I think that if that was a serious option, I would have to lean towards playing Graham with Armstrong, as at least we would have have 2 goal threats. We could basically play with 2 banks of 4 beyond that, Downing and Rankin Costello as wide men who can tuck in when needed.

@Bigdoggsteel where does it say about Holtby being out for the season?

Bar Armstrong, I dont see who will score any goals. Assuming Johnson, Travis and Downing ahead are our 3 central, who on earth do we put either side of Armstrong? Rankin Costello and Chapman are the only 2, it is a huge ask of them but I dont see an alternative.

January may be a difficult window but I think it definitely was a failed window, even the manager was publically frustrated by the outcome of it so theres no point pretending otherwise. Suggesting that players might not have worked out is strawman, it is the managers job to locate and sign players that can improve us in each window. I am not convinced that the squad is in a particularly great state, short or long term. Being in the best state since Bowyers is not a particularly high benchmark, by the time he left all but one of his best players had been sold on and replaced by dross, bar one who was subsequently sold by Lambert. Its very much a mixed bag in terms of Mowbrays signings and the "work he has done" with a favourable budget to those before him. If you are looking through, Walton is at best average and on loan so goalkeeper is not an area of strength. Nyambe and Lenihan key developing assets (boths main issue is injuries) and Adarabioyo is a short term very good signing. Aside from that, Mulgrew and to perhaps a lesser extent Williams are on unnecessarily extended deals and Bell isnt up to it and hopefully his contract will be allowed to expire. Midfield, Travis' development shines well on Mowbray, Johnson is a senior, probably big earner who hasnt proven his worth, Downing a short term revelation, Evans is ok but injured, beyond that, its untested kids. Number 10, in Dack and Holtby, Mowbray is desperately unfortunate to have them both seriously injured, to get them both for under 1m is very impressive. Wide, totally different story. Rothwell is very much an enigma, doesnt contribute enough. Beyond that, its just a total absence of anything at the moment. We are relying on a Rankin Costello or a Chapman (doubtful) to suddenly come and nail a regular spot and contribute goals and assists. Its an area of serious long term neglect. Up top, Graham will do a job short term, Armstrong is getting better and proving his worth, the rest of his accumulation of attackers are more of a liability than an asset to the club despite their tender ages.

Graham would get the nod every day over Gallagher or Brereton in a 2 but as you suggest, there are pros and cons to using him and Armstrong in a front 2. If you do, you are accepting that without your 3 key attacking midfielders who could take advantage of the spaces ahead of the defence pushed back in fear of Armstrongs pace, you no longer have the technical ability to benefit and are willing to become more pragmatic. Graham is brilliant at holding up, his flick ons and link play is far, far more intelligent than anyone else that we have but I like you am unconvinced that giving Armstrong a partner will help him. If we are going to go with a 10 we cant look past Downing as our sole technical player remaining, but either way I have a huge concern over the wide areas and where the goals would come from. Absolutely bang on about over reliance on Downing. His levels have fitness do seem impressive but how long can his body hold up?

I think you make a valid point of losing him (as well as Rothwell) as Armstrongs pace would force defences deeper, giving Holtby in particular space in between the lines. The 2 options are to go with a Graham next to him or to play Downing as a 10 and Johnson beside Travis.

The injuries I have repeatedly said are unfortunate. I am not doubting that or blaming Mowbray for that. Youve named loads of players but where are the competent players to play in the wide areas? Gallagher, poor striker, useless winger. Brereton, not up to it. Bennett, not up to it. Downing, plays deeper with Travis. JRC warrants game time but we cant rely on him yet. Chapman, who?! Armstrong plays up top, we needed wide men. There were players who moved in January that could have improved us. Marcus Maddison, Scott Sinclair, Jack Clarke, Patrick Roberts, Tarique Fosu, Albert Adomah in wide areas, strikers Nakhi Wells, Rhian Brewster, Scott Hogan and left backs Gaeten Bong and Harry Toffolo going off on a tangent. They are just players that were transferred. You dont have to pretend that the window was anything other than as Mowbray even said, was "frustrating." It was a bad window and a waste. I am mainly concerned about the mention that Holtby is out for the season. I have not seen that myself but it would be a hammer blow.

