Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs

Pieman wrote:
andrew fifita or glenn lazarus? Fifita won them the GF last year. Shane Webke? Matt Scott? Gallen plays like a prop.
Sure you cant have a team full of props, but having at least 1 world class prop in your side goes a long way to winning a comp.

2014, Sam Burgess may not wear 8 or 10 but fuck me dead he plays like a prop in the middle of the park.
George Burgess was one of the best props in the league that year too.

2012 - jesse bromwich? Noz had a fucking good year that year too. Melbourne have prob the best prop in the league, but their brilliance comes from their big how ever many it is now.

The dogs problem's were/are linking the forwards to the backs well, its not the props fault that the backs couldnt score points after the platform had been set. Plus their problems are the props are also the halfback and 6.

I thought it was pretty common knowledge that having a great prop or 2 helps win a comp.

Having good players goes a long way to winning a comp - prop is certainly the least crucial position on the park. If you were picking a team from scratch, if you dont get quality players in every other position first, you arent picking the strongest side. Especially when 2 of the star "props" you mentioned above aren't even props... and another retired more then a decade ago.

ryno_ wrote:

Having good players goes a long way to winning a comp - prop is certainly the least crucial position on the park. If you were picking a team from scratch, if you dont get quality players in every other position first, you arent picking the strongest side. Especially when 2 of the star "props" you mentioned above aren't even props... and another retired more then a decade ago.

Absolute rubbish.
Absolute utter rubbish.

Gallen and Burgess are props, just because they dont wear 10 or 8 doesnt mean they dont play like props. Gallen was the starting prop for Australia for the last few years FFS. Its also common knowledge that the 13 these days is just another prop and has been for a few seasons now.

I am not even going to argue about this any more. Having a great prop in the side goes a long way to winning a comp. Are they the be all and end all? Nope, but fuck me I would say having a great prop is the most crucial position after halfback and fullback these days. Whether the bloke wears 10/8/13 these days, it doesnt matter pretty much.

You need a spine but without the go forward you have nothing. Interestingly master coach Bennett would never pay overs for props because they are just grunts but would spend on back rowers who were more agile and could pass a ball.

Pieman wrote:

Absolute rubbish.
Absolute utter rubbish.

Gallen and Burgess are props, just because they dont wear 10 or 8 doesnt mean they dont play like props. Gallen was the starting prop for Australia for the last few years FFS. Its also common knowledge that the 13 these days is just another prop and has been for a few seasons now.

I am not even going to argue about this any more. Having a great prop in the side goes a long way to winning a comp. Are they the be all and end all? Nope, but fuck me I would say having a great prop is the most crucial position after halfback and fullback these days. Whether the bloke wears 10/8/13 these days, it doesnt matter pretty much.

Lol, the prop is such an important position, the job can be done just as effectively by the second row :lol:

In an age where wingers take hitups and 2nd rowers and locks are built like brick shithouses, a prop is absolutely the least important position on the park. Building a team, youd be far better off picking gun second rowers and average props then gun props and average second rowers. And you can sub second rowers out for any position on the park.

Absolute utter dribble and nonsense Ryno.
Prop is such an important position that they turned lock into another prop to have 3 on the park for most of the game.

Pieman wrote:Absolute utter dribble and nonsense Ryno.
Prop is such an important position that they turned lock into another prop to have 3 on the park for most of the game.

Counter-point - Prop is so unimportant that top players in the second row can do the job of a second rower and a prop at the same time.

Im not saying that teams don't need some "go forward" to be a premiership contending team. Im saying that equating "needing go forward" with "needing to have and sign top props" is a mentality that I thought was left back in the '90s.

You don't think the strength of your argument that props are the most important non-halves to have is diminished when the top props you keep naming arent even props? Or when out of the top 40 run metres in the NRL - only 7 are props (Woods, Fifita, Vaughn, Lillyman, Graham, Wallace, Bolton).  

Teams obviously need to have momentum and territory and go forward and all of those things. But they don't need props to have that - its not 1995 anymore.

Pieman wrote:Absolute utter dribble and nonsense Ryno.
Prop is such an important position that they turned lock into another prop to have 3 on the park for most of the game.

