Quote: eccleshillbull "Shame Jacks wasnt kept, he could have been a useful squad player. Wouldnt have cost the earth, and can fill in the halves or at 9.
Definitely shouldnt have gotten the 7 shirt, but like someone else said; we could get a new 7 for the 8s and he do his ACL in the first game. Then what?
In the interim, Jacks would have been a better shout at 7 than Addy or Purtell...'"
Benefit of hindsight. When he was here, everyone was saying to not make sure he's the next Siejka/Herbert. Signing him because we're desperate for a 7, only for him to turn out to be a bit rubbish and we've wasted our money. I'm sure the decision at the time was based on that and thinking he isn't good enough, let him go and aim for other targets. The fact those targets haven't paid off maybe means Jacks would have improved the squad slightly, but at the time they had to make a decision.
I'm as frustrated as the next person at the lack of scrum half, but I also don't want to see the club completely waste money on someone who's nowhere near good enough as they did with Siejka. The fact Jacks can't even get in the Sheffield team suggests to me he wasn't good enough, and his saved wages may end up being the difference between a 5 out of 10 rated halfback to a 7 out of 10 rated one. If one ever becomes available.
I do think people are contradicting themselves a little though. Complaining about not signing Jacks when we were desperate for a 7. In the same post, complaining about signing Mathers as an emergency replacement for Mullaney. The Mathers signing was identical to the Siejka one IMO. We lost a player late on in the recruitment process, so quickly snapped someone else up (knowing Oscar Thomas is nowhere near the finished article) who turned out to be a bit naff. Everything about the situation tells me it would have been the same thing if we'd signed Jacks.
