Paul Kent

I'm just watching NRL 360 and Paul Kent just made a stupid comment in defence of the Raiders. He was asked are the Raiders done for the season? " no he said what would happen if Parra lost Moses or Nathan Brown". Some please tell this flog Moses is currently out and Brown has missed 4 games.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Losing players for an extended period and losing them for the season are two different things. I haven't seen it yet, but purely going off your comments I would say if we lost Moses and Brown for the season we would probably be in the same boat as the Raiders right now.

    So far I'm really happy with how we've been able to cover our injuries (& suspensions) this year, it's the benefit we have of fielding a well-balanced team across the park.

    Look at what's happening with Moanly and having all your eggs in one basket. They have the majority of their cap in 4 players and their premiership chances took a serious dive when Turbo's hamstring snapped.

    This season was always going to come down to depth and a bit of luck. Fingers crossed we get a little of both.

    • I don't think we could win the comp with out Moses but we have plenty of cover for brown. 

  • Can't watch Paul Kent. He is just an angry man who brings drama. Always defensive like he is ready to fight. Never positive. 

    • That is comment of the year. I totally agree 

    • Agree totally

    • Yep. I stopped watching him ages ago. 

    • You have nailed it, it's his "thing".

  • But the Raiders are going like busteds anyway. They’re gone because they’re playing shithouse, the injuries just nailed it down

  • I was watching the other night and Kent was being belligerent about something, about refs I think, and the other three panelists counter-argued and Ikin intervened to say "[Kent] you've lost this one". The look on Kent's face was priceless. His whole technique is to just increasingly raise his voice and get more and more shrill and belligerent. The Schtick only works because Ikin moves the conversation on without letting the "no Kent" argument get air time. Kent just finds something to whine about. That's his sad life. 

    • It's not his life it's his Shtick and it probably earns him a conservative 600k a year at least. He is probably a totally different bloke off camera. His entire job is to drum up stories and drama, when you understand that you are less infuriated by the bloke. I put on a totally different persona at work compared with when I'm at home or up at the pub with mates - it's no different. 

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Michael W. replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Your Thoughts on the Future of the Site?
"It's a footy forum, and that should be it. We've lost quite a few good posters the last few years, I don't know whether it's because of politics, religion, racism, language or we have lost them because of the lack of success the club has had for…"
3 minutes ago
Perpetual Motion replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Your Thoughts on the Future of the Site?
"I read a few eels forums and there is always lots of infighting. Seperating the politics is a good idea as it is toxic and devisive. I actually think think the quality of this site has improved somewhat in the last year or so. "
1 hour ago
GOLDEEL replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Your Thoughts on the Future of the Site?
"I'm not sure when this site started but I've been on here from the early days and while I don't comment or post much I always check in to read everyone's opinions if they are good or bad. In all my time I've been here HOE I can say I enjoyed reading…"
1 hour ago
Bob Smith replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Your Thoughts on the Future of the Site?
"Politics on here is pointless, for reasons i'm not even going to explain. That's all I'll say on this matter."
1 hour ago
More…