Right now, what is the difference between Galvin and Douhie?
Both are too big for the halves.
Both have below average acceleration and speed.
Both are hogs (Galvin less so), although they are dangerous runners.
Both are poor defenders.
The only difference is Douhie has a larger body of work whilst Galvin is mostly a projection.
One is on a one year ~$325k contract whilst the other is apparently the second coming who is going to a sign a multi year deal averaging $1m per season or close to it.
Would we better off having both Latu and Douhie for a combined $1m as opposed to Galvin alone for $1m in which case Latu would almost certainly leave? One of these options would be significantly better for our roster and salary cap. Plus we could get rid of Isaac Moses’ clients.
I’m not saying one option is better than the other, but with Luai on a 5 year $1.2m contract should we be considering the Latu/Douhie option? Will be great to watch the first few weeks/months of footy to see if the answer becomes clearer.
Both are too big for the halves.
Both have below average acceleration and speed.
Both are hogs (Galvin less so), although they are dangerous runners.
Both are poor defenders.
The only difference is Douhie has a larger body of work whilst Galvin is mostly a projection.
One is on a one year ~$325k contract whilst the other is apparently the second coming who is going to a sign a multi year deal averaging $1m per season or close to it.
Would we better off having both Latu and Douhie for a combined $1m as opposed to Galvin alone for $1m in which case Latu would almost certainly leave? One of these options would be significantly better for our roster and salary cap. Plus we could get rid of Isaac Moses’ clients.
I’m not saying one option is better than the other, but with Luai on a 5 year $1.2m contract should we be considering the Latu/Douhie option? Will be great to watch the first few weeks/months of footy to see if the answer becomes clearer.