Author Topic: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield  (Read 8484 times)

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #105 on: December 31, 2013, 01:30:00 PM »
has this dud been delisted yet?

if not why not?
He is on his last chance.....

I heard he's just signed an extension.   :whistle

the claw

  • Guest
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #106 on: January 02, 2014, 12:20:08 AM »
so wp how does banfield rate over the journey.  poorly is the fact.  i would not have thought it was debateable. its right there for all to see.

I wasn't talking about Banfield. Never mentioned him. You don't agree worth his selection and I have no problem with that

But....l

 You made a sweeping statement  saying the club "continues to take players on hope rather than properly assessing them"

I was simply replying to that saying that you were stating it as some sort of fact when it was only your opinion based more so on them not selecting players you approved of. It's your opinion and as I said  you are entitled to

I have no problem with you or anyone questioning them but to suggest that don't have a criteria when they select players is I will repeat ridiculous. They have clearly, the fact you don't agree with it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

That was the point of my post, nothing more; nothing less
this thread is about banfield of course i was talking about banfield and his weaknesses which we have  ignored. cant kick cant find the ball and his performances over 6 yrs have in the main been poor. can they give us one real good redeeming attribute as to why they ignored these things or isit  they didnt even look at em. its not just banfield they have done this with either.
in this case it really does SEEM  they the club have no criteria and they took him on hope rather than properly assesing him

a fair few of my mates think he can play thats potential i suppose. but based on some pretty simple criteria which we obviously have ignored i dont think he should have been taken.

Offline Willy

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • All up inside ya.
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #107 on: January 02, 2014, 10:26:37 AM »
so wp how does banfield rate over the journey.  poorly is the fact.  i would not have thought it was debateable. its right there for all to see.

I wasn't talking about Banfield. Never mentioned him. You don't agree worth his selection and I have no problem with that

But....l

 You made a sweeping statement  saying the club "continues to take players on hope rather than properly assessing them"

I was simply replying to that saying that you were stating it as some sort of fact when it was only your opinion based more so on them not selecting players you approved of. It's your opinion and as I said  you are entitled to

I have no problem with you or anyone questioning them but to suggest that don't have a criteria when they select players is I will repeat ridiculous. They have clearly, the fact you don't agree with it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

That was the point of my post, nothing more; nothing less
this thread is about banfield of course i was talking about banfield and his weaknesses which we have  ignored. cant kick cant find the ball and his performances over 6 yrs have in the main been poor. can they give us one real good redeeming attribute as to why they ignored these things or isit  they didnt even look at em. its not just banfield they have done this with either.
in this case it really does SEEM  they the club have no criteria and they took him on hope rather than properly assesing him

a fair few of my mates think he can play thats potential i suppose. but based on some pretty simple criteria which we obviously have ignored i dont think he should have been taken.

He's on the rookie list, bro. Untwist ya knickers.

Offline YellowandBlackBlood

  • Long suffering….
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10688
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #108 on: January 02, 2014, 11:47:29 AM »
so wp how does banfield rate over the journey.  poorly is the fact.  i would not have thought it was debateable. its right there for all to see.

I wasn't talking about Banfield. Never mentioned him. You don't agree worth his selection and I have no problem with that

But....l

 You made a sweeping statement  saying the club "continues to take players on hope rather than properly assessing them"

I was simply replying to that saying that you were stating it as some sort of fact when it was only your opinion based more so on them not selecting players you approved of. It's your opinion and as I said  you are entitled to

I have no problem with you or anyone questioning them but to suggest that don't have a criteria when they select players is I will repeat ridiculous. They have clearly, the fact you don't agree with it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

That was the point of my post, nothing more; nothing less
this thread is about banfield of course i was talking about banfield and his weaknesses which we have  ignored. cant kick cant find the ball and his performances over 6 yrs have in the main been poor. can they give us one real good redeeming attribute as to why they ignored these things or isit  they didnt even look at em. its not just banfield they have done this with either.
in this case it really does SEEM  they the club have no criteria and they took him on hope rather than properly assesing him

a fair few of my mates think he can play thats potential i suppose. but based on some pretty simple criteria which we obviously have ignored i dont think he should have been taken.
FFS, as has been said, he is only a rookie!!!!!!!

Very little given away and he has a bit of X-factor about him with his speed.  Just give the club a break and hold off your criticisms until AFTER he has failed at least.
OER. Calling it as it is since 2004.

