Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

Gus did say that the leading up to Christmas should be exciting for the bulldogs fans.. so they got him?
 
Wow.

MM to then Flanno - geez talk about getting a clubs rejects whilst they beat us to the primary target.

Flanno game style isn't suited to Sheens/Benji style. He is basically a Hastings model but smaller & takes the line on alot less. He isn't an attacking minded half.

- Flanno isn't a setup/controller, he needs structure setup for him to then benefit from things.
- He isn't a runner of the ball. He isn't an organiser and is more of a link man which in Sheens mould doesn't work, Sheens wants his halves to take the line on & play what's infront of them.
- If we look at basic stats over 60+ games he is a 35% try assist & 30% Line Drop merchant per game which is less than Brooks by a gap and he touches the ball more than Brooks per game. His effectiveness rating in an attacking style isn't high.
- His upside is in defence where he has 50% less misses than Brooks despite his attempts being similar over last 3yrs.

Honestly if we are looking at Flanno it should only be as a backup low cost option which I couldn't see happening. We would be better off keeping Brooks/AD as our halves options.
 
Media loves WT
Re MM, we keep quiet for a change - it doesn't matter.
They report it because it suits their agenda (clicks) :
1. If we sign MM we have paid huge overs and they spend months on that
2. We don't sign MM and we have missed out AGAIN because no-one wants to go to the club in crisis - and they spend months on that

Its a win- win for the gutter crawlers.
 
Mighty_Tiger said:
Wow.

MM to then Flanno - geez talk about getting a clubs rejects whilst they beat us to the primary target.

Flanno game style isn't suited to Sheens/Benji style. He is basically a Hastings model but smaller & takes the line on alot less. He isn't an attacking minded half.

- Flanno isn't a setup/controller, he needs structure setup for him to then benefit from things.
- He isn't a runner of the ball. He isn't an organiser and is more of a link man which in Sheens mould doesn't work, Sheens wants his halves to take the line on & play what's infront of them.
- If we look at basic stats over 60+ games he is a 35% try assist & 30% Line Drop merchant per game which is less than Brooks by a gap and he touches the ball more than Brooks per game. His effectiveness rating in an attacking style isn't high.
- His upside is in defence where he has 50% less misses than Brooks despite his attempts being similar over last 3yrs.

Honestly if we are looking at Flanno it should only be as a backup low cost option which I couldn't see happening. We would be better off keeping Brooks/AD as our halves options.
Click to expand...
Flanagan is outright useless. If he didn't have a famous name and hadn't once jagged a ridiculous contract from a club that ought to know better he'd have been out of first grade two years ago, most probably playing for a second-tier club in England. If we sign him I will be absolutely livid - talk about making the club a laughing stock.
 
Love_the_WestsTigers said:
Not really. Just saying what are our options should we miss out on MM

Kyle does remind me of Brooks though, ability but confidence driven player.
He was looking good till the Roosters shafted him and he hasn’t been the same since.
Form is temporary only, just remember that.
Click to expand...
I agree Flanagan’s best footy is ahead of him, but we need a “take no prisoners” kind of 7 if Brooks plays 6?
I’d be thinking someone like Taaffe could work well with Brooks at 7? Then again, maybe he’s not as good at another club? He has Souths heritage, being related to Longbottom.
 
dazza65 said:
Media loves WT
Re MM, we keep quiet for a change - it doesn't matter.
They report it because it suits their agenda (clicks) :
1. If we sign MM we have paid huge overs and they spend months on that
2. We don't sign MM and we have missed out AGAIN because no-one wants to go to the club in crisis - and they spend months on that

Its a win- win for the gutter crawlers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps however - Gus has said Moses will probably stay at eels and they have not given Moses any offer. And that has been reported in the media.

And we all know he is trying to sign him. If they miss out they wont look as bad as us.

We can go round in circles - main point is yes the Tigers have done better than the Latrell situation but they are still significantly behind the better clubs at how they negotiate. Someone has talked to the media about our interest in MM rather than just do it on the sly like Gus.

I hope we sign him but if we don't we all probably have different opinions about the brand damage it does to us as a club by missing out again to the dogs.

Some people will say it doesn't matter and it's good that we were open about it - others will say it's another big name that chose another club and makes it harder for us to recruit big players.

I think it's better to do it like Gus because it doesn't upset the current roster and also it means if you miss out than the next person you target doesn't feel like second choice.

Look at the Ciraldo situation - seriously how would another coach come in knowing they were second choice - and not just second but like not even considered until someone else pulled out. Very difficult.

Anyway just my opinion.
 
tigermate said:
Yet every paper is reporting it - more so than the dogs.
Click to expand...
Who cares what the paper is reporting?

If you are a supporter who reacts to, and is embarrassed by, everything reported in the papers - you might as well give up until Tigers are a long-term finals prospect, because struggling teams are never outside of the speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 250 (members: 22, guests: 228)
Forever online: Tigergran, Geo
Back
Top