2025 recruitment & retention

[double hoops]

Where is Jimmy the Jet these days?

 

[voicefromthehill]

South's would be mad to sign him. Imagine the disruption he and Latrell could cause. On 2nd thoughts, please sign him. Go for it Bunny dudes.

Punt Latrell to the wing and both those boys would be demons down the white line

 

[HK_Eagle]

Punt Latrell to the wing and both those boys would be demons down the white line

Wouldn’t work. Touching the lines is out.

 

[Scorpio]

It's a string that's excess to requirements!

Disagree... he had the equal most 40/20 kicks in the NRL last year so he can kick them. I don't think he has any this year though.

He did have a kick on the last tackle on Sunday when DCE or Brooks weren't in range... it's a good option to have.

 

[Dee Why Eagle]

Where is Jimmy the Jet these days?

ask @BOZO

 

[Disco]

With the Knights in some cap and having 3 edges trying to fit into 2.

I'd make enquiries about Dylan Lucas or KPP

 

[Seagles68]

Wouldn’t work. Touching the lines is out.

But they both can sniff out a try.

 

[Stewbojevic]

With the Knights in some cap and having 3 edges trying to fit into 2.

I'd make enquiries about Dylan Lucas or KPP

Lucas is exactly what we need

 

[Dion Johnson]

With the Knights in some cap and having 3 edges trying to fit into 2.

I'd make enquiries about Dylan Lucas or KPP

Problem is Lucas is on minimum dollars and they want to retain him, KPP is reportedly on over 700K he may be an option if they could work out the amount the Knights would be willing to put in.

 

[Phobia]

Apparently Lodge is being shopped to SL... I think that pretty much says that there is zero interest elsewhere in the NRL. I doubt he would uproot his life for two years, as he pretty clearly wants to stay here.

With Lawton, Schuster now paid off, Parker, Woods, Humphreys, Hodgson and presumably Vaega all going (and I've probably missed more), I think we do actually have the cap space for RCG, if Lodge remains on a low amount. Think about our new signings/additions to Top 30 that we have made:

Simpkin: We apparently received him on a bargain from the Tigers, they're still paying more than half of his salary. We actually didn't even pay for him this year from what I heard.

Volkman: Looking to revive NRL career. Minimum wage, development contract apparently.

Chee-Kam: Experience and depth, reliable from what I can tell. Minimum wage, supplementary deal apparently.

Waddell: Clearly loves the club, resigned as depth for a long time, presumably minimum wage too.

Tevaga: Unwanted by Warriors, didn't seem like much competition. Depth/utility. Minimum wage.

Hoppa: Minimum wage until 2026, maybe a little more for potential.

Lodge: Zero interest elsewhere, aside from Moses BS. Moses already faked interest from the Bulldogs, which their chairman fronted the media about and denied. Being shopped to ESL. I think we can actually resign him for cheap. Think about it, who would we even be competing against?

These signings bring into mind an important question, where exactly has the Schuster money gone? All of these signings can effectively be covered by our other releases that I mentioned earlier. I think our salary cap is in a better state than what most on here think.

I've heard that the Eels will pay freight for whatever club RCG goes to next year. Sipley might leave at the end of 2025 with Lafai, Navale and co coming through, in addition to Lodge and RCG pushing him back in the pecking order. That's where the extra money for a potential 2026 or 2027 from RCG comes from. If Lafai lives up to his potential, it could be a straight swap contract from RCG to Lafai as RCG retires.

The only gap here is backrow. My hot take is that the club will not sign another backrower, and instead they will give Burbo another chance at the 12 jersey. He is signed until 2027, and is only 23 still after all. He has to fill out for his role, which is something Jake and Tom didn't really have to do. Alternatively, Navale, Waddell, Chee-Kam, Bullemor, and even Brown, Condon and Tevaga could comprise backrow options. We already have a gun backrower, we need better middles. RCG might be that man.

 

[Heckenberg]

Problem is Lucas is on minimum dollars and they want to retain him, KPP is reportedly on over 700K he may be an option if they could work out the amount the Knights would be willing to put in.

That is a ridiculous amount of coin.

 

[Disco]

The only gap here is backrow. My hot take is that the club will not sign another backrower, and instead they will give Burbo another chance at the 12 jersey. He is signed until 2027, and is only 23 still after all. He has to fill out for his role, which is something Jake and Tom didn't really have to do. Alternatively, Navale, Waddell, Chee-Kam, Bullemor, and even Brown, Condon and Tevaga could comprise backrow options. We already have a gun backrower, we need better middles. RCG might be that man.

I really hope this is not the case, I think and edge os vital.

Of all the players you list I think Burbo and Chee Kam are the only genuine edges. The rest middles preferably.

I think an edge is a MUST

 

[The Who]

As an old-timer I'm confused by the insistence that today's footballers are "edges, middles, rights or lefts". Do we no longer have players that can put themselves into positions on the field that best suit their team; footballers that are 'instinctive' and play what is in front of them?
I've heard 'experts' claiming a backline players can only play on the right side of the field! Apparently if he accidentally crosses to the left his leg falls off...
Seriously. Why this fixation with "structure"? Our brand of football is not like the compartmentalised American form where one position can only do one thing, where a player can go through a whole career without making one run, one tackle, one pass, one catch, one kick . . .
If a player has talent he will explore and utilise all parts of a football field to his advantage, not just the middle, the edges, the right side or the left.

