Geez if clubs are only going to pay half of his $900K contract, we would be silly not to look at him.
I hated the way he carried on in the media after he signed with the Dogs, but at least he put in on the field last year unlike MM.
The other thing he wants to come here, so he should realise what he left, and he should put in.
I know I’ll get blasted over this but at that price he should be value for money.
I agree.
We are a quality front rower short.
Woods is quality, plays 80 minutes, and will have the dogs subsidising a decent portion of his contract … i fail to see the downside.
If Woods played 80 minutes then his side would be getting decimated in the middle behind the ruck. He can play good minutes but not that good and when he gets gassed it's his defence that suffers - he struggles to get back and he makes lazy efforts. 55 minutes over 2 stints is probably his sweet spot.
If the interchange is reduced to 6 then guys like Woods will need to play the big minutes.
I'd say there is a better chance of getting 80 minutes out of Woods on a consistent basis then any of our current Front Rowers. Even if it means shifting him to the edge for portions of the match, it is a problem that all coaches will have to deal with.
And the 80 minutes issue aside, he is still a quality player who would make us a better side overall. I get he has left a bad taste in the fan's mouths, but bad tastes disappear quickly when a team is successful.
