see, I just don't understand you lot. Lets play the kids in the easy games, where they can have an easy ride, but lets play the guys who you've just dropped from the first team for a month in the CC semi against Wigan, who beat them only a couple of games ago.

Singleton, Smith etc. would be getting game time if a) there were opportunities, and b) they were better than players we already have. Neither of those things are true.

You keep saying Griffin is bad-you did see him play on Friday, right? Making 10m carriers, tackle busts, making his tackles, doing the job of a prop very well? Similarly Bailey? Yet these guys are 'not good enough' and must be 'rotated out' (i.e. dropped) for youngsters who've not done more than 20 minutes on an open age rugby field.

Yes, we need to remove some players. I'd happily see the back of Peacock, Moore & Hauraki at the end of this year, and Leuluai at the end of next year. But throwing in kids and then dropping them willy nilly isn't good for their development, or good for the continuity & settling of the side. Players need confidence in their own position to play well. You don't create that by dropping them for a kid, for a much easier game.

How is it giving kids an easy ride if you play them against lesser opponents??
If they are introduced carefully and against the kind of oposition we've had over the last month they can gain valuable experience and confidence of playing SL whilst also giving our much older players with more miles in their legs a rest how can you not see the sense in that?
Rotation doesn't always mean dropped especially when yer 34/35 and have put the stints in our props have.
Also IF some had been dropped it would have been deserved anyway prior the Wakey game.
What did we learn about JP and Kylie against Wakey ,Cas and London?
With your logic then we continue to flog them for 60 minutes a game because that will build their confidence!!
We are talking about seasoned pros in the twighlight of their careers.
Throwing in the younger lads for a couple of games gives them more gametime under their belt ,a chance to gauge exactly where they are and the confidence to know they can handle it or not.
Also get over Griffin he had a good game and imo is a good addition who i think we should keep but is he good enough to be JP's replacement?
No he isn't not in my opinion that doesn't mean i think he's a bad player he's just not a cornerstone of a pack.
Also then Stevie Ward shouldn't play against Wigan then because we have kirke and hauraki for the back row they are both more experienced and he's just a kid who's getting smashed about right?

I can understand what you're saying but with

Peacock, Leuluai, Bailey, Kirke, Griffin, Moore, Hauraki, Clarkson, JJB, Delaney, Ward (Not forgetting Ablett) chasing 8 /9 spots depending on if we have 3 /4 forwards on the bench it's difficult to rotate 3 or 4 juniors as well. The simple solution is to cut back on the senior players allowing the juniors to be the rotation / injury cover players, this is something that Wigan and Saints seem to be so much better at, at the moment.

I have named 11 players there excluding Ablett and Sinfield who can also rotate in when not fulfilling a role in the backs.

The balance of our squad is wrong. We have too many distinctly average forwards, and leave us short in the backs when injuries hit. If we had less average forwards we would then use the less experienced youngsters as part of rotation or covering injuries.

For me when you look at props, some of the best props over the last 15 years have started the game at a young age, and become regulars whilst young. The key is, if not given the shot then you never know.

I don't know what Bradford offered Scruton and I don't know what we offered him, he wanted more starts and he wanted more game time as well as an improved contact. Do you know how much it would have cost us to keep him? I doubt he was asking for Buderus money and in the meantime since he left we have handed out contracts to the likes of Cross, Griffin and Moore - all inferior players IMO. Yes we did alright after Scruton left, but I don't think we really saved any money - again my opinion.
As for Burgess, I know his limitations in his playing style, but he was young for a prop and if he can do a job at Souths he could surely have done a job at Leeds. I'm not surprised he wanted to go to Australia. When Peacock got injured it would have been an obvious opportunity to have Burgess step up but not only did we sign Cross, but he couldn't buy a game, even when Cross wasn't being picked either and we were hardly tearing it up. any doubts he might have had about making a move to Oz would have been removed. I believe if he had been managed and coached correctly he would have been a huge assett to the club over the next few years.

