Wrong way, go back

[Bay56]

True. We don't have the forward might at present and I have concerns over the longevity of Michael Weyman.

A great talent, but the amount of injuries he has already sustained has me worried about his ability to play more than half a dozen games a year.

True again .... add to that the ? on Smith and Adamson, both in the very latter part of their careers and injury prone. Too many ? for my liking but that is the formula management/coach decided would give us an advantage next season.

 

[edabomb]

Weyman goes down injured twice a game, certainly is a concern. I think we will go back to the bash it up next year and then one or two quick runs out of dummy half before going to Smith for a final play option. Ian Hindmarsh really needs to step up IMO and show hes more than a journeyman.

 

[Bay56]

Which brings me to the quote by Elliott in the heading to this thread ...
".... The Raiders had problems with injuries using 33 players this season compared to just 26 in 2003 ..."

well we've made sure that wont be an issue next season aint we Matty.

 

[lotm]

it's good to be back.

if you pay peanuts you'll invariably get a monkey.

i didn't know monkeys regularly ate peanuts.

True again .... add to that the ? on Smith and Adamson, both in the very latter part of their careers and injury prone. Too many ? for my liking but that is the formula management/coach decided would give us an advantage next season

and if they both play out the season relatively injury-free (perhaps 3-4 games out) and we have a successful season because of it, you'd be spouting off about how the coach had nothing to do with it and it was luck that made 2005 a success.

the problem that i have with you is that you're so eager to criticise management, that you go out of your way to do it. if they do something risky and it comes off, i'd like to think you'd congratulate them rather than demean them by calling it luck.

it would be just as irrational if i went to the other extreme and labelled every mistake management and elliot have made (which i admit they have) as unlucky.

 

[Bay56]

it's good to be back.

if you pay peanuts you'll invariably get a monkey.

i didn't know monkeys regularly ate peanuts.

Well known fact lotm .... saw it on the Discovery Channel :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[jed]

it's good to be back.

if you pay peanuts you'll invariably get a monkey.

i didn't know monkeys regularly ate peanuts.

Well known fact lotm .... saw it on the Discovery Channel :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please provide a link to your peanuts/monkeys allegations. :lol:

 

[Bay56]

the problem that i have with you is that you're so eager to criticise management, that you go out of your way to do it. if they do something risky and it comes off, i'd like to think you'd congratulate them rather than demean them by calling it luck.

get over it lotm cause I aint changing my style just to suit you

PS welcome back .. I now have someone to stouch with .. all the others are just pussys and Raiders_1705 is just plain dumb :lol: :lol:

 

[raiders_boy]

Who would you suggest Bay and someone you think could be lured to the club as a long term coach.

ohh no ... here we go again ..

legend ... no disrespect but if I had a dollar for the amount of times I have posted my alternative coaches (and another for the amount of times I've been hounded down for expressing an opinion on coach/management)

Bay, thats a load of crap. You have offered no realistic alternatives for a coach. Stuart doesn't count. He's a rooster now. Do some research and then get back to us. Think of someone who is available and likely to come and not only coach, but live in canberra

Which brings me to the quote by Elliott in the heading to this thread ...
".... The Raiders had problems with injuries using 33 players this season compared to just 26 in 2003 ..."

well we've made sure that wont be an issue next season aint we Matty.

This is so incredibly speculative. How can anyone foresee who is going to get injured. Thats just plain idiocy. Just because someone may have had a few injuries in the past, doesn't mean they are definitely going to get injured again. And it certainly shouldnt be a factor as to why you would be someone.

If you had an opportunity, would you buy Scott Hill? Of course we would. He may be one of the most injury prone players ever, but we would still buy him. You just cant say that someone is a bad buy cos they WILL get injured.

All you ever do is avoid lotm's posts bay #-o

True.

 

[Bay56]

You just cant say that someone is a bad buy cos they WILL get injured.

someone is a bad buy cos they WILL get injured ... there I said it, easy peasy :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Chippo Raiders]

I am happy to see 2005 prior to giving the coach the sword atm...

 

[Raider_69]

but bay has a fair point, why waste money on blokes that are injury prone and if you were a betting man you would have a tenner on them not playing more than 10 games each!!

 

[Chippo Raiders]

but bay has a fair point, why waste money on blokes that are injury prone and if you were a betting man you would have a tenner on them not playing more than 10 games each!!

Michael Hodgson was as injury prone as all get out and now with Wiki's departure he is our best backrower. You take the risk, you may get rewarded