect a wicket keeper to open the batting in a test.
We need to re-examine how taxing it is. Its not just the 50 tackles or sprinting to the play-the-ball but the mental exhaustion too. Every play they have to be reading the game whilst physically drained.
Halves in contrast have time to look from afar. Other forwards (even front rowers) might work hard but game isnt always at them.
For hookers it is.

 

[McHunt]

No, I did not.
I'm the guy who suggested we should risk a penalty to physically protect our Captain and playmaker if he is being illegally targeted and the refs aren't stepping in.
But yeah, we need to cheat to win. It's the same thing.
**** me you're an idiot.

"risk a penalty"

As in deliberately break the rules hoping the referee won't notice. And you reckon I'm an idiot.

 

[john1420]

"risk a penalty"

As in deliberately break the rules hoping the referee won't notice. And you reckon I'm an idiot.

In order to protect our playmaker.........that does NOT equate to "we need to cheat to win"

C'mon now fella, I read every single one of your posts, and the truth is it is clear from the way you write that you are an intelligent bloke, but every now and again you take something way out of context or misquote someone or misunderstand or whatever, but instead of just admitting it, you make another hill to die on.

Fact is I never said we need to cheat to win, and although you may have interpreted what I said that way, I never said it and never meant it, and that really should be the end of it.

 

[McHunt]

In order to protect our playmaker.........that does NOT equate to "we need to cheat to win"

C'mon now fella, I read every single one of your posts, and the truth is it is clear from the way you write that you are an intelligent bloke, but every now and again you take something way out of context or misquote someone or misunderstand or whatever, but instead of just admitting it, you make another hill to die on.

Fact is I never said we need to cheat to win, and although you may have interpreted what I said that way, I never said it and never meant it, and that really should be the end of it.

How do you "protect a playmaker" without deliberately "obstructing" the defence (breaking a rule)?

If you set out to deliberately break a rule, and you acknowledge you run the risk of a penalty, you are very literally attempting to cheat. You have already acknowledged you run the risk of a penalty doing it, so you are acknowledging this is a deliberate attempt to subvert the rules (cheat).

If you spotted the opposition using that tactic you would call them cheats.
If you suspected a referee was turning a blind eye to it, you would call them a cheat.

It's not that I disagree with you wanting to do this, but it is very literally attempting to cheat.

QED

John the Apostle would not approve.

 

[Mustafur]

How do you "protect a playmaker" without deliberately "obstructing" the defence (breaking a rule)?

If you set out to deliberately break a rule, and you acknowledge you run the risk of a penalty, you are very literally attempting to cheat. You have already acknowledged you run the risk of a penalty doing it, so you are acknowledging this is a deliberate attempt to subvert the rules (cheat).

If you spotted the opposition using that tactic you would call them cheats.
If you suspected a referee was turning a blind eye to it, you would call them a cheat.

It's not that I disagree with you wanting to do this, but it is very literally attempting to cheat.

Ah like Tigers deliberately being offside after the scrum and instead of us getting a penalty we just get a six again(which is literally 1 extra tackle).

If the rules are broken they are there to be exploited.

 

[McHunt]

Ah like Tigers deliberately being offside after the scrum and instead of us getting a penalty we just get a six again(which is literally 1 extra tackle).

If the rules are broken they are there to be exploited.

I'm a massive fan of milking penalties. We don't do it enough.

 

[Volvo Driver]

Oops, thought I clicked on the Te Maire Martin thread. Silly me.