Walsh's future

[BroncosFever]

As already said, Wayne did it with Lockyer and it ended up being a master stroke, don't think we've seen it work as successfully since (and many have given it a go).

Walsh is a fullback, he has the speed and agility that you really can't coach. He doesn't beat defenders with his guile, he does it with his speed. Milford was doing that at Canberra but he got stuck into the McDonalds out the back of Suncorp and went on to be one of the great million dollar failures.

IF you were going to throw him the halves, it would most certainly not be as a halfback, you'd want him getting it with a bit of room to move.

 

[azza.79]

Walsh stays at 1. Fullback is one of the most important positions and we have an elite one. There's no need to ever deviate from that.

End of conversation right there.

 

[BooKhaki]

fullback as long as he has that speed.

if he loses that speed, only then would i consider a move to 5/8.

This is the only correct answer.

 

[azza.79]

Keep him at fullback, so electric and dangerous in that position for opposition defensive lines, don't need to blunt that with additional workload defending in the front line.

 

[BroncsFan]

Keep him at fullback, so electric and dangerous in that position for opposition defensive lines, don't need to blunt that with additional workload defending in the front line.

Increased defensive load for a smaller half could also lead to shoulder injuries, like what happened to JT.

Best to keep him away from the front line at this stage

 

[Mustafur]

He's a fullback. I dont see anything in his game that makes me think he can play 7. He's just not controlled enough to replace a player like Reynolds. Of course, that could change but right now he doesnt have the calmness and composure to steer a team around.

If he switches to the halves, its as a running 6 and we already have that in Mam.

He already kicks more than Mam and has a better kicking game overall, but is more creative in passing and works both sides of the field which Mam doesn't, Mam is more willing to take it on himself, I can easily see him be a 7 even if it looks silly when comparing him to Reynolds, but I don't see that happening any time soon anyway.

Like if Walsh and Mam were the only halves we could pick, Walsh would definitely be a better 7 than Mam right now if we had to pick.

 

[Mustafur]

As already said, Wayne did it with Lockyer and it ended up being a master stroke, don't think we've seen it work as successfully since (and many have given it a go).

Walsh is a fullback, he has the speed and agility that you really can't coach. He doesn't beat defenders with his guile, he does it with his speed. Milford was doing that at Canberra but he got stuck into the McDonalds out the back of Suncorp and went on to be one of the great million dollar failures.

IF you were going to throw him the halves, it would most certainly not be as a halfback, you'd want him getting it with a bit of room to move.

Walsh is far more Athletic than Lockyer was at fullback(he wasn't a slouch by any means back then though) even though he plays the similar playmaking style that he did, so it makes sense he just stays there, most of his key creative ability comes from his insane acceleration that defenders can't catch up to and can easily put his outside men into 2 vs 1 situations.

Locky was always an elite kicker though, to the point he was the main kicker for broncos at fullback for a few seasons and even QLD, Walsh can probably get to that level but that would also depend on the halves around when that happens.

 

[Scorchie]

Moylan was quick once too. Be careful what you wish for

 

[BroncosFever]

Moylan was quick once too. Be careful what you wish for

Penrith fans had him as the next Lockyer very early on.

 

[Sproj]

Penrith fans had him as the next Lockyer very early on.

It was fair enough too, he looked like Lockyer 2.0, he comparisons were understandable and then he just fell off a cliff after playing for Australia.

 

[john1420]

This is off on a tangent, I know, but for argument's sake, would Lockyer even have moved to #6 if Karmichael Hunt didn't come along? I can't recall what the #6 and #7 stocks were like. Brett Seymour was halfback IIRC but he could have moved to 6, or Berrigan could have filled in like he had in the past.

But it was a massive sliding doors moment not just for the Broncos, but for the NRL itself, as the move has been attempted numerous times with limited success, especially when it comes to excellent / elite fullbacks. Munster would be one one of the better ones, Hayne was okay (but still a much better fullback), but Ponga has so far been a bust. And here we are again looking at an elite fullback with a slick passing game (and more importantly, play selection), proposing a move to halfback (which is more about field position and composure). Where, had the Broncos not attempted it literally 20 years ago, we may not even be thinking of it.

I'd like for someone with more knowledge than me to answer this (or correct me) but my memory says 'no'. IIRC, Bennet has said the reason for Locky's switch to 6 was because we had Hunt knocking the door down to play 1, and we had a 1 who he believed could play 6 (I think maybe Locky played some 6 in juniors?) and finally, the team needed a 6. The circumstances were perfect. So if Hunt is in the equation, the Broncos are looking for a 6 and leaving Locky at 1. Well that's my recollection anyway.

As for the OP question, no, Walsh stays where he is. It would need the same set of perfect circumstances to consider it. As of now we are not in that position.

 

[Morkel]

I'd like for someone with more knowledge than me to answer this (or correct me) but my memory says 'no'. IIRC, Bennet has said the reason for Locky's switch to 6 was because we had Hunt knocking the door down to play 1, and we had a 1 who he believed could play 6 (I think maybe Locky played some 6 in juniors?) and finally, the team needed a 6. The circumstances were perfect. So if Hunt is in the equation, the Broncos are looking for a 6 and leaving Locky at 1. Well that's my recollection anyway.

As for the OP question, no, Walsh stays where he is. It would need the same set of perfect circumstances to consider it. As of now we are not in that position.

I think Lockyer played in the halves growing up, but we had Walters & Langer in the halves so we needed a fullback. He was that good though that he became an elite fullback (and revolutionised the position with his ball-playing).

 

[1910]

I'd like for someone with more knowledge than me to answer this (or correct me) but my memory says 'no'. IIRC, Bennet has said the reason for Locky's switch to 6 was because we had Hunt knocking the door down to play 1, and we had a 1 who he believed could play 6 (I think maybe Locky played some 6 in juniors?) and finally, the team needed a 6. The circumstances were perfect. So if Hunt is in the equation, the Broncos are looking for a 6 and leaving Locky at 1. Well that's my recollection anyway.

As for the OP question, no, Walsh stays where he is. It would need the same set of perfect circumstances to consider it. As of now we are not in that position.

The catalyst was missing out on Kimmorley. The Broncos thought they had him for 2004. If they get him the need to move Lockyer wouldn't have been great. Ikin and Prince retired and moved, and halves were pretty thin.

Then Bennett moved Lockyer when Lockyer got back from England.

Lockyer played 6 all through his juniors and even his first two years in the NRL he still played 26 of his first 31 games in the halves or bench.

Hunt is an unknown what would have happened, if you keep Lockyer at 1 and have Kimmorley at 7.

Hunt played on the wing in the trial game in Toowoomba v Storm. Which was Lockyer first game at 6- Hunt was named on the bench for round one but Bennett made the call to start him a few weeks out and moved Tony to the bench instead. Maybe Hunt plays wing for a while.

 

[1910]

Final v Penrith 2003.

1. Lockyer
6. Ikin
7. Berrigan

Round 1 2004 v Warriors

1. Hunt
6. Lockyer
7. Seymour

 

[john1420]

I think Lockyer played in the halves growing up, but we had Walters & Langer in the halves so we needed a fullback. He was that good though that he became an elite fullback (and revolutionised the position with his ball-playing).

Yeah, that's what I thought. And then, having lost our halves, the need changed.

In some ways, it's less that we transitioned a 1 into a 6, and more that we transitioned half into a 1, and later moved him back.

 

[GCBRONCO]

I think Lockyer played in the halves growing up, but we had Walters & Langer in the halves so we needed a fullback. He was that good though that he became an elite fullback (and revolutionised the position with his ball-playing).

Not his real debut but here he is playing 5/8th in 1995. Both Juilian O'Neill and Lockyer were the prototypes of the future fullbacks to come, ahead of their time in what they offered there with their playmaking abilities. Around this time in 1995-1997 the Broncos saw Darren Lockyer and Ben Walker as the future halves after Walters and Langer. Lockyer's ability to play fullback allowed the club to eaise him into first grade early on without the responsibility of being a primary playmaker.

 

[Santa]

I think Walsh needs to just focus on becoming a better fullback before worrying too far ahead. He had a great season and has the potential to have a great career, but so did a lot of other players who ended up falling off a cliff.

Teams will have been studying players like Walsh and Mam all off-season. Hopefully they cope with the extra attention and change in tactics they will receive in 2024. Someone's going to figure them out, but hopefully they can con keep evolving to stay ahead of the curve.

 

[McHunt]

As already said, Wayne did it with Lockyer and it ended up being a master stroke, don't think we've seen it work as successfully since (and many have given it a go)..

Nicho Hynes.