@sleeve said in [The repeating pattern\.\.\.](/post/1299131) said:@jai_donaldson said in [The repeating pattern\.\.\.](/post/1299126) said:@elleryhanley said in [The repeating pattern\.\.\.](/post/1299124) said:@moh said in [The repeating pattern\.\.\.](/post/1299120) said:@hammertime said in [The repeating pattern\.\.\.](/post/1299108) said:It may have been us who decided not to pursue.
Yah hope it was us coming to our senses.
Would have been a terrible, unnecessary signing. Stoked we 'missed' out.
Moh...you don't think we need:
A 13?
A player who can make 50 plus tackles a game / extremely high ratio of made tackles?
Fearless?
Warrior mentality?
Mobile enough to cover the field and balance our bigger, less mobile, pack?
That is **exactly** what we need.
I feel the days of giant locks are gone with the speed of the game now. Cam Murray, Jai Arrow, Jake Turbo are all mobile, athletic locks with a bit of ball play and can tackle the house down. McInnis is 100% in this mould and would have been perfect. That's not even factoring his competitive nature and hard work ethic.
For 3 yrs maybe,but 4 no way for a 27yr old small lock who has done a lot of hard yards.Yes he's a good footballer,but so were Packer,JR,and mbye,we bought them on the downslide and thats why we ruined our roster.I think we can do better.
Clubs have been heartbroken over and over again by giving long contracts to small back row forwards with a lot of miles on the clock, though TBF McInnes aged 28-31 isn't exactly Watmough aged 31-34. It's not as if there's no risk in the McInnes deal, though.
Personally I'm in the camp of thinking 500k a year for four is a pretty decent contract and I suspect McInnes could have improved our team, but equally I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over not getting him.