Reflects my views. Rankin has talent and attitude, lacks consistency but definitely worth persisting with.

I think the mistake was signing Naughton, just why? we already knew that Rankin can play FB so can cover Shaul (or even usurp him based on form), we know potentially he could play interchange 9 as well as his preferred position of 6.
IF Radford had any thoughts of keeping Rankin long term then he wouldn't have signed Pryce and/or naughton, Pryce I think is a very poor signing for us. Sneyd & Rankin I'd be fairly happy with for next season.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Naughton given a run out at 6 in the future .

Sorry but that's just a nonsense, he was one of the most consistent players last year along with Talanoa and a couple of others. Just how many of the squad performed pants from one game to the next then after a rocket got up and played? I'll tell you, 75% of them Rankin was not one of them.

We need some experience in the halves. This season proved that.

Pryce is an upgrade from Horne.

How is signing Naughton a mistake? He is not on big wages, & he is cover in the outside backs, what happens if we have injuries to our 1,6,7 & maybe a winger? We have cover with these utilitity players, Pryce is experience to train/play alongside these young members of the squad to show them what's needed at certain times of the game.

You don't know the first thing about the guy, I bet you had never even heard of him before we signed him. How can it possibly be seen as a mistake? At worst he provides cover, but there's also a possibility he will be twice as good as Shaul. Not to mention he's young, English, fairly cheap and has experience of playing in Aus.

As for Pryce. He will be here for 2 years and then retire. If Rankin is seen as the future of the club then that timing is perfect for him to serve as his understudy and then take over.

I would have also been happy with Rankin and Sneyd as if happens. But consider also that our full back is 22, our LF 24 and our back up halves both 18. It doesn't give us much experience in those creative positions.

I don't need to know anything about him aside from the positions he is supposed to be covering. We already have adequate cover in the positions he covers so his signing is a mistake/pointless.
If you think he is twice as good as Shaul then you clearly haven't got a clue about rugby league. No player is ever twice as good at this level, that just isn't possible and whilst I don't think Shaul is in top 5 of SL fullbacks he's a very decent player. If the intention was to replace Shaul then the coach would be making that clear from the outset but then you wouldn't understand either from your comment. That this amazingly talented twice as good as Shaul player has gone massively under the radar to all & sundry suggests that he just isn't.
And as for your creative comment re the halves, well I would never put Pryce in the creative dept and frankly age has got nothing to do with creativity. A player has it or they don't, the coach alllows a player to be creative or they don't (and with Radford at the helm that'll be a won't/don't) again that's something you clearly don't have any concept of...

Oh and Easthullfc fan, exactly how much is he on or are you guessing again re individuals salaries?

naughton will be on a pittance and looks like he could be a good prospect so well worth a punt IMO

Good post - I can't see any impartial supporters disagreeing.

I would say Greg inglis is twice as good as Greg eden, I would say Cameron Smith is twice as good as Paul Mcshane, I would say Curtis Naughton is on a very little salary, & are you assuming our HBs won't be creative whilst ears is in charge or do you know this for sure???

1. Do we really have adequate cover? As I see it we have one other fullback in the squad (Rankin) who will more than likely also be required to play in the halves and at 9. You want him to play 6 anyway. Naughton is a young player who won't be costing much money and could turn out to be a star. Until we get to see him play you can't possibly say that it's a mistake. If we let him go now and in 3 years he's playing for England you would be on here criticising the club and you know it.

2. I have no idea how good he is. Like yourself I have never seen him play before.

3. "Good" isn't a quantifiable unit of measurement. It's totally subjective. I could tell you that he is 5,000,000 times better and you couldn't prove me wrong, because there's nothing to measure it by. Or have I missed something and Shaul is 46 on the goodness scale and Naughton only 39?

4. By creative roles I am talking about pivots. 1, 6, 7 and in our case 13. We have no real experience in any of those areas if you take Pryce out of the equation.

5. What is your definition of creative? Pryce might not be your old fashioned 5' 6 cheeky half back and he might run the ball better than he kicks it. But ever since he was moved to the halves he has more than held his own in all the stats you would typically gauge creativity by.

But no you're right. I'm the one who doesn't know anything about rugby.

He was in the top three for try assists in Super League until Laurent Frayssinous decided to not select players who weren't staying. In 2013 he made the top ten in the league for try assists (and was top for Catalans, twice as many as their next highest, Bosc).

Try assists does not automatically equal being creative..Richard horne was top of our try assists and yet none on here would say he was creative so stop talking b0llocks.