Did we really want to sign him?

Si good a thread you posted it thrice.



If we have signed him I say its a very good signing and certainly adds a extra attacking dimension, rated him at Hudds and never really got why they let him go.

After his performance tonight?

Well as I'm getting my Belgium beer buzz on in Brussels I've not seen any rugby, take it he's had a mare?



Would still take Eden as you don't lose talent like he has, maybe a different set up would suit him and Christ escaping Hull on a daily basis has to be good for anyone.

He made Murphy look secure.

Didn't have a clue and he looks far too confident

Young lad with loads of natural talent. Under the right Coach could be a very hot prospect. Just my opinion.

So could Murphy on that argument

And your point?

Rubbish under the high ball, devastating in attack ... was he coached by Luke Patten





All he lacks is good fullback tutor & a bit of confidence , and yes I'd think that Salford would be interested in all good up & coming Englisg RL players ,

I'd love to see Greg Eden at Salford. He had a shocker yesterday but he's naturally gifted and will improve with age and experience.

If Eden was to turn into as much as an attacking force as Patten was I'd be very happy indeed. For all his detractors I still found Patten a joy to watch offensively. Think that Eden with right back line around him and creative halves playing to his strengths would be devastating and be a very prolific try scorer.

I've always been an advocate of offensive fullbacks. I'd rather have a Luke Patten who can be devastating going forward, than a Steve Hampson who was awesome under a high ball. Not having a go at Hampson as he was phenomenal for his time, I just think that modern FB's should be primarily attacking players and not defensive. A good FB shouldn't have to be great defensively if the rest of the team are doing their job. So what if they miss the odd tackle or drop the occasional high ball? High kicks are primarily put to wingers and centres these days anyway.