Why would Hunslet want him? Barry Eaton wouldn't want a half fit player in his ranks. Who's to say BJB is any better than what they have already? You cant say BJB is, or will be as good as he was in the past - he might be half the man he was after injury. Vickery cant get a game there either, even though Leeds have pleaded for Hunslet to have him.

There are some very good players at Hunslet who in my opinion should have been called in to the Leeds squad before the U19s (if that is allowed). Lee Maples at the moment is doing very well on the wing. I know for certain Leeds are also considering one of the Hunslet Prop forwards.

Yep, Hunslet too good for Vickery or BJB, just look at the league table.

Yeah who'd want an established Super League player playing in the lower ranks!

Why do you presume he's half fit? Leeds have took their time getting him fully recovered. They were smart to identify the issue early so I'm sure they will be going about his recovery with the same caution. Also remember his fitness is likely to be top draw. He's been doing cardio for months, it was the contact that he had to wait to be cleared for.

I expect him to get back to where he was. This wasn't an ongoing joint/pivot issue. It was more medical (clot on lung). He will need time like an spell on the sidelines but he's chomping to get back into it and his timing couldn't be better.

Far too many people are quick to hit the 'complain' button.

Lee Maples - please... Fairly quick, nothing else.... And there's a reason he's had more clubs in the amateur game than Tiger Woods! Bad Egg....

It is good news.... Hope it's all cleared up for the lad...

BJB has said that he's been breaking personal bests he'd set before this illness in training/fitness so hardly half fit.

BJB himself says he's been smashing personal bests in training, which would indicate that his cardio fitness is as good as - if not better than - what it was before the injury.

What he may need some time to get used to is timing runs, getting himself in the right positions and the other small parts of the game that come with repetition.

The Leeds medical staff have had a bit of stick on here the last couple of days for what has happened with Peacock and Delaney. Credit to them for spotting this potentially life threatening issue with BJB in the first place by monitoring how he was responding in training.

This is a genuine good news story, more so for BJB than anything else

The fact this thread has turned into a bitchfest before the end of page one is annoying mind

Good point, which proves that particular criticism was just more baseless, anti-McDermott tosh.

Are you just here to critisize other posters views and opinions or do have something to actually contribute?

__________

I don't think I personally commented on the Delaney issue.

With regards Jamie Peacock the issue wasn't with the medical opinion it was in the decision taken to defy their advice.

It's only right IMO, as appears to be the case with Jones-Bishop, that players are not selected until they have been cleared by the medical experts to do so.

If you disagree then why not join the debate and explain why?

Good to see him back, never nice to see anyboday suffer with something like that

LOL - good point, but 2 players dont make a team. If Sinfield and Burrow were playing for Hunslet would Hunslet be in any better position of where they are now in the league.....Who knows.



I think my point was misjudged. Eaton doesnt want Vickery, my opinion was he wouldnt want a half fit BJB. But to be fair there are many players he would love to have.

Also, next season: Do you think Baldwinson, Sutcliffe and Sunley for example would get in the Hunslet side? Hmmmm not sure they will - Hunslet can only have a max of 5 either dual reg or loan players in the team. So assuming Keinhorst, Hood, Singleton are still at Leeds next season that only leaves 2 spots.

Anyway I was digressing - good to have BJB back and if he is pulling the stops out all well and good. He looks the fittest water carrier in SL - after Clarkson of course.

Stop talking so much sense, we all know that McDermott and his lackadaisical coaching team are the only people in the league that have players playing banged up....thats why you NEVER see players from other teams having post-season ops and dropping out of year-end England squads so they can have something sorted that they've played on with for a while.



Boo! Hiss! McDermott craves to player pressure! McDermott should've played youngsters sooner but he has it in for them! McDermott Out!

Did Peacock explicitly defy their advice, or was the speed at which he recovered defiant of the medical teams opinion?

Join the debate [iand[/i avoid criticising other posters' views? Hmmm...