 

[Disco]

As an old-timer I'm confused by the insistence that today's footballers are "edges, middles, rights or lefts". Do we no longer have players that can put themselves into positions on the field that best suit their team; footballers that are 'instinctive' and play what is in front of them?
I've heard 'experts' claiming a backline players can only play on the right side of the field! Apparently if he accidentally crosses to the left his leg falls off...
Seriously. Why this fixation with "structure"? Our brand of football is not like the compartmentalised American form where one position can only do one thing, where a player can go through a whole career without making one run, one tackle, one pass, one catch, one kick . . .
If a player has talent he will explore and utilise all parts of a football field to his advantage, not just the middle, the edges, the right side or the left.

Agree with the sentiment but players are coached to within an inch of their lives these days.

The game is now highly structured, plays often set up two or 3 play the balls in advance, its all about getting to points of the field and isolating the 3 defender etc etc.

With that there are many players who do struggle outside of their defined role.

Not defending it as the game is better with true, eyes up footy players but it is what it is.

 

[LeonardCohen]

As an old-timer I'm confused by the insistence that today's footballers are "edges, middles, rights or lefts". Do we no longer have players that can put themselves into positions on the field that best suit their team; footballers that are 'instinctive' and play what is in front of them?
I've heard 'experts' claiming a backline players can only play on the right side of the field! Apparently if he accidentally crosses to the left his leg falls off...
Seriously. Why this fixation with "structure"? Our brand of football is not like the compartmentalised American form where one position can only do one thing, where a player can go through a whole career without making one run, one tackle, one pass, one catch, one kick . . .
If a player has talent he will explore and utilise all parts of a football field to his advantage, not just the middle, the edges, the right side or the left.

You can bet in the age of professional sport and hours of video analysis, a coach would have revolutionised shifting players around, if it was going to work. As it stands, putting a prop on the wing, a hooker at centre and a front rower at halfback, sounds like a long shot. For better or worse, certain types of players seem to work best in certain contexts. Speed on the wing, muscle in the middle.

With that obvious frame work in mind, a more subtle framework exists within that overarching model. If a player is big, mobile, and quick, they could indeed do a decent job in the middle, but often they’re more dangerous in short bursts on an edge. Conventional middles are often less mobile and more adept at bending the line up the guts.

Of course, you could put any middle on an edge, or any edge forward in the middle and they’ll do a job. Big Nelson is an obvious example of a player that has been used in both position to varying degrees of success. The dilemma is where will they do their best work.

Imagine Liam Martin at prop. He’d get worked over to the point of fatigue and we wouldn’t get those great powerful lines that he runs, where the spacing is more open, providing him with an opportunity to use his best attributes. Then you might ask why is the spacing wider on the edges? It’s because the middle is the point of the field where there is equal opportunity to go left or right and the fullback has to try and count numbers. So teams attack through the ruck and defence compress in the middle in an attempt to control the ruck and avoid too many defenders getting sucked into that space. When the middle of the ruck is managed the edge is managed. When it’s not, space opens wider. Now imagine Jake T (a) defending out wide, trying to manage the opposition’s speed or (b) he is attacking and running into a hole…it’d close pretty damn quickly on him, I suspect.

So yeah, that’s why positions require certain types of players.

 

[patorick2010]

Simply put: most players are either more effective in the middle or on the edge.

Depending on what their skills are and what their role is in the team structure.

Some players can play both. But there's very few who are equally good at both.

 

[manly al]

Probably one of the biggest changes is the roles of 13 and halves for some time now
Old style locks or 13 's of course used to have more of that roving role but now naturally confined to middle duties and the half backs and 5/8 "s playing virtually along side each other previously
Certainly been a big contrast to past times
Inevitable in some ways to be so much more structured with the age of full time professionalism , no doubt the A F L and even soccer have evolved or changed in a similar manner .
Seemed to recall again that a lot of the changes were encouraged by the likes of Graham Lowe back in the early 90 's and with corridor type plays and the down town kicking was well in place by this time also to add to a more structed approach .
Anyway pleased that it is still a quite good spectacle these days and the skill level of a fairly high calibre irrespective of whatever structures are in place

 

[maxta]

A middle will play middle
An edge will play edge.
the players with the ability to fill either role will be changed up purely based on the opposition.
As an example if a team has a half with tackling deficiencies, Bellamy will have him iscolated with Nelson steamrolling at him, particularly near the try line.

 

[The Who]

I guess that's why players, when asked how their coach has helped them, reply: "He's simplified my game".
So players must be programmed to take the field knowing: All I have to do is stay in my lane, catch the ball, run hard and, whatever you do, don't think.
It really is a simple sport now, isn't it.

 

[maxta]

View attachment 28262

Wouldn't be overly interested anyway, as pretty much his twilight years at best....but if true he would favour the Dogs, any interest at all would be shot on the spot.