Hodgson vs Liddle

[Tiger-ferret]

It’s interesting to note though, not once during the year did anybody claim we need to sign an experienced no 9. Now it seems to be the biggest problem the team has. It’s not though.

Yes but Hodgson wasn’t available during the year. If there’s an opportunity to upgrade a position, you take it. For me, Hodgson improves the squad across the season and I wouldn’t be expecting him to play every game.

Why wouldn’t you expect him to?

Best case scenario he does but Is it realistic? We are playing the long game. If he plays 2/3ds (random figure) of the games over 2 seasons whilst we develop a younger player, we go a long way to climbing the ladder.

It’s 2/3ds of games improvement over what we have atm.

We can try but realistically we won’t sign a top 4 hooker that plays every game anytime soon.

Of course he could do a knee 1st game and we medically retire him.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

It’s interesting to note though, not once during the year did anybody claim we need to sign an experienced no 9. Now it seems to be the biggest problem the team has. It’s not though.

Yes but Hodgson wasn’t available during the year. If there’s an opportunity to upgrade a position, you take it. For me, Hodgson improves the squad across the season and I wouldn’t be expecting him to play every game.

Why wouldn’t you expect him to?

Best case scenario he does but Is it realistic? We are playing the long game. If he plays 2/3ds (random figure) of the games over 2 seasons whilst we develop a younger player, we go a long way to climbing the ladder.

It’s 2/3ds of games improvement over what we have atm.

We can try but realistically we won’t sign a top 4 hooker that plays every game anytime soon.

Of course he could do a knee 1st game and we medically retire him.

Idk why you would want to sign a player who you don’t expect to play every game. That in itself is a red flag.

 

[happy_tiger]

It’s interesting to note though, not once during the year did anybody claim we need to sign an experienced no 9. Now it seems to be the biggest problem the team has. It’s not though.

Yes but Hodgson wasn’t available during the year. If there’s an opportunity to upgrade a position, you take it. For me, Hodgson improves the squad across the season and I wouldn’t be expecting him to play every game.

Why wouldn’t you expect him to?

Best case scenario he does but Is it realistic? We are playing the long game. If he plays 2/3ds (random figure) of the games over 2 seasons whilst we develop a younger player, we go a long way to climbing the ladder.

It’s 2/3ds of games improvement over what we have atm.

We can try but realistically we won’t sign a top 4 hooker that plays every game anytime soon.

Of course he could do a knee 1st game and we medically retire him.

Relying on retirements is a risk ...people have come back after 3 ACL's ....3 shoulders ......

 

[Harvey]

This year close. Next year and onwards Liddle by a mile.

Shows all the talk about sustainable cap and building for the future is just noise.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

It’s interesting to note though, not once during the year did anybody claim we need to sign an experienced no 9. Now it seems to be the biggest problem the team has. It’s not though.

Yes but Hodgson wasn’t available during the year. If there’s an opportunity to upgrade a position, you take it. For me, Hodgson improves the squad across the season and I wouldn’t be expecting him to play every game.

Why wouldn’t you expect him to?

Best case scenario he does but Is it realistic? We are playing the long game. If he plays 2/3ds (random figure) of the games over 2 seasons whilst we develop a younger player, we go a long way to climbing the ladder.

It’s 2/3ds of games improvement over what we have atm.

We can try but realistically we won’t sign a top 4 hooker that plays every game anytime soon.

Of course he could do a knee 1st game and we medically retire him.

Relying on retirements is a risk ...people have come back after 3 ACL's ....3 shoulders ......

Yes agree. Worst case he plays 3 games over 2 seasons wasting a roster spot. We’ve been burnt in the past with similar signings. IMO Hodgson wouldn’t be pushing out a solid top level first grader so is worth considering.

 

[twentyforty]

Geriatric on dodgy legs - after a superannuation fund.

Our kinda guy

 

[Tiger-ferret]

It’s interesting to note though, not once during the year did anybody claim we need to sign an experienced no 9. Now it seems to be the biggest problem the team has. It’s not though.