Offline Dice

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #109 on: January 02, 2014, 12:01:01 PM »
 Very smart move by the tiges picking up an ex premiership player from West Coast. Getting a bit long in the tooth though , turns 40 in Feb this year. Probably gonna have to use him as the sub most weeks.
 Anyhow , all the best at tigerland Drew.
Tanking has put the club where it's at - Paul Roos

the claw

  • Guest
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #110 on: January 03, 2014, 12:14:23 AM »
so wp how does banfield rate over the journey.  poorly is the fact.  i would not have thought it was debateable. its right there for all to see.

I wasn't talking about Banfield. Never mentioned him. You don't agree worth his selection and I have no problem with that

But....l

 You made a sweeping statement  saying the club "continues to take players on hope rather than properly assessing them"

I was simply replying to that saying that you were stating it as some sort of fact when it was only your opinion based more so on them not selecting players you approved of. It's your opinion and as I said  you are entitled to

I have no problem with you or anyone questioning them but to suggest that don't have a criteria when they select players is I will repeat ridiculous. They have clearly, the fact you don't agree with it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

That was the point of my post, nothing more; nothing less
this thread is about banfield of course i was talking about banfield and his weaknesses which we have  ignored. cant kick cant find the ball and his performances over 6 yrs have in the main been poor. can they give us one real good redeeming attribute as to why they ignored these things or isit  they didnt even look at em. its not just banfield they have done this with either.
in this case it really does SEEM  they the club have no criteria and they took him on hope rather than properly assesing him

a fair few of my mates think he can play thats potential i suppose. but based on some pretty simple criteria which we obviously have ignored i dont think he should have been taken.
FFS, as has been said, he is only a rookie!!!!!!!

Very little given away and he has a bit of X-factor about him with his speed.  Just give the club a break and hold off your criticisms until AFTER he has failed at least.
weather its a rookie pick a mid range nd pick,  a first rnd pick or a mature recruit. the question should be asked. why are we continuing to take players with such obvious weakneses and poor performance records.

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #111 on: January 03, 2014, 12:47:54 AM »
No

The question is at each respective  pick what other available options would strengthen the list more so - in this case ban field

More so if you want to dissect it further what small fast forward

Offline Willy

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4987
  • All up inside ya.
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #112 on: January 03, 2014, 01:04:17 AM »
so wp how does banfield rate over the journey.  poorly is the fact.  i would not have thought it was debateable. its right there for all to see.

I wasn't talking about Banfield. Never mentioned him. You don't agree worth his selection and I have no problem with that

But....l

 You made a sweeping statement  saying the club "continues to take players on hope rather than properly assessing them"

I was simply replying to that saying that you were stating it as some sort of fact when it was only your opinion based more so on them not selecting players you approved of. It's your opinion and as I said  you are entitled to

I have no problem with you or anyone questioning them but to suggest that don't have a criteria when they select players is I will repeat ridiculous. They have clearly, the fact you don't agree with it doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

That was the point of my post, nothing more; nothing less
this thread is about banfield of course i was talking about banfield and his weaknesses which we have  ignored. cant kick cant find the ball and his performances over 6 yrs have in the main been poor. can they give us one real good redeeming attribute as to why they ignored these things or isit  they didnt even look at em. its not just banfield they have done this with either.
in this case it really does SEEM  they the club have no criteria and they took him on hope rather than properly assesing him

a fair few of my mates think he can play thats potential i suppose. but based on some pretty simple criteria which we obviously have ignored i dont think he should have been taken.
FFS, as has been said, he is only a rookie!!!!!!!

Very little given away and he has a bit of X-factor about him with his speed.  Just give the club a break and hold off your criticisms until AFTER he has failed at least.
weather its a rookie pick a mid range nd pick,  a first rnd pick or a mature recruit. the question should be asked. why are we continuing to take players with such obvious weakneses and poor performance records.

Because there are no flawless players available in the rookie draft.

Offline Penelope

  • Internet nuffer and sooky jellyfish
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12777
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #113 on: January 03, 2014, 01:14:08 AM »
'course there are  ::)
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways my ways,” says the Lord.
 
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts."

Yahweh? or the great Clawski?

yaw rehto eht dellorcs ti fi daer ot reisae eb dluow tI

Online WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 38808
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Rookie pick 11 - Todd Banfield
« Reply #114 on: January 03, 2014, 06:53:54 AM »

weather its a rookie pick a mid range nd pick,  a first rnd pick or a mature recruit. the question should be asked. why are we continuing to take players with such obvious weakneses and poor performance records.

In your opinion of course  ;D
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)