Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:53 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

To me we just have too many people being carried. ie impact props. ball playing loose forwards, props that only play second row, people with experience but not really pack players.

Chuck them out and then you have a pack to work with.

Problem is those people are the media friendly, Saints long standers.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but we can't carry all of them in the pack.

Agreed, but who? And how? Salary cap age means it's not that simple to kick out players - because you can't replace them.

Amor, Roby and Soliola are immune and should be the foundations our pack rebuild is based around. Walmsley is 95% of the way there to be included in that list, after my skepticism over him being a starting prop, I think he's done really well from that position, and have no problem with him continuing in out starting front row.

I agree with the calls for greenwood to get an extended run - but he's out of contract this year (according to zerotackle). So thinking about it, reward the signing of a new contract with an extended run (it would be a good time to release some news like this if we have anything)

As for the rest, if Wilkin is making demands about where he plays (especially after spending all last year moaning about it) he should be dropped immediately. But it's what to do with him - he's out of contract in 2015 - and I assume on a decent salary. Could we get someone to take him off our hands? Hkr? Would we need to replace him? Who would play lock?

Lms is contracted until 2016 now. So, again who would take the contract off our hands? Even now, we don't need him in the prop rotation (Amor, walmsley, masoe and laffranchi as the first choice rotation with Richards as 5th choice prop) - but would we need (again) to replace him as lock?

Manu is out of contract this year. Do we offer him another? Would he want 2 years? How long to we offer and risk doing a Puletua? I thought he was pretty poor before he got injured, yet we seem to be missing him terribly since he's been out. I have no doubt Savelio has the skills and capabilities to play manus role in the coming years, but don't know if he's ready for week in week out, and if his fitness can cope with longer minutes, or if he has the lateral footwork for defending out wide yet. Manu is a wide player though, and should be left in the second row, and thus isn't the answer to the lock problem.

Jones should be left at centre. So should Percival. Turner should have to play his way back into the team. Unless we move him - is he the answer to the lock problem? His defence wouldn't be such an issue in the middle, and he has good hands for it - others have commented on his physique but he's not using it - is that a solution?

Who should our bench players be - it seems brown is intent on running Roby into the ground, and as much as I want an interchange hooker on the bench, it's not going to happen this year, and I'd be surprised if that changed next year. But, that does give us other options for how our bench is built. Masoe is an impact player (it can be debated how much impact he's having, but he's here until 2016 and can't see him going anywhere) - do we give him Feka style minutes? If so who picks up the rest of the work? Of all the players to miss a preseason he is possibly the worst choice ever, playing longer minutes hopefully will have a positive impact sooner or later. But having masoe on the bench means walmsley HAS to start - 2 impact props on the bench just isn't an option for me. Which means laffranchi is the second prop on the bench. Then there's wellens - who ... No, I'm not going to get into this, that's a 200 page thread if I ever saw one. Then who plays on the bench as a second row replacement? One already mentioned? One of the kids? As I'm sure I've posted elsewhere, just giving the kids a chance doesn't work for me, they have to earn it, and keep first teamers out.

Flanaghan is off contract this year or next year depending on who you believe. The guy is a tackling machine, but about as threatening with the ball as an untrained labradoodle. Do you re-sign him? I think this whole thing has a much wider implication of how we want to play as a team, and the role lock has in that. When Sculthorpe wore the 13, we were spoilt as he had the strength and physical presence to play as the now "third prop lock" that some teams play, and the ball handling, kicking game and leadership for "ball handling lock" - I think ever since then, we've never fully committed to one or the other, and flick between Wilkin and lms for it (even though both are named in the second row too often)

Then add in a general lack of talent available in the second row whose ooc this year, and it becomes harder still to replace the players who are lacking with quality replacement. If we have any budget for transfers, I'd rather it went on a proper halfback.

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:57 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Agreed, but who? And how? Salary cap age means it's not that simple to kick out players - because you can't replace them.

Amor, Roby and Soliola are immune and should be the foundations our pack rebuild is based around. Walmsley is 95% of the way there to be included in that list, after my skepticism over him being a starting prop, I think he's done really well from that position, and have no problem with him continuing in out starting front row.

I agree with the calls for greenwood to get an extended run - but he's out of contract this year (according to zerotackle). So thinking about it, reward the signing of a new contract with an extended run (it would be a good time to release some news like this if we have anything)

As for the rest, if Wilkin is making demands about where he plays (especially after spending all last year moaning about it) he should be dropped immediately. But it's what to do with him - he's out of contract in 2015 - and I assume on a decent salary. Could we get someone to take him off our hands? Hkr? Would we need to replace him? Who would play lock?

