Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

25/07/2008, 1:22 PM ROBFLECK Joined on 28/06/2008 Posts 198 Re: Why Howard? Slow striker, but effective in the air. If the suspected asking price is corrrect... NO GO for me! Increase offer for Caroll I would say   OtB    Report

25/07/2008, 8:10 PM starman Joined on 11/05/2005 yarmouth Posts 137 Re: Why Howard? What still amazes me is the fact that many posters seem to think we are capable of attracting / buying multi million pound players. I would like to see howard here and think he would be a good addition to the squad. I believe he would be an excellent foil for the little uns. the soul of an angel    Report

25/07/2008, 8:32 PM Dictator Smith Joined on 05/07/2006 Posts 607 Re: Why Howard? Are the little uns any good though , just cannot see Cureton firing us to promotion and Lupoli has a lot to prove scoring wise ,add an old lumbering oaf to that and it does not look at all promising .    Report

25/07/2008, 9:16 PM Stevie Wonder Joined on 11/01/2007 Thorpe Hamlet Posts 843 Re: Why Howard? I would much rather have Rasiak who is more mobile or Carroll who is younger.      Report

25/07/2008, 9:23 PM Indy_Bones Joined on 28/07/2006 Rotherham Posts 368 Re: Why Howard?  starman wrote: What still amazes me is the fact that many posters seem to think we are capable of attracting / buying multi million pound players. I would like to see howard here and think he would be a good addition to the squad. I believe he would be an excellent foil for the little uns. So what do you think Howard is then? If the asking price is £1.25 million, then he's hardly cheap. If it was 250k or so, I don't think we'd have heard many complaints, but add another million onto that and it becomes too high a price. As for being an excellent foil, I just don't agree. If you do the inevitable comparision between Howard and Dublin, there's not a single area where Howard is superior, and we didn't pay £1.25 million for Dublin. Howard is too slow, and this lack of mobility could be very costly. Imagine the situation, we're trying to go for a quick counter-attack and surprise, surprise, Howard is too slow to keep up with play and is endlessly offside - brilliant. Plus, it's making us play towards a very different style, as you can't play quick, passing football with a player like Howard upfront, which seems to be very much the way Roeder wants to take the team, and I'm really happy about this. If you're going to sign a player who's role is to hold the ball up, and play clever flicks to teammates, you still need some mobility. Again using Dublin as an example, look at the difference between him who had maintained a good level of fitness, and Hartson who clearly hadn't. Howard would just be another Hartson, and that's the last thing we need. Arsenal managed for years without playing a big lump upfront, and whilst you clearly can't compare world class players to our current squad, the principle is still the same, as being fair, the squads we are up against aren't world class either, and lumbering centre halves will have far more difficulty dealing with players like Lupoli, Curo etc, than they will with Howard. If we sign a target man, it should be a player with potential to develop like Carroll, not some chunky, has-been.    Report

25/07/2008, 9:30 PM Branston Pickle Joined on 04/08/2004 Surrey Posts 1,554 Re: Why Howard? Jezz - the guy's only 32, I doubt he is that slow all of a sudden that he becomes quite the liability you suggest - his 'pace' didn't prevent him scoring 19 for Derby in their promotion season and that ended just 14 months ago.   I know what you are saying and agree partly, but at the end of the day he has been around in this division and done a pretty decent job for Luton, Derby and an ok one for Leicester (6 in 20 is not so bad in a crap side).  Yes there is the potential for him to be another Thorne, but there is also a possibility that he could be another Iwan (not dissimilar records, mostly in this league) - a big guy who was not the fastest but got in good positions.  I guess we will not find out unless we sign him and that is far from a certainty.    Report

25/07/2008, 9:38 PM Indy_Bones Joined on 28/07/2006 Rotherham Posts 368 Re: Why Howard?  Branston Pickle wrote: Jezz - the guy's only 32, I doubt he is that slow all of a sudden that he becomes quite the liability you suggest - his 'pace' didn't prevent him scoring 19 for Derby in their promotion season and that ended just 14 months ago. So over a year ago, he did a good job for Derby, in a team that massively overperformed considering the poor quality of football that they played. I'd also be interested to know how many of his goals were from set plays, as against open play. The fact is that despite that good season, he was then beyond dire in the Premiership. I don't expect 20 a season from him in that league, but more than 1 is not an unreasonable request, even players like Jason Lee managed more goals at the top level... He then went to Leicester, and was not much better there. Ok, so Leicester weren't playing well, but neither were Luton when he was playing for them, and it didn't stop him getting 15 goals. The difference being that it was over 2 years ago that he did that, and even losing a single yard of pace can have massive implications, as he has clearly shown in his recent performances. Leicester fans think he's past it, Derby fans certainly did, and yet this then makes him a good signing for us??? As you point out, we wouldn't know until he signed, but that's a gamble I'd rather not take with that sort of cash on the line. Much better to spend it on a promising young player, than gamble on someone like Howard.    Report

