- Mar 4, 2008
- 34,956
- 41,741
Re: Wayne Bennett related player movement discussion
1987 lost to Manly with the Raiders
What's the 8th?
1987 lost to Manly with the Raiders
What's the 8th?
for the last year or 2 Boyd has been poor at both ...
1987 lost to Manly with the Raiders
And yet could still score an almost length of the field try which is something nobody in this team could do by themselves. Can't win a comp if we can only score from the inside the opposition 50.
and if he could do that consistently (which he hasn't done for 3 ****ing years) ... i'd be happy to have him start at fullback, but a couple of length of the field tries A YEAR is not going to win us the premiership.
and if he could do that consistently (which he hasn't done for 3 fucking years) ... i'd be happy to have him start at fullback, but a couple of length of the field tries A YEAR is not going to win us the premiership.
Dugan was told not to do anything else wrong, he did. I'm sure Packer will be told not to as well if he is signed. And before anyone bites my head off or tells me I lack morals (Wouldn't be the first time around here) I don't want Packer. But looking from both angles is something a few people on here need to start doing.
Just one or two of them this year in some of those close games could have won us a top 4 spot. Just two caught high balls at the back would have won us a few more. And yes, he ran away from one ball. He was having a frustrating year. Something I'm sure being paid will help. And yes, I know we aren't allowed to use excuses around here without having our head bit off, but there's no way anyone could honestly say they'd try 100% whilst not getting paid.
I think Wayne only really wants Packer because we need a decent size front rower on the cheap side and the cupboards are pretty bare atm on the market.
Firstly not having Hoggman at 5/8 for the majority of the year, would have won us one or two of those close games you refer to.
secondly, Boyd got paid his contracted Knights salary, but he (off his own bat) signed a contract that also contained a large portion of un-guaranteed TPA's. that is what he had problems with.
besides if my boss doesn't pay me, i don't turn up to work and just do a half assed job ... i don't show up period and I sue the fucker instead.
Still not worth it ... we have some good young front rowers coming through plus there are some good front rowers in the ISC (and we also signed Garbutt, who is also big and cheap)
get them onto the bench and give them more than the token 7 minutes of Griffins game plan (or lack thereof)
So let me get this straight.....Killing it in attack is fine, what about the other half of the game.
Raiders were complete arse this year so it didn't really figure in the scheme of things but it will for us.
Just one or two of them this year in some of those close games could have won us a top 4 spot. Just two caught high balls at the back would have won us a few more. And yes, he ran away from one ball. He was having a frustrating year. Something I'm sure being paid will help. And yes, I know we aren't allowed to use excuses around here without having our head bit off, but there's no way anyone could honestly say they'd try 100% whilst not getting paid.
Fair enough, I was confused with Inglis.Umm, didnt Boyd play fullback when he won the Clive Churchill?
I thought Soward/Hornby were the halfs?
Weren't they all with Tinkler, so effectively, the club didn't pay him because Tinkler owned the club? And wages were late to the players from the club for a majority of the year. Only person whose wages were never late were Bennett's.
So let me get this straight.....
You think his fullback defense is bad, so you want to force him to make 20+ tackles a game on much larger second rowers and props?
Milford played much better at fullback though.It's not saying much but the Raiders looked a lot better when he was at 5/8. They won a few games too...
It's not saying much but the Raiders looked a lot better when he was at 5/8. They won a few games too...