Adam Blair

User avatar
2041
Member
Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:32 pm

Re: Adam Blair

Post by 2041 » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 1:48 pm

Mona Lolesi wrote:So you concede that pressure on the kicker is not an important part of defending?

You would rather us stand back and give JT, Reynolds, DCE and co time to do whatever they want with the ball?
Well, I might be saying that. Or I might be saying that pressuring the kicker is not the kind of thing that it needs a top-paid, rep-level back rower to do. I mean, if Farah spent every training session carrying bottles of water to and from the sheds, and I then suggested this might not be an adequate use of his talents, would you then say "What do you want the players to do? Die of thirst?"


User avatar
2041
Member
Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by 2041 » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 1:53 pm

happy tiger wrote:
2041 wrote:
happy tiger wrote:People who have a go at Blair for not taking hit ups early in the set need to remember who is usually the bloke putting pressure on the opposition kicker almost every time
You often hear a similar thing from Manly fans: "yeah Watmough doesn't hit up much but he's real good at charging the kicker". Titans fans just love the way Bird always has his socks pulled up high. Thaiday, according to all the Brisbanians I know, makes a superb cup of ginseng tea. Ryan Hoffman is nice to his mother. Boyd Cordner never lets the grass on his front lawn get too long.

Come on, really? Blair often charges the kicker - seriously? I assume this amazing skill results in the Tigers hardly ever conceding tries off kicks and starting our sets in much better position because off all those duffed kicks our oppo puts in week after week. Show me these stats.
Have a watch next time at who is attempting to put pressure on the kicker next time and unless they are purposely targeting a particular side of the field , Blair makes the most attempts

And asking for a stat you full well know doesn't exist on any stats that are made for public consumption is convenient , isn't it

Why can't some just be happy our forward pack in trying conditions put its best performance together since the Storm game last season , not just one or two , but all of them :sign:
I would argue it's convenient that you've identified something it's apparently impossible to quantify as the guy's main strength. I mean, maybe you know more than I do but I am pretty certain I have never once heard "pressuring the kicker" mentioned as a thing top back rowers are particularly good at. It sort of seems like you're clutching at straws to be honest.

Anyway, as I've said repeatedly:
- I am pleased Blair had a good game.
- I'd be even more pleased if he had a number of good games.
- I don't blame Blair in the slightest for taking the money he was offered.
- I think it's conceivable that he contributes in ways that are less visible than some of his peers.

What I don't buy is the idea that he actually has been having lots of good games but somehow some of us are too stupid to notice.

stevetiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: Mon 25 Feb, 2013 7:59 am

Post by stevetiger » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 1:56 pm

Blair needs to make really good metres and defend like a demon for the money he is on. He should be playing like one of the Burgess brothers as an example.

I don't get why anyone is even defending his performances. For what he is getting paid he is poor.

Personally he sounds like a good guy and he isn't a terrible player. He just isn't a weapon for us and he needs to be.

User avatar
pHyR3
Member
Member
Posts: 5048
Joined: Tue 12 Feb, 2013 7:11 pm

Post by pHyR3 » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 2:48 pm

stevetiger wrote:Blair needs to make really good metres and defend like a demon for the money he is on. He should be playing like one of the Burgess brothers as an example.

I don't get why anyone is even defending his performances. For what he is getting paid he is poor.

Personally he sounds like a good guy and he isn't a terrible player. He just isn't a weapon for us and he needs to be.
so its his fault we were stupid enough to pay overs for him?

if you pay a million dollars for an average player then demand superstar-esque performances you're going to be disappointed a lot...
''Everybody talks about their four brothers, we have 17 here so we don't really care about them."

stevetiger
Member
Member
Posts: 5111
Joined: Mon 25 Feb, 2013 7:59 am

Post by stevetiger » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 3:00 pm

pHyR3 wrote:so its his fault we were stupid enough to pay overs for him?

if you pay a million dollars for an average player then demand superstar-esque performances you're going to be disappointed a lot...
Its not his fault and I'm not blaming him. The thing is he is getting paid overs and as soon as his contract is up he has to go or at best get a massive pay downgrade.


Mona Lolesi
Member
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri 11 Sep, 2009 10:20 am

Post by Mona Lolesi » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 3:28 pm

2041 wrote:
Mona Lolesi wrote:So you concede that pressure on the kicker is not an important part of defending?

You would rather us stand back and give JT, Reynolds, DCE and co time to do whatever they want with the ball?
Well, I might be saying that. Or I might be saying that pressuring the kicker is not the kind of thing that it needs a top-paid, rep-level back rower to do. I mean, if Farah spent every training session carrying bottles of water to and from the sheds, and I then suggested this might not be an adequate use of his talents, would you then say "What do you want the players to do? Die of thirst?"
Ignoring the blatant embellishment and irrelevance of your example, it is an aspect he brings to his game in addition to other more subtle elements he brings onto the field.

