SaintsFan wrote:
You misquote me fairly regularly, BL.
I've never misquoted you, anytime I have quoted you I have lifted the text directly from your posts. The fact that you try to go back on what you have written when you've backed yourself into a corner or are plainly incorrect is not misquoting. Neither is it usually out of context and it's certainly nothing to do with integrity. It's all about you being intransigent.
Like I say, the two are different.
I agree.
I think Smith's running game has improved but would have improved more had he had more game time in that two years, not to mention better teams in which to play.
He played 16 times for Crusaders, often at SH or SO and 25 for Salford, again often in either of the half back positions. He's hardly been rotting in the reserves in either year.
Moore had the advantage of Huddersfield under Brown.
He did, but we're talking about Eastmond not Moore.
What has Smith had? Crusaders where he was virtually never played and Salford where he has only recently secured a regular spot and they finished towards the bottom end of the table.
That statement is incorrect. Smith could not usurp Jace Van Dyjk at Crusaders. Yet you think he's a better bet than Eastmond, the current GB 7?
However, aside from his running game Smith is a good organiser. I'm still not convinced over Eastmond in that respect. That may develop as time passes but as things stand just now Smith is the better organiser and kicker; Eastmond the better broken field player with significantly more flash and speed. As I said, I think the two could complement each other well and provide Saints with a more rounded halfback partnership.
They could complement each other, but that doesn't show that Smith is a better bet than Eastmond, and he's certainly not in the class of Pryce. He's had near enough two years of full time SL experience being on loan, he'd not have got that at Saints.