Early tip: Sandow won't see out his contract

[Utey]

A confident Chris Sandow will sh*t all over an in-form Kelly. Chris needs to find some spark and get his off-field stuff sorted.

 

[Avenger]

A confident Chris Sandow will sh*t all over an in-form Kelly. Chris needs to find some spark and get his off-field stuff sorted.

No doubt. However we haven't seen that type of consistent form since his Souths days. He is more and more starting to look like an Adam Dykes mark 2.

 

[BennyBoy]

We already have one. Luke Kelly.

I don't think Sandow has delivered enough to warrant his price tag but Kelly is not the solution. We either need to get more out of Sandow, pay him according to his performance (much less than 500k) or find someone better.

 

[Suitman]

No doubt. It we haven't seen that type of consistent form since his Souths days. He is more and more starting to look like an Adam Dykes mark 2.

We haven't seen any of that consistent form out of any of our team.

Suity

 

[Avenger]

We haven't seen any of that consistent form out of any of our team.

Suity

Hayne when not impersonating a tampon has played well.

 

[hineyrulz]

I don't think Sandow has delivered enough to warrant his price tag but Kelly is not the solution. We either need to get more out of Sandow, pay him according to his performance (much less than 500k) or find someone better.

Agree with this, just because Sandow my not be the answer doesn't mean Kelly is either. I could see being Kelly playing a maybe a 14 type role, come on as back up dummy half and can slot into the halves if needed. As for our top choice 7??? No way Jose.

 

[emjaycee]

Hayne when not impersonating a tampon has played well.

And with one player out a squad of 17 "playing well" consistently over the last 2 years, somehow we decide that the next player most likely to make a difference to our try-scoring ability both in the number he wears on his back and the skills he brings to the team, should be booted out.

Mmm, sounds like a scapegoat to me.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

So let me get this straight......we've seen Sandow play behind a) a dominant pack and b) our pack, and noted that he looked like a good player at times when a) occurred.

We've seen Kelly play behind our 2012-13 pack only, and we're happy to make pretty sweeping judgements regarding the two players? Not saying Kelly's a superstar, but I think he might fit in well given our 2014 lineup.

 

[IFR33K]

So let me get this straight......we've seen Sandow play behind a) a dominant pack and b) our pack, and noted that he looked like a good player at times when a) occurred.

We've seen Kelly play behind our 2012-13 pack only, and we're happy to make pretty sweeping judgements regarding the two players? Not saying Kelly's a superstar, but I think he might fit in well given our 2014 lineup.

Lol. Well said.

 

[emjaycee]

I don't think Sandow has delivered enough to warrant his price tag but Kelly is not the solution. We either need to get more out of Sandow, pay him according to his performance (much less than 500k) or find someone better.

BennyBoy, I like most of the posts you have made so far so to me, you are seeming like a good guy.

But please don't confuse value with price. The price we paid for Sandow was driven by the market at the time we made the purchase, not by the contribution he makes to the team.

For arguments sake, as a member of a 17 man squad, you could say he is only worth 1/17th of the total teams value and for most of this year he hasn't been the worst performing player (consistently) in our 17. So he is giving value.

Or is it better to argue that because he costs us 1/8th of our cap, he should be providing the value of at least 2 other players in our top 17? Extend this logic Jarryd Hayne who by all accounts is taking 1/5th of our current cap. Should he be providing the value of at least 3 players. Maybe we should just off-load both of them and get players who cost 1/17th of the cap.

 

[emjaycee]

So let me get this straight......we've seen Sandow play behind a) a dominant pack and b) our pack, and noted that he looked like a good player at times when a) occurred.

We've seen Kelly play behind our 2012-13 pack only, and we're happy to make pretty sweeping judgements regarding the two players? Not saying Kelly's a superstar, but I think he might fit in well given our 2014 lineup.

a) + b) = c) and when Sandow played behind c) for the first 3 rounds of this year, most of the people on here awarded him our MoM.

 

[jason taylor]

No doubt. However we haven't seen that type of consistent form since his Souths days. He is more and more starting to look like an Adam Dykes mark 2.

Nope, Sandow has already played better for us than Dykes ever did.

