Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:30 pm  

Les Norton wrote:

Would Sam Kasiano be worth a punt? He’s just been released by Warrington. Might do a job for a season

Would have missed almost the entire season through injury which is why they paid him off. If the wire board counts as a reliable source.

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:42 pm  

Aside from him being a liability there's also the quota issue

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:04 pm  

100% no.
There`s a reason why Wire paid him off.
Chances are he could miss most of the season and he`s not that good anymore.

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Wed Jan 10, 2024 8:35 am  

Simmo71 wrote:

My point is that we shouldn't be replacing what Tetevano was.
We should be replacing what we expected him to be.

Couple of injuries up front (which is very possible) and we are up against it.

You just keep saying the same thing. We need a big meter making impact prop, we look light up front and if we get a few injuries we will be up against it.

Taking Wigan out of this conversation. Every single side is looking for a meter making impact prop, every side will be up against it if they get a couple of injuries up front. That is the reality of salary cap, if your players don’t play then you struggle, because what you bring in will never be as good as first choice.

We are realistically only going to play 4 props given our captain is our 13. Yes we are a bit light with Goudemand, Hudson and TNW as essentially our 5th,6th and 7th option. Ideally we would have burgess (who you consistently go on about) over one of those players. But Burgess costs a heck of a lot more than they do and probably every club in SL would want to sign him if he was available.
Most people agree we have done the best business in the off season. Addressing our whole spine with good quality players that fit the style our coach seems to want to play. Pressure is on him for sure. But this isn’t fantasy land football manager when you just sign who you want, when you want. For me next year we probably look at bringing in a different profile back row player to replace Martin and potentially a different profile prop depending on how we go this year. To me that is sensible and sustained. TNW May get game time as May Hudson and suddenly we have 3-4 home grown front row options which man our ability to go big on that further prop is enhanced.
Burgess or Ackers - I pick Ackers at the moment.
Burgess or Croft - I pick Croft at the moment.
I discount Frawley because we needed a second half back either way.
I can see your potential arguement of burgess over Miller but I would still take Miller. Myler is 33/34 has limited pace and I don’t think he fits the way we want to play with the new players we have brought in. So I can see you saying we should have signed a big impact prop. But I think the response of we have addressed bigger needs first carries more weight. Obv all opinions and untainted Rohan will live by the sword and die by the sword if we don’t perform.

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Wed Jan 10, 2024 9:42 am  

Agree but I do think we could have gone hard for Eseh, for example. I think we felt there were better options with internal players and Hudson but time will tell.

I’m still not sure about Goudemand - he is a good player but I can’t see why we signed him.

We are gambling a little on fitness and form up front this year, most of our props seem to be under some kind of injury cloud. Said it before but our pack was undermined last year by consistent errors in the back line; I’m expecting us to look tighter this year and to apply more pressure.

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Wed Jan 10, 2024 2:11 pm  

KaeruJim wrote:

Said it before but our pack was undermined last year by consistent errors in the back line; I’m expecting us to look tighter this year and to apply more pressure.

There were still plenty of games where the pack gave metres for fun and struggled to break our 40m line when in possession. We know Rohan has a fondness of moving players on if he thinks they've underperformed; I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was the odd unexpected departure along with other out of contract forwards if the pack don't up it this time.

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Wed Jan 10, 2024 8:07 pm  

Lprhino wrote:

You just keep saying the same thing. We need a big meter making impact prop, we look light up front and if we get a few injuries we will be up against it.

Taking Wigan out of this conversation. Every single side is looking for a meter making impact prop, every side will be up against it if they get a couple of injuries up front. That is the reality of salary cap, if your players don’t play then you struggle, because what you bring in will never be as good as first choice.

