Who cares, they're both s.

Can you clean up your language please.

Good thread this.



From Bailey and Hock to Pryce.

and you'd know better than most, you fouled mouth scumbag there's kids read these pages

Glad to see someone showing some real Judgment on Hock on the early pages unlike those fawning about having him in our team.

'King Monkey' really had the hots for him earlier in the season.

Do you still think Hock [iisn't[/i a liability and would you still be willing to swap one of our players for him?

Too inconsistent for me before his 2yr holiday from our great game was enforced!

There's some of my best work in this thread.



Thanks for that G1.

I've been trying to keep my powder dry for a fe weeks but this thread popped up prematurely tonight.

I'd have replaced Eastwood with him. How were we to know what he was doing recreationally?

should have been able to tell, by his face!



Guy looks like a heroin addict.

I told you he was a liability. Was I wrong?



Great suggestion. Next year we'd not have Ellis or Hock.

You were referring to his on field performances, not his off field. Were Bailey and Walker liabilities on the field? Hindsight is a wonderful tool. Their crimes were much more heinous than a bit of recreational drug usage IMO.



Anyhow.









Yet you agreed back then to replace Eastwood with Hock. Not sure where Ellis comes into it as he was going whatever.

Was I?



They missed very little playing time. Hock will miss two years. I make no moral judgments either way.



It was a typo. I meant Eastwood. Since when does a smiley indicate agreement?

Was it a slow hand clap then?

Timing is everything. Did they think "Great, we can go out tonight, do what we like and we wont miss much playing time because of when it is?" Are they liabilities or not?







For what amounts to nothing. Doesn't make him a liability.

Eastwood is a much better all round player than hock, hock is either rocks or diamonds!! Lets hope we get Eastwoods best form at leeds, he's a great ball player, fast for a big lad, and a hard defender.

No. They did their time, returned to the team and played a role in a championship and a WCC.









It does because he can't do anything to help Wigan for the next two years.

...and he's not banned for the next two years for being a coke head.

In the meantime they were liabilities though weren't they.

When was "the meantime"?

Personally I always rated Hock, was agressive, fast and on his day tore up defence's. Put Hock in the Leeds squad and he would easily be one of our best 2nd rows.



A players form is only as good as the team he plays with.

Vary good