Whilst I don't agree fully with G1 on DB. I think he is a very good player and offers something to the team. Although I do agree that we won't ever see the best of hood and mcshane with buderus blocking there development, and not concerned by his departure, quite happy for them to get there chance

Maybe McDermott's going - I'm a positive tool.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was Disko who reneged on his contract. Now he's injured and his business interests are of far greater importance to him than playing for the Bulls.

Leeds let Disko go at the right time & his season has proved GH correct

the future bright the future at 9 is Mcshane and hood

cannot help wondering where NE is?

I wonder who G1 will have the knives out for next season ?

Kirke might need to have very very broad shoulders and an extremely tough carapice



Good news both hookers signed ...

Burrow will never make a first choice starter in the role....but interchange dummy half from the bench is still his most effective position.

I anounced this weeks ago and that Buderus had been granted his release but dont think anybody believed me

The contracts start in november so theyre contracted till 2016

Personally I rate buderus and have to say he has definately had an imput into Hoods developemnt to the point that I think you can see in Hoods game they play in very similar way I dont think hes had as much influence on Mcshane though he was older when DB came to the club and had already had a couple of years with the first team as he was signed when DB arrived

Buderus helped with McShane and Hood's development? There's no place for such talk on here

Its the truth to a certain extent with both but more so Hood I watch the 18s and the 20s alot and have seen them play some exceptional rugby over the last couple of years and cant wait for them to make their mark in superleague

Obviously they have both played the game along time before DB was signed and were both recognised as having lots of potential years ago but to deny that DB has had some influence in their developement is in my mind



Got to agree with Big Jake yougot it spot on



The future is really bright we got some real talent in the young uns and could even repeat past glories I theyre all developed properly

Totally agree. Looking at your joined date I suspect you've not been on these boards long enough to realise my post was a little tongue in cheek, and a reference to a long running debate some tine back.

No i got the tongue in cheek i just wrote it to say my opinion really on what had been said by G1 and co really I dont get that some people would deny that he has had an influence when to me its obvious that he has and yeah quite a newbie on here not had owt to do with computers till recently so bit of a novice

It sounds from the press release that Buderus has been working specifically with McShane and Hood. That's great if true. I think what some people (myself included) refer to when dismissing the benefits of Aussies hanging around is that I suspect most players are far too self-absorbed to spend any time helping to develop juniors around them. In those cases, its ridiculous to think that juniors get much benefit from watching a player train or on the field.

Just to be mischevious, it may not be entirely altruistic on Buderus' part - doing work with Hood/McShane may also have been part of the deal to release him a year early from his contract.

In any event I have no problem with signing these two and giving them the hooking role between them for next year and beyond. Definitely signs that GH is going back to what's worked well in the past - i.e. developing and trusting youth.

When we signed Buderus the club realised they needed a long term strategy, and Hood was specifically scouted and signed to work with Buderus as a future hooking star.

This is fact, so good to see you can see yourself the input Buderus has had on his game.

I posted this two years ago and again last year, in reference to the comedy poster on here, who still insists that Buderus has made no contribution to this club.

Altruism? Sounds interesting, but what's in it for me?

Another possible motive is that Buderus has spoken about his ambition to get into coaching after he stops playing. If I am planning a career shift I tend to find a bit of relevant experience helpful.

On the Buderus subject, I fall a little between the two camps. As far as I can see, the sun has manifestly failed to shine out of his , however he's still a very good player. Whatever you think of him being signed (and I supported that decision, much as I like Matt Diskin) I haven't seen anything to suggest he's given less than his all whenever he has played. Nor do I have reason to suppose he has shown any less commitment in training.

In short, I don't find him deserving of the extreme adulation from some, or the ire from others. As with most things in life, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

No it isn't. It's your opinion. Nobody on here has any idea whether Buderus has done any coaching during his stint with the club and nobody has the first clue what influence, if any, he's had over our younger players.

