Page 1 of 1
Should we have signed Gilly?
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:34 pm
by TonyH
With Lee Gilmour signing for the Giants next season does anyone think that maybe we should have snapped him up as a replacement for Gaz Hock? I think Gilly is one of the most underrated players in Super League, thoughts?
Re: Should we have signed Gilly?
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:49 pm
by cpwigan
He is a good player but no. We have umpteen back rowers and Gilmour has 1 year in the opinion of Saints and 2 years in the opinion of Huddersfield left. Shame he left us when he was young though.
Hock 'being suspended' may mean that Bailey is retained and he offers what Gilmour offers IMO.
Re: Should we have signed Gilly?
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:37 am
by ultimate warrior
Not to sure if at this time in his career we should have re-signed him. There is no doubt that he is still a very good player, and could have filled the gap left by hock for 2 years, maybe until Hock returns? But I think we should use this oportunity to progress one our own youngster, Mossop maybe.
For me the big question is should we have ever let him go?
Re: Should we have signed Gilly?
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:13 am
by cpwigan
UW, it was his choice to leave sadly. IIRC the irony is that he was not happy at the time playing in the back row and wanted to play centre.
Re: Should we have signed Gilly?
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:58 pm
by old hooker
Gilmour has also struggled of late with injuries,he has had a long career and is slightly past his best. Not really suitable for us.
Re: Should we have signed Gilly?
Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:17 pm
by ian b
surely we want to keep pushing the young ones through and as cp says we have plenty of second rowers so no