If prop was the second or third most important position, they would be the second or third highest paid players. Of course you can't win a comp with poor props, but you can't win with a poor hooker, or poor fullback, or poor centres or wingers for that matter. Premiership winning teams these days have basically players who are 7/10 or better in every position (or at least would have been rated that in the premiership winning years).

Also, while locks have undoubtedly changed roles over the years, and are a lot more like props than they used to be, they are still different roles. Some players can play both, but some players can play half and 5/8 as well, and they are different roles too. I think their evolution is as much about how the game changed around them. From what I remember from the mid 80's there has been plenty of changes. From the work-a-holic locks like Price and Pearce, to the running locks like Lindner and Clyde, to the ball-playing locks like Dymock and Jason Smith, to the high workrate locks of today like Parker, Klemmer, Gallen and Merrin.

In that time though, the lock's role has changed because of a number of reasons, but I wouldn't say it's because they see the prop's role being more important. In the 80's there was a second line of defence, so a forward wasn't required to be the minder of a small half. In the 90's there was no left and right centre, so a running forward could go on the side where the centres weren't (Clyde made a career of short side runs). In the 2000's the game became much faster with full time professionalism, and also more structured. Left centres were always on the left, and right centres were always on the right, so locks generally started to stay in the centre so they didn't get in the way of players who were more athletes than footballers, so played better by following a plan than playing what was in front of them. This decade fullbacks are generally now ball players, so they don't need an extra ball player at lock. For most locks this decade (apart from probably Bryce Cartwright and SBW), their ball playing skills are limited to being able to get an offload when they're almost held for some second phase play (think Parker and Merrin pre 2017).

Since when is run metres the way to class how good a prop is? On its own it means nothing.

Thats like saying - Out of the top tacklers in the NRL, NONE are halfbacks, so therefore halfbacks are shittttt. Of course wingers and fullbacks have more run metres, they return kicks! They also play 80 mins and are on the end of backline movements lol. Its amazing that a prop or forward in general can get more/similar run metres in 60 mins or less game time than a bloke who returns 15 kicks a game. Probs kick return numbers can be padded a bit by kick offs but fark most props are tackled on the 10/15 line anyway.

Going off your "run metres" thing, in the top 20 there are 5 "props" Woods, Fifita, Vaughn, Lillyman and Graham. There is also McGuire, Tuamololo and Gallen. Those three may wear 13 but play the entire game in the middle of the park - playing the role of a prop. So 25% of the top 20 wear 8 or 10. If you add the other 3 that are props wearing 13 - thats 40% of the top 20. lol.

Cordner and Papalii are the only out and out back rowers in the top 20.

If you dont want to admit that those 3 guys are actually playing prop, - that means its 25% even to props and back rowers in the top 20. lol.

How can the job of a prop be done effectively by backrowers? Most back rowers aren't middle of the field players, they work on the edges for most of the game.

And stop saying they are not props. Guys like Gallen/Burgess/McGuire and co have played their fair share of prop and as I keep saying, in most teams - 13 is just another prop. They generally arent the ball playing big bodied 6 like they used to be. Most people with an idea would agree that 13 these days is generally just another prop on the field. Not always, but generally. If you think that Gallen, Tuamalolo, and McGuire and co are not just props with 13 on their back then mate..... learn the game a bit better.

To say they are the least crucial position on the field is just insane and shows that you 1. have never played footy before and 2. have no idea what you are on about. In the current NRL, I would say that centre is prob the lowest paid position on the field so prob the least important but in saying that having a shithouse centre can cost you games.

In the last few years - the mix of having at least 1 top shelf prop, 1 top shelf back rower, a hooker with a kicking game, one top shelf half, one top shelf winger and an elite fullback basically guarantees a successful team.

The dragons are a great example.
They were a team with a great back row for the last few years (last year they moved JDB from prop to block - because thats how it is these days, props play 13). Bringing in Vaughn, who has turned out to be a fucking awesome top shelf prop, has pretty much turned them from an average side to top of the table.

As I said before, having the best prop is not the be all and end all.
Having the best halfback or fullback in the league doesnt mean you will win a comp either.
Teams are about balance, and you cant really have any weak areas at all - but fuck if you dont have at least one great prop you are not going to win competitions.

Can a team win with 2 average centres? As long as they are decent defenders, prob yeah.

You dont need props to get momentum, territory and go forward.... thats is prob the dumbest thing I have ever read on this forum.

There is a reason why Melbourne have Bromwich.
There is a reason why Cronulla have Fifita.
There is a reason why the Cowboys have Scott.
There is a reason why the most successful teams have the best props.

Again, its not the be all and end all - but I would say it is impossible to win a comp these days without at least one elite prop.

As someone who played a lot of halfback, having a great prop in the side always gave the team and myself especially so much more confidence and gave the side a better chance of winning. Having props who cant get quick play the balls in the middle of the park or who cant put a hit on every now and then is fucking shit to play with.

So I dont really care if you disagree any more Ryno, I know what I have experienced and I know what gives teams the best chance of winning rugby league games.

Dip wrote:

If prop was the second or third most important position, they would be the second or third highest paid players. Of course you can't win a comp with poor props, but you can't win with a poor hooker, or poor fullback, or poor centres or wingers for that matter. Premiership winning teams these days have basically players who are 7/10 or better in every position (or at least would have been rated that in the premiership winning years).

Also, while locks have undoubtedly changed roles over the years, and are a lot more like props than they used to be, they are still different roles. Some players can play both, but some players can play half and 5/8 as well, and they are different roles too. I think their evolution is as much about how the game changed around them. From what I remember from the mid 80's there has been plenty of changes. From the work-a-holic locks like Price and Pearce, to the running locks like Lindner and Clyde, to the ball-playing locks like Dymock and Jason Smith, to the high workrate locks of today like Parker, Klemmer, Gallen and Merrin.

In that time though, the lock's role has changed because of a number of reasons, but I wouldn't say it's because they see the prop's role being more important. In the 80's there was a second line of defence, so a forward wasn't required to be the minder of a small half. In the 90's there was no left and right centre, so a running forward could go on the side where the centres weren't (Clyde made a career of short side runs). In the 2000's the game became much faster with full time professionalism, and also more structured. Left centres were always on the left, and right centres were always on the right, so locks generally started to stay in the centre so they didn't get in the way of players who were more athletes than footballers, so played better by following a plan than playing what was in front of them. This decade fullbacks are generally now ball players, so they don't need an extra ball player at lock. For most locks this decade (apart from probably Bryce Cartwright and SBW), their ball playing skills are limited to being able to get an offload when they're almost held for some second phase play (think Parker and Merrin pre 2017).

In terms of your first sentence bolded above, I'd have to point out that market value is a poor measure of a bloke's value/importance to the team.

Factors such as marketability and supply/demand influence what each individual player is paid far too much for this to be a valid measurement.

In terms of your subsequent paragraph's; I tend to agree that players, in particular outside backs and backrowers, have adopted to how the game has changed.
The biggest impact for mine has been the 10m rule and the focus on ruck speed and driving forward through the middle.

Anyway back to the original argument, it shows complete lack of rugby league knowledge to suggest that props don't win you a premiership.
Whilst they may not pocket as much $$ or gain as many accolades, they are at the bare minimum equally as important as the gun halves that seem to dazzle and capture the short attention spans of blokes like Ryno.

Pieman wrote:
In the last few years - the mix of having at least 1 top shelf prop, 1 top shelf back rower, a hooker with a kicking game, one top shelf half, one top shelf winger and an elite fullback basically guarantees a successful team.

The dragons are a great example.
They were a team with a great back row for the last few years (last year they moved JDB from prop to block - because thats how it is these days, props play 13). Bringing in Vaughn, who has turned out to be a fucking awesome top shelf prop, has pretty much turned them from an average side to top of the table.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you're going to use the Dragons as an example to support your argument, you should at least wait until they've played a few matches after Easter when the meme comparing the Dragons to Homer disappearing into the bushes start to appear. If you're going to use that small a sample size, you'd have to say the sentence immediately before that you said, is also rebuked by the Panther's 2-6 record, despite having a test fullback, best up and coming half in the comp, test winger, test lock, and hooker who at this stage is favourite to play for NSW in the role in a couple of weeks.

And in your later post, centres would guaranteed get more money than wings (who are basically centres/fullbacks who can't pass or read the game - my opinion only) and normally better money than second rowers, who are basically centres with a higher work rate, but no step and not as fast.

Like I said earlier, you need strength all across the park to win a comp, but I would say I feel far more comfortable that say the Cowboys with Thurston and Morgan behind Scott Bolton and Patrick Kaufusi are more of a chance of winning the premiership (or at least going further in the comp) than a few teams with better props but worse halves, such as the Tigers with Woods, Manly with Taupau, Titans with James and Wallace, Dogs with Graham & Tolman, and to be honest, probably even the Broncos with Blair.

Dip wrote:

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you're going to use the Dragons as an example to support your argument, you should at least wait until they've played a few matches after Easter when the meme comparing the Dragons to Homer disappearing into the bushes start to appear. If you're going to use that small a sample size, you'd have to say the sentence immediately before that you said, is also rebuked by the Panther's 2-6 record, despite having a test fullback, best up and coming half in the comp, test winger, test lock, and hooker who at this stage is favourite to play for NSW in the role in a couple of weeks.

And in your later post, centres would guaranteed get more money than wings (who are basically centres/fullbacks who can't pass or read the game - my opinion only) and normally better money than second rowers, who are basically centres with a higher work rate, but no step and not as fast.

Like I said earlier, you need strength all across the park to win a comp, but I would say I feel far more comfortable that say the Cowboys with Thurston and Morgan behind Scott Bolton and Patrick Kaufusi are more of a chance of winning the premiership (or at least going further in the comp) than a few teams with better props but worse halves, such as the Tigers with Woods, Manly with Taupau, Titans with James and Wallace, Dogs with Graham & Tolman, and to be honest, probably even the Broncos with Blair.

Pretty convenient to use arguably the best player that has ever played the game as an example....and then using Woods as well you cheeky bastard!

Anyway on that, had it not been for Tamou, Hannant and Matt Scott during 2015 Thurston probably doesn't win the comp and his standing in the game (unfairly) goes back to great player but not up with the best because he wasn't able to guide his team (as a starting half) to a premiership.

I bet JT values his props!

[quote="Oz Sport Mad"]

Kin' Oath. I would guess that up until prob last year, Matt Scott was JT's fav player to play with.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Pretty convenient to use arguably the best player that has ever played the game as an example....and then using Woods as well you cheeky bastard!

Anyway on that, had it not been for Tamou, Hannant and Matt Scott during 2015 Thurston probably doesn't win the comp and his standing in the game (unfairly) goes back to great player but not up with the best because he wasn't able to guide his team (as a starting half) to a premiership.

I bet JT values his props!

No doubt. But equally without JT, Tamou, Hannant & Scott wouldn't have won a premiership either. As I said earlier, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. You only win a premiership if all your players contribute. While I don't think we'll win the comp, I think the Broncos chances of winning are at least as good, and probably better with a prop rotation of Blair, Ese Ese, Sims and Ofehengue in front of Hunt and Milf, than say the Dogs with Mbye and Reynolds behind Graham, Tolman, Kasiano and RFM. If Bromwich does an ACL I'm not going to rule a line through Melbourne's chances, but I will if Cronk does. Same with the Roosters losing Pearce as opposed to JWH, or the Sharks losing Fifita compared to Moloney.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

In terms of your first sentence bolded above, I'd have to point out that market value is a poor measure of a bloke's value/importance to the team.

Factors such as marketability and supply/demand influence what each individual player is paid far too much for this to be a valid measurement.

I'll grant you marketability, but supply and demand? That supports my argument rather than yours. The demand for them is higher because they're more valuable to a team and harder to develop. There are probably about 12-15 NRL standard halfbacks in the comp but about 70 NRL standard props. There's about 6-8 at the Dogs alone.

Dip wrote:

Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you're going to use the Dragons as an example to support your argument, you should at least wait until they've played a few matches after Easter when the meme comparing the Dragons to Homer disappearing into the bushes start to appear. If you're going to use that small a sample size, you'd have to say the sentence immediately before that you said, is also rebuked by the Panther's 2-6 record, despite having a test fullback, best up and coming half in the comp, test winger, test lock, and hooker who at this stage is favourite to play for NSW in the role in a couple of weeks.

And in your later post, centres would guaranteed get more money than wings (who are basically centres/fullbacks who can't pass or read the game - my opinion only) and normally better money than second rowers, who are basically centres with a higher work rate, but no step and not as fast.

Like I said earlier, you need strength all across the park to win a comp, but I would say I feel far more comfortable that say the Cowboys with Thurston and Morgan behind Scott Bolton and Patrick Kaufusi are more of a chance of winning the premiership (or at least going further in the comp) than a few teams with better props but worse halves, such as the Tigers with Woods, Manly with Taupau, Titans with James and Wallace, Dogs with Graham & Tolman, and to be honest, probably even the Broncos with Blair.

Yeah sure, prob a bit early to call it on the Dragons, but with the small sample that we have they are a pretty decent example.
Yep, The panthers are also a funny one.

They have two 7/10 props but they have been playing like busteds this year.
One 5/6 out of 10 back rower in Yeo.
Carty is either a 2 or a 9/10 - but has played what 2/3 games this year?
Merrin has been pretty average this season too so far, but in saying that has prob been their best forward.
Moylan is only a test fullback because of injury, there are prob 3 or 4 blokes ahead of him at this stage if not more.
Penrith just are yet to click this year, mostly because of injury IMO.

I reckon the average wage for an average centre/winger would be pretty even. Same with an average back rower/front rower/hooker.
Average halves/fullbacks get paid more tho I reckon. All just guess work.

Of course there are outliers, JT is close to the best player to ever play the game so hes not a great example. He makes everyone around him better - and blokes like Tariq sims and gavin cooper should be donating half their pay packets to him every year for the rest of their careers.

Pieman wrote:How can the job of a prop be done effectively by backrowers?

Pieman wrote:in most teams - 13 is just another prop.

lololololololol

Pieman wrote:You dont need props to get momentum, territory and go forward....

You need players who can give you momentum, territory and go forward. Do you get that with top shelf props? Yes. Obviously.

Can you get that without top shelf props? Absolutely. If you think the only way to get momentum on the field is through number 8 &/or 10, your stuck in a 1990's paradigm.

Why would you go and pay overs for a top shelf prop when the best props in the game arent even props?

If having top props won games/premierships, Titans and Dogs would be the favourites, Tigers wouldnt dream of letting Woods go and Cowboys would have plummeted out of contention after losing Scott. They aren't, because its not. Having top props is an advantage and a good thing to have - but its not a pre-requisite for success.

The fact we're having this discussion in the Bulldogs thread, when the Bulldogs have probably the best squad of props in the comp, but one of the worst performing halves pairings in the comp, and the Dogs are outside the 8, is rather appropriate in my opinion. (Though granted they have probably with the Broncos had probably the hardest draw so far - I'm not expecting them to miss the 8 this year)

Dip wrote:

I'll grant you marketability, but supply and demand? That supports my argument rather than yours. The demand for them is higher because they're more valuable to a team and harder to develop. There are probably about 12-15 NRL standard halfbacks in the comp but about 70 NRL standard props. There's about 6-8 at the Dogs alone.

No it doesn't.

It means that you'll be prepared to pay overs for a certain position if the next cab off the rank is a long way behind.
This does not in any way suggest that props are not going to win you a premiership so you pay them less.

i don't believe in any theory that you need to have any certain position, if you went through the premiership winners since the NRL started in 98, you could find a fair few average players at every single position, teams have won the comps with great props leading the way, teams have won comps without, i don't think its a necessary element but at the same stage i do think you can with it being your primary strength.

the fact we made grand finals with guys like kris keating and sam perret in our spines shows that it can be done with a prop dominated team, our game just hasn't developed since then and our creativity on the back of our go forward is at an all time low.


i think you need to have atleast 1 classy 6/7/9 player who can control the game and also take advantage of when your pack is on top (something we struggle with). if you don't have elite pack then you need more in your spine. our props arn't good enough to win now because our spine is one of the games worst but i do think you throw in foran behind our pack and if he is in form then who knows what can happen.

even tho ennis didn't attack as much at the dogs as he did cronulla, i do feel his presence was huge in terms or organizing our team from the ruck, ennis wasn't a superstar but it didn't take long for us to go from contenders to a fringe top 8 team