The Wayne Bennett Super thread!

[Porthoz]

And we know how players can be like once your off those same drugs, Rodney Howe was never the same.

Waddell I agree wasn't required. You weren't the only person to rate Kahu either and the concern's weren't purely over his ability, he has had a horrid run of injuries which was a legitimate concern, his been able to handle it well with hindsight but at the time it was a fair question to raise. Ashley Taylor, Jayden Nikorima and Matt Parcell, players of the future, very likely, ready at that very time or now for the week in and week out is currently open to debat.

What Bennett has shown is his willingness to give such players a taste of first grade when the opportunity presents itself which Boyd's inclusion hasn't impeded and you could argue against those who wanted to retain Barba and Hoffman that would have actually made it harder for them to do so. At present I'd much rather continue their development as it is then unnecessarily rush them into NRL and make unnecessary changes to the first grade side that is working so well as a unit mid season.

I think it's great that Taylor for example is playing in the Queensland Cup and I think he will become a better player for it, but I think people are getting ahead of themselves saying he needs to be there right here and right now, if your going to argue that you would like him in the side I think your case would be stronger in making the change in the off season, giving him time to work on the spine combination and then a slow, steady progression into the NRL instead of throwing him in when we are have way through the season and the pressure is ever increasing to keep performing.

I did mention that I was concerned about Kahu's injuries, but provided he got past them, he would be a gun player. I only hope the injuries stay away, because he can and will get better.

My concern re Boyd was not this season, although I still think that his recruitment was completely unnecessary, as we could've covered for him with ease (like we in fact did for the first half of the season).
The problem is that Darius signed for 3 years, and with Hunt and Milford in the halves, the spine positions are locked out for Taylor and Jikorima for that period at the very least, and while I am perfectly fine with them honing their skill in the ISG, 3 years is way too long, and the vultures are circling already...

People seem to think that Wayne will move Boyd to centre/wing and Milford to FB if Taylor is breaking the door down... I have trouble believing that, because:

1- He is committed to Milford as 5/8.
2- He rates Boyd highly as a FB.
3- Boyd is the one player I can't see Wayne being objective about. (not a blemish, as it is natural given their relationship)

I hope WB manages to pull a (few) rabbit(s) out of his hat, and keeps all this talented youth.

 

[theshed]

Milford was signed as a 5/8. Even if Boyd didn't sign Milfird still wouldn't be fullback. Therefore Boyd has no effect on Ash Taylor. If you honestly believe Taylor deserves to play who do you drop/move hunt or milf because they are his only obstacles in our team.

 

[broncos4life]

Milford was signed as a 5/8. Even if Boyd didn't sign Milfird still wouldn't be fullback. Therefore Boyd has no effect on Ash Taylor. If you honestly believe Taylor deserves to play who do you drop/move hunt or milf because they are his only obstacles in our team.

And this right here is why this argument has gotten ridiculous and circular.

Boyd has no impact on taylor joining the side, but he is thrown in there to justify what a mistake signing boyd was in some people's opinion.

As you have said, hunt or Milford will be the ones that stand in the way of taylor, so porthoz and others, which one of them do we drop for taylor?

 

[rnabokov]

Nobody gets dropped out of Boyd Milford and Hunt. For mine this side is settled "spine-wise" and we are doing too well to change. It looks to me that our halves in any case are starting to be up there with the best which rules Taylor out this year except as maybe an option for a replacement for injury/rep duties, and Hunt on last performance didn't do his Origin bench possibility any harm. He was all over DCE.

In any case, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and given Taylor is still learning the ropes, we are lucky to have Kahu in the side who can fill in anywhere in the backline.

Personally, I am resigned to losing Taylor to another club as I don't see Hunt or Milford going backwards, and only getting better and he is no FB.

I think Bennett has found a winning formula despite my belief that we didn't really need Boyd but he is here and he is playing well. Even if Boyd were to fail in the big games which I don't think he will, it would be Kahu to FB so, I will just continue to read and watch Taylor do his thing in ISC or where ever and wonder about his future, while I wait for another NRL premiership with the side we have.

 

[theshed]

The unfortunate truth of a very good problem to have is we have one spot in our 17 (the utility role) to accomodate 4 very promising young players. Kodi, Parcell, Jayden, Taylor.

With how good our halves are playing at the moment and due to his specialist tag, Taylor is probably the most likely to move on unless he's happy to be injury cover for another year or so. Wayne Bennet isn't an idiot, if Taylor leaves the club it will be because we have better options (Hunt&Milf...and I'm sorry but, as talented as Taylor is, I won't take anybody who suggests he's better than either of those 2 seriously. He might be one day but not even close yet).

 

[Ari Gold]

And this right here is why this argument has gotten ridiculous and circular.

Boyd has no impact on taylor joining the side, but he is thrown in there to justify what a mistake signing boyd was in some people's opinion.

As you have said, hunt or Milford will be the ones that stand in the way of taylor, so porthoz and others, which one of them do we drop for taylor?

Sorry, but I consider this argument to be bogus.

So fucking what if Milford was signed at a five eight? Does that somehow erase his good performances at fullback or somehow make him incapable of being a fullback?

Milford is going great at five eight right now, so if you want to keep him there because of that, then that's perfectly fine. But I mean, we signed Blair as a prop. Does that mean we can never, ever play him as a second rower now? Of course it doesn't, so I don't see why the fact we signed Milford as a five eight excludes him from being a fullback.

