A thin squad is by definition poor, not saying the players in it are poor just the make up of the team.

The whole idea of a squad is to cover for any likely eventuality. Its a risk analysis based exercise.

ie. cover the key areas and any areas that are likely to need to be covered if a player is say susceptable to injury.

Your squad doesn't have that cover, if you get your first 17 out I agree its a good team, past that and any key position and its a struggle wthout major shuffles to cover, I personally think that makes it a poor squad.

The definition of squad is "a sports team or a group of players from which a team is selected". Poor is when they're not very good. Also, Hull will not complete the season without taking on further recruits.

Not neccesarily, you could have the best 13 players in the league yet an absolutey awful 14-25, thats still a poor squad if you pick up 4 or 5 injuries. Great players can be part of a poor squad. The last bit qualifies my statement.

Do you and I really want to descend this low? Let's move on eh?

I agree while Agar can get the average out of the very best players
No one has tried to explain how we finished above rovers, with them supposedly having the best coach, and hull apparently only having two players they would take off us. back to original post.

so your fantastic squad and excellent coach should finish a good 10pts above our poor squad,is that what you're predicting

I would certainly have Briscoe and Houghton, I would also have O'Meley and Fitzgibbon as well. Whiting is a good player to have in your squad to cover a few positions, similar to Cockayne for us. I think that of the rest, we have equal to or better at the moment. I would take Morgan over Agar anyday, not because he is the greatest coach, but as a few have said on here, he gets the best out of players and has created a great team spirit at the club.

I honestly don't know if Wheeldon is any better than he was at Hull as i don't watch Hull enough to judge, but I would hazard a guess that Hodgson is, mainly because he now has a lot more SL games under his belt. Briscoe has been good for us, as he was for you, but if memory serves me you had him on the wing a lot which is a waste of a talented full back IMO. Hall is work in progress, I was one that thought he isn't good enough to get in the 17, but we will need to see if his defence improves under Morgan, Whelam was awful in his first season, but now is a solid defender.

Overall, there isn't that much between us, I think it will come down to the half backs on Sunday, the packs will cancel each out and we might just shade your backs if we get enough ball out to them.

You don't have 4 props better than moa and manu would bring a dimension to your back row which you don't currently have

I said 'equal to or better' and I don't think he is better than Vella, Clinton or Watts.

Manu is ok, but I think we are ok in that department, especially if a certain 'Tongan' gets his ar$e in gear

Agree with alot of what you said but Briscoe played the majority of his time at Hull at fullback..he only moved to the wing as cover late on in his Hull career when Motu was a better option at fullback (in my opinion)

Brisc was as good at Hull as he is at kr..

Briscoe has been good for us, as he was for you, but if memory serves me you had him on the wing a lot which is a waste of a talented full back IMO.From Rovers 49

I agree a strange decision to play him on the wing, a bit like Horney for GB.
I dont remember it been that many games though, i think it was Peter Sharpe showing his preferance for Motu.

moa is a better impact prop than the 3 you have listed

Different players, different styles.