Where did you get the word that Holtby is out for the season? We needed more attacking players especially in wide areas regardless of these 3 injuries because we have not been effective from there. Ultimately that was an area that Mowbray tried but ultimately failed to bring in reinforcements and even with the injuries to our 2 number 10s we still look desperately short in wide areas. Having players contributing goals and assists from there could have eased the burden on our central areas in the absence of Dack and now Holtby. I dont doubt that we have been unfortunate though with injuries. Same reply to you @Dreams of 1995

Where is that from? Undoubtedly incredibly unfortunate, but equally Dack was injured in December and Rothwell before the end of the window and Mowbray was unable to bring in anyone so that falls on him and the club for not reacting. We do have 12m worth of strikers so ordinarily we should still possess a goal threat. Cant imagine us being too easy on the eye now.

You dont answer any questions, you just swerve the points or tell people that "Mowbray does it." We are 10th (we want top 6) not because of the striker out wide experiment. There are functional aspects of our team elsewhere. Lenihan and Adarabioyo are a good pairing, one signed by Mowbray. Travis has been good in central midfield, promoted by Mowbray. Downing has been good wherever he has played, signed by Mowbray. Dack and Armstrong, both signed by Mowbray have scored goals. Im not saying that the side doesnt have good parts to it. The wings are an area of weakness though. So please can you give a straight answer. Do you agree with the tactic of playing Sam Gallagher as a wide man? Yes or no. I would be willing to play anywhere for Rovers but it doesnt mean that I should. I would watch videos all day every day if it meant I could become a Rovers winger but I like Gallagher would never become a success there as I dont have the attributes! Being willing is nothing to celebrate. If a choice is play out of position or not at all it is a no brainer.

His stats are unremarkable really in the last few years. Had an underwhelming spell in Russia too. He is playing at the highest level to be fair, always felt like the type of player who was capable of the spectacular and would contribute with a few goals and assists, usually really good strikes but was inconsistent and at times unreliable. Easy on the eye and I think his background at Barcelona helped to make him a real fans favourite. Very few of our players post Venkys have gone on to play regularly at a similar top level, Josh King, Shane Duffy being the stand out 2.

Do you agree with playing "inside forwards" or would you agree with the majority that it is a really ineffective tactic, especially with the inside/wide forwards we have used? Do you know that Amarii Bell and Ryan Nyambe have contributed 0 assists in over 30 games? Why are we relying on them to supply from out wide? You keep saying "thats the way Mowbray ways" but that isnt a defence. I know it is, I am criticising that aspect of how he plays because I dont think it works. I may sound like a broken record over Gallagher but its because all of our transfer fees were spent on him. I dont rate him full stop as Ive said once or twice but my main gripe at the moment is how he is repeatedly played, and from Mowbrays quotes about data analysis is seemingly being moulded into a wide man. He is (unless you see some value from him wide?) the only person who sees any use in him (or Brereton, Samuel etc) as a wide man. Has he scored or assisted from a wide role?

Think theres more chance of pigs flying than the latter happening sadly. Not up to it.

Graham is unavailable? Gallagher was a poor signing who adds nothing. Armstrong was clearly signed to play as a number 9, and we play with a number 10, so essentially Gallagher as a result of Armstrongs change has started to be moulded into a wide man which doesnt work. Why are we trying to directly replace Graham if we are moving away from that type of player? And someone with poor technical attributes at that. We should play with wingers, Mowbray should have long since re evaluated his use of players in the wide area. Its been a big problem area for him and just because he chooses to often shoe horn players out of position there doesnt make it right or effective. Would you agree that you personally would prefer to see natural wide men there over strikers eg Brereton, Gallagher, Samuel or central players eg Buckley and Holtby (when Dack was fit) primarily Mowbray signings who cannot do a job there? I just find the whole situation baffling. There is some merit in trying to build around Armstrong as a 9 even if he has limitations and a lot of work to do. But there is no potential in Gallagher as a wide man.

If the plan was (and Mowbray has said so in the past) to move Armstrong up front, it makes the 5m Gallagher signing even more baffling. Why not spend that money on 1 or 2 wingers?

Wouldnt be far off that team with our limited options. Would play Graham though over the ineffective Gallagher. Be tempted to get Chapman in as theres no pace aside from Armstrong. Suspect that Bennett will play as the 10 for Holtby and we will be otherwise unchanged though. I think it will be a struggle.

