Never seen Kearney play so I can't comment on him.
Phelps, on the other hand, has only been playing fullback since returning from injury and has improved vastly in those games. He has pace, can pass, good support play and gives 100% commitment in every game.
He will continue to improve with coaching from Kris Rads next year and as such is a very good signing.
So I very happy with the fullback we have at the moment.

According to IL we will only use quota spots for class overseas players. Do any of our recent overseas signings made under IL fall into this category including Phelps? Not in my opinion though Carmont comes close.

I don't know much about Kearney either but if Jonh is right it seems he would fit the bill of the type of player IL wants to fill the quota spots compared to Phelps.

Dave

The trouble is the grass is always greener on the other side until you get there.
How many big name overseas signings have we made over the last five or so years only to find out that the players who made way for them (usually young british) were just as good if not better.
This in my opinion is the case with Phelps although an overseas player. Good player, young and improving. Big mistake to let him go in favour of another gamble.

The problem is we have not signed any big name overseas players in the last five or so years except one, Barrett, who really was class.



That depends if you consider signing really class players as a gamble.

Phelps contract was up so if Jonh is correct and Kearney is a class act not yet another average NRL player, then being afraid to replace an out of contract player with one regarded as class means we will never sign another overseas player again. Or any class player for that matter because we will be afraid if they move here they won't live up to their reputation.

It's all about whether or not someone like Kearney falls into the average to good category which all our current overseas players do IMO or if they really are the class act Jonh seems to think Kearney is.

If they are just average NRL pros then I would agree. Why bother? In fact it is a pity that rule wasn't applied to several players already.

If they are class though, then that is different.

Dave

it goes back to our limitations currently imposed on us re would i imagine already have taken a bit of a chunk out of the wages of Hock, Smith and possibly Bailey. To get Kearney in to replace Phelps would perhaps mean having to double the wage spent on our fullback, therefore reducing the amount we can spend on a prop which is where every man and his dog can see we need strengthening.

Phelps, purely from the playing side of things, deserved a new contract. He has been fantastic since getting a run at fullback and therefore from that perspective alone deserved an extension. Because he is quota however, people look at him as if he should be a world beater [which i can see him growing into personally]. However if releasing Phelps from his contract meant we could only get a good prop rather than a world class one who would then be tied to the club for 3 years when an even bigger chunk of wages is coming off next year surely it would be beneficial in the long run just to stick with the players we've got now, then in 2011 be able to spend the big bucks on a couple of world class overseas players.

Kearney would not be an improvement over Phelps.

I've no problem in keeping Phelps unless it is ahead of signing a prop, which I doubt.

The limitations we have now on signing the prop are completely self imposed and largely to do with the steady re-signing of virtually all our out of contract players.

The argument used to be (and even IL said it) that by 2010 we would be in a position to recruit players as a number of contracts were up.

Instead of doing that we have chosen to renew those contracts. All the contracts that have been renewed including Phelps are for players who are IMO average to good players.



He is OK. I wouldn't call him fantastic. That isn't the point however. If for example his wage plus say Bailey's could get us that prop we need then given who we have on the books who could play full back he should have gone because we would be better as a team with the class prop we need and say Roberts at FB than Phelps at FB and the same pack we have now IMO.

When you start using words like "deserve" then tough decisions like that don't need to be confronted because you are giving players contracts for effort rather than ability and not considering the wider needs if the team.

Most players deserve a new deal for their efforts it's just that sometimes better players or players in other positions are needed so they have to leave. If you look at the individuals before you know where you are you have set yourself up with the same team as you had before as each one is a deserving case in some way or other and that looks like where we are headed.



IL seems to think that is what our quota players should be so its a bit of mystery why none of them are.



As I have been saying we need a class prop so no I would not want just a good one but what I am saying is that because we have re-signed nearly all our out of contract players we have not got the money to get one. Letting Phepls go alone would not see enough wages freed up to get a class prop obviously. But if we added his wages to those of Bailey and some of Hocks surely we could go after such a player?

It is not just about Phelps but about all of the players who have had contracts renewed and whether or not one or more could have been let go to free up the cash to improve the side. I think with both Bailey and Phelps we have other players contracted for 2010 who would be good enough to replace them leaving their wages for recruitment.

Dave