Lms is contracted until 2016 now. So, again who would take the contract off our hands? Even now, we don't need him in the prop rotation (Amor, walmsley, masoe and laffranchi as the first choice rotation with Richards as 5th choice prop) - but would we need (again) to replace him as lock?

Manu is out of contract this year. Do we offer him another? Would he want 2 years? How long to we offer and risk doing a Puletua? I thought he was pretty poor before he got injured, yet we seem to be missing him terribly since he's been out. I have no doubt Savelio has the skills and capabilities to play manus role in the coming years, but don't know if he's ready for week in week out, and if his fitness can cope with longer minutes, or if he has the lateral footwork for defending out wide yet. Manu is a wide player though, and should be left in the second row, and thus isn't the answer to the lock problem.

Jones should be left at centre. So should Percival. Turner should have to play his way back into the team. Unless we move him - is he the answer to the lock problem? His defence wouldn't be such an issue in the middle, and he has good hands for it - others have commented on his physique but he's not using it - is that a solution?

Who should our bench players be - it seems brown is intent on running Roby into the ground, and as much as I want an interchange hooker on the bench, it's not going to happen this year, and I'd be surprised if that changed next year. But, that does give us other options for how our bench is built. Masoe is an impact player (it can be debated how much impact he's having, but he's here until 2016 and can't see him going anywhere) - do we give him Feka style minutes? If so who picks up the rest of the work? Of all the players to miss a preseason he is possibly the worst choice ever, playing longer minutes hopefully will have a positive impact sooner or later. But having masoe on the bench means walmsley HAS to start - 2 impact props on the bench just isn't an option for me. Which means laffranchi is the second prop on the bench. Then there's wellens - who ... No, I'm not going to get into this, that's a 200 page thread if I ever saw one. Then who plays on the bench as a second row replacement? One already mentioned? One of the kids? As I'm sure I've posted elsewhere, just giving the kids a chance doesn't work for me, they have to earn it, and keep first teamers out.

Flanaghan is off contract this year or next year depending on who you believe. The guy is a tackling machine, but about as threatening with the ball as an untrained labradoodle. Do you re-sign him? I think this whole thing has a much wider implication of how we want to play as a team, and the role lock has in that. When Sculthorpe wore the 13, we were spoilt as he had the strength and physical presence to play as the now "third prop lock" that some teams play, and the ball handling, kicking game and leadership for "ball handling lock" - I think ever since then, we've never fully committed to one or the other, and flick between Wilkin and lms for it (even though both are named in the second row too often)

Then add in a general lack of talent available in the second row whose ooc this year, and it becomes harder still to replace the players who are lacking with quality replacement. If we have any budget for transfers, I'd rather it went on a proper halfback.

Brown got some tough decisions to make.

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:21 pm  

I think you miss understand my meaning of chuck them out.

Turner was great last year, but he should be dropped. If his name was Jamie Foster, everyone would be saying he is lacking confidence and needs dropping for his own good.

If LMS was Walker, people would be saying send him out on loan so he can get used to playing against men at a regular level.

By chucking them out, to me it means you've dropped down the pecking order and you need to work hard to get back in. At the moment there are other players playing better, they just lack a name.

I don't buy the Wilkin demanding to play somewhere. But I do think Wilkin, Wellens, Flanaghan all offer very similar roles. They will work hard for the team, rarely beat a man, rarely run very good lines. But will tackle all day. Well you can have one of them. But not 2 or 3 in the same line up.

I think Sia has been off the boil this year, but in terms of those of the boil he is still more effective than the rest and we can't run a pack with 5 people.

So by chucking out no I would not offload them during the year, but I would not pick them and certainly avoid picking more than one of them in any 17.

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:38 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I think you miss understand my meaning of chuck them out.

Turner was great last year, but he should be dropped. If his name was Jamie Foster, everyone would be saying he is lacking confidence and needs dropping for his own good.

If LMS was Walker, people would be saying send him out on loan so he can get used to playing against men at a regular level.

By chucking them out, to me it means you've dropped down the pecking order and you need to work hard to get back in. At the moment there are other players playing better, they just lack a name.

I don't buy the Wilkin demanding to play somewhere. But I do think Wilkin, Wellens, Flanaghan all offer very similar roles. They will work hard for the team, rarely beat a man, rarely run very good lines. But will tackle all day. Well you can have one of them. But not 2 or 3 in the same line up.

I think Sia has been off the boil this year, but in terms of those of the boil he is still more effective than the rest and we can't run a pack with 5 people.

So by chucking out no I would not offload them during the year, but I would not pick them and certainly avoid picking more than one of them in any 17.

