I agree with that point!!

Would have rather retained Amour rather than sign griffin. He wasn't bad last year but was just a bit invisable

leeds owl-Yea i saw that mate i just thought you'd seen a different interview where Griffin was specifically mentioned.

I thought Griffin was a good addition to the pack when we initially signed him but its not quite worked out. Griffin never showed quite enough to solidify a good amount of gametime even though being in the 17 more often than not. He certainly never got himself in front of Kirke in McDermotts plans as last season progressed. He could be a good signing for the Reds but just didnt show enough here.

For me not given enough minutes to really establish himself on the field but 'if' he's a disruptive influence off it - then admit your mistake, cut your losses, ship him out and move on.

Darrel Griffin is bobbins and your well shut of him

Having played rugby in Macclesfield I can translate... "bobbins = rubbish".

Cross...Wellar...Griff....
Not a great recent run of forward signings. We've cut our losses sooner rather than later at least. But begs the question - why sign them in the first place?

cheap, cheap, and err looked decent at Hudds I would suggest

was very decent then had a big fall out with the club

Can't be that cheap as Leeds spend the full cap or at least they do according to the CEO.

Perhaps he's now fully adjusted the books to reflect the considerable % of the cap spend he needs to keep in his back pocket to facilitate the early removal of his ever growing list of 'experimental' signings?

__________

Griffin knocked an opponent on his back-side with his first hit-up yesterday. Some Leeds 'props' won't match that if they play all season.

Just shows you what difference effort can make.

But was very easily stepped past in defence soon after.

Lost his hips on that one. Surprised he was able to carry on.

Normality restored.

Whilst we are on the topic of crud props, I noticed last week that Cross was complaining about being banned for a game for his needless high tackle on Wellens. Even though he used his early plea on it which confirms guilt He said he intended to do an aggressive tackle. Well he did. Shame it was techncially awful and illegal.

Classic Cross.

The Cross one on Wellens looked aggresive but I would have liked to see another angle of it to be sure of the initial point of contact, whether Wellens was dipping/falling ...... usual contributory factors if any exist.

Getting sent off just for tackling with venom is not what I want to see.