 

[Eelementary]

He's lacked any creativity when attacking the opposition's line IMO. He always looks lost and ends up getting the ball and then just passing inside to a forward for another hit up. On too many occasions we get tackled on the last which is just poor organization (cue Poupou).

I don't disagree.

But then sometimes he puts up a performance like he did against Brisbane.

 

[IFR33K]

BennyBoy, I like most of the posts you have made so far so to me, you are seeming like a good guy.

But please don't confuse value with price. The price we paid for Sandow was driven by the market at the time we made the purchase, not by the contribution he makes to the team.

For arguments sake, as a member of a 17 man squad, you could say he is only worth 1/17th of the total teams value and for most of this year he hasn't been the worst performing player (consistently) in our 17. So he is giving value.

Or is it better to argue that because he costs us 1/8th of our cap, he should be providing the value of at least 2 other players in our top 17? Extend this logic Jarryd Hayne who by all accounts is taking 1/5th of our current cap. Should he be providing the value of at least 3 players. Maybe we should just off-load both of them and get players who cost 1/17th of the cap.

Lol. Even funnier than Barry's post.

We were the only team stupid enough to pay sandows asking price, which was way overs. Like ive said before, we deserve these f**king spoons.

 

[BennyBoy]

BennyBoy, I like most of the posts you have made so far so to me, you are seeming like a good guy.

But please don't confuse value with price. The price we paid for Sandow was driven by the market at the time we made the purchase, not by the contribution he makes to the team.

For arguments sake, as a member of a 17 man squad, you could say he is only worth 1/17th of the total teams value and for most of this year he hasn't been the worst performing player (consistently) in our 17. So he is giving value.

Or is it better to argue that because he costs us 1/8th of our cap, he should be providing the value of at least 2 other players in our top 17? Extend this logic Jarryd Hayne who by all accounts is taking 1/5th of our current cap. Should he be providing the value of at least 3 players. Maybe we should just off-load both of them and get players who cost 1/17th of the cap.

Too much rhetorical conceptualisation for me boss, I'm just a simple fella and reckon he's not delivering on his paycheck so either needs to accept a pay cut or piss off.

As for Kelly he's just another version of Robson regardless of what pack he plays behind, honest hard worker but doesn't and never will have the skill set to be a dominant half.

 

[Eelementary]

What I can't understand is why Kelly is playing ok now, but was ordinary alongside Sandow.

Surely Sandow and Kelly was a better pair than Kelly and Roberts?

 

[IFR33K]

Too much rhetorical conceptualisation for me boss, I'm just a simple fella and reckon he's not delivering on his paycheck so either needs to accept a pay cut or piss off.

As for Kelly he's just another version of Robson regardless of what pack he plays behind, honest hard worker but doesn't and never will have the skill set to be a dominant half.

Give me Robson and his salary over sandow and his salary any day of the week.

Robson gave 110% each week. If Kelly can give his all, week in week out, then we should f**k sandow off.

 

[IFR33K]

What I can't understand is why Kelly is playing ok now, but was ordinary alongside Sandow.

Surely Sandow and Kelly was a better pair than Kelly and Roberts?

Maybe Kelly is more comfortable at halfback???

 

[Chipmunk]

Too much rhetorical conceptualisation for me boss, I'm just a simple fella and reckon he's not delivering on his paycheck so either needs to accept a pay cut or piss off.

As for Kelly he's just another version of Robson regardless of what pack he plays behind, honest hard worker but doesn't and never will have the skill set to be a dominant half.

With Hayne, Norman, Hopoate and potentially a fully fit Willie Tonga in our backline I actually dont think we need anyone better than a version of Robson in the 7. I think all Robson needed was a decent 6 (Carney) who could be the creative player, well we have Hayne and Norman to do that for us next year.

 

[Chipmunk]

this is the thing about sandow (apart from his defence) that irks me. on those rare occassions when we get into field position where the forwards can't take us forward or do much else, ie. within 15m of the opposition line, chris has taken some very poor options or poorly executed (and this isn't just his fault) a good option.

I am with you on this one. This is one of the main issues I have with his game is when we are attacking an opponents try line.