Re: No Briggs : Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:34 pm
slideby wrote:
i must have missed the games where briggs became a dead cert and i think potter is doing is job in protecting him defensively. If briggs plays and has another defensive shocker he would have to be dropped again and this would be even more damaging to his confidence.
I believe that briggs is a long term option, but he has missed the MOST important aspect for any young, slight player making the step up- PRE SEASON. if we come out of this year with briggs bigger and knowing the plays with some game experience, it sets us up well with a young half back who could have a bright future. If we throw him to the wolves, we could jeopordise this future.
One final note, im pretty sure lomax and gaskill were drip fed initially until they proved they had the all round game to handle the step up and this was as a result of injuries.
I believe that briggs is a long term option, but he has missed the MOST important aspect for any young, slight player making the step up- PRE SEASON. if we come out of this year with briggs bigger and knowing the plays with some game experience, it sets us up well with a young half back who could have a bright future. If we throw him to the wolves, we could jeopordise this future.
One final note, im pretty sure lomax and gaskill were drip fed initially until they proved they had the all round game to handle the step up and this was as a result of injuries.
theres a lot of sense in that post. I'd prefer to play briggs but can see why potter might opt for herbert for this game. lets not forget herbert's only had one game with jeffries. its a bit harsh to dismiss partnership on back of one game. think we'll see both herbert and briggs used in remainder of season depending on strengths of the opposition.