Jamie Humphreys

[Highflier]

Very calm and level headed. I think he will have a good NRL career moving forward. He just needs some more opportunities. Shame we chose not to keep him.

excellent interview well spoken and intelligent guy. Would be great to do a back flip on the vermin

 

[Sheikheagle]

Did Seibold cut my grass or did Humphreys cut Seibolds grass? Or do u just like bitching about me?

Pretty obvious from today's excellent performance from Humphreys that Seibold screwed up by not selecting him against Souths.

Potentially he has screwed up by letting him go to Souths. He has so much more upside than Arthur's, that is for sure.

Jake Arthur would have played a similar role.

 

[XV-1]

Jake Arthur would have played a similar role.

How did Jake go against Souths?

Oh that's right, he didn't play. Neither did Humphreys.
Nice one Spoony 👍 👌 👏

 

[Sheikheagle]

How did Jake go against Souths?

Oh that's right, he didn't play. Neither did Humphreys.
Nice one Spoony 👍 👌 👏

How is that relevant. Arthur was unavailable due to injury. Give it up.

 

[XV-1]

How is that relevant. Arthur was unavailable due to injury. Give it up.

Oh doh
It's totally relevant. Spoony didn't play either of them against Souths.
Or can Spoony do no wrong in your eyes? Yes, give it up.

 

[Disco]

Wait, are we at the point where we are complaining about Seibold not selecting an injured player???

Humphrey's should have played against Souths, sure

 

[Under the Sticks]

So you are crystal balling that his inclusion would have been a win

I and I’m sure many others would agree we would have done more than put up 17 BrooksBombs that night if he was in the side and maybe Talau could have made an impact at centre.

I was at that game and we were close behind about 4-0 until towards the end. There wasn’t much in it and highly likely a real half could have made a bit of a difference.

Seibold selections for that match didn’t pass the pub test (no offence Lawman but you ain’t no halfback).

 

[Eagles4Life]

Oh doh
It's totally relevant. Spoony didn't play either of them against Souths.
Or can Spoony do no wrong in your eyes? Yes, give it up.

Arthur would have played against Souths if he was available. He was unavailable due to injury.

He was also unavailable today. Due to injury.

 

[Eagles4Life]

I and I’m sure many others would agree we would have done more than put up 17 BrooksBombs that night if he was in the side and maybe Talau could have made an impact at centre.

I was at that game and we were close behind about 4-0 until towards the end. There wasn’t much in it and highly likely a real half could have made a bit of a difference.

Seibold selections for that match didn’t pass the pub test (no offence Lawman but you ain’t no halfback).

Lawton played on the edge against Souths. Talau was our five-eight. Brooks played at half.

 

[XV-1]

Arthur would have played against Souths if he was available. He was unavailable due to injury.

He was also unavailable today. Due to injury.

I am aware of that.
The point is Spoony didn't play Humphreys vs Souths.

 

[Eagles4Life]

I am aware of that.
The point is Spoony didn't play Humphreys vs Souths.

Oh doh
It's totally relevant. Spoony didn't play either of them against Souths.

Huh?

 

[Eagles4Life]

Huh?

Firstly, I agree with you that Humphreys should have played against Souths. Anyone who argues otherwise (after watching yesterday's game) is an idiot.

Edited

 

[Sheikheagle]

Huh?

He isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[Eagles4Life]

How did Jake go against Souths?

Oh that's right, he didn't play. Neither did Humphreys.
Nice one Spoony 👍 👌 👏

No comprende

 

[Sheikheagle]

Firstly, I agree with that Humpreys should have played against Souths. Anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot.

Agree that’s not in question.

 

[Under the Sticks]

Lawton played on the edge against Souths. Talau was our five-eight. Brooks played at half.

Yup but Lawton was named at 7 and Talau did not play centre which is all I was saying and the point that we should have played our 3rd halfback. I thought it was stupid then and the press conference was BS when he said we had no other options and after today everyone who thought that then has been vindicated to a point because it forced more disruption than was required at the time.

 

[Will on the hill]

I am aware of that.
The point is Spoony didn't play Humphreys vs Souths.

Humphreys played very well, especially for a debutante. I don't think anyone is disputing that he should've been selected against the Bunnies.

I didn't see anything so amazing that he was the difference in that game or this game. The two teams we put on the field and the teams we played against were very different.

I'd go so far as to say if JH played the Bunnies and misses the Knights the results are very similar, at most we are maybe 6-10 points +\- better off.

His non selection was an error but the magnitude of the error is being grossly exaggerated.

Form is ephemeral and who knows if JH was selected against the Bunnies it's possible his confidence takes a hit and we don't get to see that performance today.

 

[XV-1]

No comprende

It was sarcasm directed at Spoonys love child Sheikheagle.
He totally missed the point of Humphreys not being selected vs Souths and tried to bring Arthurs into the discussion. I guess he is still in his shed.

 

[Stewbojevic]

Humphreys played very well, especially for a debutante. I don't think anyone is disputing that he should've been selected against the Bunnies.

I didn't see anything so amazing that he was the difference in that game or this game. The two teams we put on the field and the teams we played against were very different.

I'd go so far as to say if JH played the Bunnies and misses the Knights the results are very similar, at most we are maybe 6-10 points +\- better off.

His non selection was an error but the magnitude of the error is being grossly exaggerated.

Turbo was the difference. He created confidence and space for everyone else.

Garrick and Haumole also big ins.

 

[XV-1]

Humphreys played very well, especially for a debutante. I don't think anyone is disputing that he should've been selected against the Bunnies.

I didn't see anything so amazing that he was the difference in that game or this game. The two teams we put on the field and the teams we played against were very different.

I'd go so far as to say if JH played the Bunnies and misses the Knights the results are very similar, at most we are maybe 6-10 points +\- better off.

His non selection was an error but the magnitude of the error is being grossly exaggerated.

Seibold and Sheikheagle certainly did.

Souths were ordinary against us, but the non selection of a halfback certainly was a poor choice that pretty much gave us little hope of winning.
Brooks composure today compared to the game vs Souths was very different as against Souths he tried to do everything, unsuccessfully. Having Humphreys with his chrisp passing and halfback experience helped Brooks today play his more natural game.