You can make observations and summations all you wish but purlease don't dress it up as fact.

END OF etc.

No Gareth, it is fact. Hood was identified specifically for long term and Buderus was signed to work with him. Buderus signing was actually made before Hood., became official.

This is also made out in the statements put out by the club yesterday, where particular mention is made of Buderus involvement with Hood, not necessarily McShane.

Get over your agendas and take off the diskin tinted glasses, and take in what is reality.

The only way to know for sure would be to ask hood himself.

Straight from the horses mouth.

Funny you should mention glasses because it appears you can't read.

[urlhttp://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/17595.php[/url


Hood talks about being able to get into the 1st team next year. Something that will be more likely if Buderus isn't here I might add. He talks about working with McShane, Lowes and Buderus. He specifically mentions Lowes coming to the under20s games, not Buderus.


These are McShane's quotes.

So, please point out any single sentence in that article that supports your alleged fact that Buderus was brought here specifically to coach or mentor Hood.

As usual, you have read something, misunderstood it and added your own interpretation then dressed it up as fact.

Will Buderus have had an influence? Possibly. Will ha make any difference to the career paths of McShane and Hood long term (other than blocking their 1st team opportunities short term), not a chance. He'll be long gone by the time Hood is playing 1st team and the only thing that is clear from that article is that the major influence on both players has been a hooker who actually is on the coaching staff.

Gareth, you can do all the spinning, the girly dancing, and fog knitting all you want.

But it doesn't go away from the fact that you are wrong.

So, please point out any single sentence in that article that supports your alleged fact that Buderus was brought here specifically to coach or mentor Hood.

Just walk away and let it go Gareth. You can't just accept your wrong can you.

Oh, and I never said Buderus was brought here specifically to coach or mentor Hood. I said Buderus (been one of the top 2 around) and available, as part of his excellent capture, was brought here to mentor the identified long term star that would replace him. Hood was the one identified as that player.

Hence Buderus mentoring and coaching Hood was a strategy the club came up with before Hood had even signed.

Now you're getting carried away. You can't possibly evidence the claim that Buderus' influence won't have any long term impact on the young players, any more than Gotcha can evidence that it will. This is opinion country.

I'm often fond of finding analogies with my own life, and very early in my career I got a chance to work for a very experienced and wise Project Manager, who acted, unofficially as a mentor. Obviously in the years since I've learned my own lessons and picked up my own experience, but that time working with him probably shaped the way I approached the rest of my career. Can you really be sure the same isn't true of Liam Hood or Paul McShane?

I personally doubt we made a marquee signing specifically to develop a young player. That would be a bizarre model for youth development. But that doesn't mean Hood hasn't benefitted from working with Buderus. And, of course, with Lowes.

You or I will probably never know how much benefit he's got. Even he may not, given the impossibility of knowing how he would have developed had Buderus not been here.

In the interests of not taking sides in this squabble:



If that wasn't what you meant, it most certainly is the impression you gave.

Then I suggest you read it again. Instead of taking one lines out.

I said Buderus was brought here to work with whoever they had identified as the long term successor. They got Buderus, then they identified Hood and got him.

And whilst we are at it, this one aswell.



Care to show where I said specifically that?

I have read it again. While it may not have been exactly what you meant, that remains the impression the post left me with. So I can understand Gareth's thinking that was your point.




OK.



Again, if you were not trying to assert that Buderus had clearly had an influence on Hood's development, then I apologise, but again, I doubt I would be alone in interpreting your post in that way.

Your last quote you took of me completely states what I said so don't understand why your first statement says I gave a different impression.

Anyway, again what I was dissagreeing with you on was this



I have not said that it will. I can form an opinion that it will (which I do have), but have not actually said that. I have said he was working with him, and the club strategy specifically from the start was for this to happen.

The comment you quoted was my response to another poster who said you can see the input Buderus has had on Hoods game.