We are realistically only going to play 4 props given our captain is our 13. Yes we are a bit light with Goudemand, Hudson and TNW as essentially our 5th,6th and 7th option. Ideally we would have burgess (who you consistently go on about) over one of those players. But Burgess costs a heck of a lot more than they do and probably every club in SL would want to sign him if he was available.
Most people agree we have done the best business in the off season. Addressing our whole spine with good quality players that fit the style our coach seems to want to play. Pressure is on him for sure. But this isn’t fantasy land football manager when you just sign who you want, when you want. For me next year we probably look at bringing in a different profile back row player to replace Martin and potentially a different profile prop depending on how we go this year. To me that is sensible and sustained. TNW May get game time as May Hudson and suddenly we have 3-4 home grown front row options which man our ability to go big on that further prop is enhanced.
Burgess or Ackers - I pick Ackers at the moment.
Burgess or Croft - I pick Croft at the moment.
I discount Frawley because we needed a second half back either way.
I can see your potential arguement of burgess over Miller but I would still take Miller. Myler is 33/34 has limited pace and I don’t think he fits the way we want to play with the new players we have brought in. So I can see you saying we should have signed a big impact prop. But I think the response of we have addressed bigger needs first carries more weight. Obv all opinions and untainted Rohan will live by the sword and die by the sword if we don’t perform.

TNW likely headed to York on loan according to Leeds Live. Hopefully that means the reported injuries to Lisone and Holroyd are not as bad as feared.

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Wed Jan 10, 2024 8:24 pm  

Lprhino wrote:

You just keep saying the same thing. We need a big meter making impact prop, we look light up front and if we get a few injuries we will be up against it.

Taking Wigan out of this conversation. Every single side is looking for a meter making impact prop, every side will be up against it if they get a couple of injuries up front. That is the reality of salary cap, if your players don’t play then you struggle, because what you bring in will never be as good as first choice.

We are realistically only going to play 4 props given our captain is our 13. Yes we are a bit light with Goudemand, Hudson and TNW as essentially our 5th,6th and 7th option. Ideally we would have burgess (who you consistently go on about) over one of those players. But Burgess costs a heck of a lot more than they do and probably every club in SL would want to sign him if he was available.
Most people agree we have done the best business in the off season. Addressing our whole spine with good quality players that fit the style our coach seems to want to play. Pressure is on him for sure. But this isn’t fantasy land football manager when you just sign who you want, when you want. For me next year we probably look at bringing in a different profile back row player to replace Martin and potentially a different profile prop depending on how we go this year. To me that is sensible and sustained. TNW May get game time as May Hudson and suddenly we have 3-4 home grown front row options which man our ability to go big on that further prop is enhanced.
Burgess or Ackers - I pick Ackers at the moment.
Burgess or Croft - I pick Croft at the moment.
I discount Frawley because we needed a second half back either way.
I can see your potential arguement of burgess over Miller but I would still take Miller. Myler is 33/34 has limited pace and I don’t think he fits the way we want to play with the new players we have brought in. So I can see you saying we should have signed a big impact prop. But I think the response of we have addressed bigger needs first carries more weight. Obv all opinions and untainted Rohan will live by the sword and die by the sword if we don’t perform.

Respect your opinion, but completely disagree that I would take Miller, an unknown quantity at this level with limited experience and for me a gamble, over Tom Burgess. Incredible.
Croft and Frawley were no brainers. We had no half backs.

My point was that, in my opinion, prop was higher priority than hooker or full back right now.
Our front row was one of the worst in SL last year.
Have we strengthened it?
No, on paper it's weaker.
Sangare has been rewarded for a very underwhelming and frankly disappointing season, by being promoted from 5th/6th back up into the weekly 4 rotation.
Just one injury and our bench props are Sangare and Goudemand.

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Wed Jan 10, 2024 8:40 pm  

It’s OK saying Tom Burgess over Lachie Miller, however was that ever likely the option? It’s not as if we’ve lost out on Burgess to another SL club.

I disagree on Hooker, we had a young player that had only played one year at Hooker as our first choice without signing one, and as it happens we have now got in of the best in SL

Re: EXTENSION | James Bentley - Expires: 2025 : Thu Jan 11, 2024 7:43 am  

christopher wrote:

It’s OK saying Tom Burgess over Lachie Miller, however was that ever likely the option? It’s not as if we’ve lost out on Burgess to another SL club.

I disagree on Hooker, we had a young player that had only played one year at Hooker as our first choice without signing one, and as it happens we have now got in of the best in SL

Yeh not sure if TB was / is ever a likely option.
Just saying , IMO, he's the type we need (as well as being a lifelong Leeds fan).

Appreciate we can't completely change the whole team in one off-season.
And again, our recruitment has been very good.
Agree on Ackers, it's an excellent, low risk signing.

I guess time will tell on how our front row compete this year.
I just think that is our biggest risk area.
Along with how well the new guys settle in and how we fare with injuries, but they're always a risk.