Right now there are many good reasons to not move Milford to fullback. Many good, valid reasons. The fact we signed him to play five eight is not one of them.

 

[Foordy]

Sorry, but I consider this argument to be bogus.

So fucking what if Milford was signed at a five eight? Does that somehow erase his good performances at fullback or somehow make him incapable of being a fullback?

Milford is going great at five eight right now, so if you want to keep him there because of that, then that's perfectly fine. But I mean, we signed Blair as a prop. Does that mean we can never, ever play him as a second rower now? Of course it doesn't, so I don't see why the fact we signed Milford as a five eight excludes him from being a fullback.

Right now there are many good reasons to not move Milford to fullback. Many good, valid reasons. The fact we signed him to play five eight is not one of them.

THIS

I honestly don't care where players were initially "signed" to play. Players should be playing where it is best for the team. Hoffman, was initially retained as a fullback ... does that mean that he should have only ever played full back, HELL NO.

Norman was signed (or retained as the case may be) as a five-eight ... does that mean we should only ever allow him to play five-eight. HELL NO. I still think his best position (at least when he was with us) was/is fullback.

If the best spine we can have right now is the one we have then fine, However if in the near future the best spine we can have means Milford should move to fullback, Boyd to center/wing and Taylor in the halves, then Bennett shouldn't hesitate because Griffin "signed" Milford as a five-eight.

 

[Porthoz]

Sorry, but I consider this argument to be bogus.

So fucking what if Milford was signed at a five eight? Does that somehow erase his good performances at fullback or somehow make him incapable of being a fullback?

Milford is going great at five eight right now, so if you want to keep him there because of that, then that's perfectly fine. But I mean, we signed Blair as a prop. Does that mean we can never, ever play him as a second rower now? Of course it doesn't, so I don't see why the fact we signed Milford as a five eight excludes him from being a fullback.

Right now there are many good reasons to not move Milford to fullback. Many good, valid reasons. The fact we signed him to play five eight is not one of them.

Don't be ridiculous Ari. Milford was signed as a 5/8, and therefore it is set in stone that he cannot play anywhere else, including fullback, even if he was a champion in that position at the time he was signed...

Obviously, by that sound logic reasoning, it means that for Taylor to come in the team, either Anthony or Ashley will have to be re-signed as a fullback, so either of them can replace Boyd. :takdir:

 

[Alec]

Milford is apparently on $900K a year. Signed by Griffin. Will be interesting to see what Bennett does when he's off contract, surely Milford will demand even more?

 

[Foordy]

Milford is apparently on $900K a year. Signed by Griffin. Will be interesting to see what Bennett does when he's off contract, surely Milford will demand even more?

I don't know where you saw that figure because every figure i have seen said 450k a year.

 

[Alec]

It used to be 450K, now it seems to say $900K everywhere.

 

[Ari Gold]

The article that mentioned DCE's salary the other day cited Milford as being on 900k.

NRL RICH LIST

1. Daly Cherry-Evans, Sea Eagles ($1.67 million)
2. Kieran Foran, Eels ($1.2 million)
3. Cameron Smith, Storm ($1 million)
4. Johnathan Thurston, Cowboys ($1 million)
5. Robbie Farah, Tigers ($900,000)
6. Anthony Milford, Broncos ($900,000)
7. Greg Inglis, Rabbitohs ($850,000)
8. Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, Warriors ($850,000)
9. Ben Barba, Sharks/Broncos ($800,000)
10. Will Hopoate, Eels ($800,000)

http://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl...into-perspective/story-e6frf3ru-1227382900648

 

[Kimlo]

It used to be 450K, now it seems to say $900K everywhere.

I honestly don't think he would be on that much, I don't believe it personally. His next contract, if he keeps getting better, will be very hard to get him for less than that.

 

[Big Pete]

Reminds me of Kennedy's contract.

Started off at around 300K ended up being like 600K pending on how bad he played.

Who writes these articles? Gob Bluth?

 

[Foordy]

It used to be 450K, now it seems to say $900K everywhere.

I think what the media were saying at the time he signed would be closer to the truth.

Not what the media are saying now to suit the stories of the day

 

[heartly87]

The sad truth is the only vulture teams hanging around are the dregs, the teams who need a half badly. These kids are playing in a comp that is considered by a lot of individuals to be on par with touch footy. Defence is poor, attacking flare rains and only 10% of players every make the nrl. Jamie soward on mmm sunday stated it was dud football and a poor breeding ground for talent, he said you need to be killing it against men before entering the NRL as a half. Taylor is not, what the broncs are doing for him now is more valuable to him in the long run then putting him up to the NRL and if that day comes I am sure Wayne will make the right decisions. Right now our spine is going great and I would not touch it

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Milford is on more money than Inglis? Someone send the auditors down to Souffs

 

[broncos4life]

Sorry, but I consider this argument to be bogus.

So fucking what if Milford was signed at a five eight? Does that somehow erase his good performances at fullback or somehow make him incapable of being a fullback?

Milford is going great at five eight right now, so if you want to keep him there because of that, then that's perfectly fine. But I mean, we signed Blair as a prop. Does that mean we can never, ever play him as a second rower now? Of course it doesn't, so I don't see why the fact we signed Milford as a five eight excludes him from being a fullback.

Right now there are many good reasons to not move Milford to fullback. Many good, valid reasons. The fact we signed him to play five eight is not one of them.

Excuse me? Point to me where in that quote I said anything about the position he was bought here to play?