Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:46 am  

mat wrote:

sheriffe has alreay shown a pretty significant improvement over last year I feel. He's been one of our better players last 2 games although I know that isnt saying a lot. If he could just improve his catching skills a bit, but as long as continues to improve he could go alright. Tend to agree about worrincy though.
starting to doubt we'll ever actually see sculthorpe in a bulls shirt tbh. sykes is good cover but not a starter for mine , and counts as homegrown, but only if he's prepared to accept a cheap deal and as his next contract could well be his last I suspect he'll go to whoever offers most money/longest deal.

plus nero will be getting on a bit at end of season. 2 centres have to priority for signings next year for me, irrespective of how crookes goes this year.

If Beaver re-signs then we don't really have to much to look for in terms of recruitment IMO. Providing we re-sign Langley which should be top priority IMO, then we've got a pretty settled pack. All the young lads will be a further year developed and more experienced so that would be pretty good cover. Just sack Nero, Sculthorpe and Worrincy off, bring in 2 centres and another prop.

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:44 am  

Bullseye wrote:

You want Sykes to get another year????????????

If he plays like last night every week I'd give him two.

(has to do that more than twice a season though)

[Bullseye]

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:22 pm  

As you say Sykes needs to show he can have more than one good game in 10 but he did alright last night and ran a good angle for his try.

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:28 am  

Bullseye wrote:

As you say Sykes needs to show he can have more than one good game in 10 but he did alright last night and ran a good angle for his try.

He was good last night, and defence down that side seems to have improved no end. He also ran another good linje off of Menzies' ball to set up Kearney.

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:50 am  

I find it amazing supporters want to slate Sculthorpe when the guy hasnt even pulled on a shirt for us yet

As i understand it Nathan Brown wanted to retain him at Hudds, but hey, what does this guy know? Maybe he should use the experts on these forums for his recruitment tips aswell?

As far as i am concerned if Sculthorpe has picked an injutry up in training, these things happen in our sport and i wish him a speedy recovery and hope that when he returns, sooner the better, he can bring something to the team that will add an extra dimension.

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:29 am  

Bets'y Bulls wrote:

I find it amazing supporters want to slate Sculthorpe when the guy hasnt even pulled on a shirt for us yet

As i understand it Nathan Brown wanted to retain him at Hudds, but hey, what does this guy know? Maybe he should use the experts on these forums for his recruitment tips aswell?

As far as i am concerned if Sculthorpe has picked an injutry up in training, these things happen in our sport and i wish him a speedy recovery and hope that when he returns, sooner the better, he can bring something to the team that will add an extra dimension.

Here,hear!

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:49 pm  

Barring a minor miracle i think this thread will probably be needed again in an hour or so.

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:45 pm  

dixie wrote:

Barring a minor miracle i think this thread will probably be needed again in an hour or so.

And Steve McNamara is walking on water

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:50 pm  

Hahaha.. Well i didn't rule out a result ( Probably should delete game over at half time comment ).

Re: Renamed: the big fat McNamara thread : Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:54 pm  

dixie wrote:

Barring a minor miracle i think this thread will probably be needed again in an hour or so.

But not for the reasons you anticipated...