Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:I didn't miss Yeaman off the list at all. He's a 2nd rower this year. He's said that himself and so has Radford.
The back 5 positions (excluding hooker) are the least covered in the squad at 60%. We wouldn't need all of them to be injured at once to run out of cover. There were times last year we were very short in the backs, as well as having to cover for Shaul being dropped.
Whether the cover of just Michaels, Lancaster & Naughton is of adequate quality, I'm not so sure. Take out their relative ages and sentiment, and I'd pick Smith of the four every time if given the straight choice. Sure, Lancaster and Naughton have loads of potential, but at this present time, Smith is better.
He's more than just a goal kicker too, or 'the singular reason' as you put it. He's a natural footballer, has a much better defence than those three, can cover all of 1-5, has bags of experience, and cheap.
All in all I'd sign him. But that's just my opinion though int it Bumpy.
It is all opinion, I realise that KY is supposed to be a back up SR but he IS a centre and can easily play there if required...as a back up so my point is valid. I disagree on the point that Smith is a good defender, too slow and Micheals alone is far superior as is KY. SM was our best back last year in terms of tackling, he hardly ever misses has more gas than Smith (who doesn't to be honest). if we lose Sneyd are you saying that we should juggle the whole backline to accommodate Smith as opposed to having Reece Dean in the 7 position, it's where he plays, he's a fantastic prospect and he's a recognised goal-kicker. Signing Smith completely undermines the players coming through and doesn't fit what we need, again that's my opinion and I don't have to be snarky about it.
knockersbumpMKII wrote:It is all opinion, I realise that KY is supposed to be a back up SR but he IS a centre and can easily play there if required...as a back up so my point is valid. I disagree on the point that Smith is a good defender, too slow and Micheals alone is far superior as is KY. SM was our best back last year in terms of tackling, he hardly ever misses has more gas than Smith (who doesn't to be honest). if we lose Sneyd are you saying that we should juggle the whole backline to accommodate Smith as opposed to having Reece Dean in the 7 position, it's where he plays, he's a fantastic prospect and he's a recognised goal-kicker. Signing Smith completely undermines the players coming through and doesn't fit what we need, again that's my opinion and I don't have to be snarky about it.
I think most would hope that we've seen the end of Yeaman at centre, such a contrast between him and Tuimavave at the weekend.
Michaels has pace and is a fairly decent tackler, but him & Yeamo superior to Smith? I wouldn't say superior. Smith's versatility could prove very useful.
Lose Sneyd? I didn't mention Sneyd - but to answer your question no i wouldn't juggle the team around to play Smith, Like you I'd give Reece Dean the opportunity.
Cup Winners: 1914, 1982, 2005, 2016, 2017. Cup Runners-Up: 1908, 1909, 1910, 1922, 1923, 1959, 1960, 1980, 1983, 1985, 2008, 2013. League Champions: 1920, 1921, 1936, 1956, 1958, 1983. League Runners-Up: 1957, 1982, 1984, 2006.
Joined: Apr 29 2010 Posts: 584 Location: In two minds
Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:I didn't miss Yeaman off the list at all. He's a 2nd rower this year. He's said that himself and so has Radford.
The back 5 positions (excluding hooker) are the least covered in the squad at 60%. We wouldn't need all of them to be injured at once to run out of cover. There were times last year we were very short in the backs, as well as having to cover for Shaul being dropped.
Whether the cover of just Michaels, Lancaster & Naughton is of adequate quality, I'm not so sure. Take out their relative ages and sentiment, and I'd pick Smith of the four every time if given the straight choice. Sure, Lancaster and Naughton have loads of potential, but at this present time, Smith is better.
He's more than just a goal kicker too, or 'the singular reason' as you put it. He's a natural footballer, has a much better defence than those three, can cover all of 1-5, has bags of experience, and cheap.
All in all I'd sign him. But that's just my opinion though int it Bumpy.
Joined: Feb 12 2005 Posts: 13126 Location: East Staffordshire
Would be quite happy if he signed - if he doesn't then crack on. Good professional who knows what it takes to win things. It's what we're about these days (hopefully).
"To play your best football you need players with enthusiasm and drive and energy." - Peter Sterling
Adam Pearson said not wrote:I know there are two franchises and two clubs (in Hull) and that will remain forever more
We will sign him. It's a formality now. Just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's as they say. We've spent good time and effort on bringing him in all pre season, getting him to know the plays, players and surroundings. Can't see it been any other outcome other than they couldn't agree terms. I'd go for it to be honest, all the 'gambles' recently have had relative success Talanoa, Feka, Naughton to name a few (signed on short term deals to prove themselves) I'm sure there's been a few that haven't but I'm more inclined to trust them on this one. Partner that with players that have played with him and can vouch for his professionalism and character like Ellis, Washbrook etc.
Sunday was a great chance to give him some game time but his appearance was limited. Possibly Naughton too, got caught out on the edge for last 2 tries plus didn't come off when Michaels was sent on as sub in first half.
Cant see it being Yeamo or Whiting etc, with the U23s coming up they'll be used in that to steady the younger lads
Sunday was a great chance to give him some game time but his appearance was limited. Possibly Naughton too, got caught out on the edge for last 2 tries plus didn't come off when Michaels was sent on as sub in first half.
Cant see it being Yeamo or Whiting etc, with the U23s coming up they'll be used in that to steady the younger lads
Joined: May 11 2003 Posts: 1707 Location: back yard
I'd send Lancaster out on loan to get regular game time and to develop, but under our strict guidance. This allows us to have Smith in the squad as cover. Lancaster needs regular game time to develop. Sat in the stand waiting for the odd u23 game is not going to allow him the time to develop at the pace we require. Smith's signing I suspect will be on the understanding that he is likely to be playing second fiddle and sitting in the stands waiting for a game. He will also I assume be an influence off the park. He is after all a winner from the Leeds stable so will be able to advise the likes of Logan, Lancaster and Naughton etc.
Given Smith's pedigree and the fact he's available I think we would be stupid not to risk him. A one year deal keeps him enthused as you can guarantee that it will be championship rugby for him next season if it doesn't work out.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you"
"No one has ever made himself great by showing how small someone else is". - Irvin Himmel
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