25/07/2008, 9:59 PM Branston Pickle Joined on 04/08/2004 Surrey Posts 1,554 Re: Why Howard? I don't think you can really blame Howard for Derby being as crap as they were - they were regarded as feeble by pretty much everyone and barely managed to launch attacks for their strikers to miss from!  Earnie didn't exactly do well for them either, yet he still seems to be transferred for £2.5m or so.  What it did do is show that both players (and the manager and also most of their team) were probably playing at a level too high. I've already said that he would not be my ideal choice, but Howard is a horses-for-courses player who might fit what we are after.  I'm not so sure that signing him would be quite the gamble that you think, but nor am I sure that we will find out - Roeder is bound to have other (hopefully better) irons in the fire.      Report

25/07/2008, 10:11 PM Dictator Smith Joined on 05/07/2006 Posts 607 Re: Why Howard? reported today that you are ready to offer us 1.25 million for howard.....god do we hope this comes off.hes a fat lazy donkey.......we cant wait to get rid of him.and to pay that for him means we are a quarter of a millon up on what we paid...honest guys you will hate him. you have a good lad in bell we had him on loan last season great winger and crosser of the ball...he will do well for you Leicester fans view .    Report

25/07/2008, 10:16 PM Bring Back Nielson !!! Joined on 14/07/2008 Posts 356 Re: Why Howard? WHY ARE PEOPLE BELIEVING SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE SUN!      Report

25/07/2008, 11:55 PM Amarillo Joined on 19/08/2003 Posts 717 Re: Why Howard?  Indy_Bones wrote: So in roughly 40 games over the last year, (hattrick aside), he's scored 4 goals. Hat-trick aside? So, 3 goals in 3 games counts, but 3 in 1 game doesn't? Good job Dion didn't score a hat-trick for us then, that would have made him crap, by your logic.   º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°    Report

25/07/2008, 11:56 PM Amarillo Joined on 19/08/2003 Posts 717 Re: Why Howard?  FozzyFan wrote: WHY ARE PEOPLE BELIEVING SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE SUN! It was in the paper so it must be true, just like Cullums "20 million for new players".   º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°    Report

26/07/2008, 8:21 AM Indy_Bones Joined on 28/07/2006 Rotherham Posts 368 Re: Why Howard?  Amarillo wrote: Hat-trick aside? So, 3 goals in 3 games counts, but 3 in 1 game doesn't? Good job Dion didn't score a hat-trick for us then, that would have made him crap, by your logic. The point here is consistency. He obviously had a good game on that occasion, but then massively underperformed in the others. You can't judge a player on a single game. What's more, your attempted point about Dublin in nonsense. Of course scoring a hat-trick doesn't make you a crap player, but if you only score that hat-trick, and do nothing else in the other games, that DOES make you crap. Funny how Dublin scored twice in one game last season, spent nearly half of it playing at the back for us, and still scored more goals than Howard did...    Report

26/07/2008, 9:07 AM TheMarshmallowMonkey Joined on 16/05/2008 Posts 1,081 Re: Why Howard? I don't think Howard is a bad choice by any stretch, just not at £1.25mil. He needs to get his fitness back and play in a side that plays to his strengths. I think we would do that and think it could turn out well for us. NCFC - The Alternative View    Report

26/07/2008, 10:51 AM 1st Wizard Joined on 04/10/2003 Far beyond the misty mountains Posts 8,286 Re: Why Howard? I would have prefered him here two years ago, but if, and I say again, if, Glen Roeder wants him here, then I can see the logic in his thinking. I for one, would be quite happy with it.    Report

Page 2 of 3 (31 items) < 1 2 3 >

pink'un » Have Your Say » Main Discussion... » Re: Why Howard?

(Quick links) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Have Your Say |- Announcement |- Main Discussion - Norwich City |-- Transfer Talk |- Other football |-- Revived Threads |-- Huckerby at San Jose |- King's Lynn and Local Leagues |- It's not just football! |- User Polls Football Community |- Looking for a club or player? |- Noticeboard |- Football Chants |- Team-mates