: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:56 am  

beefy1 wrote:

Langley is a prop, I've said this before and got ridiculed. His defence is good until he tires. He would be better used in spells. I would love to see us sign a proper loose forward for next year, but I can't see it happening.

Maybe move Burgess to loose for the Leeds game? Looks like Morrison will not be playing anyway..

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:04 am  

beefy1 wrote:

Langley is a prop, I've said this before and got ridiculed. His defence is good until he tires. He would be better used in spells. I would love to see us sign a proper loose forward for next year, but I can't see it happening.

I've also been saying Langley would be far better as a prop for about 3 years now. However he needs to play like he did against Wakefield, even if he's playing in the front row. If he plays like he has other games, he's not much use anywhere, as he doesn't make any yards.

Normally his defence is something you just can't criticise, but yesterday's game was different. Then again, there were a number of players whose defence was poor, Rinaldi was right at the top of that list for me.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:28 pm  

Jamie Langley is not a prop forward by any means whatesoever.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:30 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

Jamie Langley is not a prop forward by any means whatesoever.

What is he then? He's not a loose-forward.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:40 pm  

beefy1 wrote:

What is he then? He's not a loose-forward.

He's a back row forward. Either loose or second row.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:42 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

He's a back row forward. Either loose or second row.

except he doesnt have ball handling skills to play loose. loose forward needs to be capable of oofloading and creating things - langley very rarely does either.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:55 pm  

mat wrote:

except he doesnt have ball handling skills to play loose. loose forward needs to be capable of oofloading and creating things - langley very rarely does either.

Well he used to be good at those.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:03 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Well he used to be good at those.

He did when he was in the academy yeah. In fact I seem to remember commenting on an academy game and saying he wouldn't make too bad a stand off.

In recent years though he has the same chance of playing 6 as Joe Vagana did.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:03 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Well he used to be good at those.

thats the operative word there. couple of years back he looked like being our long term solution at loose, but for whatever reason he seems to have stalled in his development and even gone slightly backwards.

: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:16 pm  

mat wrote:

thats the operative word there. couple of years back he looked like being our long term solution at loose, but for whatever reason he seems to have stalled in his development and even gone slightly backwards.

Personally I don't think it has anything at all to do with the coaching he is getting.