When we signed Leon he wasnt a proven stand off though,he was a winger/utility back but we had the luxury of world class players to make the transition easier,had we re signed him we still would be struggling as he wasnt a playmaker and needed a good 7 to run the show.

Pryce isn't anywhere near the player he was.

You have a new 7, now you need a new 6.

Pryce isn't at the standard you now need!

We didn't though. We replaced Leon with Gaskell and Eastmond with Lomax, both of whom were recognised halves albeit young and inexperienced ones.



Hohaia may wear 6 on his back but it was quite clear from press statements at the time that his utility value was crucial to his appointment.

Easy to look back and see what a mistake it was letting Pryce go, and naturally I think we would have been better for his presence over the last 18 months rather than Hohaia's. I agree completely with the first post though, Pryce is completely shot now and carries very little threat any more.

The sad things is he'd still walk into our team at Stand Off right now.

I think Mark Bailey would.

He'd have the best hands and fastest in our backs

To be fair to Bailey he was a solid pro who played in almost every back position in his Saints career.



He had a few critics but was a victim of circumstance some of the time because he ended up playing 3,4,6 or 7 when we had injuries or when the promised big signings had never materialized.

Great side step but wouldn't pass.

Lomax was already at the club and was wedged into 7 because we failed to tie down Eastmond before we let our only other natural 7 go to Salford . I was at a forum at the time and KC was talking about Lomax as a potential fullback then (so it's not Browns idea) . Gaskell did not replace Pryce , again he was supposed to be the understudy , with Hohaia signed as a halfback, read old press stuff and things that were said, Hohaia wanted to play in the halves and came over here to do it. I remember you arguing strongly that he was a 6 !!!!!!



We let our recognised 6 go and replaced him with utility player.



As per previous comment I agree when we signed Pryce he hadn't nailed down that spot at Bradford but coming into a successful team as a young ish player like Pryce was and being paired with a top player like Longy helped him alot, Lance is not young and was brought in to be the 'experienced half' utter utter terrible recruitment

No doubt. At the time of Pryce's contract discussions there was an interesting debate on here (remember them?) about whether or not we should have given him three years that he wanted. I thought we should have done at the time but was wrong in hindsight, it's just a shame we botched up his replacement so badly.

He was once a really top player IMO, but now he seems a mere shadow of his former self. In the games I’ve seen he contributes very little now.