Jake Trbojevic offers nothing in attack

[frank stokes]

If people want to question value for money as well as administrative twittery may I introduce you to ...
Josh (I'm terrified of rainbows and playing NRL with intelligence and intensity as I am always injured and spend most of my time sitting on the sidelines soaking up salary cap) Aloiai

Slight tweak… and good point, in Jake we at least have a bloke who EARNS every dollar we pay him… tackles relentlessly, plays the link-man role well and rarely injured (for a bloke doing all the heavy lifting)

 

[Rafferty]

Yes Jake is on what Jake is on, his not the only one earning overs at our club, the result is our pack is our pack and we have to hope they can handle the direction of the game, which is about speed and keeping the ball in play, that’s what Penrith do and how they grind teams out of the contest.

We are going to need our halfback to become more of a game manager, we are going to need stoppages and plenty of them to assist our pack by slowing the game down, if that’s possible, while others sides work at building their game speed, we’re going to have to work in the opposite direction. I’m not a coach, but if it’s easy enough for me to see, then it’s not that hard for opposition coaches to see, gas our forwards out of the contest, won’t matter how much talent we have out the back.

 

[manly al]

Looks like Jake will be used similar to recent seasons , starting as a 13 then some big minutes at prop and every reason again , to expect again a generally very valuable input in defence with the also generally accepted limitations attacking wise .
More concerned who will take over at 13 for whatever time during a match and what they may have to offer .
Worked out O K when Dylan Walker had that role and Nathan Brown had been able to bring in some real punch but not sure now with Nathan over the full season duration .
Still maintain again that Jake was subject to just too big a workload last season which did result in him becoming quite jaded towards season "s end .
Have to take into account also that Jake was still considered S O O level last season even if he was used a bit sparingly at times .
Package deal with Turbo did definitely result in overs , realistically , probably should have been more in the 700 - 750 range and a further impediment on the overall cap helpful situation but have had our two Josh"s now even being more of a negative so everything in perspective i guess .
Not helpful for title quests , not the only club affected but certainly does not help .
Fortunately in Jake"s case , never can be any doubt with his total effort commitment and at least to date , reliable durability

 

[HoldenV8]

Disco's post made the very good point that Jake does a lot off the ball that doesn't make it into stats as easily. I want him in the side, but for $600k and 50 mins a match.

Jake actually led the NRL in dummy runs in 2024 with a total of 181.

 

[HoldenV8]

I think we may have to wait post 26. Where we can strengthen other areas. Might even end up being a send off for jake

I kinda see what you're getting at with the post 26 bit.

Did you know that in our 8 GF wins ... we've had 8 different halfbacks?? DCE already having won a GF with us at No.7 would have to break history to win again. Or maybe Seibold should just give him the 6 jumper and the 7 to Brooks. They don't have to change roles, just numbers.

 

[HoldenV8]

All the 'experts' plus Seibold plus you lot:

Manly's attack is brilliant.

Manly need to improve their defence to really compete for the premiership.

You lot:

Let's get rid of our best defender to improve our attack.

Oh ffs. Seriously?

Jake is a great defender, no one is disputing that. But is it worth a million dollars per season to have a great defender who's attacking numbers have been on a steady decline for the past 5, 6, 7 years to the point where he's literally only putting up half the numbers he was back then??

I honestly hope Jake comes out this year and plays out of his skin and proves all of us doubters wrong. But ... pardon the pun, I doubt it'll happen.

 

[HoldenV8]

Slight tweak… and good point, in Jake we at least have a bloke who EARNS every dollar we pay him… tackles relentlessly, plays the link-man role well and rarely injured (for a bloke doing all the heavy lifting)

That is a good thing. Like DCE has managed to do throughout his high contract, Jake at least spends most of his time on the field and not off it watching because he's injured (sorry Turbo, looking at you there kid). In that sense we do at least get great value because he rarely misses games through injury.

