Why give up matterson for Carr all we need is a good centre
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"You're back. Lurking no doubt. Why the absence, bud? Feeling guilty?"
"I have owned it. Quote and link to where I've distanced or moved the blame for my comments. "
"If we had signed him, no body on here would've complained, but as we missed out, we dodged a bullet or he isn't worth $1mil yada yada."
"He went to the Dragons ffs. They've made the finals once in ten years. That means every club in the game 'had the ability to get him'. They just needed to offer the most money. If we had offered the most we would've got him for sure."
Replies
Bring back the French
We definitely need a winger to replace Russell and JAC is a top tier winger.
If we have to give up a quality forward to get him, Matterson is the logical choice.
JAC should be our priority and if we land him and still have some coin available, we can go about finding a better centre to replace Simonsson as neither him nor Harper are the answer.
If we could snare Tass to go with JAC we suddenly have a top tier backline.
Tass has a tackle efficiency of over 90% compared to Simonsson who is at just over 80%.
Tass could be playing Centre if Souths move Wighton to back-row or to Halfback. Both are bad choices but it could happen. Might make Tass hold out for it.
But issue is Souths would want a forward in return also. I think now Parramatta are happy with Simonsson and Harper, with Talagi and R.Penisini nipping at their heels.
If the club wants to settle for average players like Simonsson and Harper, that's on them.
Well there goes that idea! BRL says no, but Lodge, Jenkins, Xerri can all come back. Absolute hypocrisy from the NRL as usual.
Have to agree, the heavyweight teams would have convinced the NRL but no not Parra.
It was different when the Rorters wanted Fergo back after his crime was far worse. Or Penrith with Taylan May. It seems if you bash a male the NRL views it as far more acceptable than allegedly putting hands on a woman. Sexism at its finest. Equality is a stance the NRL choose when they want to abide by it seems.
And you don't think bashing a woman is worse than bashing a man?, didn't see you as a weak gutted dog person wiz.
In principal yes , but by black and white laws , it shouldn't be . And the NRL when making these decisions go by the law . You're setting a standard wheras a males rights to not be assaulted are worth less than a woman's .
The fact you drew from my comment the conclusion you did is the problem . It's not about me saying you should be able to assault a woman , it's about me saying you shouldn't be able to get off scott free for assaulting a male . The NRL preaches equality, however they're given a free pass when it comes to not abiding by it . As we all know , equality in reality actually means extending more rights to females than males .
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next