I think perhaps the fact that he is not the weakest member of our current starting 11 says more about other players than it does about Walton. For example, goalkeeper was not a pressing concern for me in this January window, a left back to replace Bell and 2 wide men (an area where we are really, really lacking) would come before Walton, who himself is error prone, unconvincing and on the flip side rarely pulls off particularly eye catching saves. Of course all goalkeepers do indeed make mistakes but it is the quantity of them mistakes that is important, and for me Walton has made far too many. As you say, the defensive stats (which are ok, nothing more, 10 teams have conceded less goals) are perhaps more down to other improvements we have made. I would say Walton is at least directly responsible for a quarter of those goals. The fact that he is young makes absolutely no difference, if he is not befitting the "experienced goalkeeper" that Mowbray earmarked then why was he signed? And critically, he is only a loan so his age is fairly immaterial as either way he will only be here until May. Agree with your post especially the planning aspect of it. Also, what Mowbray has said and done are again at odds with each other.

A glowing review!

Yeah on a TV. I know he is a young player. But that alone doesnt justify the title of an excellent performance from a winger when he did nothing going forward. You dont have to keep telling me he is a young player. If you were happy with his attacking contribution then I suspect you are easily pleased and would invite you to remind me of something he did, a shot, a chance created, a cross that may have slipped my mind. Dont re write that denial that his performance was "excellent" into me writing off a young player or thinking he was dreadful. Well if Buckley stays (is there any scope for lower league loans now?) I would still not recommend that he is put into the first team due to not being nearly ready. So the alternative is to perhaps stagnate somewhat playing kids football. Loan moves always carry a risk and Rovers have been guilty of making incorrect choices regarding loaning out players in the past. But give him to a League 1 or League 2 club that we can be reasonably confident of getting him game time, where it wont cost us. I am not sure exactly what you mean by develop his game anyway. You have recently defended Mowbrays illogical and unsuccessful use of Gallagher in a wide role, which for me is not positively developing the player at all as he will never be a competent wide man as long as he has a hole in his arse.

No one has said that he is the second coming or that they expect him to be the finished article. Its not a scathing criticism of a winger to suggest that his performance was not excellent. People have commended him on his work rate but ultimately he did absolutely nothing going forward to get excited about, that is pretty conclusive, that doesnt mean that people have given up on him, people are just judging him based on his performance and not massively over exaggerating and over hyping it just because of his age and inexperience. People are going to judge players, young or experienced on their performances, I am not sure what your alternative is regarding your platitudes about patience. Take Buckley, he is quite blatantly not ready in the eyes of most, yet many have constructively suggested a loan spell at a lower level is best for his development. Not the suggestion of someone lacking patience but indeed looking long term. And I didn't go but I saw the full game live.

That is the crux of the matter. Regardless of reasons, excuses, circumstances, whatever. What we do know and can judge is that despite needing reinforcements, and despite Mowbray signing time and time again that he wanted reinforcements, we didnt bring anyone in.

We were linked with these players, we dont know for sure, indeed all indications based on Mowbrays quotes where that our bids were absolutely miles away from signing anyone. If there is any truth in us bidding for Manning on deadline day then youd have to again question why the bloody hell we didnt bother on the 30 days prior!

Owners make mistakes just like everyone else. Just because it happened doesnt make it right. Lambert failed to improve Ipswich last season and is underachieving outside the promotion places after 2 months of dismal results, more fool them for giving a poor manager such a long contract.

I judge the manager on the players he does sign and of course, whether they solve the areas in the squad that required fixing. I think thats the fairest way. I am not going to start giving him a free pass because he was linked with 2 unnamed foreign goalkeepers, its irrelevant to me because he didnt bring them in. Thus, I will judge him on sanctioning the permanent signing of Raya and signing Walton on a loan deal, that is all. If he indeed wanted an experienced keeper, then he failed in that remit. That being said, I am not overly concerned as long as he is good, of which again there are big question marks.

Exactly, he definitely deserved a chance, and warrants more especially in the absence of Rothwell and with alternatives (Bennett, Gallagher) not up to it, indeed I specifically stated that I would like to see him given further opportunities. I'd like to think that to a rational person, my post didnt slate the player, suggest his application wasnt there, write off any future prospect or demand an instant removal from the matchday 18! Ultimately, young or old, and appreciative that a debutant deserves additional leeway, I can't justify describing the performance of a winger who didnt do anything going forward as excellent.