...and people say I'm crazy

Team must be:

Watkins
Vickery (Chisholm)
Ablett
Moon
Hall
Sinfield
McGuire
Lleulai
McShane
Peacock
JJB
Delaney
Ward

Clarkson
Burrow
Achurch
Moore

No Keinhorst? (Or Singleton, Hood). Does this mean you've been WRONG all this time?

Crazy post
I maybe mistaken but didn't Mcguire play fullback in 2003 elimination playoff semi final against Wigan when Carney scored 2 tries and Terry Newton scored a soft one from dummy half ? Not a success that night!

Anyone wanting to shift McGuire from 7 after the start he has had this season is crazy. He has been our most dangerous player and has been getting his hands on the ball about 20 times a game. You want to take that threat away by halving his opportunities?

Just because you defend at fullback, doesn't mean you can't attack at first receiver. Arguably, with McGuire defending at fullback, our line is better balanced as we'd have another forward in the middle, presumably in the shape of either Ward or McShane

Anyone remember Iestyn Harris?

McGuire would play where he wanted when we have the ball and sit at the back when we don't. He sweeps behind the line as good as anyone - defensively the major job of a FB these days is to cover 5th tackle kicks close to the line. Mags also has tremendously safe hands under the high ball.

That said, we would lose a strike runner on kick returns, but then again wingers pick a lot of those up anyway. I also think Mcguire does a huge amount of kick chase defence, he contributes a lot to our cover out wide as well (those who say he doesn't tackle or defend well are so wrong). We woiuld lose that.

It's not the daftest idea I've heard and it wouldn't bother me if he did appear at FB on the team sheet.

Watkins happy to fill full-back role if needed against Melbournehttps://audioboo.fm/boos/1223444-watkins-happy-to-fill-full-back-role-if-needed-against-melbournerl

No not for me. Should keep it as McGuire at 7 with Watkins at fullback. As i've mentioned previously, I think Watkins could be a revelation at FB in attack, my only concern is his reading and postioning for the little kicks through when the Aussies are close to Leeds' line (and it might work out that he does fine in that aspect).

I remember seeing something similar last year in the playoffs when Hudds played Grix in the halves in attack and at FB in defence, swapping with Leroy Cudjoe. Granted it's a different team and different players but it looked awkward as hell and didn't click at all.

Also regarding McShane, granted he played really good against Salford, but to start against Melbourne, completely different level. I want to see him getting a good amount of minutes on Friday but as was shown in last years WCC and in the playoff games with Lunt, bringing on the more tradtional hooker after the half hour mark worked fine with Burrow starting........against teams who were given the pre-match advantage of having a bigger set of forwards on those occasions too btw.

If we can catch them being a bit rusty by getting off to a quick start then Burrow at 9 is the ideal selection to take advantage at dummy half. Our best chances IMO lay with starting strongly (due to our better match fitness) and not letting Melbourne settle in, this should pay dividends in the last 20 mins when an undercooked Storm team have had to do too much work early doors in defence. Building up a lead like against Manly in 2012 worked, as although they got close in the 2nd half they just didn't have enough left to get a 3rd try or to keep us out twice in final few minutes.

The best chance of the above happening is sticking with the positions our key trio (Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow) have been playing for the last 18 months, and not moving the latter 2 about.

I agree with Harrigan and DHM.