Doubt he'll be accepting of some of Currie's 'tackles' or Ratchford's chin to the floor when the going gets tough.

Drinky isn’t likely to do that, like most of our other backs, if we haven’t made enough territory to get him in the area to attack the line.
And if we do manage to get into an area of threat, it’s almost always Williams that gets the pass to create something.

It's a shame we couldn't tempt Gleeson away from Seattle. It's not like coaches come under the salary cap either.

Some massive money in the Union World & Sam Burgess will not be cheap.

It wasn't a matter of money. The Ra Ra Boys have told him he'll struggle to get another coaching job in Union if he doesn't fulfill his contract at Seattle.

Ah, shame. Or maybe we could compensate them if we deem him that good.

We are P5 W2 since Chambers took over. Don't get the love in with Gleeson?

I think it is because we look like we have an attack now, even if we do keep dropping the ball at crucial points. Moving Dufty to the inside channel has also been a good move.

Yes moving Dufty into the middle has proven a good move.

Yep. Without seeing what is happening at sessions we are guessing how useful he is.

Objective evidence over ill informed speculation, how very dare you?

The attack v Salford was shambolic. It wasn't much better v Leeds. I didn't see the Hull game so can't comment on that one. We looked good v cas, but then it was against a poor team down to one interchange on a boiling hot day.