Yes but Hodgson wasn’t available during the year. If there’s an opportunity to upgrade a position, you take it. For me, Hodgson improves the squad across the season and I wouldn’t be expecting him to play every game.

Why wouldn’t you expect him to?

Best case scenario he does but Is it realistic? We are playing the long game. If he plays 2/3ds (random figure) of the games over 2 seasons whilst we develop a younger player, we go a long way to climbing the ladder.

It’s 2/3ds of games improvement over what we have atm.

We can try but realistically we won’t sign a top 4 hooker that plays every game anytime soon.

Of course he could do a knee 1st game and we medically retire him.

Idk why you would want to sign a player who you don’t expect to play every game. That in itself is a red flag.

It’s a red flag following the tigers lol!

Because it’s still an improvement on what we have across the season, including training and leadership?

Plan A sign the best. Plan B sign 2nd best. Plan C opportunistic signing which is an improvement and minimal risk of making things worse. Plan D do nothing.

 

[happy_tiger]

It’s interesting to note though, not once during the year did anybody claim we need to sign an experienced no 9. Now it seems to be the biggest problem the team has. It’s not though.

Yes but Hodgson wasn’t available during the year. If there’s an opportunity to upgrade a position, you take it. For me, Hodgson improves the squad across the season and I wouldn’t be expecting him to play every game.

Why wouldn’t you expect him to?

Best case scenario he does but Is it realistic? We are playing the long game. If he plays 2/3ds (random figure) of the games over 2 seasons whilst we develop a younger player, we go a long way to climbing the ladder.

It’s 2/3ds of games improvement over what we have atm.

We can try but realistically we won’t sign a top 4 hooker that plays every game anytime soon.

Of course he could do a knee 1st game and we medically retire him.

Idk why you would want to sign a player who you don’t expect to play every game. That in itself is a red flag.

It’s a red flag following the tigers lol!

Because it’s still an improvement on what we have across the season, including training and leadership?

Plan A sign the best. Plan B sign 2nd best. Plan C opportunistic signing which is an improvement and minimal risk of making things worse. Plan D do nothing.

Plan E ...the WT's way ..royally screw it

 

[Lee's fedora]

This whole idea of his too old is bs also look at
Benji
Cam smith
Cooper cronk
Even lote in his final years were all good capable players yes he's 33 big deal people wanted benji to come back to us and play this season but Hodgson no no no we're okay when our main problem is leadership and having a hooker who plays a full 80

 

[happy_tiger]

This whole idea of his too old is bs also look at
Benji
Cam smith
Cooper cronk
Even lote in his final years were all good capable players yes he's 33 big deal people wanted benji to come back to us and play this season but Hodgson no no no we're okay when our main problem is leadership and having a hooker who plays a full 80

Benji's not relatable ...his last half decent season was 2011

 

[Lauren]

This whole idea of his too old is bs also look at
Benji
Cam smith
Cooper cronk
Even lote in his final years were all good capable players yes he's 33 big deal people wanted benji to come back to us and play this season but Hodgson no no no we're okay when our main problem is leadership and having a hooker who plays a full 80

It's not BS considering the mentioned players were at top clubs with limited issues. Cronk really only suffered serious injury in the final weeks of his career - not consecutive years before signing with the Roosters - and it really had a low impact on the team's ability.
So there's no realistic way to measure up the potential risks with the injury concerns.
I don't think anyone is doubting his leadership at all though but moreso possibly considering the pros and cons, as the last signing we made (for this exact reason) brought little influence to the performance of the whole team.
No offence but whether he can play a full 80 minutes will mean very little if he does is his acl in the off-season and that's the main reason some people are wary of this possible signing.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

This whole idea of his too old is bs also look at
Benji
Cam smith
Cooper cronk
Even lote in his final years were all good capable players yes he's 33 big deal people wanted benji to come back to us and play this season but Hodgson no no no we're okay when our main problem is leadership and having a hooker who plays a full 80

Benji was garbage for the last 5 years of his career (and that’s being generous), and not in the same league as Smith and Cronk towards the end of their careers. Neither Smith or Cronk suffered 2 ACL in their 30’s either.

