You Don't Know What You've Got 'Til It's Gone

[Unbreakable]

I never really thought I'd say it, but McCullough is a massive part of what we're doing here, there's several more Hooker's in the NRL that have more speed and flash in them, but none as reliable week in and week out.

I hope we re-sign him long term and Wayne considers him strongly for the captaincy once Parker retires, he's earned it.

 

[Mister Wright]

Look at what Granville has offered NQ, he has already won a premiership with them and was one of the best on ground in said GF. If Macca was an 80 minute hooker, you could argue that gives him an edge over Granville in that one area but as much he probably can do it, he isn't an 80 minute hooker because we have KNik too. You tell me how a tag team of Granville-KNik is NOT a more attractive offer than Macca-KNik.

Parcell is a gun but is being stifled in the Sea Eagles system where he has to feed it to DCE and Walker/Lyon who constantly do their best to stink it up. I'll concede that on Parcell's showing for Manly thus far, it has been far more underwhelming than I thought it would be.

I did always rate Baptiste and he is going well for the Raiders so hard to know how he would have gone in Macca's position.

Regardless, Granville is the one we should have kept. He offers a lot in defence (not as much as Macca for sure but not horribly less so) but also offers speed out of dummy half and one of the finest services in the NRL (something Macca definitely lags behind in though he has improved).

I am not bagging out Macca by the way but just saying that if we still had one or two of those other options, we wouldn't really lose that much (and in the case of Granville actually add something) with Macca being out. He is a more than decent hooker but we could be awesome with Granville.

McCullough was 5 seconds away from being the premiership winning hooker and it was not his fault that we lost, nor was it Granville that won it for them - it was Morgan.

If we had a combo of Granville & Niko, we would need them to be at their attacking best every week because we would be chasing a whole lot more points.

 

[Nashy]

I never really thought I'd say it, but McCullough is a massive part of what we're doing here, there's several more Hooker's in the NRL that have more speed and flash in them, but none as reliable week in and week out.

I hope we re-sign him long term and Wayne considers him strongly for the captaincy once Parker retires, he's earned it.

I think I'd prefer Boyd to be captain.

 

[Unbreakable]

I think I'd prefer Boyd to be captain.

Theyd have to be the 2 leading candidates. I'm leaning towards McCullough because he may have an extra 2-3 seasons in him and is less likely to be missing during the Origin period.

 

[Sproj]

McCullough was 5 seconds away from being the premiership winning hooker and it was not his fault that we lost, nor was it Granville that won it for them - it was Morgan.

If we had a combo of Granville & Niko, we would need them to be at their attacking best every week because we would be chasing a whole lot more points.

Yeah Morgan pulled out one play, what about the two tries Granville set up? What about the non-pass to Parker that would have won us the game that McCullough didn't throw? Doesn't count?

 

[Sproj]

I just want to make it clear though that I am not trying to bag out McCullough, I think he is decent, I just rate Granville ahead of him and if we had kept him instead of McCullough, we would be a better side.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Depends what your team needs. Does the Broncos need more attacking options, or do we need more stability in the ruck? I know my answer. McCullough's defence is way better than Granville. Granville's attack is way better than McCullough's.

Attack (per game)
McCullough: 4 runs for 34.9 metres / 0.2 LB, 0.1 LBA / 0 T, 0.1 TA / 0.5 E / 44.2 KM
(line break every 5 games, only one line break assist, only one try assist, an error every second game, help with kicking).
Granville: 5.8 runs for 47.4 metres / 0.2 LB, 0.8 LBA / 0.2 T, 0.5 TA / 0.5 E / 6 KM
(line break every 5 games, a line break assist most games, try assist every second game, an error every second game, bugger all kick metres).

Defence (per game)
McCullough: 34.7 tackles, 0.7 missed
Granville: 32.7 tackles, 4.4 missed

Looking at that, Granville's biggest stats are his line break assists (0.8 vs 0.1) and try assists (0.5 vs 0.1). McCullough has it nailed in defence - 0.7 missed compared with 4.4.

I think you'll find that while McCullough has been out, that lack of solidity has been a key factor in us conceding ground but more importantly getting defensively fatigued and more likely to crack. It would be happening season-long if we had Granville IMO. Consequently I don't think Granville's increased attacking stats would help - we're scoring tries just about every time we get to the opponent's try line, our problem is getting there. Go McCullough.