 

[Bearfax]

I agree that Jake is a prop and was never worth it at lock. A lock needs to be quick, mobile, tough, a good cover defender especially out wide., good lateral movement, operate wide near the centres and cover both sides. Bullemor could be the answer. Burbo if he's improved as expected this year. Even Talau though he's a little too light.

 

[JakeyB789]

Never quite understood the argument of who would make the 80-odd tackles if you took Jake and Croker out of the side.. probably whoever was to replace them? Hookers and locks defend in the middle for most of, if not the full game every week so of course will top the tackle counts. Croker's numbers from last year aren't really anything to write home about anyway, averaged 32 tackles per game with over 3 missed on average which wouldn't even have him in the top 10 for tackling stats for hookers. Simpkin for comparison in those 6 games he played while Croker was out (which we did pretty well in by the way) he averaged 38 tackles and a touch under 3 missed.

Not denying both are good defenders but I don't think you can carry 2 players who offer next to nothing in attack in such important positions like hooker and lock, it's little wonder why our middle is considered our biggest weakness. And if I had to pick between the two it's Jakey every day of the week, just wish he'd find that offloading and ball playing again that De$ coached out of him.

 

[madmax]

Jake is technically still a very handy player especially in defence. In the open market I would estimate he would be lucky to attract $400k plus as season. Some would argue this is too much…he is currently on $800k a season from what I understand. Other clubs don’t pay this kind of money for marquee defenders…

Jake is on $950k mate……has been since he & Tom were upgraded. We need Jake, however not at $950k. To be frank he’s worth no more than $500k. Yeo, Murray, Radley are nowhere near Jrbo’s salary yet are better players!

 

[madmax]

There are plenty of NRL players being paid more than they are worth.
When Jurbo inked the contract it was commensurate with the value he brought to the team and the club.

Actually the rumour at the time was Manly paid overs for Jake in order to keep Tom!! The Bulldogs were offering similar dollars for both so Manly upped the offer! Jake was not worth $950k at the time he was upgraded. $650k max. Murray, Radley & Yeo are nowhere near $950k & please don’t tell me Jake is better than those 3!

 

[Phobia]

There's a few fans of the Eye Test on here. Great statistical analysis, beyond the stupid surface level stats people preach on here. Seibold said the other day that one of the key statistics he uses is run metres/PTB, which is what these guys have been posting about for years.

He did his salary predictions for 2025, based upon a wide range of calculations, importantly including accommodation for the salary cap, min wages, etc. You know what salary it came up with for Jake?

$936,466.

Some of you act like he's worth 120k. He is not. He's the second highest rated lock, now that Carrigan is a prop. Funnily enough, I don't see Navale on this list!

This is purely based on what he provides on the field - not even his leadership.

Putting a dollar figure on player impact - The Rugby League Eye Test

For the third season in a row, I’m kicking off the 2025 NRL season by trying to put a dollar value on player impact. The last two instances have yielded some good results but like anything there’s always room for improvement. It’s more of a thought experiment than a rigorous statistically sound...

www.rugbyleagueeyetest.com

It also determines that we have both DCE and Haumole on unders, and Turbo on overs.

Jake is not our problem!!!

 

[madmax]

I'm not talking statistical regression I'm talking a year where his performance was lower then what he would like.

If your argument is he has been 'poor' since 2018 then I'm not sure tjis is a chat worth engaging in.

A game of footy is not played on a spreadsheet btw.

So you would prefer to keep paying Jake big dollars for less return than pay any of Yeo, Radley or Murray the same amount for much more return? Jake is great but how long can we keep paying so much!

 

[madmax]

There's a few fans of the Eye Test on here. Great statistical analysis, beyond the stupid surface level stats people preach on here. Seibold said the other day that one of the key statistics he uses is run metres/PTB, which is what these guys have been posting about for years.

He did his salary predictions for 2025, based upon a wide range of calculations, importantly including accommodation for the salary cap, min wages, etc. You know what salary it came up with for Jake?

$936,466.

Some of you act like he's worth 120k. He is not. He's the second highest rated lock, now that Carrigan is a prop. Funnily enough, I don't see Navale on this list!