 

[Telltails]

It's leadership in a key position rather than the position itself being a high priority. We desperately need someone to take control on the field and Hodgson fits that role ahead of anyone currently on our roster

 

[Tiger5150]

This whole idea of his too old is bs also look at
Benji
Cam smith
Cooper cronk
Even lote in his final years were all good capable players yes he's 33 big deal people wanted benji to come back to us and play this season but Hodgson no no no we're okay when our main problem is leadership and having a hooker who plays a full 80

Were Benji or Cooper required to make 45-50 tackles a match? Did Smith ever have a reconstruction let alone 2?

 

[Camel2281]

This whole idea of his too old is bs also look at
Benji
Cam smith
Cooper cronk
Even lote in his final years were all good capable players yes he's 33 big deal people wanted benji to come back to us and play this season but Hodgson no no no we're okay when our main problem is leadership and having a hooker who plays a full 80

Were Benji or Cooper required to make 45-50 tackles a match? Did Smith ever have a reconstruction let alone 2?

Liddle has had more major operations and he's not as good a player. The decision is easy. Sign Hodgson

 

[Geo]

I'd back Lids in the Octagon ..

 

[Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan]

Neither is trust worthy enough to drop the other. If you have the option, you take both. Otherwise, one goes down, you’re left with Simpkin. If you keep them both and one goes down, you still have the other. And if all 3 are fit, Hodgson at lock could be an option. If we signed Hodgson though and he goes down again, it would be Matt Ballin all over again. Some will say Liddle is injury prone too, but at least he’s ours, we’ve developed him. Different to going out and signing a guy in his 30’s with 2 recent ACL’s.

Do I hear Ballin, McQueen, Reynolds, Packer, Matulino?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Neither is trust worthy enough to drop the other. If you have the option, you take both. Otherwise, one goes down, you’re left with Simpkin. If you keep them both and one goes down, you still have the other. And if all 3 are fit, Hodgson at lock could be an option. If we signed Hodgson though and he goes down again, it would be Matt Ballin all over again. Some will say Liddle is injury prone too, but at least he’s ours, we’ve developed him. Different to going out and signing a guy in his 30’s with 2 recent ACL’s.

Do I hear Ballin, McQueen, Reynolds, Packer, Matulino?

Throw all them in too. He’s the exact kind of signing that has failed 50 times over.

 

[Ultimate Warrior]

Neither is trust worthy enough to drop the other. If you have the option, you take both. Otherwise, one goes down, you’re left with Simpkin. If you keep them both and one goes down, you still have the other. And if all 3 are fit, Hodgson at lock could be an option. If we signed Hodgson though and he goes down again, it would be Matt Ballin all over again. Some will say Liddle is injury prone too, but at least he’s ours, we’ve developed him. Different to going out and signing a guy in his 30’s with 2 recent ACL’s.

Do I hear Ballin, McQueen, Reynolds, Packer, Matulino?

Throw all them in too. He’s the exact kind of signing that has failed 50 times over.

Hodgson to lock, Liddle to start at hooker, Simpkin on the bench. Hastings to halfback. BROOKS TO NEWCASTLE

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Neither is trust worthy enough to drop the other. If you have the option, you take both. Otherwise, one goes down, you’re left with Simpkin. If you keep them both and one goes down, you still have the other. And if all 3 are fit, Hodgson at lock could be an option. If we signed Hodgson though and he goes down again, it would be Matt Ballin all over again. Some will say Liddle is injury prone too, but at least he’s ours, we’ve developed him. Different to going out and signing a guy in his 30’s with 2 recent ACL’s.

Do I hear Ballin, McQueen, Reynolds, Packer, Matulino?

Throw all them in too. He’s the exact kind of signing that has failed 50 times over.

Hodgson to lock, Liddle to start at hooker, Simpkin on the bench. Hastings to halfback. BROOKS TO NEWCASTLE

Need a better replacement if Brooks leaves. Preferably an NRL standard replacement