@Ponyo said in [Roosters pull Mitchell’s contract offer](/post/1077352) said:
@bythebeardofzeus While I don't disagree with the sentiment that we need more forwards, I'd argue that our backs let us down a bit last year, and it was D and the grit of our young forward pack that kept us in the hunt at the back-end of the season. The market is saturated, there aren't too many forwards going around at the moment; unless of course, you're willing to outbid, out-negotiate or pay to release a player contracted to another club (i.e. pay overs). There is no point carting it up the guts all day if you can't score tries - an area where we've been a bit deficient in recently as our defence has tightened up. Who do you guys think would attract better talent & business opportunities to the club, Arrow, Frizell or Latrell? It's a dead-set no brainer IMO. Latrell is available, on the market today, and we're one of only 2/3 clubs who can fit him in TODAY. We have 5m in the bank for next year + a new state of the art COE. If that's not attractive to prospective signings than I don't know what to tell you guys anymore. Latrell is the franchise player this club has been waiting for since the big 4 fiasco, it's not hard to see.
You raise some good points P.
No doubt Mitchell has done some great things, I just think we could put that $800k/$1 mil to much better use for our team. For me, our biggest problem this year was losing the ruck & thats what I'd like us to address first. We've got some good young forwards & its a shame about Matterson (not our fault obviously, i.e. he is dead to me) but we need a couple of aggressive, experienced hard heads to lead the way. Frizell, JWH, Brown would all be good additions. I just can't see Mitchell solving our team's current issues & if we have the same pack next year then would he be anywhere near as effective as he was with the Roosters?
Also lets not forget he was dropped from the Blues, is likely to be dropped from the Kangaroos after his recent shocker & the Roosters don't want him. For me, way too many reasons not to sign him on big money.
Anyways it ain't up to us, over to Madge...
Great post!
I’d love Mitchell- but on his own it would be the same as Tedesco. Just feed him the ball and hope.
We need tough, up front domination. Then we need fast ball and awareness from dummy half. Then we need quick play the balls. Then we use Latrell.
More thoughts on this:
Mitchell was so dynamic at Rorters because he had space and time. He had space because the Rorters forwards dominated the ruck and brought the defense towards the middle of the field. He had time because Cronk and/or Keary could shovel out exceptionally fast ball (their timing was exquisite).
He had additional time and space because defended were als looking at their rather well established fullback.
So in summation: we need more than Latrell
Or we can take the glass half full approach, which I am feeling tonight and imagine just how much more an already dangerous Garner would benefit from having Latrell as an option, even if he was playing next to him at centre. Not to mention the potential space that Brooks would have with only one player on him instead of being the main target.
Personally, I am just about salivating at the thought of having his ability as an attacking option and if he is switched on, for those old enough and you're one, I expect Latrell could just about make an Ellery Hanley type difference to my team. Tedesco, whilst very good at what he does is the icing on a cake type player for mine, whereasa Mitchell can be the bulk of the cake and on his best days, provide the topping as well.
Ellery Hanley was playing behind half the Australian pack at Balmain(Pearce Blocker Sirro and Benny).Which Australian players do you see in WT current pack?I honestly dont believe you can make the comparison we need to get our forwards upgraded to give ant back a solid base to work off
