Cool. We are now taking heart from the fact that Quins have a few out.

Purdham and Clubb are both average anyway, God knows what Tony Smith was thinking taking Rob Purdham down under.

Purdo ! Average????He's a great player...When fully fit he drives our team .....I reckon the Bulls would have loved to have him instead of our cast offs like Sherrife,Sykes,Worrincy and Rinaldi!...........

Andy Farrell, Paul Sculthorpe, Gareth Ellis, Kevin Sinfield, Tonie Caroll and Bradley Clyde are and were great players. Rob Purdham is nowhere near this catagory.

He wouldn't even make the Bulls starting pack.

He would walk into your starting pack.

He isn't in the class of most of those players you list, I agree. However wouldn't make the Bulls starting pack? That I disagree.

The only way he might struggle is if Menzies, Morrison & Burgess were our starters. IMO, Purdham is clearly better than Worrincy, Cook, Langley and our kids.

He's not a superstar, but he's certainly a very good player and Quins are a much better side with him playing.

In your dreams he would.

He'd be on the bench if he was a Bulls player, our strongest back row of Morrison, Menzies and Langley would make sure of that.

Langley's had one good game all year. Purdham is a much better player.

Agreed, a straight swap, Langers for Purdham thanks

Not in a million years.

Langley has had numerous good games. It's because he doesn't do the Hollywood stuff that people get on his back.

In the same way that Sykes is slated for his bad defence, Langley is rightly slated for his bad attack.

Why do players who attack well but can't defend get more criticism than those that defend well but offer nothing in attack?

Purdham offers both. Hence, better player.

I'll never criticise Langley's defence as it is always very good. However he is next to useless when we have the ball these days. Purdham is a tackling machine as well as a dangerous attacking player.

I'd swap Purdham for Langley

I don't know probably because the effects of poor defence is usually more critical than poor attack.

He doesn't have bad attack, he makes a hell of a lot of ground and carries the ball shed loads of times. If making lot's of ground when carrying the ball is poor attack then then I'm chinese.

Langley makes more ground and more tackles - Hence why he is the better player.

I think Purdham is just an average Joe.

Purdham is a much better player than Langley, he's a better tackler, hes a better ball skills, he can open up gaps.
And he can kick goals, and is currently the best on average conversion taker in super league.

I would take Purdham at the Bulls, if the opportunity arose. No brainer.

Can he play scrum half?

Might be worth giving him a shot in the circumstances...

Is Purdham playing tommorow?

No, he is injured, and has been for awhile now.
Might not play for the rest of the season.

Perfect! swap a stong running forward who seems impervious to injury for a cocked one.
Any takers now?

For the avoidance of doubt...I'd not be keen on getting shot of Langley as the price for e.g Purdham. I'd take a fit Purdham otherwise.

I'd hardly say hes cocked.
Hes injured.
And rarely gets injured.
Would you say you would never take Randall because hes injured right now?
If you had a fit hooker?
Who would you prefer?
Randall or Newton?

I can't say I agree. With the exception of the one home game this year (was it Wakefield? can't remember), the only yards he makes are the ones between catching the ball and finding the first defender. He doesn't break the line, he makes hardly any yards pushing the defender. He just plods the ball in to the nearest defender and goes down.

He may carry it a lot, but I'd rather he didn't, as other players make far better yards with it when they do.

There are plenty of players that wouldn't be as good as the names you list above but still be top quality.

Purdham over Langley any day. He kicks as well as having a good football brain - so that's one less reason to pick Deacon too

Yeah, he made loads of ground today and countless offloads

. He should be dropped for next week.