The obvious explanation of the Peacock situation is that Peacock insisted on playing - McDermott has alluded to this side of Peacock's character a number of times in the past. He is a senior, experienced player who would be trusted to make this assessment of his own body.

That McDermott goes along with Peacock's choice speaks to his faith in his senior players. This trust between coach and player and vice versa is an important part of what gives our team the edge in recent times in my opinion.

More generally, the management at the Rhinos seems a pretty ethical bunch to me. To suggest that McDermott did something unprofessional by selecting Peacock is in conflict with the character of the the coach and of the club.

I don't think anyone is bagging the coaching team for not playing the kids earlier, well other than the usual suspect(s).

I do however think they might make better use of our squad, giving some players a weeks rest here or there to maintain their batteries, whilst giving perceived "fringe" player more actual game time to boost their match fitness, rather than 10 minutes here or 15 minutes there.

Great to see the lad fit and back doing what he loves.

They must be considering said prop on a month long loan or permanently then, because Leeds can't Dual-Register Hunslet players.

And Lee Mapals is a car crash of a player.

No need to avoid anything if you've got something to say it's just that your posts seem to be based on a 'no it's not' type response. That's just the impression I've got - could be wrong.



Did Adamson insist on playing at the Millenium Stadium in 2003? (Was said at the time to have risked his eyesight and missed the next three matches.)

Did Senior insist on playing at the same venue in 2005? (Clearly unable to contribute, replaced at half-time and wasn't seen again that season)

Did Peacock insist on playing at the John Smith's Stadium five games ago? (missed the next three)



I don't see anything particularly ethical in going against the medical opinion of the club physio and doctor as was claimed by a member of the Leeds coaching staff earlier this week, where the words used were 'defied' and then as if to emphasize 'certainly defied'

I've highlighted some previous occasions where playing 'injured' has been arguably counter-productive and possibly (impossible to say with any certainty) but possibly contributed to extended spells on the sidelines. I could have added Watkins at Wembley 2011 but he didn't satisfy your 'senior player' remark so I left him off but again wasn't seen again that season.

Good to see the lad back; not the luckiest of players with the troubles he's had with injuries.

One thing to remember though is being full fit is not the same as being fully 'match' fit. It'll take a game or two for him to get back into his stride.

Is that Richie Moore ?

It's very easy to sit after the event at a keyboard with the benefit of hindsight and I don't necessarily disagree. I thought Adamson's decision to play at Cardiff was selfish, from a selfish player, in a position where we had depth and the coach should have shown more fortitude.

However, it must be very difficult to separate emotion from such decisions. The coach works with these boys. They share elation and desperation together. That togetherness and bond is essential to achieve the successes we have. So, if an old warrior like Peacock tells the coach he can play and wants to play the coach will, of course, listen to the doctors but he may be inclined to listen more closely to the player. And, after all, Peacock will know how his body feels better than the doctors. Peacock appeared to come through unscathed last week.

So, what I am saying is, it's not as black and white as either of you make out.

If Peacock is effectively allowed to pick himself and defy the medical team and McDermott is almost powerless to stop him then why didn't he play against Hull or Wigan or Saints? We all know Peacock would've wanted to play those games yet he didn't.

Could the 'players pick themselves' actually be agenda b*ll*cks?

Surely not, but can anybody explain otherwise?

I guess theres a difference between can't walk injured, and coming back early once most of the ain has gone, and said injury could be strapped up, and pain dealt with in some way

I'd imagine there are a lot of ex-players suffering with impaired joint mobility now in part due to the game generally (an occupational hazard) but in some cases the effects will have been worsened as a result of taking to the field 'needled up' to get them out there when probably they shouldn't have.

Like the time in Origin when Michael De Vere got his head stapled back together while still out on the field. The macabre images only enhanced still further when the gun got stuck and refused to disengage, leaving the trainer trying to pull it away from the NSW wingers eyebrow and that was in full view of the watching millions, let alone what went on under the stands to keep the players out there.