Re: Matt Parcell : Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:56 am  

tad rhino wrote:

average half, average three quarters and a plodder pack.reminds me of us

correct, like i said, i think us and Saints are about the same level on paper

Think our backs are above average though, but with our playing style and lack of structure they don't get chance to max their potential and they therefore fall under the average category, but it's hardly been a recent phenomenon has it?

Re: Matt Parcell : Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:58 am  

PrinterThe wrote:

It's been said often this year that we'd be nowhere if Parcell and/or Cuthbertson got injured. I think looking at Saints you could've said the same thing for 3 years now with Roby and Walmsley.

fully agree with you. Take them 2 out of Saints pack you have LMS, Wilkin, Amor, Thompson etc... average is being kind.

Re: Matt Parcell : Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:03 am  

Biff Tannen wrote:

fully agree with you. Take them 2 out of Saints pack you have LMS, Wilkin, Amor, Thompson etc... average is being kind.

Amor's an interesting one because just the other week on the Saints board they were criticising him saying that whilst he was good in his first year he hasn't done much since really and are very low on him at the moment.

Re: Matt Parcell : Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:10 am  

PrinterThe wrote:

Amor's an interesting one because just the other week on the Saints board they were criticising him saying that whilst he was good in his first year he hasn't done much since really and are very low on him at the moment.

Hard to disagree there though. I thought WTF did we let him go after the first year there, but he has been a plodder since and not kicked on really.

Re: Matt Parcell : Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:24 pm  

Biff Tannen wrote:

Hard to disagree there though. I thought WTF did we let him go after the first year there, but he has been a plodder since and not kicked on really.

Absolutely, a mate of mine said we should get him back, why ? he would not make one iota of difference to our forward ' strength

Re: Matt Parcell : Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:04 pm  

marathonman wrote:

Absolutely, a mate of mine said we should get him back, why ? he would not make one iota of difference to our forward ' strength

He is a decent squad filler at best but not someone you would go out of your way to sign imo.

As it stands not one we will look back on and think 'one that got away'

Re: Matt Parcell : Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:12 pm  

Amor back to Wakey is what i have heard.
Not from a too reliable source though.

Re: Matt Parcell : Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:26 pm  

Did Frosties tell you that?

Re: Matt Parcell : Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:32 pm  

Not this time lol