Poupou Escobar
Post Whore
- Messages
- 91,379
You'd have to say he's at least a first grader, though probably not a good enough defender for the edges.Stud player.
Well worth a shot
You'd have to say he's at least a first grader, though probably not a good enough defender for the edges.Stud player.
Well worth a shot
You'd have to say he's at least a first grader, though probably not a good enough defender for the edges.
I thought Austin went OK yesterday
Austin would be a very good signing as a #14. He's (his) light years ahead of Will Smith and the like. But, you wouldn't want him as a first choice starting half.
It would certainly be a risk. Which isn't the same as a bad signing, nor would it mean it was a mistake if it didn't work out. Nobody knows how risk will pan out until after the fact. The question is whether you can afford to take the risk vs whether you can afford not to.he had a very good season about 2 or 3 years ago playing in the halves but really hasn't be able to reproduce that form
maybe BA thinks he can do it again
As a club we are totally incapable of improving any footballers defence. In fact it tends to get worse under our structures. I love Austins attacking skills and we could desperately use them but until our club learns to defend at an NRL level, such players would be wasted regretably.It would certainly be a risk. Which isn't the same as a bad signing, nor would it mean it was a mistake if it didn't work out. Nobody knows how risk will pan out until after the fact. The question is whether you can afford to take the risk vs whether you can afford not to.
Can you imagine if we did sign a 26 year old who just made his NRL debut and it didn't work out? Even if was on the cheap? Everyone involved would be treated like a complete idiot on here.
I thought Austin went OK yesterday
OK. But that was in the year we got busted for the cap cheating. We didn't have a lot of choice (other than to give up).
We also released Hayne too and then got in Reece Robinson. Regardless of the reasons I think what it shows is that you shouldn't be releasing quality players in your spine mid contract unless you have a quality replacement as they are hard to come by. If we release Norman for Austin, which is looking a possibility, it is a dumb f**k move.
Disagree. With a player like Norman, you release him when you get the opportunity - and replace him with someone of equal quality as soon as that opportunity arises. Rarely would those two opportunities arrive at exactly the same time.
The biggest issue is we still have inferior replacements 2 years later.
We also released Hayne too and then got in Reece Robinson. Regardless of the reasons I think what it shows is that you shouldn't be releasing quality players in your spine mid contract unless you have a quality replacement as they are hard to come by. If we release Norman for Austin, which is looking a possibility, it is a dumb f**k move.
For me its about kicking a dog while its down.
Look I agree in terms of the overall quality of who we've signed. But, the Norman for Austin thing is simply an assumption. Neither of these events have happened, and if we do let Norman go and sign Austin that still doesn't mean that they want Austin to be a #1 or #2 half.
Austin won't be coming to be a super sub. We need Warrington to offer him a deal he can't refuse.
Depends what his choices are. If the Raiders are pushing him out the door, and no other NRL club says 'come and play #6 for us', why wouldn't he sign? Particularly as you're going to play a fair bit of firsts as the 3 choice half anyway.
But then we'd get fleas ffs!For me its about kicking a dog while its down.
In the sense that I recognise they are acting under significant constraints then I suppose I am a yes man. If we continually get shit people running the club then it is either just bad luck, or a structural problem, or it is somebody's fault. Whose fault could it be if we keep getting low quality coaches and administrators year after year after year? Come on merkin, give me some names. I want a scapegoat too.