These are my opinions - they may be right they may be wrong but I do think that if we had Burgess and Scruton at the club they would be better value than the signings of Griffin, Moore and Cross (obviously) and a better option than Kirke.

But this was a small part of what I posted and not my main point which is that we are not producing first team forwards from our youth system that make it to the first team.

Wasn't Scrutons problem JP? There was only going to be one winner.

As for Biff, after around 4 seasons in the side or so, he still couldn't cement a regular spot and his improvement didn't really happen. He was sloppy in defence, hugley slow and had bigger concrete feet than Griff. He also tried to emulate Bails with the big, nice looking, flying out shoulder charge. His success rate was probably around 20%. With the other 80% covering him landing on his own booty.

Burgess is solid in hitups and front-on defence, but still painfully slow when the Souths defence gets moved around. He and Sam also have dreadful ball control at times.

I made the point DHM was making about lack of production of forwards a while ago. With all due respect to Clarkson, and even if he gets his mojo back, he's hardly a star player, and the absolute minimum standard you'd expect our Academy to produce every 5 years or so. I thought Bluey effectively made the same point by looking to the likes of Ambler and Amor ahead of any young props we had on the books.

The backs look better with BJB, Hall and Watkins - all of whom debuted by 2008 - but even there I'd argue we've cruised on the back of a production line that almost dried up post Mathers, Calderwood, Walker, Burrow and McGuire.

I've left Ward out because I'm not sure where he'll end up playing. Touch wood he fulfills his undoubted potential.

I don't understand this big "let's get at Clarkson" thing that is happening this year. There was times a couple of months back when I was questioning Clarkson's development myself, but then I gave myself a kick. The lad is been played completely incorrectly by an idiot of a coach. He is not an impact sub, but then that isn't really the jist. He is just been asked to play a completely different role than what he should be used for. Over the last month since he got back in the team, he has certainly looked the pick of the backrowers IMO. And prior to McDermotts inteference he looked of potential real quality.

Personally I would be giving him the first shot in our starting backrow, before Delaney and JJB, and certainly before Hauraki. But I would hope the club would get him the perfect back row partner to really bring him on.

Delaney plays like a prop....move him there to accomodate the lad.

...meanwhile, since he's now kicking and creating tries, let's put Bailey at Stand Off, and Burrow at full back.

Hall is the best winger in the world. Let's let him play there, hmm?

We have the bones of a good young side, so let's give them a chance

1. Hardaker
2. Jones-Bishop
3. Watkins
4. Ablett
5. Hall
6. Ward
7.
8.
9. McShane
10.
11. Delaney
12.
13. Clarkson

when you look at that, we then still have McGuire, Burrow, Bailey, Kirke & Jones-Buchanan all at 30 or under. We're not exactly short of young talent, and we do have players like Keinhorst, Olds, Smith, Singleton, Chisholm, Amor etc. who are probably ready to make the step up.

What we need to do is give them opportunities, when there's no massive cost to doing so, make some quality signings on players leaving (we should be getting Webb, Hauraki, Smith & Peacock, and maybe Moore, off the cap at the end of the season) and bring through the talent from the academy. Personally, I think we're moving in the right direction.

Can we please just forget about Kyle Amor - he is crap!

Webb - off contract

Hauraki - contracted until end of 2013
Smith - possibly off contract (although I had him down as 2013)
Peacock - contracted until end of 2014
Moore - contracted until end of 2014

Even if you could persuade players to leave their existing Headingley deals they would almost certainly be entitled to settlements that would need to figure somewhere on the cap?

Hauraki should never have been signed for 3 years. At best he was a punt and his contract could have been extended during last year if there were signs he was going to shine.

I presume Leeds presented Hauraki with the best deal - possibly in competition with others. Had they gone in offering only a twelve month contract (or even a two year deal) I suspect he'd still be lining up (and generally looking impressive) in some other team.

I backed the signing on the evidence of his performances at the Crusaders and doubt he consumes a great deal of cap space - certainly I'd expect it to be much less than the player he was supposed to eventually replace.