Depends on how much we are paying for his continued services. If the price is right, he offers experience, to pass on to the youngsters coming through. An ability, if brought on at the right time in the right game, to inject pace, break the line and change a game Leeds way. It also smooths / extends the transition from golden generation to new generation.

He doesn't offer as much as he did a few seasons back, the game changing moments are fewer and further between, but at the right price....

Even with my glass half full view, I concede that was a bit left field.

Burrow is not the player he was and I was surprised he got a 2 yr extension. However at the right price back up hooker and I suspect he won't be with us for the full2 years. I'm a bit puzzled how this fits with the rumour that GH is after a halfback?

It depends. If burrow is a top earner yes it would be a mistake. However I suspect burrow will be on a much reduced contract from his previous £50k maybe and provides some good experienced cover at hooker and half back.

I love the people who know exactly how much players are on.

I love people who are unable to read and understand a sentence.

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote:
It depends. If burrow is. However I suspect burrow £50k maybe



I think you have been a bit harsh on AG there. You appear to have edited your own quote for clarity? In the original I also read it as you were saying you knew he was on £50K and that MAYBE he would now be on a much reduced contract.

So you didn't say he was previously on £50k then?

Some slightly better decision making from young Handley and Burrow could have easily won the game with two late tries under the sticks. Peoples opinions on this whole forum and not just Burrow would have been wholly different today.

With our inability to break down Wigan and Aiton's form it seemed obvious to me Aiton should have been brought back much earlier and Burrow moved into the halves. He just isn't being used properly

Burrow has been poor for two seasons now.
He is far too predictable and should have been moved on.
Law of averages say he will have the odd good game but these are few and far between.
He is not a hooker and he is an average half back not what we should be playing in a team looking to win trophies.
If GH did not want him in the first team why does he keep picking him?

Thats what I was thinking. He may not be the same threat he was 2 years ago, but he still offers something different, and given that McGuire doesn't have the legs to finish off when he supports, and hardaker hasn't developed this fully yet, its good to have someone who can support others breaks. We also need some experiance to be backup half. Going with Sutcliffe and an academy player for a stretch of time would be a big risk if danny got injured.

2 years is probably the bit people are most surprised / annoyed at

Because Burrow was unable for once to turn a game around for us he is said to be past it by his critics. Yet in the half hour he was on the field he injected some pace at DH and as, G1 has pointed out, was perfectly positioned when backing up to have scored twice under the sticks had the obvious passes been made. This clearly demonstrates the impact he gives to the side.

These were chances that you have to take at this level and had we taken these 12 points I feel sure the outcome of the game would have been different. There was another occasion when Hardaker made a long run and missed the opportunity to offload close to the line too.

So Burrow did make an impact when he came on and it was not his fault that his efforts were wasted.

I don't think Burrow is finished at all, but I don't think the role he currently plays is the most effective way to use him. If he is to come on from the bench to spell Aiton then he should come on at 7, and Sinfield should move to 9.

Examples over the last couple of years where Burrow has "turned games" please.

*silence*

I'll help the lad out.........

Hull KR At home last year, 0-0 for 60 mins, burrow came on for his second stint and stretched them to pieces!

Thanks! Knew if must have happened once in the past few years. But also knew that "Because Burrow was unable for once to turn a game around for us" was a black-is-white statement, even by Juan's standards.

Most would agree that Burrow's most effective when running at tired defences. It's only fair to raise the question of whether opposition defences are reduced to the state of tiredness that they once were, in addition to looking at the level to which Burrow himself is performing.

And it is also worth realising the negative effect it has on the team from a defensive perspective when you bring him on. This needs levelling against any pro's. It's fine if you are already well up in a game, and the opposition is stretched. But if the game is in the balance and you are winning, protecting a lead, it's such a no go, and a wasted sub spot.

I'd agree with what you've just stated but the example I gave just defies that.

No it doesn't. Your example was over 12 months ago. The team has changed since then.

Yes, I'd go with that. Nonetheless, our problems go deeper than a fading Burrow. Others have declined too although unfortunately for RB (and fortunately for them) it is far more obvious in a back than in a forward.

Whilst I wouldn't have Burrow in my strongest 17 next year, it would be interesting if the talk of reducing the number of interchanges came to fruition. Less chance for the opposition to rest and rotate their big guys which would help Burrow I guess.

Barely, cuthbertson and ward are pretty much the only difference upon a week on week basis. We attack differently. Neither of which would change burrows role from that day to now so like I said your point contradicts.