To many players offer nothing with the ball. Look at Mose, he's 6ft 5in and weighs in at 20st but couldn't break thru a paper bag.

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:48 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I think you miss understand my meaning of chuck them out.

Turner was great last year, but he should be dropped. If his name was Jamie Foster, everyone would be saying he is lacking confidence and needs dropping for his own good.

If LMS was Walker, people would be saying send him out on loan so he can get used to playing against men at a regular level.

By chucking them out, to me it means you've dropped down the pecking order and you need to work hard to get back in. At the moment there are other players playing better, they just lack a name.

I don't buy the Wilkin demanding to play somewhere. But I do think Wilkin, Wellens, Flanaghan all offer very similar roles. They will work hard for the team, rarely beat a man, rarely run very good lines. But will tackle all day. Well you can have one of them. But not 2 or 3 in the same line up.

I think Sia has been off the boil this year, but in terms of those of the boil he is still more effective than the rest and we can't run a pack with 5 people.

So by chucking out no I would not offload them during the year, but I would not pick them and certainly avoid picking more than one of them in any 17.

Fair play - I do certainly think we have too many players who fit the same mould, and whilst it's not too much of an issue when everyone is fully fit, when we pick up a few injuries it affects us massively, and much more than other teams. The more I think about it, the easier it seems to fix.

Percival did enough to be our left centre next week. I am still fervently in the jones for right centre camp - and I'm sure this is what (should) happen in the future. Where that leaves turner (who is hardly old himself) I'm not sure. In the short term he should be dropped yes. But in the long term, where is his position in the team? He's not ahead at centre so maybe we should look to where else he could fit in, before he hits "peak age"

I don't think soliola is off the boil per say - I think he's easier to pick up by opposition because he's the only threat we have in that area of the pitch. He kept us in the game at castleford near single handed, but was just completely nullified by Wigan knowing they didn't need to worry about our other forwards. I think vs Leeds he was one of the few who were actually tired owing to having played twice over Easter.

I agree wholly about not having 2 or 3 "tacklers" in the team (certainly not in the same position in similar roles. However despite playing that many, Roby is making just over 12.5% (or 1/8th if you prefer) of all of our tackles this year - so whose not pulling their weight defensively?

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:49 pm  

St pete wrote:

To many players offer nothing with the ball. Look at Mose, he's 6ft 5in and weighs in at 20st but couldn't break thru a paper bag.

look as if he has come over and lost any acceleration he used to have.

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:52 pm  

dubairl wrote:

look as if he has come over and lost any acceleration he used to have.

Did he have any in the first place?

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:57 pm  

St pete wrote:

Did he have any in the first place?

Yeah he was actually pretty quick for his size. I remember him steam rolling on to it for panthers and rooster and it was literally like watching skittles and a bowling ball. He needs to forget about trying to put good stints in and just go for it because that what he is effective at.

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:01 pm  

dubairl wrote:

Yeah he was actually pretty quick for his size. I remember him steam rolling on to it for panthers and rooster and it was literally like watching skittles and a bowling ball. He needs to forget about trying to put good stints in and just go for it because that what he is effective at.

I'm surprised the roosters let him go and the panthers granted him a early release then. Also, with the amount of money they throwing about in the NRL and no team took him?

I watched him last year and was greatly impressed. He played well in the Samoa v NZ game in the World Cup which I went but most of his runs came off kick off returns.

Re: masoe and the rest : Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:02 pm  

Fingers crossed Beaumont can
A. Get fit as soon as possible.
B. Be the sort of grafting prop we need.

If you look at Wigan they have strong running back rows which take some pressure off the props. Therefore i wouldn't bother playing some players at second row imo e.g. Wilkin and Flanagan. We need Manu, Soliola, Savelio and Greenwood as our back rowers.

As for props, Amor, Walmsley, Masoe and then hopefully Beaumont are good enough to do the job imo. Until then i think Richards is good enough to do a job but we shouldn't overuse him. Ideally, Clough is pretty much what we need - can we get him back?

Then for hooker, we need to spell Roby obviously. Not sure who with, it seemed to me Tilley was playing dummy half against Widnes? Didn't see the game so can't comment. If Flanagan has played there before then could try him as I don't see his use in second row.

Lock imo, should be a well rounded forward. Wilkin is too lightweight, as is Flash, players like Charnock are too playmaker esque and i am not a fan of playing an extra prop there, especially when that is already an issue. So i think the answer is Jones and he has really proved himself in the last few weeks.

That leaves the pack looking something like

Amor
Roby
Walmsley
Manu
Soliola
Jones

Flanagan/Tilley/Fozard
Beaumont/Richards/Laffranchi/Masoe (2 of)
Savelio/Greenwood