Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:02 am  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Been talking to a few people on the other hemisphere. By the sounds of it, cowboys are hoping to sign josh Hoffman from the broncos as their replacement full back, but lance is seen as the best option if they can't convince broncos for a release.

Bulldogs have been pestering broncos to release Hoffman the entire off season, so I can't see why cowboys will have more luck.

Had Brisbane been able to get Anthony Milford for 2014 and not 2015 then I could see Hoffman going, but as it is I think Brisbane will want to keep hold of him.

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:12 am  

I'm 50/50 on this. I don't think Lance is a bad hooker at all. If he were used consistently as an interchange 9 then I think he could finally make a positive impact at Saints. I'd also worry about the lack of cover at 9 if he were to leave suddenly. So if he was guaranteed to only play hooker then I'd be alright with him staying.

On the other hand, I get the impression Brown has no intention of using him consistently as an interchange 9. If he's still in the running to play 6 for us then I'd be happy to see the back of him - I'd prefer to see Wilkin or Charnock in that role if/when Wheeler takes a knock.

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:15 am  

So if we get an injury we want to pay a bloke top money as cover , when;

1. Wellens or Makinson better option - with Gardner or Dawson covering wing.

6 Turner probably a better option - with Jones to centre. Dare say Wilkin a better 6 too.

9. Brown preferred Howarth first ??? . Personally feel Lance is our current best option as back up 9 . If not , when we signed Flanagan , it was mentioned he could cover 9.

Let him go NQC and hope it works out for all parties

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:10 am  

Didn't Royce bring Mark Flanagan over because he could play/cover hooker?

But for me we need cover in the halves

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:21 am  

Rommel wrote:

Didn't Royce bring Mark Flanagan over because he could play/cover hooker?

He did say that, but then he also brought Lance over to play scrum half. Personally I can't see Flanagan as a hooker at all.

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:46 am  

i just dont see how we can justify a quota spot and a £100k + wage for just a backup utility player. That sort of money should be for a first team star.

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:09 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

i just dont see how we can justify a quota spot and a £100k + wage for just a backup utility player. That sort of money should be for a first team star.

Correct. If we can get rid of him it makes pure business sense to do so. From a rugby point of view it makes less sense, as it would clearly weaken the overall strength of the squad - but it would open up the option of making a mid-season signing should something come available.

Probably best for everyone concerned if the move happened. It may be good for his pension pot to be sat over here in the stands, but it cant be great for his state of mind and family life.

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:36 pm  

Players who werent in the 17 that could be brought in for injuries

Full back - plenty options
move Tommy Mak there and bring in Dawson or Ade, alternatively put percival on the wing outside turner and play Jones as Swifts centre.

Stand off - harder to fill
Wilkin, or even bring in Charnock playing next to Walsh can only help his game. He has also played Fullback

Hooker - probably the toughest to fill
This is probably were Lance would be the best option. Royce thought Flash could play there, im not overly convinced by that. Lomax would make a good 9 but would you want to move him from fullback?
All this said, Robes has had 1 injury hit season in 10 yrs, hes hardly injury prone so touch wood we wont need any cover there

All in all Lance is a good player, but theres just no way of justifying his wages in our squad

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:43 pm  

Dux wrote:

He did say that, but then he also brought Lance over to play scrum half. Personally I can't see Flanagan as a hooker at all.

Not to forget laffranchi as prop.

Re: Lance moving on? : Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:08 pm  

I can totally understand the argument that we can't justify paying Lance's wage for him to sit on the bench. My worry, though, is that ditching him at this point would be the kind of risk that could end up costing us silverware at a time when we're finally right back in there. I'm not suggesting that Lance is going to win the title for us, of course, but Roby getting injured and us having to play a season without a hooker is the kind of thing that could put us out of contention. If we could line up a decent replacement hooker (not a star but someone better than Howarth) then I'm all for it. If not, then I think it's a risk best avoided.