Re: Paul Johnson : Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:30 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Maybe. But in previous seasons other players have had little game time but gone on to have more in the next season. Emmitt was let go also, along with Hargreaves. We let quite a few players go at the end of last season. All I was suggesting, as a possible alternative, was that maybe the club's reasons for letting so many go were not necessarily directly related to their potential at first grade.

Those players have generally been younger than 23 at the time though, he'd been surpassed in his career progression by others.

Re: Paul Johnson : Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:38 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Those players have generally been younger than 23 at the time though, he'd been surpassed in his career progression by others.

Age isn't everything, you know. Some people develop later than others. And for a prop, 23 is still young, surely?

Re: Paul Johnson : Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:17 am  

I thought McGennis was good last night. Played a lot of minutes at prop and performed admirably.

Re: Paul Johnson : Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:43 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Age isn't everything, you know. Some people develop later than others. And for a prop, 23 is still young, surely?

It is, which is why I wouldn't write him off as finished as a player, but when you've got younger players performing better than you, they are going to be offered contracts first, and in these salary cap times with an U20's rather than a reserves, it means you generally get let go.

And I didn't think his performance last night against our much weakened pack did your argument much good either.

Re: Paul Johnson : Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:47 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

It is, which is why I wouldn't write him off as finished as a player, but when you've got younger players performing better than you, they are going to be offered contracts first, and in these salary cap times with an U20's rather than a reserves, it means you generally get let go.

And I didn't think his performance last night against our much weakened pack did your argument much good either.

He worked hard last night but got hammered everytime he had the ball.

Letting him go won't come back to bite us on the bum.

Re: Paul Johnson : Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:53 pm  

St pete wrote:

He worked hard last night but got hammered everytime he had the ball.

Letting him go won't come back to bite us on the bum.

And once again, this thread wasn't intended to analyse Sts decision to let him go!

He's a Sts product and he's been great for Wakefield so far this year!

He played last night in a front row that was missing Korkidas, had Paul King returning after months being out, Higgins in only his 2nd game after stepping up from Championship rugby and Amor who is on loan, doing well but is also stepping up from U20s at Leeds.

Had Johnson been playing for Sts and McGennis for Wakefield their roles and performances would likely be reversed!

You've got some great young players coming through in all positions and the club is obviously doing something right in terms of recruiting and developing junior talent.

We're grateful that Johnson became surplus at Sts because when gambling on a young player the one thing you can count on from some clubs is that their juniors are well coached in the fundamentals of the game and have the correct attitude, this seems to be true of Sts.

Good luck for the rest of your season barring when we next meet.

Re: Paul Johnson : Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:49 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

It is, which is why I wouldn't write him off as finished as a player, but when you've got younger players performing better than you, they are going to be offered contracts first, and in these salary cap times with an U20's rather than a reserves, it means you generally get let go.

True.

And I didn't think his performance last night against our much weakened pack did your argument much good either.

To be honest, I wasn't taking any notice of Wakey players last night. I was too busy watching our own to see whether we'd taken heed of Royce's challenge to focus for the full 80 minutes! I decided that we had.

Re: Paul Johnson : Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:28 pm  

To be fair to PJ, he's obviously doing alright on the whole and when you look at him, he's still pretty small for a prop. Given that, as he gets older and puts on weight, he'll probably turn into a fair contender.