This is purely based on what he provides on the field - not even his leadership.

Putting a dollar figure on player impact - The Rugby League Eye Test

For the third season in a row, I’m kicking off the 2025 NRL season by trying to put a dollar value on player impact. The last two instances have yielded some good results but like anything there’s always room for improvement. It’s more of a thought experiment than a rigorous statistically sound...

www.rugbyleagueeyetest.com

It also determines that we have both DCE and Haumole on unders, and Turbo on overs.

Jake is not our problem!!!

So you’re saying Trbo getting paid $100k a year more than Jake is on overs? You're saying Jake is more value to the team than Trbo? I know that the team relies a hell of a lot more on Trbo than Jake. We win games with Jake not playing……we lose often when Trbo is out & Jake plays. Not sure who came up with this salary prediction but to say Trbo is on overs? Makes me laugh!

 

[madmax]

I kinda see what you're getting at with the post 26 bit.

Did you know that in our 8 GF wins ... we've had 8 different halfbacks?? DCE already having won a GF with us at No.7 would have to break history to win again. Or maybe Seibold should just give him the 6 jumper and the 7 to Brooks. They don't have to change roles, just numbers.

DCE should have the 2013 GF on his resume also. Getting ripped by the roosters was the problem. He was MOM in that game!

 

[Disco]

So you would prefer to keep paying Jake big dollars for less return than pay any of Yeo, Radley or Murray the same amount for much more return? Jake is great but how long can we keep paying so much!

He's contracted.

We paid the boys slightly below what other clubs we offering at the time and I dont remember a single person blowing up about Jake resigning back then.

Is it overs in 24/25 based on his output/percieved output? Sure but clubs dont get to adjust players salaries on a yearly basis.

This fact is, regardless of Jakes stats, we are a better TEAM when Jake is on the field. Now you can stand in the corner and repeat 'Jake is overpaid' a million times but that will achieve a total amout of absolutely nothing.

So long story short and to answer your question of how long we can keep paying Jake so much.....2 more years until his contract is up for renewal.

 

[Phobia]

So you’re saying Trbo getting paid $100k a year more than Jake is on overs? You're saying Jake is more value to the team than Trbo? I know that the team relies a hell of a lot more on Trbo than Jake. We win games with Jake not playing……we lose often when Trbo is out & Jake plays. Not sure who came up with this salary prediction but to say Trbo is on overs? Makes me laugh!

The reason is that Turbo was barely on the field between 2022-2024. If you read the article, it says that if he had played more games than he did, he'd easily shoot up the rankings.

What those salaries are based on, is what we have had on the field, not potential, talent, etc. If you play less games and minutes, you have less of an impact for your team.

 

[BOZO]

All the 'experts' plus Seibold plus you lot:
Manly's attack is brilliant.
Manly need to improve their defence to really compete for the premiership.
You lot:
Let's get rid of our best defender to improve our attack.
Oh ffs. Seriously?

We do need to improve our defence I agree feathered friend
We also need to improve impact from our middles going forward and creating momentum in Big Games

Without Forward Momentum in Big games we cannot out score the opposition
Two Critical Big games that mattered in 2024
Our Home game and our game that would have given us the opportunity to play finals footy at our spiritual Home game against the Sharks . We were out scored by 40 points to 20
Our elimination finals game against the Roosters who were without their two key spine players in Walker and Smith . We were out scored by 40 points to 16
Yes Serious !

 

[Rocky]

Some really clueless people on here regarding what players are worth.

Yes, he is overpaid on his current Manly deal - but Jake would have no issue getting 2 million for 3 years (around 700k a year) on the open market.

A washed-up Finucane got a similar deal from the sharks, and Jake is worth more than that.

 

[Dion Johnson]

What do you think Jason Taumalolo would get on the open market, a lot of talk on his form versus salary last season, particularly in the media, will the media go after Jake this season?

The obvious one is you will get what someone is willing to pay, though the speed of the game and the rule changes has had an effect on players with lower leg speed.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Jake retires at the end of 2026.