Our defence is setup the way it is largely because he is in the team... It would be set differently if another player was there instead of him... Was previously, will be again one day. I don't argue he isn't a great defender, but so was Peter Wallace... That doesn't mean you can forgoe other needed capabilities just because you have someone stronger in one area of the game.

Are the Cows a less capable defensive unit than us when they have Granville in their side? Of course not. Coaches set up defensive structures based on the way they 'want' to defend and the capabilities of the playing group. If we had Granville instead of McCullough, we would likely have to adjust our style somewhat, but his run metres would ease the defensive load (and field position) issues we have, so that may offset his missed tackle count. On top of which he is far less experienced than McCullough, yet already easily surpasses him in run metres and attacking football.

As an example of this the 'unbalanced' side of McCullough's game is why we are unlikely to ever see much of him in Origin. He just isn't good enough 'all round' to be considered one of the top hookers in the game and thus the only way he will ever likely play much if any origin is through some significant injury crisis.

He is important to us right now. The last few weeks have shown that clearly but he is hardly the only option we can ever have...

 

[Huge]

I never really thought I'd say it, but McCullough is a massive part of what we're doing here, there's several more Hooker's in the NRL that have more speed and flash in them, but none as reliable week in and week out.

I hope we re-sign him long term and Wayne considers him strongly for the captaincy once Parker retires, he's earned it.

Yeah..CamSmith is better.

 

[mitch222]

Depends what your team needs. Does the Broncos need more attacking options, or do we need more stability in the ruck? I know my answer. McCullough's defence is way better than Granville. Granville's attack is way better than McCullough's.

Attack (per game)
McCullough: 4 runs for 34.9 metres / 0.2 LB, 0.1 LBA / 0 T, 0.1 TA / 0.5 E / 44.2 KM
(line break every 5 games, only one line break assist, only one try assist, an error every second game, help with kicking).
Granville: 5.8 runs for 47.4 metres / 0.2 LB, 0.8 LBA / 0.2 T, 0.5 TA / 0.5 E / 6 KM
(line break every 5 games, a line break assist most games, try assist every second game, an error every second game, bugger all kick metres).

Defence (per game)
McCullough: 34.7 tackles, 0.7 missed
Granville: 32.7 tackles, 4.4 missed

Looking at that, Granville's biggest stats are his line break assists (0.8 vs 0.1) and try assists (0.5 vs 0.1). McCullough has it nailed in defence - 0.7 missed compared with 4.4.

I think you'll find that while McCullough has been out, that lack of solidity has been a key factor in us conceding ground but more importantly getting defensively fatigued and more likely to crack. It would be happening season-long if we had Granville IMO. Consequently I don't think Granville's increased attacking stats would help - we're scoring tries just about every time we get to the opponent's try line, our problem is getting there. Go McCullough.

And with this note we can end this thread

 

[Super Freak]

I never really thought I'd say it, but McCullough is a massive part of what we're doing here, there's several more Hooker's in the NRL that have more speed and flash in them, but none as reliable week in and week out.

I hope we re-sign him long term and Wayne considers him strongly for the captaincy once Parker retires, he's earned it.

Sorry, I had to.

 

[Unbreakable]

Sorry, I had to.

You had to repeat a joke that was made 2 posts earlier? That's odd.

 

[ChewThePhatt]

You had to repeat a joke that was made 2 posts earlier? That's odd.

Its the pic that made it for me. Love your work SF

 

[Danoz Direct]

You had to repeat a joke that was made 2 posts earlier? That's odd.

The picture was the cherry on top for me, was a necessary post.

 

[abashii]

The picture was the cherry on top for me, was a necessary post.

You mean it was ok as gap filler but useless as the headline act?

 

[Danoz Direct]

You mean it was ok as gap filler but useless as the headline act?

Exaclty.

 

[Super Freak]

You had to repeat a joke that was made 2 posts earlier? That's odd.

It was good, but it just needed that little something extra.

 

[Unbreakable]

While we're on the topic of spending $1.5m on a single player.. I'm really glad Smith turned down our offer at the end of 2013, as amazing as he is, I think that was a massive bullet dodged by us, we've used that money incredibly well.

No chance we would have had cap room in 2015 to sign Milford, Boyd and Blair if Smith came in 2014. I'm also not sure if Bennett would've come home if we had that much money invested in a 30+ year old player for several seasons.