Search results

A bit to unpack here. As for the supposed confirmation bias. I am stating what evidence shapes my opinion. I think this is very logical to do in a discussion and not sure why you found it so annoying aside from it being a retort to your comment. You have essentially done the same thing by...

Unless I missed something on here (good chance, haven't been on all day and haven't read all the way back) it seems a big IF at this point. So wouldn't say a good chance. But I think we are potentially headed in the right direction just need to continue to build which traditionally is a challenge.

Yeah fair enough. I think his argument was fair but poorly presented.

You realise I wasn't the one making the initial claim, I was simply agreeing with some else. Not sure how that makes it self congratulatory. You are the one who chose to compare him to a couple of hookers, I simply thought that wasn't a fair comparison. Just as I think it is wrong for Chunk to...

Yeah, completely agree with this assessment. He isn't trash by any means. He is a reliable consistent first grader that probably gets a bench spot at any team in the comp. The problem isnt him at all, it is he is arguably our 2nd best front rower when nearly every other team has 2 or 3 better.

It is when you are labelling the players from minnow countries As internationals. As much as he was using the term "international player" and using the current series to highlight them I think top tier player could be used in its place and the current internationals show just how many are...

Papallii, yes, much better. Sasagi, probably not but he has outperformed KPP this year. Tevaga and Havili, no but given they were picked as hookers, then yes I think they're probably much better hookers than KPP but of course we've never seen him play there.

I think actually most teams do if you include Australia as well as the Pacifc sides. Just about every team but ours does if you extend that to Origin or injured players that would likely have been picked in the Rep sides.

Well there is no set scenario because this is all a hypothetical potential way of going about a contract. So potentially to hard. However, you would start with KPIs for things in the players control such as conditioning (weight and/or skin fold requirements, beep/yoyo targets) and training...

KPIs would be part of the negotiation process. When pitching to any junior player currently, you outline their expected path forward and how the club will help them with this as well as the players expected commitments as well. The only addition to what is currently being discussed is that if...

I agree with the premise but I think it needs to go the other way. A 4 year contract for a kid deemed worth it is fine. But each year gets activated by the kid meeting KPIs. With no get out clauses for the kid. So it's not an 'option' for him to activate the next year with KPIs, it...

Wo Would ultimately come down to the health of our cap but I certainly would be considering it

I can only assume you are trying to claim the Dogs game. It's the only man of the match performance in a game Toa didn't play. He didn't defend between Turuva and Luai in that game. Even if he had of (which he didn't) 10 minutes in round 23 is hardly the reason for his improved defence in the...

I Guess I am. But at least I don't go making up obvious BS and double down on it. Still waiting for which game he played between Turuva and Luai? because it definitely wasn't any of the 4 games Toa missed. We can go through them one by one for you if need be.

Like all the games where Doueihi played left centre whilst Turuva was on the right wing?

When did Doueihi ever play between Turuva and Luai?

Ah ok, fair enough. I thought he was talking about KPP. I thought why would Dragons want him. Not that I'm knocking KPP at all, just Dragons have backrowers. Just done a search however. I'm not sure they did offer more though it certainly appears they didn't offer any less. Were reported paying...

Who?

Why does he need to? He literally doesn't need to and there is no reason why he would. When (if) he starts trying to hold us to ransom we can revisit this. We're jumping at shadows about what might happen rather than looking at what will likely happen.

Until it is reported anywhere other than here, I just don't believe the first paragraph to be at all true. I've never seen anyone put forth any sort of evidence for it. Agree with the rest of it. There is absolutely no reason for him to remove any clause. If we want them removed, well then we...