Has played plenty at Prop and Lock until now... Quite well.
Even started in the middle more than a few times last year for Parra.
And more to my point, offers more in either of those positions that Joe.
Joe Ofahengaue #240
- Thread starter OldMagpie
- Start date
Has played plenty at Prop and Lock until now... Quite well.
Even started in the middle more than a few times last year for Parra.
And more to my point, offers more in either of those positions that Joe.
Do you think they'd have extended Joe if Klemmer was in talks and
available to the Tigers in June last year?
It's funny - We simply can't replace an average middle for a better player at any time according to most here...
But the same are more than happy to replace our half with an unproven kid at any time at all...
They are due to get one decision right , so far it is a decade or so since they got one right
Again u need more than a starting pack , just look at our bench last weekend, with Stepho out we were well short
old_man_tiger
Well-known member
Mate, I agree it's too much coin but they signed him a few months earlier! Pascoe, lee, Sheens etc... Would have all known the details, so either way they fuel the perception that they are incompetent.
Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan
Well-known member
The move doesn't make sense. We just signed him to a new contract off a career-best year. He had some issues coming back from injury, but after a few weeks his performances were fine. The admin and coaching staff are all the same as when his contract was signed, so what changed?
The only sense I can make of it is that the timeline of Warren McDonnell being shafted is about the same as Joe leaving. Perhaps the sentiment in the club is that old mate gave out a stupid contract and this is the club's way of rectifying that situation.
The only sense I can make of it is that the timeline of Warren McDonnell being shafted is about the same as Joe leaving. Perhaps the sentiment in the club is that old mate gave out a stupid contract and this is the club's way of rectifying that situation.
innsaneink
Well-known member
Oh... Future spot?
You mean for next year... That one where they say, there's always next year?
hank37w
Well-known member
Whada ya mean perception.
Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan
Well-known member
Sheens/Benji view 13 as a ball-playing role, not a 3rd prop. When Joe wore the 13, he played essentially like a 3rd prop though admittedly he is a bit better at passing than most props.
So if he's a prop, he joins Klemmer, Stef, Pole and Twal as the first grade props. You have two starting props and two off the bench. Klemmer and Twal are both easily capable of playing 50+ minutes and Pole + Utoikamanu can also play that many if required.
Unless a prop can also play on an edge or is a genuine prop/lock option (think Nathan Brown, Tohu Harris) you'd be silly to carry more than 4 of them in a line-up.
Klemmer is one of the best props in the comp and Stef is on his way to becoming one. So it becomes a choice between Ofahengaue, Pole and Twal. Pole is young, cheap and impactful. We wouldn't let him go.
So then it becomes a choice of Twal or Ofahengaue. Yes Joe is the better player, but he's also on bigger coin and a more desirable target for other teams. So from a team building perspective, it makes some sense to let him go.
Now if you look at off the field matters and Joe's leadership, it might be a more questionable move, but from a strictly footy perspective it makes sense. I understand we're not performing well and Joe was a good player who we haven't replaced, but ultimately it was the right move. We simply had too much of our cap invested in a player who was essentially our 4th choice prop. It sucks to see good clubmen go, especially to a rival, but we need to do what's in our best interest.
Now of course we might turn around and fail to sign any adequate players with the cap we freed up, in which case questioning the decision is understandable. But if we do deploy these freed up funds well, for example in signing Frizell, then it's a justified decision both in principle and in practice.
So if he's a prop, he joins Klemmer, Stef, Pole and Twal as the first grade props. You have two starting props and two off the bench. Klemmer and Twal are both easily capable of playing 50+ minutes and Pole + Utoikamanu can also play that many if required.
Unless a prop can also play on an edge or is a genuine prop/lock option (think Nathan Brown, Tohu Harris) you'd be silly to carry more than 4 of them in a line-up.
Klemmer is one of the best props in the comp and Stef is on his way to becoming one. So it becomes a choice between Ofahengaue, Pole and Twal. Pole is young, cheap and impactful. We wouldn't let him go.
So then it becomes a choice of Twal or Ofahengaue. Yes Joe is the better player, but he's also on bigger coin and a more desirable target for other teams. So from a team building perspective, it makes some sense to let him go.
Now if you look at off the field matters and Joe's leadership, it might be a more questionable move, but from a strictly footy perspective it makes sense. I understand we're not performing well and Joe was a good player who we haven't replaced, but ultimately it was the right move. We simply had too much of our cap invested in a player who was essentially our 4th choice prop. It sucks to see good clubmen go, especially to a rival, but we need to do what's in our best interest.
Now of course we might turn around and fail to sign any adequate players with the cap we freed up, in which case questioning the decision is understandable. But if we do deploy these freed up funds well, for example in signing Frizell, then it's a justified decision both in principle and in practice.
What was the decision we got right jadtiger I must have blinked and missed it
When Sheens was sacked in 2012
Coastie_Tiger
Well-known member
yep thats what i meant, there is always next year but for us they never come.
earl
Well-known member
This is pretty funny. Sorry to anyone who is offended but it's insane.
I should add I am happy to let Brooks go and target unproven kids. I think though replacing Joe O is a lot easier than replacing Brooksy. I expect the recruitment team to figure these things out.
hank37w
Well-known member
I expect you could be disappointed.
earl
Well-known member
I expect so as well. I reckon it's going to be so difficult to recruit two to four halves. I love Joe O but replacing him is not difficult.
hank37w
Well-known member
Replacing anyone is difficult for us.
It's Brooks call he was offered a contract and has chosen to explore options in his own best interests.
In the best interests of the club you would expect the new recruitment manager would be doing the same on behalf of the club.
I don't think anyone can confidently predict the outcome will be better or worse for the club given our history around recruitment.
Not really....
I was comparing those calling shenanigans here about Selling Joe for Klemmer,
But are happy to sell Brooks for the likes of Wakeham, Madden or Kyle Flanagan...
Clubs a joke for Trading Up, And also a joke for not trading down...
All in the same sentence...
earl
Well-known member
I don't think it's that bad.. We lost Luc and he is a gun. We replaced him fine. We replaced Liddle with Api. We have Klemmer, Stef, Pole and Twal as props.
We've struggled though with spine players and outside backs for a long time. We've tried heaps of options in the halves and at fullback that haven't worked well enough and we've only last season got Api on board.
