Gutherson

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
Gutherson has natural footy smarts & is a quality young athelete but if I was to compare him to a similar recent youngster it would be Will Hopoate who was blessed with more natural strength at a similar age.
Gutherson is still a year away imo due to this factor, but could have a long successful career from that point.
 
Gutherson is certainly pegged for big things and may be just an injury away, we also have Gagan in reggies as well who could go well in first grade.
[/quote]

I thought Gagan had a very good game on Saturday. I think he will handle first grade well.
 
Speaking of young player's next time the Catalan Dragons are on Eurosports have a look at their young fullback Morgan Escare'.
Very similar to Slater sans the grubbiness - hope he sticks with league and eventually comes to the NRL to really try himself out.


Masked Eagle said:
eagles2win said:
Masked Eagle said:
To brutally honest, I don't think Magnus was ever going to make it to the NRL. Tried his guts out, but he was too undersized to be a prop and didn't have the agility/mobility to make it as a backrower.

IMO there is a huge different between what Magnus showed in toyota cup and what Jake has so far produced. Jake will be a star in the NRL, but I wouldn't be throwing him to the wolves for a few year yet.

As for winning games at the NSW cup level. Couldn't care less. I've said in numerous threads, lower grades should be about development, if they win then thats OK, but it should all be about getting players ready for first grade.

Wouldn't winning games at a lower grades actually help with player development......

Can play a part, but its not the be all and end all. Look at some of the real dominant teams in lower grades, the players reach first grade and they can't cope with the pressure because they've been doing it easy their entire career up til that point. A kid who plays in a team that does it tough every week might find the transition to first grade easier because he knows how to push himself.

I'm not saying winning isn't good, but it shouldn't be a priority. I'm sure we could pick some players who would make us more competitive in the NSW cup, but are you really going to give a player a spot in that team if you don't think they will be NRL standard over someone who might be? Clubs are doing more of this in recent times, having some players play in NSW cup even though they are still eligible for 20s. It costs them in 20s, and he might not be that much better than the older player he is replacing but its better for the players development and ultimately it should help the NRL team.

I would judge a successfull lower grade coach on how many of his players get better and graduate to the next level, not necessarily the amount of games they win.

Okay look at this way -

Smith, Cronk and Slater all came through Brisbane Norths together and the Storm have got 10+ years out of them and will have another lot coming through Bromwich Brothers, etc.
The Raiders have started to keep there juniors and adopted juniors from Souths Logan Lee's (both Edrick and his cousin Brenko - Brenko is a beast and will be better then Edrick), Pappilli, Croker, Milford
Penrith will have big $'s to throw at there juniors to keep them.

Kind of makes me wish we had what the Gold Coast and the Warriors have (apart from a good junior set up) and had big $'s I'd go and sign a heap of Balmain's u18 team(national champs(and now will be the time to do it Wests are going to take over Wests Tigers because Balmain's broke) and Redcliffe's u18 team (national runner's up)
 

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom