Nail on the head. Deus Dat & ratticus.

With the number of quality players (and leaders) we lost - we were always in for transition season(s). If GOB/Myler or Ratchford/Myler was supposed to be the succession plan, then we should have stuck to our guns and played them, accepting a year or two of improvement time - especially as it was perhaps a year sooner than expected.

Instead, we panicked when we weren't as strong or successful as the previous few years, and messed with our HB paring too often over the next couple of years, chopping and changing them seemingly every couple of weeks, using various combos of Myler/Ratchford/Bridge/GOB/Patten, which left us worse off than if we'd just stuck it out with one pair.

All we needed was to replace Briers with was a HB with a kicking game. You'd never replace his x-factor, but you could replace his field kicking (something I thought GOB had, and would improve with over time). Myler could pass, pull us around the park, run with the ball, and keep the team moving + he was the best supporting HB in the competition. He just needed to be paired with someone who could kick to move us up the field and give us something on the last tackle. But hindsight is 20/20.

Do you think we would have won the 2016 GF with Myler and GOB as our half backs?

2015 was awful for the this, have some confidence and belief stick with a pairing, rather than publicly undermine and show you have no confidence in them by moving a fullback and a centre to keep patching it up.

That to me was when i decided smith needed to go.

we were a couple of points away from getting to the 14 GF with them.

We didn't win the GF in 2016 anyway, so that's kind of a moot point as we'd have been no worse off either way.

But the point that led to this a few posts back was about succession planning (or lack of).

Had we stuck with, say, GOB and Myler for '14 and '15 and they not worked out (2 seasons should be more than enough for that to become apparent), then we could have moved to make a change in one or both positions behind the scenes during the '15 season ready for '16. That would have been far less erratic and knee-jerkey.

14 pages on this bloke,you would think by this stage he had signed or not going to and we can move on.

There's a patten here no one I picking up on post Briers....several halfbacks and multiple combinations later, and we still blame the lost of Lee for our demise...
Some very short memories on here...there were 3x the barren seasons with Briers playing than there was with silverware and for much of that empty period, he played alongside better halfback partners....!

Why so many of you cannot make a connection with our rise and demise of the pack is bewildering!
If we'd have had Morley Carvel Monaghan/Higham Waterhouse Westwood Anderson x2...etc we'd be steam rollering all competitions with backs like Ratchford Patton and Brown.

You make a good point RD, but I was commenting about half backs on a half back thread (I know, what am I thinking?). My point was any succession planning for HB was affected by Briers retirement. I didn't think there could be anything controversial about that...

The club knew that Briers was going to retire mid 2013 not at the end of the season, ok that's when he announced it but the truth was they knew well in advance. That doesn't make the job of finding an appropriate replacement any easier. As Duckie says having a better pack would allow lesser quality halves to perform, just look at Matty Smith and Luke Gale.

Looks like it might be back on, latest from the Titans... www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/spo ... 8f2860e246

Looks like it might be back on, latest from the Titans... www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/spo ... 8f2860e246

Money talks. Would be a very good signing.

A few murmours on twitter this afternoon that he's signing for us. Time will tell.

The Duck quacked... but now whistles!

Anyone think he looks like Mr Tumble? I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Not a bad look a like but not as good as their Chief Executive 'Arthur Smith'?