LastRaider wrote:Yep good move. Now let’s get after Taupau or Klemmer
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Moderator: GH Moderators
LastRaider wrote:Yep good move. Now let’s get after Taupau or Klemmer
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Pigman for Raiders CEO.Pigman wrote:I am 100% on board with this as long as we are consistant and dont panic
It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable if our front row isnt as good as it could be because we didnt match outrageous offers. If we suffer because of that, fine, because long term that's how to correctly build the roster.
You evaluate a player, you give him a deal you think fits his level of play, you pay for what you are going to get, not what his manager tells you you're getting... long term, that's the way to do
What wont be acceptable is if we lose Boyd only to get desperate and over pay an average middle to replace him simply because we are desperate and have a need... if we have 600k in cap left over this time next year, so be it, maybe someone shakes free that we like.
Just stick firmly to these principles and im fine with losing guys for outrageous offers
First time in a long time i agree with you lolPigman wrote:I am 100% on board with this as long as we are consistant and dont panic
It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable if our front row isnt as good as it could be because we didnt match outrageous offers. If we suffer because of that, fine, because long term that's how to correctly build the roster.
You evaluate a player, you give him a deal you think fits his level of play, you pay for what you are going to get, not what his manager tells you you're getting... long term, that's the way to do
What wont be acceptable is if we lose Boyd only to get desperate and over pay an average middle to replace him simply because we are desperate and have a need... if we have 600k in cap left over this time next year, so be it, maybe someone shakes free that we like.
Just stick firmly to these principles and im fine with losing guys for outrageous offers
I cant believe we lost Paul Vaughan and DIDN'T end up with Boyd.Seiffert82 wrote:Yeah, I can't believe we lost Paul Vaughan and we ended up with Boyd.
Better yet, we lost Paul Vaughan to invest in Boyd AND PauloT_R wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:21 pmI cant believe we lost Paul Vaughan and DIDN'T end up with Boyd.Seiffert82 wrote:Yeah, I can't believe we lost Paul Vaughan and we ended up with Boyd.
Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
I’ll let Don and Ricky know, they will sleep well tonight knowing they have your approval.Pigman wrote:I am 100% on board with this as long as we are consistant and dont panic
It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable if our front row isnt as good as it could be because we didnt match outrageous offers. If we suffer because of that, fine, because long term that's how to correctly build the roster.
You evaluate a player, you give him a deal you think fits his level of play, you pay for what you are going to get, not what his manager tells you you're getting... long term, that's the way to do
What wont be acceptable is if we lose Boyd only to get desperate and over pay an average middle to replace him simply because we are desperate and have a need... if we have 600k in cap left over this time next year, so be it, maybe someone shakes free that we like.
Just stick firmly to these principles and im fine with losing guys for outrageous offers
It'd be disingenuous to suggest either of those two have my "approval" at this point. But im sure they'll be buoyed by you having their pieces all up in your grill 24/7. Im sure your unconditional approval is worth at least twice, if not three times my vehement disapproval. Also helps with those awesome thumbs ups selfiesBrew wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:49 pmI’ll let Don and Ricky know, they will sleep well tonight knowing they have your approval.Pigman wrote:I am 100% on board with this as long as we are consistant and dont panic
It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable if our front row isnt as good as it could be because we didnt match outrageous offers. If we suffer because of that, fine, because long term that's how to correctly build the roster.
You evaluate a player, you give him a deal you think fits his level of play, you pay for what you are going to get, not what his manager tells you you're getting... long term, that's the way to do
What wont be acceptable is if we lose Boyd only to get desperate and over pay an average middle to replace him simply because we are desperate and have a need... if we have 600k in cap left over this time next year, so be it, maybe someone shakes free that we like.
Just stick firmly to these principles and im fine with losing guys for outrageous offers
Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Pigman wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:28 pmBetter yet, we lost Paul Vaughan to invest in Boyd AND PauloT_R wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:21 pmI cant believe we lost Paul Vaughan and DIDN'T end up with Boyd.Seiffert82 wrote:Yeah, I can't believe we lost Paul Vaughan and we ended up with Boyd.
Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
and 2 years later wont have ANY of them on the books... haha absolute fiasco.
It is an absolute debacle.Pigman wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:28 pmBetter yet, we lost Paul Vaughan to invest in Boyd AND PauloT_R wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:21 pmI cant believe we lost Paul Vaughan and DIDN'T end up with Boyd.Seiffert82 wrote:Yeah, I can't believe we lost Paul Vaughan and we ended up with Boyd.
Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
and 2 years later wont have ANY of them on the books... haha absolute fiasco.
I've never been a big Shannon Boyd fan and I understand there may have been a bit of off field stuff with Vaughan, but it still **** me that's the way it worked out.Pigman wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:28 pmBetter yet, we lost Paul Vaughan to invest in Boyd AND PauloT_R wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 8:21 pmI cant believe we lost Paul Vaughan and DIDN'T end up with Boyd.Seiffert82 wrote:Yeah, I can't believe we lost Paul Vaughan and we ended up with Boyd.
Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
and 2 years later wont have ANY of them on the books... haha absolute fiasco.
Doesn't work for Cleary either. He hasn't won a comp.Lui_Bon wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 10:39 pm Ivan Cleary was on NRL360 tonight. He was asked about how long it takes to rebuild a club - he left unsaid the obvious point that a new coach is usually brought in to address whatever it was the previous coach hadn't. He said it took at least three years, but there was none of that stuff about how long it takes for a coach to get the roster he wants and therefore owns; instead, he said two more interesting things. The first was that sometimes you might have to let go players who are club favourites, simply because they aren't the blokes who are going to win you the grand final. The second was that you might come in and then sign some new blokes, but they too might not be the blokes who would win you the grand final, they might be really valuable but they are actually just there to put you on the road to winning the grand final.
Does any of that remind you of a few people? To me, I'm thinking Fensom and Croker and Wighton. Then I'm thinking Boyd and Paulo and Austin and Sezar. And Bateman too. Maybe we shouldn't think three years is enough.
Now does anyone think Ricky Stuart subscribes to the same blueprint?
I'll have one of those as well.Pigman wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 7:37 pm I am 100% on board with this as long as we are consistant and dont panic
It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable if our front row isnt as good as it could be because we didnt match outrageous offers. If we suffer because of that, fine, because long term that's how to correctly build the roster.
You evaluate a player, you give him a deal you think fits his level of play, you pay for what you are going to get, not what his manager tells you you're getting... long term, that's the way to do
What wont be acceptable is if we lose Boyd only to get desperate and over pay an average middle to replace him simply because we are desperate and have a need... if we have 600k in cap left over this time next year, so be it, maybe someone shakes free that we like.
Just stick firmly to these principles and im fine with losing guys for outrageous offers
See I disagree. There's room for big guys. People can't see the forest for the trees.
In 5 years I’ve seen 5 strategies/plans on game day that Stuart has implemented.gangrenous wrote: ↑May 14, 2018, 10:41 pm I don’t think Ricky has a blueprint from what I can see.
I mean there’s barely a coherent strategy in a given game. Why expect a long term strategy?
As I heard recently on a podcast, the forest is made up of the trees! There wouldn’t be a forest if it wasn’t for the trees. A forest is in fact just a collection of trees