If you want to compare him to equivalent salaries that's fine. Unfortunately the Tigers ability to scout and poach players has been so poor that if we were to get a Watmough, Burgess etc we would have had to have paid 900k to attract them and then we would all be blowing up that they weren't giving us 900k of service.

User avatar
2041
Member
Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by 2041 » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 4:17 pm

Mona Lolesi wrote:
2041 wrote:
Mona Lolesi wrote:So you concede that pressure on the kicker is not an important part of defending?

You would rather us stand back and give JT, Reynolds, DCE and co time to do whatever they want with the ball?
Well, I might be saying that. Or I might be saying that pressuring the kicker is not the kind of thing that it needs a top-paid, rep-level back rower to do. I mean, if Farah spent every training session carrying bottles of water to and from the sheds, and I then suggested this might not be an adequate use of his talents, would you then say "What do you want the players to do? Die of thirst?"


Ignoring the blatant embellishment and irrelevance of your example, it is an aspect he brings to his game in addition to other more subtle elements he brings onto the field.

If you want to compare him to equivalent salaries that's fine. Unfortunately the Tigers ability to scout and poach players has been so poor that if we were to get a Watmough, Burgess etc we would have had to have paid 900k to attract them and then we would all be blowing up that they weren't giving us 900k of service.
I appreciate your magnanimity in ignoring the embellishment and irrelevance of my example, given your options were (a) Blair rush the kicker and (b) no-one at all rush the kicker. I mean, far be it from me to suggest this whole discussion went dangerously off into utter irrelevance exactly at the point when it excluded (c) whoever happens to be closest rush the kicker, like seems to work for every other team in the comp.

Also, what the Tigers may or may not have to pay for other players is also irrelevant given it's also based on nothing. If the club is, for some reason, genuinely unable to recruit marquee players for anything like value then clearly it shouldn't recruit at all and instead use all its cap space on retaining juniors and swiping other people's juniors. But I don't see how that's relevant to the actual point I've been making throughout, which is that all this stuff about the little things Blair supposedly does is virtually meaningless relative to the big things he consistently fails to do.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 4138
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm

Post by formerguest » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 4:29 pm

I don't recall anyone on here ever saying that his onfield performance has matched his ???????? salary. However, what he contributes to our club off the field is something that few players can provide, thus bringing his value into line with what he supposedly earns, particularly in the current market.

Others constantly get on here _itching and moaning about his effort, when the guy puts in plenty and it is not his fault that they can't or won't recognise it.

User avatar
2041
Member
Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Fri 14 Jan, 2011 12:32 pm

Post by 2041 » Tue 18 Mar, 2014 5:18 pm

formerguest wrote:I don't recall anyone on here ever saying that his onfield performance has matched his ???????? salary. However, what he contributes to our club off the field is something that few players can provide, thus bringing his value into line with what he supposedly earns, particularly in the current market.

Others constantly get on here _itching and moaning about his effort, when the guy puts in plenty and it is not his fault that they can't or won't recognise it.
1) There is no way in hell his contribution off the field justifies the salary cap hit he represents. I'd rather have $200k to add to Tedesco's offer and a moody peanut with middling first-grade abilities in the back row than lose Tedesco to the Bulldogs and have great dude Blair. Why is it always mug teams like the Tigers who have to desperately pretend that half the money in all the rubbish contracts they've written is worth spending because the useless players it's being spent on are good for morale or some such? Do you hear the Bulldogs saying "Yeak 850k for Fifita sounds a lot, but it's actually only 650k worth of being an utter beast of a prop who destroys opposition defences like he's running through five-year-olds - the other 200k is because he leads a great sing song on the team bus and can light his own farts. You just can't put a value on that (other than 200k)."
2) I can't speak for anyone else, but my view on Blair isn't based on my perception of his effort. As it happens I do wonder why he's such a poor stat generator, yes. But if he's the hardest worker in the game I wouldn't dispute it. In fact I think it's distinctly possible that he works really hard and he's just not very good.

The bottom line in this argument is that you've got one group of people who say "this guy has never remotely justified his salary and, by virtue of that single fact, is a disaster for the club". Then there are a bunch of people responding with things like:
- Actually he's better than you realise on the field because he does stuff like charging kickers and dummy runs.
- He's not good on the field but he does so much off it that it doesn't matter.
- It's not his fault he's getting paid too much.
- It doesn't matter whether he's any good or not because he's trying really hard.

Which are, in order, wrong, wrong, irrelevant and irrelevant.

Post Reply