With Monaghan taking the first choice hooking role at warrington, i would have thought 1 of Micky Higham/Jon Clarke would be looking at a move. Wouldnt mind either in the number 9 shirt
| WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/ |
|
| Hooker https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=438593 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | walshy222 [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hooker |
With Monaghan taking the first choice hooking role at warrington, i would have thought 1 of Micky Higham/Jon Clarke would be looking at a move. Wouldnt mind either in the number 9 shirt
|
|
| Author: | very red robin [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Salary Cap may have some bearing on this though! |
|
| Author: | Gordon Gekko [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hooker |
walshy222 wrote:With Monaghan taking the first choice hooking role at warrington, i would have thought 1 of Micky Higham/Jon Clarke would be looking at a move. Wouldnt mind either in the number 9 shirt
Both on the downgrade. IMO Rovers have potentially the best hooker in the country given an extended role there. |
|
| Author: | walshy222 [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
very red robin wrote:Salary Cap may have some bearing on this though!
Indeed it may, thinking more a replacement 4 fisher though, and would also depend on the clinton deal or no deal 
|
|
| Author: | walshy222 [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hooker |
Gordon Gekko wrote:Both on the downgrade. IMO Rovers have potentially the best hooker in the country given an extended role there.
Please tell 
|
|
| Author: | teddypicker [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hooker |
Gordon Gekko wrote:Both on the downgrade. IMO Rovers have potentially the best hooker in the country given an extended role there.
Murrell? Willing to let him prove me wrong, but his distribution is too slow to be a top class hooker imo. |
|
| Author: | very red robin [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
walshy222 wrote:Indeed it may, thinking more a replacement 4 fisher though, and would also depend on the clinton deal or no deal
|
|
| Author: | Gordon Gekko [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hooker |
teddypicker wrote:Murrell?
Willing to let him prove me wrong, but his distribution is too slow to be a top class hooker imo. How many times have you seen him play hooker?? He was exceptional at Leeds academy when played there. He has a very accurate passing game and would be a lot cleverer out of dummy half than any hooker at Rovers in recent years. |
|
| Author: | teddypicker [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hooker |
Gordon Gekko wrote:How many times have you seen him play hooker?? He was exceptional at Leeds academy when played there. He has a very accurate passing game and would be a lot cleverer out of dummy half than any hooker at Rovers in recent years.
Against Quins and at FC last season, pretty ordinary in both games tbh. Much prefer him at 13, would be ideal if we bring in a top hooker to replace Fish in 2011. But as I said, I'm willing to give Scotty a shot if Justin thinks it's best. hope he proves me wrong if given the chance! |
|
| Author: | Gordon Gekko [ Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hooker |
teddypicker wrote:Against Quins and at FC last season, pretty ordinary in both games tbh. Much prefer him at 13, would be ideal if we bring in a top hooker to replace Fish in 2011.
But as I said, I'm willing to give Scotty a shot if Justin thinks it's best. hope he proves me wrong if given the chance! Was outstanding in that game imo. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|