Prop wasn't an issue, but neither was it a big plus for most of the season. Baldwinson probably could and should have been given a go in some games. After all its not like persevering with the squad week after week worked at all well.

When you've lost a lot of leaders and experience and are already playing a number of young inexperienced players do you want to pick yet another one in the team when you have more experienced options at prop available?

And how did that policy work out for the team...?

Perhaps a more enlightened & emboldened coach might have seen that the side needed "shaking up a bit", jolted out of their lethargy with the addition of some new blood. It begs the question, are/were the "old guard 1st 17" put under enough pressure for their places? Could we have got more effort out of Cuthbertson/Garbutt/Singleton/Galloway/Ablett if they thought they were truly in danger of losing their place in the side with poor performances?

Why bring in Mullally in the 1st place when we could have used Baldwinson. Who at the time had established himself at Fev. Was primed and ready to fill that squad player role. Opportunity missed for no real win anywhere.

Again the age difference/physical development comes into it. Mullally was 24 (now 25), Baldwinso just turned 21 and as we've seen he doesn't rush it with younger guys who play in the middle of the pitch.

It had "new blood" in the team due to the injuries and younger ones stepping in and it didn't stop the struggles so I don't know why it'd change just because of Baldwindon who hardly impressed when he played in the Middle 8's against SL opposition. In fact at times people were saying how playing in such a struggling team could be very damaging to the growth of the likes of Lilley, Golding etc. yet we're complaining because we then didn't chuck and extra one in.

In a squad player role, Baldwinson could have coped. He wouldn't be asked to play excessive game time or an excessive number of games.

Mac went with Mullally and we got exactly what expected. Not much. Pointless waste of time.

But our props stayed relatively injury free in comparison to other positions. What if Galloway does his Achilles at the start of the year and then other one gets hurt for a period of time. Then that amount of game time and games is an issue.

I see both points of view. Still plenty of time for Baldwinson but there really was no real excuse not to give him some game time mid summer when we looked shot and to have thrown the towel in at times.

Hopefully he figures in plans for this year, bringing Bailey back is only going to block his path further though. Let Bailey finish his career elswhere, he left on good terms there is no reason to go back now imo.

Biff- that's my main argument. Its nothing to do with expecting Baldwinson to have smashed everyone out of sight. Its everything to do with us mid season looking like the entire team had thrown in the towel before kick off. What harm could possibly have been done giving someone like Baldwinson 20 minutes a game at that stage?

I'm not looking at 'what if's'. I'm looking at what happened.

Mullally was pointless. We made an external appointment which was unnecessary. What we already had, in the shape of Baldwinson was good enough for that role.

What has Mullally brought to the table? Another big lad without much quality. He came with no hype and he'll leave with no hype. But the prospect of Baldwisnon excites, let's see what he can do.

Achurch milked out 4 years. These are the obvious wrongs we need to right moving forward.

In this case looking at the what ifs rather than what happened is actually really relevant because Leeds didn't sign Mullally at the end of 2016, they didn't sign him at the end of 2015.....they signed him very early in 2015 (around April iirc even before we had Galloway). They don't know yet at that point how Baldwindon will do with his full year at Fev, they don't know if our props will stay injury free the following season, so they had to make a decision there and then when he was available.

People keep going on about Baldwinson like he's the Messiah. He's a lad that's done ok at a Championship club but doesn't exactly have other SL banging down our door to take him. Why didn't Peacock go for him over Mulhern at HKR?

Mullally jury's still out, as with several others we've only seen him in a struggling team, if Leeds get going this year it will be much better to judge what he can bring, might not be much, might do better than thought.

I'd say the chances are Baldwinson will work out just like Mulally. So probably will Ormondroyd. That's just based on how few big lads actually make quality forwards. The point about last year is why the heck not give Baldwinson some game time? Its not like the alternative for him was playing U21s - he was playing against gnarled open age part-timers weekly. If anything there's more chance of getting physically hurt playing against that sort of player than supposedly full time pros.

I'm not hearing that. He was young player of the year at that level, so that exceeds the 'ok' write up you've just given him.

But he screams potential. He's our player, through our system and I'd like to know how he would step up if given the appropriate opportunity.

The external appointments of Joe Average's over our own crop in frankly boring.

You be a 'Achurch Man'. I'll be a 'Keinhorst Man'.

be nice for him to be given a chance before being written off