@demps said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1469266) said:
@twentyforty said in [Signing Suggestions & Rumours](/post/1469263) said:
We will eventually sign quality players, when the COM becomes the COE, and when we can prove we’re moving forward in a way that enhances the reputation of everyone connected to the club.
Sacking a coach, a player or the tea lady is not going to turn our fortunes. Gosh, we’re already seen as the graveyard of players and coaches.
We’re also seen as the club where a player can get a regular first grade spot. We need to take full advantage of that and we have been, if you run through our recruiting history? Laurie, Utoikamanu, Doueihi etc. that’s our market while we’re getting our act together.
We had success in the past with signings like that.
Taupau x Austin x Naiqama
We need to keep making those unearthed signings.
Buying Blair, Anasta, Ballin types never worked out.
Play the smart game.
I partially disagree. Older guys with only 1 or two years remaining are ok. But it comes down to a couple of factors, influence, involvement and value.
But assessing each one on what we needed and what they could bring.
Blair; paid too much for him, restructured our squad to fit him in, coach / coaches were unable to utilise him effectively.
Failed with value
Anasta; didn’t pay a lot for him. Problem was he had just finished the past 3 seasons transitioning from a half-5/8 to a ball playing forward at the Roosters (admittedly he was 5/8 in 2012 but only due to losing Carney that year) so the coaches signed him to be our half, even though he was cheap. He was in a position that required a lot of control in our side and he wasn’t up to delivering on that.
Failed with influence
Ballin; Signed when injured and attempting to recover, was cheap but wasn’t able to make the field often enough for it to be worth it. Add Mqueen to that.
Failed with involvement
Packer / Matolino; Bundled together because they pretty much suffered the same fate.
Good leaders, Winners, but the value just did not match the outcome. Paid to be starters and leaders and did that until their bodies could no longer.
Failed with value
Tamou and Grant; also bundled together as they are essentially similar. Tamou is more of a leader where as Grant probably had the age and fitness over him.
Pay wise good value, output wise horrible. And it all stemmed from out of desperation elevating their role in the team. If we were strong enough to sign both Grant or Tamou but play them off the bench, you would get the benefit of leadership, you would get a worker when it’s required at stages of the game, it would be value.
But the moment we signed the big fella we instantly put him on a pedestal and pretty much wrote his script for him. He will becoming the forward leader we needed at the Wests Tigers.
Failed with involvement.
Seems to me when your weighing up signing an old bloke to complement a young side you need to tick all three boxes.
